Miscellaneous desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 11

Loading artillery seems too labor intensive

I am watching this recent video of US military personnel load and fire artillery at Taliban who are attacking an outpost. video It sure seems labor intensive. Why not automate some function so that 7 people aren't required to do the job? It also seems like a slow process. The crew is working fast to support an outpost under attack so if automation could speed up loading wouldn't it be crucial? Muzzleflash (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a set of trade-offs. Providing more automated equipment might speed up artillery loading, but it would add significant weight and technical complexity to the equipment required to be moved around by an artillery unit. This equipment would be subject to mechanical failures, increasing the required number of maintainers and spare parts. The equipment would also require a significant electrical/hydraulic power source (presumably a generator) which again increases the logistics requirements for the unit. Apparently artillery leaders have determined that the penalties of increased mechanization are not worth the potential benefits. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Autoloader. As NorthBySouthBaranof points out, it's a trade-off between complexity (and cost) vs reliability and logistics. Another consideration is that autoloader can achieve high initial rates of fire (RoF), but may slow down to a RoF lower than a non-autoloading cannon when ammunition needs to be refilled. It must be assumed that if the military though that the benefit of an autoloader outweighs the drawbacks, far more weapon systems would be equipped with them. WegianWarrior (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the gun in your video clip is an M777 howitzer whose development name was "Ultralight-weight Field Howitzer". Our article lists the types of vehicle that can tow it or fly it about, probably not possible for all of them with a bulky autoloader and a power-source to make it go. Alansplodge (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In many situations, the sustained rate of fire is limited by the heat dissipation of the barrel and breach: The gun could not fire any faster even if it could be loaded instantly. -Arch dude (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the largest caliber weapon with an active cooling system? (which would also of course add weight, especially liquid cooling) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Active cooling was designed for the cancelled XM2001 Crusader 155 mm self-propelled howitzer. [1] Again, weight is going to be an issue because you need a pump, a radiator, coolant and a power source. Maybe not an issue in a 40 ton self-propelled weapon, but no good for a lightweight hitch-up-and-go field gun. Alansplodge (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other disadvantage of an auto-loading system is that you have to know in advance exactly what types of shell you are going to need to fire and load them in the right order. In combat you need to be able to change the order instantly, depending on how a situation develops (or have separate loading systems for each type of shell, which is going to be very cumbersome). Wymspen (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this film of a First World War Canon de 75 modèle 1897 being manually loaded at astonishing speed. Of course, it's smaller and was a quick-firing gun with a rapid-action breech and one-piece ammunition. Mind your fingers! Alansplodge (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]