Talk:M107 self-propelled gun

range
isnt the range 33km not 30km?71.145.173.76 13:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the firing table for the M107 SP gun, the maximum range was 32,800 meters. Trees141 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Range of M107 175mm SP Gun
To answer the previous discussion question, yes, the tabular firing table (TFT), the document that lists data required to fire the weapon at standard conditions, lists the range with a standard weight projectile at 800 mil elevation (elevation for maximum range) as 32,800 meters.

On a related matter, this gun has often been maligned as being terribly inaccurate, with anecdotal statements that the gun "wouldn't come within a couple of kilometers of a target." The highest range probable error (the distance within which half the shots at a given range will statistically fall), which occurs at the maximum range of 32.8 km, is 74 meters. Expressing that as a percentage of range gives 0.23%; this is comparable to contemporary howitzers.

Having fired the gun under field conditions, I can personally attest that, firing lower charges at shorter ranges, the gun was accurate enough to provide effective fires on target. Firing the lowest charge, with a spacer behind it to ensure consistent placement of the propelling charge in the chamber, we were able to achieve target hits, which are uncommon with any indirect fire weapon.

Artillerist 15:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you fellow "Redleg". I will correct the 800 mil elevation. As far as accuracy, completely correct as we had proven during numberous fire missions, with resulting awards pertaining to TOT and Registration Fires.--Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion
Can someone tell this Limey ex-soldier what this weapon is ? The intro says 'gun' and the caption for the first picture says 'howitzer'. Or is it a gun/howitzer ? RASAM (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a Self Propelled HOWITZER. But it CAN fire in low arcs like a gun. ==MeepSire (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply:

The M107 was a Self Propelled Gun. Low trajectory, long range (High Velocity). Similar to a Rifle.

The M110 was a Self Propelled Howitzer. High trajectory, shorter range (Low Velocity). Similar to a Grenade Launcher.

The Original Picture I posted was from when I was with a M107 Battalion, someone felt like sticking something else on Wikipedia.

Forgot to mention something that was removed from the article, the consequence of firing a M107 at High trajectory with a Zone 3, would be having the breech hit the bottom of the turrent well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 07:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nakamuradavid (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Article says the gun had 65˚max elevation. I wouldn't call that low-trajectory. Original M1897 carriage had 18˚max elevation. I think that's a better example of low-trajectory. 108.45.79.25 (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I stated before from FIRSTHAND Experience before somebody without experience edited this article, you fire the M107 GUN at a maximum elevation the Breech HITS THE bottom of the Turrent Well (that also has a couple of suspension (very brittle) torsion bars wrapped in black vinyl tape (to stop razor sharp metal shard fragmentation in case the torsion bar breaks) there. You want to know how I know, we did just that, I was the person that wrote about the broken torsion bar, that almost had the effect of exploding like a handgrenade when the breech block hit it). There were also damaged hydralic lines. If you ever see one of the M107s or M110s in a Museum, go look in the Turrent Well, as most had some damage at one time from firing M107s at high elevation with Zone 3 before being converted to M110s Howitzers. A Zone Propellant is made up of many Charges, the M107 Gun only used Zones without being divided up into charges, the M110 Howitzer uses Charges, not Zones. If you fired the M107 at about 40 degrees Elevation to about 45 degrees Elevation with Zone 3 you risked the Breech hitting the rear deck plate of the turrent. The Turrent Deck Plate was in two sections that were about a half inch thick alumium, the deckplate went under the gunner to the left, went around the hydralic APU; the second deck plate went under the Assistant Gunner seat, with both then narrowing to meet at the rear of the turrent; as you damage that you piss off the Artillery Battery Maintenance Soldiers, as you can actually shift the turrent deck plates to actually shear off the hydralic APU below the Gunner's Sight leaving the mounting bolts stuck in the mounting holes (same with the mounting bolts for the Gunner's seat and Assistant Gunner's seat). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
The person that added the photograph got it from Defenselink. The original title from Defenselink correctly has the nomenclature as a "gun". The person that added the photo incorrectly renamed the M107 as a howitzer. The M107 was the last "gun" (high velocity, low trajectory) that was in the US Army Inventory, after some being retubed as the 8 inch "howitzer" (low velocity, high trajectory) "short tube", then later "long tube", the remaining M107s were sold to other countries (primarily Israel) under the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Programs. These other countries to this day still use the M107s to "outgun" (based on range) other (tubed, not missile) artillery and upgrades that extended the M107 range to 30 miles (50 kilometers) which then inexpensively outranged some missile artillery.--Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The wiki page production history show FMC as the M107 manufacturer. Pacific Car and Foundry [now Pac Car] designed, developed, qualified, and production built for the first years. PFC was awarded single bid contract for the M110 and M107 based on features desired from the previous M55 PFC design. One feature related to the requirement of the gun barrel to be elevated and to slew with a 5 inch pound oil pump was met with an unusual combination of gas pressure equilibrator and electrically controlled hydraulics that can be seen in United States Patent US2857815. Another feature was the unique sealing of high pressure gas in the equilibrator that can be seen in United States Patent US2857815. Another feature was the mathematically explicit solution to hydraulic recoil mechanism, in contrast with the empirically derived tapers used in previous US guns. -Clarkmag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkmag (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Retubing
The edits regarding re-tubing the M-110 to the M-107 and vice versa are out-of-the-book "accurate", but ignore the experience in Vietnam were guns/howitzers were re-tubed--and relatively quickly--at the service battery level. The 7th Battalion 15th FA in particular re-tubed, both type to type and cross-type, as needed, and did it for almost four years.--Reedmalloy (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

- The M110 was never retubed to the M107 (considered Obsolete, as not nuclear capable during the height (1980s) of the "Cold War"). Most of the M107s that were retubed during the Vietnam War were retubed to M110 short tubes as almost half the weight and easier to manuver than a telephone pole length M107 tube. As half the weight the M110 short tube could be picked up by an M578, while the M107 tube could not. The M107 was used during Khe Sanh as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWCNfR50jsc

Here's a General Information Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtzT194XoHA

I wss Drafted, entered as Field Artillery 13, trained on M101, I ended up as a 18 U.S. Army Special Forces Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (L.R.R.P.) and Airborne Ranger; after Vietnam I got Stationed at Germany with VII Corps Artillery of M107s, a FA Battalion of Battalion HHC, three Firing Batteries and D Battery Service Battery. After we had retubed to M110 and got Nuclear Projectile Assembly Training, I then changed to the Reserves and attended College/University with ROTC (so I did not have a break in Service), and Reentered the U.S. Military as an Ordnance Corps Officer Wheeled and Tracked Vehicle Maintenance as including Retubing Field Artillery; I was also Trained in Career Fields 75A Conventional Munitions plus EOD, 73A Missiles, 75C Nuclear Munitions (Physics and Physiology) I got to see the old 8 inch nuclear projectiles again of those we had been trained to use with the 8 inch M110 long tubes (A2s), Chemical Munitions including Live Agent Training (this would be useful at Site 59 of 59th Ord Brigade Chemical Weapons, the Iran Iraq Wars, CIA Operation Cyclone, etc.), 60 series Biological. Later on I became Career Field 18 (U.S. Militsry Joint Special Warfare) again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edit
I'm the one who just edited the article's page. The M107 was my favorite artillery piece when I was a kid (I had a model of it) and it deserves a better page than it had. My edit focused on making the organization more coherent, including the information normally included in other articles about weapons systems (for example design and production history), and removing some of the U.S. bias and U.S. Army jargon. The whole article was badly "intermingled" with M110 data; while acknowledging that the vehicles were based on a common chassis I generally took this out (folks who want to read about the M110 can do that easily). I also moved the very micro-level operational procedures to their own paragraph -- it's probably more detail than most readers need, but it's still there if they want it. While I am former U.S. Army (Reserve and NG), I'm not an artilleryman, and I may not have properly presented the "retubing" issue. There were several contradictory statements in there, and it looked like it had been edited by adding statements without much attention to organization or the overall message. It also seemed to be getting more attention than it deserved (it's just one aspect of M107 operations, and IMHO should not get the same emphasis as design, production, or operational history). I left it as saying that with the right equipment (i.e., 2 M578s) it could be done at the battalion level, but was more normally done by ordnance companies or at depots. I may have gotten this wrong, and it would benefit from attention from someone who knows the subject better than me.Darkstar8799 (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply:

YOU DESTROYED THE CONTENT OF MY ARTICLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole purpose of my postings to this article was from Firsthand Experience and Firsthand Observations (Defintion of Fact) and not Opinions (No Facts), from being with a M107 Battalion that was later Retubed to 203mm (8 inch), with modifications under the turrent (requiring the removal all the way to the turrent ring). These then became M110E2s (Long Tube with the Muzzle Brake) requiring us to become Nuclear Projectile (Assembly) Trained after an extensive Top Secret Background Investigation, Read into the Nuclear Personnel Reliabilty Program.

That US Bias, and US Jargon adds accuracy and authenticity to anyone familiar with US Field Artilley, the US Field Artillery Training being the Basis for the other Nations using this US Weapons System, as to what they were also Field Artillery Trained at the US Army Field Artilley Center and School at Fort Sill Oklahoma, as Common Artillery Jargon regardless of Nation or Country.

As far as the Commonality of the M107 Chassis and the M110 and the removal of the Information referring that to the M110 Article, is like eliminating a Family History, or implying that the M110 came before the M107.

As far as the Retubing issues, yes you did get that wrong, so another person with Firsthand Experience (Reedmalloy) posted their experience from Vietnam. The speed of retubing making all the difference in the world as a Firing Battery being Mission Capable or Non Mission Capable (Unnecessary Deaths, of supported Infantry or Armor "Manuver Units")Nakamuradavid (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger
dont know who put up the article merger tag? but a howitzer is not a gun, a gun is not a howitzer. Brian in denver (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Designed to be part of a common family of weapons utilising the same chassis components, the M107 and M110 were essentially the same vehicle mounting different barrels." "Since the weapons had identical carriages, the common practice was to install those tubes that best met the current tactical needs. One day a battery might be 175­mm.; a few days later it might be half 175-mm. and half 8-inch."

"During the 1950s the standard of US Army motorized howitzer of 203mm was the M55, based on the chasis and the turret of the M53 self-propelled howitzer of 155mm gun. The weight of the machines of this family (±40t) prohibited, however, their air transport, while their gasonline engines confered a range limit of approximately 260 km.

This brought the Army to build a new series of self-propelled guns, lighter and transportable by air, derive from the same frame and some same mounting. Pacific Car and Foundry company developed a number of prototypes. The self-propelled guns T235 of 175mm and T245 of 155mm, and motorized howitzer T236 of 203mm. The T235 and T236 were driven by a diesel engine and manufactured in series under the respective references M107 and M110."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m107-175.htm 96.231.37.18 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Since they are essentially the same weapon developed at the same time and same company with only different barrels, I say merge. The M107 article is more complete than the M110 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisStork (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply:

What was NOT known by non participants was that the M107 and M110 Chassis was NOT identical. In my original article I mentioned the differences, these were removed from my original article. There were lessons learned from the M107 that were incorporated into the M110 Chassis especially the M110E2, I also previously had the barrel weights of the M107 and the M110E2 (aka "Longtube"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Category SP of Iran
SP artillery of Iran was removed as many countries utilized the M-107. Highlighting one country over the many other users doesn't really make much sense.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

It does when it concerned Actual Use, as Experience (Facts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 10:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Photo at beginning of article is actually of a rare M-110A1, not of an M-107
The photo at the beginning of this article is actually of the very rarely seen M-110A1 8 inch (203mm) self propelled howitzer; please note that the barrel of the weapon in this photo is significantly shorter than that of the M-107 175mm self propelled gun, which was exceptionally long, slender and tapered, and was characterized by a very distinct step about 2/3's of the way along the tube; the 175mm ordnance also had a belled muzzle reinforce, a feature the weapon in this photo lacks. The ordnance on the vehicle in this photo is too straight in profile, is too short, and if one looks carefully you can see threads on the muzzle- these were for the prospective addition of the large double baffle muzzle brake which converted this weapon to the M-110A2. Standardized in March 1976, the M-110A1 was in service for a relatively brief period, with the first units receiving them from the early to middle part of 1977, with a few examples serving on until about 1981/82; all M-110A1s were re-designated as the M-110A2 as soon as their muzzle brakes were installed. Installation of muzzle brakes onto M-110A1s started at some point during 1978. By no later than 1982/1983 most U.S. Army M-107s, M-110s and M-110A1s had undergone the conversion to the M-110A2 configuration. Israel continued to use both unmodified M-107s and M-110s into the early 1980s, particularly during the brutal siege of Beirut in the summer of 1982. Iran used her M-107s and M-110s during the Iran-Iraq War. SASH155 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)SASH155, W.Thomas, Alex. VA


 * Good catch! I'll remove the image from the article.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I do not know why my original photo was replaced, photo I took while assigned to a M107 Battalion.

Also you do know that the Israelis did product improvements to extend the life of their M107,175mm barrels (manufactured at Israel), including newer projectiles (rumor of a possible nuclear projectile similar to a 155mm nuclear projectile or 8 inch W33), powder, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 05:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Jargon tag
I've added a tag to the "design" section; the tag points to the very technical terms used to describe the patented features of the vehicle. I honestly have no idea what any of the features are, and I suspect I'm not the only one. If someone familiar with the terms could clarify, the article would be greatly improved, IMHO. It seems that some items likely aren't notable enough features to discuss on their own, but I'll leave that up to someone with more knowledge of the topic. Dpenn89 (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply:

Take the time to do the Research into what the basic technical terms are.

Asking someone to clarify "Red Leg" terms of the US Army Field Artillery Center and School is like asking a Medical Professional to condense their Entire Medical School, Internship, and Experience into a single Wikipedia Article.

Field Artillery as the Science of placing an object at an exact not visable location (indirect fire) at an exact time, with the precision physical movements, team work (many working precisely) like a precision mechanical chronograph, advanced geometry, mathematics and physics.

The US Military Artillery Jagon as taught by the US Army Field Artillery Center and School, is also taught to foreign Nations as the accepted terms used Worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

When is long range a disadvantage?
This article states: "The M107 also had disadvantages. In addition to its long range it was also noted for its inaccuracy at longer ranges..." Almost sounds like long range is being cited as a disadvantage here, should read something like: "The M107 also had disadvantages. While it had long range, it was also noted for its inaccuracy at these longer ranges..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply:

My previous article mentioned the Field Artillery term "In the Box", "TOT", etc.; someone removed these as well as the detailed explanations as "US Jargon".

For US M107's the target was usually a designated size "box" on a map (common: 100 meters by 300 meters including safety margins), not a specific target like a single stationary tank, etc.. The Israelis increased the range, accuracy, and lethality for their M107s. US M107s used Zone Powder Charges, the US M110s used smaller increments of powder Charges (I mentioned before this also, someone removed that also.). A "Zone" Powder Charge would be like a Gallon measurement compared to a "Charge" being like a Quart measurement. A means to make the M107 more accurate was to change from Zones to Charges (entirely different firing tables).

IF you have a vivid imagination picture this, a M107 propellent container about 6 feet by 8 inches containing 3 Zones, Zone 1 having the igniter (red patch), and Zone 3 being maximum range, each Zone being about 2 feet. A M110 propellent container being almost the same size containing about 8 Charges

For M110's there was the claim that they could fire a single projectile into an empty 55 gallon drum. This was an exaggeration after we were retubed from M107s to M110E2s, 10 meters by 10 meters was more common when firing for registration (registration, also previously explained, and removed from my article).

In my original article I also gave the explanations of Counter Battery Artillery Fires. So in the case of the M107s the inaccuracy was very important, you miss the opposing Field Artillery the first time, they will analyize the "splash" and fire for effect on your position. For static long range targets or even in the long range direct fire mode (out ranged most tank guns, a miss being as good as a hit, flipping tanks over, I had previously had this in the original article about using the Grafenwoehr Tank Range for Direct Fires of the M107, this was also removed by someone) the M107 could not be beat at that time.

In my original article I wrote the specific duties of each of the "Cannoneers" of the Gun Section as specific only to the M107, from having been trained previously as Towed (M101, M102) Field Artillery, Vietnam M101 (switch to LRRP/Ranger), Europe SP M107 later SP M110. Later on as Combat Service Support Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Europe (Nuclear Artillery Projectiles, Missile Warheads, Missiles, Chemical Weapons, EOD, NAIRA, CAIRA, etc.). US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, Rotated to Operation Cyclone and everything except Bosnia till now*. Those with their Opinions believing that my Firsthand Experience Expertise being irrelevant and removing my Firsthand Experience and Firsthand Observations of being with a M107 Battalion, retubed to M110E2, GS Corps Artillery (quite literally GS, General Officer, Corps Commander Asset).

My motive: Not let these Facts disappear, I am not getting any younger.


 * Glad I am not writing about my current US Military Career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 06:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ND, you do know that there are many nincomputs out there who don't like to read very much but has a liking to cherry pick on online data, right? That comes too in the form of them annonymous editors using random IP addresses to troll on Wikipedia by posing stupid questions to us; however, the trick is not to dwell into what they want us to do too much but just to do right without asking or hoping for any recognition anyway. That said, you sir, are worthy of recognition in keeping the article page truthful to the fullest of your ability. Cheers~! -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers to you too Dave, as my current U.S. Military Career Field took me to training at the Highlands with the British (SAS), to Australia (Commandos), and Canada (CSOR). Too bad as a loss to future Generations I am not going to redo the M107 Article AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN (Feels really good when you stop banging your head against the walls). Another thing that pissed me off was somebody decapitalized the EARNED Positions of the Gun Crew, as Proper Nouns, and Earned Titles (Positions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakamuradavid (talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M107 self-propelled gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124130349/http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/Israel322533025.pdf to http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/Israel322533025.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124130349/http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/Israel322533025.pdf to http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/Israel322533025.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)