June 15, 2008
Old guns, new guns. A little gunner zen.
First up, something new... just because I like the pic.
U.S. Marine 1st Lt. Kathryne B. Schilling coaches a woman as she prepares to shoot a pistol during her training to become a Sister of Ferris, June 4, 2008, Ferris, Iraq. The Sisters of Ferris will inspect women for weapons, suicide vests, large amounts of cash and contraband at entry control points. Schilling is assigned to Combat Logistics Battalion 1, 1st Marine Logistics Group. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Cindy G. Alejandrez
Next, something old. John S. an enabler who feeds my habit gun dealer sent me a link to some fascinating pictures taken at Fort Brown, Texas, during the Punitive Expedition/WWI era.
Long time readers of this space will know that the Donovan family isn't very adventurous. I'm a third generation Gunner. Over those three generations, Donovan Redlegs have served, or been involved in the development of, an amazing transformation of the art. My grandfather was there as we were first mastering the art of indirect fire, doing all the basic math as needed for trajectory calculation, etc, where you might spend a day or more doing all the needed math to mass the fires of massed guns on multiple targets. My father bridged the era from the ultimate refinement of manual data computation through to the birth of artillery digital computers. And I span from the end of manual data through the era of the guns as roving independents, capable of massing fires on multiple targets without being massed themselves, and done on the fly.
My grandfather served on guns like these 4.7 inch guns at Fort Brown, Brownsville Texas, in 1916. Where the object of artillery was to get as many guns shooting simultaneously at a target as you could.
A slightly larger version can be had by clicking here. Or get the full size version here.
The Robert Runyon Photograph Collection, image #486, courtesy of The Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin.
My Dad, served guns like this M109 howitzer - brand new when he was commanding a battalion of them in Germany in 1969 (this particular gun is Israeli)... Still trying to mass as many guns as you could, while building them to keep up with the tanks and mechanized infantry, and able to survive on a very lethal battlefield. This is the era I started in.
Heck, we've put the firepower of a battalion of cannon on the back of a single truck.
Now, at the twilight of my time doing things militant, I've been involved in the development of the tactics and doctrine for guns like the NLOS-C, in an era where we're reducing the number of guns, making them capable of being virtual snipers (even the rockets are point weapons now - and shooting artillery at "point targets" was a way to get your knuckles wrapped when I was a Lieutenant), and the guns rove around independently, and are capable of massing fires on their own - in that they can shoot multiple rounds in succession, all timed to arrive at the same time on the target - and be moving before those rounds hit. That's some serious change in less than 100 years, and the lives of three soldiers.
The NLOS-C is *still* a spugly gun.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
- and shooting artillery at "point targets" was a way to get your knuckles wrapped when I was a Lieutenant
Yeah, if you were *bad* at it. I plunked a 105 round into a five-gallon pail on the third adjustment.
Unfortunately, it was Danger *Really* Close and a chunk of steel the size of my forearm decapitated the BC scope...
by
BillT on June 15, 2008 11:10 AM
Looks like the bore evacuator on that M109 needs a new O-ring...
by Neffi on June 15, 2008 11:24 AM
Yeah, it's spugly as anything seen in a video game. The video game generation will take to it.
by Fred on June 15, 2008 12:11 PM
The only thing the Sisters of Ferris lack are some wheels.
by
Chuck Simmins on June 15, 2008 1:09 PM
Since blogger doesn't do track-backs:
Head Noises: Siser of Ferris
I LOVE the picture! Gives one hope.
by
Foxfier on June 15, 2008 1:52 PM
Spugly is what Spugly does.
Brings me back to when I worked for a computer printer manufacturer and when a new printer came out we salesmen had to rate and forecast it:
1. If it was Ugly and worked we could sell it.
2. If it was pretty and didn't work we could sell it.
3. But...if it was ugly and didn't work it was an anchor.
OK...they need to work on the form factor. It looks like they built it from the inside out and once they hung everything the engineers said they needed to make it work, they just bolted plate on it to keep the rain out.
No amount of Candy Apple Red paint, racing stripes and chrome sprocket wheels is gonna pretty that thing up. Looks like the same team that designed the M-113 Personnel Carrier finally got a new job.
by Fishmugger on June 15, 2008 2:56 PM
It looks like they built it from the inside out and once they hung everything the engineers said they needed to make it work, they just bolted plate on it to keep the rain out.
...and that's *exactly* the way military stuff should be built, IMHO. It's designed to hurl sudden, violent death onto the Ranks of the Ungodly- it doesn't need to be *purty*.
Tho, yeah- it's spugly as helk.
by Neffi on June 15, 2008 3:45 PM
And Chuck wins the "Who's gonna bring up Bueller?" contest!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 15, 2008 3:59 PM
Artillery 'point weapons' means the pointy end usually returns to earth first.
Neffi- there's purposeful, functional, etc; here the "builders" abused the privilege.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 16, 2008 3:39 AM
Did I mention it was probably designed to satisfy "Gunners"?
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 16, 2008 3:42 AM
The lovely Sister of Ferris is about to get bitten by the "slide viper" if she doesn't get her weak-side thumb out of the way.
by TheNewGuy on June 16, 2008 4:57 AM
Actually, CAPT H, I'm pretty sure the NLOS-C was designed by a committee.
TNG - I thought the same thing - but in the full size picture, it's more obvious that she's clear of the slide - unless she has a weak grip, then she'll get bit anyway.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 16, 2008 6:47 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 27, 2008
Update to the Whatziss
It isn't often I score a brag on John, so I've gotta milk it for all it's worth.
But I'm also sure I wouldn't have gotten it anyway... because all the late model 18 pounders with the armored box have taller boxes on the recuperators.
And it sure *ain't* a late model. A bit of charm applied to my Lady Captain acquaintance, followed by a bit of cheesecloth (and a lot of spit) applied to the breech revealed the following inscription:
Q.F. 18-Pd Mk 1. M[obliterated by shell-splinter gouge] 1917 [indecipherable] 6107
I'm not positive about that 6107, because the paint's super-thick over the preceding portion -- the first number could just as easily be a 3 or a 9.
Meanwhile, that's a bit more info for the grognards...
And my Lady Captain is *not* a romantic interest. She's one-third my age and actually *likes* the M9...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
She *likes* the M9?
Heh.
And, um, like, all the guns that weren't already unserviceable were rebuilt to the later standard...
And breeches are generally good for three tubes.
Just sayin'.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 27, 2008 7:35 AM
And breeches are generally good for three tubes.
Not mine.
*blink* *look of cherubic innocence* *blink*
What?
by
BillT on March 27, 2008 7:58 AM
Well you know, that you can convert any standard axle grease to a high pressure resistant lubricant by adding graphite powder to it. The recuperator will appreciate it.
by Boquisucio on March 27, 2008 8:24 AM
At least somebody will appreciate it. ;)
by
kat-missouri on March 27, 2008 10:11 AM
i don't care how much graphite ya put in that there grease, after three tubes on one breech, there's gonna have to be some recuperating time...
by MajMike on March 27, 2008 12:24 PM
Heh. Just, heh.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 27, 2008 1:43 PM
Did someone note that the Brits were supplying the Iraqis until c.1960. The Sovs took over after the King was deposed. Thus the 18lbr could be direct from Brit stocks.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 27, 2008 4:54 PM
Could very well be. More than one of my stoo'nts opines that the wheels were an Iraqi mod.
by
BillT on March 28, 2008 1:27 AM
MajMike, please, none of that here, this is not a _Naval_ Milblog!
by
Justthisguy on March 28, 2008 4:39 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Mar 27, 2008
January 27, 2008
A moment of Gunner Zen.
These Redlegs of the 10th Mountain are living the dream... Direct Fire!
U.S. soldiers from 6th Field Artillery Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, fire a round from a howitzer during training at the Warrior Range in Kirkuk, Iraq, Jan.23, 2008. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Laura M. Buchta
A larger version of that photo can be had by clicking here.
For a small discussion on the return of direct fire - click here for Strategy Page.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
John, isn't there another artillery term for this type of engagement?
by Blackhawk on January 27, 2008 11:30 AM
Aside from "Action Front! Gunner, Save My Life!" I don't think so...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 27, 2008 12:04 PM
"surface action starboard (or port as the case may be)." Or more commonly "S**T! There they are!"
by Old Fat Sailor on January 27, 2008 12:40 PM
Silly gun bunnies.. looks like someone got their azimuth and elevation bass-ackwards. :P
Could be worse, could be a pic of the 1st Armor Training Brigade doing indirect fire from Donnelly Range onto the water tower in Radcliff KY (again) :0
by OlafTheTanker on January 27, 2008 5:19 PM
Only way to break up a cavalry charge
by
Chuck Simmins on January 27, 2008 8:33 PM
Direct fire rocks. I can't believe it had to return. I know the Marines never let it go.
I even remember one case where there being no flechette rounds for 175 and 8" the gun bunnies saved up nose plugs and tossed in a sack of them before persuading a herd of NVA to leave the area.
Some of them even left intact. Most left in a red mist and pieces.
by
jim b on January 27, 2008 9:37 PM
Speaking of Direct Fire: I haven't had a chance to write the review yet, but if you want to read a very well-written book about the most amazing ship-to-ship action of WWII, you must read "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors," by James Hornfischer!!! 3 Destroyers, 3 Destroyer Escorts, 6 Escort Carrier's & Planes, holding off the Yamato and the largest fleet of Japanese big-gun ships assembled during the war, as that fleet moved to attack Leyte Gulf. Halsey had all but 'abandoned his post' to chase a bait fleet of Japanese carriers, so the northern defense fell to the screening force name Taffy 3!! As riveting and inspiring as anything I've ever read about Americans at war, and that's saying something. Could be the best book I've read this past year, and that's saying something too.
V/R
by
SangerM on January 27, 2008 10:24 PM
Yup, Sanger, one of my most favorite inspiring and hackle-raising stories, which I may have mentioned to The Armorer often enough to annoy him. Gunner's mate Carr literally died with the actual last round in his arms, the Sammy B. having shot her after magazine empty. Herman Wouk had a good passage about it in "War and Remembrance", about how Americans fight when we don't have the material advantage.
M'self, I've not won many fights, but I think I've always given a good account of myself.
.
.
by
Justthisguy on January 27, 2008 11:35 PM
One of the most awe-inspiring stories of "direct fire" that I can remember is that of 2/77 FA (commanded by then LTC John Vessey) and the Battle of Suoi Tre (or FSB Gold) during Vietnam:
http://www.eleven-bravo.co.uk/the-war/combat-forces/fsb-gold06.php
http://www.flyarmy.org/panel/battle/67032120.HTM
http://www.vietnamtripledeuce.org/RecommendationOfPUC_FSB_Gold.pdf
by fdcol63 on January 28, 2008 7:15 AM
I took out one of them new fangled "gunpowder jobbies with a manganol launched HVFS round yesterday.
Had the archers running too but I did take an APFS round to the shoulder during the melee.
by
Murray on January 28, 2008 6:59 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 10, 2008
Gunner Zen
Soldiers from B Battery, "Banditos," 2nd Battalion, 11th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, "Warrior," 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, prepare to fire the M777A2 Light Weight 155 mm Howitzer, Jan. 2, at Camp Taji, Iraq. The "Banditos" made history as the first Army unit to fire the cannon system in Iraq. (U.S. Army photo/Sgt. 1st Class Christina Bhatti)
Larger version of the photo available by clicking here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Is the chief of section holding up his finger to check the met? Foot on the trail,oh my! Practically a courts martial offense in my day. How come they get to play with their guns while the rest of the redlegs are our pretending to be foot soldiers?
by Dad on January 10, 2008 11:00 AM
Hmmm, judged and found wanting by an Auld School Redleg!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 10, 2008 4:26 PM
Whee, a toad piece! Jerry Pournelle is not safe in his retirement.
!
by
Justthisguy on January 10, 2008 9:00 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 4, 2008
Gunner Zen.
The eld among us will remember when the MLRS was fielded, it was intended as an area-fire weapon designed to take out acres of advancing Warsaw Pact tanks and BMPs. Now it's a precision-fire weapon taking out single point targets.
Of course, it can *still* do the acres thing.
A Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System fires a 227 mm rocket at a building that insurgents were using to store explosives and a nearby weapons cache in the open desert near the northern-Iraqi city of Bayji, Dec. 27. It was confirmed the GMLRS from, Detachment 1, Alpha Battery, 2nd Battalion, 4th Field Artillery Regiment from Fort Sill, Okla., destroyed the target. Photo by Spc. Richard Rzepka 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (AA) Public Affairs
Larger version available by clicking here.
Hmmmm. Wonder if there's any legal way to get some of those spacer pads as unique Iraq war artillery souvenirs? Prolly not. And troops, don't take silly risks trying, either - I bet those things will make a TSA explosives sniffer *howl* and the residues might be toxic, anyway. Be cool to score a 155mm primer or a 105mm cartridge case, and those can cover Afstan, too. Hmmm. Have we sent MLRS over to Afghanistan? HIMARs? Time for some rooting around to find out.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I had the same thoughts on seeing that photo.
Remember when they were also talking about the Assault Breaker warhead for the Lance before the MLRS?
Geez, we are getting OLD!
by Albany Rifles on January 4, 2008 10:17 AM
I remember driving east on the road in SA just short (south) of al Ruqi, during Desert Storm and seeing the MLRS launch from the south and impact at an undisclosed distance in the north. It lit up the early evening sky. Not only a beautiful sight to behold, but I observed its true impact as we rolled north a few days later. It was, and is a great system - much more so since they've worked on and improved the incidence of unexploded clusters. Shortly after I gave up command of my 8" battery in September of 1983,the battalion become an MLRS/8" composite. Not long after, the 8 inchers went away - also a great and NOBLE system. Yes my friend, we are getting old. But from one 8 incher to another, we're STILL the King of Battle. Go RedLeg!! ML
by
Mike Lehnherr on January 4, 2008 11:58 AM
A Major I worked with had spent his formative years with an Honest John battery.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 4, 2008 3:57 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 17, 2007
Explosive news from the Marines.
First up - some "good training" at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia.
FORT A.P. HILL, Va. -- “Back blast area all secure … Rocket,” shouts Lance Cpl. Joseph P. Adams Jr. (center) and Pfc. Robert Challener (right), assaultmen, Company K, 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, before a high explosive round is fired downrange, while Staff Sgt. Jerome Owens (top), platoon sergeant, 2nd Platoon, Company I, and range safety officer, shields his ears from the blast during a firing exercise here Dec. 1. Companies I, K and L participated in a Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, or SMAW, exercise mainly aimed at familiarizing the junior Marines with employing it in combat situations. Photo by: Cpl. Chris Lyttle
Larger version here, if you want some wallpaper.
Next, over in theater... HIMARS debuted with the Marines this last year.
AL ASAD, Iraq (July 31, 2007) – Marines of Battery F, 2nd Battalion, 14th Marine Regiment launch rockets during a firing exercise. The HIMARS is the first of its kind in the Marine Corps and killed 25 enemy combatants and assisted in the capture of 47 more last month.
HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) is essentially MLRS-lite. While the MLRS, which initially fielded in the 80's is a large tracked vehicle based on Bradley components, the HIMARS takes a single MLRS "six-pack" of rockets and mounts them on a truck chassis - giving up the second six-pack carried by the MLRS. The HIMARS is cheaper to operate, faster over most types of terrain, and easier to move around strategically. MLRS was built for massed fires to stop the Soviet horde, and to operate in a very hostile counter-fire environment. HIMARS was developed to provide most of the firepower, at considerably reduced overall costs, while giving a greater strategic flexibility. Heh. If I sound like an advertisement, I was involved in some of the early studies that resulted in HIMARS getting built. Just as a sim-geek, not an idea guy.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The HIMARS thing is quite interesting. Guess the Ruskies never left the truck mounted rockets for mobility reasons?
On a serious note, I thought we got away form wheels for combat systems because tracks were more capable of performing on the world's varying terrain. Has the off-road capablity of wheels improved that much? or has the world gained that much more infrastructure? Perhaps the answer with indirect weapons is that close is a relative term and being roadbound is not that great a hinderance. The last doesn't explain the STRYKER. Anyway we seem to be moving away from tracked solutions to wheels. I hope it is not simply based on wheels costing fewer dollars.
by JimC on December 17, 2007 11:36 AM
Jim, I think it's both cost and strategic mobility, coupled with a belief we just aren't going to be fighting a Big War with a peer/near-peer competitor, as we like to term potential adversaries today.
HIMARS was seen, among other things, as a Good Deal for 18th Airborne Corps, so they could get some of that long range rockety goodness without having to deploy MLRS systems proper, when they were in the early stages before the 24th ID was scheduled to come in to provide the heavy punch.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 17, 2007 11:45 AM
John - If you recall, before I left Iraq (I know, that was over a year ago) I reported on the increased use of wheeled armor vehicles being driven by what you said, but also by concern for the infrastructure. The tracked vehicles were eating up the roads faster than the COE/Iraqi contractors could repair them, especially in urban areas. You normally would only see Abrams/Bradleys out in the boonies but you would see strikers/other wheeled armored vehicles in the cities. And now, the MRAPS are wheeled vehicles that are more resistant to EFPs than Bradleys are...
by Oldloadr on December 17, 2007 1:46 PM
They should consider bringing back the old launcher set-ups that were mounted on the Sherman tanks. Something like 30 or 40 three or four inch tubes of happiness IIRC.
by emdfl on December 18, 2007 9:41 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 27, 2007
A little gunner zen...
Private First Class Jerry Cleveland (left) and Specialist Brett Mitchell, with the International Security Assistance Force, fire a 120 mm mortar during a combat operation in the Da'udzay Valley in Zabol Province, Afghanistan. Photo by Sergeant 1st Class Jim Downen
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Whee! I lurrve pics of high-energy gizmos in action!
Mortars are extra-cool, having no moving parts, but requiring some intelligence (in both senses) in their employment.
P.s. Major Unger said I would have made a pretty good mortarman, or his driver, but he wouldn't have trusted me as radioman due to my tendency to tell people *exactly* what I think of them.
I seem to have mellowed a bit as I've aged. Or become more aware of the the consequences of "fightin words."
by
Justthisguy on November 29, 2007 12:03 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 15, 2007
We need some Gunner Zen.
A friend of mine in Australia owns this (and several others, as well) 5.5 inch gun. And numerous other guns, too.
Wouldn't that just look spiffy out by the flagpoles of Argghhh!!!?
Oh, yeah.
It would.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Yep. It would.
by
Barb on November 15, 2007 3:24 PM
I dunno; those two funny-looking equilibrators, or whatever they are, sticking up there kind of ruin the visual experience for me. I think a bronze 12-pounder would be much purtier, and if you wanted something more modern, a French 75 would do.
And then there's my favorite, the US 75mm Pack Howitzer, breakable-down into individual mule loads.
That's what I want in *my* back yard, though it cost me a $200 Destructive Device tax every time I shoot it.
by
Justthisguy on November 17, 2007 3:27 AM
Can you identify the arsenal shop that made these big cannons? See http://www.practicalmachinist.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/4505.html
for a great photo of the cannon lathes. So far, it doesn't seem to be Bethlehem No. 2 machine shop, Watervliet, the main Navy shop in D.C. or Watertown, based on the steel building construction seen in various photographs.
- Thanks
by USMCPOP on November 17, 2007 4:16 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 22, 2007
I can find a cannon anywhere.
Really. Even at Fort Rucker, home of Army Aviation. I actually had a much funnier post working until this farking connection blew up. I may change hotels.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
OK, it's a howitzer, but close enough. This is one of a handful of blogs where readers know or care about the difference. Being designed for mule-packing probably makes it a great deal easier to tuck inside a Blackhawk.
What's old is new.
Jeff
by Jeff Cornelius on October 22, 2007 10:41 AM
I'm not sure what it is, but it's not a Blackhawk. The picture was obviously taken in a museum since there are no oil/hydraulic stains on the aircraft.
by Oldloadr on October 22, 2007 12:04 PM
Jeff
Try this own.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 22, 2007 1:11 PM
Kamping in Komfort
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 22, 2007 4:18 PM
Jeff - GONG! Thank you for your interest in artillery terminology. You may sit down.
Reeely. Didja think the retired-artilleryman-known-as-the-Armorer was gonna get that wrong?
8^ )
The distinction you are trying to make is... Gun vice howitzer vice mortar. Where the gun is a long ranged, flat trajectory piece, a mortar the short-ranged high trajectory piece, and the howitzer bridges the gap.
The tubes for all *three* are properly termed... cannon.
For example, the M120 120mm mortar consists of the...
M298 Cannon Assembly (110 lbs)
M190 Bipod Assembly (70 lbs)
M9 Baseplate (136 lbs)
and the M1100 Trailer (399 lbs).
Or the M777 155mm Howitzer, mounting the... M776 Cannon.
Just sayin'.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 22, 2007 5:02 PM
"What's old is new."
... someone hasn't spent quality time with 'older' ammunition.
Probably a Choctaw.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 22, 2007 5:40 PM
I learned a *long* time ago.... never try to stump the artillery chump (aka John)
[Hey! -the Armorer]
by AFSister on October 22, 2007 8:00 PM
So the Armourer's Cannon is cannon?
by
Trias on October 23, 2007 12:30 AM
Trias
"Canon" works a little better.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 23, 2007 12:54 AM
Blast.
by
Trias on October 23, 2007 1:02 AM
Oh, my - we went all filosofical round cheer.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 23, 2007 4:43 AM
Cannon: a carom in billiards.
Just saying ...
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 23, 2007 1:39 PM
I believe there may be a "cannon" bone in a horse's leg. Femur, or something. Beth would know.
by
Justthisguy on October 24, 2007 1:23 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 21, 2007
Well, I can *usually* find a cannon when I travel...
...but I don't always find one actually firing.
Especially one manned by... pirates.
On land.
Nicely maintained Brooke Rifle, made by the Naval Ordnance Works, Selma, Alabama, in January of 1865. 5lbs of black powder. Overlooking the Chattahoochee at Port Columbus, Georgia.
And the reason this is all there's going to be from me today? Due to the astonishngly optimistically labeled "high-speed internet" at this place of accomodation, it took one full hour to get this posted. Near as I can tell, they got DSL, set up 4 wireless routers, and told 70 rooms full of computer geeks to hook up to their "high speed internet." Snerk. I think it ran almost normal at 2AM one morning. I'd have given you a larger version of the pic, but I could feel my arteries hardening and my joints stiffening as I waited. That and the dust bunny that collected by my feet.
I'm afraid I've got better things to do with my time than watch the Windoze Hourglass. And it's really not that, it's the loading bar on the browser...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
John,
Great post and I love the pic!
I truly feel your pain - I'm still on dialup for a lengthly list of reasons. Keep up the good work!
Jeff
by
Parrothead Jeff on October 21, 2007 7:51 PM
John,
Great post and I love the pic!
I truly feel your pain - I'm still on dialup for a lengthly list of reasons. Keep up the good work!
Jeff
by
Parrothead Jeff on October 21, 2007 7:51 PM
You feel it a *lot* Jeff!~ Twice as much as most people!
8^ )
by
John of Argghhh! on October 21, 2007 8:01 PM
Oh, Man, a Brooke! Buttress Thread rifling!
There may exist a photograph of my own self fondling a Brooke rifle, on the ramparts of Fort Pulaski, taken in 1988, or thenabouts.
I prolly shoulda oughta chased wimmin instead of cannons, but wth, I seem to have no STDs to speak of.
by
Justthisguy on October 21, 2007 8:28 PM
JTG, you give the best "geek" when it comes to auld artillery...
by
John of Argghhh! on October 21, 2007 9:55 PM
Oh, man, the Naval Ordnance Works, Selma, Alabama. They had a lathe used for cannon boring which remained in industrial use until the 1980s because new machine tools that big cost so much. When it was finally retired, it was hauled to a city park for children to climb on.
by
triticale on October 22, 2007 3:44 AM
Now you know how I feel on dial up :)
by
BloodSpite on October 22, 2007 9:19 AM
The Brooke Rifle the Armorer photographed is pictured in this article http://www.csnavy.org/weapons/cannons.htm
by JimC on October 22, 2007 1:06 PM
I now have some information in my wrinkled grey matter not previously hidden there: The Brooke rifle and it's inventor. Now I have to refresh myself on the Hook/Slant rifling method. Quite a character and quite a piece of artillery.
Thanks for the posting and lesson.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
by Dan Patterson on October 22, 2007 2:40 PM
And now you know why I take along my cable and data-ready cellphone when I travel (and why I pay a bit extra to have it data-ready).
If I don't like a hotel's connection for whatever reason I just use my own. It runs at around DSL speeds too, just to rub it in a bit.
by KCSteve on October 22, 2007 3:02 PM
Well, with SWWBO now being unemployed, I'm not being as extravagant as I might once have been on things like that, Steve. Whyncha just FedEx that puppy down here and I'll use it...
by
John of Argghhh! on October 22, 2007 5:40 PM
John,
You might check out the phone you have - many of them will do data these days, even if they don't tell you about it up front. You may be hit with a small extra charge (I think I pay $5).
Check with your provider.
by KCSteve on October 23, 2007 12:18 PM
Um, I shoulda wrote "parapet." I distinctly remember striding along the parapet, as if unafraid (not hard, I was not afraid) while making artillery geek love to that piece. They also have a Blakely there. I think I got right rude and forward with it, as well.
Relax, folks; nothing really indecent happened, between me and those guns!
by
Justthisguy on October 24, 2007 1:43 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 29, 2007
A mix of Gunner's Zen and Karma...
If you get deep enough into collecting, you eventually meet up with some of the international arms collectors and dealers - most of whom make me look like a piker, as they're wrassling over... tanks and full size artillery pieces.
Here's some Gunner Zen and a Balance of Karma story from one of my buds in the biz.
I have had it for years. I fought the army 12 years ago to sell me three and some spares. During the procress they stole some of the spare barrels. I ripped into them and got them to ship to [deleted] for free, LOL, and then stored them at that base until I was ready to move them to my place. During the progress to this Port Arthur shooting happened and they wanted to deac my guns as they were not deac and they had put them out in the weather. The engineers skilled enough to deac the guns knew they were mine and refused. During the move down I removed the locks so when an officious army Lieutenant (I think you yanks call them shavetails) form ordnance went out with me to fight over the deac of the guns as they were still on army property. The night before they had rain... I arrived with tilt trucks to remove my guns then and there and to tell them to sod off from damaging them further, the shavetail saw the locks missing (not knowing I had them) and we fought for an hour on verbal issues. The engineers came down on my side saying they were sold to me as agreed and paid for and they were my property and he had no say. As he was outnumbered and getting put in his box he tried to save face pointing out the locks were missing and then went to open the breech that was shut. Even with lock missing it seals with a greased chamber and holds about 2 pints of water. As he went for the operating handle me and the engineers stood back as we all knew what was about to happen. Out of the chamber came the night's rainwater mixed with oil preservative and grease in a nice slurry that spewed all over his nice clean uniform. He was livid and it was the best we could do not to laugh. He had to report to the General of Log Command on his war with me afterwards and was screaming if anyone had clean uniform he could change into and I could "f--k off with my crap " as he stormed away to find showers etc.
When we came back later to load the guns and spares and the engineers had a great time telling me how they hated him and it was local legend how I nailed the prick. Well, that is the gun that got him. The three guns were set in for parts for other guns and out the three I would make that one complete and sold the other two off.
Ironically the fellow who bought my tank has recently bought one and then another associate has bought the other so they have changed hands twice since I sold them.
...the fellow who bought my tank has recently bought one... Someday, if my Lottery Retirment Investment Plan plays out, I'll be able to off-hand drop a line like that!
That would look *sooooooooooo* good sitting there between the Castle flagstaffs.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Give a whole new meaning to "wake up call" for the neighbors.
by
kat-missouri on September 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Not to mention the mailman.
by
BillT on September 29, 2007 6:52 PM
With the tools you have can't we simply build a replica?
by ry on September 30, 2007 9:33 AM
I dunno, Ry, my lathe's not big enough to turn that barrel, methinks.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 30, 2007 3:23 PM
Yeah, but I'll bet a local machine shop could whip out a convincing replica....
Heck, Just a plain piece of steel pipe could work.
At least 'til someone sights down the bore :(
N.
by NBAllen on October 1, 2007 10:30 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 18, 2007
Speaking of the Castle...
Kat asks up in the H&I above when I'm going to move the German WWII K5 gun (or something similar) to the Castle. All I can say is, I don't have the rail spur in yet.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been some progress.
First off, Sergeant S'mudge had her first long weekend as Acting Commander of Castle Argghhh! and did just fine. All her rekeets survived, and based on their flying capabilities they demonstrated on Sunday, she drilled them while we were gone, and based on the growth, the Mess Hall was serving adequate chow.
Equally important, the Vault Door of the Arms Room of Argghhh! was delivered last Thursday, just in time to make us almost late for the plane to DC. Work on the Arms Room itself proceeds apace, this being an update from this morning - when the contractor's guys were there before 8AM.
And lastly, in partial answer to Kat's Koncerns... there *is* some firepower resident at the New Castle, as the migration continues piece by piece. We've got the close-in and medium range fires covered - we can hit anything we can see, and drop into the ravines and crevasses we can't.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Gooolleeeee, Sergeant. I post pics of the Arms Room and some Arms and I don't get a squeak from you folks?
Ha-Rumph!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 18, 2007 4:52 PM
I hope and trust that the Arms Room is stout enough to be a tornado shelter, and that you can open that door from the inside.
by
Justthisguy on September 18, 2007 7:16 PM
All four walls (well, there are actually 6) are concrete, and most of them are below ground. There are no windows in the room. There *is* a water tap. The vault door opens inward.
Yes, JTG, I *do* know how to live in tornado country... 8^ )
by
John of Argghhh! on September 18, 2007 7:30 PM
So, are the members of the Interior Guard schooled in the Tornado Drill?
Nah, not likely, kitties find their own shelter.
Ya think?
Oh, yeah, I shudder to think of moving the kitties to the new place, knowing that they fear change more than I do, even.
by
Justthisguy on September 18, 2007 8:03 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 12, 2007
The Armorer Gets Whatziss' too...
Such as this email I got yesterday.
This picture was taken in front of a former American Legion post in Key West. I have no clue what arty piece this is. No that fat guy is not Don Vitto. Just a out of shape doggy from the 1st Cav.
To which the Armorer responded:
Daniel - that's a US Model 1902 3-inch field gun - in need of some *real* TLC.
That was our first modern field gun with a hydro-pneumatic recoil system, developed in response to out getting punched in the nose by Spanish artillery during the Span-Am War.
They never saw any combat, since they were functionally almost identical to the French 75mm, but didn't have interchangeable ammunition (3 inch is 77mm) we chose to use the 3-incher stateside for training, and the artillery troops fell in on french guns "Over There." Saved us the shipping space for both guns and ammo during the war.
The commander of that post needs to be kneed in the groin for allowing that gun to get into that condition. But that's just an old artilleryman talking.
An old artilleryman who will happily hook up his trailer and head down that way to pick that gun up and give it a good home, if the boys of the VFW aren't going to take care of it.
I was wrong in my response, too, in that I forgot they did see combat, such as it was, during the Punitive Expedition to Mexico...
Of course, it's not like we haven't been over this ground before...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I was down in Key West last month and I do remember seeing the VFW. Seemed very rundown.
I'm not sure they are even using it any more.
There was a restaurant who's sign read "VFW and families welcome!!"
Perhaps they are moving to better digs?
Oh now that I think about Key West..I wanna go back!!!
by Carrie on September 12, 2007 8:02 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 18, 2007
The Whatziss, revealed!
A Laurel, and Hearty Handshake to Old Fat Sailor and Mongo for getting it right. It is, indeed, a round for the WWI 3" Stokes mortar.
This woulda been your next clue if we'd needed one.
But OFS and Mongo took care of it.
Interesting method of fuzing, eh? Right before you hang and drop the round, you pulled the ring, inserted the round, and let it go - the lever flipped free as it cleared the tube, and off it went.
The Stokes mortar is essentially the first modern mortar. I could write a learned treatise here, but heck, real weapons geek Bruce Canfield has already done so - if you'd like to know more about the Stokes - simply click here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Wonder if Stokes had anything to do with the stokes stretcher?
Did a quick google and wiki search and found very little.
by jon spencer on August 19, 2007 6:53 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
July 27, 2007
Snerk!
Hey izzit me, or are these guys older than the gun?
Union Civil War re-enactors from New York fire two-gun salutes with a Parrot rifle at the 90th anniversary celebration of Fort Dix, New Jersey, July 18.
Of course, they're all younger than Bill. Even the original guns...
Of course, a gun like that would look good snuggled between the Castle flagpoles...
Hi-res available here. If you want the original (about twice the size of the higher-res one) drop me an email.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
That is called a parrot rifle? Some kind of internal joke?
by
Trias on July 27, 2007 10:08 AM
Yup. Made for rifled birdshot...
by
BillT on July 27, 2007 10:29 AM
Actually Parrott artillery has a confused history concerning nomenclature. The Army and the Navy called the same gun by a different nomenclature. See http://www.cwartillery.org/ve/parrott.html
The Parrott rifle was so called because of the rifled barrel vs the smoothbore artillery.
by JimC on July 27, 2007 10:45 AM
Trias - Parrot was the fella who invented the gun.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 27, 2007 11:22 AM
Oh damn there goes my theory of flocks of parrots steadying their aim with tiny little rifles...
Polly wants a crack bang
by
Trias on July 27, 2007 11:42 AM
Fire mission! Platoon of budgies in the open, millet seed in effect...
by
BillT on July 27, 2007 4:42 PM
"OOhh, look ... a four-leaf clover."
Note the early model Pendular Recoil Ameliorating Device.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on July 27, 2007 9:41 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 26, 2007
Some gunner zen...
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
New, from Watervliet Toys! The only Spud-Gun™ capable of launching your grocer's *entire produce section* with one shot!
Some dismounted assembly required.
Remainder of the battery not included unless you also purchase our "Rest O' The Battalion" option.
Requires eighty cases of hairspray to prime it...
by
BillT on June 26, 2007 10:24 AM
John. Kewl shots!
I have a question, though. The top photo shows what seems to be a cable running back from the howitzer (it is a howitzer, right?). In fact it looks like it's a little tail held high. :)
Ahem. Any way. I was wondering what that for? Electrical power? Cooling? Pipes moisture into the sand to help keep that bad boy dug into place?
by
Casey Tompkins on June 26, 2007 12:35 PM
Casey -- That's the high pressure feeder line for the hairspray...
by
BillT on June 26, 2007 12:58 PM
..and the toughest engineering challenge was getting the nozzle tip to mist the hairspray just right w/o clogging.
but you can see that it was, in fact, a certified nozzle tip by the pink tag.
by MajMike on June 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Heh. You all joke - but the original plan for Crusader was... liquid propellant, that foundered on... the spray nozzle!
Along with some other glitches.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2007 2:10 PM
Casey, I don't know for sure since I haven't gotten to play with the M777, but on the M198 we use power from the 5 ton to operate the hydraulic pack to put the howitzer on it's base plate. It's a lot quicker than doing it by hand. We also use power from the 5 ton when we can to power the cronograph (that rectanular box just behind and to the left of the muzzle on the upper picture.)
by
Pogue on June 26, 2007 3:45 PM
We also use power from the 5 ton when we can to power the cronograph
Hmmpf. Didn't have a PTO on the prime mover just to run the clock back when *I* was a gun bunny.
We had to wind it up.
It instilled *character* in us...
by
BillT on June 26, 2007 8:06 PM
Snerk. Such deliberate obtuseness is *so* refreshing.
And so... "Castle!"
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2007 8:15 PM
whoa. damn cool photograph (1st one)
by afsister on June 26, 2007 8:26 PM
Where's the fun in being obtuse, if not deliberately so?
Or, for that matter, in being scalene or isosceles, either?
by
BillT on June 26, 2007 9:20 PM
Heh. Since I'm doing my *own* survey of the new demesne, Isoceles is once again my friend.
As is my M2 Aiming Circle.
Hey, no one specified what *order* of survey it needed to be.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 26, 2007 9:28 PM
Get Neffi an Instamatic and have him do an *aerial* survey...
by
BillT on June 26, 2007 9:33 PM
...So at the risk of sounding like a completely clueless newbie, Pogue's answer was the proper one? :)
by
Casey Tompkins on June 26, 2007 11:58 PM
Properer than mine was, if that's any help...
by
BillT on June 27, 2007 1:22 AM
Truth be told, Casey - I dunno.
I've not been near an actual, emplaced M777.
I was hoping that perhaps we'd have a reader who had, but thus far, none that choose to comment.
I did cast about the gentlemen-still-serving with whom I rub shoulders, and none of them have served with this gun yet.
Admittedly, I have *not* queried the Weapons Department of the Field Artillery School.
Hmmmm. As for the aerial survey... that sounds like a post!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 27, 2007 7:05 AM
..as for the liquid propellant, back when i was at the AOAC, i wrote an article for publication (mandatory requirement) (never actually published) proposing such for the follow-on variants of the M1.
so when i needed a black bird job after that course, pending the start of M1 transition course, i ended up with a sweet gig over at Fort Knox Combat Developments, working on (you guessed it) liquid propellants (amongst other nifty toys).
(the problem is always in the spray nozzle)
by MajMike on June 27, 2007 8:05 AM
The line out of the back of the M777 could be a compressed air line or such. One would think that the electronics would need to be powered - but I don't know. The sand kicked-up is probably from the spades digging in.
Also, the first picture may be form Twenty-nine Palms, CA, I don’t know.
From an on line discussion the M777 seems to be performing well in Afghanistan and used in combat effectively (It is light and accurate).
See: M777 discussion thread
by
Ledger on June 28, 2007 6:59 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 23, 2007
More gunner zen
This time, the breech end of the US 155mm Howitzer, M1918, a US-built version of the French Schneider 155mm gun.
Ahhhh. Nothing like an interrupted screw breech! Somebody make Maggie an appointment with her chiropractor. That probably spun her head so fast she pulled a muscle in her neck.
This gun was our standard medium howitzer at the end of WWI, and served through to WWII, with the M1918A3 "high speed" version (which had inflatable tires, vice the hard rubber you see here) seeing combat on Guadalcanal.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
"Ahhhh. Nothing like an interrupted screw breech!"
...and we were still usin' it on the M81 gun/launcher of the M551 Sheridan and M60A2's of not-so-sainted memory. Sure, it was electrically operated (unless you wanted to spin the manual handle 'til your arm dropped off, just for grins) but that's how she worked.
by DougK on June 23, 2007 11:33 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 22, 2007
Time for some Gunner Zen.
Italian 210mm gun firing at night.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Italian 210mm gun firing at night.
And doing a bangup job of hitting it, too...
by
BillT on June 22, 2007 7:20 PM
Sigh. Yer still here? ;^)
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2007 8:35 PM
Yeah!
It's about time those underrated wops got their due. Could we have a high-res pic? I want one.
by
Dan on June 22, 2007 9:21 PM
Sigh. Yer still here?
Nope. Still in North Carolina.
by
BillT on June 22, 2007 10:00 PM
Heh. Dan, I don't have true hi-res, but I've got a larger version. Check your email.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 23, 2007 5:54 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 2, 2007
A little gunner zen.
The Russians built themselves some interesting artillery pieces - and still do.
But the B2/B19 series of 152mm howitzers and 203mm guns have always been in my fave list.
A side view, here.
The Museum of Artillery, Engineers, and Signal Corps, in the old Arsenal in Saint Petersburg is a place I need to get to before I die.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Interesting thing about that 203 mikemike gun, it still looks serviceable, and dispite being displayed outdoors, seems to be continually maintained.
by
Rivrdog on June 2, 2007 10:13 AM
I like that smaller piece they had in the 70s, with the three-legged shoot-in-any-direction carriage. For people who have historically been badly governed and invaded by every bunch of horsed archers who ever lived, and are famously bloody-minded yahoos who drink too much, the Russkis have sure made some cool artillery pieces.
I note that the nuts were not painted red on the piece in the picture.
Jtg- dispensing light-hearted silliness on the Internet since 1997.
by
Justthisguy on June 3, 2007 4:42 AM
It's like the beta version of ED-209 :-)
by
Harvey on June 3, 2007 10:06 AM
JtG
D-30 122mm gun
plus there's the 2A45 Sprut-B 125mm AT gun
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 3, 2007 3:50 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 26, 2007
Did someone say battleship?
Oh, yeah, I did.
Yo, Salamander - Neener neener neener!
Heh. I might find apartment living tolerable if that was the view out of my balcony (there are apartments out of frame to the right).
I see the Marines just *had* to do some advertising. Undoubtedly, this is a turret that had a Marine crew.
She certainly does dominate her environment, doesn't she?
However, Nauticus (the overall museum that operates the Wisconsin) there is NO EXCUSE for this abuse of fine artillery pieces, even if they are just used as salute guns or decorations. None whatsoever. My inner gunner zen was seriously perturbed by this sight...
Shame!
Then there's this - funny sculpture in Cincinnati's airport...
When pigs fly...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I followed the CDR Salamander link in the post and "neener, neener" that Sunday funny...wasn't.
As far as the view.....yeah, it's nice.......but where are the sailors?
by
Maggie on March 26, 2007 8:47 AM
...where are the sailors?
Dancing with the Marines in the Disco Turret.
*exit, stage left. hastily*
by
BillT on March 26, 2007 10:57 AM
Ungh - that is wrong by so many ways. If they don't want them, give me a call I will drive down with the F250 and get them.
Time to name 'em and shame em
OH, and there are a lot of great appts that have gone in down there in the last few years. Very different Norfolk than a couple of decades ago.
by
CDR Salamander on March 26, 2007 2:19 PM
Marines settled for a mere 5-inch DP turret? I figured they'd demand one of the 16" main turrets.
For what it's worth, that statue at Cincy Airport is one of those created for the Big Pig Gig in 2000. A couple of hundred pig statues were sprinkled all over Greater Cincinnati, mostly downtown but a few in other areas. An absolute laugh riot, seeing what some of the artists came up with.
by wolfwalker on March 26, 2007 8:05 PM
I used to tell people I would do something when pigs fly. Then I went to Cincinnati.
by
Punctilious on March 26, 2007 9:35 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 10, 2007
Yesterday's Whatziss...
The Land-Locked Sailor Gun Dealer (though there is a salt-water body nearby, it simply has no outlet to the sea), John S, was correct. It is in fact the fuze train of a black-powder time fuze (in this case, French) from the 1880-1918 era. Of course, he was also wrong. Because it's been an ashtray a lot longer than it ever served as a fuze...
Anyway, a fuze much like these. In fact, the fat one on the incomplete rusty relic (second from the right) is identical.
John's description was correct - a black powder fuze train filled those grooves.
First, take a spindle. Then, add the made-from-lead spiral, like this.
Lastly, then, wrap that in a thin lead sheet or wax-paper cover (needs to be waterproof) and put a calibrated cap on it, marked with burn times, so that the cannoneer can use his awl and punch a hole corresponding to the time of flight before detonating, whether for a shrapnel shell, high-explosive air burst, or illuminating round. The way it works is - you punch the hole, load the round, fire it, and the 'blow-by' hot gases when the round exits the muzzle ignite the fuze train. usually. Not always, especially if you are firing lower charges. Lastly, wrap it in a thin lead sheet to water proof the whole shebang until needed. Yes, this would be an *added* lead sheath - like this.
Or, you could remove the powder, take off the cap and powder train, invert them, stack 'em on the spindle, put a screw through it to hold 'em in place, and you could make a souvenir of service trench art ashtray out of it.
Like the one that sits on the Militaria Bar of Argghhh!...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
'Tis the Grail! My quest is over!
by
Harvey on March 11, 2007 9:08 AM
Harvey wins the non-existant prize for making the connection I was sure someone would make.
I admit to being a touch surprised that it was the first comment... 24 hours after the post posted. The regular whatziss guys are slackin'.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 11, 2007 9:29 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 16, 2007
It's Black History Month...
...so let's note that in a typical Armorer fashion.
The history of the Armed Services relationship with African Americans is generally not one of which to be proud. We've come a long way since Truman told us to shut up and integrate, and there is always room for improvement now, as, despite protestations to the contrary, initial entry troops are reflective of society in general, if perhaps not it's most *koff* elite elements.
I remember real tensions in the Europe during the 60's and early 70's, and ghosts still rippling through when I was a Lieutenant in the 80's. And I'm not so naive as to think it doesn't still exist - but we're a pretty tough meritocracy compared to most other sub-cultures.
I have nothing but love and respect for soldiers. But I'll admit I have a smidge more for soldiers who ruck up and move out and fight while having to take fire from their own side. Theirs is a special dedication that springs from the same well the bonds of all good soldiery - but are forged in a greater heat with a heavier hammer.
Such as these 7 soldiers from WWII.
Maj. Charles L. Thomas, of Detroit
First Lt. John R. Fox, of Cincinnati, Ohio
Staff Sgt. Ruben Rivers, of Oklahoma City, Okla.
Staff Sgt. Edward A. Carter Jr., of Los Angeles
Pfc. Willy F. James Jr., of Kansas City, Mo.
Pvt. George Watson, of Birmingham, Ala.
1LT James Baker of St Maries, Idaho.
Since I know many people don't click through on the links - I'm excerpting the ARNEWs article on the awarding these soldiers Medals of Honor in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. It's old news, from 1997, but that doesn't matter. It's never too late to honor heroes.
A machine gun crew of Co. A, 24th Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, turns its gun on Chinese Communists in a village across the Han River from Songnimbong, Korea. 21 February 1951. (Signal Corps Photo #358634)
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
With the exception of Rivers, who was previously awarded the Silver Star, they were all recipients of Distinguished Service Crosses, the nation's second-highest award for valor in combat. The Silver Star is the third-highest.
The presentations, according to Clinton, are taking place because due recognition was not accorded these soldiers earlier. To recognize them now, Congress authorized a statute of limitations waiver that for them had expired in 1952. The seven veterans were also scheduled to be inducted to the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes in a Monday afternoon ceremony hosted by Army Chief of Staff General Dennis J. Reimer.
In 1943, because Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower felt that not enough Medals of Honor were being awarded, he upgraded a number of Distinguished Service Award recommendations to Medal of Honor recommendations.
There is also precedent for waiving the statute of limitation. In 1991, black World War I veteran Cpl. Freddie Stowers, who served with the 93rd Infantry Division, got the Medal of Honor by virtue of a waiver 73 years after his death. Stowers had been cited posthumously for leading his squad in an attack against entrenched mortar and machine-gun positions in France that had caused more than 50 percent casualties in his company. He was killed in the assault. His is the only Medal of Honor presented to a black service member for World War I.
The presentations are the result of a study by Shaw University, in Raleigh, N.C., which was contracted by the Army in 1993 to determine if there was a racial disparity in the way Medal of Honor recipients were selected. Out of 432 presented for World War II, none went to any of more than a million blacks who served.
Shaw found that there was disparity, and said the political climate and Army practices during the war guaranteed that no black soldier would receive the military's top award. The seven were among those members of the study group thought had performed to the Medal of Honor's "above and beyond the call of duty" standard.
While no documentary evidence could be found among military records of any blacks being recommended for the Medal of Honor, former Capt. David Williams, a white officer attached to the 761st Tank Battalion, told reporters he recommended Rivers for one in 1944.
Shaw University's 10 recommendations were forwarded to a board of generals at the Pentagon. These seven were selected from the list.
(Editor's Note: Information for the individual vignettes below as well as that for the related artilces was compiled by S.H. Kelly, Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army Military District of Washington.)
VERNON JOSEPH BAKER was a 24-year-old second lieutenant at the time of the action for which he was cited near Viareggio, Italy. Orphaned since 4 years old, he had enlisted six months before the United States entered World War II and was commissioned Jan. 11, 1943, through officer-candidate school.
Also in the 92nd Infantry Division, Baker was assigned to Company C, 370th Infantry Regiment. He destroyed three machine-gun positions and an observation post April 5, 1945, and covered the evacuation of his unit's wounded.
The next day he led his battalion's advance through enemy minefields and heavy fire as the division assaulted its objective.
Summary of Service: Enlisted, 26 June 1941; Commissioned, 11 Jan 1943; Retired, August 1965 as a First Sergeant.
Awards and decorations: Medal of Honor (as of Sept. 23, 1996); Bronze Star Medal; Purple Heart; American Defense Service Medal; American Campaign Medal; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Combat Infantryman Badge; Croce Al Valor Militaire (Foreign Decoration).
Medal of Honor Citation: For extraordinary heroism on April 5 & 6 1945 near Viareggio, Italy. When his company was stopped by the concentrated fire from several machine guns emplacements, he killed nine Germans, destroyed four machine guns post, occupied an exposed position and drew enemy fire allowing his company personnel to evacuate. On the following night LT. Baker voluntarily led a battalion through enemy mine fields and heavy fire.
EDWARD ALLEN CARTER JR. earned his Medal as a member of a unique type of organization -- the Seventh Army Infantry Company Number 1 (Provisional), 56th Armored Infantry Battalion, 12th Armored Division near Speyer, Germany.
The provisional companies generally were established during, and in the wake of, the Battle of the Bulge, which took place during the winter of 1944-45. Black support and combat-support soldiers, and some whites, were allowed to volunteer for combat duty and were given training in small-unit tactics. Formed into provisional units, they were used to augment depleted divisions.
The father of two sons, Carter had entered the Army Sept. 26, 1941, and by March 23, 1945, was a 28-year-old infantry staff sergeant. On that day, the tank on which he was riding was hit by bazooka fire. Dismounted, Carter led three soldiers across an open field. In the process, two of the men were wounded and the other seriously wounded.
Carter continued alone and was wounded five times before being forced to take cover.
Eight German soldiers tried to capture him, but he killed six and captured the remaining two. These he used as a shield from enemy fire as he recrossed the field. His prisoners provided valuable information on enemy-troop disposition for his unit.
Carter left the Army in 1945 and died Jan. 30, 1963.
Summary of Service: Entered, 26 September 1941; Discharged, 30 September 1945.
Awards and Decorations: Medal of Honor (as of 23 September 1996); Bronze Star Medal; Purple Heart; Army Good Conduct Medal; American Defense Service Medal; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Combat Infantryman Badge.
Medal of Honor Citation: For extraordinary heroism on March 23, 1945, near Speyer, Germany. When the tank he was riding received heavy bazooka and small arms fire, Sgt. Carter voluntarily attempted to lead a three-man group across an open field. Two of his men were killed and the third seriously wounded. Continuing on alone, he was wounded five times and finally was forced to take cover. As eight enemy riflemen attempted to capture him, Sgt. Carter killed six of them and captured the remaining two. He then crossed the field, using as a shield his two prisoners from whom he obtained valuable information concerning the disposition of enemy troops.
JOHN ROBERT FOX was a first lieutenant assigned to Cannon Company, 366th Infantry Regiment, 92nd Infantry Division in Sommocolonia, Italy, when he earned his Medal Dec. 26, 1944.
Enemy soldiers dressed as civilians had infiltrated the town that elements of the regiment occupied the night before. The Germans began a full-scale attack about 4 a.m., under an artillery barrage. Outnumbered, the infantry force withdrew, but Fox and his observer party chose to remain on the second floor of a house to direct friendly artillery fire.
By 8 a.m. the attack had progressed to the point where he called in fire near, then onto his own position -- demanding it over the objections of the artillery unit. His body was later found among those of about 100 German soldiers.
After the war, a monument was erected in the city to honor eight Italians killed in the barrage, and one American soldier -- Fox.
Summary of Service: Entered, 28 February 1941; Killed in Action, 26 December 1944; buried in Colebrook Cemetery in Whitman, Massachusetts.
Awards and Decorations: Medal of Honor (as of 23 September 1996); Bronze Star Medal (Posthumously); Purple Heart (Posthumously); American Defense Service Medal; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal (Posthumously); Combat Infantryman Badge.
Medal of Honor Citation: For extraordinary heroism on December 26, 1944 near Sommocolonia, Italy. While serving as a member of Cannon Company, 366th Infantry Regiment, 92nd Infantry Division. Being greatly outnumbered, most of the U.S. infantry forces were forced to withdraw from the town, but LT. Fox and some other members of his observer party voluntarily remained on the second floor of a house to direct defensive artillery fire. After acknowledging the danger, LT. Fox insisted ALL fire power be directed at him, as this was the only way to defeat the attacking enemy soldiers. Later, when a counterattack retook the position from the Germans, LT. Fox's riddle body was found along with bodies of approximately 100 German soldiers.
WILLY F. JAMES JR., who enlisted in the Army Sept. 11, 1942, was assigned to Company G, 413th Infantry Division, 104th Infantry Division near Lippoldsberg, Germany, at the time he earned the Medal. As lead scout during a maneuver to secure a bridgehead, he was pinned down for more than an hour by enemy machine-gun fire.
When he was able to return to his platoon, he used his observations to help work out a new assault plan and designated targets from memory in the new attack. He was killed by machine-gun fire while going to the aid of his fatally wounded platoon leader.
Summary of Service: Enlisted, 11 September 1942; Killed in Action, 8 April 1945; buried in American Battle Monument Cemetery - Netherlands
Awards & Decorations: Medal of Honor (as of 23 September 1996); Bronze Star Medal (Posthumously); Purple Heart (Posthumously); Army Good Conduct Medal (Posthumously); European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal Posthumously); Combat Infantry Badge.
Medal of Honor Citation: For extraordinary heroism on April 7, 1945, near Lippoldsberg, Germany. As lead scout during a maneuver 'Pvt. James was the first to draw enemy fire. He was pinned down for over an hour, during which time he observed enemy positions In detail. Returning to his platoon, he assisted in working out a new plan of maneuver. He then led a squad in the assault, accurately designating targets as he advanced, until he was killed by enemy machine gun fire while going to the aid of his fatally wounded platoon leader.
RUBEN RIVERS entered the Army Jan. 15, 1942, and was a staff sergeant in Company A, 761st Tank Battalion (Colored) Nov. 16, 1944, near Guebling, France.
During an advance on the town that day, Rivers' tank hit a mine, and the sergeant was wounded in the leg. Refusing evacuation, Rivers directed his tank's fire on enemy positions for three days.
On the fourth day, Nov. 19, Rivers joined Company A's advance toward the town, but the unit was again stopped by enemy fire. Rivers' tank, joined by another, covered the company's withdrawal. During the battle, Rivers' tank was hit. He was killed and his crewmen were wounded.
Summary of Service: Entered, 15 January 1942; Killed in Action, 19 November 1944; buried in the American Battle Monument Cemetery - France.
Awards and Decoration: Medal of Honor (as of 23 September 1996); Silver Star; Purple Heart (Posthumously); Army Good Conduct Medal (Posthumously); European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal (Posthumously); Presidential Unit Citation.
Medal of Honor Citation: For extraordinary heroism on November 16 - 19, 1944. Staff Sergeant Rivers tank was hit by a mine while advancing toward Guebling, France. Severely wounded in the leg he refused treatment and evacuation, took command of another tank, and advanced with his company. Repeatedly refusing evacuation, Sgt. Rivers continued to direct his tank's fire at enemy positions for three days. On the morning of the 1 9th November Sgt. Rivers opened fire on the enemy tanks, covering Company A as they withdrew. While doing so, Sgt. River's tank was hit killing him and wounding the crew.
CHARLES LEROY THOMAS (photo not available) was a first lieutenant in Company C, 614th Tank Destroyer Battalion (Towed), 103rd Infantry Division, when he was cited for leading a task force storming Climbach, France, Dec. 14, 1944. Thomas' armored scout car was knocked out by enemy fire and he was wounded.
The lieutenant helped his crew out of the vehicle, but as he left the car's protection, he was again wounded in the chest, legs and left arm. Despite his wounds, Thomas directed the dispersal and emplacement of two antitank guns, which then returned fire.
He briefed one of his platoon leaders, a junior lieutenant, on the general situation, and only when he was sure the situation was under control did he allow himself to be evacuated. He left service as a major in 1947.
Summary of Service: Inducted, 20 Jan 1942; Commissioned, 11 March 1943; Discharged, 10 Aug 1947
Awards and Decorations: Medal of Honor (as of 23 September 1996); Purple Heart; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal.
Medal of Honor Citation: For extraordinary heroism on December 14, 1944, near Climbach, France. LT. Thomas armored scout car was subjected to intense enemy artillery, self-propelled gun, and small arms fire. Wounded by the initial burst of hostile fire, LT. Thomas signaled the remainder of the column to halt and despite the severity of his wounds, assisted the crew to obtaining cover. Upon leaving the scant protection which the vehicle afforded, LT. Thomas again was subjected to a hail of enemy fire which inflicted multiple gunshot wounds in his chest, legs, and left arm. Despite the intense pain LT. Thomas ordered and directed the dispersion and emplacement of two antitank guns which effectively returned the enemy fire. He refused to be evacuated until he was certain his junior officer was in full control of the situation.
GEORGE WATSON (photo not available), the only one of the seven to earn his medal while serving in the Pacific Theater.
He had entered the Army Sept. 1, 1942, and was a member of the 2nd Battalion, 29th Quartermaster Regiment. He was a passenger aboard the Dutch steamer (USAT) Jacob March 8, 1943, which was near Porloch Harbor, New Guinea, when the ship was hit by Japanese bombers.
When the ship was abandoned, Watson remained in the water and, instead of trying to save himself, assisted soldiers who could not swim into life rafts.
Weakened by his exertions, he was dragged down by the suction of the sinking ship and drowned.
His body was never recovered, but a field was named in his honor at Fort Benning, Ga.
Summary of Service: Entered, 1 September 1942; Killed in Action, 8 March 1943.
Awards and Decorations: Medal of Honor (as of 23 September 1996); Purple Heart; Army Good Conduct Medal; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal.
Medal of Honor Citation: (Not available at time this file posted. Information expected to be available after 10:30 a.m. 13 Jan 96, at which time this post will be updated.)
By S.H. Kelly
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
By 8 a.m. the attack had progressed to the point where he called in fire near, then onto his own position -- demanding it over the objections of the artillery unit. His body was later found among those of about 100 German soldiers.
Dear God. I would hope that I possess the courage and honor to call that fire in if I had to, but I'm pretty skeptical that I would.
Incidentally, that happened on 26 Dec 1944, the day Patton's forces reached Bastogne.
by
Mudoc on February 16, 2007 9:43 AM
hot damn, now if these fine fellows don't deserve a toast to be hoisted, i don't know who does!
may these heroes rest in gloried peace!
by MajMike on February 16, 2007 12:23 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 13, 2007
Wrapping up that 38cm German gun.
Bill said it was a railway gun. I said it wasn't. We're both right. It was moved by rail (how else, especially back in the day?) but was assembled into a purpose-built emplacement. The emplacement was concrete, and took weeks to construct. They were substantial enough that they still exist. [Interesting article on several large german guns here.] There was a central pintle for the gun (which answers Trias' question about training the gun for direction) and, as can be seen in the picture above, used little railcars to move the projectiles and powder from the preparation site to the gun proper, where they were hoisted to the firing deck by means of the crane.
Just take a look at the number of men it took to crew these guns - and wonder if those things weren't resources better used elsewhere. And obviously, not a weapon of maneuver warfare. Of course, it's a lesson the Germans didn't take to heart, what with the Dora 80cm gun they used (for, oh, 45 rounds or so) during WWII. The one that took 2000 men to crew and 26 trainloads to move around, and two weeks to assemble. And shot 45 rounds...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Nice images. I guess WW1 was so slow that WW2's incredible mobility caught everyone by surprise.
by
Trias on February 13, 2007 11:13 AM
Ah, but I'll bet they were glorious rounds!
by KCSteve on February 13, 2007 1:28 PM
Note the Germans had the little guys shoving the rounds -- must've been militarily practical because we followed that example in WWII, Korea and the opening days of Vietnam by assigning the smallest guys in the squad to carry the BAR.
Never had that opportunity myself ('wayyyy too tall), but I *did* get to hump the baseplate and tube of an 81mm all over the impact area at Indiantown Gap in the summer of 1967...
by
BillT on February 13, 2007 7:27 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 12, 2007
More Gunner's Zen, Large German Cannon edition.
German 38cm gun going into position. This gun shelled Verdun and Dunkirk. It's a naval gun, one a railway carriage, which was railed into position and then emplaced in a circular pit, where it could pivot to fire on different targets.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Jeepers... that is one big a$$ gun....
by AFSister on February 12, 2007 8:17 AM
Have you got one in your basement yet?
I wonder how long it took to turn.
by
Trias on February 12, 2007 11:10 AM
That's a nice gun! As big as it seems, it was dwarfed by the Kraut's later 80cm "Dora" guns. Interesting thread with some photos and links at http://cartridgecollectors.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=800
by
John S. on February 12, 2007 11:50 AM
Possibly silly question from the arty-illiterate guy in the back; what are those two things that look like very thick doors, projecting vertically from the barrel? They look like they're centered over the pivot point. Are they there to provide balance?
by
Casey Tompkins on February 12, 2007 3:24 PM
Casey - that's a counter-weight. You are correct.
Trias - dunno. My father has those books. Though we do have a commenter who has the books, too, so he might catch the question and answer it.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2007 4:05 PM
It shelled Verdun *and* Dunkirk? Rocket-assisted projos came along earlier than I thought...
by
BillT on February 12, 2007 9:19 PM
No one said from the same position at the same time. Sheesh. I'm just going with the caption.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 12, 2007 9:34 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 10, 2007
A little Gunner zen...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Paris Gun
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on February 10, 2007 2:50 PM
"After confirming the Jawa's uniform allowed him to roam the Orc encampment unquestioned, Frodo proceded to secrete the Ring within one of Sauron's suppositories..."
Oh. *Not* a caption contest. Sorry 'bout that.
German 170mm railway gun.
by
BillT on February 10, 2007 3:48 PM
Actually, I think not. Among other things, the barrel is both too thick and too short, and doesn't have the cantilever bracing.
The original caption for the picture describes it as a break in shooting the "langen Mar" (yes, Mar, not Max) while the cannoneers calibrate and "abrade" (abgerieben) the projectiles. In context I'm guessing they are cleaning the projectiles or, since these guns wore so fast the rotating bands were deliberately made large so they could be shaped according to barrel wear.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 3:55 PM
Snerk. It's not a whatzis, either. Yer both wrong, but now I won't id the gun. I'll let you all figure it out. Not that I didn't give it mostly away, I haven't googled it, either.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 3:58 PM
I still say it's a rail gun, and pert' darn close to 170mm.
Judging by how far the landser's coal scuttle droops (it's pushed back on his head and he's gazing down at the obturating band), that guy's no more than five-foot-two...
by
BillT on February 10, 2007 5:13 PM
It's bits and pieces may be hauled by rail, but it's assembled into a circular pit.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 10, 2007 5:17 PM
170mm!!!? That's only a bit over 6 inches! Look at the width of that shell; it's damn near as wide as the shoulders of the guy polishing it.
It's a 380mm S.K. L/45 in Eisenbahn-Bettungs-Schießgerüst auf Bettung. Nicknamed Wotan. Didn't have to use google-fu, just turn around and grab my copy of Kosar's book on RR guns of the world.
by Jason Long on February 10, 2007 6:22 PM
Concerning the gun above; the one in my neighborhood isn't quite as big. "The Largest Museum Display Item Is A German 1917 Krupp 210mm Lange Morser (Howitzer). The only one in the world where everything moves as it did during World War One." It belongs to the 'Battery Corporal Willis S. Cole Military Museum' about a mile fom my house. The owner used to bring it to Ft Lewis for Armed Forces Day, but it has been sitting in his front yard for several years now. I'll have to get a picture of it.
by Martin Morehouse on February 10, 2007 10:06 PM
Are you sure that isn't Rick Moranis from the movie SPACE BALLS next to that shell?? "May da Schwartz be wid you!"
by LarryK on February 11, 2007 1:15 AM
Look at the width of that shell; it's damn near as wide as the shoulders of the guy polishing it.
He's a gunner with the Kaiser's Dverger Brigade.
*fiddling with split-screen magnifier*
Okay, it's a rail gun in a roundhouse. Without the roundhouse.
*fiddling with brain*
Okay, I didn't google that "Wotan" bit (I'm being a stubborn bassett), but John's circular pit hint and a closer squint at the cradle (which looks akin to the type we used on the "disappearing guns" at Sandy Hook) is nudging me into the Coastal Defense aisle.
I just realized that guy at center front is wearing an early attempt at a stealth uniform. He's got the hood back over his shoulders, though, so his helmet isn't concealed...
by
BillT on February 11, 2007 7:43 AM
Looks like a german railroad gun. From the uniforms it appears to be WW I vintage. Me thinks a little photo-manipulation here. If the soldier standing next to the shell isn't a midget, say average height, the distance between his wrist and fingertips would be about six inches. That would mean the shell would be from 14 to 16 inches in diameter or up to 400mm. The point of the shell appears to be solid with no evidence of a fuse. AP? but what would the German's be doing firing AP rounds from a railroad gun. Could be a 14 or 16 inch shell for a battleship battery super imposed on the photo.
by Tbird on February 11, 2007 4:10 PM
Tbird - the pic is untouched, at least by me, I've seen it many other places, and never seen anything that doesn't have the shell. I personally don't have any problem with that shell for that gun.
The Germans had several guns in that caliber range, most of them naval guns mounted on rail carriages.
As for fuzing, rounds like this were routinely base-fuzed, especially if they were intended to penetrate before exploding.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 11, 2007 4:21 PM
As for fuzing, rounds like this were routinely base-fuzed, especially if they were intended to penetrate before exploding.
As in "punching a hole in a Dreadnaught class before going blooey."
by
BillT on February 11, 2007 4:57 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 23, 2007
The Whatziss Iss A *WHAT*?!?
If you've perused the comments on the latest Whatziss, you might think that *somebody* in that talent lineup (Maggie, Will the Sea Scout, AFSis, John) would have nailed it.
Mmmmmmmmmmmm -- no. Several in the "Close, but no cigar" category, though. It's an anti-tank gun, but not a 37mm (?!?) or a 90mm or an 8-incher (!!!). I won't keep you in suspense (hold the applause, please-and-thank-you) any longer -- meet the T-128 75mm anti-tank gun.
Right after the Korean War cranked up, US troops were tossed at the NORK advance as speed bumps. They promptly discovered that the only effect their (very few) anti-tank weapons had on the T-34s rolling their way was to chip the paint.
The home front rolled into action to produce a more effective anti-tank gun
Disregarding the Wehrmacht's seminal "Lessons Learned: The Futility of Engaging the Frontal Portion of a Farkin' T-34 with Anything Smaller than an 8.8cm Dual-Purpose Gun" -- Like, Say, with a 7.5cm Popgun...", Rock Island Arsenal mounted a -- you guessed it, 75mm -- high-velocity gun on a 76mm recoil cradle and carriage.
Initial production for the testbed guns began in late 1950 and halted shortly thereafter because someone figured you could manufacture a hundred 3.5" rocket launchers, train a hundred 3.5" rocket launcher teams and purchase each team a hundred 3.5" rockets for about the same cost as the gun.
Based on the manufacturing date (1950) and the serial number on both the recoil mechanism's cradle
and the gun carriage
I'd hazard the guess that the T-128 is extinct in the wild. 'Specially since neither Google nor the Rock Island Arsenal Museum even refer to it in passing. Hey! I'll betcha we'll be number one in Google for "T-128 Anti-Tank Gun" one of these days...
Sanger figured the gun shield east of the T-128 belonged to a field gun. Okay -- *which* particular field gun izzit?
Yeeee-hah, the Great Rolling Whatziss Contest has commenced...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Looks to me like the Brit 6 Pounder QF, in US service referred to as the 57mm Anti-tank Gun, M1.
Can't tell if that's Brit-made or US.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 23, 2007 5:48 AM
Most recently made famous... here.
[I've left my answers unpublished for the nonce. Didn't want to give it away right off the bat!]
by
John of Argghhh! on January 23, 2007 6:00 AM
Of course - that ID also depends on...
M1A1 - US wheels and tires (check)
M1A2 - improved traverse mechanism, allowing free traverse (can't tell)
M1A3 - modified towing hook (can't tell)
M2 - caster wheel added to the right trail, relocated trail handles, new utility box (can't tell)
M2A1 - improved elevation gear (can't tell)
by
John of Argghhh! on January 23, 2007 6:08 AM
Oh, dandy. I've got dialup and you send me to the same "Hi, We've Got a Jillion Graphics and Links, So Wait for an Hour While We Load!" that Boq always teases me with.
Besides, I already *have* that video. Better quality, too...
by
BillT on January 23, 2007 6:54 AM
Hey - Me likes to tease The Chief just a leeeetle!
by Boquisucio on January 23, 2007 7:36 AM
Should have been able to find it on the internet. It says W.W.W. right after 1950 on the plate on the gun carriage. Too bad they didn't give the rest of the URL
by LarryK on January 23, 2007 8:15 AM
you've perused the comments on the latest Whatziss, you might think that *somebody* in that talent lineup (Maggie, Will the Sea Scout, AFSis, John) would have nailed it.
Again, why is it you think I would know anything about weapons? If you want me to guess a "Whatziss", you've got to think in a different direction all together.
by
Maggie on January 23, 2007 10:37 AM
Again, why is it you think I would know anything about weapons? If you want me to guess a "Whatziss", you've got to think in a different direction all together.
As in, "This is my rifle, this is my gun..." etcetera?
by
BillT on January 23, 2007 11:28 AM
I'll go with the U.S. version of the British 6LB gun, the 57mm M1.
by Pat on January 23, 2007 11:29 AM
looks like there is a wee soft spot in the armor just left of the #4 bolt there.
have you "peen tested" it for soft spots?
by MajMike on January 23, 2007 12:18 PM
I tried, Bill.. I really did! One of these days, I'm gonna shock and awe all of ya and get one of these suckers.
by AFSister on January 23, 2007 4:15 PM
Like Pat: US 57mm AT gun
here & here
by
SangerM on January 23, 2007 5:07 PM
dumb 'ol comment filter....
phooey
by
phhhbbttttt on January 23, 2007 6:20 PM
Actually:
M1A3 - modified towing hook (look on the sideview pic of the AT gun posted before, the trails, spades, and tow ring can be seen there) Looks newer?
M2 - caster wheel added to the right trail, relocated trail handles, new utility box (can't tell) It looks like there is a caster wheel attached to the right side trail (facing forward); see same pic above
by
SangerM on January 23, 2007 6:27 PM
AFSis - If he comes up with "this is my rifle..." type Whatziss, you and I are going to kick a$$.
by
Maggie on January 23, 2007 7:00 PM
...you and I are going to kick a$$.
Gotta love them contact sports...
by
BillT on January 23, 2007 8:25 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 21, 2007
I've got a new skillset for my resume - and a whatziss!
Antique Ordnance Restoration Expert.
Heh. *That* oughta jump right out at all those Fortune 500-type recruiters…
A couple of the guys from the State Militia Museum found out I was "between jobs" and dragooned me into doing a li'l pro bono work. Okay, okay, a * lot* of pro bono work. They made me the Aviation SME and have me working on everything save things that slip the surly bonds of earth. Well, for a couple of months, I kept telling myself, I should'a brought my camera – the kids would love this stuff. Today, I did.
I'll post my latest project sometime this week; I sure as hell hope b'lieve it'll be finished by Friday…
Meantime, a minute portion of what I'm currently involved with is returning what's left of one of our three French 75s to its original state. This one came back to the US after the War to End All Wars and, sometime in the mid 1930s, was upgraded, modernized and modified with a more offroad-friendly carriage. Heh. You wouldn't believe where we found a bunch of OEM parts for it… [Armorer's note - I believe this is in fact a M1905 3 inch gun, which saw combat in the Punitive Expedition, but never left the US during WWI. Having been loosely patterned on the French M1897 75mm, it is often mistaken for one. What *is* unique about this one - it's the first one I've seen modified to a high-speed (i.e., faster'n a team of horses) towing configuration. I've asked Bill to check the data plates on the gun.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The caisson here is an oddball. I separated the layers of a paint chip with a razor blade and the first coat that was slapped over the primer was good ol' Desert Sand Yellow. In 1907.
Heh -- a hundred years ago, the Army in the West was painting stuff the same exact color as the stuff used by the Army in the East today. Sooooo, that's the color it got after the major repair work. Only difference is that there's no lead in this tintage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Got all kinds of goodies in the scrap heap restoration yard (even more in the museum proper), including some things you don't often see. Like this --
Okay, all you Field Artillery types, Whadizzit?
No, guys, it's the #82-lookin' thingy in the center, not the Jeep or the Reckless Rifle. My stuff is a lot easier to figger out than John's, but I'm not gonna hand you the answer on a silver platter.
Oh, stop whining. Here's a side view, too.
Heh. Like Captain H sez, "Context is everything." I'll be back later.
Ummmmmm -- don't let WK and Maggie drag the comments too far afield…
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Heh. John must be an amazing shade of green right now... :D
by
FbL on January 21, 2007 10:18 AM
Oh, on the paint colors, and other sillyness:
Along about that same year, (1907) I believe that the US Army went to rough-side out leather boots, i.e., non-shiny. They were kind of a tan color, like the rest of the new uniform. The idea being that they'd kinda blend into the scenery, so to speak. Also the smooth-side-in boots are proveably more weatherproof.
Well, the old soldiers prevailed, and co-erced evverbody into making his boots all shiny, and everything, when he could have used the time better exercising with his weapons.
At least we got the Munson Last from that
by
Justthisguy on January 21, 2007 12:09 PM
"Oh, stop whining".... But SB... I *LIKE* wine! *sniff*
*pout*
Hey, that reminds me.... do you know what the Jewish lady's favorite wine is?
"When ahh we goin' to Mi-yaaaaaaaam-i?!?!?"
by WereKitten on January 21, 2007 12:28 PM
Hmmmmm -- nobody's even taken a SWAG at the Whatziss yet.
Guess everybody figures it's either something so incredibly commonplace they'll look silly if they guess incorrectly *OR* something so incredibly esoteric that they'll be held in awe even if they guess incorrectly.
It's incredibly commonplace in one respect and incredibly esoteric in another.
Context is everything, Grasshoppah...
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 3:37 PM
I've got thoughts, but no postable answers yet.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 3:47 PM
John - You could be right about it being a US 3-incher, but there's no dataplate on the gun or the carriage. However, if it *is* a 3-incher, it'll have the info etched into the top of the tube down by the breech -- I haven't wire-wheeled the dozen layers of paint off this one yet.
Q: Geez, Bill, how'd you know about the etching-on-the-tube deal?
A: 'Cuz I'm working on one...
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 3:49 PM
As for your whatzit - my working hypothesis is that it's a test rig for the 90/105mm tank guns, possibly an experiment to making towed guns.
I like the T21, which was a 90mm with a muzzle brake *and* used the breech from a 105mm howitzer The breech on the whatziss does not look like the standard dropping block breech used in tanks, but more like a sliding block used in artillery.
But I haven't been able to find a good picture anywhere - whether on the web or in my library.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:11 PM
Just compared the tube 'n' recoil guts -- John SCORES!!! -- with the 3-incher I'm working on. As an extra added attraction, you can see the fiddly bits of the high-speed mod. Heh -- gun *carriage* pr0n...
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 4:11 PM
Bill, you guys may actually have the *rarest* M1905's in existence.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:14 PM
I've got thoughts, but no postable answers yet.
Postable or possible?
Hint. Context is everything.
Geez, I'm givin' away the ranch with all these hints...
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 4:15 PM
Heh. The one I'm reworking's even rarer than you think. It's a 1902 model, and based on the RM fabrikwerke stamping on the muzzle, it may have been contract produced in Germany; I'm still researching it.
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 4:22 PM
Snerk - what, that it's in a barn?
That it's next to the jeep? The reckless?
That it's reversed?
That it's on a damn light looking carriage for the size gun?
That it looks like a tank gun on an anti-tank carriage with an artillery-style breech?
I gots lots of context... but my recently unfrozen caveman brain ain't got a template to hang it on.
Or I have too many templates, rather.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:24 PM
And my first thought was later model of the 3 inch anti tank (hey, context) except, while it does have a sliding block breech, it didn't have a muzzle brake, the cradle is not right, and there doesn't appear to be provision for the shield. I did, however, find a good pic of troops firing 'em as salute guns... but probably not having a good time doing it.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:31 PM
The first official version of those guns that I'm aware of is the M1903 (yer right, M1902, my bad), some produced, I believe, by Krupp, though all I've ever seen have Watervliet marks.
What's the muzzle say?
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 4:32 PM
40mm anti-aircraft gun
by AFSister on January 21, 2007 5:55 PM
Hmmm. A bit small, AFSis. But then, you're handicapped in that arena, after having spent all that time during your marriage being told that "But honey, this *is* eight inches!" so, you're excused for misunderestimating.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 6:11 PM
LMAO... John, that's hilarious!
Ya know, one of these days, I'm gonna get one of these durned things, and your eyes are gonna pop out of your head.
"Well, dag GUM! She DID IT! She really DID IT!"
*sigh*
a pipe dream... i know.....
by AFSister on January 21, 2007 6:16 PM
How about a M46 130mm field gun?
by AFSister on January 21, 2007 6:24 PM
Nope, not no commie gun.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 7:25 PM
That is an awful dinky recoil cylnder for such a big tube (course us naval types used a much more manly charge than the red leg types:-))looks kinda Canadian.
by Old Fat Sailor on January 21, 2007 7:31 PM
I agree, OFS. Perplexing!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 7:34 PM
Okay, the 3-incher's muzzle sez:
RHEINISCHE [blur] M [blur] W&M FABRIK 1903
846 Lbs. No. 107 J.W.J.
Above the breech is:
[upper arc] 3 INCH FIELD
[centered] U.S.
[lower arc] MODEL OF 1902
Soo, it's a 1902 model cranked out by Rheinmetall before it was Rheinmetall. I'm almost positive RM got a lot of subcontract work from Krupp pre-1915, because the two of 'em were joined at the hip during the First WW and into the Second one.
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 7:54 PM
Kewl, Bill - rare gun, indeed!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 21, 2007 8:01 PM
I'll have to do some brushing to see what info's on wreck #2...
Meantime, the Whatziss is *not* Canadian.
Context is everything.
Heh. Getting even for that Portuguese Duck O' War...
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 8:19 PM
...course us naval types used a much more manly charge than the red leg types...
True, but this gun was designed to hit specific targets, rather than just the Earth.
Although, after receiving a broadside from the New Jersey, specific targets tended to become one with the Earth...
by
BillT on January 21, 2007 9:00 PM
From left to right (and no, I didn't look first):
It's an old field-gun glacis, T-8?
A 106mm RR.
some kind of towed gun, lightweight, like the giat NATO gun, about 90-100mm?
A Trk, 1/4 utility, 4x4, M151 (TM: 9-2320-218-20&P, and NO, I did NOT have to look up that number). But a newer one, or with new stuff (the side webbing was never available to us... And oh yeah, that Antenna is pulled down too far... it's stressing at the middle (where top and bottom screw in... Might want to ease up on that some)
by
SangerM on January 21, 2007 11:37 PM
Oh! And the Ajax missile on the table in the back.
by
SangerM on January 21, 2007 11:46 PM
Sanger - From left to right: nope, yep, d-uuuh but wrong ID, yup (and the antenna spring was already busted, which is why they gave it to us) and yup. Got a Nike-Herc in the boneyard, too.
by
BillT on January 22, 2007 6:41 AM
Oh, about that first "nope" -- no real quibble with "field gun," but it's earlier (and smaller) than the T-8.
by
BillT on January 22, 2007 6:54 AM
But John would call the sheet metal a gun shield (we've got the whole critter).
And a tanker would squeal that the sloped forward portion of their mobile ATGM catchers is the only proper application of the term "glacis"...
Speaking of tanks, how's that old joke about a crew-served portable radio go again?
by
BillT on January 22, 2007 7:03 AM
[heh. any way ya bump the comment count -- ummmm -- counts]
by
BillT on January 22, 2007 7:06 AM
"Ummmmmm -- don't let WK and Maggie drag the comments too far afield."
Hey I am the target of vicious profiling. I didn't even comment in this thread (I rarely do in threads about weapons, my weapon of choice has always been a wooden spoon). I have read all comments and I believe John is the chief instigator here.
I'm just a poor, innocent victim......or, as my friend WK likes to quote "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way!"
by
Princess Crabby on January 22, 2007 8:03 AM
i got yer glacis right here, pal...
but meanwhile, back at that AT piece, i'm 'contexting' the heck out of it, and all i'm coming up with is 37mm, nothing bigger. (so i get credit for any correct answer up to and including 8 inch)
by MajMike on January 22, 2007 8:41 AM
I think it is part of the experimental T-18 90mm anti tank gun series developed late in WWII from the same gun that the M-26 Pershing and M-36 Wolverine used. Which itself was derived from an AA gun to boot. :]
by Chris Denny on January 22, 2007 10:47 AM
The muzzle markings only ID the barrel maker and serial number. Barrels were replaceable and after they were worn out, replaced with aonther from spare parts inventory. The actual gun number and maker are the ones on the breech. Several of the early US 3 inch guns M1902 etc were nearly identical and I suspect the barrels were interchangeable.
by John S. on January 22, 2007 11:52 AM
Ok.. yer right about glacis, I was T'ard 'an it was late, etc...
As for the gun, that looks to be about 85-100mm (hard to say, possible 105), and I realize it's missing some pieces unless its supposed to be recoilless, it needs some kind of shock dampeners or soemthing, it has nowhere to recoil from what I can see...
So... guessin' context: test version of some kind of AT gun, recoilless, OR, its something someone decided to kit-bash to drive folks like us nuts...
As for the "field" gun:
37mm Gun M3A1 ?
Caliber: 37mm
Weight : 990 lbs
Elevation : -10 to +15 gegrees
Muzzle Vel: APC 2,900 feet/sec
Barrel length : 82.5 inches
Penetration : 2 inches in 1000 yards
Breech Mechanism : Vertical sliding block
Projectile types : APC and HE
If so, MajMike gets that one, IF he was talking about the left hand gun, not the middle weirdo...
Otherwise, I do. PS I also saw the Sherman (was looking for it, cause I think that's one of its rubber roadwheels sitting on the towing end of the at gun. Or not, in which case I wasn't thinking that at all... :)
by
SangerM on January 22, 2007 2:49 PM
...I know where that is. That's the old horse rink at the 112th FAA in New Jersey! I did a ton of work there last summer with Col. Kale and the other vets, helping reorg the library and clean up an old jeep, and my USNSCC unit drills there the last weekend of every month! Man, the world gets smaller every day.
by Will Putnam on January 22, 2007 4:20 PM
could that piece in the middle be this French 75mm from this photo in the NJARNG archives?
http://www.newjersey.gov/state/darm/links/images/ng/SDENG010-A268f.jpg
by MajMike on January 22, 2007 6:21 PM
MajMike - no, because that *is* a French 75mm. The quick give-away are the sideburns on the muzzle.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2007 6:28 PM
If you google the 112th Field Artillery Museum, you will see a lot of decent equipment shots, especially the outside tanks... Cool, they have a duster and a long tom and some old tank (looks french) I don't have time to look for...
BTW, this is really aggravating! That's two in a row I can't figure out.
Frabjous Snarkleflix!
by
SangerM on January 22, 2007 6:39 PM
Sanger gets hung up on this - Sanger - they have a fargin' submersible! Or something close, anyway.
Bad news, fdcol - we're museum pieces!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 22, 2007 7:44 PM
Hah! The Sea Scout un-lurks and tosses google-clues! He feints with a Jeep! The treadhead ducks the 8-incher and reverts to a smaller bore!
Sanger sweeps in from the outside and changes the subject! Whatagame, whatagame, whatagame, sports fans!!
by
BillT on January 22, 2007 8:46 PM
Ok.. just nevermind that now!!! I had never seen an M2 before that I can recall. I thought it was a modified M3/M5 or something 'cause of the suspension and the odd hull/turret, but I was thinking the wrong way in time.
So there...
And yeah, I saw the teardrop, but got distracted by the jeep with the right side steering wheel. Lots of cool stuff there...
by
SangerM on January 22, 2007 11:36 PM
I was wrong, I think.... That looks like an M2 turret, sort of, the early one, and it has the right number of roadwheels, etc, but it's all wrong and the upper hull is wrong, etc...
crap.
I'm gonna quit doin' this.
Waaaa
by
SangerM on January 23, 2007 12:29 AM
Don't forget the rivet-count in the turret.
The rivet-count is the key...
[going straight to *do-not-pass-go* hades for that one!]
by
BillT on January 23, 2007 1:04 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 7, 2007
Thinking outside the box.
The Russians have always been a fan of artillery. And they've been pretty competent users of it, as well.
They also think differently from us, and take novel approaches to things. There's some pictures of a putative new Russian artillery piece making the rounds, and it's shown up in my email box a couple of times.
It looks to be a derivative of this SP artillery piece, the 2S19 "Mstas".
Artillery by Beretta... this thing, called 'Koalitcia-SV', or Coalition, hit the web over at the Cannon, Machine Guns and Ammunition website (which is a treasure trove of stuff, btw).
Murdoc noticed it last week, and the comments over at Strategy Page harbor some sceptics.
Interesting concept. Over and under 152mm cannon. They definitely aren't worried about trans-global power projection with this puppy - unless they're driving. However, the reinforcing plates on the travel lock (that gizmo that is framing the driver in the pic above) looks like it would really restrict the drivers vision to the corners - which could be an issue driving through urban areas. But, mebbe not. Of course, being a continental power, like Germany was, and not a sea power like the US and Great Britain, they've been more prone to this sort of thing anyway. Take this example... the Tsar Tank.
The Tsar Tank was designed and built in 1915. It was one of the largest attempts at tank-building during the war, reputedly weighing in at a lean(!) 40 tons. In comparison, the Brit Marks I-IV of the 1st World War weighed in at a sprightly 28 tons. The German A7V weighed around 33 tons. The French St. Chamond weighed 22 tons, while the other major large French tank, the Schneider, came in at 14 tons. It wasn't until the Mark VIIs, the "Liberty" tanksjointly designed by the Brits and US did anyone else approach the 40 ton mark that I'm aware of (but who knows, lots of people were tinkering back in the day). This sucker had two huge wheels each driven by it's own 250 hp motor. It had two small wheels in the rear. Some sources suggest the guns were placed outside the wheels, others suggest that machine guns in the small turret were all the armament. I've never seen a photo or drawing showing weapons on this baby - they may have realized what a clunker it was before they bothered. Two prototypes were made but they proved unable to handle mud (I can't imagine crossing a shell-pocked battlefield in one of these) and high costs caused the project to be cancelled, mercifully, in 1916. These photos show a partially scrapped vehicle without wheels in the rear. The last of the two was dismantled for scrap in 1923.
Then there is this puppy, the Object 279.
In 1957 the Russians developed a prototype of a new heavy tank. Take a look at that body and those quad tracks. It was intended to lower the ground pressure of this vehicle, to give it better cross-country mobility in soft ground. I'm sure if it had ever made it into service, crews would have hated it. Twice the track to break. The hull was intended to protecting it against HEAT ammunition by deflecting the rounds. Putatively this shape would also assist in preventing the vehicle from being overturned by a tactical nuke blast. I'm sceptical of that, but... hey, maybe they did the modeling. It was canceled by Khruschev in favor of his preference - missile tanks. I believe they built two of these - the survivor is at the Tank Museum in Kubinka, near Moscow. That's one museum I want to get to. [note to self, lottery tickets]
Not that the US and Britain didn't have their own behemoths, mind you. The Brits built the Tortoise. Intended to kill tanks and help fight through the Siegfried line.
We built the T28/T95.
This sucker had removeable outer tracks, which could be towed behind the vehicle so it would be able to cross narrow bridges in Europe. Also intended for breaching the Siegfried Line, we only built two before cancelling the project, and the survivor today sits outside the Patton Armor Museum at Fort Knox.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I've often found it mildly humorous that folks attribute "More is Better" to we Americans.
Russian designs have almost always been overloaded with so much "More more more" More guns, more engines, more wheels, more armor, more weight, than almost any design I can think
Not to say we design perfection everytime...we don't. But on a 1 to 10 scale I give the Russkies a 9 for creativity and about a 3 for actual use compared to the amount of things they have scrapped over the years because "Hell it looked good on paper! Lets add some more to it!"
A close friend once made the remark "The Russians are the Alabama Redneck Inventors of the World"
Heh.
by
BloodSpite on January 7, 2007 10:14 AM
Doh! What was I thinking?
"If it's over .50 cal, alert Donovan. If it's over .50 cal, alert Donovan. If it's over .50 cal, alert Donovan."
Forgot it this time. I'll try to do better in the future.
Thanks for the link!
by
Murdoc on January 7, 2007 10:38 AM
Re the giant Rusky tricycle: If you can read Russian, there's info here:
http://www.mk.ru/numbers/2289/article79754.htm
by
Dan Brock on January 7, 2007 1:19 PM
I tried using Babelfish, but it was a pretty rough translation!
Click here and try yourself.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 7, 2007 1:26 PM
Minor spelling note: Msta-S.
I noted some of the to/froing about the sights and such. It appears me that at best, the photos show the new guns as mounted in a standard 2S19 turret. This is not necessarily actual prototype.
Also, the 2S19 turret is mounted on a T-80 chassis, and powered by a T-72 engine. Other combinations are not correct.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 7, 2007 8:41 PM
A WWI modeling site called "Land Ships" has quite a bit of good info the "Tsar Tank", in english too.
by Rod Thorsen on January 7, 2007 11:38 PM
Object 279 looks like a JS3 that's been through a Hoboken body shop.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:IS3.jpg
by
BillT on January 8, 2007 12:48 AM
such lovely beasties. each and every one of them is beautiful in its own way.
by
MajMike on January 8, 2007 8:54 AM
Mmmm...Tankerporn...
For the sake of decorum, I wisely decided to edit out the obligatory lascivious slappity sounds to accompany that.
by Troy Z on January 10, 2007 12:08 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 26, 2006
Time for a little Gunner Zen
Canadian Gun Bunnies in the 'Stan.
AR2006-G068-0021 11 December 2006 Sperwan Ghar, Afghanistan
A Gun crew of the 2 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (2 RCHA) fire their M777 artillery gun during a fire mission at Forward Operating Base Sperwan Ghar. You could see the projectile flying throught the air at the end of the barrel.
Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF-Afg) is Canada's contribution to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The focus of this mission is to help Afghans rebuild their lives, families, communities and nation. Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan are working to improve the quality of life of Afghans by providing a more secure environment in which Afghan society can recover from more than 25 years of conflict.
The Canadian Forces (CF) contribution in Afghanistan comprises about 2,500 soldiers, most of who serve in Kandahar province with a smaller number of personnel assigned to Kabul, various military headquarters, and civilian organizations.
Photo by: MCpl Yves GemusJoint Task Force Afghanistan Roto 2, Imagery Technician
Interesting difference between the two Armies. If I had a gun position where my gun dogs were serving the piece and *NOT* wearing their helmets, I'd have been relieved.
Near as I can tell, in the Canadian Artillery - if you wear a helmet near the guns, your boss will get relieved...
Y'know, back some years ago, when I went to the Canadian Immigration website, one of the skills that would get you entry was... artillery officer.
The RCHA is starting to look tempting...
And they're getting more new kit.
H/t, Damian, the Babbling Brooks.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Looks like Willie Pete'son deck there. Shake n' bake baby.
by
Heartless Libertarian on December 26, 2006 9:45 AM
They'd look better in jodphurs.
The guy with his hands over his ears... Should he really be standing where he is? Or is it a perspective issue in the pic and he's farther away from the recoil than it looks?
by
Chuck Simmins on December 26, 2006 2:35 PM
Jodphurs. An inside snark no one else will get.
It's perspective. Not only would I deem he's out of the line of recoil, I suspect he's not even inside the trails.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 26, 2006 3:42 PM
1. Those are the new jodhpurs.
2. What is offensive is mixing TW and DW combats; but they're gunners and ...
3. Helmets? Er, I would point you to the Royal Canadian School of Artillery at Camp Gagetown (NB) where they adjudicate such matters.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on December 26, 2006 7:13 PM
The polar fleece jackets in the pic are only available in green Cadpat. It's normally not considered as outerwear. I am surprised that they don't have the Peltor noise cancelling ear defenders. The first time I stood at the back of an M109A2 during a fire mission was interesting. Knowing how far a 155 recoils and standing there while it does so is a whole different kettle of fish.
by Pat on December 26, 2006 7:36 PM
I missed the helmet comment in the other thread. Somewhere out of the picture will be a nice neat row of pers kit with shirts, tac vests, helmets and rifles positioned to not interfere with servicing the gun.
by Pat on December 26, 2006 7:52 PM
I think perhaps we're hearing from the Canadian Artillery School, if only remotely.
I just made the observation that a US gun crew would have helmets on.
Load-bearing gear, etc, might or might not be present on the troops.
I don't have any real problem with the gun position, nor the crew position, though the gunner pulling the lanyard is *technically* incorrect (at least for M109/M198 firing locks) but looks like most I've ever seen pulling a lanyard. He is pulling, not jerking.
Snerk. Don't we all sound like a buncha garret troopers.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 26, 2006 8:49 PM
I never spent a day at that school, but one of my postings as a weapons tech was with 1RCHA in Germany. I spent many an hour napping in my M113, waiting for something to break on the gun line. We would have a guncamp in Grafenwohr in the fall, after Fallex/Reforger and in the spring we'd head north to Lager Trauen. I don't recall the base, but it was right next door to the German armour training school. My battery commander then, is Chief of the Land Staff now.
by Pat on December 26, 2006 11:33 PM
My battery commander then, is Chief of the Land Staff now.
Was he as long-winded back then as he is now? I just saw him speak to a group of reporters at a symposium, and it was almost painful at times.
by
Damian on December 27, 2006 10:16 PM
Heh. It's the Gunner Disease.
Only surpassed by Gabbling Cavalry.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 27, 2006 10:33 PM
True, Damian, but during a press briefing on how a field exercise was to be conducted, he introduced the Assault Phase by saying "And now we send in the Death Techs".
Gabbling Cavalry? Only talking turkey, since the Arty keeps repeating ...
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on December 28, 2006 1:32 PM
Gen. Hillier is definitely a better public speaker, to my mind. Gen. Leslie starts sounding like he's giving a lecture whereas Hillier is more down to earth.
by Pat on December 28, 2006 3:11 PM
Gen. Leslie starts sounding like he's giving a lecture...
My thoughts exactly, Pat.
by
Damian on December 30, 2006 2:04 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 11, 2006
Chicken Soup for The Armorer's Soul.
The broadside of the USS Constitution. A sight that was the last sight for many a sailor and ship, starting with HMS Guerriere.
The carronades on her upper deck. (Note the period battle lantern!) I see the sponges aren't stored on the exposed deck, just the worms. Without shafts. Hey, if you understood that, we're prolly kindred spirits!
Her broadside guns from the crew's perspective - with some people for scale.
CDR Salamander needs to get his name on this board. So we can score an invite to sail on one of her harbor cruises! Feh on your career progression, Salamander! I wanna sail on this ship!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I'll bite...so why aren't the sponges stored on the exposed deck, just the worms, and without shafts? Rot? Riot?
by
David M on December 11, 2006 9:29 AM
An interesting little fact. If you want to see what I believe to be the original Yardarm from the USS Constitution just go to Topeka High School in Topeka KS. They use it as a flag pole!
by LarryK on December 11, 2006 12:08 PM
Want a cool venue for a MilBlogs Conf? Now that would be a cool venue...
by
CDR Salamander on December 11, 2006 12:43 PM
So do the carronades count in the rating of the ship as having 44 guns? With their reduced muzzle velocity, they don't count when rating a ship of the line but USS Constitution is a frigate hence my question.
by JimC on December 11, 2006 1:19 PM
Jim - I dunno - she's got 22 32 pounder carronades on the spar deck, and she's only got 34 24 pounders on the gun deck.
David - I would guess yes, regarding the rot. The sponges are in place at most of the guns on the gun deck, though not all. And most are without shaft.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 11, 2006 1:57 PM
Oh, and as CAPT H has been, um, *reminding* me in email, the guns on the spar deck are not proper carronades, but are in fact 'gunnades' put there by the Navy as substitutes which they putatively intend to replace at some point with proper carronades.
That said, the 24 pounders are imposters as well - and, oddly enough, all have GR cyphers on them... GR being the cypher of King George, though I didn't yet note *which* George, I'm assuming either the 2nd or 3rd. Not being an expert in naval armament, that will take a bit of research.
According to the sailors on board, no one knows where Old Ironsides original armament went. They believe they have one of them in a museum (but not the Constitution museum) but... he wasn't sure.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 11, 2006 2:06 PM
George III: reigned 1760 to 1820.
George II would probably be a tad early for USS Constitution. But since the current suite of noise-makers is not original, George IV (1820-1830) might also be suitable.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on December 11, 2006 4:09 PM
Heh. You make the assumption they care.
As for which George... well, we fought a war so I wouldn't have to memorize which King reigned when...
by
John of Argghhh! on December 11, 2006 4:13 PM
But it was another 14 years before George was finally superceded ... by John.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on December 11, 2006 4:29 PM
Huh! The action against HMS Java was more important; Jack Aubrey was present. We almost got him! A U.S Marine wounded him, and he got right sick and would have died from that fever, if not for the efforts of Dr. Maturin and that loony Boston doctor.
by
Justthisguy on December 12, 2006 3:00 AM
Dude I did the Victory at 11 and knew more about her than the RM L/Cpl who was the tour guide even then.
by
Murray on December 12, 2006 8:05 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 8, 2006
On the issue of whether to let officers be in charge of procurement or not...
...better known as the "Answer to the Whatziss" posed earlier this week.
Also known as the dangers of a college education.
This one.
The Great and Powerful Og got it right, as did Rick and Rod - it's a gauge. Pogue sorta fell into my visual trap (I figured people would try to find it to be a fuze) and stumbled into the answer backwards.
It's a gauge used to check fuze setters. It's post-WWII Brit, though the US has equivalents.
In use, looking sorta like this.
Expensive piece of kit, when procured, I don't doubt. It's made of tough stuff so that it can handle the use and still maintain it's dimensional integrity and accuracy.
So what's this got to do with the title of the post, you ask? Simple.
But you'll need to go to the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry to find out.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
As I was gathering the stuff for picture taking, I paused when looking at the assembled gimcrackery.
I instantly detected the presence of Officers In Peacetime. I make a living studying things and ideas for the Army, and I've been a combat developer myself. I can sense the odor of the ordure of Officers in Peacetime.
See, we've got a problem. Someone gave the artillery some new-fangled things called mechanical time fuzes. Like these two.
Well, ya gotta be able to twist 'em, when seated on the projo, to align the marks that match the time setting the Fire Direction Center sends to the guns. And you don't want these things to be all loosey-goosey, so they're made with some decent resistance so that the spin imparted during firing doesn't cause the fuze setting to change. And artillerymen do their jobs outdoors in all weathers, so wet, slippery, muddy hands could also use some mechanical advantage.
So, obviously we need a gizmo to help the soldier do his job.
Enter the Officer.
The M28 fuze setter, shown here on an M564 MTSQ (Mechanical Time Super-Quick) fuze, was obviously designed by an officer. With an Engineering degree.
How can I tell? Well, lessee, no less than two settable dials, made out of hard, expensive steel. I mean, look at the engineering and manufacturing effort that went into this thing.
That big handle? Nicely rubber covered? It contains two C-cell batteries. And a switch. Because that triangular projection just above the scales on the dial... contains a light. So that the Gun Bunny (Hi Frank!) can see those close-set numbers on the dial at night. Of course, because we ended up making it do all things for all fuzes, it has some scales that are on the edge of the setter, where the light doesn't shine... but hey, they tried, right? Yep, a lighted fuze setter, with comfy grip, ability to set the scales on multiple fuzes in all weather, that has to be made in a precision machine shop by highly trained and experienced personnel. Which we will then give to people who will, because they're in a hurry being shot at and need to move, toss it in the back of the track and move out. Or leave it behind.
So, after some years of use (and expense), we give the officers another shot - and this time, we tell 'em to ditch that fancy stuff and stick to the basics. Heh. But... well, they're officers, probably engineers and graduates of West Point, and they just can't help themselves.
And they come up with the M23. Okay, that's an improvement. Got rid of the light, simplified manufacture, kept the comfy handle, and made the scales easier to read. It only costs half of what the other one does (no, I actually have no idea what these guys cost - I'm sure it's on the 'net somewhere though...).
The Democrats take power, and they wanna spend money on something else, so they cut the budget. Some ROTC grad with a degree in forestry is given the job of coming up with a cheaper, even simpler, and please, cheaper and more robust a fuze setter.
Alright! *Now* we're getting somewhere! The M27.
Kewl! It's got three pieces. The big, cheap, aluminum casting with a little machining required. And two little steel pieces (one of them a rivet) which will engage the notch on the fuze. Darn near indestructible, easy to use, and, for officer-work, cheap too.
But, the Dems are still in power and budget pressures are tight. So the Army implements an incentive program that will pay for good ideas - significant sums of money, too, if the savings from the idea are big enough.
So, an enlisted soldier, someone like frequent commenter fdcol or pogue, looks around, grabs a piece of mild sheet steel, does some cutting with a torch, grinds off the edges and submits this design for a fuze setter that does what all those others do, and costs about $1 after the stamping die is made. The M27.
He takes his money and immediately retires to Florida.
Um, and my undergrad degree is in Geography and I went to a Land Grant college. Why do you ask?
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
LOL - thank goodness SOMEONE had already made it simpler for my limited "junior enlisted" brain by the early '80s! We predominantly used the M34, but also used the M27 on occasion.
The others would have been much too complicated for us non-officer types! LOL
by fdcol63 on December 8, 2006 10:36 AM
That's great! You don't mind if I print this out and post it on the unit bulletin board, do you?
by Pogue on December 8, 2006 11:01 AM
Well, only if *everyone* who reads it promises to come visit and gimme traffic anyway.
I want you to keep a roster, and check 'em off as they comply...
Hey - I'm an officer, remember?
by
John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2006 11:31 AM
still too complicated.
i'm guessing a flat tip screwdriver and a BFR to hit it with wouldn't work?
by
MajMike on December 8, 2006 3:22 PM
Well, I have used a Leatherman tool to set an M577...
by Pogue on December 8, 2006 3:50 PM
My favorite dispay at the Cavalry Museum at Ft Riley is the display of Army saddles over the years. It starts out in the mid 1800's and ends in the mid 1940's. The saddles start very simple ... have additions ... gets to heavy for the horse ... are gradually simplified ... and the 1940's saddle looks almost exactly like what they started in a hundred years before.
by LarryK on December 8, 2006 4:10 PM
Way cool! It's hard to tell from the pics, is the gauge graduated in degrees around the tapered part? That would make a great deal of sense.
Nicely done.
by
og on December 8, 2006 6:06 PM
Way cool! It's hard to tell from the pics, is the gauge graduated in degrees around the tapered part? That would make a great deal of sense.
Nicely done.
by
og on December 8, 2006 6:07 PM
Og - the gauge is graduated in seconds, to match the fuze setter settings.
MajMike. Only a tanker with "open protective" would want an artilleryman setting time fuzes with a screwdriver and a rock.
What we did was change the fuzes to use a screwdriver - as Pogue notes. With nice big black numbers on a white background (looks just like an odometer). I'll post a pic when I get back from this weekend in Boston.
by
John of Argghhh! on December 9, 2006 8:37 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
December 1, 2006
A post for me.
Gun dogs doing what gun dogs like doing best... shooting!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
November 27, 2006
Ewwww. All that politics.
We need an eye cleanser.
How about some Canadian artillery in WWI?
Yeah, that works.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
November 25, 2006
A little Gunner Zen.
6 inch coast defense gun. Anybody know where it's located?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Somewhere damp? ;-)
by
Bad Cat Robot on November 25, 2006 9:25 AM
Your front lawn?
by
Heartless Libertarian on November 25, 2006 1:40 PM
Along the coast.
by
Trias on November 25, 2006 1:47 PM
Clowns. Clowns, the lot of you!
by
John of Argghhh! on November 25, 2006 3:16 PM
Not on this continent. By the look of it, it's European. Weren't all of our Coast Defense Artillery of the "disappearing" type that mounted behind earthworks so that the flat-shooting direct fire from battleships couldn't hit them?
by
Rivrdog on November 25, 2006 6:34 PM
Actually Rivrdog, that *is* on our continent.
And not all that far from you, if my information is correct.
Of course, "all that far" *is* a relative term.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 25, 2006 6:37 PM
One of the last remaining (very rare) pre-Civil War border defenses on San Juan Island kept just in case those pesky Canadians try to send their kamikaze pigs against freedom-loving American potatoes?
by
Bad Cat Robot on November 25, 2006 7:53 PM
Oddly enough, it looks Japanese, mostly due to the sloped roof. Can I ask if this is a war trophy?
by Rod Thorsen on November 25, 2006 10:47 PM
Ahh, Japanese (British influence), this continent, the Pig War, rain forestry looking. How 'bout BC?
by Rod Thorsen on November 25, 2006 10:51 PM
Fort Flagler, near Port Townsend, WA? I think all the guns at Fort Casey, across the straits from Port Townsend were of the disappearing type. My second guess would be Astoria, Oregon, but I forget the name of the Fort......
...... Mr. C.
by
Mr. Completely on November 25, 2006 11:07 PM
Fort Columbia, WA, north of Astoria, OR?
by Rod Thorsen on November 26, 2006 2:07 AM
It could be *from* many of those places. The person who sent me the picture says it's along one of the paths at Woodland Park, Seattle.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 26, 2006 9:36 AM
And with *that* hint, I found it. Yer a sneaky bastid, Armorer!!
by
Barb on November 26, 2006 11:58 AM
Way to go Brab!
by
John of Argghhh! on November 26, 2006 3:12 PM
Thankyewverramuch. I never would have found it with my search words without the locale clue. Who knew it was a Navy gun, fer heaven's sake?!
by
Barb on November 27, 2006 8:39 AM
I, um, had a clue to the naval origin due to the caliber...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 27, 2006 9:12 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Nov 25, 2006
�
Righty in a Lefty State links with:
The Cannon in Woodland Park
November 10, 2006
Maybe I should start dealing in arms...
CAPT H sends us a link to this article on CTV.ca.
Military to buy new shells costing $150,000 each
Updated Thu. Nov. 9 2006 11:09 PM ET
The Canadian Forces are investing in a new high-tech shell to be used in Afghanistan. But at $150,000 per round, it could be the most expensive ammunition ever fired by the military.
"It's like shooting a Ferrari every time you use one of these things," Steve Staples of the Polaris Institute told CTV News on Thursday.
"These are incredibly expensive weapons. And really, it's overkill for the kind of mission we're doing."
What caught my eye was the price tag. Last I saw on Excalibur was $220K a pop, with a hope for full-rate production to drive it down to $33K (pretty optimistic based on past experience). I did some checking, and $150K is in the neighborhood. What really caught my eye was this:
But the Excalibur costs roughly $100,000 more than a regular shell, and critics like New Democratic MP Dawn Black argue the extra money would be better spent on reconstruction projects.
Heh. Just what is a "regular" projectile to these people? Last I saw a price, oh, 2003 or so, a standard 155mm HE went for $240 w/o fuze. I did some digging, and I found some pricing for some stuff in the works, usually a form of special fuze or add-on guidance package that can go as high as $20K for some long-range navy stuff in the works.
Well, gosh! I've got inventory in the basement I'll let go for, oh, shucks, $15K each, delivered! And I've got some friends with inventory, too.
The problem is that the article, written by someone who doesn't know much about the subject, I'm guessing, implies that that cost is a standard cost for artillery ammo, which it isn't - at least not currently. Shoot, a GMLRS round only costs $65K per light-off... hmmmmm.
Anyway, for a more Canadian view of this topic, I recommend Damian's post at The Torch.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Hmmm: The neighborhood is stating to get crowded. But for Massa John, I'll make an exception.
by Boquisucio on November 10, 2006 9:15 AM
I think my customers will mostly be museums, anyway. And they're always trying to cadge them as donations, the cheep bassids.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 10, 2006 9:17 AM
Ours have the Maple Syrup option?
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on November 10, 2006 9:58 AM
So, for the price of one Excalibur, a battery (6 guns) of 155s could fire somewhere around 1,000 HE shells EACH.
Which would be fun to watch, though probably somewhat tough on the guns and gunners.
by
Heartless Libertarian on November 10, 2006 10:38 AM
and it's got a Unitary Penetrating Payload. what do they have against those nice unitarians?
by
MajMike on November 10, 2006 10:43 AM
$150K? Somebody is making some phat profits.
by
Trias on November 10, 2006 11:13 AM
$150K? Somebody is making some phat profits.
You're probably right, Trias. But I'm guessing the R&D to put precision guidance on something that gets jarred the way an artillery round does wasn't cheap.
I see stuff like this as similar to a new prescription drug: you're not just paying for the pill, you're paying for the team of scientists who worked on it for the past ten years (not to mention the lawyers who made sure it got through the regulatory maze, the marketing team, etc).
by
Damian on November 10, 2006 11:27 AM
HL - yeah, but the Gun Bunnies would love the first hundred or so...
If we fired lower charges, we wouldn't need to retube...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 10, 2006 12:26 PM
You know, if you fire one of these you're pretty sure of hitting your target.
But if you fire 100 'plain' rounds you're really sure of hitting your target and you save a whole lot of money.
Me, I'm cheap.
by KCSteve on November 10, 2006 1:09 PM
You know, if you fire one of these you're pretty sure of hitting your target.
But if you fire 100 'plain' rounds you're really sure of hitting your target and you save a whole lot of money.
Me, I'm cheap.
Y'know, KC Steve, I'm not sure you finished that line of thought. Because if you fire a hundred of those rounds where Canadians are operating in Kandahar province, you're not only really sure of hitting your target, you're really REALLY sure of hitting a whole bunch of things and people that weren't your target. And then, instead of hunting Taliban in a neutral or semi-cooperative environment, you're hunting them in a pissed-off and hostile one. Which, it goes without saying, is more difficult and more costly both in terms of money and of soldiers' lives than it absolutely needs to be.
Me, I'm cheap too. The Brits have a phrase though: penny-wise, pound-foolish. Maybe I'm just a little longer-term cheap than you on this particular issue.
by
Damian on November 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Target Attack Guidance defines when it's worth shooting one, or 1000.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 10, 2006 1:40 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
November 4, 2006
The Whatziss, answered.
Here's the original question.
Why'd I say your first instinct is probably wrong? Because your first instinct was most likely to be rifle grenade or bazooka round. Bazooka round woulda been sorta close - and those who submitted PIAT were actually on the right track - of course if you'd said M16 Priest Mortar round, you would also have been on the right track.
The right track being... spigot. In this case, the Blacker Bombard, intended to stop invading Germans...
I told you prior to 1945 to save you searching a lot of rifle grenades or rockets.
The colors are... British, though there's lots of flexibility, even in brit markings.
The Red Herring clue was the UAV. Made by BOMBARDier of Canada (hence the Canadian reader names... which were also a clue to help you find that UAV...). The second clue - was of a Blacker Bombard emplacement.
There were two types of round, a smaller, 14 pound, longer-ranged (about 450-50 meters) anti-personnel round, and the larger, 20 pound, much shorter ranged (about 120 meters) anti-tank round. They used black powder as a propellant. It would have taken much courage to fight tanks with that sucker from fixed positions like that.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The UAV reference was cute; unfortunately the CL-227 was made by Canadair. The company was purchased by Bombardier, but the UAV continued to be known as a Canadair product, to some of us/me.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on November 4, 2006 12:28 PM
As may be, John - but the UAV sez "Bombardier" on it...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 4, 2006 12:44 PM
Not that you can *read* it, of course.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 4, 2006 12:45 PM
wasn't this Blacker Bombard the incorrect answer already on an earlier whatziss?
something about it is ringing faint bells.
by
MajMike on November 6, 2006 3:35 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 31, 2006
A moment of gunner zen.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Uuuugh Kimosabe...
Gunner Zen need Painter Zen
by
jim b on October 31, 2006 9:46 AM
that is some significant terrain going on back there.
by
MajMike on October 31, 2006 10:25 AM
Am I the only one thinking popup sprinkler here?
by
Trias on October 31, 2006 7:12 PM
Snerk! Good non-military mind view, Trias!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 31, 2006 7:39 PM
Ooh! Ooh! *Coast* artillery! Nice fixed positions, solutions prepared in advance. Change is bad!
by
Justthisguy on November 1, 2006 2:43 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 25, 2006
Hard to believe...
...I actually got *paid* to do stuff like this once...
A little service of the piece...
Leading to, "Shot, over!"
As Frank adds: Leading to "Splash, over!"
Which ends with... "Splash, out!"
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Beccy Cole's song and video are great!
by
seawitch on October 25, 2006 8:52 AM
"Shot, over!".
Leading to "Splash, over!"
by fdcol63 on October 25, 2006 8:54 AM
Kewl! I get to start the day with "things that go BOOM" and "things that make you go HELL YES". LOVE IT.
by AFSister on October 25, 2006 8:59 AM
I need one of them things in my front yard.
I will spend all day on New Year's Eve cleaning polishing and worrying the hell outta the neighbors about what might happen at midnight.
by
jim b on October 25, 2006 5:23 PM
jim b walks to the bar for a Scoresby, and takes a sip, as he plunks down on the sofa.
But seriously friends, I was sorely disappointed with the marketability of my artillery skills after I got out.
I wanted to try out for the job of playing 2nd 105 with the Philharmonic and doing the 1812 Overture. Unfortunately they cancelled that production for the year cause of liabilities from the previous performance. Something about wiping out the first 10 rows of paying customers or something.
So next I went down to the Ding Ding Brothers, Barnfarb and Bailout Circus, and applied for the job as the "Human Cannonball". Again I was disappointed, turned out I wasn't the right caliber man for the job.
Sigh.
You must remember this
A kiss is still a kiss
A sigh is just a sigh
The fundamental thing apply
As time goes by ....
jim b puts on his trench coat, and lights up a camel ...... ambles towards the door and says,
"Good night Chesty ... wherever you are."
jim b exits stage right.
by
jim b on October 25, 2006 5:31 PM
Photo #3: "Ubique"
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 25, 2006 10:32 PM
There is one song that might work...
Splish splash i was takin a bath...
by
Trias on October 25, 2006 10:47 PM
Left two-five-zero, add one-hundred, repeat, over.
Geez, those APC hulks from 1968 are *still* there -- except for the three that used to be fifty meters further upslope. Waitaminnit -- they're at the bottom of the gully...
by
cw4(ret)billt on October 25, 2006 11:15 PM
The first pic is the best, IMHO. "Let's get together and do "action at a distance"!"
Applied Physics (and Chemistry) is fun!
by
Justthisguy on October 26, 2006 12:44 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 19, 2006
Army Captions... gotta love 'em.
Like the one for this pic, f'rinstance - of an MLRS launcher in Korea... which was possibly "ripple-firing" (i.e., multiple launches) during this exercise.
M270 A-1 launchers fired ripper rockets at pre-determined impact zones during a bi-annual live fire excercise by troops from 1st Battalion, 38th Field Artillery Regiment recently.
Despite CAPT H's (and other's) protestations to the contrary, we never fire them at *random* impact zones...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Hey sir, It's a RRPR, phonetically SAID "ripper" by rocket jockeys. Reduced Range Practice Rocket also known by the nomenclature M-28.
by
Ironside on October 19, 2006 10:23 AM
Hey sir, It's a RRPR, phonetically SAID "ripper" by rocket jockeys. Reduced Range Practice Rocket also known by the nomenclature M-28.
by
Ironside on October 19, 2006 10:23 AM
Hey sir, It's a RRPR, phonetically SAID "ripper" by rocket jockeys. Reduced Range Practice Rocket also known by the nomenclature M-28.
by
Ironside on October 19, 2006 10:24 AM
Dangit. My bad. Hit "post" with impatient thoughts.
by
Ironside on October 19, 2006 10:26 AM
And the auld cannoneer is schooled by the young.
You know us old cannon-cockers. We're functionally deaf and you usually have to repeat yourself to get the point across.
I will add RRPR to my vocabulary!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2006 10:32 AM
Then what do you fire them at? Designated targets would be preferred, but any improvement is appreciated.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 19, 2006 11:53 AM
Of *course* you fire ripper rockets in Korea.
Geez, cut the caption writer a ritter srack...
by
cw4(ret)billt on October 19, 2006 12:52 PM
I was actually more digging at the pre-designated bit, not that it matters. I just painted a big target on my substantial butt, and am now providing aerobic exercise to readers as they avail themselves of the opportunity...
by
John of Argghhh! on October 19, 2006 12:59 PM
*pulling 120% torque to evade to a safe distance*
*establishing OGE hover at safest spot -- center of the pre-determined ripper rocket impact area*
by
cw4(ret)billt on October 19, 2006 1:10 PM
"Hey sir, It's a RRPR"
I do like how he says "sir". As I get almost onto my 50's it bothers me less.
by
Stan on October 19, 2006 2:15 PM
Another possible reason for the affinity between soldiers, children, and dogs: Children and Dogs are too dumb to recognize murderes when they see them.
[As may be, but they at least will leave their comments on the proper post, unlike you, sir. Just because I leave the comments open doesn't make tripe like this appropriate. Go bother other people, if this is the best, most incisive thing you have to offer. Especially if you hide behind a bogus email address. If you won't fully own your words, well, that says more about you, than anything else. -the Armorer]
by Mr. Karlos on October 19, 2006 5:06 PM
Ooooh!!!!! A real area target!
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 19, 2006 10:45 PM
Gee ... Poor spelling, posted at the wrong item ... The quality of trolls has really gone downhill, hasn't it?
*tsk*
by
Barb on October 20, 2006 12:53 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 11, 2006
Gad, the irony in this...
...on sooo many levels.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Oh, that's beautiful. The fact that it's in French really cements it.
by
Grim on October 11, 2006 9:29 AM
Well, it WAS after all the *Paris* gun, nicht wahr?
by Neffi on October 11, 2006 10:03 AM
Wahr nicht. That's "Dora" of WWII fame.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 11, 2006 11:02 AM
The weapon of magnificence. Garuanteer of victory?
My French stinks.
by ry on October 11, 2006 11:20 AM
whose French doesn't??
by
MajMike on October 11, 2006 12:23 PM
Don't all of the French stink?
by
Maggie on October 11, 2006 1:05 PM
No. Some lick .... and some chew.
*purrrrrrrrrrrrr*
by Were-Kitten on October 11, 2006 1:41 PM
Dora has an exciting cameo in Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series, wherein aliens with 1990s-level tech invade earth in 1942.
...Watch the aliens freak while they try to shoot down a multiple-ton shell with lightweight SAMs! Heh...
From the article John linked it would seem Turtledove glossed over how long it took to actually assemble the gun.
Were-Kitten, you induces wave of nostalgia! Ahhh, French Chews!
By odd coincidence I'm munching on NECCO wafers as I type this. Heh.
by
Casey Tompkins on October 11, 2006 3:13 PM
Germany's power, guarantor of her victory. I believe it says.
Geeze that's a big gun! Is it for fighting or is it for fun?
by
V29 on October 11, 2006 6:27 PM
Well Ry, you were close enough. La Puissance..
The Power/Ability/Craftiness of Germany Guarantees its Victory.
by Stinky French Boquisucio on October 11, 2006 9:44 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
October 3, 2006
Artillery in the news.
FCS-NLOS-C... silly name. All part of the "breaking thought patterns" push in the Transfomation effort, where we call things by essentially made-up names so that we putatively think about them differently. The same operating paradigm that gave us "UEx" and "UEy" and "UA" so that we wouldn't slot things into Corps, Divsion, Brigade, but instead think of them as Units of Employment x and y and Unit of Action.
So, we couldn't call a cannon a cannon, either. Or artillery. No, it was Future Combat System Non-Line-Of-Sight-Cannon. This would distinguish it from... Line-of-Sight cannons, which were direct fire systems. Of course, then we were also talking about LOS's that would also have a NLOS mode...
Anyway, that's my world. In meatspace we know have this, from those people at BAE, British Aerospace and Electric, who appear to be the artillery supplier to the free world, no real players in the US anymore, the tube-makers at Watervliet notwithstanding.
Army takes delivery of Cannon firing platform for FCS Manned Ground Vehicles
Printer-friendly version
E-mail this article
E-mail Alerts
RSS Feed
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, Sept. 29, 2006) The Army today took delivery of the firing platform for a new cannon artillery system that will reduce battlefield risk to Soldiers, while meeting an essential Army modernization requirement.
The firing platform was unveiled at BAE Systems Land and Armaments division in Minneapolis and will be transferred this month to Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona for field testing. The firing platform is part of the Armys new Future Combat Systems Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon artillery system.
The Armys future force is fast becoming a reality today, said Maj. Gen. Charles Cartwright, Future Combat Systems program manager. This latest piece of hardware is tangible proof that FCS technologies are maturing on schedule, in accordance with Army plans and expectations. The true beneficiaries of these new capabilities will be our Soldiers.
Future Combat Systems is the Armys primary modernization program, and is the Armys first major modernization in almost four decades. Future Combat Systems will provide Soldiers with near real-time situational awareness by using an advanced electronic network to integrate 18 new manned and unmanned air and ground systems. Future Combat Systems will increase the ability of Soldiers to handle the variety of missions they face every day, provide greater protection, and increase combat capabilities throughout the operational force.
Soldiers are already testing and fielding components of Future Combat Systems right now in Iraq and Afghanistan; and next year, Soldiers of the Evaluation Brigade Combat Team will begin testing FCS technologies and tactics at Fort Bliss, Texas. The plan calls for 15 Brigade Combat Teams with the full suite of Future Combat Systems; and all other Brigade Combat Teams having some Future Combat Systems capabilities.
The Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon will give the Army a key capability that it currently lacks: a cannon artillery system that is fully automated, highly mobile, and capable of launching multiple rounds precisely on target simultaneously. Moreover, unlike the Armys current artillery systems, the Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon will be fully integrated into an advanced electronic network shared by Soldiers on the battlefield. This will make the Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon much more responsive to Soldier mission requirements.
The Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon also will help to minimize Soldier risk; because it will be much more mobile and deployable than the Armys current-day artillery systems, which employ 1960s-era design technology. Reducing risk is a huge dividend of Future Combat Systems technology overall. Providing Soldiers with near real time situational awareness before they encounter potentially risky or deadly situations will save Soldiers lives. An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle will identify for Soldiers if theres a sniper in the next alleyway or cavern. An Unmanned Ground Vehicle will help to dispose of an IED or roadside bomb.
The firing platform unveiled today will lead to delivery of early Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon prototypes in 2008. The early prototype Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon is the first of eight Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles.
The Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles will have 75-80 percent commonality stemming from a common chassis and other common components. These common components include a lightweight band track and a hybrid-electric propulsion system, which maximizes power and fuel efficiency. The Manned Ground Vehicles will be at least as survivable as current Army vehicles and, in most likely operational scenarios, considerably more survivable and capable than anything now in the Armys inventory.
The Army already has fired more than 2,000 rounds from the Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon System Demonstrator at Yuma. The firing platform unveiled today includes a cannon assembly that is 1,200 pounds lighter than the M777 cannon used on the Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon Concept Technology Demonstrator.
Technological advances are enabling our Army to achieve greater capabilities with less mass and weight, Cartwright said. Future Combat Systems is about making our Army more agile and more strategically deployable, while increasing lethality, survivability and tactical mobility. The Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon is an integral part of our Army modernization efforts.
There's a video that is essentially impossible to link to. Let's just say I predict a maintenance nightmare with all the autoloading systems.
But the "lightness" fetishists are getting their dream with this one.
Update (for JimB especially): Don't confuse the cancelled Crusader with NLOS-C:
Essentially, we've stuck the M777 ULFH (Ultra Light Field Howitzer, a brit-designed gun) on a light tracked chassis, and added robotics to reduce crew size.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
" .... autoloading systems ...."
I never saw anyone use the hydraulic rammer in an M109. Everyone preferred the speed and reliability of old-fashioned, human-powered rammer staffs! LOL
by fdcol63 on October 3, 2006 7:11 AM
I thought all our artillery and mortars too are NLOS. Of course you can use both over open sites in a jam and I assume this new cannon will too. NLOS more jargon to confuse.
by JimC on October 3, 2006 8:08 AM
Damn spell checker. Open sights.
by JimC on October 3, 2006 8:11 AM
US Army Field Artillery. I started my military life in the Marines as a Field Artilleryman. I guess I thought it would be neat to ride. I guess I failed to focus on what F.O.'s did. Except for a short tour as an Artillery Liaison Officer (some of which I humped and the last little bit I rode), and an XO. Mostly I humped.
Then I was a Rifle Company CO and it was all Infantry after that.
I think the terminology presented here is a good sample of how the military bureaucracy becomes in Monty Python terms, Bureau of Funny Names.
Auto everything means to me, a lot of weight. Of course I havent seen the thing, but it sounds like this Hog is gonna be monstrously heavy. As of a few years ago I know the Corps was going through the mental anguish of deciding what to do with Artillery. Some argued for automated mortars, some for the 105mm, some for light weight 155mm towed. That debate is the never-ending story. Anyone remember the Howtar?
Who will we face in the next war? An Army, or some kinda guerrilla? Although the Sovs have faded, it leaves the Chinese and a few others where a large heavy Army is the only way to go if we dont go nuclear.
We seem to be intent on the automated heavy heavy stuff. But what about the bush warriors? What about the Small Army and the backwoods stuff? How do artillerymen support those guys, and with what?
No disrespect to the Wing wipers, but you know the gunships leave at first light. You know that aircraft get weathered in. You know that the planes have limited time on target, and limited weapons.
How do you propose to support with Artillery the next Operation Anaconda?
by
jim b on October 3, 2006 8:21 AM
Obviously, I shoulda posted the pic, but I was busy.
It *is* light, Jim. Teeny-tiny aluminum chassis, no turret.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 3, 2006 8:38 AM
What? No Turret? The gunners are gonna get rained on? Sacrilege!
Okay I am kidding. I am for mobility, flexibility and stability. Light is not bad, dependable is even better.
What are the concerns people have about the new piece? What caliber is it? I assume it is self-propelled?
by
jim b on October 3, 2006 8:51 AM
auto loader means one less person to pull maintenance, radio watch, and security...
by
MajMike on October 3, 2006 9:02 AM
Ah, but MajMike - we're going to automate all that, too.
Bolos loom.
Heh, given that the artillery is being used as Infantillery, hopefully the saved crew slots will go to the Infantry - because right now two-thirds of a any given artillery battalion are being used as infantry at any given time.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 3, 2006 9:05 AM
Thanks.
Light you say?
by
jim b on October 3, 2006 9:15 AM
In comparison to most other SP 155 systems, yes.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 3, 2006 9:23 AM
The future redleg will be a combination "upper echelon" mechanic/computer techno-wizard who can keep all the robotics, electronics, and mechanical systems on each NLOS running by himself in the field.
With NLOS, GPS and centralized BDE C3I, who needs crew chiefs, BCs, FDOs, and Bn TOCs?
The saved crew slots will be transitioned into Civil Affairs personnel, to rebuild infrastructure and win the hearts and minds of former enemies as soon as the initial combat phase is over.
Why, they'll all be our friends and we won't need the "infantillery" to hold the ground at that point, John! LOL
by fdcol63 on October 3, 2006 9:50 AM
It was on the local History channel last week.
Combat weight quoted was 20 tonnes. The barrel is about 25 cal vice 39. It carries about 25 rds ready to fire, and can fire all in less than four minutes. And it fires Excalibur. Etc.
I suspect the auto-loader is derived in part from the AS-90; it also appears to use the modular charge system rather than the standard bag charges.
Now, if extended field trials are desired, I'm certain 1 RCHA would be willling to cooperate.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on October 3, 2006 12:28 PM
Band tracks? Does that mean, if you break one, you have to throw the whole thing away? Can't just get hammers and wrenches and replace only the bad parts?
by
Justthisguy on October 3, 2006 3:10 PM
BAE? I thought the bunch that built Crusader went back to the shop and cut the weight down again.
My understanding was that NLOS-C was built heavily on salvaged Crusader technology (particularly the automatic loader, automatic aimer, self-TOT fire control system, etc.) with a lighter (and shorter) gun and much lighter chassis.
Is this incorrect?
by Big D on October 3, 2006 5:12 PM
That part might be true, Big D, but the gun is M777 (also a BAE product) and the chassis is one of the FCS variants.
It is *not* Crusader-light automotively or with the gun. The stuff you listed, perhaps.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 3, 2006 5:25 PM
It's a plot to get the Air Force more C-17s. The only thing that'll be C-130-transportable when everything shakes out will be the gun crew...
by
cw4(ret)billt on October 3, 2006 10:01 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 12, 2006
I lurve you guys! But...
Looky what an anonymous Castle reader sent the Armorer...
No, not the Empress, who has reigned at the Castle for 14 years. No, not the Throne, that's a February addition to the Library of Argghhh!!! - the replica (but shootable) black powder mortar.
We are very grateful to the anonymous donor! But... if anyone is thinking about sending a post-1898 cartridge firearm to the Castle, do please check with me, so that proper paperwork and legal niceties can be observed! And make sure any and all ordnance items that were once capable of self-powered flight, or had any significant chemical (or radiological, heh) energy components - don't.
The Armorer loves surprises. But not explosive or rocket-powered ones.
If I've seemed a bit distracted of late, there's a reason. The press of business and life. Need proof?
This is how far behind on my reading I am. I would note, for those who accuse me of blind neoconism (heh), the list (which is listing...) is probably a touch more eclectic than you would expect. Just sayin'.
Oh, and if someone has a nice hunk of oak from which to make a bed for the mortar... well, you can send *that* along, no problem!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I note, with sadness, The War in 2020 did not make the picture. I should guess this means I may never see it again.
You are no farther behind than anyone else. I have a comparable stack. Mike L is probably getting ready to send a search party for his books. Were he a library I would owe him hundreds at this point.
by JimC on September 12, 2006 9:28 AM
Snerk! War in 2020 is in the Active Reading list... this stack is the On-Deck.
Your "Ralph-signed" book exists and is in fine shape.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 12, 2006 10:06 AM
What're the skinny white books? Those look like the stuff I used to get at hobby shops about particular regiments/soldiers of particular nations and periods stuff. BUt, somehow, I can't see that being on the Groaning Nightstand.
by ry on September 12, 2006 2:42 PM
Ya mean like the Osprey books? I've got those, too.
These are "Occasional Papers" a series of GWOT monographs published by the Combat Studies Institute here at Fort Leavenworth. Free for the taking, if you are in the area.
The maroon-colored paperbacks are also CSI pubs.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 12, 2006 2:55 PM
I should add, if you haven't figured it out - a lot, if not all, of their stuff is available in digital form, for free.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 12, 2006 3:05 PM
Yeah, I know. But it just isn't as satisfying as being able to throw your leg over the side of the comfy chair and reading with total immersion like you did at age 8.
by ry on September 12, 2006 8:13 PM
Princess Jessica wanted me to tell the Empress to get some time up.
14 years, feh.
HRH Jess turns 16 next month.
And under her benign rule we all still get turned out of bed at 0530.
I used to volunteer for extra field time just to get to sleep in once in a while.
by
Murray on September 13, 2006 2:03 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
September 8, 2006
Heh. Different strokes for different folks.
Otay. When we went to Afghanistan about the only artillery we took was mortars and 105's. I know we eventually sent M198 towed 155's. I don't believe we ever sent Paladin or any other M109 variant. Well, there *were* a lot of Flying Expedited Delivery of EXplosives services available...
Because... well, gee, they're too heavy, not nimble, expensive, etc.
A Netherlander Howitzer 2000 is fastened to the floor of a C-17 Globemaster III at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Sept. 6. The 60-ton tank will be flown to Afghanistan on board a C-17 from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. John Lasky)
IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN' TANK! Ahem.
So, here's a Dutch Panzerhaubitze 2000 (the turret will make CDR Salamander salivate), flying to Afstan. A Dutch howitzer that looks a lot like the cancelled Crusader... Nope - not reopening the Crusader argument! Just... bemused.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Oh yeah - But why then does it need a wee bit of latex rubber on the pointy thinggy. Guess that the Dyke Denizens like to be safe when engaging the enemy. ;()
by Snarky Mood Boquisucio on September 8, 2006 8:30 AM
I wonder how the locals would have taken it if a beasty like The Crusader would ever have been deployed in garden spots like Balad and Faluya.
On a more serious note, I am glad that the Germans finaly got around in field testing the 155mm/52 on a frigate. If memory doesn't play tricks on me, the first time I heard of the project was back in the fall of 1999. I know - I know, it takes years for new systems to come on line.
by Snarky Mood Boquisucio on September 8, 2006 8:55 AM
that has got to be the cleanest interior of any cargo aircraft i have ever seen...
by
MajMike on September 8, 2006 12:45 PM
Well, they're relatively new and haven't carried decade's worth of puking paratroopers...
by
John of Argghhh! on September 8, 2006 1:12 PM
Or worse yet a decade worth of leaking vehicles, artillery et al. Nothing like a light coat of tar colored motor oil, hydraulic fluid and recoil oil to add that "special unwashable patina" to a flight deck.
At least paratrooper puke you can flush out with a hose. All those petroleum based leaks are really hard to get rid of. Especially with government issued cleaning agents . like a brush some generic contributed by the lowest bidder comet type crap and a bucket of water
by
jim b on September 8, 2006 1:58 PM
Back in spring '99, when they air-mailed my Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force, TF 1-6 IN (M), to Tirana-Rinas, Albania, via Ramstein, on C-17s, Bradleys, M1s, attached Engineers, Paladins and all, they wouldn't let anything with even a Class 1 leak on board.
Same thing when we were flying Strykers around.
And does this Wunder-Howitzer have to have it's FAASV equivalent air-mailed in a separate plane, just like the Crusader? Because 60 tons is pretty close to the C-17s weight limit.
by
Heartless Libertarian on September 8, 2006 10:36 PM
I believe in survivability and SP arty as much as the next guy, but (speaking as an ex-tanker), jus' what about these vehicles calls for and puts them in the freakin' Class 60 range fercryinoutloud? That's MBT territory!
by
Doug K on September 9, 2006 12:45 AM
The Air Force keeps their 17's pretty clean. I know, I just got done loading a mixed bag of helicopters onto ten of the big honkin' things. Film at eleven (or whenever I can e-mail the images to John...)
Normal ACL (aircraft cabin load) for a C-17 is 45 short tons/ 90,000 lbs. They can take off with lots more than that, but do so by sacrificing fuel load in order not to exceed maximum takeoff weight. So when they are hauling a heavy load like the Dutch howitzer seen here, or one of our M1A1 MBT's, the C-17 MUST link up with a tanker soon after takeoff and take on additional fuel.
They did this back in 2003, airlifting M1's and Brads into Kirkuk as reinforcements after the airborne troops (I think it was the 173rd out of Vincenza,) dropped on the airport there.
by Blake Kirk on September 9, 2006 5:27 AM
Um, building 'em with tank components to reduces the number of spares.
The PzHbtz 2000 is a cousin of the Crusader in concept and timeframe - and the Euros during that time weren't planning on going anywhere...
And unlike us, they don't just toss over the applecart (and a few billion dollars) and start over from scratch.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 9, 2006 5:50 AM
Ya, I grasp the concept of utilizing existing common components OK, but most of a tanks' weight is in heavy armor not required by SP arty. As a basis of comparison, the M109A6 155mm Howitzer is based on M551 AR/AAV components (a 17 ton light vehicle) and weighed it at 63,600lbs combat loaded. An M107 or M110 (no protective turret, of course) was just slightly less. That's near 30 tons of sacrificed mobility and transport (air or trailered) that hardly seems justified by a stand-off weapon that shouldn't be expected to take direct fire of the "armor defeating" variety (meaning true anti-tank penetration capability, that kind of frontal armor is an extravagent use of RHA). 60 tons seems a heckuva' lot for SP Arty.
by
Doug K on September 9, 2006 1:14 PM
I have 2 basic questions on the PzH 2000 Artillery system:
1. What are base-bleed ammunition(s)?
2. What are assisted projectiles?
The assisted projectiles sound like rocket type of projectiles but I dont know.
by
Ledger on September 10, 2006 5:57 AM
Base bleed projectiles have a compound in the base of the projectile that burns upon firing to produce gas that bleeds out a hole to fill the partial vacuum that exists behind a projectile as it flies to the target. This reduces the drag and extends the range, without the ballistic effects that rocket-assisted projectiles have - the rather-more-active impact on the trajectory from a burning rocket motor on a projectile that can't correct for anomalies introduced by the rocket.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 10, 2006 8:42 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 25, 2006
The whatziss, answered.
This was a toughie. But y'all had fun with it, for sure.
It didn't help that the references that existed for it (sparse that they were)... are no longer available, a photo archive having been removed.
It's a very obscure WWI spigot mortar round. Possibly French, possibly Belgian... possibly even Italian. No one seems to know for sure - or whoever does, isn't sharing that info on the web, and it's buried in the dusty stacks of a library somewhere.
The Castle actually possesses a spigot mortar, in the form of the German Granatenwerfer 16. We actually have two representatives of the genre, though the second is more properly termed a spigot launcher I suppose, being mostly intended for direct fire - the PIAT. You could have logically gone down that path, given what the PIAT rounds look like in comparison to the Whatziss. Doug did conjure up the Blacker Bombard.
The whatziss is generally considered to be an Aasen Type C grenade, modified to be launched from a spigot mortar, instead of thrown by hand.
Designed by Nils Aasen - who is generally considered one of the fathers of the modern hand grenade.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Der Granatenwerfer was the German one I referred to in an earlier post, but ruled that one out as it wasn't Allied. Looking around since then, the Belgian variety seems the logical choice, based on available cyber-information.
Darn it, just a nationality away from winning that big cash prize. :-(
by
Doug K on August 25, 2006 10:43 AM
This is hopelessly juvenile of me - but I just like saying Granatenwerfer. (And Minenwerfer.)
So, to make this comment worth the electrons - what (in WWI terminology) is the difference between a Grenaten and a Minen? Warhead size or shape?
by
UtahMan on August 25, 2006 12:09 PM
Personally, I think it was a ConfuseTheHeckinator out-of-the-Commentators grenade.
bah. humbug.
by AFSister on August 25, 2006 12:11 PM
we're counting Belgians as "Allies"??
by
MajMike on August 25, 2006 1:04 PM
Yeh. I *lurved* it!
Especially when I got the tanker to type "gobsmackingly".
Schweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 25, 2006 1:04 PM
C'mon, MajMike - in *that* war, they even held on to a bit of their own territory, and many fought like lions.
Of course, it's rarely the soldiery that fail - it's the officery and politicianry who fail.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 25, 2006 1:07 PM
UtahMan - you know, I'm not sure, they almost get used interchangeably.
You can make a usage argument that granaten could apply to hand grenades and minen to larger projectiles... except that artillery projectiles are referred to as... granaten.
Mentally, I just interchange them. I never had any trouble with the Germans when I did so... but then, I don't spend all my time correcting foreigner's english, either.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 25, 2006 1:31 PM
Granatwerfer, eh? I wonder how a pomegranate would work in a spud gun. Colorful splatter, and all, dontcha know.
by
Justthisguy on August 25, 2006 5:48 PM
I had access to a computer last night and this morning and I spent hours reading about all sorts of mortars, reviewing hundreds of pictures and generally baking my brain with computer rays trying to find this item.
The closest I saw was a French spigot mortar. With that and John's other hint about the blacker not being far off, I was sure it was a spigot mortar I just didn't know by what nation so I decided to wait until John gave us the answer.
It was like knowing that you know a word, it's on the tip of your tongue, but you can't say it.
That was tough.
by
kat-missouri on August 25, 2006 5:48 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 22, 2006
Excalibur...
A press release detailing the Army's effort to continually refine (and keep tactically relevant) the artillery inventory. A subject of some discussion around here of late.
Successful Testing of GPS-Guided Artillery Projectile Puts Raytheon-BAE Systems Bofors Excalibur Closer to Fielding (Source: Raytheon Co.; issued Aug. 18; 2006)
TUCSON, Ariz. --- The Raytheon Missile Systems and BAE Systems Bofors' Excalibur team successfully test-fired two global positioning system (GPS)-guided 155 mm artillery projectiles that functioned as intended against simulated tactical targets Aug. 10. The program is a cooperative effort between the United States and Sweden.
These firings represent completion of the "Guided Gunfire B" (GGB) test series that validates system performance of tactical rounds under a variety of conditions.
"Having completed this phase of testing, we are on track for fielding Excalibur to meet the urgent need of our deployed ground forces for a cannon-delivered precision munition," said Army Col. John Tanzi, Training and Doctrine Command System, manager-cannon.
Heh. I knew John Tanzi, back in the day. The rest is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
The projectiles were fired from the M109A5 howitzer during the tests at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. The Excalibur rounds in the GGB firing series were conditioned at extreme hot and cold temperatures, subjected to shock and vibration testing to simulate tactical transportation, set with the portable Excalibur fire control system, and fired at a range of 22 kilometers (about 13.6 miles). These rounds also were fired at 5 degrees off-axis to demonstrate the projectile's enhanced maneuverability and operational flexibility.
"The Excalibur team continues to demonstrate better than required accuracy and design maturity," said James Riley, Raytheon Land Combat product line vice president. "The program is now in production to meet early fielding requirements. Now that both Excalibur and Extended Range Guided Munition have tested successfully with tactical configuration hardware, Raytheon is positioned to provide the only family of guided projectiles for U.S. forces."
The Excalibur program currently is responding to an urgent request from the warfighter to accelerate fielding because of the projectile's better than 10-meter (33-feet) accuracy that is not available from any other artillery projectile. Because of its accuracy and increased effectiveness, Excalibur reduces the logistical burden for deployed ground forces. Excalibur also provides lower collateral damage through its concentrated fragmentation pattern, increased precision and near-vertical descent.
It produces a wide range of effects in all terrain at extended ranges and in all weather conditions. With 155 mm howitzers part of the standard organization in current operations, Excalibur's precision effects are readily available to small-unit maneuver elements.
In addition to demonstrating the ability to survive environmental conditioning, tactical transportation, extreme cold and hot condition and gun launch, the two GGB test shots successfully acquired GPS signals and impacted fewer than 10 meters from the aim points. Previous successful guided shots have consistently demonstrated a similar degree of accuracy. These impact accuracies are significantly better than the required 10-meter circular error probable, an objective requirement for the Block IA development.
Subsequent testing between now and the end of the year, including completion of the sequential-environment safety test series, production verification tests and first-article tests, will support upcoming Army reviews to certify Excalibur and the portable Excalibur fire control system for urgent fielding early in fiscal year 2007.
Two GGB firings on July 21 provided beneficial test data to support rapid-response system improvements. They demonstrated the effectiveness of earlier improvements and again proved the high reliability of many components, including a safety measure that prevents the warhead from detonating when the round impacts outside the intended target area. Testing will continue to demonstrate performance and reliability for early fielding.
Raytheon Company, with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
In the long ago and far away I worked at the US Army Yuma Proving Ground - my first paying gig involving computers, in fact. The building I started in was the last one on the 'street' of the Kofa Firing Range. Approximately 1,000 yards further down the 'street' was the impact area for the 'long range'. Unless things have changed a lot since 1980 I'd say that those shells impacted right there, about 1,000 yards from where that building was. A few months into my 6-month contract we moved from there to a much newer building several miles away so that old WWII Quonset hut may be long gone now.
One thing I wonder about the new munitions: That "safety measure that prevents the warhead from detonating when the round impacts outside the intended target area." - wonder what happens if someone picks up such a 'dud' and carries it back over to the intended target area? Could be... interesting
by KCSteve on August 22, 2006 2:34 PM
Life imitates art... these were described in one of the Amanda Garret novels by James H. Cobb - except in a naval application. The line was something like.... why bother to aim the gun, when you can just tell the round where to go....
Very cool.
by
Zendo Deb on August 22, 2006 7:20 PM
The Discovery Channel, Future Weapons, did a show on this event last night. I assume that it will be broadcast again.
by Michael Brill on August 22, 2006 7:57 PM
Amanda Garrett, huh? Is that the one where the Captain (Amanda) and the CAG are just about to do the nasty and the PG17C was saved (and the adolescent reader annoyed) by somebody calling GQ just before they get to the good part?
by
Justthisguy on August 23, 2006 10:58 PM
I just watched an episode of future weapons on the military channel. I was amazed to see my old battery commander Col. John A. Tanzi. He was a captain back in Korea., I believe hes is now TRADOC. Does anybody know how to reach him?
by k.v.fortuin on August 27, 2006 12:14 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 18, 2006
The Answer to the Whatzis.
Eric finally got it. It's the "glasflasche" or glass bottle, that contained the "clark" poison gas in a German WWI 77mm shell.
Like in this picture.
Congrats to working your way through the problem. Of course, it was an *easy* one for this collection of geeks!
And no, I am *not* the John who posted it on Gunboards.
For more information on the subject - read the document that finally pulled it together for Eric.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
hmmm... a very *innocuous* name the Huns chose for their poison gas, eh? Kampfstoff indeed!
by Neffi on August 18, 2006 7:40 PM
Wow, I got darn close for being just a Military MoM!
Very cool whazit! Pretty for being so deadly.
by Karla (threadbndr) on August 20, 2006 10:44 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
Answering the mail, part 3.
Target attack criteria, bad choices in.
I've already had this discussion in the comments of my two previous posts on artillery this week, but it won't go away, so I'll bring it to the front.
Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee (who got me the trip to Mexico to retrieve the Rodgers, may his tribe increase!) sent me this link, wanting to know if, in fact, this was a cluster bomblet.
It isn't, in a narrow technical sense. But before we rush off to crow about inaccuracy in the media, let's take a break. That is an M80 M42 [good catch from an otherwise pointlessly rude commenter - the M80 has a self-destruct mechanism - and one is being retrofitted to the M42/48 series of grenades. -the Armorer] Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munition. While not from a cluster bomb, it *is* from an artillery round. I'm familiar with the round, and it's contents, these being held in Castle stocks in their inert form.
If the Israelis were shooting DPICM into inhabited areas, they are open to just criticism of their fire orders.
Bad decision on the part of whoever made the call to shoot DPICM. If you are shooting DPICM, you are automatically creating a low-density minefield, due to the dud rate (officially 2-4% depending on the conditions in the target area) of the submunition.
I can see an argument being made by the Israelis that in fact, there is less collateral damage than if you shoot HE at a target in an urban area. Perhaps, depending on construction of the buildings - but HE has a much lower dud rate (nothing is perfect), the effects are over after it hits, and there is no lingering explosive package awaiting discovery by children. And an unexploded HE shell is a lot harder to pick up than a DPICM submunition.
Recording your targets... I don't expect this to happen - but the Israelis should also share their mission fired reports with the Lebanese government, so that EOD can go clear areas targeted with DPICM.
It's just not a good shell for attacking areas that are/will be occupied by non-combatants or OWN TROOPS. The use of dud-producing munitions such as DPICM during Operation Iraqi Freedom in early 2003 caused maneuver problems for the Marines, and caused lingering casualties among Marines and civilians in those areas after operations were ended. This may have been true for Army units as well, I don't have any info on that. Target attack decisions have to be made with cognizance of subsequent operations and events. I know we used to train this with Fire Support Officers back in the day - I assume we still do. I discussed some of that in my post yesterday.
Mind you - if Hezbollah didn't *shoot* from inhabited areas, the Israelis would have had less reason to shoot back into inhabited areas, too.
While I don't support the Israeli choice of ammuntion, I do support their right to shoot back. And find it disingenuous that most of the whining is about what the Israelis shot, and not equally about wherefrom Hezbollah shot.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
With the amount of intentional/propagandistic disinformation cast out ther in favor of our enemies, I'd rather withold judgement on which side scattered these beasties, until proven otherwise.
by Boquisucio on August 18, 2006 8:20 AM
Could the DPICM have been an attempt to get the guys that set up the Katyushas and then skedaddle from the launcher while it continues it's ripple fire sequence?
by
Ryan Gill on August 18, 2006 8:38 AM
Ryan - of course it could. I would still argue against using it in this target environment.
Boq - while possible, I really rather doubt it. I do use the word "if" when I talk about the Israeli use of DPICM - but I do know from pictures of the guns that there were broken pallets of DPICM at Israeli gun positions.
DPICM was developed to help us deal with the anticipate Soviet Horde in a battle to the death. For years, the standard fire order was "Battalion 3 Rounds, DPCIM" meaning the whole battalion shoot 3 rounds. That was an artifact of bad training habits, where the effects tables required a minimumb "battalion 3" of DPICM to score an armor kill at the National Training Center. Then along comes Desert Storm, where we shot that stuff like candy - and then had to move through it ourselves. That caused a sea change in how we viewed/used DPICM.
I don't know *why* the Israelis used it as it appears they have - but I would say that current "best practices" argue *against* using it in the threat/target environment they are fighting in in Lebanon.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 9:13 AM
I agree that that munition leaves too many potentially unpleasant surprises lying about that could possibly put an expiration date on the birth certificate of follow on troops.
However I do not hold the Israelis to Marquis of Queensbury Rules.
Those rules either govern both fighters or neither.
by
jim b on August 18, 2006 9:35 AM
I don't either, Jim. That said, it's *still* not a good choice of shell/fuze combo.
Yes, I am criticizing the Israelis on this, if they did it.
I've already been whaling on Hezbollah. Their choice of how to fight the fight lead to this.
They could have used the old "open city" construct... or at least let their residents evacuate.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 9:45 AM
Your point is well taken John. What type of munitions would you choose for dealing with rockets being launched from populated areas?
I will say if I were an Israeli artie cmdr, and that's all I had on hand to fire counterbattery I would use them.
by
jim b on August 18, 2006 10:08 AM
I would expect my FO to call for VT, wouldn't I?
by
MajMike on August 18, 2006 10:24 AM
This in from Drudge:
ISRAELI SOLDIERS ANGRY AT COMMANDERS
Fri Aug 18 2006 10:30:15 ET
Israeli reservists are returning from the war in Lebanon with unprecedented criticism toward their commanders: They say the army was poorly prepared, abandoned injured comrades and suffered from a dire lack of supplies.
Developing...
I wonder what supplies they lacked?
by
jim b on August 18, 2006 10:37 AM
I've answered that before. HE. VT if the terrain supported it, PD if it didn't.
Trees and tall buildings can make VT function too early.
While possible, I find it improbable, given that they weren't barraging, that any battery was out of HE. If *I'm* the Fire Direction Officer (assuming I'm not getting my fire orders from somewhere else) I'll request a confirmation of a fire order that includes DPICM on habitations.
But we don't know what their attack guidance and target attack criteria were. Anybody has a copy, send 'em over.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 10:45 AM
I agree HE VT or PD is the weapon of choice. Of course the propagandists would call the use of VT antipersonnel rounds in a populated area too. God forbid they used shake and bake.
I am surprised that a Lebanese cop didn't show up and arrest them all for discharging cannon in city limits.
:-)
by
jim b on August 18, 2006 10:51 AM
Actually, you could make the argument that VT would cause less collateral damage - you are still going to get frag damage, but the blast damage to structures would be reduced.
But now we're getting silly.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 10:56 AM
Ryan is probably right about the reason for DPICM use. Both sides had a good idea of the other's weapons. As John already said, there's no need to be standing next to the Katyusha at the moment of launch. Tactically, if not morally, that could explain the DPICM. It probably didn't get many though.
Jim B, regarding shake and bake, I wouldn't speak too soon.
http://uruknet.info/?p=24885
I've heard reports from two Lebanese doctors who insist WP was used offensively, and a third who won't speculate but also has victims with similar wounds. PS before you say it, I realise a hot vehicle fire could also create these wound effects.
As for the equipment reservists lacked, I've heard night vision mentioned a lot. I believe they often wore the old PASGT-equivalent helmets, and may also have lacked ceramic plate (hard to believe given that Israel is a leading body armour manufacturer). Also, all the reservists I saw, unlike regulars, had humble iron sights on their M16s and M4s.
But I think the big gripe was food and commanders' attention. Peretz and Halutz tried to create last-minute facts on the ground by spraying troops all over the South. These isolated pockets couldn't all be resupplied over last weekend and several went hungry.
Finally, the reservists weren't adequately integrated into regular forces, with the result that many were left hanging around in dangerous areas for lack of orders. Like those rocketed in Kiryat Shemona, for example. Other squads were told to wait in houses in places like Bint Jbeil. The Hezbollah men on the hills would see them going in and start hitting the walls with Saggers. Several groups spent very unpleasant afternoons this way, feeling completely forgotten by their officers.
Here's one conversation related in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/world/middleeast/18israel.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
'In one unusual incident, a group of reservists from the Alexandroni Brigade criticized and booed their commander, Col. Shlomi Cohen, at a meeting after they withdrew from Lebanon.
The discussion became tense as soldiers raised questions that included why they entered Lebanon during the day, rather than at night, and about a lack of food and water, Yediot Aharonot reported.
One reserve soldier, Yair Levy, 40, confronted the colonel, saying, "I left my house, my job, my three kids, and after two weeks in Lebanon, you say I have chutzpah because I asked for equipment and food."
"If that's the attitude and those are your answers, next time we won't come," he continued.
The colonel replied: "Don't come. Don't bother."'
ENDS
Yikes. I know the IDF is very informal and democratic, but...wow.
by OD on August 18, 2006 12:34 PM
I think my lesson learned from the recent troubles is a rather (to me) stunning amount of arrogance on the part of the Israeli General Staff.
They seemingly learned absolutely nothing from their previous experiences in the Lebanon *or* from our on-going learning labs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seemingly.not.a.thing.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 1:19 PM
One thing I find particularly ironic is that while many Americans (wrongly in my view) blamed the Israelis for talking their government into invading Iraq, many Israelis are now blaming the Americans for talking their government into invading Lebanon.
In both cases the logic is identical: This crazy war was so clearly against our national interest that foreigners must have put us up to it somehow.
But in both cases the opinion polls show the public was all for it at the time. The problem with democracies is that voters are sovereign, so they reserve the right to blame everyone but themselves when things go wrong.
by OD on August 18, 2006 1:28 PM
The news story that went with the picture quoted the guy from the mine removal agency as saying that these were an anti-armor weapon. [snicker]
by
Chuck Simmins on August 18, 2006 1:42 PM
Um, they are. That's the purpose of the shaped charge. Top attack.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 18, 2006 1:47 PM
yup. they are scary. me no like 'em.
by
MajMike on August 18, 2006 2:35 PM
There's a reason why all MLRS rockets being bought these days are unitary GPS guided.
What I truly can't understand is that with such a history of UAVs, Israel couldn't flood the zone with them. Do they have RF bandwidth or concurrency issues, or something?
by
Big D on August 18, 2006 4:24 PM
How about complex jamming(with jamming tech being profilgate and Hezbo being subsidized by Iran...)?
UAVs are expensive toys if you can't control them.
by ry on August 18, 2006 5:40 PM
From Whatziss, Day Three
I ask John about the effectiveness of antitank weapons in Hezbollah's hands.
John said:
Remember - to be effective, it doesn't have to be a catastrophic kill that blows the vehicle up.
A tank, to really be a tank, needs to move, shoot, and communicate. All you have to do is immobilize it, render it incapable of accurate fire, or kill the comms, and it's not a tank. In that condition, outside of defending itself to get away, it's really not a tank anymore.
So, I gather you are saying that the antitank weapons that the Hezies have are effective.
If that is what you mean then the Isrealis really do have a big problem on their hands.
It would seem that the playing field is now tilted against Isreal.
I say that because they are small nation surround by larger ones (and ones with considerable financial resources).
It would seem that the Hezies can be re-supplied with more men and materials faster than Israel can take them out. That's troubling.
Next, on the DPICM (sub-munitions artillery shells) - I am confused by the term "dud." Remember, I know little about artillery shells... But, if the 84+ bomblet's have a failure rate of 2% to 4% upon impact how do they become "non-dud" at a later time? Or, does it take a civilian's tinkering to get them to explode at a later date? Is there a secondary trigger mechanism?
From John's description of the accuracy of the Israeli guns they have 20 meter circle of accuracy at range. If you are going to knock out a rocket and launcher wouldn't one have to directly hit it with a HE round (or be very close)?
If that is true, then the sub munitions round sounds like the only viable method of knocking out these rocket's, the launchers, and the crews (without multiple HE rounds).
Putting myself in some Israeli's shoes, if I felt that a ball bearing packed rocket could hit my family's house I probably would not hesitate to use the DPICM round to knock out that rocket (particularly if I ran low on HE rounds).
by ledger on August 19, 2006 12:39 AM
Yup, they're obviously shaped charges, but I don't understand how it's arranged that they arrive at their targets nasty-end first. Is there some kind of aerodynamic drag device, or some special arrangement of the center of mass in those things, which makes them arrive at the target with their dangerous effects pointed in the right direction?
by
Justthisguy on August 19, 2006 1:27 AM
Ledger/JTG - JTG is correct, they are streamer-stabilized. If you look at the AP picture link, you'll see the streamer. If you look at my pics, you'll see the streamer on top of the submunition, as they are when packed into the projectile.
As for the playing field being tilted *against* Israel. The situation for the Israelis was *much* worse during the Yom Kippur War. The situation that caused so much more than expected damage to the Merkavas was abetted by the unexpected tactical skill of Hezbollah combined with uncharacteristically poor handling of their armor by the Israelis.
Any Arab army that wants to stand up and invade Israel is going to get it's ass handed to it.
The Israelis have discovered some weaknesses in the Merkava design - but, like us in Iraq, they may lose tanks (many of which are recoverable and returnable to service) and have crew wounded, they aren't having a huge number of catastrophic kills nor crew losses.
The Israelis, at senior levels, in the early part of the fight in Lebanon were guilty of a really bad case of hubris. The price, as ever, being paid by the soldiery.
Update: Forgot to answer all the questions... No, these submuntions do not have a delay, or secondary self-destruct. When these weapons were designed, they were designed for use in WWIII, when such niceties were considered secondary.
They use a simple inertia fuze. When the streamer deploys, that arms the fuze by allowing (usually) the safety to disengage. Then, upon impact, inertia takes the firing pin into the initiator.
Sometimes the safety does not fully release - which means it won't function on impact - but might then fully release the safety... which makes it dangerous to pick up. If the submuntion comes down at too flat an angle, it may hit and tumble, which will retard the firing pin.
As for a 20-meter CEP, the 155mm round is considered to have a 50 meter bursting radius, meaning blast and fragmentation will have a militarily useful effect within that circle. Firing two to three rounds at a point target (located with sufficient accuracy and still present, mind you) will put plenty of hurt within that 20 meter circle.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 19, 2006 6:38 AM
What exactly is an M80? Sounds like a firework to me. Those in your pictures are M42. Can you tell the difference between that and an M46 or and IMI M85? I don't think so! Inertia fuze? Try stab detonator. A DPICM has a 4 meter casualty radius. The IMI M85 Do have a pyrotechnic SD. Opps. Where do I end... SSG DS
by
Hey, I'm a Dipshit! on August 19, 2006 9:26 PM
Very interesting comments John. But, let me ask a couple more question.
On the bomblet inertia fuse mechanism, if it's a dud, what does it take to set it off? Is it the weight of a child's foot or something much more - a truck running over it - or someone throwing it on the ground. These bomblets don't seem to be the type antipersonnel land mine used say in Laos or Vietnam.
And, what is the usual mixture of HE shells to DPICM in an average battle?
by ledger on August 20, 2006 3:34 AM
Ledger - I can't answer the question about "average" battle anymore. In my time you wouldn't have mixed HE with DPICM on any particular mission, except perhaps massed missions on prepared positions, and the mix in any particular artillery fight would have depended on the purpose of the fight.
SSG "Dipshit". No reason to be rude.
Ya caught me in a simple (but important) error, which you, Non-commissioned Officer and expert that you profess to be, could have simply pointed out that the M80 submunition is the newest version of the M42-style submunitions - the one that in fact, has a self-destruct mechanism in it and is loaded in the 105mm M915/M916 DPICM rounds. Which was a particularly inapt label for me to have used (and I will go correct it in the posts) as it *is* actually intended to enable the rounds to be fired at otherwise less-than-optimal target areas. If you're an artilleryman, I guess you've only served with medium and rocket artillery, or it's been awhile since you, like I, have been around the guns.
By the way, without seeing the markings, what are the differences between the M42 and M46, which are interchangeable in projectile loads?
"Stab detonator?" A technical term I'm not familiar with. I'm sure it refers to a needle that pierces a cap, and in these submunitions, does that exactly how? Via... inertia, not a sear release. Deploying the drogue streamer does what? Release the needle so that it may do what? On impact, by inertia, continue in the direction of travel to do what? Pierce the cap. Oh, sorry - "stab" the cap. My apologies for not using terms you find acceptable. Still no reason to be rude.
As for the differences between which versions of almost visually identical submunitions made by whom, is that important other than allowing you to come in here and be rude, supercilious and an ass? And would have adding all this to the original post changed anything important? I don't think so. At least you didn't shout.
What's an M80?
This is.
Perhaps you would prefer the USAFAS Gunnery Department?
As for making the error... without going into what I do for a job, lets just say that in my defense, I've seen a lot of these M80 submunitions, so to speak, and I admit, they sure to do look gee, a lot different from these M42's. Not.
BTW, since you are up on all things artillery, SSG, what's the pipe to the left in the last picture?
Now, just what *was* the point of your rudeness?
by
John of Argghhh! on August 20, 2006 8:20 AM
Good comments John!
by ledger on August 21, 2006 12:47 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 16, 2006
Answering the mail.
Nicholas, from Smell of Freedom, asked this question in a comment on one of yesterday's posts:
Sorry for being off topic, but I'd like to ask an artillery expert a question as google has drawn a blank.
I noticed some terrorist sympathizers making statements like "Israeli artillery is so inaccurate, it's only useful for attacking whole towns, thus they are effectively terrorists".
Now, I don't think anyone would bother using artillery if it were that inaccurate. Can 155mm artillery reasonably be used for counter-battery fire against targets like rocket launchers or infantry hiding in buildings and expect to hit where it counts? How discriminate is it?
I don't expect they're firing at maximum range. But probably nowhere near minimum either. I understand they've upgraded the American artillery they are using. What kind of accuracy figures would you expect?
Thanks, I'm looking forward to hearing from someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
Well, lessee. That sounds like someone talking out of the well of deep ignorance, parroting what they've heard elsewhere. (Happens 'round here, too.) After all, that *is* true of Hezbollah artillery, so it must be true of Israeli, right?
The M109-series guns the Israelis are using are designed to be able to hit within 0-20 meters of their aimpoint under standard conditions, using standard (i.e., High Explosive) projectiles.
That requires that you have accurate surveyed (i.e., 8 digit UTM grid) location of both your gun and your target, including the altitude difference, and that you are following the basic steps of good gunnery, which the Israelis I'm sure are. For example, in the picture below of an Israeli M109 howitzer, you notice the smallish box at the base of the cannon? That's a radar chronograph - the fire control system monitors the muzzle velocity of every round fired, and automatically adjusts the firing solution to account for bore wear. If it detects large variations in muzzle velocity from previous rounds, the system will then alert the crew to check to ensure they have current data for things like propellant temperature and projectile weight, and that their ram is functioning properly to seat the round.
They might be going so far as to be tracking their rounds with radar, but I suspect most, if not all, the counter-fire radars are being used to find Hezbollah's stuff.
The greatest component of error for the Israelis would be the target location. However, if they're using military GPS and laser rangefinders - or have accurate maps of the right scale, they can get sufficiently accurate target location. Another consideration in urban combat are tall adjacent buildings. Depending on the gun-target orientation and intervening buildings, getting to any specific target might be a challenge - low-lying buildings, not so much. You can shift to high-angle fire to try to get around that, but high-angle fires are not as accurate, especially if winds aloft are not supernaturally consistent. It's usually better to just shift to a gun that has a better angle to the target, that avoids the intervening buildings, if possible.
If they are using terminally guided or GPS-guided munitions, they can hit point targets. I've done it, and under combat conditions, it's not hard to do unless the bad guys are shooting uncomfortably close, and even then the round is going to be close.
Mortars, absent precision ammunition (which exists and the Israelis have) are a bit more problematic, but we're talking artillery.
Rockets, it depends. The Katyusha-style unguided rockets are area weapons. You orient the launch rails so they are pointing in the direction you want the rockets to go, you set the quadrant elevation to achieve the *general* range you want, and you let fly - and hope that you get your target by saturation. Hamas and Hezbollah have the capacity to build their own rockets - but their motors are not consistent from rocket to rocket - much less so than the more professionally-produced versions the Iranians supply - but these rockets are pure area-fire weapons.
If you are shooting single rockets, you're just hoping that you get lucky. That's what Hezbollah has been firing. They do sometimes volley fire them, but they don't fire too many at once or the launcher gets detected, which is usually the end of the launcher and if we're lucky, the crew, too. For the most part, however, the crews launch remotely, so that they don't get killed if the launcher gets hit. Not that training a Katyusha crew is a hugely time-consuming task. One reason the Russians invented them and people like Hezbollah like them.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I thought the Katyushas were descendants of the multiple rocket launchers and rockets they got from us in WW II with a bit of nebelwerfer thrown in. I could be wrong.
by JimC on August 16, 2006 8:21 AM
Or, the short answer is ... Yes, why yes they can hit a target with precision.
I have yet to see the Israelis fire a rolling barrage, or zone and shift fires. If you notice the news footage they seem to firing slowly and deliberately.
by
jim b on August 16, 2006 8:25 AM
I wasn't going to go into the whole family of rockets thing.
Apparently Hezbollah has rockets that are identical to Stalin Organ rockets, if of newer manufacture, as well as a slew of others - but they all share the accuracy issue.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2006 8:53 AM
C'mon, a question like that is going to kick me into Gunnery Instructor Mode, old reflexes die hard.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2006 9:01 AM
Far be it from me to argue with John's gunnery expertise, but I must again play fly in the ointment.
While the M109 is accurate, the IDF seems all too willing to sacrifice that accuracy to achieve area effects.
Here's a pic taken by Human Rights Watch, who crept up on an IDF firing position just south of the border.
We could play Whatizzit with these munitions, but I'll save you the trouble. The ones on the right, which account for the majority of the shells there, are M483A1 DPICM artillery-delivered cluster munitions.
The M483A1 artillery shells deliver 88 cluster submunitions per shell, and have an unacceptably high failure rate (dud rate) of 14 percent, leaving behind a serious unexploded ordnance problem that will further endanger civilians. The IDFs operations manual warns soldiers that the use of such cluster munitions creates dangerous minefields due to the high dud rate.
As you know, the sole purpose of these shells is to scatter unguided bomblets over a wide area. Not only will they kill any civilians nearby, theyll also blow up children who return to the scene later. It's a documented fact that most bomblets, unless swept by UXO teams, are eventually detonated by children. In fact many of them look like colourful little toys. Lebanons Daily Star and L'Orient both reported several UXO fatalities and injuries as people returned to their homes on Monday, and doubtless there were more yesterday.
So a fair description of their counterbattery fire, in many cases, would be that they return a highly accurate shell, which could indeed hit within 20 metres of the target, but doesn't because it's designed to blow apart in mid-air, scattering these nasty little buggers over several hundred yards.
by OD on August 16, 2006 12:18 PM
Hmm, guess I haven't figured this hyperlink thingy out yet. Here's the pic:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm
Of course it's hardly surprising that the IDF wouldn't worry about leaving such dangerous UXO in Lebanon, because they left REAL minefields there in 2000, and have persistently refused to show their mine maps to Lebanese Govt deminers for six years.
By the way, according to the NYT 11 Aug, Israel requested delivery of surface-launched M26 artillery rockets for use against locations in Lebanon where it believes Hezbollah fighters are launching Katyusha rockets into Israel.
The M26 rocket is launched from the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to ranges of 32 to 38 kilometers and it creates a wide-area effect by dispensing 644 M77 submunitions. A typical volley of six rockets would release 3,864 submunitions over an area with a 0.6 mile (1 kilometer) radius.
Fortunately the war ended before this bright idea could be tried out.
But the 155mm cluster munitions certainly were used. In Blida, a short barrage with these shells caused one bomblet to enter the home of an old lady (Maryam Ibrahim), killing her. Two more entered a basement were the Ali family were sheltering, wounding 12 including seven children.
Frankly, I'm a little confused by the debate about Israeli precision. The facts are there in the results. Even using Israeli figures, they've killed far more civilians than Hezbollah. In fact it appears they've killed more children than they have Hezbollah.
by OD on August 16, 2006 12:30 PM
OD
One question: if a male aged 12 - 60 is found dead, was he a civilian or a Hezbollah soldier? Since they refuse to wear any sort of uniform it's kind of hard to tell isn't it? And yes, I meant 12. Actually based on the pictures we've seen perhaps I should have set the lower limit around 8.
John
If they're doing 'single shot and scurry' then that explains to me why the Israelis aren't just keeping something circling overhead to designate / drop on every launch they see.
by KCSteve on August 16, 2006 12:44 PM
Well, KCSteve, since most of these 8- and 12-year-olds were dug out of collapsed apartment buildings wearing pyjamas, often clinging to their mothers' bodies, and most of the rest were peeled off the seats of gutted family cars that also contained their dead parents and siblings, I'd say prima facie evidence suggests they're civilians.
Besides, the number of dead girls is just as high as the number of dead boys, which scuppers your argument mathematically.
Do you really believe that the Hezbollah people doing the fighting included 8- and 12-year-olds? Doesn't say much for the fighting qualities of the IDF that they couldn't overcome such a force.
Talking of children and artillery, by the way, have you guys seen these shots? Cute, eh?
http://arabist.net/archives/2006/07/19/they-teach-their-children-hatred/
by OD on August 16, 2006 1:13 PM
Yawn
by
jim b on August 16, 2006 1:47 PM
Once again Owen jumps on one thing to make points on another.
Multi-tasker that he is, Owen talks about what the Israelis may have been doing in detail, when I was answering a more generic question about the general accuracy of the system. And stipulated HE on top of that.
If the Israelis were shooting DPICM into inhabited areas, they are open to just criticism of their fire orders.
And I knew they asked for the M26 rockets, which I suspect we would *not* have honored (did it occur to you Owen we might simply have been dragging our feet, so we wouldn't have to say "no" officially?) - for all the reasons that we went to the trouble to develop the GPS-guided Unitary warhead rockets for the MLRS system - so that we would have the range of the MLRS/ATACMS systems, without the UXO issue, and without the CEP of unguided rockets.
Bad decision on the part of whoever made the call to shoot DPICM, if the situation as described in Owen's link was known to the decision maker when they issued the fire order.
And while I know Owens links and pictures are for the readers, not me - I'm familiar with the round, and it's contents.
And if the Israelis are refusing to share their maps of minefields no longer needed for their intended purpose, and on land not under their control - shame on them again.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2006 1:55 PM
Good for you, John, fair-minded as always. I also agree that the US almost certainly wouldn't have delivered these MLRS rockets during the conflict. The delivery contract itself dates from last year.
I'm quite certain the US Govt was unhappy with the indiscriminate nature of some Israeli fire, because otherwise Tony Snow would never have called on "both parties" to be careful about civilians.
by OD on August 16, 2006 2:58 PM
John's tutorial on the M109 system was excellent and greatly appreciated.
Methinks OD's obsession with one side's possible use of sub-munitions fired at a clearly hostile target is camouflage for some other motivation. Nary a peep about "point and pray" Katushas launched southward. Nor any condemnation of the ball bearing packed warheads on the Katushas, clearly intended to kill women and children as well as combatants. War is hell, and it ain't fought with beanbags or marshmallows. Those who started it by entering the other's territory, murdering 8 soliders and kidnapping two others should not expect sympathy when incoming rounds descend on their positions. Civilian casualties, while generally lamentable, are less so when the Israelis made serious efforts to warn civilians to clear out before they fired. Apparently the Hezbos (or Iranian/Syrian proxies- pick your term) felt no such need to warn civilians. OD needs to open BOTH eyes, unless he wishes to be seen as a de facto propaganda agent for the aggressors.
by
John H. on August 16, 2006 5:02 PM
Owen is a good arguer. I bet he rises blood pressures in here. How are you in a position to know the status of dead children in Lebanon, Owen?
Actually I have read a news report of problems with unexploded ordinance. Could well be these scatters.
I've been thinking... is the german victory day called VD day??
by
Trias on August 16, 2006 6:08 PM
Snerk, your lot quit playing up above after Tobruk, din't they?
V-E Day. Victory in Europe.
Owen is a leftish journalist - the kind who actually makes a living writing.
And raising blood pressure around here is his way of relaxing... 8^)
by
John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2006 6:32 PM
Until recently I had no idea what they did. I did a total of 1/4 of a year of history at school and frankly the war isn't covered other than yes we had a war. Sheep. Really!
The info i have is yes after Nippon nipped they rushed back except a small lot who continued to er enjoy the desert. Apparently the PM was terrified of an invasion.
So anyone here can safely call me clueless on Aussie history. Except the goldfields. I learnt a bit about that later.
by
Trias on August 16, 2006 6:58 PM
More peacenik than leftish, John. I'm not big on the taxing and spending stuff. Your other comment about me is true enough though, I love it here:)
Trias, I've been in regular contact with several doctors in Iraq for my job, including one at the American University of Beirut Hospital where they transfer a lot of the most gravely injured after they've been patched up elsewhere. They're all telling me that the overwhelming majority of casualties are families who are all getting hit at once, in their homes or in their cars.
Seriously, Hezbollah are not putting children into the field, even if they do let them participate in parades. There are 1.5 million Shiites in Lebanon, yet only 5000 Hezbollah fighters. They don't need to recruit kids. If they were fielding kids, and the IDF were killing hundreds of Hezbollah on the ground as they claimed, then Israel would have bodies or prisoners and would undoubtedly display them.
Besides, anyone who read the daily reports already knows where all these kids were killed - at home with their families or in cars fleeing north.
As for raising blood pressure, Trias, you should see the comments I made in the VJ Day bit. I sound like Nasrallah's publicity agent! Ha ha.
by OD on August 16, 2006 7:40 PM
Technical question John. Is the flame out of the rear of the bore evacuator of the Self-Propelled in the last picture a feature or a bug?
I thought that the evacuator was a closed system.
by
SezaGeoff on August 16, 2006 8:00 PM
Geoff, that was a first for me.
I say bad seals, or inadequate tightening of the bolt after it was last cleaned.
Regardless, *not* a good reflection on the crew - though probably only visible at night, and even then maybe only really noticeable in a photo like this.
Negligible effect on muzzle velocity - but still...
by
John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2006 8:06 PM
Oh, don't downplay your -ish side, Owen!
by
John of Argghhh! on August 16, 2006 8:06 PM
John H, I already know I'm a de facto propaganda agent for Hezbollah, in that they would feel I'm helping their cause in a small way by mentioning these facts.
But I've been put in this position by the IDF, who have undeniably killed far more civilians than Hezbollah did. I'm not going to close my eyes and mouth and pretend that didn't happen.
What you call warning civilians I would call a hamfisted attempt to drive Shiites out of the border region. When Serbs told Bosnians "get out, because we're going to destroy your village whether you're in it or not", we called it ethnic cleansing. But when Israel does it we call it fair warning.
Moreover the promise of safe passage out that came with Israel's warnings was false and everyone knew it.
Three days into the war, one of the most famous incidents occurred when the IDF warned the citizens of Marwahin to evacuate. So the villagers made a convoy and headed north. On the road they were attacked by an IDF helicopter. Two vehicles took direct hits, wiping out the Ghannam and Abdullah families. 21 died, including 14 children. A UNIFIL medical team that arrived on the scene reported that it too was attacked.
This made headline news, but it was just one of many incidents. For weeks afterwards, journalists reported that people were saying they were too scared to go on the road.
A similar incident happened just last weekend when the people of Marjayoun were told to leave and left in a convoy led by the mayor. Despite having permission, they came under sustained attack and 7 were killed, including the mayor's wife and a Red Cross ambulanceman, and 29 wounded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/12/AR2006081201072_pf.html
None of these people were even Shiites, since Marwahin is a Sunni town and Marjayoun is Christian, and the former base of Israel's proxy South Lebanon Army.
These weren't isolated incidents. Here are several similar cases:
Escape Route Is a Path of Destruction
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-solebanon24jul24,1,3184029.story
Here's a whole list of them:
http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/6.htm#_ftn86
If you find ballbearings in warheads disturbing, I advise you to steer clear of John's basement.
We spent much of the 19th and 20th century packing our shells with lead and iron balls. In fact the only reason we stopped was because we found more effective ways of killing people with blast and fragmentation. Nowadays our shells are waaay better. Like the DPICM, for example.
It's true I don't go out of my way to condemn Hezbollah. That's because everyone else here is doing that. So I condemn the other party who's getting off scott-free despite killing vastly more civilians.
Hezbollah's targeting is indeed indiscriminate. Hezbollah has no regard whatsoever for the lives of Israeli civilians. So I'll happily condemn both sides if you wish.
But I would have thought the Israelis, who are always pointing out to us how morally superior they are to their enemies, might have done rather better than to get into the gutter with Hezbollah. Especially since they have the technology to fight cleanly and effectively if they want.
They are their own worst enemies. Their brutality and recklessness has turned world opinion, which originally backed their response, and forced the White House to change tack and call a ceasefire...thus freezing in place the Israelis' lack of gains.
by OD on August 16, 2006 8:28 PM
Geoff, I was wondering about that too, but I was afraid to ask in case I revealed some horrible fundamental ignorance.
I also have a technical question for John. You note that the Israeli guns are accurate and the Katyushas not. Like all rockets, they change trajectory somewhat in the air. But since the Israeli counterbattery radar is following their terminal trajectory, doesn't that mean that a fire control computer calculating backwards from it is unlikely to lead you exactly to the launch site?
Also, since the fire control computer calculates ballistic trajectories, surely there will be an error in calculating rocket trajectories, which only go ballistic after the motor dies?
Presumably, just it's tougher to predict where a projectile will land when it's an inaccurate one, wouldn't it also be tougher to track back to the firing point, the more inaccurate and erratic the incoming projectile was?
So wouldn't accurate counterbattery fire against Katyushas be impeded by the inherent inaccuracy and wobbliness of the Katyushas themselves?
Not a criticism, just a technical question.
by OD on August 16, 2006 8:40 PM
Owen - yes and no, and it also depends on the ROE.
CF radar catches the rocket/projo on the ascending arc, when the angular error is smaller and there is less cumulative error inherent in the trajectory, which of course gets greater the farther along the trajectory you are. You only catch things on the descending arc (least accurate for backplot to origin) if you are doing impact prediction.
Accuracy is also enhanced by catching multiple launches from the same location, such as ripple fire, and by multiple radars observing the launch, but I would guesstimate a 50 meter CEP to be an outside ballpark number.
After that, it's ROE. In conventional combat, I'd fire battery volleys on a radar target like that.
In this environment, *if* I had a UAV in the air and close, or an armed aircraft, I'd vector them to try to get eyes on the target to confirm - but since these guys shoot and scoot, that's a very tight window.
War is an ugly business at this point, Owen.
Unless my maps showed a school/church/hospital/culturally sensitve area, and those rockets were headed to my civilian areas, if the attack guidance matrix/ROE allowed it, I would shoot back. If they are hitting my military areas with enough regularity, I would shoot back.
If it was near those sensitive sites, I would be keeping a running log and doing some pattern analysis - and if that turned into a pattern, i.e., shooting from sensitive sites, I would then start orienting assets like SOF, UAVs, etc, to observe those sites and set them up for guided weapons, or, try to occupy the areas.
If I'm taking real casualties from launches from those areas, and I couldn't get assets to get eyes on, I would probably come down on shooting back with single/two gun volleys, and I would have all the documentation I would need to drop on your desk and say "tough noogies, sorry about that, but they're the ones who aren't playing by the Convention - and I am. And do please condemn their violations of the Conventions if you are going to yell at me about them."
And before you launch into a tirade... remember, we're talking about me, in my job as a fire direction officer, defending my targeting and ROE decisions. At that level, the overall question of the war itself doesn't enter into it, so don't go down *that* rathole. 8^)
by
John of Argghhh! on August 17, 2006 6:43 AM
OD
You did an excellent job of covering why I went with '12 - 60' rather than '8 - 60'.
Now would you care to discuss how to tell if a male casuality aged approx 12 - 60 was a civilian or a Hezbo fighter? Especially when their side is the one providing the pictures of the victims?
The world can be very glad I'm not in charge of things. There's always the chance that while I would use PGM's I'd use them to make certain I completely filled a nice neat grid over the entire area. Probably twice. I'm not always nice but I do tend to be effective.
by KCSteve on August 17, 2006 1:59 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 8, 2006
Okay - enough teasing on the Whatzis from Sunday.
I just left you guys hanging yesterday, in order to give the "I only read Argghhh! from work" guys a chance at the Whatzis.
You really did pretty well. Owen got it quickly, and Captain H went a step further and emailed a link (chicken - won't post openly...) to a write up. They were the first to get it. And, speaking of that, CAPT H - upon further review, I withdraw my statement about this shell being Brit (as I was informed by the guy I bought it from) it *is* the French version of Armstrong's studded projectile.
Oh - and that *was* a shadow guys, not a notch, in the pic. That was just an artifact of taking the picture, not a deliberate attempt to mislead. This time. Owen - your size referent is... 3 inches. That's the nominal caliber. Some sources say 3.3, but that would include the studs, at least in my example.
Zinc, not a lead or copper stud - which strongly argues for it being french and not Brit.
This was an early method of rifling artillery - if you notice, the studs are slightly offset, and the studs themselves actually have a direction - the shell was fitted into deep grooves and rammed home. It worked well enough when the guns were new, and not badly fouled from firing... but it also only worked well with black powder. When more powerful propellants were used, the friction inherent in this process was too great and the studs just sheared off, and the flight of the projectile was unpredictable.
But with the acquisition of this piece, the artillery collection has representative examples of most major varieties of imparting a spin to the projectile. Now if I could only find an affordable shell with an *intact* papier mach sabot...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
*groan*
you sucketh, JoA.
by AFSister on August 8, 2006 8:06 AM
That's a good thing, right?
by
John of Argghhh! on August 8, 2006 8:08 AM
The studs are slightly offset
Well, that's certainly appropriate 'round here, ain't it?
by Masked Menace on August 8, 2006 1:43 PM
"the shell was fitted into deep grooves and rammed home..."
*That* was the phrase I thought would bring the 8@)'s out!
by
John of Argghhh! on August 8, 2006 2:14 PM
Must.Resist.Making.Comment.... MUST RESIST
MUST RESIST
by Were-Kitten on August 8, 2006 3:30 PM
So where is the picture of the hexagonal Whitworth with a twist?
(that should interest Were-kitten!)
Oops - should use search more often!
by
SezaGeoff on August 8, 2006 6:55 PM
This post is wide open exposed a target for gay jokes. I must shaddap.
by
Trias on August 9, 2006 8:20 AM
Trias, as our token Gay (everybody else is closeted...) it's your territory. You're the only one who can do so without violating PC Rulez!
Just remember to pay attention to the PG-17c Rulez.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 9, 2006 8:23 AM
I am the only gay in the village castle.
I will be good.
by
Trias on August 10, 2006 12:39 AM
Actually, that's not true. Jeff Soyer, from Alphecca, is a regular reader, and is openly gay. And with 1800-2200 readers a day, there's bound to be more, just closeted in that, unless you choose to reveal yourself, the Castle practices Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Care.
If you choose to reveal yourself, we drop the Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and just practice Don't Care.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 10, 2006 6:35 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
August 3, 2006
A Castle Scout Reports In
From Blake Kirk, retired soldier now a civil servant, working in Iraq to help redeploy people and things back to the US.
I've been over here for two months now, helping a bunch of different units in this part of Iraq get ready to redeploy back to their home stations when their tours are up. I've not written much, mostly because most of the stuff I had to write about had more to do with what units were moving, where, and when. Not exactly the sort of stuff we need to have published as open-source info on the Internet. And you really DON'T want to hear my opinions about the software package we're now using to manage unit deployments...
Now, however, because it turns out I'm the only transporter in the area who knows ANYTHING about either Russian ordnance OR WW2-era US armored vehicles, I've had an additional mission handed to me, which permits me to send you gun pron.
They've really tightened the rules about bringing home captured equipment. Mostly, units are now limited to stuff that isn't of any real use to the new Iraqi military. And that's probably as it should be.
The 101st Historical Section has requested, (with the CG's endorsement,) to return to the US a Russian-built KS-19 100mm antiaircraft gun, along with two US-built M36-series tank destroyers: an M36B1, and an M36B2. I get the dubious privilege of preparing these things for movement. So far I've managed to determine that the turret-traversing mechanism on the M36B1 is frozen. The gun is aimed a bit more than 90 degrees right at the moment, so we're going to have to do something about that in order to move the piece. That will probably involve removing the traversing gearbox from the turret wall. WD-40 is my friend in this instance, and someone who realizes this has laid in a large stock of The Mechanic's Sacred Fluid, for which he, she or it has my undying gratitude.
I've got a few pictures of the KS-19. Pictures of the M36's later.
The KS-19's an interesting piece, similar in many ways to a German 88mm FLAK 37 mount, but not really a copy of the German design. I'd originally thought it was a Chinese Type 59 (the PLA's copy of the KS-19,) but this one has lettering in Cyrillic, not Chinese ideographs. The optics and electrical components are missing or in sad shape, but the gun can still be elevated and trained manually with very little effort. We're planning on moving it to a transportation staging yard in a few days, which is why I have photos of it in the travel configuration. We'll haul it south out of here on a flatbed, so it really doesn't matter if one of the tie rods on the front wheels is badly bent.
More as I get something interesting to say.
Two more pics. Here (left side view) and here (fuze setter).
Looking forward to it, Blake!
July 5, 2006
The Guns of Argghhh!
The Guns of Argghhh are silent now, just as the guns at Gettysburg fell silent, though it was a *lot* more fun here and there was alcohol involved (in safe amounts).
Much powder (and a little tequila) were consumed in the making of this post.
There might have been some bugs killed by the aerial bursts. I hope so, anyway. But otherwise, no mammals or non-flying bugs were harmed in the making of last evening.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
However, the canine members of the family were none too happy and alternated between running to the basement and running to our bedroom. Houdini hid under the pillows.
The felines honestly did not give a sh*t.
by
beth on July 5, 2006 10:18 AM
That's cuz they trust their Daddy.
The hounds know better.
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 10:30 AM
Comrades,
A friend of mine has a full-scale Coehorn Mortar that fires cement-filled soup cans. He paints them day-glo orange and lobs then out into the bay. Always a treat to watch, especially when accompainied by goodly amounts of Navy Rum.....
If there are vessels nearby then he simply switches rounds from soup cans to tennis balls.... neat to watch a smoking tennis ball arcing over the skies towards someone's speedboat:)
respects,
AW1 Tim
by Gwedd on July 5, 2006 12:01 PM
My Enfield Cup Discharger is also an effective tennis ball launcher.
It's more fun at dusk, or early morning, with a touch of lighter fluid/charcoal starter (just a smidge!) on 'em.
Given it's a bay, leaving off the petrochems would prolly be a good idea. Plowed fields don't really care.
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 1:27 PM
Ain't it great to be an American?!
We in the sunny South get all likker'd up and shoot at stuff, too.
What did you mean by aerial bursts? Were you firing lit firecrackers, or do you have the means for miniature proximity fuses? Now that'd be REAL cool. Oh, how about an airburst projectile from a potato cannon! Work on that one for your next project and post more good gun pr0n.
Keep up the good work.
Dan Patterson
Arrogant Infidel
by Dan Patterson on July 5, 2006 2:18 PM
Dan - I stuck the firecrackers (3-4 at a time) into the mortar fuze-first.
Which means they burst about 20 feet away.
Unreliable ignition on fuzes if I stuck 'em in fuze out and tucked the fuzes (I tried, wanted to go for a cascade effect, like we used to do with 105mm howitzers at firepower demos for a 'trajectory demonstration - shoot 6 rounds at different elevations and fuze settings and have them all go off at once one hitting the ground, the rest at various elevations in the air...
by
John of Argghhh!!! on July 5, 2006 3:59 PM
John -
You need to hie thee over to www.wildimports.com and aquire one of their "beer-can mortars. Take a beer can, fill it about 1/2 full of flour (or talcum powder if you want to smell nice), drop an eight second fused bird-bomb in the can and light a four second mortar fuse. Aim toward the house of the neighbor you most dislike, heh, heh, heh. If you really don't like him, fill the can with round-up...
by emdfl on July 5, 2006 7:58 PM
Round-up! Now *that's* mean!
I've been tempted, very tempted.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 5, 2006 8:05 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 22, 2006
Well, since I'm obviously writing the Indirect Fire posts for myself...
...we'll just skip today's planned discussion:
And move on to this.
All right, smarty-pants - you know who you are - what's this?
I think you guys need a hint. You can play, Master Pogue - as noted in the comments... who said this is an Indirect Fire artifact? Of course, who says it isn't..
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
butt end of a knee mortar for someone with extremely durable thighs.
by
MajMike on June 22, 2006 8:25 AM
Instead of waffling on like i usually do. It's a rusty bitometal. Probably heavily handled.
I'll guess an archorage point for a dock. I suspect it's really something much smaller.
by
Trias on June 22, 2006 8:26 AM
What a jip.
Where's the lecture? YOu know, the best way to get gollum to stfu is to put something edumacational up.
Slacker.
by ry on June 22, 2006 8:37 AM
Heh. Izzat some ordure I see on the portcullis?
I do believe it is. Musta caught a troll last night.
That'll need cleaning.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2006 8:54 AM
Trias - your answer is correct, if incomplete.
MajMike fails to rise to the bait he left yesterday...
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2006 8:58 AM
i saw, i just didn't figure you could find a pic so quick!
by
MajMike on June 22, 2006 9:17 AM
I didn't *find* one, MajMike. I *took* one.
As in pointed the electronic gizmo at the artifact and pushed a button and some photons excited some electrons, and it went south from there.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2006 9:28 AM
I've been enjoying your indirect fire posts and looking for more. I'm just sitting this round out as ordered, sir! :-)
by
Pogue on June 22, 2006 1:03 PM
Pogue - by all means, get in on this one!
No one else is making any serious attempts.
MajMike was too wiley for my trap.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2006 1:23 PM
Rusty lump o'metal related to indirect fire...
Hmmm...
Have you taken up anvil firing? What do the neighbors think of this?
by
Eric Wilner on June 22, 2006 2:23 PM
I suspect my north and south neighbors would be amused.
My east neighbors, I don't know. My west neighbors, the high school, aren't in session.
I can't quite see anvil-firing as indirect fire...
And who said this *was* related to indirect fire?
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2006 2:49 PM
It's a cog in the wheel, like the rest of us poor rusty schmucks.
by
kat-missouri on June 22, 2006 4:39 PM
gotta have something really effective to "trap a tanker"...
by
MajMike on June 22, 2006 5:48 PM
Yep, like take down the road signs, given the mapreading skillz I encountered.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 22, 2006 5:53 PM
Actually, it looks like the end of a chair arm to me. Wouldn't put it past Big Tribble to just screwball us.
"It's a cog in the wheel, like the rest of us poor rusty schmucks." And that gets an Andrew Dice Clay 'Oh!".
by ry on June 23, 2006 5:42 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 21, 2006
Continuing the theme.
Mr. Pogue can no longer play in this round. He's too good!
MajMike gave me a start, when he started out with "collimating valometer..."
If he'd just substituted sight or instrument for valometer, he'd have been the winnah!
But Pogue got it mostly correct. A collimator. He said an early one, but it's actually the current Russian one (though this particular one was made in the Soviet era.) With guys like Pogue playing, and Frank, you'll understand why I didn't put up this picture. Of a US collimator. That would have been waaaay too easy for US Redlegs to get.
If you haven't figured it out yet, the theme this week (and into the next if it takes that long) is "Indirect Fire, How *Do* They Do That!?!" We're introducing most of the major components to get us there from the perspective of the guns. We've already met the Aiming Circle, used to "establish a common direction" i.e., get everybody pointing in the same direction. There are three components to that at the gun level. The aiming circle, the panoramic telescope (the gun's sight) and the Distant Aiming Point.
Let's face it. Infantry sucks. They have rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, and sometimes they stick sharp pointy things on their rifles (we know my problem with *that*!), and alla time they are wanting to sulkily sit around on terrain you'd just as soon they not squat on. They're uncouth, foul-mouthed, and smelly. And generally pissed off. But, if you want to keep them off your terrain, or get back the terrain they already befoul, you've got to deal with them, like any other pest.
But there's no need to actually get *near* them to do this. That's what your own infantry is for. No, you don't want to get near that many troglodytes all crammed into a small space - but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy some nice target shooting. From a distance. With a terrain feature between you and them. Unlike the other arms (whom we love like brothers, I assure you) we artillerymen can actually hit things we can't see, and generally on purpose, too. Oh, sometimes we miss, but that's usually because a Lieutenant, of almost any branch, is involved. And besides, if they're tankers, who cares? That's what 'open protective' is for, right?
So, lets discuss the bits and pieces of how we Kings of Battle keep the Queen in Drag.
And, if you're still here and not ready to kill yourself - go behind the curtain to the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry, where this edition of Gun Pr0n will continue.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Usetabe, back in the early days, you literally selected a distant aiming point, a readily-identifiable spot that all the guns could see, which was far enough away that all the guns had *effectively* a parallel (to each other) sight line. There are obvious problems to that, not the least of which is night time, not too mention terrain. So, very quickly, aiming posts were developed. Once the guns were laid, crews put out aiming posts, two of them, one behind the other, to act as an aiming reference point.
Again, problems with terrain, vegetation, fog, rain, etc - and especially camouflage nets, made that a problem.
Hence, the collimator. The collimator optically simulates a distant aiming point, but can be put right next to the gun - under the camouflage nets. Some, like the US version, have their own light source to illuminate the collimator so you can read the reticle inside. Others, like the russian one - have the mirror, which saves batteries in daylight by allowing you to use ambient light better. Getting an in-focus picture of the sight picture proved beyond my talents, but here is what the russian collimator looks like through the pantel (artillery-speak for panoramic telescope). The picture at the top of the post is a view of the US collimator - and since my light source doesn't work - you can see why that mirror is useful!
If I were a better photog, you'd see something like this:
Without going into excruciating detail (I've been told - as recently as lunch yesterday, that I sometimes provide a mind-numbing who-gives-a-flying-fark amount of detail - tough noogies, that's what the scroll bars are for!) the way this all works is the gunner gets the deflection (direction to point the gun) from the Fire Direction Center, sets that number on his sight, then, looking through the sight, traverses the gun until his sight-picture looks like what you see there - when he's done that, his tube is pointed towards the target (not *at* it, but close - but that's another whole series of posts!). We'll leave it at that. You want more detail, enlist in the artillery.
For that to all be accurate, and *fast* in setup, is the purpose of all those fiddly bits Trias was interested in yesterday. There is a sight, so that the cannoneer can literally aim the collimator at the gun's sight, and a level, so that the collimator is level horizontally though the trunnions - that keeps the reticle pattern vertical. There is a way for the gunner to visually interpolate if he has to - but the whole purpose of crew drill is to get it right the first time, every time, so the gunner doesn't *have* to interpolate the sight picture.
That's enough for the day. Soon, we will be moving to the Castle Inner Bailey and tie it all together.
� Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
"... can actually hit at things we can't see ..." Close enough is enough.
"... generally on purpose ..." That's what we tell the General.
"... if they're tankers, who cares?" They don't; when their MPI is a Grid Square, closing one's hatches will suffice.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Ah, but John - that's why we developed MLRS and ATACM - so we can just blanket the grid square.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 21, 2006 1:24 PM
All this is true, to be sure... Artillery is indeed an ancient and venerable calling (I'll bet that you remember the first time you, Og, and Mog figured out how to lob a large rock at that pesky T-Rex, eh John?)
But 'tis difficult to fire them big muthas when the grunts keep stealing the firing lanyards because they ran out of rope...
...And it's even harder to fire them big muthas when a bunch of grunts from the wrong side of the tracks is in the neighborhood... (Unless we're Marine Artillery, who are first and foremost riflemen, and just going through a phase where they feel the need to butress their illusions of manhood by shooting big guns in what they perceive is compensation for their own shortcomings, kinda like a mid-life crisis, except substitute the Porche for an M-198 155mm... We have high hopes that they will get over it soon...)
And grunts talk to airplanes and helicopters too...
Why dirty up your rifle when you can have your own fireworks show?
*grin, innocent look*
What?
by
Sgt. B. on June 21, 2006 1:36 PM
arty terms translated:
"suppression" = "oops, missed again!"
by
MajMike on June 21, 2006 3:34 PM
Nah, we never say "oops".
We just say "Left 1000 add 1000 repeat, over."
Of course, we also do this for our helicopetering and otherwise lost terrestrial friends...
"Mark center of sector, out." when yer lost and seeking guidance. We were wasting so much WP doing that they developed GPS since it was obviously hopeless trying to teach you guys to read maps.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 21, 2006 4:33 PM
Only 'cause they gave the maps to the Lieutenants...
We didn't mind walking around out there; plenty of sun, lots of ammo, the occassional helo ride, and we knew that we'd get stuck burning out four-holers if we got back through the wire too early...
by
Sgt. B. on June 21, 2006 5:13 PM
who's been burning shitters?
by goesh on June 22, 2006 9:41 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
June 16, 2006
New Artillery Round, the Saber.
Don't get me wrong, I like all this stuff. But...
Ry sends us this, which he titled "Puff piece for the Artillerist's Soul:
"The relatively simple design of Saber allows it to accurately fly to target with fewer moving parts; making the round highly reliable, very effective and importantly, lower-cost than the competition," said Dave Wise, General Manager, Advanced Weapons, ATK Mission Systems Group.
The test was conducted at the Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma, Ariz. After exiting the barrel, the tail fin assembly deployed and latched as designed. After the fins were locked in place, the round's rocket motor ignited and completed a full burn.
The thrust provided by the rocket motor allowed the round to reach its 48- Kilometer objective. In previous tests, ATK has demonstrated the effectiveness of its INS/GPS guidance solution.
The increased range of Saber's boosted, ballistic trajectory flight path reduces the time from gun-launch to impact and supports the expanded responsibilities of Brigade Combat Teams.
The full thing is here.
Heh.
Yep. And we'll need/use fewer of them, because they're so accurate. And that will reduce collateral damage. And they have a smaller explosive charge (that rocket and fins hadda take up some space, yes?) so they'll be near perfect New Agey weapons and hurt only what they hit... a little bit. And that's okay, because we're now so accurate with this GPS stuff that, as the old Bryllcreem add says, "A little dab'll do ya!"
That's what the Smart Guys say.
It really is a matter of balance. And things which reduce the amount of collateral damage, focusing it instead on the right targets, especially in crowded environments, is a Good Thing. The WWII Strategic Bombing Campaign approach to artillery, in anything less than Total War is really counter-productive. Both in terms of the GOG, the Global Opinion Golem, and the "Three-Block War Paradigm" where you have to take responsibility for the areas you just pounded.
Of course, sometimes, when presented with a large target array - which, of course, will never happen to us again, the Smart Guys all say so - blanketing things with high explosive is useful. Especially if they are scurrying around a lot.
But, we're never going to fight that way again. I've been told by Smart Guys.
We've got all that kewl GPS stuff - which means we know where We are, we know where They are, and we'll let the GPS guide the weapon to the target - which we really do need to hit physically, because, after all, One Round One Kill is the new mantra, and we have a very small explosion (see: collateral damage) and - all the Smart Guys say so! We'll never mass fires on a target again. The GOG say's That's Bad. "Close enough for hand grenades and horseshoes" no longer applies. The blast radius doesn't give you any room for a CEP of any size.
Yo, Smart Guys - Do you know how cheap and effective GPS jammers are these days?
Just askin'.
Funny thing about Smart Guys. They almost never have to actually implement this stuff with their a$$ on the battlefield.
Just ask the SECDEF about how all the Smart Guys he went with got it in regard to OIF, the Aftermath. They did have Part I down, certainly. There was this problem with overall context outside the immediate specification.
Sometimes, heck many times, the Smart Guys are right. But when they're wrong? That's when people like SFC Paul Smith pick up the slack.
I study this stuff for a living. I write reports that help or hinder projects like this.
SFC Paul Smith, and those like him, are always hov'ring in the back of my mind as I potter about my work.
So pardon my bear-just-outta-hibernation attitude when I read breathless stuff like this.
Just sayin'.
That doesn't mean you should quit *sending* it Ry.
It's all bloggable.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
The story says the round is compatible with all existing and future 155 mm cannons. It's just a projectile, not a whole new system. There will still be 155s around, and likely 'normal' rounds will still be in the arsenal to use as needs dictate. So what's the problem?
by
Tim on June 16, 2006 8:58 AM
Simple - yes, there will still be "regular" rounds around.
But far fewer.
1. Because less money is spent on procuring them - in order to pay the bills for the new rounds.
2. The biggest restriction on artillery ammunition is generally transport space - to the theater, in theater, and on the vehicles. Which makes the new rounds even more attractive in that regard. So, the new, specialized rounds take up more space at the expense of conventional rounds. Which are now not available if you need them. Which means SFC Smith gets to perform.
It's all a balance - and I'm just offering the flip side of the coin to the press release.
Or should I just have been a cheerleader?
by
John of Argghhh! on June 16, 2006 9:21 AM
nice round...
now all i need is a Forward Observer who can talk reliably at a range of 48 kilometers to initiate the call for fire and adjust, and then report the BDA.
doh!
by
MajMike on June 16, 2006 12:35 PM
And who doesn't have a jammed GPS.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 16, 2006 1:30 PM
I don't expect you to be a cheerleader for anything, I just think you overreacted a bit and were overly snarky and derisive to people who are trying to advance our capabilities. I'm all for new and improved systems to supplement what we already have. And I do realize that we still need (and will likely always need) 'conventional' systems and tactics. I'd actually feel better if we scrapped domestic spending and built a military based on mass and technology, as ready for large scale war as it is for precision work.
by
Tim on June 16, 2006 1:56 PM
Advantages of youth and vigor over old fogey, Tim.
Each and every individual program has merit.
Just perhaps not enough merit.
And Alliant is just doing what the government asked them to do.
But I've spent 30ish years of listening to the hype, and then being the one who either had to find a way to make it actually work, etc.
30-some years of deja vu' with some stuff actually working as advertised (eventually) and I understand how the system works.
But I do get tired of how it's all presented, and how much gets brushed under the carpet because it's inconvenient.
I don't mind Saber, per se. But I, unlike, I'm guessing, you - have been the guy to try and figure out what the right mix is, and fight with all the entrenched interests who want to make sure their pet is included somewhere.
I don't know your background, but my background on this is informed - and when you ask questions like that the answer tends to be a handwave toward something in the future.
But we'll push this thing out there, regardless. Because figuring out how to defeat GPS jamming is "someone else's problem".
Until SFC Smith is the guy who needs the support.
This *is* my blog-job, partly. To ask the questions, snarky or not, that others don't want asked, because the answers aren't pretty.
It's a way, infintesimal in it's impact, of reminding people of the elephant in the room.
A small sphere of influence, to be sure.
I'm sorry if you don't like the snark - but it really isn't aimed at the people who do the regular work of designing and building these things.
It's aimed at the decision makers, marketeers, etc.
If you work on a line building these things - you're doing great things and the tech is worth developing - but all these things work in a context. I sit in a part of that context where the job is to sort it out.
And lots of it doesn't get sorted out.
So I snark.
It's my job. Sorry if you feel scorched by the backblast.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 16, 2006 2:42 PM
I don't feel scorched - I was an Air Force weatherman, and it's what I've been doing for the last 20 years as a civilian.
by
Tim on June 16, 2006 2:57 PM
A weatherman? No, you wouldn't feel scorched, you have to have developed thick skin in that trade!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 16, 2006 3:09 PM
When all is said and done, the good ol' M107 will still rule.
by Boquisucio on June 16, 2006 7:54 PM
Boq
No way! The L55 is the one; if not, then the L7.
Although I thought the L23 was sweet.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on June 16, 2006 10:25 PM
(pokes head out from under rock)
Is it safe?
I wonder if this is a product of needing to keep cannon 'relevant'? Missile advocates seem to think that the age of the cannon is long past. So, do we put precision into cannon shells to offset the calls to deep six cannon? Aren't ideological fights grand?
(dives back under rock)
by ry on June 17, 2006 3:11 AM
If it were purely about that, Ry, I would leading the cheers, right?
Nobody gets me, sigh.
This is about "fair and balanced."
I'm not condemning Saber, or Excalibur, etc. I'm just talking about the weaknesses. No silver bullet ever has been a silver bullet.
And if you get yourself to the point where've you've got mostly precision munitions in your kit bag - strategically, not tactically - you've actually taken away capability.
The ability to precision snipe, at range, in all weather is a good one.
Owhell, I surrender. I'm too old to fight this anymore.
All you young guys are right.
I'll just shut up.
Everybody who does this stuff is a hard-working American saint, who deserves nothing but praise.
I'm just a past-my-time fuddy-duddy, mired in a never-to-be-seen again past who just can't let go.
I admit it.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 17, 2006 9:42 AM
Bring back the Crusader! LOL
by fdcol63 on June 17, 2006 9:24 PM
Oi vey. Just asking a question about whether this was being propelled by the arguments between pure missile advocates or not or the all weapons need precision capabilities advocates or not. Sheesh. I shoulda stayed under my rock. It's not like I am pushing one thing or another. Just asking questions for my own edumafication.
by ry on June 18, 2006 4:29 AM
I think about another Sergeant who's just been proposed for the MoH. Read about him on a link from The Cotillion. The narrative, presumably to be distilled into a citation, had him capturing (actually, with-the-hands wrestling-capturing) a guy in a house fight, who just would not quit yelling, nor fighting. Said Sgt. purportedly drew knife, cut the guy's throat, and squoze him to make him bleed out more quickly. Yikes!
Well, yeah, pushbutton weapons are the kind I'd prefer to use, bein' kinda squeamish, but once you start killin' and getting killed, it seems to me that knives will prolly get used at some point. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Ow. Dang, it really *is* a matter of life and death. Who'd a-thunk it?
by
Justthisguy on June 18, 2006 9:16 AM
Umm, sorry about having written "squoze", above. I must confess to a partiality for irregular verbs. If they don't exist, I'll make 'em up!
by
Justthisguy on June 18, 2006 11:43 AM
IIRC, when Reagan had that cancer on his face, when asked about it - he remarked that he'd "squoze" a pimple too hard or somesuch.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 18, 2006 3:36 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 24, 2006
Whatziss, answered!
Old Fat Sailor - I name you Brainiac of Argghhh! You got it right.
If our Ozzie OFS hadn't gotten it, I would have offered up this as a clue today, followed quickly with this.
If that was insufficient (I'm thinking it would have been enough) - I'd have offered up this.
But I don't have to do that. Because OFS identified it - it's a stand of quilted grape.
In this case, a replica of Revolutionary War-era stand of quilted grape, in the six-pounder version. An early form of "Improved Conventional Munitions," grape was used against attacking infantry at greater ranges. Comprised of a wooden base, or sabot, with a wood rod protruding from it, they were stacked round with iron balls, held in place by the cloth and twine wrapping, which was then doped. The wrapping and sabot kept it all together for easy loading, and the paint helped waterproof it, prevent rot of the cloth, and provided some more rigidity.
The ones you find in museums have usually been painted black or red. This one is au naturel, to show the basic construction better. Made this way to speed loading (that infantry is looking pretty determined), the twine and cloth gave way upon firing, turning the gun into a giant shotgun. Grape, with it's larger balls, had a greater range at the expense of fewer projectiles. Canister is grape's short-range cousin, being smaller balls, usually lead musket balls, loosely loaded into a container (canister) and fired when the infantry had gotten annoyingly close and looked like they were still interested in killing artillerymen. Of course, once you started shooting this at infantry, the infantry became notoriously uninterested in taking prisoners, either... infantry sucks that way.
Why is is called a Stand of Grape? In fortress use especially, but also in the field, you stood them up on the wooden sabot, so they wouldn't roll around. Larger guns oft times fired grape made of larger iron balls held together by iron plates and rings, like this stand of 12-pounder grapeshot.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Wow - now that I know what the rest of it looks like, I'm especially impressed the OFS got it. Thanks, as always, for the kewl education, John!
by
Barb on May 24, 2006 10:28 AM
But you haven't explained the Mummy's nipple.
Cheers
by J.M. Heinrichs on May 24, 2006 1:45 PM
I was gonna snark the nipple... but JMH trumped me.
LMAO!
(So John... what is the "mummy nipple" for?)
by Were-Kitten on May 24, 2006 2:18 PM
Your discussion reminds me of what was reputedly the last command of Lt Alonzo Cushing, commanding what was left of Battery A, 4th US Artillery in the third day at Gettysburg, as Pickett's Charge came toward the stone wall on Cemetary Ridge: "Load triple canister and keep up the fire!"
Or, as a more modern artilleryman once told me: "The situation isn't REALLY desperate unless you're shooting at zero elevation."
by
Blake Kirk on May 24, 2006 3:15 PM
W-K, JMH - that would be the fire-tempered end of the wooden dowel that forms the spine of the stand.
Sigh.
You aren't fooling me. You just wanted to drag the conversation down into the gutter and type "nipple". And make sure that "nipple" appeared a lot of times in the comments so that when someone typed "nipple" into Google the leading site for "nipple" would be Castle Nipple.
That about cover it for you two?
You both need to get out more.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 24, 2006 3:36 PM
What's wrong with writing "nipple"? We're all mammals here, right? I dare say most of us are humans, most of whom have only two nipples, unlike the other mammals, (except for elephants) who tend to have multiple nipples to go with their multiple teats.
Now, a lot of people don't know how to pronounce the word "teat." They say it as if it were spelled "teet." That's wrong. "Teat" rhymes with "tit", which as everyone knows, is actually a small bird.
Why, one of my favorite airplanes was named after a tit; that would be the Hawker Tomtit.
Is this one of those "homo-nym" situations?
by
Justthisguy on May 24, 2006 4:43 PM
Dang! That reminds me! What with all of the chaos in this house since the ex-brother was here, I seem to have lost my nipple wrench. You know, the one you use to tighten up loose spoke nipples on bicycle wheels?
Oh, did I mention the fun I had when shooting a friend's cap'n ball weapons? Aside from that wonderful black powder aroma, we got to play with nipples! We had nipple picks, and (again) nipple wrenches, and discussed the comparative advantages of plain steel nipples vs. stainless steel nipples.
Face the music, guys and gals; we're mammals, and all nipple-shaped things remind us of, well, NIPPLES!
by
Justthisguy on May 24, 2006 5:15 PM
And the newly sedated JTG falls into dreamless slumber on the couch outside the Jungle Room, snoring gently, mind filled with pleasant dreams.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 24, 2006 5:34 PM
Is that a hint, or a hope?
OK, whatever. I'll stop now.
by
Justthisguy on May 24, 2006 5:44 PM
Not from Oz just the address, BTW some times my Air Assult medic daughter accuses me of crewing a 24 pounder with JPJ :-)
by Old Fat Sailor on May 24, 2006 6:33 PM
Regardless - we Auld Fat Farts gotta stick together!
Bravo Zulu!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 24, 2006 8:10 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
May 8, 2006
This would look nice...
...covering the non-existant seaborne approaches to Castle Argghhhh!!!
I'd have to find that missing breech mechanism and projectile winch, but no matter. I think I'd lose the pillbox caps for the crew, too. Hawaiian shirts and straw hats, I should think. Well, at least in the summer.
Rather than all the Brit wool stuff, save that for the winter.
The gun is the main armament of Fort Rinella, Malta.
Malta, also on the Castle Argghhh!!! Castle Tour list.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
It has a twin here, and if you asks me really nicely, I might get a picture of that one for you when I swing by this summer ;-)
by
Barb on May 8, 2006 1:17 PM
Pretty please?
by
John of Argghhh! on May 8, 2006 3:24 PM
Needs overhead protection, that. The big heavy kind that keeps rude people from dropping things effectively on your head.
by Fred on May 8, 2006 4:45 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
May 08, 2006
�
Ghost of a flea links with:
Titan 1 ICBM missile base
�
Ghost of a flea links with:
Titan 1 ICBM missile base
�
Ghost of a flea links with:
Titan 1 ICBM missile base
March 22, 2006
Cannoneer Zen
Especially since it makes Infantry duck and tankers go into at least "open protective". And that's the ones on your side.
Some Redleg Marines having a moment of gunner zen on Bougainville, December 1943.
I will leave it open for the snarks sure to emanate from the CANZSTAAC* Denizens.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I thought Gunner zen came from when they have elevation set zero/negative, shot is loaded, and all the gun crew have decided that twiddly little infantry small arms would be welcome addition to their usual repertoire.
In fact, isn't satori achieved when the gunner's are happy to see the infantry sharing positions with them?
by Fred on March 22, 2006 7:56 AM
I thought Gunner zen came from when they have elevation set zero/negative, shot is loaded, and all the gun crew have decided that twiddly little infantry small arms would be welcome addition to their usual repertoire.
In fact, isn't satori achieved when the gunner's are happy to see the infantry sharing positions with them?
by Fred on March 22, 2006 7:56 AM
The sound of one Fred posting
Echoes in the Great Hall.
Small 'trons die
Unmourned.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 8:13 AM
Q. How can you can tell that's a Marine howitzer?
A. By the bayonet stud...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 8:15 AM
I see our Sugarbuttons is in fine form today... :D
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on March 22, 2006 8:16 AM
what a cute little pop gun... looks just like something that could get mildly annoying (might go to chin strap defilade, but the hatches are staying open).
by
MajMike on March 22, 2006 8:17 AM
Gotta luv half-nekkid boys firing off big guns first thing in the morning!
WOOT!
by Were-Kitten on March 22, 2006 9:07 AM
btw, John... "Especially since it makes Infantry duck"
What I want to know is...
What makes Infantrymen goose? I'm MUCH more interested in being goosed by an Infantryman than being ducked by one.
*shakes tail feathers at boys*
by Were-Kitten on March 22, 2006 9:09 AM
The pack howitzer's light enough to drag around the dance floor but big enough to give the target a nosebleed.
And I *do* b'lieve that the M4 Sherman (aka, "The Ronson") used the 75mm popgun, too...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 9:14 AM
There are no Marine "Red Legs".
by jim b on March 22, 2006 9:15 AM
No Marine Red Legs? Ever see a Tiger Team after they went for a stroll in the paddies? Lotta red legs--especially after they started Leech Removal Ops...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 9:21 AM
God loves leeches he made so many of them.
by jim b on March 22, 2006 9:28 AM
Oh goody. Cannon haiku.
Lessee:
He gives direction
Gun ready
Blasts others to h***
by Cricket on March 22, 2006 10:04 AM
Concur yr analysis, Were-Kitten. Hooah! Is the technical term for this BUU -- Battle Undress Uniform?
by
Bad Cat Robot on March 22, 2006 11:05 AM
I *knew* that pic would get her nose out of the N2O beaker...
There's no technical term for it, but it's commonly known as going into "we're so far from the real shooting that we can work on our tans" mode.
They're still wearing helmets because there's just *no* place in a gun pit to put the darn things where they won't be constantly underfoot. Ever turn your ankle on an inverted helmet?
I know a guy who did and said it was really, really painful. But he was in a VIP-flight outfit and considered eating cold C-rats really, really painful...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 11:20 AM
Bill,
I've never turned *anything* in a helmet- inverted, or not.
Of course, I've turned *other* things while inverted.....but that's another story.
by Were-Kitten on March 22, 2006 1:20 PM
Reminds me--I've been meaning to ask you how the padding is holding up in the chandelier...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 1:33 PM
Come on up and inspect it yourself, Chief. I'll give you the personalized tour....
by Were-Kitten on March 22, 2006 1:52 PM
Awwwww, thanks--but you *know* how acrophobic I am...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 2:04 PM
Heh. Go to bed... and wake up to find a mess!
MAJMike - ya might find the HEAT round for that thing somewhat disconcerting...
And, like Bill said, comparing your recent mounts to older stuff is... so declasse.
And I seemed to recall that all those gallant COTLB tankers who cavalierly disregarded and dismissed artillery at the NTC were a buncha cautious whiners during Desert Storm, alla time asking if we'd killed the Iraqi artillery yet, had we, huh? Huh? Huh? Had we yet? Had we?
Apropos of nothing, of course.
lanyard gripped loosely
gun ready
eyes gleaming brightly
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2006 3:54 PM
There are no Marine "Red Legs".
That will come as a great shock to the Marine Det at Fort Sill.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2006 3:57 PM
eyes gleaming brightly
That's the reflection off yer glasses...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 22, 2006 3:58 PM
Heh. And the CANZSTAACs haven't made an appearance...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2006 5:03 PM
"I think it went that-a-way ..."
"Aim, before firing? Wow, I'd never thought of that!"
"Heh, if you look through here, you can see they're a lot bigger."
"When Joe turn that crank there, when we fire the gun, we get what we call a zone of dispersion. Like all over there."
"It's easy! As soon as they stop, like over there where we're aiming, BAMM, they're dead!"
"Well, we can shoot "All over the place".
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 22, 2006 9:59 PM
Well, the upstairs neighbor showed, finally.
"Okay, lads, the Major said if we keep looking this good in practice, tomorrow he's gonna give us a *live* round..."
Since Murray hasn't checked in yet, I figured I'd comment for him.
by cw4billt on March 22, 2006 10:31 PM
December 1943? Bouganville?
High Summer down under, and in a particularly nasty,hot, humid, muddy jungle. I think those helmets are on because they, unlike shirts, might deflect an infiltrator's bullet or a mortar fragment. Or possibly because helmets are part of sarge's "by the numbers" for live fire. No flak jackets for ground troops until Korea, if I remember correctly.
The 75 pack howitzer was often deployed where an FO could adjust fires by shout. Or pointing a finger. Or they just aimed at the moonlight reflecting off of swords and bayonets.
by
TmjUtah on March 22, 2006 10:56 PM
The helmets are probably on as much for psychological value as physical protection. There are times and places you just don't feel right without one.
I used to work with a WWII vet who made the trip from Sicily up the boot to the Mannerheim Line with a pack howitzer battery. He was the muleskinner--nobody else in the outfit could get the beasties to hold still when it came time to CSMO.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 23, 2006 8:33 AM
As we all know the tag "Red Leg" has to do with a center stripe on the Army Dress Blues. There are also blue legs, orange etc (not pink or so I hear)
Marines do not feel compelled to put colored markers on their artillerymen, so they can develop branch pride.
To my knowledge the only people who wear 'red tabs' in the Corps are Shore Party people so that they can be readily identified on the beach as they direct traffic.
by jim b on March 23, 2006 10:00 AM
Jim - Alas, the Army Dress Blues have a plain gold stripe on the pants. But at least nobody's hit on the term "Yellowlegs" yet.
The red stripe originated in the Civil War, probably as an aid to help nearsighted Confederate scouts differentiate between a Union artillery outfit and a cavalry one, since both were found in close proximity to horses...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 23, 2006 11:46 AM
My bad, I seem to have remembered a thin red stripe down the center of the yellow stripe, during our 'orientation to Army uniforms' while at Fort Swill, some time back.
I also seem to remember a red neck scarf thingie they wore. Infantry wore blue, Engineers orange and so forth.
There is the fog of war, and the fog of memories of long past events.
by jim b on March 23, 2006 12:13 PM
Ah, yes--the really cool-looking (but totally useless) Branch-Colored Bib.
Since I used to was a Field Artillery (red) branched Aviator (golden orange) commanding an Infantry (blue) company, guess what color scarf I was told I had to wear for parades?
Teal.
I never even knew there *was* such a color. I'd always thought of teal as something to hang on the wall and I called that particular color "turquoise".
Silly me...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 23, 2006 12:41 PM
Bill - Cavalry were called Yellowlegs when in disfavor...
Jim - you are partially correct - on the Army Dress Blue uniform, there *is* a branch color stripe in the center of the gold *sleeve* braid.
And on the Mess Dress, it's the facing color of the lapels. On *my* Mess Dress (the old, and far superior style with soutache on the sleeve denoting rank, you also had branch insignia nested inside the trefoils of the soutache. (how many people's brains just shut down over that sentence, I wonder). But people whined about they couldn't tell what people's rank was, so we ditched the branch insignia and put rank insignia there instead. Which means that I could (horror!) be taken for an Duckhunter or an Earthpig, as we shate the same basic branch color.
Sigh.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 23, 2006 3:37 PM
Yeah, and the trefoils comprising the soutache cost an arm and a leg, too. But it used to be a chuckle watching the gavotte that ensued as the Ladies peered at various wrists trying to figure out their pecking order while the wrists' owners were utilizing them in conjunction with 8-ounce elbow-curls.
*sound of additional brains shutting down*
by cw4(ret)billt on March 23, 2006 4:32 PM
Just in case there are any functional brains left... since the change in soutache came with a promotion, you just needed to budget your promo party better...
I've kept my old Mess Dress. I'll be damned if I'm giving up my cannon for the lazy bastages.
I can still fit the jacket.
I shudder to think about the trousers, what with that high waist and all.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 24, 2006 1:40 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 21, 2006
Is this not cool?
Night color shot of a Destroyer of Task Force18 bombarding Kalombangara and New Georgia Islands. Woo-hoo! Get some, sailors!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Looks like a Fletcher-class. The O'Bannon, maybe?
by cw4(ret)billt on March 21, 2006 1:51 PM
No offense, but this isn't exactly what a sailor means when he says he's gonna "get some" :-D
by
Harvey on March 21, 2006 8:19 PM
Show's how little you understand sailors and the mutable qualitys of that Angle Saxon (sic) fricative.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2006 4:54 AM
Naval Gunfire Support is a wonderful thing!
by
Mr Free Market on March 22, 2006 5:39 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 18, 2006
Gunner Zen
Kinda looks like a bottle-filling machine, doesn't it?
It's a 6inch Gun Magazine on the HMS Belfast.
If your soul calls for a bigger pic, click here.
Here's the shell hoist to the turret, a different view of the magazine (essentially the other side). All that to feed this:
Again, if you needa big pic - click here.
As compared to the magazine of an Iowa-class BB... in this case, the Iowa. Need some sense of scale?
All *that* to feed this:
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Nice pics. The Belfast's mag seems to be almost surgical-theatre clean (probably because everything's automated and there's no need for those human-type thingies to be cluttering up the place).
But a question. What's with the wooden slats, seen bottom right on the first pic, and right side and along the back wall (er, I mean bulkhead) in the alternate view? They appear to be removable from the metal stanchions framing them, and the symmetrical notches at either end seem to have a purpose. But what is it?
Can someone of the maritime persuation enlighten this poor dolt? Many thanks.
by Doug on March 18, 2006 9:43 AM
i suppose you think this makes up for posting that Stryker photo and calling that Armor pr0n??
well, maybe it does! i'll think about it.
by
MajMike on March 18, 2006 1:36 PM
Looks like high class dunnage for the powdercans or the equivilant. In the Poncho's (AO-148) they were painted. Holds the powdercans tightly in the racks.
by Old Fat Sailor on March 18, 2006 6:42 PM
Looks like high class dunnage for the powdercans or the equivilant. In the Poncho's (AO-148) they were painted. Holds the powdercans tightly in the racks.
by Old Fat Sailor on March 18, 2006 6:43 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 16, 2006
Artillery Pr0n
Featuring full insertion, even. With a bit of that ol' in-and-out.
U.S. Army Pfc. Christian Zelaya, with Bravo Company, 4th Brigade, 320th Field Artillery Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, and an Iraqi army Public Order Brigade soldier push a cleaning rod down the barrel of a towed howitzer during routine maintenance at Forward Operations Base Rustimya, Iraq, Jan. 23, 2006. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. William Servinski II) (Released)
Now let's see who takes this down my expected path...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I'm not sure which path you're expecting to take it down, but it looks painful to me...
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on March 16, 2006 8:23 AM
It doesn't look like any howitzer *I* ever saw--looks more like a barrel in an ordnance cradle...
BTW, it looks like the E-3 is a solo act on the end of that oversized bore-brush--where's the Iraqi soldier?
by cw4(ret)billt on March 16, 2006 10:22 AM
Heh. We've discussed the captioning ability of DoD's web-mavens...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 10:31 AM
105mm L119 Light Gun, mounted on its turntable/traversing platform. It is not an L118 because kippers and tea are not in evidence.
The chap manipulating the "cleaning rod" is probably pushing the rod into the chamber where the chap on the right will attach the bore brush. More muscular strain would be shown is the brush was in fact attached and in the bore.
Or the gun has misfired and the gallant lad on the left is expeditiously removing the recalcitrant round.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 16, 2006 10:43 AM
If the latter, I hope that semi-twisting grip he's got is loosening the fuze.
Here's what the critter looks like when it's on the job.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 16, 2006 11:14 AM
heh..nobody went for it.
I see the place has gone down hill during my sabatical.
As for the picture, gives a whole new meaning to "ramming".
by
kat-missouri on March 16, 2006 1:53 PM
Welcome back, Kat - but that isn't what I was going after. I figured the older warriors among us would bring up the old training films...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 2:58 PM
This is the path I was waiting for the Auld Farts to travel down.
This is why Doc's job sucks. Click on the pictures link if you have a strong stomach or hate your job and co-workers.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 3:07 PM
You sure a lil penecillin pill pushed down its barrel will get all the green off Sarge?
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com
by
Raymond B on March 16, 2006 4:48 PM
"This is why Doc's job sucks. Click on the pictures link if you have a strong stomach or hate your job and co-workers."
I was tempted. Ohhhh, I was sorely tempted.
by ry on March 16, 2006 7:56 PM
I stole a 105 once.
Happy days.
by
Murray on March 16, 2006 8:28 PM
Ooo. D'you still have it? Can I have it? Can we get it into small enough parts to get it into the mails?
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 10:08 PM
Hmm tricky... last time I saw it it was parked in the middle of the grunts parade ground.
by
Murray on March 16, 2006 11:42 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Mar 16, 2006
�
Alphecca links with:
Friday Surveillance
March 12, 2006
Coast Artillery moment.
Okay.
Now *those* were the days. This guy is guarding a 16 inch howitzer at Fort Story, Virginia. Fort Story's guns lasted longer than many, not being removed until 1949. Still, chances are by the end of the war this guy was manning a anti-aircraft gun somewhere as the Coast Artillery was essentially morphed into the Air Defense Artillery during WWII.
This particular gun is almost certainly a US Army M1920 16in Howitzer of Battery Pennington-Walke.
Higher res just for a better sense of the size of that muzzle!
Here's another pic of what is quite probably this gun (note the missing paint at the muzzle in the pics) - with an interesting credit.
It was taken by some guy named Franklin. As in Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Not to be confused with the 16 inch GUN. Much longer barrel. Shot farther and the projectile went faster, intended for direct fire combat, however. The howitzer was intended for plunging fire.
Aside from the mount, you can see the difference in tube length and shape in this picture of the gun at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Barrel length difference even more obvious here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Whenever I see an old old old Coast Artillery picture, I wonder if my grandfather is one of the troops in the picture.
by
Russ on March 12, 2006 12:44 PM
Plunging fire being much more effective against maritime targets. Providing you could do a good job of hiding till someone with longer range got close enough, even a dud would leave a 16 inch hole to let the water in.
At some of the coastal batteries in Western Australia (Oliver Hill) they used to camouflage the real guns and construct dummies for the dummies to shoot at.
by SezaGeoff on March 12, 2006 5:35 PM
Geez.
Those things look like some primodial dinosaurs.
The old casemates/bunkers are pretty scary to visit sometimes too, if you drop by one of abandoned ones. Suddenly this huge concrete emplacement looms out of the brush... They look like they've been there since the last ice age...and will there until the next one.
by Fred on March 13, 2006 10:08 AM
Jersey's full of coast-gun emplacements--Sandy Hook, the Atlantic Highlands, Cape May. A lot of them were reborn as Nike-Hercules sites when the lads became unhappy with their Skysweepers.
Of course, Cape May is even flatter than Kansas, so the coasties came up with this solution.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 13, 2006 10:23 AM
Daddy was in the Coast Arty in Panama before WW II. I recall him talking about their worries about the Japs, and the way they kept an eye on Jap ships coming through the canal.
He kept iguanas and boas for pets, and played a lot of golf. Got transferred coast to coast for being "nice" to an officer's lonely wife. He was a radio man and someplace I have a pic he took from the top of one of the great antennas at either end of the CZ.
by
Chuck Simmins on March 13, 2006 8:40 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
Coast Artillery moment.
Okay.
Now *those* were the days. This guy is guarding a 16 inch howitzer at Fort Story, Virginia. Fort Story's guns lasted longer than many, not being removed until 1949. Still, chances are by the end of the war this guy was manning a anti-aircraft gun somewhere as the Coast Artillery was essentially morphed into the Air Defense Artillery during WWII.
This particular gun is almost certainly a US Army M1920 16in Howitzer of Battery Pennington-Walke.
Higher res just for a better sense of the size of that muzzle!
Here's another pic of what is quite probably this gun (note the missing paint at the muzzle in the pics) - with an interesting credit.
It was taken by some guy named Franklin. As in Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Not to be confused with the 16 inch GUN. Much longer barrel. Shot farther and the projectile went faster, intended for direct fire combat, however. The howitzer was intended for plunging fire.
Aside from the mount, you can see the difference in tube length and shape in this picture of the gun at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
Barrel length difference even more obvious here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Whenever I see an old old old Coast Artillery picture, I wonder if my grandfather is one of the troops in the picture.
by
Russ on March 12, 2006 12:44 PM
Plunging fire being much more effective against maritime targets. Providing you could do a good job of hiding till someone with longer range got close enough, even a dud would leave a 16 inch hole to let the water in.
At some of the coastal batteries in Western Australia (Oliver Hill) they used to camouflage the real guns and construct dummies for the dummies to shoot at.
by SezaGeoff on March 12, 2006 5:35 PM
Geez.
Those things look like some primodial dinosaurs.
The old casemates/bunkers are pretty scary to visit sometimes too, if you drop by one of abandoned ones. Suddenly this huge concrete emplacement looms out of the brush... They look like they've been there since the last ice age...and will there until the next one.
by Fred on March 13, 2006 10:08 AM
Jersey's full of coast-gun emplacements--Sandy Hook, the Atlantic Highlands, Cape May. A lot of them were reborn as Nike-Hercules sites when the lads became unhappy with their Skysweepers.
Of course, Cape May is even flatter than Kansas, so the coasties came up with this solution.
by cw4(ret)billt on March 13, 2006 10:23 AM
Daddy was in the Coast Arty in Panama before WW II. I recall him talking about their worries about the Japs, and the way they kept an eye on Jap ships coming through the canal.
He kept iguanas and boas for pets, and played a lot of golf. Got transferred coast to coast for being "nice" to an officer's lonely wife. He was a radio man and someplace I have a pic he took from the top of one of the great antennas at either end of the CZ.
by
Chuck Simmins on March 13, 2006 8:40 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 10, 2006
Despite the smug, self-satisfied smirk...
...of a certain DAT* who hangs out around here...
While sure - *this* era may have been our heyday...
We aren't completely irrelevant today. And we're far more discriminating (though I, personally, do *not* believe in the concept of "Danger Close" when attacking targets in the vicinity of DATs. DAGs* I'll cut some slack).
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows �
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Hey, John - What was "Danger Close" for Shot Grable--three miles?
by cw4(ret)billt on March 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Still beats *this* gem the Infantry thought up.
The Davy Crockett.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 10, 2006 8:29 AM
The Artillery Mafia spread the foul canard that the Davy Crockett Rocket was the only weapon in the Army inventory with a blast radius exceeding its max range.
I have been told the gunners had a good fifteen-foot safety margin, as long as they were shooting downwind...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 10, 2006 9:48 AM
And were behind a terrain feature.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 10, 2006 9:52 AM
"discriminatinng" !
"Ubique"- "All Over The Place"
No 10 of the Gun Crew- On hearing the executive "Fire", will make a Right Turn, look into the barrel and report "Charge burning, Round turning".
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 10, 2006 9:30 PM
So, John, is that first picture the 21cm Krupp or the 30.5 cm Skoda?
What can I say: I used to be fond of the old Avalon Hill boardgame 1914, and the limited number of really heavy siege artillery units available to the Germans were always the key to getting past the Belgian forts in a reasonable amount of time.
by Blake Kirk on March 11, 2006 12:27 PM
It's the Krupp, I believe. I don't think the Skoda had integral wheels.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 11, 2006 12:38 PM
well, we had our own equivalents:
7th Army 240mm gun
Both photos from the latter days of WW2vc
5th Army 240mm Howitzer
by Blake Kirk on March 11, 2006 3:16 PM
Evidently we must have given a bunch of 240mm howitzers, M1 to the Taiwanese.
HERE is a photo of one installed as a coast-defense piece.
by Blake Kirk on March 11, 2006 3:28 PM
Heh. Stole my "where is it" post, Blake. Been saving it.
When we ran out of ammo of 'em (we didn't make much) during the Korean War, rather than ship 'em home, we gave 'em to the Taiwanese.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 11, 2006 4:42 PM
This post is in this week's KS bloggers roundup here.
by
LadyGunn on March 12, 2006 5:09 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
March 1, 2006
We need something extremely male and gunlike.
So, how about some Canadian gunners having a good afternoon, getting ready to put some 105mm WillyPete (white phosphorus, red markings on light green 'jo) down range, probably to mark a target in a firepower demonstration for that M109 155mm gun in the background?
I thought you'd see it my way.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Not shown: The OH-6 dropping a red smoke on the target to mark it for the AH-1, which will, in turn, fire a Mk66 with a 17-pound orange paint warhead to mark the target for the guy peering through the pan-tel...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 1, 2006 3:42 PM
An obvious lie. You don't sight on a direct fire target with the pantel, you use the elbow telescope. The pantel is only for your aiming posts, collimator, or common distant aiming point - which is fixed, not ephemeral, and far enough away to simulate infinity (which, of course, is why the collimator was invented in the first place).
Bad Bill! Report to the basement of Snow Hall for re-education!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 3:47 PM
Soooo, tell me--just how *far* downrange are those aiming stakes?
Reminds me of why it takes Slobovian gunners so long to enter the Fire for Effect phase...
FO: "Left one hundred, add two hundred, Over."
*scene: gunners scrambling frantically to displace piece a hundred meters to the left, then wheeling it two hundred forward...*
by cw4(ret)billt on March 1, 2006 4:05 PM
Them Slobovian gunners musta been graduates of early 70's basic at Fort Dix...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 4:11 PM
Ahhhh not to be a contrarian (sp) but:
Thing 1. The elbow telescope is the primary direct fire scope. The panoramic sight can and is used for direct fire if required. Yes it does require boresighting for that function.
Thing 2. If I were the XO of that battery I would have that gunner's 6. Look at the way he is allowing that loader to handle that projo. His right hand should be clenched in a fist so as to allow him to retain all his digits when the breech is slammed in a hurry. He has two functions ... 1 shove that projo up the spout. 2 hold it there till the breach is closed. Okay 3.... retain his fingers.
Perhaps it's the photo or my eyes but that projo doesn't look at all properly seated in the cannister.
I am glad I can't see the 155 in the background, I would hate to complain about them guys firing loading elevation.
by jim b on March 1, 2006 4:16 PM
One simply does *not* use the pantel for direct fire unless one is in dire straits. And like the boresight would hold after any significant number of rounds have been fired. I'd slap in the boresight disk and aim kentucky-style through the tube...
And like I said, graduates of a certain Fort Dix BCT company.
I didn't even get into the 'no helmet' thing, because that's just an anal-retentive Army thang.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 4:24 PM
Oh, and how can one tell Jim B is fibbing (aside from the obvious, his lips are moving)?
Ahhhh not to be a contrarian
Yeah, right.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 4:27 PM
We practiced using the panoramic sight for direct fire. It works.... yanno the closer I look at these guys the more they look like the New Jersey National Guard ... God save us all.
They are the poster boys for "Danger Close Wherever you Are" magazine.
by jim b on March 1, 2006 4:29 PM
You must be referring to graduates of a certain Fort Dix BCT Infantry Company.
I kept warning them to go for higher scores on their Proficiency Park Intelligence Tests or they'd get stuck as gun bunnies, but *noooooo*...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 1, 2006 4:34 PM
Snerk! Your desperation knows no bounds now, aviator!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 4:52 PM
Looks like Gagetown in the late '80s/early '90s. Two are wearing combat caps which disappeared from stores around 1987; and that is the former Army combat uniform.
As for how to hold the cartridge case base, well it's legal and safe while holding the round prior to loading. Once the round is inserted into the chamber then it's fist time. I preferred to use my knuckles. in a subtle transgressive manner.
And, yes, Canadian gunners sometimes use the pantel in a direct fire shoot. I watch them do so while missing an 1800m target five times. It was during our "Introduction to the Artillery" Day.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on March 1, 2006 5:00 PM
I rest my case on the pantel. Silly thing to use for direct fire. Especially in front of direct-fire specialists.
Silly gunners, not in *my* battery!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 5:15 PM
Just as long as you chuckleheads get it on target when I ask for it, you could wear pink tutus and shove the round up the tube with a toilet plunger...
by
Sgt. B. on March 1, 2006 5:35 PM
Ah, that would be *Naval* gunnery.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 6:02 PM
Fingers, John. We have no evidence of lips moving.
by
Punctilious on March 1, 2006 7:33 PM
Heh. Ever watch a Marine read? Their lips move.
I'm sure it's the same when they type.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 1, 2006 7:50 PM
I could use something extremely male and gunlike.....
by Were-Kitten on March 1, 2006 8:34 PM
Canadians have guns?
The Oracle
www.redskybrothers.com
by
The Oracle on March 1, 2006 10:50 PM
I rest my case on the pantel. Silly thing to use for direct fire. Especially in front of direct-fire specialists.
Three words: Beehive! Beehive! Beehive!
Heh. Pointee-shootee. Don' need no steenkeen' sights, even...
by cw4(ret)billt on March 1, 2006 10:54 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
February 3, 2006
Ooooh, too much politics and stuff. We need Gun Pr0n.
We need some pics of stuff in the Arsenal of Argghhh!
Like this:
Or this:
For CAPT H: Context.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Dayum Dude that musta taken some serious hack saw work.
by jim b on February 3, 2006 11:25 AM
Looks like it's in the 90-to-105mm range, made to keep a lotta pressure going down the tube...
Ratz. Conference call.
by cw4(ret)billt on February 3, 2006 12:39 PM
Must be them tree ratz (ratz conference call) bill was tawkin about, callin him to complain and let him know Islam won't take it neither will they.
Cover your nutz bill.
by jim b on February 3, 2006 12:52 PM
Ain't a tree rat around that can crack a copper-zinc alloy. Two words.
Hunting. Slingshot.
And if another kind of rat wants to try, I've got two more words.
Edged. Weaponry.
by cw4(ret)billt on February 3, 2006 8:56 PM
175 mm by my lousy measurments/math.
by Rich Walden on February 3, 2006 11:31 PM
Um, nope. 175mm rounds are nowhere near that short in comparison to their diameter. I guess I need to schlep the Castle's 175 into the light for a portrait.
I wasn't playing that game with this one, I was just tossing it up there because, well, because!
That's 105mm cannon tube, from the M101 gun system.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 4, 2006 7:19 AM
Makes me want to wax my barrel, is that wrong?
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com
by
Raymond B on February 4, 2006 1:33 PM
Looks like it's in the 90-to-105mm range...
My calibrated eyeball wasn't too far off this time. And is that a base-bleed round? Odd lateral indents aft of the obturating band.
by cw4(ret)billt on February 4, 2006 11:44 PM
Standard HE, Bill. What you see as indents is just tricks of the lighting and paint oxidation.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 5, 2006 8:18 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 23, 2006
Time for a gun post...
...and not just because we've been nominated at Countertop Chronicles for "Best Gun Pron" in the Gunnies, either!
A topic covered in the gunblogs, I know by Murdoc and others, as well as me... Metalstorm gets closer to entering service. This is an ugly little spud.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute.
That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
Metal Storm Inc., a munitions company headquartered in Virginia but with its roots in Australia, has been developing a gun that can shoot at blistering speeds, albeit in short bursts as each barrel is reloaded.
Company website with video click here.
Speaking of Murdoc, I'll let him have at this story.
Speaking of machine guns... take a look at the durability (not to mention reliability) of the latest rendition of that venerable old pig, the M60. Do me a favor - right click and save as - don't stream it. Right-click and save-as here.
I'll close this post with a picture of a new Castle Armory acquisition - a M1886 German Shrapnel round - that has a very interesting (to the Armorer) time fuze. Subject of a future post.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Okay, kids, nip over to Countertop Chronicles, ASAP. We're number two so far, but Oleg's running away with it.
by cw4(ret)billt on January 23, 2006 9:40 AM
Hey, John - Remember my e-gram when you first ran the MetalStorm story, about my vision of a deuce-and-a-half full of bullets and batteries following each GI?
Heh. Now we know why SecDef is turning those six ARNG combat brigades into truck drivers...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 23, 2006 9:54 AM
I have been following metalstorm for years!! They actually have ideas about ways to use that technology for more than just bullets that kill, including firefighting, etc. The technology is really impressive, and has had the U.S. interested for a loooong time.
Glad to see it coming along nicely...
by
SangerM on January 23, 2006 10:23 AM
The Metalstorm ideas look useful, and I can think of a number of military applications. For that matter, science-fiction author John Ringo has envisioned multi-barrelled Metalstorm packs firing 105mm APFSDS rounds from a heavily modified M1 tank chassis as a HEAVY Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) system. Evidently the barrel packs would be easily ejectable and replaceable, rather like MLRS six-packs are today.
Changing the subject a little...
As someone who spent a LOT of time as an infantry company armorer in the late 70's and early 80's keeping a sextet of Hawgs functioning, I'm duly impressed by the M60 video. However, when I was an armorer, the problem was never with NEW guns, but rather with the older guns that had been beaten around a great deal. Consistently, the two biggest maintenance problems with the M60 were excessive play in the reciever due to loose rivets or cracked welds connecting the longitudinal rails to the front plate, and wear and spalling on the camming surface on the front of the operating rod yoke. The M240 has its own quirks, but receivers that become loose over time is not one of them, and it uses a vastly different mechanism for locking the bolt.
The M60 was based on a great concept: marrying the action of the Lewis Gun to the feed mechanism of the MG42. The concept just wasn't implemented as well as it might have been.
by Blake Kirk on January 23, 2006 11:08 AM
The M60 series machine gun?
*shudder*
Ugh! The trigger housing group is held on by a forward retaining pin, which, in turn, is held on by a leaf spring that hooks onto the trigger retaining pin, and the forward trigger housing retaining pin. It drops off, the forward pin goes, and you lose all ability to control the firing of the weapon...
The M60E3 was even worse, as they tried to lighten the weight, and put the bipod assembly on the gas tube... Waaaaaay too much dependance on spring loaded detent pins...
Nope, didn't like the M60, but it was the only thing we had...
by
Sgt. B. on January 23, 2006 1:37 PM
The M60 was fun to shoot. It was also easy to take apart (cock it, lift the feed tray cover, and pull the retaining pin - oh yeah, stand to the side). Also a lot easier to haul up and down the lava and mud hills in Hawaii than pieces of .50 cal.
But I was only a temp-hire-grunt, and as soon as I could, I went east-way east-to wear the 1AD patch instead of that electric strawberry.
And my first PSG was a 60 guy in vietnam, and he LOVED the thing, but then he was a healthy 6-4 montanna swede on whom it looked like an M16 did on the rest of us. He's the one who taught me how to take 'em apart in a hurry. Of course, he also taught me how to make candles out of the wax wrapping on 4.2 mortar shell cartons, and how to roll my own one-handed (I never could get that right, though). A real product of the era...
by
SangerM on January 23, 2006 7:43 PM
Quick question/fact check:
That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
According to FAS, an M-16 can go
90 rpm and 900 rpm. (A true expert would have to verify these for this research jockey). And I'm sure that there are other guns in the arsenal that have similar or higher rates of fire.
Anyone care to have at it?
by
lawhawk on January 24, 2006 1:42 PM
I actually meant to get into that in the post, but saw a shiny object...
There's a conflation of the MK19 40mm grenade launcher with machine guns.
I was posting this for the geeks, and forgot that normals might drop by...
...and then the shiny thing walked by, er, caught my attention.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 24, 2006 1:57 PM
And the Mk 18 could dump them down the spout as fast as you could crank it. Of course, your arm would be ready to fall off after about thirty seconds...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 24, 2006 3:15 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 14, 2006
Making friends with the Armorer!
Yeah, I know, not much of a prize...
That said, Geoff B, a regular visitor from Australia, is a Friend of the Armorer. I was thinking about putting up these pictures, harvested (legally) from elsewhere - about the biggest gun of WWI (which is *not* the German Paris Gun, though that had the longest barrel). A French monstrosity.
The Schneider Obusiers de 520mm. This 520mm (20.47 inches) howitzer was the biggest gun of the Great War. It fired a 3,100 lb shell (of which 600 lbs was the explosive filler) to a range of over 10 miles. The rail car that carried this honker was just under 100 feet long and weighed 290 tons.
Okay, MCart is always (come to think of it, CAPT H does, too) griping about the lack of size referents in my teaser contests. So, here's one:
This pic of the Schneider's breech should give you some idea of scale.
This morning, along comes some Kewl Stuff from Geoff. Including a picture (the others will appear later, as will some *other* interesting stuff from another Aussie, an Army Armorer, I just met) that will give you an even better sense of scale. Test yourself - which rounds do you think the Schneider fired? (Rhetorical question for the literals among you).
If you are interested in a listing of the various calibers - click here.
Thank you, Geoff! Yer a Friend of the Armorer! Take that, and a coupla bucks, and it will get you coffee at Starbucks anywhere on the Planet!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
Except India - I couldn't find a d*mn Starbucks in Bangalore!
Hmmm - Is there such a thing as Too Big?
by
Barb on January 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Yes, there is. Which is why you don't see any of these monsters any more.
But that's a different post...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2006 10:53 AM
That's a lot of Prep H!
by V29 on January 14, 2006 1:20 PM
I do not gripe!
I merely suggested "context".
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 14, 2006 3:11 PM
SNERK!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2006 3:46 PM
Heh. Leave it to Barb to beat WK to a "too big" snark.
by cw4(ret)billt on January 14, 2006 8:57 PM
I figured that would derail the thread at the start, but to no avail.
by
Barb on January 14, 2006 10:34 PM
Can't derail a railroad gun. By the time you get them up to speed, you're *there*...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 14, 2006 10:42 PM
But once you get *there* how do you stop the thing in time without *derailing*??
by bc on January 15, 2006 12:47 AM
Stop in time? Geez--it's a *French* gun. In France, *every*thing comes to a complete stop at noon...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 15, 2006 12:56 AM
Hmmm - Is there such a thing as Too Big?
I think that's a question the ladies need to answer, Barb....
unless you ARE talking about artillery...
by klkk on January 15, 2006 7:48 AM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
January 13, 2006
Ahhhhhhhhhhh.
Stuff for a Redleg's soul.
Bravo Battery, 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, 4th Fires Brigade, fire a rocket from a Multiple Launch Rocket System during a tactical mission from Forward Operations Base Q-West. Qayyarah, Iraq in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. CREDIT U.S. ARMY PHOTO: SSG James H. Christopher III. (RELEASED) CPT Michael Blankartz BDE / PAO CAMP COURAGE MOSUL
The target must have been a bunch of guys in the open, away from anything else - that's a big hammer in the Current Operating Environment, with a huge impact footprint for the bomblets, and the associated duds - which means this was probably fired out at the border regions.
Oh, and "feh!" on the whole renaming of Division Artillery to "Fires Brigade." I know why they did it (I live in the muddle [sic] of the process. I'd rather call 'em "4th Brigade (Fires)" if we *have* to do it that way. And I understand the real purpose is to, in a sense, break the mental mold of the division in favor of the brigaded Army - are reversion to pre-WWI, where divisions were much more ad-hoc constructs, built only for big wars or even just for big battles in during big wars.
Fine. Call 'em Artillery Brigades then.
Fires. Feh.
More about that here.
UPDATE: D-oh! (sound of hand slapping forehead). I knew this:
There is a precision guided version available now with a 200 lb unitary warhead. More useful for up close and personal. I'm not a Red Leg, so I
can't tell from the picture.
More from Lockheed Martin
Just goes to show how old habits die hard when you only use simulation vice smell the burning powder... Hat tip to M. Lewis for the reminder!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
*pats John on the shoulder sympathetically*
by
FbL on January 13, 2006 9:49 AM
Well, in the new light division structure, there is no "Fires Brigade." Instead each of the Brigade Combat Teams gets its very own organic artillery battalion, currently equipped with 105mm towed howitzers. Me, I have my doubts that the new "2 Inf + 1 Cav + 1 Arty + supports" structure is robust enough, but the name of the game these days is getting more deployable brigades out of the same amount of manpower, and the planners never asked my opinion anyway.
by Blake Kirk on January 13, 2006 10:57 AM
There is a precision guided version available now with a 200 lb unitary warhead. More useful for up close and personal. I'm not a Red Leg, so I can't tell from the picture.
More from Lockheed Matin
by
M Lewis on January 13, 2006 11:52 AM
Y'know, I knew that, having used that munition in the work that I do.
Just goes to show how you revert to type when you haven't smelled burning powder in a long time.
Thanks!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 13, 2006 11:55 AM
>>hzz. name fires brigade same thing as hy'umuns what ride big red truck.
not be worrying--scrup'ls also not seeing in color, either.
>>hzzzz. fires brigade. hy'umuns talk funny.
by name muffy on January 13, 2006 11:56 AM
Huh.
"Fires Brigade"
Is that related to the "SugarButtons Brigade"? Perhaps a long lost cousin. A really hawt one....
by AFSister on January 13, 2006 1:38 PM
Blake:
The 2-1-1 org is descended from 2WW Lessons Learned. Basically, an Infantry organisation should have 2 infantry components and 1 tank component; an Armoured organisation should have 2 infantry and 2 tank components. Each organisation would have 1 artillery component, otherwise the latter would become pouty.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 14, 2006 3:47 PM
We'd rather be all off on our own, not having to associate with you riff-raff...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2006 3:49 PM
Yeah, the gun bunnies do tend to get a bit *off*...
Scene: FP2A, Ft. Drum, NY.
Time: Summer 1977
Cast: Lollygaggers loosely associated with an M110 battery and yours truly, waiting to take the BC and cohorts up for a little Aerial Adjustment. No, it doesn't have anything to do with your radio.
"Hey, Chief--y'ever spend any time with guns?"
*hand cupping ear, hollering* "Huh?!?"
*standard laughter for standard joke*
"Yeah, I've yanked a couple of lanyards in my time."
"How 'bout one of these? You ain't lived 'til ya yanked an eight-incher...""
by cw4(ret)billt on January 14, 2006 7:26 PM
Huh? What? #82 you say?
by
John of Argghhh! on January 14, 2006 7:29 PM
*cupping hand s to side of mouth and hollering*
"I said, 'Straw, Grass Horse's....'!"
by cw4(ret)billt on January 14, 2006 7:39 PM
� Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jan 13, 2006
�
Bayosphere links with:
A Cause worth Plugging
January 3, 2006
Ahhhhh....
A photo to warm the cockles of a Redleg heart...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! �
I see the smoke, but where are the mirrors?
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 10:23 AM
ROFL!! I see that our dear Bill is in fine form this morning...
by
FbL on January 3, 2006 10:35 AM
Hi, Toots! All recovered from basking in the adulation of the calamari crowd?
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 10:47 AM
What girl would want to "recover" from that?! You make it sound like some kind of disease... ;)
by
FbL on January 3, 2006 11:05 AM
Naw--they only *smell* that way.
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 11:06 AM
Jeez how did they get all of that smoke outta them guns. Does the Army use a special 40 weight Penzoil propellent these days, or did they go back to black powder?
by jim b on January 3, 2006 11:08 AM
Right after the command, "Fire!", the number three gunner sets off the 40-lb. HC cannisters...
Then everyone holds his breath and hopes the wind doesn't shift.
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 11:19 AM
Ah okay thanks I got it now.
I will have to try that next 4th of July in connection with my family's annual ... get out the steel garbage can and the carbide and water. I have found that the right size "touch hole" is critical. The challenge will then be for our number three trash cannoneer to light the smudge pots just when the carbide goes off and puts the garbage can lid nearly through the chain link fence.
Usually our eyebrows grow back in just in time for autumn's leaf and gasoline burning festival.
by jim b on January 3, 2006 12:19 PM
Farkin' aviators. The only reason property values don't decline when they're around is because they overpay for the houses with all that flight pay.
Jim - yes, the blanks *are* black powder. About a pound of it.
On purpose - nice loud deep boom withouth the high frequency component of smokeless powder - and it smokes nicely and smells good, too.
Yeah, you have to be a real gun geek for that last part, I know.
I love the smell of sulfur in the morning... it smells like... antiquity. Or Bill after a long day of listening to marbles bounce off aluminum.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 3, 2006 1:28 PM
It was the dog. I wasn't even in the room...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 1:34 PM
LMAO at John and Bill!!. Between the Adam joke above, and the generally snarkiness around here lately, this place is hoppin'! Feels like old times...
by
FbL on January 3, 2006 2:29 PM
As long as you're up in the chandelier, how 'bout replacing some of the burned-out bulbs?
Catch...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 2:44 PM
*replaces burned-out chandelier bulbs with bright sparkly ones that make her eyes shine and her fur shimmer*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on January 3, 2006 2:51 PM
*and make the Huffy light enough to hoist into your hatchback*
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 2:55 PM
Ah...loud booms...now if only they had *live* rounds, then we could get married. ;)
by
kat-missouri on January 3, 2006 5:12 PM
I... Must... Resist... From... Commenting...
by
Sgt. B. on January 3, 2006 6:11 PM
Sergeant B- why?
by
John of Argghhh! on January 3, 2006 6:18 PM
Gee... SgtB. Why? No one else has. And I haven't seen a trace of the PG17 all day. Haven't seen JTG for that matter either. Hmmmm...
by
Punctilious on January 3, 2006 6:19 PM
M119A1 otherwise known as the L118/119.
And then there is the exquisite pleasure of cleaning a gun which has had several pounds of burning black powder whooshed up its pristine polished bore.
"Yes, my children. you may pull through the gun"; Gunner and Driver cavorted with glee, trembling at the thought of oily, oozing, black powder residue splashing onto their happy faces. "Puuull," I said, "now push hard, puulll, push harder; stop, let me add more oil to the brush; puuuulll!" On, it continues, until the bore is pristine and polished once more. Then Driver and Gunner lovingly wipe down the gunstaves, faces flushed black with contentment, combats drenched with the odorous ooze, saited by pleasure no FLH could know.
Theirs was a hard lot, so small pleasures such as this were my gift them.
Cheers
JMH
by J.M. Heinrichs on January 3, 2006 6:29 PM
Heh...I vote for JMH's entry as post comment excellence par non
by
kat-missouri on January 3, 2006 10:24 PM
We have a motion and I second it.
All in favor?
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 10:55 PM
Aye!
by
Barb on January 3, 2006 11:03 PM
Any opposed?
[*thwap!*] Siddown!
The ayes have it. Motion carried; Adjutant will make the appropriate entry in the minutes in a minute...
by cw4(ret)billt on January 3, 2006 11:11 PM
