Increasing the Range of Howitzers

[boneh3ad]

Many AA missiles also have proximity burst. To shower the target with frag.

1. AA missiles have a very different propulsion mechanism, a very different deployment vehicle, a very different target, and a very different logistical chain than artillery shells. Grenades also shower a target in frag but that is also not relevant here.
2. AA missiles are not as long and slender as an APFSDS penetrator, and even when they are, their size is so much larger that they can still fit plenty of fancy explosives inside.

 

[Stormer]

Standard artillery shells that are spin stabilized have advantages in cost and damage potential, while other rounds have advantages in other areas like range and accuracy.

Yes. But the topic of this thread was to increase the range of artillery. If other aspects like damage potential suffers that is a different topic. And you can have different shells to preform different tasks. And that is another advantage of going with a sabot shell, because that way you still keep the caliber of the gun so you could also shoot a traditionally shaped shell with the same gun with finns to impart the spinn on it for stabilization. So you could have the same smoothbore gun and use the traditional shaped but finned shell for shorter ranges, and use the longer non spinning sabot shell for longer range targets.

 

[boneh3ad]

Yes. But the topic of this thread was to increase the range of artillery. If other aspects like damage potential suffers that is a different topic.

Is it even an artillery shell if it can no longer perform the basic duties of an artillery shell?

On the other hand, you could make a shell of approximately the same size with, say, a ramjet integrated into it and keep the same supply chain and logistics processes in place and use the same guns while still greatly increasing range. It has an advantage over rocket-assisted artillery shells in that it does not carry its oxidizer along with it, leaving more space for payload (though with a loss of some space for the flow path). It's a win-win.

The US Department of Defense is funding exactly that:
https://www.defensenews.com/miltech/2022/08/11/boeing-nammo-test-ramjet-155-artillery-weapon/

 

[Drakkith]

Yes. But the topic of this thread was to increase the range of artillery.

Indeed. But you haven't shown that your method actually increases the range of an artillery shell.

 

[Rive]

I also think a slim sabot artillery shell with the same weight as a normal artillery shell would get a better ballistic coefficient and that alone would give it a longer range,

I'm a bit late to the party with this, but be careful with those darts as references. That whole system is optimized to give insane single point penetration at close (few km) range, and there is very little thought given for anything above 5km.

Also, don't get carried away with those long darts

 

[boneh3ad]

I'm a bit late to the party with this, but be careful with those darts as references. That whole system is optimized to give insane single point penetration at close (few km) range, and there is very little thought given for anything above 5km.

Also, don't get carried away with those long darts
View attachment 313909

...to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee

 

[Flyboy]

I'm a bit late to the party with this, but be careful with those darts as references. That whole system is optimized to give insane single point penetration at close (few km) range, and there is very little thought given for anything above 5km.

Part of that is also the nature of modern armored combat. Beyond that range, the tank sensors and drew may have difficulty picking out their targets on the battlefield, unless you're up on a ridgeline, hull down in a revetment, and your enemy is making a blind charge across open terrain without artillery or air support.

A proper scenario would probably include things like smoke rounds deploying curtains of smoke to obscure visibility, VT/prox fused artillery barrage of known/suspected tank and infantry emplacements, maybe even MLRS salvos deploying shaped charge and anti-personnel submunitions. If your enemy is really capable, they may even be using standoff air launched ordinance to glide silently over your position and deploy sensor fused weapon submunitions on your position to really ruin your day.

If you're having a good day, you can expect to be making engagements with a modern MBT at 3km tops. Usually that's a third of that or less.

As for the idea of subcaliber tube artillery... I can think of a single practical use for it: extremely long-range strike against a fixed, hardened target like a command and control bunker or similar. But it's a very niche role, that depends heavily on being able to pack the requisite GPS guidance into the round, and knowing exactly where the bunker is, and hoping it's shallow enough you can punch into it.

If you want to hit someone with artillery at a great distance, rockets or missiles are absolutely the way to go. Hell, take a page from the US and slap a small GPS-guided glide bomb atop an existing rocket, give it the target, and just yeet that thing as high and far as you can, then glide from there.

 

[sbrothy]

Why are artillery guns still rifled? You would think it would be cheaper to manufacture and it would get higher muzzle velocity and longer ranges with a smooth bore barrel and discarding sabot fin stabilized projectiles like in anti tank guns.

Long range howitzers are smoothbore exactly because rifling converts some of the projectile's energy to rotation. I read this recently but dont remember where. Must be easy to verify though.

Apropos I also seem to remember that both the US and China has fielded naval railguns. There are some impressive videos on youtube.

 

[Drakkith]

Apropos I also seem to remember that both the US and China has fielded naval railguns. There are some impressive videos on youtube.

I'd say 'tested' instead of 'fielded'. None of these weapons are in operational status as far as I know, and I believe the U.S. Navy has postponed or stopped further research and development on railguns for the moment.

 

[sbrothy]

I'd say 'tested' instead of 'fielded'. None of these weapons are in operational status as far as I know, and I believe the U.S. Navy has postponed or stopped further research and development on railguns for the moment.

You may well be right. Something about the gun's inability to keep shooting no?
edit: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...-futuristic-railgun-eyes-hypersonic-missiles/

Also railguns are for space. Can it even fire over the horizon. Nah this one is truly nuts:

Project Thor

Also recently read Stross' Singularity Sky. Concepts like "directional spallation" and "prefragmented copper needles" stuck in one's head. He's good fun.

 

[cjl]

Long range howitzers are smoothbore exactly because rifling converts some of the projectile's energy to rotation. I read this recently but dont remember where. Must be easy to verify though.

This is false. Long range howitzers are still rifled (here's the inside of an M777 for example), albeit with some slight differences in how that works compared to small arms. Rather than the rifling engaging the projectile itself, the projectile is actually sized to be the size of the inside of the rifling, and then it has a larger "driving band" at the base that is made of a soft metal like copper that actually engages with the rifling, allowing the projectile itself to be steel without destroying the rifling in only a couple shots (visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...t_Desert_Fire_Exercise_130423-M-VH365-119.jpg). In addition, they usually have rifling that starts out with very little twist and then gains twist as you approach the muzzle. This allows the angular acceleration of the projectile to happen more smoothly and puts less stress on the driving band and causes less wear on the rifling than a constant twist rifling like you'd find in small arms.

You're probably thinking of modern tanks, which have almost entirely switched to smoothbore (with the exception of the British Challenger, if I remember right), because apparently spinning projectiles typically have somewhat worse armor penetration and the smoothbore lets them achieve extremely high velocities that let APFSDS (the long narrow finned rounds with discarding sabot discussed above) work to peak effectiveness.

 

[sbrothy]

This is false. Long range howitzers are still rifled (here's the inside of an M777 for example), albeit with some slight differences in how that works compared to small arms. Rather than the rifling engaging the projectile itself, the projectile is actually sized to be the size of the inside of the rifling, and then it has a larger "driving band" at the base that is made of a soft metal like copper that actually engages with the rifling, allowing the projectile itself to be steel without destroying the rifling in only a couple shots (visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...t_Desert_Fire_Exercise_130423-M-VH365-119.jpg). In addition, they usually have rifling that starts out with very little twist and then gains twist as you approach the muzzle. This allows the angular acceleration of the projectile to happen more smoothly and puts less stress on the driving band and causes less wear on the rifling than a constant twist rifling like you'd find in small arms.

You're probably thinking of modern tanks, which have almost entirely switched to smoothbore (with the exception of the British Challenger, if I remember right), because apparently spinning projectiles typically have somewhat worse armor penetration and the smoothbore lets them achieve extremely high velocities that let APFSDS (the long narrow finned rounds with discarding sabot discussed above) work to peak effectiveness.

I'm sure you're right. In fact I think I managed to find something along the lines of what I had been reading:

It's admittedly a Russian site but the arguments sounds pretty compelling:

"[...] One of the main parameters of any receiver system, including a tank gun, is the so-called. muzzle energy - the energy transmitted by the powder gases to the projectile. In the case of tank guns, muzzle energy is primarily responsible for the firing range and the penetration rate of the target’s armor. It was established a long time ago that a smooth barrel, both in theory and in practice, allows to obtain higher values of muzzle energy in comparison with rifled. A direct consequence of this advantage is an increase in the resource of the trunk with similar characteristics. [...]"

So there.

 

[Mondayman]

You're probably thinking of modern tanks, which have almost entirely switched to smoothbore (with the exception of the British Challenger, if I remember right), because apparently spinning projectiles typically have somewhat worse armor penetration and the smoothbore lets them achieve extremely high velocities that let APFSDS (the long narrow finned rounds with discarding sabot discussed above) work to peak effectiveness.

The Challenger does have a rifled gun. Actually, it is a British Challenger I from the Gulf War that holds the record for the longest tank-on-tank kill. It was at or just under 3 miles I think.

 

[Flyboy]

Also railguns are for space. Can it even fire over the horizon.

Not necessarily restricted to space. And yes, they can absolutely fire over the horizon. To the tune of more than 100 miles range with currently proposed indirect fire railgun concepts. Most of the current applications are direct fire, though, leveraging the higher speed and greater depth of magazine of the railgun compared to the traditional 5" naval gun on most US surface combatants.

You're probably thinking of modern tanks, which have almost entirely switched to smoothbore (with the exception of the British Challenger, if I remember right), because apparently spinning projectiles typically have somewhat worse armor penetration and the smoothbore lets them achieve extremely high velocities that let APFSDS (the long narrow finned rounds with discarding sabot discussed above) work to peak effectiveness.

The spin imparted by rifling disrupts the function of HEAT shells, as the rotation interferes with proper jet formation by the shaped charge. APFSDS would probably care less about rifling.

 

[berkeman]

greater depth of magazine of the railgun

I hadn't heard that term before. What is it?

 

[boneh3ad]

I hadn't heard that term before. What is it?

Railguns fire projectiles that don't require chemical energy to be carried onboard, i.e., they don't need a chemical propellant and usually don't have warheads, instead relying on the kinetic energy associated with their much higher velocities (compared to traditional shells). This means the rounds are a lot smaller and a ship could carry a whole lot more of them. Thus, it has a deeper magazine.

Of course, it takes a lot of power to operate a railgun at scale...

 

[Nik_2213]

IIRC, Battleships' 'big guns' wore sufficiently rapidly that a range of 'driving band' sizes was required...

Also, their gun-laying analogue computers had to include both count and rate of firing, as rapid-fire wore even faster...