Max height of a 105 round??

Discussion in 'Gunners' started by ComeSunt, Jul 1, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Debate in the Bar from a couple of Infantry lads.

    The argument...If a 105 light gun was at sea level then what is the maximum height that a 105 HE or WP round could go. The argument stems from how high would an aircraft need to be to ensure that it could not be hit.

    same question posed for a 81mm Mortar round.

    Answers on a postcard please!!!!

  2. If my sadly-failing memory is correct, the vertex height is about 1/3 of the range. That would make it about 18,000 ft.

    However, if you were firing at max elevation, going for altitude not range, I reckon it would be higher.
  3. If you're looking for a 'safe altitude', then MLRS firing ATACMS will reach an altitude of approximately 164,000 ft.

    Clearly we hope that the BSM* are on top of their real estate...

    *Not Battery Sergeant Major, before someone witters...
  4. All depends on the met ;)
  5. I remember someone once saying that if it was firing in high angle, on charge super, it would clear the equivalent height of mount everest,(29028 ft). Whether this is an urban mith or not I don't know, all I do know is I wouldn't want to be the poor wheelman spammed with digging a trench for the breech to have clearance.
  6. Broadly correct - yes.
  7. Well my guess was 20,000 feet for a 105 and 12,000 for a 81 mortar.

    I suppose if the aircraft was right over the target then it could be a lot lower as the round would be relativly low and moving laterally at that point.
  8. Sympathetic_Reaction

    Sympathetic_Reaction LE Book Reviewer

    The problem you have with the light gun is there are limits in QE for the higher charges (the breech tends to hit the ground and you can wreck other bits of the recuperator (sp) system) once I'm back in work on monday I can give you the official number from firing tables.

    I know when we are doing firings they stop the aircraft from coming overhead at all......I have a number in my head, I think 7,000m, but I might be getting ft and m mixed up...or just plain confused. Will give am answer on monday if no-one else has.
  9. I assume all the altitudes already given are correct, however, you all forgot to factor in the Royal Artillery, so, the rounds would always fall about 100m short of their actual intended target :D (Ubique - All over the shop)
  10. And the bogs you built don't flush :p
  11. Well when planning Air intregation with Fast air and guns we use 15,000 ft as a vertex for 105mm , 10,000 for 81mm.
    thia can be found in TAMS . If you want to explian to your INF chums that fast air can fly underneath arty rounds and
    do so often .All depends on the impact area /fast airs target, of and how good your FAC is. ''Cleared hot'' !!!!
  12. GunnersQuadrant

    GunnersQuadrant LE Moderator

    I doubt that height could be achieved due to the inability of the LLM to reach the angle required. :)
  13. GunnersQuadrant

    GunnersQuadrant LE Moderator

    Firstly, it is bracketing, secondly with the splinter distances that really is not far away at all. :)
  14. Actually a huge number of people would disagree with this simple statement. 100 metres is a significant distance for 105mm; and lies outside LSD for 155mm as well. I accept that SSD is outside that limit, but crap fragmentation, particularly with US systems, would not provide any sort of measure of guarantee of a 'hit' and even less therefore of a 'kill'. This lies at the root of the IFPA argument, and the current agonising about whether we go for Excalibur type systems, unitary warhead coupled to GPS guidance, or more rockets - with all their inherent problems with zone etc etc.

    I certainly don't believe there are many people here on ARRSE who can offer anything particularly intelligent to this debate per se - unless they work for DEC(DTA) - but I'd certainly be interested to see what people generally thought about solving this problem. LIMAWS (G) or (R)?? :)

    FWIW I suspect that we will adopt a typically Gunner solution - a little of both, thereby achieving very little in capability terms - as usual.

    GQ - I'm intrigued to hear that we can't fire ATACMS at certain elevations of the LLM - can I get a feel for why you say this, so I can sound knowledgeable at coffee tomorrow? A quick search through my pams and this (admitedly typically dodgy) Wikipedia link indicates otherwise. Or am I being a steamy biff (as usual)? Are you back now, by the way?
  15. I'm surprised that such a wise and experienced Gunner as yourself didn't look the grunt in the eye and with a knowledgeable air, just say "zone". Any further dicontentment can be addressed by the "occasion to occasion" effect.

    Always leave those who practice the lesser arts mystified.

    Of course, in my day, if your powder was a bit damp, the cannon balls would drop all over the place. Thank heavens for Capt Harry Shrapnel's Patent Shell is all I can say.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.