German Artillery silencer !!

[George_Eller]

@1000ydstare

Wait out Georgeyboy, I’ll have to check the maps.

But given the fact you can drive from Sennelager town (civie part not the quarters) to one of the Gun positions in a few minutes, like wise on Bergan Hohne Ranges, actually, yes I do think there may be some other ranges that are as close as 2Km to the fireing points, or along the fireing trajectories.

I have mentioned in previous posts, I have actual experience of firing artillery on German ranges, so don’t go all churlish, just because I haven’t leapt into bed with you and agreed to the data and opinions that has been published.

For your information though Sennelager is half the area of Mappen, and Hohne is 140km2.

Incidentally the Artillery training area in Grafenwehr, used by the US, UK and Germans is 229Km2 But isn’t instrumented. Most instruments at these three sites are mobile and drive out when needed.

When you have finished your churlish strop, perhaps you can come back and I’ll tell you what is like actually driving around these ranges instead of viewing them on Googleearth.

Perhaps you’d like to know what these guns sound like, when you are 2km, 1km sod it, standing behind them putting the next round in through the hatch?

As I have said, there may be a reason for these mufflers that is natural (ie birds or similar nesting) or perhaps as Mappen is a testing ground they require to fire such guns for extended periods of time. Read my posts, I have pointed out that these ranges often shut down at night, except for some strictly regulated firings. You can’t test the effects of continuous firing, if the firing is not continuous.

You are aware, of course, that two kilometers can be too close for safe firing around civvies aren’t you? Both at the fireing end and at the impact end. Under the arch it is possible. strangely. And if they are behind the guns.

Like I say Georgey, I am not argueing this from the side of a internet dweller.

Actually 1000yd, I believe that I’ve been quite civil in my posts, hardly churlish. On the whole I think that I have been very reasonable.

For instance, I don’t recall losing my temper and resorting to personal insults.

[1000ydstare]

Neither do I mate, I haven’t lost my temper once. And Georgey is hardly an insult. This is the internet you know.

Anyway. Added info. It is worth noting, for all the claims of proximity of civvies etc to th eguns, that the ranges at Mappen (being experimental by nature) probably don’t see as much firing as the the three I have listed. Certainly those three have seen firing (both artillery, tank and small arms) on a daily basis. But probably not on Sundays (German laws/regs).

I’ve fired small arms on ranges closer than 1km to civvies, and we were not fitted with silencers.

However, and this is why I bring in the nature aspect, it is worth noting that a ammo compound in UK is home to a very rare, almost extinct frog. Because of this the ammo techs there have to be very careful whilst driving, opening the blast doors and during all manner of other tasks.

Also certain ranges are closed down due to various animal mating seasons, nurting seasons or even migration seasons.

For example the Mappen range, with allits instrumentation is probably more at risk of affecting nature by this very instrumentation than by the guns firing.

To count this, in one trianing area tanks are driven through on certain days. Apparently the tanks replicate some natural spreading method from years ago. The greens tried to shut down the area to the military when they found this rare flower. When the army ceased training the flower started dieing out!!!

You have to watch a mandatory (area specific) video called “Train Green” in order to exercise on certain areas.

[Firefly]

PDF is right. Keep a cool perspective on this and put your points across. Actually I wonder why anyone would paint a sound suppressor that size. Seems very stupid to me and a very expensive waste of paint.

[George_Eller]

@1000ydstare

Neither do I mate, I haven’t lost my temper once. And Georgey is hardly an insult. This is the internet you know.

Anyway. Added info. It is worth noting, for all the claims of proximity of civvies etc to th eguns, that the ranges at Mappen (being experimental by nature) probably don’t see as much firing as the the three I have listed. Certainly those three have seen firing (both artillery, tank and small arms) on a daily basis. But probably not on Sundays (German laws/regs).

I’ve fired small arms on ranges closer than 1km to civvies, and we were not fitted with silencers.

However, and this is why I bring in the nature aspect, it is worth noting that a ammo compound in UK is home to a very rare, almost extinct frog. Because of this the ammo techs there have to be very careful whilst driving, opening the blast doors and during all manner of other tasks.

Also certain ranges are closed down due to various animal mating seasons, nurting seasons or even migration seasons.

For example the Mappen range, with allits instrumentation is probably more at risk of affecting nature by this very instrumentation than by the guns firing.

To count this, in one trianing area tanks are driven through on certain days. Apparently the tanks replicate some natural spreading method from years ago. The greens tried to shut down the area to the military when they found this rare flower. When the army ceased training the flower started dieing out!!!

You have to watch a mandatory (area specific) video called “Train Green” in order to exercise on certain areas.

I would have to disagree with your opening statement. “Georgeyboy, Georgey, churlish strop, internet dweller”…and the overall condescending tone of your previous post. I would say it was pretty obvious that you were losing your temper. Why, I am not really sure.

I think that much of your posts are speculation on your part, that may or may not be fact. As I recall, in your first post on this thread, you were convinced that the image of the Pzh M109 with “schalldampfer” was a photoshop fake.

If you would like to research further reasons as to why the artillery noise suppression system is used at Meppen have at it. If it turns out that there are other factors such as the nature aspect that played a part, that’s fine with me. I am open to new information.

I have learned a lot during my research in this thread and from others like yourself. This can be an interesting thread. So, let’s keep it civil okay.

[1000ydstare]

I am currently chasing down some leads with people in the know regards the Camoflaged silencer at Meppen.

Some of my posts are speculation, but most are based on experience. You did ask me for ranges with closer proximity than Mappen. I have stated some. There maybe others when you look at maps, etc. Likewise there are ranges that are no doubt busier.

A big deal has been made over this silencer being used to pacify locals, yet, as I have pointed out. No other range appears to use it, even the ones that are similarly as close to populations centres. It strikes me as a white elephant.

Much of Mappens 200km2 will be unusable as ranges, but just merely buffer space for shells landing, so populace will be kept quite far from harm and noise.

[George_Eller]

@1000ydstare

I am currently chasing down some leads with people in the know regards the Camoflaged silencer at Meppen.

Some of my posts are speculation, but most are based on experience. You did ask me for ranges with closer proximity than Mappen. I have stated some. There maybe others when you look at maps, etc. Likewise there are ranges that are no doubt busier.

A big deal has been made over this silencer being used to pacify locals, yet, as I have pointed out. No other range appears to use it, even the ones that are similarly as close to populations centres. It strikes me as a white elephant.

Much of Mappens 200km2 will be unusable as ranges, but just merely buffer space for shells landing, so populace will be kept quite far from harm and noise.

Thanks for the information. I do respect your experience on these matters. And it would be interesting to get some more insight about this.

As cited in some of my previous posts, the use of artillery noise suppression systems was limited in scope to a few problematic cases where noise was a constant factor and where mobility was not demanded.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=117565&postcount=13

http://www.kspg-ag.de/pdfdoc/newsline_3_2000.pdf

Further studies on operational spectrum at Meppen
MaK muffler system operational in Scotland

…Project manager Krumm points out that "since the universal use of noise suppression systems for tube weapons of the German Army for training purposes is inconceivable due to the high system mobility frequently demanded, the aim of the study was to develop effective muffler systems for a few very problematic cases. This is why noise suppression systems are really only feasible for the stationary or quasi-stationary operation of tube weapons in the future, e.g. for testing weapons and munitions at military test centers."…

[1000ydstare]

Mobilitly on most arty ranges is not demanded.

The Gun points are fixed, Arty Guns always fire from a static pre-surveyed point (even in war) and on ranges these are clearly marked and the direction to fire indicated. Checks are made to ensure guns are firing “in arc”.

There are very few ranges where the guns could just rock up and fire, and even if they did, the gun points would be surveyed prior to their arrival.

[George_Eller]

@1000ydstare

Mobilitly on most arty ranges is not demanded.

The Gun points are fixed, Arty Guns always fire from a static pre-surveyed point (even in war) and on ranges these are clearly marked and the direction to fire indicated. Checks are made to ensure guns are firing “in arc”.

There are very few ranges where the guns could just rock up and fire, and even if they did, the gun points would be surveyed prior to their arrival.

Thanks for the feedback, 1000yd.

I have a few questions.

Looking at the pics of the MaK muffler system and the other one at Meppen, it appears that they are resting on static frames that are anchored to concrete piers. I’m not sure if the frame elevation is adjustable or not, but I assume that the traverse is not. Also, I assume that the muffler system itself is customized to the Pzh M109 155mm SPG. However, I’m not sure whether other self-propelled guns or towed artillery pieces would be compatible.

You mentioned that at the range, the guns always fire from marked, static pre-surveyed points with the direction of fire indicated. In the case of the M-109, which is turreted, how much traverse is normally used while firing from these static positions? If traverse is needed, could this be a factor in the “high system mobility frequently demanded” as quoted from project manager Krumm?

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=117678&postcount=26
…Project manager Krumm points out that “since the universal use of noise suppression systems for tube weapons of the German Army for training purposes is inconceivable due to the high system mobility frequently demanded…”

Also, I am thinking that if these static frames (anchored to concrete piers) were located at fixed gun points, would this create problems for other gun systems that would be using the range (towed artillery or incompatible SPG’s)? Could that be a factor in the “high system mobility frequently demanded” as quoted above? In other words, would it be desirable to have a muffler system that can be easily moved to alternate locations?

Just a few questions that I have for now. I am curious to get your feedback.

Also, I will try to research this more. Thanks again.

[George_Eller]

I sent an inquiry to WTD-91 in Meppen, Germany on 14 February 2008
and received the following reply and images this evening.
Just thought I would share them with the forum.

Bundeswehr Technical Center for Weapons and Ammunition (WTD 91) in Meppen

E-mail contact form
http://www.bwb.org/01DB022000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26GQKFE250INFOEN

Dear Mr Eller

With reference to your mail of 14 February 2008

thank you for your mail regarding the shooting muffler for the PzH M109. We
can give you the information that this system was only a study by a
well-known german company. So we can not provide you a construction plan or
any details about the function. It was tested here at the test center for
weapon and ammunition a few years ago but it was not established in the
Bundeswehr. Meanwhile our prototype was scrapped. Enclosed you will find a
few pictures of the “schalldämpfer”.

(See attached file: 32x.jpg)(See attached file: 05x.jpg)(See attached file:
15x.jpg)(See attached file: 02x.jpg)

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Jensen

[Panzerknacker]

The inner structure of the schalldämpfer seems to bemore simple than I tough, good information there George.

[George_Eller]

@Panzerknacker

The inner structure of the schalldämpfer seems to be more simple than I thought, good information there George.

Thanks Panzerknacker

I was pleased with the quick response from WTD-91 and the information and additional images supplied.

[George_Eller]

Thanks Panzerknacker I sent you a private message.

[George_Eller]

@George_Eller

I sent an inquiry to WTD-91 in Meppen, Germany on 14 February 2008
and received the following reply and images this evening.
Just thought I would share them with the forum.

Bundeswehr Technical Center for Weapons and Ammunition (WTD 91) in Meppen

E-mail contact form
http://www.bwb.org/01DB022000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26GQKFE250INFOEN

Dear Mr Eller

With reference to your mail of 14 February 2008

thank you for your mail regarding the shooting muffler for the PzH M109. We
can give you the information that this system was only a study by a
well-known german company. So we can not provide you a construction plan or
any details about the function. It was tested here at the test center for
weapon and ammunition a few years ago but it was not established in the
Bundeswehr. Meanwhile our prototype was scrapped. Enclosed you will find a
few pictures of the “schalldämpfer”.

(See attached file: 32x.jpg)(See attached file: 05x.jpg)(See attached file:
15x.jpg)(See attached file: 02x.jpg)

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Jensen

@Panzerknacker

The inner structure of the schalldämpfer seems to be more simple than I thought, good information there George.

Thanks Panzerknacker,

I was very pleased by the quick response from WTD-91 in Meppen, and the
additional information about the schalldämpfer and what became of it.
The images were a very nice bonus.

All the best my friend

[Major_Walter_Schmidt]

Why build an artillery silencer? You cant carry it around or anything.
/(?o?)/\ Crabby is mystified.

[Drake]

Hrhr, which brings me back to my original comment about our mental attitude concerning engineering.