# M110 A2



## K_Johnston (21 Apr 2006)

I was building I model of an old M110 A2, 203mm SP howitzer, specifically one use by the German Army in 1990.  The information package that came with it tells about the crew of 12, and the accompanying 7 ton truck that carries most of the ammo.  I have no problem with that.
My question is where the onboard ammo is held?  The info package mentions that the SP Howitzer carries 5 rounds, while the rest is on the truck.  I have tried some searches on this topic on the internet, and come up blank so far.  Im probably just using the wrong keywords.  Does anyone know where those 5 rounds were kept?


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Apr 2006)

The US version carried two rounds [they weighed 200 pounds each] and the rest were carried in a tracked M548. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m110a2.htm


----------



## K_Johnston (28 Apr 2006)

This is in the info package that came with it for the German version.

"In operation up to 5 rounds of ammunition could be carried on the vehicle.  A further 28 rounds were loaded on the accompanying 7 ton milglW truck, which also accomodated seven of the total crew of 12."

I could see carrying two rounds fairly easily, but I wouldnt want to carry 5 exposed rounds.  And from the model I cant see any place to put them. Anyone know for the German version?


----------



## Armymatters (28 Apr 2006)

I did some digging, and there is no record of Germany using the M110 A2 8" SP gun from my searches... however, I have found information that the Germans used the similar M107 175mm gun, which uses the carriage of the M110, but different gun tube, and was primarily used by US Forces in NATO areas, as the ammunition for it was common for NATO members. The M107 and M110 are together a family of vehicles, and are often listed together. M107 is listed as exported to Germany, while M110 is not. That is what information I have found. Might want to consider that. I will see if I can dig up some more information about it.

Edit: More Information
Apparantly, user nations of the M110/M107 often converted back and forth as the tactical needs changed, due to the fact that the two vehicles were the same, except for the gun tube. So the M110 may have served in Bundeswehr service, but were in fact converted M107's. Often, one day a battery using the M110/M107 might be 175­mm; a few days later it might be half 175-mm. and half 8-inch.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Apr 2006)

> Often, one day a battery using the M110/M107 might be 175­mm; a few days later it might be half 175-mm. and half 8-inch.



They changed barrels in days?

Amazing - my guns were gone for over a year to get re-tubed, in the 80s

Wow - 2 sets of programs loaded into the fire control computer, 2 sets of traces, TFTs, GFTs , 2 calibres of ammo in the echelon, 2 quadrants in the gun box


----------



## Armymatters (29 Apr 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> They changed barrels in days?
> 
> Amazing - my guns were gone for over a year to get re-tubed, in the 80s
> 
> Wow - 2 sets of programs loaded into the fire control computer, 2 sets of traces, TFTs, GFTs , 2 calibres of ammo in the echelon, 2 quadrants in the gun box



Pretty much. I am thinking that user nations had both tubes in stock, plus a couple of cranes and related vehicles to change the gun tubes, and besides, both calibers had their uses. The 8" round had excellent accuracy, and can carry a big payload (including nuclear artillery shells), while the 175mm offered commanding range (in excess of 33km compared to the 8" round's 17km) in those days.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Apr 2006)

Wow


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Apr 2006)

I sense a cliff edge near by......


----------



## Jungle (29 Apr 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I sense a cliff edge near by......


"ONE STEP FORWARD... MARCH !!!!!"   

Armymatters, is your real name Cliff Clavin by any chance ??


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Apr 2006)

Armymatters is correct in his statements re the 8in and 175mm SPs. 

The latter was in service with 32 Heavy Regiment RA when I was in Germany in the mid-sixties. It resembled a carpet sweeper as it had a really long, thin barrel sticking out the front of a squat tracked vehicle. It was, in my opinion, not a successful design, and did not last very long in service. The 175mm had a relatively short barrel life, was not terribly accurate or consistent and the round had a nasty habit of falling back into the chamber when elevated if the power rammer did not seat it properly. This lead to a catstrophic failure of the chamber, which tended to make the gun detachments nervous. (I saw two burst 175mm barrels in Woolwich Arsenal circa 1975 when visiting the UK with the Master Gunners course, and fall back as the explanation given to us at the time.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Apr 2006)

Here is some more info on the 8in howitzer in US service.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/8insphm110.html

http://www.landscaper.net/bigguns.htm


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Apr 2006)

On further reflection, the M107 and the M110 dated back to the days when the 'short-barrelled' 8-in howitzer was in service. The M110A2 used a longer tube fitted with a muzzle brake, which provided a reasonable range combined with the excellent accuracy and big bang of the 8-in round. This, if nothing else, sent the 17mm up an evolutionary dead end.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Apr 2006)

Admittedly, I was messing with Armymatter a little, but I wasn't outright calling him out, because although I may have more practical gunnery experience than he, it is limited to only a couple of systems, and I haven't read as many books on the subject as he has.

My curiosity wasn't piqued so much by the ability to change barrels, but the practicality and logistics involved in changing out several guns, every few days. Thanks to  the articles posted by Tomahawk, I have learned that, indeed, batteries could (and did) change out barrels in hours, even. Thanks to old sweat also for his info.

I am big enough to admit that I learned something interesting from Armymatters. It is a shame that he has a penchant for posting unusual facts and figures in a way that makes it sound like he has actual experience in the topic at hand. Often, he is off base and many have taken to reading his posts with a huge grain of salt. This was not the case.

No cliff today  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Apr 2006)

Muskrat 89

I wonder just how often heavy batteries changed from one barrel to the other. While relatively uncomplicated, it still took guns out of action for a period of time and may have been followed fairly quickly by a change back, which doesn't sound super smart to this old gunner. Having said that, the majority of M107/M110s were found in corps level artillery battalions and perhaps the procedure was done for deliberate fire planning purposes such as the attack of targets in depth or perhaps harrassing fire into the enemy rear areas. 

Who knows? Maybe it was one of those things that was kept on the books as a capability rather than a practical operation.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Apr 2006)

Well,  I was guess I was right on the cliff edge being close - seems though that armymatters was on more solid ground.  

Cheers. 

Like muskrat89 - a learning opportunity.  Thanks for bringing this forward armymatters and for the corroboration tomahawk6 and Old Sweat.


----------



## K_Johnston (7 May 2006)

Ok, well even if officialy they only had 107;s and converted to 110's when needed, it is still the same chassis and storage.  The question still remains, if this info package is correct for either vehicle, where would you possibly carry 5 rounds on the vehicle?

Im not in the artillery branch, but I do know keeping ammo in the open is a bad idea.  After seeing the damage loose ammo can add to an explosion, or cause when the rounds are hit just right, I would not want to be sitting on a 110 or 107 looking at 5 shells sitting near me in the open.  So where do you put them??


----------



## TCBF (7 May 2006)

"They changed barrels in days?

Amazing - my guns were gone for over a year to get re-tubed, in the 80s"

- Imagine being in the 8Ch(PL) in Germany in October 1962 and rolling your Centurians out to their 'survival' areas, only to be told you will help the RCEME remove your new 105mm L7A2 tank main armament barrels and replace them with the old 20 pdr barrels because BAOR has lots of war-stock 20 pdr but not so much 105mm tk.

"...  I would not want to be sitting on a 110 or 107 looking at 5 shells sitting near me in the open.  So where do you put them??"

- Especially a 1 kiloton W-79 shell.  Remember reading that "Stars and Stripes" headline in Germany about the nuclear artillery shells that were believed to be overly "sensitive"?


----------



## Armymatters (7 May 2006)

K_Johnston said:
			
		

> Ok, well even if officialy they only had 107;s and converted to 110's when needed, it is still the same chassis and storage.  The question still remains, if this info package is correct for either vehicle, where would you possibly carry 5 rounds on the vehicle?
> 
> Im not in the artillery branch, but I do know keeping ammo in the open is a bad idea.  After seeing the damage loose ammo can add to an explosion, or cause when the rounds are hit just right, I would not want to be sitting on a 110 or 107 looking at 5 shells sitting near me in the open.  So where do you put them??



I am inclinded to say that the info package was wrong. 2 rounds, either 175mm or 8" are carried on the gun.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 May 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> I am inclinded to say that the info package was wrong. 2 rounds, either 175mm or 8" are carried on the gun.



What no _Janes_ access?


----------



## Old Sweat (7 May 2006)

From the pictures I have seen of M107s and M110s, there were two projectiles carried nose upwards on a rack at the rear of the gun. I do not recall if fuzes were fitted and I was not able to determine where the propelling charges were stowed. High Explosive projectiles are not all that sensitive and require initiation via an engineered charge to detonate. If split, the filler could burn violently, but should not explode. All that would have been academic for anyone actually on the gun when either happened, but there was a difference.

I suggest that nuc rounds would not be carried exposed for reasons of security and safety both. That applied only to the 8in as the 175 did not have an operational nuclear warhead.


----------



## 393Bird (4 Sep 2006)

I was on the DMZ in Korea when the Army decided to convert one of the 175mm Bns that we supported. I was in a DS Maintenance unit. We set up a small production line up out side with the new 8 inch long tubes on one side with a wrecker, and another wrecker on the other side to pull off the 175 tubes, and put them in there shipping boxes. Lined up 4 guns in a row and started unbolting stuff, then moved them in place, swapped the tubes, and moved them forward to have the equilibrator pressure lowered from 2,400 psi to around 1200 psi to to raise the much lighter 8 inch gun tube.  The Equilibrators are the hydraulic devices that raise and lower the tube. They are charged with nitrogen gas to help lift the tubes faster.

I remember this well, since on the 1st conversion, they forgot to lower the nitrogen pressure. They pulled it into our little maintenance shop with a low tin room for some detailed work, and when they pulled the elevation lever, the tube went to full elevation in about 1 second with the 2,400 psi still on the cylinders. It was a sight with the gun tube sticking up through the roof. With all the turmoil this caused, we only completed 3 guns the first day, but did 5 the next day.


----------

