/k/ - Weapons

>>592822

They were a bad idea from the start. Use a mortar, its more versatile and better suited to quickly developing front lines.

>>592830

A mortar has a much longer time of flight making it harder to hit vehicles.

>>592831

Use portable AT then. Or call for air support. Or artillery.

>>592840

You couldn't do that during the beginning of the 20th century, dipshit

>>592844

>Is there a need for field guns?

>"muh beginning of the 20th century"

What the fuck are you talking about? No one is arguing over why anyone used field guns, the thread is about whether there's any use for them now.

>>592822

ATGMs, tanks, Howtizer-Guns and such have basically replaced them.

they exist in practice (tanks and howitzer-guns) but on their own with just their role no it's too limited.

>>593002

>high-low cannons

The 90mm armament of the Swedish IKV-91 tank destroyer was a high-low gun firing HEAT rounds in the AT role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanterikanonvagn_91

>>593210

Just says low pressure, any more details you can find anywhere else?

>>592830

>>592846

The leaf said they were a bad idea from the start i.e. the early 20th century. It was a reply to that.

>>592822

They've been largely replaced in their role by SPGs and heavy armor, but they're still useful for specialist units like paratroopers that can't operate armor for whatever reason.

>>592830

Mortars aren't very good for anti-structure work, you want a low-angle gun for that.

>>592824

You name me a single man-portable RPG or missile launcher that can fire over a thousand kilometers precisely while also being capable of leveling the radial area of both vehicles and structures.

>>593278

Ok

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

>Effective firing range 4,750 meters

>8.4kg/18.5lb warhead

>>593278

>over a thousand kilometers

Doctor Bull? Is that you? Are you going to take revenge for what Mossad did to you?

>>593279

>Anti-tank missile

Unless your looking dead at a structure you aren't going to magically lock on to it as if it were a vehicle from the distance it's effective range is rated. Compared to artillery you aren't going to be carrying many warheads to do anything else besides knock out a tank or two. Good luck clearing a forest line of infantry with a single warhead too.

>>593282

>Good luck clearing a forest line of infantry with a single warhead too

Good luck clearing a forest line of infantry with a single shell.

>>593282

>you aren't going to magically lock on to it

You don't lock on at all with field guns. You have less range with field guns. You have less precision with field guns. You have less penetration capability with field guns. Field guns are not meant to clear a forest line. You are confusing indirect artillery with field guns. Please accept that you have autism and blatantly antique pieces combined with their blatantly antique doctrine will not outperform guided missiles with HEAT.

Would it be possible to replace the tail section of a mortar shell with the chambers required for a high-low system? And how much would it imporve performance? Of course, you'd have to keep the shell fin-stabilized if you want to use it in a non-rifled mortar, and you couldn't change the number of charges so easily, or more lthere would be just one fixed charge inside the high-pressure chamber. But maybe this way you could use a gun-mortar as an effective high-low cannon for direct fire and also for indirect fire at longer ranges. E.g. use high-low shells for direct fire against targets 1-3km away, use normal low-pressure shells for indirect fire in the same range, and use high-low shells for indirect fire against targets further away.

By the way, according to this page flight time for this 120mm mortar varies between 2 and 22 seconds, depending on range and the number of charges:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m933.htm

>>593297

>ClipboardImage.png

That's really cute.

>>593308

It wouldn't increase performance much unless you turn it into an infantry gun with some sort of breech loading system.

The system uses about as much charge for as much velocity to mass of a projectile of a regular system. The advantage just makes the gun itself lighter and makes the projectile walls thinner so it can hold more charge.(or even using a lighter material overall).

You can theoretically even make APSFDS rounds for a Hi-Lo system.

>>595184

Around ww2 most nations tried to use the same gun in anti-air, anti-tank, and field gun roles. Soviet 76.2mm guns were actually quite good at combining the later two. And German 88mm Flak guns were really used at all three roles, although usually because they were simply underequipped and had no other choice. Now, even if we disregard the AT role, how would 75-90mm guns fare as artillery? Could the Draco give firesupport to infantry, or would it simply lack the "boom" required for the job?

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/draco.htm

>>595184

>that filename

TRIGGERED

>>595160

>And even the Americans managed to put an unmanned turret with a 105mm gun and an autoloader on a Stryker.

Define "managed".

Because afters decades of reports that it doesn't work, the US army stopped production and is phasing them out while the paint isn't even dry…

>Needing field guns.

>Needing artillery of any kind.

>Not just crashing F35s into the enemy in a throwback to kamikaze.

>Not buying more F35s to kamikaze.

t. Totally not Lockheed

>>602123

Oh wait, forgot one thing.

You got to load all the F35s with the priciest Raytheon missiles available and arm them all right before crashing the plane into the enemy. The more expensive the missile, the more effective the boom.

I am of genius. Government contract, pls.

>>602119

Were the problems inherent to the design, or it was something to do with the quality of manufacturing?

>>602148

>Were the problems inherent to the design, or it was something to do with the quality of manufacturing?

It's a bit of everything I think. Modern day US army seems to think "airborne" is only something pathogen related, the Strykers all have weight/power ratio issues, putting a big gun on a chassis that wasn't designed for it in the first place (especially without a turret which typically helps) is never a good idea, etc…

It's hard to pinpoint what exactly is wrong with it, because the US army definitively clearly quietly killed it but everything they ever wrote on it was how it was super cool and worked great while everyone else accused them of everything from Jesus crucifixion to spreading the black plague.

>>602148

It overheats easily, the autoloader is slow and unreliable, the gunner can't access the autoloader if it does jam, the ammunition stores are tiny, and because it's even more top-heavy than a regular Stryker it can barely handle its own recoil when not firing straight ahead. It also has all the problems inherent to the Stryker hull, i.e. a shit engine and paper armor.

>>602148

That's the only video in situation I can find and:

1- You can hear the soldiers say that it tried to fire and it didn't, already.

2- Look at that jump.

Here is the video of the 120mm version of the centauro there is a side shot and it's not a sharp jump like that.

>>602155

And it's the 120mm, on the 105 it doesn't jump (neither the AMX-10RC).

>>593279

>using a javelin to destroy structures

Only burgers could be this stupid.

>>593308

Why? Hilo is unnecessarily mass inefficient, it only works for grenade launchers because you're shooting point blank out of paper thin barrels and don't care about range.

>>595160

>>602101

>105mm gun and an autoloader on a Stryker

Can't carry troops with the loader, the entire compartment is taken up by the massive reload clips. It also can't fire sideways without flipping over, which is hilarious.

Hand loaded 90mm is just fine for infantry support, even as low as 75mm is fine.

>>602155

>concrete fence on the side of the road literally only thing stopping it from tipping over

Fucking lol.

>>602250

>on par with all other MBT's of the time if not better.

It was leagues better.

Smaller, faster, lighter but heavily armored due to it's insane slopping, packed the same punch tank of his era had and it's automated track stabilization system and his fucking twin engine gas turbine (on a 1967 tank) did gave him a response time close enough to a turreted tank for it to not matter. Of course it also had a diesel engine to cruise without eating too much fuel (so better than much later T-80 and M1…).

Oh and it fucking swam.

I fucking hate this world.

>>602256

Does it go on the list along with the EM-2?

>>602268

The EM-2 was a bad rifle in design, it was complex & expensive to manufacture and there was nothing special about it. The .280 British is an okay cartridge, it's a 7mm rimless 30-30 with a spitzer bullet and that's it. The .308 only weighed 3 grams more so it wasn't lightweight. We should've gone with the 7mm-08 that the British later purposed, or a .277-08 so America's military leaders wouldn't have to sully their hands with non-American bore sizes.

>>592861

>You will never be on as much dole as he is

feelsbadman.jpg

>>602256

Don't forget the 3-man crew, workable with a 2-man and possible as a 1-man crew. And the rear-facing radio-operator with his own set of driving controls to allow for quick getaways. And the 15rpm autoloader. And of course it's aesthetics.