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.

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.

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!

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.

A post for me.

Gun dogs doing what gun dogs like doing best... shooting!

Ewwww. All that politics.

We need an eye cleanser.

How about some Canadian artillery in WWI?

Yeah, that works.

A little Gunner Zen.

6 inch coast defense gun. Anybody know where it's located?

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.

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.

A moment of gunner zen.

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!"

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...

Gad, the irony in this...

...on sooo many levels.

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 Army’s new Future Combat Systems Non-Line-of-Sight-Cannon artillery system.

“The Army’s 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 Army’s primary modernization program, and is the Army’s 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 Army’s 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 Army’s 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 there’s 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 Army’s 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 maché sabot...

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!

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.