/k/ - Weapons

I have two questions:

1. What is objectively the most effective SPG out there

2. How much explosive filler would one need to make an artillery shell (155-200mm) capable of completely wiping out a concrete 3-story building

Reminder that this thing exists, is in service.

>>625956

I have a question too. Where can we sell our bloated M110A2 fleet and use the money to replace them with something post-Vietnam?

>>625960

Oh wait nvm, it does say there was a high possibility of a tard inputting incorrect data coordinates.

>>625962

What concerns me the most is not so much ND itself as the fact that Koulis will be our nation's "leader". Fuck's sake I'd rather have his psychopathic and corrupt to the bone Mitsotakis-clone sister, in a similar manner as Hillary was "suitable" for President, than this fucking nobody manlet. At least Dora the Explora of our collective anus has some presence and Mitsotakis' dracul-ish aura of absolute terror. Koulis makes even Samaras and Giorgakis look like alphas and experienced politicians.

>>625960

Why the fuck use thugs for artillery units? Infantry is were you're supposed to dump the niggers and whitetrash. Here the Artillery has "collegeboys" reputation and unofficially you have to have at least a high-school degree to enlist you even as private.

>>625964

It was an infantry company training with the mortars, not a dedicated artillery corps.Also, although they're called the "Yakuza Regiment", its more to do with the men coming or being based in from a certain part of Osaka known for being scummy, and not that they're real yakuzas.

I also realised now that mortars aren't technically artillery per se.

>>625960

At least the round fired. Our ammo is so old that the propellant has degraded.

>>625972

Artillery is far too fucking loud to be used in conjunction with other musical instruments. After a couple shots the musicians and audience will have a ringing in their ears, even if they use earpro. The ears also need some time to readjust to the sound level of the much softer music from the artillery.

If you really want to do music with artillery, you will have to make it sing in a can(n)on choir with other pieces as well.

Some HMGs in indirect fire for the drum roll, a couple mortars for highhats, air-alarm sirens for concert flutes, and rotary guns for oboes or sax.

Just imagine it. A battle orchestrated for the sole purpose of deafening the combatants in the most pleasant way possible.

>>625998

>The JSDF has shown a new tactic for defensive war.

>After a failed invasion of North Korean fisherman, the survivors were questioned.

>Mr Chu was quoted as saying, "YES I DEAF BUT LAST SOUND WAS BEAUTIFUL! I HOLD NO ILL FEELING TOWARDS JDSF! MUSIC WAS GLORIOUS!

>>625957

>self propelled mortars

Why? What benefit does this have over a SPG? I thought mortars were just a squad based portable explosives platform that was between rifle grenades and actual artillery. Why make a giant version of a small portable version of a normal artillery piece? And why waste an armoured chassis and vehicle for it? This seems like a Ukrainian idea.

>>625964

>Greece has a Trudeau now

I feel sorry for you gyrosfriend.

>>625951

Rolled steel is very brittle and doesn't expand like brass does, meaning it can't handle the same pressures and also won't be able to obturate the chamber as well. You can see the same happening in small arms. Steel is used only for cheap, low quality ammo, and steel cases are almost never advisable to be reloaded.

>>625951

I don't truly know why, but I can offer some likely explanations

1. Brass is slicker than steel, making loading and extraction and any sort of movement more reliable.

2. Brass is easier to form into shapes, especially the way cases are made.

3. Brass is much better at expanding without splitting, which is a pretty important property to have the higher pressures you go.

>>625998

Meant to link to >>626397

>>626693

I'm no metallurgy major, but perhaps the nature of steel giving off sparks when hitting any hard surface be a potential hazard when handling high explosives?

In addition to the disadvantage in their strength of steel, and the lack of "lubricating"properties, and the test to rust ina manner that make steel so rough, I'm quite sure that there's no reasonable reason to use steel for Artillery casings. The usage of steel would make sense in a situation where you do not have sufficient copper supplies as Germany did in both world wars, but even then, they use copper lining for their support casings.

>>626011

I want to hear someone adapting the great white theme to using a creeping barrage.

It starts off with artillery landing far away, then coming closer and shooting more frequently, add MG barrages, add illumination shells for the flute parts.

Can you hear it in your mind? Can you feel it with your dick?

>>626397

>Japan has a protocol describing the use of artillery as an instrument

It's a start.

>>626710

It's mostly the fact that steel is a lot harder. You want to use a soft metal for casings, because a softer casing means that extraction is less likely to rip off the bottom of the case. This was a common problem for the Wehrmacht in WWII. They had to fall back to steel cased ammo eventually, and it got so bad, that MG gunners would attempt to keep a belt or two of "good" brass cased ammo in reserve for tough situations where they could not afford the gun to jam. It's very well documented, especially in the book "Blood Red Snow", which is a good read.

Get a stuck case in a machine gun? No problem, change the barrel and let your secondary gunner take care of the problem while you shoot.

Get a stuck case in an artillery piece? Tough shit, your carefully calculated barrage is completely ruined because some grunt has to fiddle with the barrel.

The US military's main guns have to be adjust after being fired. It's ridiculous;

>>626721

The round on the right is an single-piece M831 with a combustible aluminum casing and reusable steel casing base, not a washed or coated casing.

i always thought it was because steel on steel generates too much friction and sparks which you definitely don’t want when transporting explosives

>>625969

Did they blowed up?

I'm not much of an artilleryfag (that would be my stepfather), and thus this question is probably going to be retarded, but I was wondering what would be better for the future of SPGs: focusing on lighter and faster SPGs to keep up with what I believe to be the more important demands for constant maneuver, over firepower, or creating newer tanks, particularly MBTs and heavy tanks, with rifled cannons and such, so that tanks can take over the SPG role?

>>627104

Don't see the point, SPG and tanks fulfill totally different goals.

>>627107

It's about having multi-role tanks, essentially, reducing the resources consumed in making vehicles, while having tanks that can shoot extremely accurately from thirty meters or thirty klicks away.

The way I see it, the main advantage of tanks, heavy weaponry covered in armor, is still useful, but it has also been usurped by infantry weapons like rockets and RPGs, so infantry isn't always completely helpless against an AFV. So I figure a good evolution of the tank would be for it to serve multiple roles, including SP artillery.

>>627111

What you want is the idea of universal chassis, not of a multi-role tank.

And this has been done before.

>>627112

>What you want is the idea of universal chassis, not of a multi-role tank.

I want a universal chassis, as well, Spergook. Believe me, I've spent plenty of time fantasizing over what the Entwicklung-series vehicles would look like, how they'd perform, and so on.

But I also believe that multi-role tanks would be the best course for tankery, even with the obvious problems with jack-of-all-tradeism. The average future army is going to look like the late-war Wehrmacht, as I see it.

>>627093

Nah, the fuse safety only lights after a successful propellant ignition (after sufficient rapid acceleration in the forward direction breaks something inside the fuse mechanism), and after a certain time has passed (a fuse burning off inside the trigger, making way for metal parts to move where the fuse used to be).

What you see in the video is the primer going off, but the propellant failing to ignite. This video shows how powerful even a primer is for artillery of any kind. The primer alone has enough power to push a heavy round out of the tube and make it fall to the ground with a comical noise.

It also illustrates how important shelf life of artillery ammunition is. Shooting off old ammo is dangerous and deadly. Imagine what would have happened if the fuse safety had rusted through or was faulty? See how densely packed all of them are standing together? That's 20 dead and 30 wounded artillery men.

Now imagine the same but with a 155mm cannon. Say goodbye to your >10mil a piece artillery vehicle.

The same is true for any guns of any kind. Shooting old ammo is dangerous, kids. A ruptured case, an oversensitive primer, or just a load of powder that burns off too slow. All of these problems can be lethal. Don't use old ammo.

In this video you can see the effects of an old/faulty primer.

The MG3 is an open bolt weapon. Once a round is in the chamber the bolt has to be moved back to extract and eject it. If the primer doesn't fire immediately, the round remains inside the chamber because no recoil was generated to operate the mechanism.

You can see the instructor taking the weapon and opening the cover. You can also see him move the bolt back to inspect the chamber. At this point he is in the danger zone.

Either the round ejected properly and fell down, where it could have still gone off, or the round is still inside the chamber, in which case he is looking at what is essentially a shotgun aimed at his face. If the primer were to ignite now, the propellant would ignite as well, causing the pressure inside the case to rise. Usually this leads to the bullet being accelerated forwards and the bolt not moving, because it is locked in place. Now however, there is no bolt. Nothing to stop the gasses from taking the path of least resistance and into the face of the operator.

Remember kids, if your open bolt gun has a stuck primer and fails to eject at the same time, point the gun in a safe direction and wait a couple seconds before attempting to fix the problem.

>>627128

>They sound like slavs any idea which army that is? But they look like they’re wearing those dumb American patrol caps. Did he get reprimanded for being a retard?

>>625957

Fuckit m8ey, wait until you see the G6. Can't exactly brag about it anymore but still rather capable in today's time would it not be for the current (((situation))) and wonderful diversity and all.

How does that long range SA artillery compare to American?

>>627140

That instructor is a Dane as far as I know.

Though the shooter was an American.

>>627158

Is that a lot or little? I don't really have the context to know.

>>625957

Its obsolete, used to require it back when nukes were large and their electronics sensitive to acceleration.

Now it basically ruins runways, like SRBM.

>>627189

Most howitzer shell fillers are measured in grams, not kilograms. Largest howitzer filler in service I know of is a 155mm HE which is around 8kg filler.

This thing is four times that.

General purpose bombs are 3:1 ratio metal fragments and casing weight, to explosive weight. So this thing is equivalent to a 100kg/220lb bomb.

>>627191

Oh, that's pretty fucking nice then. No wonder they have the tube sit on a plate on the ground, the recoil has to be fucking huge.

>>627192

It's actually tougher construction than most mortars, it's well over 3:1 ratio of frag to HE. Using thinner walls it could be built to contain over 100kg HE, or by filling it with thermobaric mix it could get equivalent of 500kg HE.

Just listen to that sound man.

>>627196

That's called a Bolo, or a T-95

>>627197

>That's called a Bolo, or a T-95

Not really, my Canuck friend.

>>627190

I don't see how, allegedly they've been used in Syria for dealing with heavy fortifications, they're also capable of using guided rounds which similarly to your point require electronics that can withstand the forces of firing. Obviously a mortar would be a far more benign environment for a guided round than a howitzer hence making guided fires from these things at least far cheaper than the equivalent howitzer shot.

Though there appear to be not too many in service so who knows. I'd have thought they'd be very useful for the money starved slavs at this time.

>>627201

>pssst

>it was designed back when "electronics" meant vacuum tubes

>modern wafer electronics can be fired out of fucking CLGG

>>627202

>Capability to be fired out of means equally cost effective

Way to miss the point faggit.

>>627189

You could take the 3 seconds to search “32kg to lbs” and see it’s about 70lbs.

>>627196

What about anti-air capabilities?

>>627219

You do know what a SAM is, Canuck?

>>627219

>You could take the 3 seconds to search “32kg to lbs” and see it’s about 70lbs.

The problem was that he didn't know how much HE was usually in a shell, not that he can't convert metric to imperial. Where did you even get that idea?

>>627189

>Is that a lot or little?

About 4 times the charge of normal 155mm HE shell.

Shit,you can kill a small hill with it

>>627204

There is no point. You misconstrued something I said, told me I was wrong, then went on a tangent.

It's true guided electronics are cheaper the lower the acceleration, there's a reason most guided shit is fired on soft launch rockets. Nothing to do with what I was saying though…

>>627225

It's basically an aircraft bomb which has some fins welded on it and is fired out of a mortar tube. I bet it can do everything an air launched bomb can.

>>627280

>russians

>putting less explosives on something

Their anti ship missile has as much as ten times more explosives as ours and is two to three times faster

>>627111

You should read this:

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/medium-calibre-allround-option.html

Italians tried to create such an anti-everything vehicle:

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

But they completely fucked it up, because they mounted an actual naval cannon on the chassis of a ground vehicle, so the whole thing is too big and heavy to carry a sufficient amount of shells, not to mention infantry. But there is hope:

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/Rooikat.php

The Rooikat uses a much lighter cannon that fires the same ammunition (expect that it has a different primer for some reason, but I doubt that you can't solve that problem) and even has the same barrel length. Make it a mount like vid related, but with a much bigger magazine (and modern electronics), and turn the whole package into an unmanned turret that fits into the turret ring of a BMP-3. An infantry squad with that vehicle now has an integral 76mm autocannon that can give them both direct and indirect fire support, along with some anti-air firepower. On the battalion level you should support them with a battery of MRLSs that have guided rockets that are individually about as destructive as a 120mm mortar shell. Now you have a mechanized infantry battalion with more firepower than the average infantry division of the second world war. But don't just stop there: every division should have an artillery regiment with ~203mm I prefer 210mm, but that's just my autism CLGGs, modernized V-2 flying bombs, and reconnaissance drones. The cannons are there for heavy duty artillery work, and the flying bombs are for more concentrated desctruction (essentially replacing air strikes). You could also launch (sc)ramjets from the cannons to take out enemy aircraft.

Also, did we go through some kind of a Barenstein-change with 76.2mm cannons? I remember that all artillery weapons of this calibre were referred to as 76.2mm weapons, yet now it's 76mm everywhere.

>>627280

Ah my apologies again burger.

>>627339

>pink Hetzer

Shall I assume this because the Reich was running out of paint or was it just Hitler’s personal tankfu?

>>627280

>pic

I wonder the kind of material an anti-tank shell would need to be made of in order to withstand enough velocity to go right through a heavily armored MBT, exit, and still have enough velocity to penetrate an APC.

>>627361

>That turret should have both of those [AGLs and ATGMs]

I actually thought of having 40mm AGLs on these tanks, but I didn't account for tank-mounted ATGMs, since my train of thought concluded they would be best used by the infantry, and the IFV has the 76mm gun anyways.

>The AGL would replace mortars and machine guns on tripods

I disagree with this statement, if only because I believe both mortars and machine guns on tripods are still useful, especially if a unit's vehicles get disabled, or if they run out of fuel. If nothing else, the AGL should be easily man-portable, for the aforementioned events.

>The equivalent of a truck should be a tracked and slightly armoured vehicle with a crane like pic related. Of course it should share as many components with the IFV as humanly possible. Then you just need a continerized rocket launcher. With that they can drop off an empty one and pick up a loaded one rather quickly, then the empty one can be refilled in an ammo depot. You could also use this vehicle to haul supplies, drone launchers, and maybe even the flying bombs.

This sounds like a modern version of the sWS half-track to me, and that would be pretty cool to work with.

>Obviously it should be a SPG. … Of course it would be a rather big vehicle, and it would need an autoloader that features a crane system and a robotic hand. But then I think it would have at least a good 200km effective range, therefore you could leave it in the second line.

Well, I've been thinking about the requirements for standardized MBT and heavy tank chassis, to account for big guns 4u, and I figure the heavy tank chassis, which would be the equivalent to an M1 Abrams in weight, at least 70 tons, with Chobham armor, would be the best fit for any light gas gun.

>brigades and divisions

I agree with you with many of your 'old-fashioned ideas', if only because I've played a little too much Darkest Hour than is healthy for me. My ideals for unit size are a bit different; I believe in slightly larger unit sizes. In my view, a battalion should be 3-6 companies, with each holding 8-12 IFVs. Each regiment should be 3-5 battalions, plus a supporting MBT battalion, with 5-10 tanks per company, while brigades should have 4-7 battalions, plus two MBT battalions. 3-6 regiments, or 2-4 brigades, form a division. Other than size differences, I agree with your system.

>>627366

>the AGL should be easily man-portable, for the aforementioned events.

Watch this glorious video of nineties. Although the AGS-40 is heavier, but it's also much more effective.

>I believe both mortars and machine guns on tripods are still useful

The problem with tripods is that a machine gun with one of them needs to be set up properly with pre-determined firing zones, otherwise it doesn't have that many upsides compared to a machine gun with just a bipod. It's actually worse, because it's much heavier. Meanwhile for the same weight you could bring along an AGS-30 for the attack, and that is a more destructive and versitale weapon. Mortars also need to be set up properly, expect if you go with handheld 60mm mortars that are far less effective than their bigger cousins. And an AGL should bring about as much firepower as a 81mm mortar. The only real downside is their limited range, but that's not that much of a problem inside a city, where most of the infantry combat should happen in the future.

>This sounds like a modern version of the sWS half-track to me, and that would be pretty cool to work with.

Forgot to mention, but I have to wonder if you could make it amphibious. Although with its size and weight it would resemble a Landwasserschlepper II.

>MBTs

Modern tanks are built with the idea of fighting other tanks in mind, which isn't that realistic to begin with. But for this reason they need a really big gun, that requires a big turret, and you need a big vehicle to carry that weight. But ATGMs can be just as effective against a tank than a cannon, if not even more so. And that questions the whole point of the big gun, and thus the very concept of the MBT. You also have to consider the future development of active protection systems and related technologies. In theory the new Russian radar-triggered ERA can intercept even APFSDS projectiles, and if that is true then you'll need volume-of-fire to overcome it. Which would work with this IFV, because you could shoot a burst of 76mm shells to trigger the APS, and then follow up with a salvo of ATGMs immediately behind them. Of course you could program the system so that the whole firing sequence happens automatically on the press of a button. The other two factors of a tank are protection and mobility, but there is no reason you can't make a heavy IFV. Although I prefer amphibious vehicles, and that somehow limits the weight, and that has an impact on protection.

>>627379

Why the fuck are they still wearing steel helmets in that video?

>>627450

The outside is steel, the inside is composite.

>>627396

>flies 1/3 as far

>>625969

What a comedic sound it made when it flopped out.

>>627379

>>627396

>>627498

Why do we keep using retarded multi-purpose NATO weapons when we could just buy superior Russian designs instead? I want my troops armed with AK-107s, AGLs, AGS-30s and overall, with more stuff capable of actual warfare and less stuff made to impress hollywood actors, retarded collectors and children.

>>627512

The problem with NATO weapons isn't that they are multi-purpose, the real problem is that R&D works like a shitty gacha game: you threw in a few millions (or billions) of dollars into a program, and you get a random piece of equipment. Then you threw in an other few million, and get a new one that might be better or worse than the previous item. Then you can also throw an additional few million on that equipment, and it will give you a random enchantment that might be good, or it possibly ruins the whole thing. It's because there isn't a solid doctrine behind everything, you just have generals and private companies pushing their ideas to politicians. Compared to that Russian R&D is like installing mods to the game that give you exactly what you want. You might have competing teams of modders who all push their own mods, but at least they are making the mods that you want.

To illustrate my autistic point, take a look at the development of tanks during the Cold War: the USA (and Germany) tried to develop the MBT-70, and it turned into a complete mess, so they settled down for the less complex M1 Abrams (or the Leopard II in the case of the Germans). Meanwhile Russia had a bunch of different tanks in production, from the T-55 to the T-80, simply because all of their tank designers pushed for their own designs. But at least all of those tanks actually worked as intended, because the soviets knew what they want from a tank.

>>627512

Because pressure from America, which really means pressure from American politicians owned by Locktheon. Despite being one of the only contributing NATO members, both Greece and Poland got ass raped out of NATO funding because they adopted things like battle rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, or missiles from Russia.

>>627514

All continental European nations had more ground combat experience in WWII and learned some basic facts that Anglos simply didn't get the chance to. France and Germany even retained a lot of that knowledge, but it seems the first thing America does when it parasitizes some country into NATO is kill off all of the capable officers of the protectorate nation.

Here are just four basic WWII lessons out of dozens and dozens:

1. Torque and all terrain matters more than power and sprint. A vehicle that moves at 10kph across every terrain on the battlefield is more valuable than a vehicle that sprints at 100kph on a paved highway but stalls to 0kph when it enters plowed agricultural fields wet with recent rainfall.

2. Full sized spitzer rifle ammunition and high explosives account for 4/6 of combat casualties. Disease and exposure to elements kills 2/6, which is why good uniforms and real cooked food are imperative (not boots with holes in them). Small caliber bullets and fragmentation basically kills no one, it's only there to convince the enemy not to move. Basically equivalent to landmines, useful but not the primary weapon.

3. You need to be able to put eyes on a target before shooting it. This applies to boats, it applies to airplanes, it applies to tanks, it applies to infantry. No one is exempt, because even if you don't care about killing civilians (which no one does) the fact that you're wasting time and effort on it makes you vulnerable.

4. Local commanders have to be trusted over officers who aren't seeing the field themselves. This is a lesson that Zhukov learned in the far east, and brought into Europe to deliver a one-two punch the Germans couldn't handle. It's also something the Germans instinctively knew from the start of the war, which is how a tiny nothing country managed to capture a continent.

>>627516

>You need to be able to put eyes on a target before shooting it. This applies to boats, it applies to airplanes, it applies to tanks, it applies to infantry. No one is exempt, because even if you don't care about killing civilians (which no one does) the fact that you're wasting time and effort on it makes you vulnerable.

Is that supposed to be

<You don't need to be able to put eyes on a target before shooting it.

or is the problem with me? What kind of effort is wasted here?

>>627498

If it flies 1/3 as far that means it flies 2/3 less than the American grenade. You’d want to say “flies 1/3 farther.”

>>627379

So, essentially, for NATO (or rather, America) to get its shit together, it needs to wrangle up the corporations, espouse basic doctrine to the militarily ignorant and avaricious among the leadership and stockholders of each company, or else remove and replace them, and get 'em working on actually good equipment, n'est-pas?

Good luck with that

>>627518

What anon means is that to avoid wasting ammo, time, and possibly being thrown into a battle where the enemy gets the jump on you because you're too busy shooting at nothing (or civilians), you need to have an idea of what you are shooting at. Recon is essential. You use recon to see where the enemy is, where their biggest weaknesses and strengths are, and what are targets of opportunity are/could become available to you. Why waste 100 shells of artillery to kill a bunch of civilians when it could be used to ruin the day of a concentrated force instead? To also add to this, imagine you are busy shooting into a city because you saw movement (which are actually just some bumfuck urbanites. While you're busy doing that, the enemy might get an idea where your troops are and send fire your way. At best it might be mortar and artillery shelling, but it could get serious if they send people in to take out artillery they would have not had a clue was there was it not for them firing indiscriminately into a city.

Another reason it's important to know what you're shooting at is so you don't make some huge mistake. What comes to mind was the Russian fleet who was trying to sail around Europe to fight the Japanese. Partially due to a general lack of training and partially due to faulty intelligence, they thought the entire journey was a death trap with elite Japanese forces around every bend. At one point during the night near England a ship claimed it was under attack by the Japanese. As the other ships rallied to its rescue, a Russian ship was hit with shelling from another Russian ship, another fired over 500 rounds and didn't hit a thing, and when they finally turned on searchlights to see their damage caused, they found out their targets were merely three British fishing trawlers, of which only one was hit. Even if you ignore the consequences this caused (the British sent a fleet of its own to force the rag tag Russian ships to port and forced Russia to pay large sums of money so their ships would not be sunk in revenge) note that because they had no clue what they were fighting and just fired however they pleased, they managed to have a friendly fire incident and sink only 1 of three fishing trawlers. If there really was Japanese forces out there when they were distracted shooting the trawlers, they could have easily destroyed the Russians while they were distracted.

To essentially quote the anon you were replying to, you need eyes on the enemy so to not waste ammo, time, and possibly casualties from not realizing what you're attacking.

>>627520

But that's fucking wrong??!?

>>627518

Basically remote sensing is not to be trusted.

Read this entire 4 page article, especially the first part of page 2, and you will understand the difference between seeing something with your eyes and seeing something on the screen of an instrument that jumps through thousands of hoops and engages in ridiculous mental/digital gymnastics to translate a halfway legible image from sensors that simply don't work like human eyes and can't be really comprehended by the human brains.

Remote sensing gives valuable data if you're otherwise blind, but it can't give you confirmation of what you're looking at. Even with insane res satellite photos of a given area today it takes weeks of analysis for someone to identify a threat that would be instant, instinctive and downright obvious to a person who can put eyes on the same area optical magnification is fine because its instant and unfiltered.

>>627527

It's not even the cost of artillery shells on an individual basis. It's taking a few hours to transport an artillery brigade, a few hours to set it up, and then a few minutes of shelling. And then this brigade is out of position to support a real attack.

When, given eyes-on, you don't waste all that time, and instead you're using that time to kill the enemy, AND your units are in position to support real attacks.

>>627546

Oh shit, this article:

https://harpers.org/archive/2014/02/tunnel-vision-2/2/

And this passage:

>Video will often supply a false clarity to preconceived notions. One A-10 pilot described to me an afternoon he spent circling high over southern Afghanistan in May 2010, watching four people — tiny figures on his cockpit screen — clustering at the side of a road before they retreated across a field toward a house. Everything about their movements suggested a Taliban I.E.D.-laying team. Then the door to the house opened and a mother emerged to hustle her children in to supper.

>“On the screen,” he explained, “the only way to tell a child from an adult is when they are standing next to each other. Otherwise everyone looks the same.”

And this is VIDEO, as in full color TV optics, and it's basically useless because a computer is involved and does part of the thinking for you instead of your instinctive cortex.

Imagine how much detail an infrared image strips away…. and a radar image is just a joke.

And an example of remote-sensing centric military, basically tying up three high value resources for HOURS just to kill a small farming family:

>The JTAC was reporting Troops in Contact (TIC) — meaning that American soldiers were under fire.

>After reporting the TIC, the controller, who was inside a base headquarters somewhere in eastern Afghanistan, informed the pilots that the enemy force was a large one and read out a grid coordinate. At the fourth location, the flight leader reported the presence of a farm building. People and animals were visible, he said, but no one with a weapon, nor was there any sign of military activity.

>The JTAC refused to accept this conclusion. According to one listener, he told the pilots that the ground commander, who was most likely sitting in the same room, “has determined that everybody down there is hostile.”

>The pilots continued to insist that they could see nothing out of the ordinary, reporting “normal patterns of life.” The JTAC had at least a rough means of confirming this situation: like many other aircraft, the A-10 carries a “targeting pod” under one wing, which in daylight transmits video images of the ground below, and infrared images at night. This video feed is displayed on the plane’s instrument panel and is relayed to the JTAC’s array of LCD screens in his operations center, and frequently to other intelligence centers around the globe.

>Now, however, there was a new voice on the frequency. A B-1 bomber, cruising high above the clouds, was checking in and reporting its position to the JTAC. As the B-1 broke in with offers to take over the mission, the controller’s voice grew increasingly frustrated. He continued to insist that the farm was a hostile target. Finally, his patience snapped, and as other listeners recall, he again asked the A-10 flight leader if he was willing to prepare for an attack.

>“No,” replied the pilot. “No, we’re not.”

>The controller addressed the same question to the B-1, which had been privy to the A-10’s ongoing reports.

>“Ready to copy,” came the quick, affirmative reply.

>Down below, the unwitting objects of all this potent dialogue, a farmer named Shafiullah and his family, were settling in for the night. They would not have understood what it meant when the whine of the A-10s was replaced by the deeper rumble of the huge bomber, which was meanwhile confirming that it had “weaponeered” a mixture of large and small satellite-guided bombs. A few minutes later, the farm building was torn apart by three huge explosions that killed Shafiullah, his wife, and five of their seven children, the youngest of the victims only ten months old. Two other children were wounded but somehow managed to survive.

This is cartoonishly bad.

And in case Russia or China or Aliens invade Canada, these ^^^^^^^^^^^^ are the people we've subjugated ourselves to for 80 years in exchange of an offer of protection.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO I'M DEPENDING ON TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY FAMILY CAR AND A RUSSIAN BTR

Which is why my blood pressure rises when retards call me RIDF every time I criticize NATO. It's a shit organization and anyone who supports it should be gassed for the good of us all.

>>627546

>But that's fucking wrong??!?

Are you from tumblr, faggot? Stop typing like a blogger and provide evidence. Or are you just so unsure of your statement that you feel the need to turn it into a question?

If the American grenade has a range of 100 metres and the Russian grenade “flies 1/3 as far” that means the Russian grenade can only fly 33.3 metres, snce 1/3 is a fraction of a value less than 1 (or 33.3%). And you used “as far” which is a comparative statement you must compare the American grenade’s range and compare it to the Russian grenade’s range. I’m not going to look up the American’s ra ge because it is irrelevant, so I’ll use 1 unit as the value. The Russian grenade flies “1/3 as far” as 1 unit, once you use a proper value for the American grenade’s range you divide that by three to get the Russian range since the words you used are comparative.

To say it correctly, mathematically, you take the distance of the American grenade’s range, which is 1 unit or three thirds (the exact same number) and add a third to that number. To keep your wording you would have to say “it flies 4/3 as far”, since it is a comparison. I shouldn’t have to tell you that four thirds is 1 third more than a value of 1. To keep the number you must change the wording to not be a comparison but a statement that conveys addition: “it (the Russian grenade) flies a third again as far.” Or “it flies a third farther.” This is elementary school math and maybe middle school grammar.

>>627583

Are you trying to explain to me what speech is, and you wrote three paragraphs? Nigger I know what you said, it's just nonsensical so I didn't take it at face value, I thought you made a simple mistake in writing your short reply.

1. What you said is ">flies 1/3 as far" and I assumed you had an IQ over 83 and meant the Mk19 has about 2/3 the range of the AGS-30. This isn't a mistake I made, it's perfectly reasonable, you're just dumb at writing replies and even dumber for not knowing the effective ranges of the devices before writing the post.

2. If your point was to say AGS-30 is effective to only 1/3 of the distance a Mk19, that is fine, but given that the range of the AGS-30 is readily shown to be 2100m with a simple google search - how about you provide evidence a 40x53mm grenade can have any kind of accuracy at 6300m?

>>627518

>What kind of effort is wasted here?

Blind firing just doesn't work. From the rifleman to the carpet bombing to the artillery there is always more space that what you can shoot at.

Just looking at a map or a city a guessing there might be enemy where you lay down fire is the same shit as shooting in the general direction of the enemy with your eyes closed, you're not gonna hit anyone, even if you know full well there is someone there.

The London Blitz/SAC adventures (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) are the most well known examples of that, even today there is a debate on whether or not they actually did something else than wasting resources and lives.

In Vietnam it's known that it did exactly zilch, in Korea the results of the war speak by themselves (despite the SAC leveling the country flat by their own admittance) and in WWII German records show that the air raids were more a nuisance than an actual threat to the German industry, concrete being cheaper than planes + fuel + bombs + pilots.

The most typical example of that being the St Nazaire docks (where the U boat pens are still there because the city literally could not destroy them) that where bombed to hell and back (including with Tall Boys) and it did utterly nothing despite the SAC pretending they could see it working, while a commando raid did the most damage and a spy allowed to track sub movements and heavily disrupt wolfpacks form there.

Ok thjis is what this entire conversation looked like from my end:

>>627396

>post on a topic

>>627491

<purple monkey dishwasher

>>627498

>oh you mean to say…

>>627520

<a dishwasher that is a purple monkey

>>627546

>uh i see no purple dishwashers…

>>627583

<here's 5 paragraphs on your use of the word "no" which doesnt address the question or explain what im talking about

>>627600

>why did you mention the purple monkey dishwasher though?

>>627608

<wow how canyou tell me to fuck off, here's an explanation to what i meant half a dozen posts ago, hey why are you mad for me wasting all your time

It's not my image, I barely glanced at it before posting, it's from some thread awhile ago. As a result your 17 character post meant absolutely nothing to me, you need to learn to explain yourself other people can't read your mind.

I want my twenty five minutes back.

>>627641

CTRL+F: km

>>627631

<post something

>someone comments on what you posted

<don’t even know what the content of your own post

>it is explained to you under the (reasonable) assumption that most people are aware of what it is they are posting

<get angry because you think it’s unreasonable for someone to assume you are aware of what you post

The biggest mistake was as you said: expecting you to have an IQ over 83.

>>627644

Please pardon the VPN, I often forget to shut it off.

>>627714

Rapid fire artillery needs to come back.

>>627714

Friendly reminder that the Legion literally did nothing wrong and is the best choice for the Mojave.

>>627728

>This. It wa

BOOM

>-better time back th

BOOM BOOM

>-en man wo

BOOM BOOOOM BOOOM BOOM

>-nd in f

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOOM

>-ful pow

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOOOOM

>dustrial beas

SOUND OF THE ENTIERTY OF FLANDERS’ EARTH BEING TURNED INSIDE OUT

<What?! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! ALL I HEAR IS

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If you haven’t read Storm of Steel do so soon. Amazing book and many early battles will give artilleryfags a hands free cumming.

>>627498

>AGS-40 is a massive improvement. Has all the improvements of the AGS-30 including one-man portability

http://modernfirearms.net/en/grenade-launchers/russia-grenade-launchers/ags-17-eng/

http://modernfirearms.net/en/grenade-launchers/russia-grenade-launchers/ags-30-eng/

http://modernfirearms.net/en/grenade-launchers/russia-grenade-launchers/balkan-eng/

>AGS-17: 30kg with tripod, 14kg for 29 grenades

>AGS-30: 16kg with tripod, 14kg for 29 grenades

>AGS-40 32kg with tripod, 14kg for 20 grenades

The AGS-40 gained a lot of weight, therefore I'm not sure if I can agree with your statement.

>>626774

>You want to use a soft metal for casings, because a softer casing means that extraction is less likely to rip off the bottom of the case.

Does the tapering of the cartridge matter? 7.92 Mauser is bottle-necked, but it's rather straight after that. Was it a problem with the straight-walled 9mm Parabellum?

>>628404

Each grenade has twice the punching power of a western grenade, and it's still light enough for a single guy to carry it around just like AGS-17.

>>633060

Depends. This is going to require a little bit of explanation about friction though.

Metal surfaces, no matter how perfectly polished, aren't smooth. At least not as smooth as they feel to your hands or look to your eyes.

They are very rugged and have microscopic ridges and valleys. The shallower those are, the smoother the surface. Because it's expensive to smooth surfaces you often find very important markings in technical drawings that denote how smooth a surface has to be made.

But what makes the smoothness so important?

It's the main factor for friction.

Take two plates of metal, lay them on the floor, put a couple heavy books on them and try to push the upper plate off the lower plate without removing the books. It will hardly work. This is because the microscopic "mountains" on the upper plate "grip" into the microscopic valleys on the lower plate and vice versa. When you are trying to push one plate, you are either sheering off those mountains, or at least lifting the upper plate up a microscopic distance by use of the "ramps" the lower plate provides.

Now polish the plates and try again.

The hills and valleys will be much shallower, meaning that you won't have to sheer off that much metal, or won't have to lift the weight up that much.

Not only does polishing reduce friction between parts, it also makes parts ever so slightly stronger, but that's advanced shit. Less valleys for cracks to develop in. It's a trick that is used in aerospace engineering from time to time with very critical parts.

Anyways, not only polishing can make metal surfaces smooth. What polishing actually does is scrubbing off the microscopic mountains. The same thing happens when two metal surfaces are rubbed against each other.

This is the reason why you need to re-tighten the screws that hold on the wheels of your car after changing the tires. A couple thousand cycles of pressure will polish the surface of the screws and make the screws loose again. Re-fastening them will apply enough pressure to keep them in.

The same thing happens when you are trying to extract a case from a chamber. When firing the pressure inside the case forces it against the surface of the chamber (pressing mountains into valleys). When extracting the case the amount of friction caused is proportional to two things: surface area of the case in touch with the chamber, and a material factor that is based on chamber pressure, initial surface smoothness and material hardness.

Using softer materials makes extraction easier, because the "mountains" can be sheered off easier.

A tapered cartridge will have more surface area than a straight walled one with the same volume, but at the same time the extraction process will not be sheering off that much metal because you are extracting at an angle. It really depends on the specific cartridge and it's design. There is a reason we use 500 different powder loads for one cartridge. It's easier to fill it with a different load than to sit down and design a case that works, and yes. That was one of the problems with parabellum. The slight angle allows for slightly easier extraction.

Using softer metals however has another major advantage.

When metals are stressed at extremely high speeds, thy stop acting like an elastic body and go straight into plastic deformation. The exact reason for this is not really understood. Some people suggest that the deformation process of the metal grid takes some time, but we don't know why.

For now you will just have to accept that as a fact, or go into material science (I made a post about that a long time ago. It's a rabbit hole.).

I am very sorry I can't provide a better explanation, but we don't know any more that that. The are some fancy formulas derived from experimentation, but we don't know what causes this effect.

When you are trying to extract a case, you are doing so at high speeds. The metal will act more brittle than it actually is. This is good on one side, because the hills and valleys will sheer off easier (too brittle to withstand). It's bad on the other, because instead of elastically elongating as you are pulling it out of the chamber, the metal might act so brittle that it is destroyed.

Using a softer metal will make it act as if it was harder regardless, but now instead of being very soft it is just moderately hard. When a harder metal is used, it becomes too hard and brittle for the job. This happened a lot with 8mm Mauser in the German MGs of WWII, as I have explained earlier.

I hope this didn't turn too much into a wall of text. Material science sucks, but it allows you to understand how 50% of engineering works. The remaining 50% are part manufacturing limitations and part budget constrains.

>>633073

I am by no means an expert on material science. Anything that I can type up on a tired saturday is going to be much less informative than what actual experts can produce for money over years and years.

I reccommend "Mechanical Behaviour of Engineering Materials" by Joachim Rösler, Martin Bäker, and Harald Harders. I will try to get access to it somehow, but I can't make promises at this point.

>>633086

Fun fact that handgun holds 48 rounds and is caseless.

>>633088

It also has full auto too.

>>633092

>also too

Fuck, i need some sleep

>>633092

That is as well a cool thing as well. It just needed the kind of smokeless powders USSR didn't have but america had.

I have asked in the library and they didn't have a printed or PDF version of that book I mentioned. I looked through the English books they had available, but they are mostly shit.

I only looked over "Mechanical Behaviour of Engineering Materials" once after meeting an exchange student from Florida, but I remember it being very good and covering a wide variety of topics at an acceptable depth. You should be able to find it either online or ask for it specifically in your friendly local gun game book store. It's going to be very expensive though, almost 80 Eurobucks for the softcover version. I suggest you find a less legal alternative source. Springer has it as a PDF, so it should be on any tracker of your choice.

>>633465

>T-55 is a boondoggle because it had several prototypes

I don't see your point here.

>the Mig 25 scared everyone shitless

Mostly because the US bought into an aeronautical design doctrine which the Soviets didn't. Their fears were based entirely on a misunderstanding. It also had portions made out of titanium.

>The 30mm rotary cannon that the updated Mig 31 had was also on paper, way better than the GAU-8.

The Mig-31 hasn't had notable problems with its rotary cannon. You're thinking of the Mig-27, a ground attack aircraft.

>The Mig 29 was also the big scary plane until the warsaw pact closed down and Poland shared that the plane had shit range and a Tiger electric hand held game where the radar should have been.

That's because the Soviets were cheap fucks and decided against a modern radar array that was in the works for the Mig-29 in favor of one which they knew was antiquated. When their gross incompetence was leaked to the CIA in the 1980's, they thought about swapping it out for a far superior radar, but then decided a jet that couldn't perform its job was better than spending rubles. So, six prototypes were made and then the Soviet Union shat the bed for good.

>The SU-35 is probably the same case

It could be a cleverly concealed Il-2 and it would still be a better use of money than the F-35.

>The BTR-50 held TOO MANY DISMOUNTS SO IT CARRIED ONE AND A HALF SQUADS OF INFANTRY.

I'd like to see a source on that, because the BTR-50 didn't have a carrying capacity significantly larger than a BTR-60 or BMP-1.

>The BMP1 was also a fucking disaster on tracks

Considering its purpose was to act as an APC first, and fire support second, it was miles ahead of the M113 and other NATO competitors at the time. Furthermore, the AT-3 Sagger was one of the best ATGMs of the 1960's.

>Mig-31 was shit at everything

Correct. The Soviets were cheap fucks that crippled their own aircraft. It could've been a good aircraft, but they decided it shouldn't be one.

>>633465

>a SAM battery in Syria shot down its own AWACS plane that was supposed to be directing its missiles.

A Syrian battery shot down a Russian jet which may have been used as cover by Israeli jets. On top of that, Israel failed to warn Russia about their airstrikes until the missiles were away, and they have been known to use EW against Syrian radar systems countless times in the past. It's not exactly shooting down your own jet.

>>633477

>The MBT-70 program failed to come to fruition but the M1 program succeeded.

I might be stupid, but I still don't see how this is relevant.

> Since the Soviet rifle companies were triadic (three platoons of three squads each), commanders had to mix squads from different platoons in the same vehicle" Mike Guardia, Bradly vs BMP, desert storm 1991, Osprey publishing.

That sounds like speculation to me. Even if the BTR-50 did have a carrying capacity of over half a platoon, it doesn't mean they were actually used as described.

>I actually remembered the Grom's range incorrectly and found in the book that its actually 500 meters when it becomes too inaccurate to successfully engage a stationary target.

It depends on the shell, the target and whether the vehicle was moving. When stationary and firing at stationary targets, the BMP-1 was able to reliably hit vehicle-sized targets nearly a kilometre out, whereas when it was moving, that was reduced to ~500 metres.

>The Sagger A had an abysmal combat record when fired from BMPs in the yom kippur war and desert storm due to the vehicles awful one man turret and poor visibility all around.

Or maybe, just maybe, Arabs are just shit at warfare. I'm not saying the BMP-1 was a perfect vehicle even if it was vastly superior to the M113 but judging performance on Arabs is cruel. I mean, the Saudis have lost M1A2s to teenagers in sandals throwing molotovs and I'm pretty sure a Leclerc was lost in as embarrassing a manner as well.

In any case, I'm sure we can both agree that American artillery and as a consequence, Australian artillery is fucking garbage and desperately needs to be improved.

Our government is going to buy 12 K9 Thunders and potentially 12 more, with deliveries starting at 2020. They're going to be our first self propelled artillery pieces. They appear to be capable systems, how does /k/ feel about it?

>>633528

My only problem with them is that they come from Worst Korea.

>>633528

Worst Korea has been pretty good about creating fairly cheap hardware that isn't as good as burger exports, but dollar for dollar are a better deal. And unlike the US, Koreans don't have a schizophrenic foreign policy and won't randomly sanction you in the name of half-baked virtue signaling. Overall it's a good deal if there are diplomatic and/or practical concerns with buying slavshit.

>>633535

>Worst Korea has been pretty good about creating fairly cheap hardware that isn't as good as burger exports

K9 Thunder actually has more range than the M109 going by the stats on Wikipedia, so in practical terms you could consider it better if anything. It does appear to be up there as probably one of the best self propelled artillery pieces you can buy, only one that I think could beat it would be the PzH 2000.

>Overall it's a good deal if there are diplomatic and/or practical concerns with buying slavshit.

Of course, there are both. We're NATO and they wouldn't sell to us to begin with, it wouldn't be standard and we'd have to rely on them for everything, from ammo to repairs. Relying on your most probable enemy in case of war for your equipment is a bad idea.

>>633481

Once again, the Soviets made a ton of different prototypes before settling on T-54. Lots of projects go to the prototype phase before being cancelled. Its how R&D works and that is my point.

The bit about the BTR-50 is a direct quote from the book along with the 500 meters of effective range on stationary targets. The Grom's projectiles were very slow and heavily affected by crosswinds making any shooting past 500 based on prayers to the god the state has denied.

>>634475

Half of the tanks trying to be T-54 had forward mounted engines and rear mounted turrets. None of those design implements saw the field. What does the MBT-70 have that the M1 doesn't besides the ability to use bore launched ATGMs which was something the German version didn't even have? Its not like there aren't upgrade packages for T-54s that don't make it pretty much on par with T-72s ether.

>>634531

>Half of the tanks trying to be T-54 had forward mounted engines and rear mounted turrets. None of those design implements saw the field.

Do you know what an evolutionary process is? Or are you one of those bible thumpers who get scared of this word? The point is that they try out something, and if it doesn't work out so well they try to improve it, and if it's still inferior to an other solution, then they will abandon it. That's the point here, they tried out lots of different ideas, got rid of the bad ones, and ended up with something good. The exact opposite of the MBT-70 program, where they kept adding new ideas that didn't work, and instead of getting rid of them in the design process they just aborted the whole project.

> What does the MBT-70 have that the M1 doesn't besides the ability to use bore launched ATGMs which was something the German version didn't even have?

Let's see a few of them:

>the vehicle is extremely low

>all of the crew are in the turret

>the driver has an extra-autistic system to counter the rotation of the turret

>it had a 152mm gun with combustible cases

>an autoloader of all things

>ATGMs, as you wrote

>a remote-controlled weapon station with a 20mm autocannon

>Its not like there aren't upgrade packages for T-54s that don't make it pretty much on par with T-72s ether.

I admit that this is true. But at least when the T-72 came out it was a much greater upgrade, as it has a 125mm gun with an autoloader, compared to the previous 100mm gun without an autoloader. Of course there were the T-62 and the T-64 between them. Still, at first the M1 had the exact same 105mm gun as the M60.

>>625960

Reminds me of this one time where conscripts ended up shelling some motherfucker's front yard with a 130mm artillery shell. Well, the shell dropped 100 meters from the house but still.

Then there was another case where a howitzer shell ended up in a motor pool, 2km from target area. [spoiler]After hitting the target area.[spoiler]

>>634543

The Russians totally abandoned object 416, object 430, object 130 and K-91. The T-54 is a direct evolution of the T-44 which came from the T-34. Objects 416 and 430 also had the entire crew in the rear mounted turret along with the driver and ran into the same disorientation issues as MBT-70. They were dead ends all the same.

>the manless hull was tried and abandoned by everyone who attempted it as a concept for the same reasons. The Russians tried the same thing to keep the driver from getting disoriented with the 416 and 430 and it didn't work.

>the 152mm gunlauncher and auto loader was put to use on the Sherridan light tank and M60A2, they were tried and proved to be really good at stapling gooks to trees with flechette shells, but were too finicky to justify using over the excellent L7 which had gotten improved tungsten penetrators at the time.

>The remote 20mm gun was also put to use on the M60A2 and also proved to be problematic. The M1 got CROWS anyway.

They cut out all those "features" because they simply did not perform any better than conventional designs of the day. The XM1 project took everything from the MBT-70 project and used what did actually work from that which was the composite air gap armor, more pure tungsten alloy sabots, the

>turbine engine

and later on it got the gun and caseless rounds from the German MBT-70 project. It wasn't all entirely for waste as the XM1 used pretty much everything learned MBT-70 had that worked save for the hydropnumatic suspension which was at least snapped up by the Japs in making their disappointing type74.

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1088/0143-0807/34/4/915

Reading this, I wonder how feasible it would be to fashion a mortar piece out of an acetylene-fueled spud gun and some cheap rounds made from hollow steel spheres packed with powder and some manner of electrical trigger powered by a small battery. I figure you could get away with ~$9 per round looking at alibaba pricing.

>>649020

Things like that haven't been implemented because internal magazine is more than big enough for actual engagements.

>>649053

Bigger wars result in shorter unit lifetime, so even less reason to use complicated setups. Modern day WW3 would take this to extreme - the unit IS the weapon; simply launch intercontinental missiles at each other, and use conventional forces for localized cleanup operations.

>>649020

>One more thing you have to consider is that the US Army wants to use 155mm howitzers against planes and missiles now, because they think those new railmeme projectiles are manoeuverable for the job

Got any more information on this? All I ever saw was the prototype/model they were fucking around with. Hadn't heard that they were trying to go through with it.

>>626054

If steel can't handle as much pressure as brass, why don't they make the barrels out of brass?

>>649078

It stretches, you'll lose your headspace or blow up.

>>649060

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp

This is the closest thing I can find for anything official. I guess it might be just a way to get more shekels.

>>649087

>ancient muzzleloaders

The Austro-Hungarian Empire used autofrettaged bronze in many of its 8cm field guns, although only because there were problems with producing good quality steel.

>>649089

The French were still using muzzleloading bronze when Herr Krupp's steel breachloaders shelles the shit outta em.

>>649102

I don't feel safe looking at that. I guess I'm in the right calling my Austrian relatives inbred retards.