/k/ - Weapons

because they have fetish for fighter bombers.

>>484014

/thread

too cheap, can't milk it for defbux

Because we will always enjoy air superiority, the Air Force will always be there, and will always be effective.

t. Pentagon planner.

>>484017

Pretty much this and not just US that under appreciates artillery

If you had niggers and spics and women running your artillery, wouldn't you be a little scared to call for it if you were within range?

>>484034

And we cancelled the paladin's successor too, so shit won't get much better. I hope we invade South Africa for some reason, lose to their artillery, and maybe possibly even learn a lesson. Maybe that will also bring the whites back in power there

>>484025

You may have a point here. Since the affirmative action hires generally don't get to fly the F-35 omnibomber, it might be reassuring to know that the person providing your fire support at least has to be able to fly a fucking plane to get your ordinance there. All you need to do for artillery is pull a fucking rope. Who cares where it goes, accidents happen. Lord forbid we kick out the incompetents in every MOS.

>>484044

>>484025

>your an 11B or 0311

>weapons platoon stovepipes are being manned by spics, women, and niggers because they can't function in smaller direct combat units without extensive supoervision

>your sqaud is pinned down by a couple of DshK mounted on some technicals coverhing a bottleneck in the roadway, the SAW can't get to them because they hold a hardened position on a slight rise

>you call in some indirect to schack those fuckers

>you provide grid ref and pre-set ref points accordingly, calling for some FFE

>suddenly HE is landing like a motherfucker in among your guys

>the fucking troglodytes manning the stovepipes fucked up on the grid and ref properly, dumping FFE on you like mad

>your radio operator takes a direct, turning his PRC-152 into plastic confetti and vaporizing him…you can't call out to stop it

>as your squad tightens up behind what little cover there is, you can hear those 12.7 rounds wizzing just overhead, smacking into the reamins of a wall you're behind because Achmed has repositioned his technicals to take advantage of your assreaming

>the last thing you hear, is the uncontrollable laughter of Achmed, right before you're snuffed out by a 81mm

>at least they had good effect on target

>>484034

If the enemy out-ranges your arty you might aswell not have any with counter battery radar these days.

The worst part is the US paid the R&D costs for everyone else's arty.

>>484025

Good point, at least pilots have to proven themselves competent and accurate.

>>484056

No, the US shoveled Everest size mountains of cash into the furnace for decades to develop some of the wildest shit every dreamed up to either A.) give it to someone else and never adopt it or B.) put the breaks on because of the white noise of cum-guzzing libs/tree fuckers/anti-nuke whine asses/bean counters/The UN

>>484056

> at least pilots have to proven themselves competent and accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269291/UK-soldiers-killed-US-friendly-Afghanistan-equipment-shortage.html

>>484044

>affirmative action

>needed to be a bad pilot

kek

>>484034

because the US government, particularly the military, has no interest in making things cheaper

>>484059

And? Friendly fire is always going to happen and given how much more aircraft are used compared to arty they are going to have more friendly fire incidents. If you want to get an accurate picture of how fucks up more you would need FF incidents per X fire missions.

>>484012

Because the marines get to play with their lightweight howitzers and because a Fighter bomber can usually deliver a more accurate and deadly hit.

>>484063

>compared to arty they are going to have more friendly fire incidents.

Arty has less, you have more incidents of people being shot by their allies than artillery (mostly because they kept a 600m danger zone).

I only posted 2 out of the list I can post. Not even Mortars have as much friendly fire. There's a reason low and slow is better for CAS.

>>484064

>more accurate and deadly hit.

yea to friendlies

>>484065

Let's use the Gulf War as a case study as all the data is available.

The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs.

All aircraft FF incidents:

During the Battle of Khafji, 11 American Marines were killed in two major incidents when their light armored vehicles (LAV's) were hit by missiles fired by a USAF A-10.

Two soldiers of the U.S. Army were killed and a further six wounded when an American Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter fired upon and destroyed a U.S. Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle and an M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier (in the same incident) during night operations.

An American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm attacked British Warrior MICVs, resulting in nine British dead and numerous casualties.

In the 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident, two U.S. Air Force F-15Cs involved with Operation Provide Comfort shot down two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters over northern Iraq, killing 26 Coalition military and civilian personnel.

I'm having a hard time finding any data on how many arty shells were fired.

>>484076

you're also having a hard time finding friendly fire from artillery as well aren't you?

>>484084

And? They need to have fired over 25,000 fire missions to have a better ratio than air.

>>484085

Would be safe to say that it did a decent amount of fires.

Since the US Army uses an organic artillery structure for their brigades and have for a decent amount of time (since world war 2).

I just remembered this exists, it would be great in the back of a LAV.

>>484128

Are they ok?

>>484034

It's because the old guard in leadership is still stuck in the mindset that missile artillery is the wave of the future despite the fact we haven't used MLRS in combat since the 90s.

they simply don't give enough of a shit about cannon artillery.

>>484132

>sarmatians

Did you know that Lucius Artorius Castus commanded over 420 sarmatian knights at the battle of badon hill? The history channel told me so!

"Women warriors" did exist at various points in history but almost only as a last resort, such as in androcide situations

>>484134

considering these steppe fuckers were bordering turks, mongols, mordvians and even weirder and worse things , and that for them every war is total war it is possible for them to be using everything and everyone in combat. at least sometimes. strength isnt even all that much important in this case since lol lancers and the impet of the horse. just point the stick at enemy and try to hit him

>>484129

Well, those were ukrops… You can imagine how it ended.

>>484137

We can imagine much more precisely how your deportation looked like, Juan.

>>484138

>I thought we are friends!

magyars fall under mordvians since i didnt want to type out all the existing fingolian tribes

>>484131

>yung we have to test our new artilllery!

>but how to do it cheng? i dont know anything about it, i am drafted rice farmer

>just shoot randomly in the air until you get bored!

what you guys think about krab?

>>484034

I have to admit, that is the coolest looking self propelled artillery piece that I have ever seen in my life.

>>484152

>Things like seats and wheels

I mean steering wheels in this case.

>>484190

Worth it.

>>484152

I don't think that thing can be safely mounted on a AMV chassis without making a whole new chassis altogether. But I think Patria should have the capability to design and manufacture a chassis that G6 can be safely mounted on.

>>484128

I don't get it. Why didn't they just mount that thing on a truck or tank chassis. Surely it must have occurred to someone what is going to happen with relatively short range artillery piece like that.

>>484192

>I think Patria should have the capability to design and manufacture a chassis that G6 can be safely mounted on.

Indeed, and if it shares a great many parts with the AMV and the customer can choose whichever gun system they want to mount on it, then they could try to sell it to all those countries that already bought the AMV. I mean, that fucking thing will replace most of the rusting commie vehicles this part of Europe.

>>484192

>Why didn't they just mount that thing on a truck or tank chassis.

I remember a video of them firing it from the back of the truck. You could only see the crew operating the mortar, and I just can't find it again. I've searched for it a few months ago, but nothing.

>>484152

Patria AMV is shit though.

>>484190

I think that should be a banner for /k/

>>484192

The US tried mounting it on a truck, it destroys the suspension after continuous use.

Still a cool idea

>>484104

>twenty million off every strike fighter we buy

Try 120M

>>484058

>be US government

>spend billions developing MEADS to replace the Patriot SAM

>MEADS is significantly better than Patriot in every way possible

>Sell MEADS to Germany and Italy but never adopt it yourself, instead choosing to keep the shitty Patriot chugging along without a replacement

I'm sensing a trend.

>at least pilots have to prove themselves competent and accurate

You obviously haven't heard what happened when the Navy tried to push a woman through as an F-14 pilot when Clinton was in office.

>>484190

>>484214

seconding this

>>484201

No, it's not.

>>484130

If anything they're better off for it. It removes them from an environment that would lead to a lifetime of poverty, crime, and neglecting their brood from a dozen boyfriends and places them in a position where they can be of some use to society. It gives them structure, a job, a place to live and reduces participation in activities that actually do harm to society, what's not to like?

>>484257

I was upset when they cancelled Crusader Christ-chan a best. We haven't fought a real war since WW2 so artillery isn't as valued as it should be, and tanks as well. A few hundred planes can try and pound a target but they take so long to fly to the target and back and have to reload… but artillery can just pound a target for hours non-stop. In war most of the casualties are caused not by small arms fire but by artillery. It should get a lot more attention.

>>484266

>get Americans killed due to incompetence, laziness, and shitty physical performance

>top 20% of women perform better on physical tests than bottom 5% of men in the army

>every single combat test by every single military on the planet shows that mixed-gender combat units perform like shit because the women can't keep up and the men are overworked trying to pick up their slack

>military women damage morale by causing troops to fight amongst themselves over girls, sleeping with entire platoons, filing sexual harassment claims, etc.

>most suck and fuck for promotions rather than earning them on merit

>navy has had to repeatedly send back ships with high percentages of women aboard because every time they hear they're being deployed to a war zone, every woman onboard suddenly becomes pregnant and can't deploy

>and then most of them get abortions and sit on their asses stateside while all the men on their ships get deployed

>first female ship captain to deploy to a combat zone decides she can't handle the stress and literally just walks off the job before the ship even arrives in theater; just hitches a ride and fucks off back to the US, leaving her ship and crew without a captain

The military is not a jobs program or a form of welfare. It's our first line of defense. How about let's take it seriously and not use it as a means of getting affirmative action hires out of the ghetto?

>>484262

Ok youre right, its actually worse than shit. Even shitty APCs from the cold war are amphibious.

>>484276

Cost per shot?

>>484311

$110,000 each rocket, $7,000 per training round.

>>484314

>Made by (((Lockheed Martin)))

Of course.

>>484271

But it's amphibious…

>>484334

I cant, but boss strelok can, ill leave it up so next time he sees it he can add it to the rotation.

>>484354

It's it that autistic Worst Korean system on a different chassis?

>>484358

no its autistic polish in reality british but licensed and made better system dont laugh this is our modus operandi dating to renesanse when we took hungarian haiduk infantry and gave them arguably better gear (not hard when there was like 10 thousand of them in total) on worst korean chasis because previous one that was used was apparently too shitty

>>484276

>Do you even know about HIMARS?

>Range: 480 km

That's the autonomy range of the vehicle, moron.

HIMARS fire 6 rockets (max range 84km with M30 munition… the regular ammo is M26 rockets 30 to 45km depending payload type) or 1 ATacMS.

Best ATacMS has a 300km range…

Compare it with what's in service with Russia and China field in the domain of rocket and missile artillery and it's NOTHING to brag home about…

>>484358

It's a British gun on a Worst Korean chassis

>>484391

yes it is. but what do you guys thing about it? please tell me its not shit

>>484422

Does it work? How much did you pay for it?

>>484375

Those arent bad values. Lower than slavs by about a third, but still not bad. Serbs and Russians are pushing the frontiers of MRS.

http://www.janes.com/article/68023/idex-2017-yugoimport-unveils-giant-grad-rocket

>>484422

Its average. Better than American, worse than Russian or South African.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K9_Thunder#Operational_history

For Pooland it would have been better to keep developing something like a longer barrel Gvozdika, Its designed for the kind of terrain in Poland, the K9 chassis is designed for 99% urbanized terrain of South Korea.

>>484594

>The chassis UPG-NG was developed in Poland by OBRUM in Gliwice, from a chassis SPG-1M (developed itself from a Soviet MT-S tractor), utilizing parts unified with PT-91 Twardy tank.

MMMMMMMMMAKE AN EFFORT!

>>484462

>a longer barrel Gvozdika

Not necessarily. The Russians are (have) modding most of their "Gvozdika" into auto-loaded mortars "Hosta" instead of howitzers.

Because the most important feature of the Gvozdika is it's amphibious capabilities, meaning it can follow infantry units in the glorified swamp that is eastern Europe.

More shells on targets faster, more precision (guided ammo), a bit shorter range, keeping the same extreme mobility (AFAIK the Gvozdika is the only SPG that swims…).

Poland could have just bought some Pzh2000 to go with their Leo2 if they wanted bigger guns.

>>484626

"Mortar" is a loose term with these weapons, theyre rifled and have other howitzer features.

But yes, Poland needs amphibious artillery, oc any kind, even rocket.

>>484626

>Because the most important feature of the Gvozdika is it's amphibious capabilities, meaning it can follow infantry units in the glorified swamp that is eastern Europe.

i understand that you never were there

also we still have a fuckton of gozdziks stored

also

>germans

>>484603

nothing wrong with trying to find a new use for old vehicles or at least their parts. except it didnt work this time.

>>484626

>the glorified swamp that is eastern Europe.

Quite the overstatement, but it's true that there are more rivers than roads in a few spots. I've been thinking if you could replace most of the artillery with this >>484394 contraception, and then just rely on vehicles with 120mm mortars to actually follow the front line. I mean, Poland could give fire support to units stationed in Riga without even crossing any borders. Not counting all the shells that fly over Lithuania and into Latvia, of course.

>>484628

It reads like that they are cannons that can also fire mortar shells. Hm, should have read more about them back in the time. Anyway, are Russian and NATO 120mm mortar shells interchangeable, or are they just different enough for it to be not possible without modifications?

>>484683

It can fire NATO munitions.

The key sticking points between calibers globally is whether to measure lands, grooves or internal case diameter.

Mortars are mostly immune to this caliber gordian knot, and all countries measure them the same (with few exceptions).

>>484635

>i understand that you never were there

Bitch please, you're the one that have to leave your basement sometimes.

From Warsaw to Moscow you have to cross water at least every 5km, it's even worse if we're trying to get to St-Petersburg from the Balts. And so many of that are major rivers, not just streams you can get by fording. Hell that's a bit dryer in western Europe but not that much (it's 10 to 15km, except in Spain Greece or South Italy).

And despite being a troll, in an era of precision guided munition, real time drone recon and tactical nuclear warheads I know I don't want to live anywhere near any bridge…

So yeah amphibious capabilities is a must have for any army wanting to wage war in Europe. Which you know…

EVERY WESTERN EUROPEAN ARMY DON'T HAVE ANYMORE.

VBCI, VBMR, Boxer, Puma, etc… none of them swim (and the US army ones never could, save USMC obviously, because they're fighting everyday to stave off retardation).

Have fun with Russia on your own guys (as usual).

But hey at least you have a nice piece of paper saying we will come to help you…

>>484034

There were rounds in the works for Battleships giving them hundreds of miles of range.

>>484785

Well. Yeah. Why not?

>>484785

What would had happened if the turret blew and some how the magazine went off?

How many heads would roll?

>>484790

What's the crew complement of the ship?

>>484820

Using a gun? That should probably be cheaper than an ICBM (granted, that's not much of an achievement), but the build on the gun would probably be enough to at least even out that cost. I'm assuming you're suggesting firing a self guided shell into orbit and using the control rockets on the shell to de-orbit and manoeuvre itself onto target as it descends - or are you asking for a gun big enough to send the shell across the planet through the atmosphere? Because as insane as that sounds it would be a rather fun project.

>>484820

mumble mumble… voytenko compressor…. mumble mumble… combustion light gas gun… mumble mumble…. casaba…. mumble…. scramjet…. mumble…. antipodal….

>>484190

>>484214

>>484256

Thirded.

That's a word right?

Logistics cost of moving SPGs in, and then back out of war-torn countries out-weights the cost of emplacements and air-support.

Doesn't Best Korea have a fuckton of artillery? Does anyone know anything about them?

I think it's because we assume we'll have air superiority and thus drop JDAMs. This is a bad attitude to have, and while our air power may be significantly greater than any foe we fight, we can't neglect artillery, especially due to the prolonged firepower they bring.

>>484984

it brings*

polite sage

>>484984

>>484985

Why US will never invade someone who can actually put up something resembling Air Defense.

>>484989

If they are ever a real war with a front-line again arty offers cheap rapid support. If you are on the ground getting fucked by a HMG from 900m would you rather call is CAS and wait 20 minutes or call in arty and wait 5 minutes?

>>484978

Google "planemans analysis of north korea"

Planeman is an autistic guy from Militaryphotos forum that read ALL of the material on north korea, and designed a full analysis dossier on the country.

Last I heard he got vanned by CIA and they threatened him into working for them. They even tried to scrub his dossier from the net, but you can still find parts of it.

>>485002

>gather intel as hobby

>be so good at it you get forced into slavery like a meth cook abducted by bikies

That sucks, I wonder if he could fuck up his clearance without getting vanned, eg. fake a gambling problem.

>>485004

They'd probably use that to keep him in.

How does NK compare to Iraq?

>>484012

in ww2 it took over 500 men to run 12 howitzers, a waste in manpower

>>485545

Because air fields have no security and ground crew, right?

>>485545

>waste of manpower

so is having nigger loader instead of autoloader

>>485604

the range has more to do with the velocity out of the barrel (127mm is longer therefore more range) than the caliber.

if the 155 were also 64 calibers long, it would've gotten the same range or maybe a bit more.

>>485605

I know, but they can't fit a 155mm gun with a longer barrel to that chassis from what I understand. But a 127mm gun would be lighter, therefore the barrel can be at least a bit longer. And from what I understand Gerald Bull's magic isn't applied to this weapon.

Although, now that I think about it, if steel-aluminium barrels become a thing, then fitting a 155/45 gun (like the G5) would be possible.

>>485606

>steel-aluminum

you mean that HSSS alloy I posted in the titanium thread a few days ago?

>>485608

Indeed. I take it would be good enough for artillery pieces.

>>485610

It would indeed, it would also be thin as shit and may have alot of vibrations. Who knows, maybe they'll flute it.

>>485612

you need less material for the same structural strength (which is why it was compared to titanium for mass to overall strength), so you get away with a thinner barrel.

>>484034

I'm sure everyone's already said it but America probably figured that any country they're going to be fighting isn't going to be able to do shit about our air superiority so we can just air strike them into oblivion instead of using competent artillery.

You know, unless some new cheap anti-air technology comes around so suddenly angry muslims can swat F-35s out of the sky.

It's super dumb but you can see why they don't want to justify paying to update them.

>>485620

It just hit me: air force will be the cavalry of the next major war. Expect that during ww1 at least they could just dismount and send them to the trenches.

>>485651

It hit someone that in vietnam actually, hence Hind and Huey. In WWII they thought tanks were the new cavalry. Currently toyota hilux is the cavalry.

Words like "cavalry" are often used because our languages evolved before the industrial revolution, so we have very few romantic words to describe mobile vehicle warfare.

1000 years from now they'll be describing cybernetic spacecraft assaults on multi dimensional fortreses as a "hilux charge". And write sappy thriller novels called the importance of being goodthink about a young half-shark maiden falling in love with a middle aged grizzled "Hilux" officer who got sent back from the front because g-forces caused his headcannon to malfunction, until at the end she finally realizes she doesnt care about the person he truly is (a bastard) just as he realizes he loves her.

>>484785

We had a 280mm towed howitzer in the 50's and 60's that could fire nuclear shells.

The soviets had a self-propelled 406mm gun taken from an incomplete battleship, as well as a prototype 420mm version.

Literally the only problem is our boneheaded approach to artillery and "Muh magical F-35"

>>485673

I've meant that modern air defences will most likely stop it the same way repeater rifles and machine guns stopped cavalry charges.

>>485773

There should be really a blog dedicated to new Russki stuff. Could you give us some input about the Russian military industry and the process of procurement in this thread? >>484289

>>485769

The problem is "modern" post-Cold War approach to arty. Prior to the 92' draw down, we had serious arty capabilities with decent doctrine.

>>485854

The kebab destroyers made a missile called ALAS which is basically a cheaper way too do short range guided strike.

It's an ATGM with a 30 mile range and even more flight time.

Reflecting back on this thread, if an army has howitzers with a range of 100km, and amphibious vehicles with a 120mm mortars, then wouldn't it be better to have battalions with the 120mm mortar carriers integrated, but have the howitzers in independent regiments instead of attaching them to brigades?

>>486638

why dont put them in a regiment and then split that regiment into battalions that are integrated into larger force if it is needed?

>>485967

doable.

>>486641

i think i fucked up there somewhere.

>>485967

yup, its perfectly possible.

>ww2 technology

>weights 29 347 kg

>C-130 can take 33 000 kg

we can do much better then this with modern materials. the barrel would have to be tiny tho. maybe telescopic or something. we could make it out of titanium or some weird aluminium thing.

the bigger problem is transporting ammo. also airdropable heavy artillery seems like really small niche when it comes to its uses. i mean i would love it but it isnt really all that much mobile after you drop it.

>>486642

yeah exactly

>>486807

I wasn't talking about airdropping them for quick deployment,, but being able to transport them around .

>>486808

yes this is absolutly possible.

still ammo would be a bitch

>>487545

why the fuck do they need so long range? they are meant to bombard niggers, you can do it with blackpowder cannons

>>487546

Because with more range you need less cannons to make sure that you can bombard all niggers in a given area.

>>487545

Something crossed my mind: launch scramjets from the G7 to destroy tanks. A scramjet needs to go with some Mach 5, that is about 1700m/s. The fastest projectile from this cannon goes with 960m/s, and it weights ~20kg. So by decreasing the weight you might be able to launch the projectile at a high enough speed to turn on a scramjet. At that point even a penetrator weighing only 5kg is about as potent as a 120mm cannon. Bring it up to 10kg, and you can easily fuck up any modern MBT. And it's a scramjet, therefore range shouldn't be that much of a problem. Make it guided, and you can hunt tanks with artillery.

>>484270

>first female ship captain to deploy to a combat zone decides she can't handle the stress and literally just walks off the job before the ship even arrives in theater; just hitches a ride and fucks off back to the US, leaving her ship and crew without a captain

When did this happen?

>>487593

Scramjet rounds exist, and they aren't popular because they aren't very reliable.

Also, they have rounds for 155mm howitzers and 120mm mortars that can be laser-guided or heat-seeking in order to target moving vehicles with indirect fire; the 120mm rounds for the Patria AMOS are designed so the twin mortars can fire full-auto with a sustained rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute, or a burst of 16 simultaneous-impact rounds, and the mortar shells automatically home in on enemy tanks/APC's/trucks and steer into them. They're also programmed to avoid targets that are too hot, so vehicles that are on fire (from getting blasted in the previous volley) and flares won't distract the rounds.

So artillery can and is used to engage tanks and such.

>>487546

The niggers have artillery of their own. Granted, it's old and they're too stupid to use it properly, but they might get lucky; thus, you bombard the niggers from further away than they can shoot back and you never have to worry about their counter-battery fire.

>>487621

November, 2016.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/the-commander-of-this-navy-warship-just-walked-off-the-job

Entitled bitch wanted to play navy captain and when she found out she actually had to do things besides just boss people around, her fantasy bubble popped and she walked off the job like a fast food grunt. Really, that's all there is to it.

For most of these women, military service is purely a social status thing they can wave around in front of other women, much like jewelry or the wealthy man they're dating. It's purely for status signaling/another notch on their belt to show off, and when they realize people expect them to take it seriously they either buckle under the stress and run away, or they get fired for incompetence… or at least shuffled off where the damage they do to the service is minimized.

For the majority of women, they're not serious about a career, especially a military one; it's purely peacock puffery to show off for other women. Men generally take pride in their accomplishments in and of themselves, and medals and ribbons are proof to back up their claims; for women, it's all about the pretty decorations.

>>487647

Those kinetic-kill CRV7s have been around since the early 90s, they just never got a chance to use them in combat.

They also developed a lightweight single-tube launcher, which they proceeded to market in the most retarded manner possible.

>>487647

>deployed

Nigger, scramjet tech is not yet works on a normal scale on airplanes, you seriously believe it works already in miniaturized version that is also built to withstand bullshit accelerations in tank cannon?

Yes those prototypes exist and there used to be some development (Russians ditched the thing in 80's I think) but nothing meaningful ever came out of it.

>>487647

>>487680

I know both about kinetic energy missiles and guided AT shells. But kinetic energy missiles are direct fire only, while those guided shells usually parachute down onto the battlefield. Now CKEM should be really developed, and I'd really like to know if they abandoned it or the project is just hidden. With active defence systems becoming more common (even Turks wants to manufacture their own at this point), and C-RAM is slowly becoming a thing, I suspect that those parachuting projectiles won't be that useful in the future.

>>487842

>>487593

>have rocket arty and normal arty

>rocket arty is better over all but normal arty lets you lob shell after shell for marginal costs

>lol lets make super secret complicated ammo for it

>>487916

As I already wrote in the first post, scramjets don't really work until Mach 5. Now, what's the cheaper method of accelerating a projectile to that speed, launching it from a cannon, or strapping it to a rocket?

>>487919

probably strapping it to a rocket, that way you have only costs of rnd and production of a single rocket instead of costs of researching and constructing mach 5 cannon.

unguided rockets are surprisingly cheap

>>487920

Let me get it right:

>putting a lighter projectile into an existing gun and burning the same gunpowder you'd use to launch other projectiles

>manufacturing a completely new Mach 5 rocket you can only use once, and it has to use its own rocket fuel

And from these two options, you think the second one is cheaper.

>>487925

>putting a lighter projectile into an existing gun and burning the same gunpowder you'd use to launch other projectiles

You know that you can't achive that since muzzle velocity achived by conventional shells (not rocket asisted) reached about 1100 m/s. Behind some point adding additional propellant charges gives nothing.

>>487916

Rocket arty is NOT better than gun arty.

>Gun artillery

>Allows for 'precision' hits, can fire laser-guided, heat-seeking, etc. rounds

>Greater range

>Can sustain fire literally all day long

>Can be used in a direct-fire mode to shoot tanks, buildings, etc. or fire canister/flechette munitions at oncoming waves of infantry

>Rocket arty

>Only good for saturation strikes

>No idea where individual rockets are going to hit, they just land in a general area

>Take 30 minutes to reload, on average

>Shorter range

>Massive backblast

>Using guided munitions reduces the number of rounds that can be fired, reduces range, and increases cost exponentially

Gun artillery is good for 99% of what you'll need artillery for. Rocket artillery is good for "fuck everything in this general area, and fuck it sideways", but only if you're ok with only getting one good volley off. They both have their uses.

>>487960

Are you purposelly trying to piss people off? What kind of asshole writes a comment like that, do you make a habit of telling lies on the internet?

>>487960

Listen, I love me some gun artillery, but fuck you.

>>487960

Bellingcat, the post.

>>487960

Rocket artillery isnt innaccurate, its about as accurate as a lot of howitzers, because each rocket can spin faster than an artillery shell. Wind does affect them more, but thats a predictable variable. It also has laser guided shells, and theyre cheaper because the components dont have to withstand high-g forces. There are also cheap as dirt radio guided rockets.

Rocket arty also has more range, howitzers are limited to around 10-20 miles before RAP comes into play, but rocket arty has a range in hundreds of miles.

I don't see why rocket artillery can't sustain fire, by firing one rocket at a time. Many rocket arties carry the same amount of ammo as a SPG.

One of the best things about rocket artillery is its ability to carry cluster munitions of all types, whereas in a howitzer its limited by g-forces and shitty internal volume. A rocket can carry, for example, a massive load of mines, or even electronic jammers.

Its about as fast to reload a rack of 40 rockets as a 40 piece magazine on a SPG.

>Using guided munitions reduces the number of rounds that can be fired, reduces range, and increases cost exponentially

I fail to see how this doesnt affect howitzer shells…

Your only correct criticism is backblast and less inherent accuraccy, but at 18 mile they still have acceptable CEP.

You could also have mentioned that rockets take up more volume, meaning its harder to transport them (by sea or air) for resupply.

>>487953

>muzzle velocity achived by conventional shells (not rocket asisted) reached about 1100 m/s

Then how can a 120mm cannon launch an APFSDS at more than 1700m/s?

>>487953

>>487953

>muzzle velocity achived by conventional shells (not rocket asisted) reached about 1100 m/s

Then how can a 120mm cannon launch an APFSDS at more than 1700m/s?

Why do all of you have the same ID?

Did Cuckmonkey fuck up?

>>488148

because we are all one man. there are only two living beings on this board

come with us and join the hivemind

>>488145

>>488146

Only 125mm can do 1700-1800, 120mm is stuck around 1500-1600.

You're right in that it can go over 1100m/s, but you're wrong in that the speed can keep increasing forever.

Look into the eargesplitten loudenboomer. It's a .22 bullet that uses 5 times more powder amount than a .22, of a type of powder (H570) that burns seven times faster than regular .22 powder (W231?. So the increase in pressure is many tens of times over…. yet it only propels the cartridge two to three times faster.

Solid propellant has a very low deflagration velocity, but it's compactness and density is great.

Gasseous propellant has the fastest deflagration velocity, but is less compact and harder to work with.

This is why CLGG is important, it lets us work with propellants that can move a shell a LOT faster than simple solid powders.

>>488160

>This is why CLGG is important, it lets us work with propellants that can move a shell a LOT faster than simple solid powders.

But still aren't actually detonating and damaging the equipment.

>>488148

/k/ finally did it, they united all nations under the banner of a resurrected Rhodesia.

>>488160

1700 is 177% more than 960, which is considerable, but still less than 200%. And the idea is that you just propel a projectile (that weights about a quarter or maybe half of a standard one) out of the barrel at that speed, then the scramjet kicks in, and that accelerates it even more. When and where did I mention increasing the speed forever?

>>488168

Oh you just want a scramjet round.

Yeah this is possible, for fucks sake we've done it multiple times.

>>488174

Can I ask for some sources?

>>488197

The SHARP gun did it, accelerated scramjet shells to mach 5.2, which then accelerated themselves to mach 9.

https://www.google.com/patents/US5513571

https://www.google.com/patents/US5485787

https://www.google.com/patents/US4428293

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253604306_The_16-inch_gun-launched_anti-satellite_weapon

>>488205

Now that sounds nice. Although if this is the gun in question, then it's not for field artillery:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/SHARP.html

>A light-gas gun developed at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, California, and funded by the Strategic Defense ("Star Wars") Initiative as a possible antimissile defense weapon. It consisted of an 82-meter-long, 36-centimeter-caliber pump-tube and a 47m-long, 10cm-caliber gun barrel, in an L-shaped configuration.

Although it says 7km/h, which is a lot more than Mach 5.2, so I take you are speaking about a smaller gun.

>those patents

Patents are only valid for 20 years, right? Not that I want to manufacture scramjets in my backyard, but there are some interesting firearm designs from the 80s that could be revived now.

>>484015

So its the Mexcrement making these cuckchan comments all around.

>>484231

One of the former soviet 'stans has made a variant of the BMP to mount it. and one to carry extra ammo for it

>>488218

CLGG are low pressure guns (relatively), I bet a smoothbore could be built in a backyard pretty easily.

>>487694

That's cool. They should sell the weapons to Muricans.

>>484134

>Lucius Artorius Castus commanded over 420 sarmatian knights at the battle of badon hill

The one in about the 5th century, when the man who was probably the historical inspiration for the Arthurian legends held back the invading Saxons and delayed their conquest of Brittonic land for years, that battle of Badon Hill? He was in command of a squadron of Iranian cavalry?

The documentation is too sparse to even nail down a precise date, probable army size, casualty counts etc. Shit, the first time it was mentioned in written records was about 400 years after the fact. Was this show revealing some new evidence or source? Or is this another case of the "50% of all viking warriors were women" nonsense we've been seeing lately.

If you're not familiar with the Viking thing they were excavating a Norse tomb in northern England, and one archaeologist commented on how pronounced the effects of malnutrition were on the skeleton, which was surprising for a wealthy man of the period. His write up of the excavation included the phrase "the skeleton almost looked female at first glance" to exhibit the advanced level of the damage. Feminists and the Media took this info and started publishing articles along the lines of "New study shows that half of all Viking warriors were women, sexists BTFO!".

>>496973

Bury the shells under a road and wait.

>>496999

Scythians are Slavic, Sarmatians were proto-Russians, although people at the time couldnt know them. Proto-Slavs traveled along the great continental rivers at the time (danube/rhine), as a great migration west into the failing kingdoms there. Part of this migration were Sorbs going west under the Archont, along the Carpathians, until they hit the rivers. Its possible some of them went north along the Rhine instead of south along the Danube, the Rhine led them to the English channel where they might have signed onto a Breton kings armies.

>>497045

There's a lot of maybe in there boyo.

also

>Sarmatian, member of a people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to the Ural Mountains between the 6th and 4th century bc and eventually settled in most of southern European Russia and the eastern Balkans.

https://global.britannica.com/topic/Sarmatian

>The soldiers got really, really, really lost on their march from Tehran to Yekaterinburg, let's hire them as mercenaries!

>>497102

>>The soldiers got really, really, really lost on their march from Tehran to Yekaterinburg, let's hire them as mercenaries!

Well, there WAS that legend of a Roman legion that ended up in China… and I've seen a photo of a man from the village that claims Roman ancestry, and one old fellow there looked just like my Italian uncle.

>>497116

I'm not saying it's categorically impossible, but it appears to be very unlikely. If nothing else you'd assume that a few hundred rather tanned warriors wearing weird armour and talking amongst themselves in a language that nobody else could understand would have drawn enough attention to be recorded at least once. Do we know what the History Channels source was for that claim?

>>497127

Oh, I'm not denying its unlikelyhood at all- but people in that era moved around a LOT more than we perhaps give them credit for these days (archaeological experts excluded).

>>497130

Granted, but this does seem to play into something you see a lot in History faculties at the moment, namely inserting as many non-European and non-British elements as possible into European and British history. Which reached their (current) high point with that hilarious article where an academic claims that his evidence that a unit of Nubian auxiliaries was stationed on Hadrian's Wall for a while means that the original inhabitants of the UK were black Africans. In light of that context in modern academia claims like this need to be treated as suspect and as such would require undeniable proof.

>>497133

>an academic claims that his evidence that a unit of Nubian auxiliaries was stationed on Hadrian's Wall for a while means that the original inhabitants of the UK were black Africans

Oh, man… I've seen that sort of meme before, and not to go full /pol/, but it's insane, and pisses me off.

>>497135

You've then got the case of Septimius Severus, the 21st Emperor of Rome. Born 145AD, in the Roman province of Leptis Magna. As Leptis Magna is today a part of Libya, and thus Africa this clearly proves that we waz empras an sheeit.

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/septimus_severus.html

The hilarious part of this story is that He was basically the Roman-English Trump equivalent. The main achievements of his reign was driving non-Briton invaders out of England and rebuilding Hadrians border wall - although sources are currently unclear on whether he managed to make the Picts pay for it :^)

>>497136

>At least they have to make an effort.

I wouldn't quite classify 'lying your arse off' as making an effort.

>>497141

Best bits of vid related.

>It (black god killing the pope and white people in general) will happen by the year 2000

>The original rulers of England and Britain were black, which sounds nuts to you.

>All of this information came from the British Museum, Westminister (sic) abbey, windsor

>That's king George of England, a light skinned black man.

>Beethoven (was black), Mozart (was black), Cleopatra looked black but she was white, Shakespeare undoubtedly black, Abraham Lincoln? Well that's still up for debate. Henry VIII was black.

>Tom Jones, sings like a black man, dances like a black man, he may look white but he's black.

>>497102

The britannica definition of Sarmatian is retarded, it was started when local people started copying weapons and tactics of the persian and greek empires, due to trade on black and caspian seas. Its like saying Romans were actually people of Greek stock because similar gods, names, ships, weapons.

Is this more likely:

>The soldiers got really, really, really lost on their march from Tehran to Yekaterinburg, let's hire them as mercenaries!

Or them being part of some mass migration, which we have records of.

>>497144

>Just wait until they learn about the slave trade between Portugal and Japan.

I suppose Eastern Asian slaves had a cranial index that allowed them buy themselves into freedom within the first generation.

>>497045

There is so much speculation when it comes to this.

Scythians are mostly regarded as being Iranic. However, at this time period there was probably great overlap between Slavic and Iranic peoples in that part of the world.

>Proto-Russians

What would you define as this? Southern Russians and Northern Russians look very very different and have quite a different history as well (before the formation of a real Russian state, that is)

Proto-Slavic has a lot in common with older Iranian languages (and not just from being in the same Indo-European family).

Then again, a lot of the Proto-Slavic stuff and migrations is totally in the dark and not much is recorded at all by sources of the time (compared to other groups like the Celts, that is)

>>496999

>He was in command of a squadron of Iranian cavalry?

The Romans utilized auxiliaries from the whole world. Nubians, Germans, Arabs, etc. It wasn't super uncommon for them to be sent to provinces where they weren't from, because it also helped combat mutiny and desertion. Germanic warbands, for example, would find it hard to organize themselves with, say, Egyptians. This means it would not be all that strange for the Romans to move Sarmatian troops all the way to Britain.

>like saying Romans were actually people of Greek

Una Faccia Una Razza

Romans and Greeks were ethnically very similar and large sections of Italy had been thoroughly colonized by the Greeks for hundreds of years before Rome became a power.

If there is anyone here who is a real expert on Rome, let him speak. I may have made some errors in what I wrote.

>>497191

Again, by whom? Only the anglosphere thinks this, its long established that Slavic roots are Scythians. Huns, the first wave of Scythian migration, were essentially Slavic people'

>Southern Russians and Northern Russians look very very different and have quite a different history as well

What different history?

Scythians around caspian and black sea started migrating north and west. Because desertification around the black sea impoverished them, and because a tribe of Scythia (Huns) basically rekt all resistance in those directions. These migrations establishing permanent dwellings around the rivers they used as highways volga, don, dnieper/dniester, danube and Greek historians renamed them Sclavenoi, Antes and Wends.

Over the next 1500 years, northern peoples migrated south because of climate change via rhine, elbe, vistula etc… raided, traded, and bunnyfucked with the proto-slav Scythians. Which is why some of us "look different" in terms of coloration, but same bone structure is there.

Also this is when fins migrating south on the dvina found the slanteyes and took the prettiest as sex slaves.

There's no guessing here, its painfully obvious that this happened.

>>484231

That's why you use deployable hydraulic stands.

>>485673

>that flag

>that post

So the US army has officially adopted the M109A7 and will begin upgrading self-propelled howitzers soon; about 3/4 of the Paladin fleet will be upgraded to the M109A7, and the remainder will be left in the M109A6 configuration.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/04/paladin-pim-the-little-cannon-that-could-the-future-of-the-armored-brigade/

The M109A7 replaces the chassis with the same one they're using for the new M2 Bradley upgrade and the replacement for the M113 APC, which would mean 72% of the average army brigade's heavy vehicles would share the same chassis, engine, tracks, and other parts, easing logistics.

The new hull would give the M109A7 better protection, greater speed and range, faster turret traverse, more electrical power (allowing a Paladin to mount an active defense system to shoot down incoming counter-battery fire), and greater mobility on rough terrain, even limited water crossing capability.

It would also retain the same turret and gun as the M109A6, which means ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PATHETIC RANGE FOR A MODERN HOWITZER. Seriously, this shit is fucking inexcusable. Just look at the comparison between the M109A7, the most common equivalents in Russian and Chinese service, and the newest equivalents in Russian and Chinese service:

M109A7

Rate of fire: 1 round per minute sustained, 4 rounds per minute maximum

Maximum effective range: 18km standard shells, 30km rocket-assisted shells

Ammunition load: 39 rounds

Anticipated number in service: 580

Currently in service: 929 M109A6's (which use the same turret)

Russia's most numerous equivalent:

2S19

Rate of fire: Sustained unknown, 6-8 rounds per minute maximum

Maximum effective range: 29km base-bleed, 36km rocket-assisted

Ammunition load: 50 rounds

Number in service: 700

Russia's newest equivalent:

2S35

Rate of fire: 16 rounds per minute sustained, 20 rounds per minute maximum

Maximum effective range: 40km standard shell, 70km rocket-assisted

Ammunition load: 60-70 rounds

Number in service: Unknown

China's current equivalent:

PLZ-45

Rate of fire: 2 rounds per minute sustained, 5 rounds per minute maximum

Maximum effective range: 24km standard shell, 39km rocket-assisted

Ammunition load: 30 rounds

Number in service: Unknown, but since it's been in service since around 1990, I'm gonna say "a lot"

China's newest equivalent:

PLZ-05

Rate of fire: 10 rounds per minute (doesn't say sustained or maximum), 3 rounds in 15 seconds when burst-firing for multiple-simultaneous-impact

Maximum effective range: 40km standard shell, 100km rocket-assisted

Ammunition load: Unknown

Number in service: 276 as of 2015, and you bet your ass they've been building more since then

In terms of artillery, we are FUCKED. The M109A7 upgrade is desperately needed, both to modernize our artillery and streamline logistics, but unless we upgrade the gun and ammunition, what's the fucking point? We've got enemies fielding guns that not only have higher rates of fire and hold more ammunition, but also have double or even triple the range of our guns. You know the best part? We canceled the M109 Paladin's replacement, the Crusader, in 2002 because it wasn't "mobile enough" or "accurate enough". Let's see how Crusader compares, shall we?

Rate of fire: 10 rounds per minute sustained, 12 rounds per minute maximum, up to 8 rounds burst-fired for multiple-simultaneous-impact

Maximum effective range: 400-500km rocket-assisted HOLY SHIT THAT'S FUCKING INSANE!

Ammunition load: 48 rounds

Expected number in service: 800 were on order before cancelation

WHY THE FUCK AREN'T WE MOUNTING THE GUN FROM THIS THING ON THE PALADIN RIGHT FUCKING NOW?! We copied the electrical system and turret drive from it, why not the fucking gun and ammunition?! What the fuck! Russia's most numerous howitzer significantly outranges ours, ditto for China's. Russia's newest howitzer has more than twice the maximum range, and China's has more than three times the maximum range! Crusader had a gun that had fifteen times the range! Seriously, we are fucking idiots not to be using this shit! What the hell is wrong with us?!

>>497602

Could you provide some sources on the maximum range? It sounds like some crazy experimental scramjet projectile to me, and a quick search only brought on the same copy-pasted text on a few different sites saying that the max range is 40km+.

>>497602

yeah you need better canons but i doubt crusader gun is so good.

Overall getting new chassis in place of metal box is a good idea and a step in right direction

>>497602

>2S19

>Sustained unknown

It's 6. 8 is the max they can do in "burst mode". It's an auto-loader, the normal rate of fire is it's rate of fire as long as you have the reloading vehicle feeding it new ammo.

For the 2S35 the jump in fire rate is for the twin barrel version, the regular version is the one they're building for sure (so 8 and 10), the twin barreled version might be fielded in tank divisions, but not right away.

Also Russia has had guided arty shells since the USSR and the 2S19 can entrench themselves without help (not advertized little feature, they all have integrated "self-entranching tool", belly mounted blades to dig, all modern Russian tank do BTW). Sure it's not as fast or as good than having engineers do it, but it also mean engineers can be doing something else than preparing firing position, or that they can at least make makeshift position without relying on arms Mk. 1, while waiting for engineer support.

>>497602

>2S35

>Rate of fire: 16 rounds per minute sustained, 20 rounds per minute maximum

>mydickisdiamondsnow.tiff

>>497607

IIRC from the 2002 edition of Janes Artillery (which my old library had a copy of), that was a planned range for the projectile that lost the rocket assist and became Excalibur.

>>501125

Does it say anything concrete, or it was just one of those vague "give us 200 billion dollars every year, and we will surely deliver" kind of deals?

>>484012

we have drones and air superiority, plus rail guns on newer naval ships. if we want to go easy on our enemies we can call the british to use their artillery, which is capable of firing while moving I think, and it is known to fire several shots in an arc so they all hit at once

>>501129

I seem to recall it was going to use scramjet propulsion, but as I said, they dropped that and kept the GPS guidance part, which became the M982 Excalibur round.

Anything more, you'll have to find the edition of Jane's which had the XM2001 Crusader, I no longer have access to that library because I've moved.

>>501146

>we have drones and air superiority

Only because you limit yourselves to fighting third-world shitholes.

>>501300

it's not cheating, it's just tactics

>>501146

>known to fire several shots in an arc so they all hit at once

aaaaaah why do people with none-at-all subject knowledge comment on things. simultaneous rounds on target is a rather basic artillery operation, it's been used since some time after ww2.

any field gun can do it with a high angle shot followed by a low angle. the autoloading and fire computed evolution is impressive in that it can do it with a lot more rounds.

>>484190

Lockheed Martin. We fuck taxpayers, not horses.

>>488160

I think you mean detonation velocity. deflagration is subsonic burning. And Typical detonation velocities in gases range from 1800 m/s to 3000 m/s. Typical velocities in solid explosives often range beyond 4000 m/s to 10300 m/s. The thing is that we're still using shitty nitrocellolouse powder instead of RX and other more energetic compounds

RDX*

>>484266

Cuckservative civnat faggotposts like these are why Amerikwa is doomed. Just ignore the west's decaying culture, society, and civic life and shove the degenerates into a glorified fitness program with push ups so they can shuffle off the war-widgets to the middle east for president shlomo.

>>501505

We've already experimented with RDX based propellant before, dumbass. And I'm sure they're experimenting with it in the LSAT program.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0082078489801973

>>501550

>We've already experimented with RDX based propellant before

I'm well aware of that, dummy. But I don't have access to the studies, therefore I don't know if it means that cannons firing projectiles with 10.5km/s are (at least theoretically) possible or not.

>they're experimenting with it in the LSAT program

No, they are using compressed ball powder.

http://archive.is/fy2Rk

>Yes, it’s a variant of ball powder. They had to tweak the blend to get the right pressure curve for CT, so it’s not an off-the-shelf propellant, but it is similar. St. Mark’s will not tell us what the difference is, that’s their proprietary info. The powder is literally pressed into the case, without any kind of binder or glue. There’s nothing sticking the balls together. The compression takes out the air gap, so you end up with like 1.1 grams/cc density, so a bit over 100% loading density.

>>501505

Yes. The propellant used in the caseless ammo for the HK G11 was lacquer-coated RDX/HMX.

>>501578

Now, tell me, did the G11 accelerate those projectile to 10.3km/s?

>>501650

>>501419

The velocity definition of deflagration is flawed, thats whats holding us back.

Deflagration is just any combustion where one grains *heat* ignites the next grain. Detonation is where the physical *shockwave* of one grain combusting ignites the next. By using shock insensitive grains, usually by layering plastic explosive (RDX) and insensitive material (clay), its possible to increase speed of deflagration several times over without starting a detonation.

Its possible to have a supersonic deflagration!

The true limit is hypersonic, which is the limit of metallic gun chambers, even that limit can be expanded. When the retarded gunsmiths figure that out, it will usher in a new era of firearms. Like the evolution from gunpowder to smokeless, any basic gun will double its velocity overnight. Specialty guns will shoot projectiles fast enough that the mass of the projectile will be equivalent to equivalent mass of an explosive.

>>501650

>>501578

G-11 was a good proof of concept, but being CASELESS meant it needed a lot more insensitive material added to the mix, to be more solid/harder.

RPK-74 has 2750 bar, producing 745m/s

G-11 has 3850 bar, producing 935m/s

Because the pressure in the G-11 is made more even and controllable, theres less stress on the barrel, allowing larger pressures. Another benefit of RDX based propellants.

>>501843

Some of the lower energy RDX/HMX based propellants will start being introduced in autocannon ammo in 2025-2030, preliminary tests suggest a 1.7-2.5x energy increase.

AC first because if an autocannon shell gets set on fire theres not enough propellant to burn the place down while theres still enough propellant to see how it would act in a larger mass, and autocannons shoot a lot more often than the full sized artillery or tank guns so theres more data.

Once initial testing is complete on 20-50mm calibers, it'll be phased into infantry rifles, cannons, howitzers, and even rockets (as solid propellant). It can even boost jets by feeding a block of solid propellant into the combustion chamber (slav magic) of turbojets, ramjets, scramjets…. increasing achievable speed without guzzling high-volume liquid propellant.

We're living in an exciting era.

In our lifetime we'll have massive paradigm shifts in propulsion, conventional, nuclear weapons. And all the countries are dropping out of treaties so we might even see orbital combat.

In our lifetime we will see manmade horrors beyond description!

>>501856

Maybe but that would be a continent sized CEP, and it would be a glider for most of that.

I think the 400km one was for a glide version, with a glide ratio of 1:10. For every 1 meter down it went 10 meters forward. So all they had to do was get it 40km up into the air.

So this thing would have to be fired to 10km altitude at mach 4, scramjet to 50km alt at mach 7., ballistic to 100km alt (space) then rocket boost a bit, and finally glide the rest of the way. I dont think 155mm would be a good platform for it, because the propulsion would be 95% of the shell, the amount of explosives delivered would be pitiful, on the order of a hand grenade.

It would have to be like 2s7, or even a modernized version of schwerer gustav.

>>501860

Well, that's more of a joke than anything. I doubt that you really need more than 150km for a howitzer, and even that would be kind of a waste in most situations.

>>501865

I think thats achievable just with CLGG or RDX propellant, and maybe pop-out glide fins.

>>501902

>"Hey Andrej, remember that crazy get-up we lashed together during the war and used to remove smelly kebab from Sarajevo?"

>"Yes?"

>"Well, here's a crazy idea - let's make more and sell them!"

>"Brilliant!"

>>502016

>the Dwarves from Oglaf

I totally want someone to make an NPC mod with guys like that for Skyrim or something now.

>>502020

Those little bastards are great, I wish Oglaf would have more of strips of those guys.

>>502025

Armata is that basically, the APS radar serves as a radar node in the air defense network, it has some counter air ability with its cannon, and can interface with artillery (Koalitsya) air defense guns or missiles.

>>484012

because the chair force is very good at selling itself and convinced everyone that the can perfom the job of artillery. helps too that the fighter pilot is the modern day cavalryman and is thus generally of the patrician class.

>>509416

With guided shells and potentially up to ~1000km plus range with a rocket/scramjet assist, couldn't you just get the shells into a low earth orbit and have them automatically handle their own re-entry on a trajectory that brings them to their target? At that point you can just have a large stationary artillery battery in a nice quiet part of your own country (with a heavy duty anti-aircraft/anti-missile defence net around it) and shell anywhere else on the planet. Granted you'd basically turn war into a global version of the old videogame 'worms' but there is a certain charm there.

>>509629

I can see long ranged and intercontinental artillery carrying out strategic bombing missions rather easily - the targets there are usually stationary and in known positions and the travel time of the shell doesn't really matter all that much. For tactical airstrikes though having to wait for the guns to line up their shots and then for the shells to travel to you sounds like it would take a lot longer than calling in a fire mission from the aircraft and helicopters orbiting the engagement for that purpose (assuming that NATO forces can continue to rely on the American assumption that they'll always have air-superiority of course).

I'll admit I had to look up the NEMO, using the AMOS might be a better bet (same system but with a second barrel, nearly doubling the rate of fire) - but yeah attaching an organic battery of 6-12 of those vehicles to each company and giving them the responsibility for tactical fire support, with regiment level organic ~100kg howitzer batteries handling larger targets for them. Adding dedicated artillery regiments of heavier guns/MLRS vehicles to deal with longer range counterbattery fire would work very well there.

>>509637

>Now that's something I wouldn't bet on in a proper war.

Pretty much, yeah. But best of luck telling the Americans that.

>The travel time might be a few minutes, but that shouldn't be a problem against targets like bunkers or massed enemy formations

Less useful for armoured vehicles though. Yes you can say that infantry should be able to deal with those using their missile launchers, but you could drive down the cost of blowing up enemy tanks dramatically by using specialised guided heavy mortar shells - if nothing else they get a top attack profile without having to add extra rocket burns and fancy electronics to the weapon. Being able to cheaply and easily destroy one of the more expensive ground units on the battlefield then you could end up making tanks effectively useless no matter how much infantry support they've got.

>my idea is to give that many vehicles to a battalion

I can see your logic there, but the plan of adding them at the company level was meant to alloy every platoon and even section level force to call in high explosive rain - limiting the number of steps the order needs to go through, speeding up response time, and trying to make your effort to "make the whole process of pinning down the enemy and calling in an artillery/air strike a lot faster and more precise" faster and more precise.

>I'd add some MRLSs. Their job would be smothering the enemy in hellfire if something goes terribly wrong. And against harder targets you'd call the artillery regiment. They could fire guided glide bombs, similar to these

That makes sense, ~200mm SPGs sniping designated targets with the 'grid square removal service' waiting in case there's a fuck up. Thinking though, could you use an MLRS rocket to increase the range of the guided glide bomb? Presumably by releasing the glider at the apex of the rockets trajectory. It might just be the poor mans cruise missile, but it does seem like the next step up from using a heavy howitzer to launch the gliders.

>>509823

>That Strix vid

>Strategic bombing shifted to rocket boosted glide bombs

>That .pdf

>Standardised military vehicle designs.

God damn it man, you know just what to say to get me excited.

>>510038

>That depends on how autistic of a loading system you want. Maybe the best solution would be a smarter version of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gg4vH6Gb0A

I see, I thought we were going for an entirely enclosed vehicle design, I suppose that keeping it open topped would probably help keep the production cost and time down - you would lose out on crew comfort, safety, and NBC protection though. Crew comfort can be ignored or shifted to a third tier priority (the grunts won't thank you for that though), but a lack of crew protection will just make your enemies counter-battery fire more effective. While NBC defence is probably just being paranoid I'd say it was better to have it than not. On the other hand an unenclosed vehicle would make resupply/loading.

>Well yes, they'd need radars, but they need radars for counter-battery fire too. As far as I know the Armata uses one radar to track both aerial and ground targets, including artillery shells. Therefore you could have a "basic" radar on the vehicle itself, and then you'd only need a beefier one for the whole battery.

If the vehicle is not going to be used by itself, and only ever as part of a battery why not have a single command vehicle with the sensors and communications package for the whole unit?

>the biggest problem with this whole cannon-launched SAM is that I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use a smaller missile that is launched by gunpowder instead of a gas generator and then some rocket fuel

Is the performance really much lower? Enough to offset more widespread & cheaper SAM cover?

>Which is most likely just a way of covering up how railmemes are useless.

You never know, pump another few billion dollars into the research projects and anything is possible :^). For a moment there I thought that they were planning to develop railgun howitzers, presumably with a battleship sized nuclear reactor or two tacked onto a separate vehicle.

>>510051

>Think of the heavy version of the Caesar, with more armour plates and those cranes of fun.

That makes a lot more sense.

>I suppose that works too.

Also, if your command vehicle doesn't need to mount a gun you can fit more powerful radar and fire control hardware on it.

>a scramjet missile would work wonders, and it makes sense to speed that up to operational speed via launching it from a cannon.

It seems like the best way to handle the first stage acceleration for the missile. Just thinking, with a suitably powerful fire control computer could you use rocket boosted air-burst shells as a modern version of an old, 1940s vintage, flak shell?

>>510060

>I do admit that my knowledge of AA systems is rather limited

Same here, it's fun though.

But I see your point, the amount of unguided shells you'd need to put in front of the aircraft to get the same sort of kill rate would probably cost more than the equivalent missile. Could potentially be useful if ECM keeps getting better though.

>the San Shiki/Beehive shell

A nice concept, looks like it came out of a /k/ concept thread rather than an actual design team.

>>510051

>That's my idea actually, that's why the cranes need to be (mostly) automatized. You just park the two vehicles next to each other, the crew stays in their respective cabins, and the crane(s) do all the loading with just minimal human assistance from a guy who is also inside the vehicle.

Mhhh what is reloading vehicles?

Trucks = light vehicles = small arms protection

Tracks = heavy vehicles = heavier protection, especially artillery and NRBC.

All modern tracked SPG (K9, Panzerhaubite 2000, MSTA, even the US have one, that's the big part of the Paladin program they managed to save) comes with their armored tracked reloading vehicles. None of them requires the crew to get outside the vehicles and they can perform reloads under (a reasonable amount of) fire.

>>510065

>A nice concept, looks like it came out of a /k/ concept thread rather than an actual design team.

I think it's because Japs have autims, just like us.

>vid related

>a hand grenade that could be used as a rifle grenade or a mortar shell

>a rifle grenade launcher that used ball ammo and let you affix a bayonet

>bayonets on LMGs

>the hopper of the type 11 LMG

>periscopic sights on the later LMGs

>screw-together Arisaka

>anti-aircraft sight for the screw-together Arisaka

>basically all their fucking tanks, especially the prototypes

>the fucking Yamato-class itself is a monument to autism

>>510142

Well, the idea is basically to make something like a 2S7 Pion that doesn't require half-a-dozen people to stand outside of the vehicle to operate it, hence this (kind of half-assed) solution. If I'm not mistaken they don't have dedicated ammo carriers, just trucks that follow them around. Of course, originally their whole point was obliterating everything from a safe distance with the 203mm gun, but to make that work again then gun needs some updates. Or might as well make a better gun.

>>510158

>I think it's because Japs have autism, just like us

They're also noguns (both individually and as a nation).

>>510158

How the fuck are these two autism?

>a hand grenade that could be used as a rifle grenade or a mortar shell

Why not use the same explosive charge over multiple systems if it's deemed effective?

>a rifle grenade launcher that used ball ammo and let you affix a bayonet

I coulda swore that being able to use regular ammo rather than blanks was a goal many tried and finally got successfully employed on a few RGs.

>>484130

Nothing wrong with women in the military, as long as they pass the requirements for doing whatever fucking job they're assigned to.

>>510239

>woman integrating into predominantly male unit

>level of 'inappropriate' behaviour that comes out of deployed military units is widespread enough to have gone memetic. Can she cope?

>How many women are going to be comfortable with the complete lack of privacy - shitting, pissing, washing etc in full view of rest of the unit?

>What happens if she gets a particularly bad menstrual cycle? Should the military have soldiers who potentially require medical leave every 4 months?

>Looking at women in the military today what happens when she gets pregnant and infected with every STD on the books while deployed to a warzone?

>What happens when Cpl Suzie gets captured by Hadjis and her rape, torture, and sadistic execution is livestreamed all over the internet?

>Oh, don't worry! We can have female only units that have special protection and support that we only deploy to the safest areas! Well, congratulations shit lord you'll get the same people who demanded female soldiers, and female only units, and those units getting special treatment screeching at you for 'ending their career' and 'ghettoising female soldiers in dead end jobs'.

Even for the ~1% or so of women physically able to do the work (remember that there are a fair few men who would be unable to serve as front line infantry even with all the boot camp you could give them) what percentage of that ~1% want to do it? Is the military, government, and public ready for the shitstorm that will come if she's captured? Or when the media runs the headline "530 casualties, including 2 women, in the latest battle! Why does our evil misogynist government throw away female lives so easily?"? Even if they are what does the military, government, and public gain from that action compared to the risks and cost?

I keep hearing arguments about why it wouldn't be too bad to have female soldiers, but never one explaining why it's a good idea or adds value over what we already have.

>>510238

Grenades with multipurpose launch (mine, mortar, hand, rifle) is a VERY good idea, slavs, scandies and germans jad some variants on the concept which were wildly successful.

>>510247

>the 7-8 second delay of the Type 91 proved too long in actual combat

What's wrong with going…

>pull the pin

>ONE Hiroshima TWO Hiroshima THREE Hiroshima FOUR Hiroshima FIVE

>Tennōheika Banzai!

>>510429

Jap grenade are pull the pin, smack it on something hard like your helmet, ground or rifle and then throw it, later war ones had a tendency to explode in your hand.

>>487960

t. someone who plays Wargame

>>512775

Are those boat tailed?

>>484012

>Cheap easy to make gun

Gee wizz, I wonder why the people invested in the military industrial complex wouldn't like something like artillery.

>>510436

>Jap grenade explodes in your hand

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

>>484133

Even then, the Russians have us beat in missile artillery too.

>>515863

WTF? I'm posting from Texas! Why do I have a Canadian flag?

>>515864

One.

Of.

Us.

Missiles/rockets in general. They invest heavily in young engineers joining the ranks, and funding constraints force them to come up with creative solutions. Constraints=creativity.

>>484145

>lol the gun is shooting in all those funny directions stupid chinks LOL XD

>the actual reason is to test stress on the structure of the gun firing at different angles

You can spot the american from miles off.

>>484130

Women should only serve as Auxiliary personnel.

>>525881

>Auxiliary personnel

That's an odd way to spell 'non-enlisted/commissioned clerical staff who never leave nicely air-conditioned offices back home'

>>525890

In order to counter the threat of terrorists engaging our heroic American muhreens with PKMs leaving then unable to return fire with their puny 5.56x45 (metric filth) m4 carbines (the only weapon in the entire us military), I think that every warfighter should be issued a 155mm howitzer to achieve overmatch™ and to counter the threat of body armour as employed by Russians trying to steal our freedoms and democracy. I propose the new howitzer be named the 6.1 Burger, as the hamburger is symbolic of the synergy achieved through the diversity of the USA. "Beef", sweetened bread and cheese come together to form the mighty burger just as Asians, African Americans and Hispanics come together to form my fellow Americans.

Please clap

>>525899

Artillery is a barbatic tool of mass destruction used by those nasty soldiers in that icky thing called war! No, the modern warfighter only needs the F-35 and his trusty carbine chambered for a magnum version of a varmint round to win all hearts and minds of the world for freedom and democracy.

>>525918

But the 120mm mortar and the 155mm artillery shell already have a similar weight explosive filler. Besides, think of the Nona and Vena: what they have is basically a 120mm cannon that can fire 120mm mortar shells too. So why not go the other route and make some 155mm low pressure shells for a howitzer? They'd have less range but more lethality, about the same as a 160mm mortar. Load up the vehicle mainly with those, but you could also include a few guided "full power" shells for long range work.

>>525918

>Because we need new allies.

First off, the only thing Canada "needs" is a nuclear holocaust.

>>525920

Howitzers aren't just limited in structural integrity for the shell, they're limited in structural integrity for the barrel, recoil system, locking mechanism, gearing to move the massive thing… everything has to be heavier and more expensive.

You can melt down one 120mm cannon and make half a dozen 120mm mortar tubes.

Honestly I don't mind if the country is rich enough, and they have significant enough stocks of steel. It's a valid solution and design choice if you're not constrained by efficiency.

Keep in mind, variety on the battlefield didn't evolve because people just like lots of solutions. They evolved because the countries with the most variety in weapon systems turned out to be those which wasted least resources, and were able to continue the war under attrition conditions for much longer.

With the rise of industry some level of interchangeability became necessary, but that still doesn't mean that multirole is best in every situation.

>magnum version of a varmint round

whhoooo boy that's going to piss off a lot of people who don't like truth.

>>525938

Germany didn't attack the entire planet.

As for their 'inventiveness'…

>severe shortage of resources

>factories constantly getting bombed

>hey, let's fund EVERY idea that comes along, no matter how stupid, over-complicated, or expensive, in hopes that one of them is the super weapon we need to win the war!

>sends 18 variations of 4 different tanks that break down on a regular basis due to being too complex and requiring extensive logistics just to keep running

>gets raped by a single tank that was cheap, simple, and 'good enough' and was mass-produced at a 10-1 ratio

>>525947

This is a constant meme repeated by retarded "historians" in every documentary.

The vast majority of German inventions wasn't for the hell of it, it was precisely because they had fewer resources. Jet engines (especially pulsejets) are a good example, they provided more thrust for less wasted metal, and weren't as fuel sensitive.

The allies could even produce direct copies of the German tank in larger amounts because the allied factories weren't at all affected by bombing, "simplicity" has nothing to do with it, allied weapons were simple because their politicians didn't fund research properly.

>>525947

>Bombing of factories

You understand bombing factories had absolutely no effect on output, as in Krupp had one of the biggest outputs in late 45 despite his factories having just having what remained of walls and roofs on their steel frames. It was the outright destruction of infrastructure that had an effect, because if you can't get stuff out of the factory then how is it going to positively effect the war effort.

>>525938

>Germanys variety and inventiveness in weapons allowed them to fight the combined forces many times their size for a decade

6 years, and they started with knocking out France, then attacking the USSR with an assortment of random equipment. On multi-role and inventiveness: the MG34 and the later MG42 were very successfull multi-role weapons. They made the concept of the GPMG real. Or do you think that we should go back to water-cooled machine guns on tripods, because GPMGs aren't specialized enough? And then there is the Gustloff rifle. It was meant to be a "specialized" weapon, a cheap semi-auto rifle chambered for 8mm Kurz. In practice setting up the production line made it as expensive as the Stg, so they would have been better off dropping this project and making more Sturmgewehrs.

Or if we go with tanks, a generalist approach would have dropped the Panzer III in favour of producing only Panzer IVs with both 37mm and 75mm cannons. Then switching to long barreled 75mm when the T34 was encountered. And instead of producing new tanks constantly improving the Panzer IV and making sure that all front line units are properly equipped with it. And only use looted French tanks in France and retool the Czech factories to produce more Panzer IVs. Or did the Panther and Tiger really win the war for them?

>>525940

Read back a bit:

>>510428

>Grenades with multipurpose launch (mine, mortar, hand, rifle) is a VERY good idea, slavs, scandies and germans jad some variants on the concept which were wildly successful.

>>510463

>Could you give us some examples? The only one I know about is pic related, and it's French.

Now, you didn't give us a single example of an existing multi-purpose grenade from anywhere.

>>526132

I have no idea, but it looks like you'd need a bigger chassis, and at that point might as well make a new tank. Note that I don't say they shouldn't have done that, but there is a big difference between slowly introducing a new tank and rushing prototypes into the front line. Also, making a tank hunter would have been certainly possible.

>>526140

>making a tank hunter would have been certainly possible

Kind of what I was aiming for there, if you're in a situation where your oppenent can produce better thanks faster than you can dedicated tank hunters seem like the logical response, if you're very lucky you might be able to reduce the advantage given by massed t34s. I know you'd never be able to get the 8.8cm Flak onto a Stug, but now that I've thought of it I can't stop smiling.

>>526127

See >>525925

>With the rise of industry some level of interchangeability became necessary, but that still doesn't mean that multirole is best in every situation.

>>526158

Where did I say that? MG34 is an example of

>some level of interchangeability became necessary,

Do you want to guess how many different types of machine gun Germany had?

Please knock it off with strawmen and adhoms, I'll only ask once.

>>526161

>strawmen

Show me a strawman. You are saying that Germany did the right thing in ww2 by introducing a variety of new weapon systems that put more strain on their logistics, and instead of giving us some good examples as to why it was a good thing you just go on about "interchangeability". Or am I wrong and there is a post somewhere speaking about how the Panther was absolutely necessary, because the Panzer IV was simply useless?

>adhom

It's not ad hominem to post a true and tested meme about the characteristics of a people.

>>526166

>instead of giving us some good examples as to why it was a good thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_military_equipment_of_World_War_II#Machine_guns

The MG34 is not a multirole replacement for several german firearms, it is another specialized firearm that fills a niche. As for interchangeability between MG34 and it's variants, that type of thing is a feature of industrialism, not "multirole" nonsense.

if you start a question with "so" or "you're saying" (declarative)

instead of "are you saying" or "do you mean" (inquisitive)

it's not a serious question

you're posting it to muddy the waters

and you're likely engaging in a strawman

as for stereotypes, i thought hungarians were civilized but i guess we can dispense with that particular stereotype

>>484012

With the advent of planes, the fact that the US is in a stable region of the world, and that most of its engagements now lack widespread anti-air capability, there is simply no reason to use artillery anymore. Railguns are still being developed anyways, which are going to be much cheaper. You should definitely see railguns in the next decade or so deployed in Japan and Israel. I'm not so sure about South Korea, but there will definitely be US ships with 'em on patrolling the peninsula.

>>526148

>StuG IV

>Jagdpanzer IV

Vid related.

Then again

>replacing the 15 cm StuH 43

As much as that would have been the sensible choice, there is something delightful about building a tank around the mother of all howitzers.

>>526188

>If we were a "civilized" people, then I'd be too busy with prepping Mohammad to post here.

There's no call for that Magyarbro - even if he is A FUCKING LEAF!

>(Railmemes) seem to be inferior to combustion light-gas guns

In everything except for the amount of public money they can siphon off into (((defence contractors))) bank accounts.

>>526290

Except that the StuG, being an armoured assault gun, could do jobs that 50 guys with Panzerschreks couldn't.

>>527126

>MLRS with rocket boosted mortar shells

>Not mounting 20 Vasilek 2b9 mortars on a single vehicle.

>Not having 2400 rocket boosted mortar shells a minute raining down on the target area.

>>527133

Indeed, something like that, just with mortar shells instead of bombs.

>>527148

But the Vasilek is just 82mm, and for the same space you could put quite a few dozen 160mm rockets on the vehicle. Or do you want to scale up the Vasilek to 160mm, and put 20 of those on a vehicle? Also: >>484126 Damn, this thread is 7 months old already.

>>527153

>Or do you want to scale up the Vasilek to 160mm, and put 20 of those on a vehicle?

Well, I wouldn't say no to that idea.

>Damn, this thread is 7 months old already

It's been a fun ride.

>>526127

I never said I was giving you an example, fucktard. I explained how a modern version could be made. The closest you come with modern grenades:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC58

>58mm HEAT rifle grenade with 350mm armor penetration; same warhead is used in Wasp 58 rocket launcher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M31_HEAT_rifle_grenade

>M31 66mm HEAT rifle grenade; same warhead used in original M72 LAW

Very few countries still use cup-type grenade launchers; China makes limited use of them, which allows them to fire hand grenades as rifle grenades. China also makes a modern version of the Japanese Type 89 grenade launcher/knee mortar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_grenade_discharger

>Fires mortar rounds that also double as hand grenades

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2010/armament/WednesdayLandmarkBJuanjuanYang.pdf

>QLT-89 50mm mortar/"jet shot" grenade launcher

>Bears more than a little resemblance to the Type 89 grenade discharger, both in design and operation

It fires dedicated mortar rounds, rather than multi-purpose rounds, but there's no reason why you couldn't design a round for it that could be thrown like a stick grenade, which are still in use by the Chinese army, like the Type 77-1 hand grenade.

But that's it. Other than the Telgren, which is apparently not very popular, if it's even still in production, there's really no modern examples of a multi-purpose weapon serving as a hand grenade, rifle grenade, and/or mortar round. The closest you get in the west is certain rifle grenades and rocket launchers using the same warhead, and China using a modernized copy of the Type 89, but not the multi-purpose ammo for it.

>>527248

You're putting too much eggs in one basket.

You're either having a delayed fuse mortar or a very sensitive contact mortar.

Can't have it in between unless you make it two different fuses.

Just the jolt or banging the fins on a rock arms the very sensitive contact fuse after the pin is pulled.

By overengineering a complicated 2 way fuse you'll make it way too expensive to be viable and too complicated under stress to use. A no go.

>>527171

If I recall Iran quite frankly did it. Normal container one minute. next minute fucking your shit up.