Abbot Self Propelled Gun

[uk 75]

I was astonished to learn that the British Army ended up with 200 Abbot self propelled guns taking advantage of an Indian Army for the vehicle which shared the same chassis as the FV432 troop carrier.

Abbot always struck me as a second rate alternative to the standard NATO M109. I assumed its only virtue was cheapness and commonality with the 105mm gun which was the other main British artillery weapon.

A lacklustre non radar fitted 30mm gun variant called Falcon was presumably aimed at using Abbot chassis when a newer weapon replaced it.

However, as many contributors have hands on experience of British weapons I admit to maybe having missed something. Some years ago a bloke in a pub told me Abbot could be used as an anti tank gun like the German SP tank destroyer with its 90mm gun. Seemed reasonable as Abbot units might get overrun on the N German plain.

 

[timmymagic]

Abbot always struck me as a second rate alternative to the standard NATO M109. I assumed its only virtue was cheapness and commonality with the 105mm gun which was the other main British artillery weapon.

M109 was not standard at the time.

Both Abbot and M109 arrived at roughly the same time. In fact most nations didn't adopt M109 until the A1 and A2 arrived at the start and end of the 70's respectively, and only when more capable systems like SP-70 didn't arrive....M109 tended to be purchased when there was no other choice....

The US also had a 105mm SPG...the long forgotten M108....in service with the US and NATO states...

The British Army used M109 and Abbot...both had different roles...they also had M107 and M110...BAOR tended to be more mechanised than other NATO formations...

The Abbot's 105mm gun could not use standard US 105mm Howitzer ammunition...its design and ammunition led to the L118 Light Gun. Far longer ranged than US 105mm...but it had no commonality with the 105mm in service at the time, L118 didn't arrive in service until 10 years after Abbot.

 

[Apophenia]

... Abbot always struck me as a second rate alternative to the standard NATO M109...

That 'second rate' assumption is a bigger-is-better bias. But that is a bit like saying that dump trucks are better than taxi cabs. Too true if you want to dump a load of fill but not so much if you need a lift to the high street. So define your priorities before making your pronouncement.

Do you want to fill the air with shrapnel and/or fling plenty of earth out of decent-sized holes? Then go 155.

Will you ever want your infantry to advance with suppressive fire? Then go with Brit 105 mm Fd -- just to spare the PBI from ground-burst fragments if nothing else. Want similar accuracy with your 155? The get ready to shell out (bad pun intended) £105k per M982 Excalibur round fired (and avoid all air bursts).

Anyway, there was a reason why the Cold War-era RA wanted both 105 and 155 guns.

As timmymagic said, the Abbot's L13 gun couldn't fire US 105. The problem wasn't an odd-ball British 105, it was that the rest of NATO hung on to an inferior, pre-WW2 US round for far too long. As it was, normal British 105 mm Fd rounds could outrange the Soviet D30 122 mm (17.4 km versus 15.5 km). And they still are in Ukraine ...

 

[timmymagic]

As timmymagic said, the Abbot's L13 gun couldn't fire US 105. The problem wasn't an odd-ball British 105, it was that the rest of NATO hung on to an inferior, pre-WW2 US round for far too long. As it was, normal British 105 mm Fd rounds could outrange the Soviet D30 122 mm (17.4 km versus 15.5 km). And they still are in Ukraine ...

Worth saying as well that Abbot outranged M109 as well....

 

[BlackBat242]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2DdZViW38c

 

[Scott Kenny]

That 'second rate' assumption is a bigger-is-better bias. But that is a bit like saying that dump trucks are better than taxi cabs. Too true if you want to dump a load of fill but not so much if you need a lift to the high street. So define your priorities before making your pronouncement.

Do you want to fill the air with shrapnel and/or fling plenty of earth out of decent-sized holes? Then go 155.

Will you ever want your infantry to advance with suppressive fire? Then go with Brit 105 mm Fd -- just to spare the PBI from ground-burst fragments if nothing else. Want similar accuracy with your 155? The get ready to shell out (bad pun intended) £105k per M982 Excalibur round fired (and avoid all air bursts).

Anyway, there was a reason why the Cold War-era RA wanted both 105 and 155 guns.

As timmymagic said, the Abbot's L13 gun couldn't fire US 105. The problem wasn't an odd-ball British 105, it was that the rest of NATO hung on to an inferior, pre-WW2 US round for far too long. As it was, normal British 105 mm Fd rounds could outrange the Soviet D30 122 mm (17.4 km versus 15.5 km). And they still are in Ukraine ...

Didn't realize that the Abbot 105mm could out-range the US 105mm or the 122mm!

In general, the idea of 105mm howitzers in mechanized units seems foolish. Yes, you can get a lot more rounds inside, but you need to fire them to get as much area coverage compared to 155mm shells. The US gave up on the M108s by the end of Vietnam, if not sooner, rebuilding them into M109s.

 

[timmymagic]

Didn't realize that the Abbot 105mm could out-range the US 105mm or the 122mm!

It outranged M109 as well...until the longer barreled M109A2 arrived in the mid-late 70's...