subject redacted

[unixronin]

<Brain>  "PINKY!  ...Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

<Pinky>  "Uh, I think so, Brain, but where are we going to find a silencer big enough to put on a tank?"

I gotcher tank¹ silencer right here.

[1]  Yes, I know it's not technically a tank, it's an M109 self-propelled 155mm howitzer.  But do you really think Pinky knows the difference?  He's barking² insane.

[2]  And that's not easy when you're a mouse.

Comments

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

I so want to call that photoshopped! Why in the world was it painted camo? It's too be to be useful in the field! I'm guessing it's actually something for training or research...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

As the comments explain, it's for noise reduction during gunnery practice because good civic-minded German citizens were complaining about the noise of heavy artillery. It's camo-painted because, well, it's the Army. ANYTHING that doesn't rate a salute gets painted camo. :)

[bfudlmint.livejournal.com]

I rarely bark and am not a mouse(use the Steinbeck equation to figure out what I am). What is the difference between a mobile howitzer and a tank?

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

A tank has a turet with the main gun in it that can traverse most of a circle, and heavy armor. That has very little armor. I think it is a german one.

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

It appears to be a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Indeed it is. See the footnote. :)

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

a) As someone else pointed out, a tank turret can turn in a full circle, and a tank has more armor (it's intended for direct fights). Tanks also have shallow angles of attack for their main gun (ie. usually they only fire at an angle that is closer than 45degrees to the ground), for the same reason: direct fight -> direct fire -> direct shot at target.

b) a mobile howitzer is an artillery piece, and therefore does not engage in direct fights with its targets. As a result, it doesn't need to turn its turret much, and doesn't need much in the way of direct armor (not enough to stand up to a tank attack). Also, they tend to be used for indirect fire, which means steep angles of attack (greater than 45degrees angle between the barrel and the ground).

Though, I'm not sure if the actual cut off is 45 degrees or less. It might be 30. Point is: with direct fire you aim the barrel at the target and shoot, trying to get the shell to hit the side of the target (mostly); indirect fire you aim into the sky and try to get the shell to land on top of the target. Tanks are designed for direct fire and up-close combat. Mobile Artillery pieces aren't designed for either of those.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Principally, the following:

• A tank is intended to go into battle in front-line combat.  It is fast, heavily armored against enemy fire, usually designed to have as low a profile as is practical, is equipped with a high-velocity gun and direct-fire targeting equipment, and carries mostly anti-armor rounds.  Its role is to destroy enemy armor and hard points, to support infantry, and to take and control territory.


• Self-propelled artillery is intended for fire support from behind the front line, and is never intended to go directly into battle.  If the SP artillery ends up on the battlefield, it uslally means the battle plan went badly wrong.  It is generally armored only against small-arms fire and shell fragments, is usually large and bulky compared to a main battle tank, is equipped with a medium-velocity gun and primarily indirect-fire targeting gear, and carries mostly HE rounds of various kinds (though there are artillery-launched precision-guided munitions such as the laser-homing M172 Copperhead and the GPS-guided XM982 Excalibur).

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

As silencers/suppressors don't 100% silence a shot, I wonder how loud that thing actually sounds when it's fired. Turn an immediate huge rumbling BANG into a distant soft rumble, even if you're right near it? (probably still makes your bones shake, though)

I'd love to see/hear/maybe-even-feel-from-being-100-yards-away a shot with and without one of those. I'd settle for a video comparison with sound wave graphs for comparison, though :-)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I've been twenty yards from a British 5.5" gun (approximately 140mm) during live fire, which has to be pretty comparable to the 155mm. It's ... pretty loud. I have no idea how effective the suppressor is. I would expect it to damp most of the report of the gun itself; of course, there will still be the supersonic shockwave of the shell, but that's a lot quieter.

This was before the replies of course

[bfudlmint.livejournal.com]

SO I want to figure out why an M109 Howitzer isn't a tank. I go to http://www.army.mil and search for M109. Instead of build a search engine they just redirect you to Google. Of course with adwords your offered a chance to bid on an M109 on Ebay.

Re: This was before the replies of course

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Of course with adwords your offered a chance to bid on an M109 on Ebay.

[rolls on floor laughing]

Is there a reserve on it? :) And never mind shipping, I'll just pick it up. :)

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

So that's the one that is insane! I always wondered....