/k/ - Weapons

>>642001

those are p cool though, the truck based autoloader arty. makes more sense than towed in year current.

now where's the rocket arty at

What will future artillery be like? Think up to 75 years in the future.

>>642028

We would be the perfect place for it as well.

>>642040

Probably dissapointing, NATO will continue to spend more money on bloated aircraft like the F-35 and only the Germans or French make any contribution.

>>642040

In-flight trajectory control I'd imagine. The concept is on paper, and it is technically feasible. Other than that I can't imagine much difference. The basic concept of artillery hasn't changed in a hundred years, and the modern design principals haven't changed in 30. Artillery is stagnant.

Presumably it would be possible to build some kind of gatling artillery piece, get the rate of fire up to a few hundred rounds a minute, I'm sure it's not even remotely practical but …

>TFW you BRRRRT with an M109

>>642033

>Where's the rocket arty at?

After you guys cancelled the ATACMS (to pump even more money into the hands of the jet mafia) probably only with Russia, the Chinks, and their satellite states.

>>642041

8/k/ or Britain?

>>642067

>why can't I hold all of these erections.jpg

>>642067

2S4 Tyulpan pretty much siege artillery.

>>642067

>>642090

Nevermind, looks like my hope for it to be true blurred my memory. What I thought was a BMP with a 400mm howitzer on top of it, was actually the 2S4 Tyulpan, with it's '240mm mortar

which has a range of 10,000 meters and can fire nuclear rounds

>>642037

Skysweeper is more fun, because it's full auto:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_Skysweeper

That gun seems to be rather close to Rheinmetall's 120mm tank gun. I wonder if you could use that as an AA gun with a radar. In a turret that has a fast enough autoloader to turn it into an autocannon, and allows great enough elevation to be used against aircraft, it would be a real anti-everything gun. You could even use it as artillery. The problem is that 120mm shells are rather big, and you'd need a lot of them to work, therefore you'd need a really big vehicle to carry it.

>>642067

Closest I can think of are these two:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A3_Kondensator_2P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B1_Oka

hey guys look what I found

>>642093

Did the Russians build anything larger than an auto-cannon that couldn't fire nukes?

>>642028

Actually if you sink half the barrell in a lake, such as the Great Lakes, which The Canadian Bull Fucking Your Sun-Canadian Wife wanted to do for spacelaunch…. Its pretty fucking cheap.

Building it on a mountain is the hard part.

>>642167

>sink half the barrel in a lake

There's very few countries that don't have at least one big lake to their name. You wouldn't need something the size of your great lakes to fit a single piece or moderately sized battery either - unless they need a huge distance between them for safety reasons.

>>642096

Cute

>>642241

Nah it's mostly the depth that's important, remember it recoils INTO the water, probably for more than its entire length. Also giving it enough of an angle so it can shoot at less than directly upward.

>>642340

Then again, if you were looking to give it a global range (for the cheapest cost) set it up along the equator pointing east (to give your projectile a free 400m/s acceleration from the Earths spin) and fire something that's less of a traditional shell and more of a trimmed down satellite carrying a handful of MIRVs inside it. Get it up into equatorial orbit, alter the vehicle's orbit to make it reenter on a collision course with the target, fire the submunitions, kaboom.

Someone post the shit about the South African Arty that beat the shit out of the stupidly expensive NATO arty. Think he got black bagged or some shit.

>>642340

Any reason the ocean doesn't work aside from salt=corrosion and natural disasters?

>>642473

tanks are build for driect fire onto enemy tanks on the front line.

M109 is built for indirect fire onto areas from behind the front line.

it's literally a stretched M113 chassis with a 155mm howitzer stuck on. it has roughly the same protection as the m113, with the benefit of kevlar panels inside for spalling.

it's not particularly fast, it can't really do direct fire on moving targets very easily, and it has no coaxial machine gun, so it's kind of fucked if infantry come at it in trucks.

>>642001

Huh, that's a neat design I wasn't aware of. Considering how we are going to buy Spikes from the Jews already, might as well pick up a few of those.

>holy shit NATO needs to unfuck its artillery

How come? Gun artillery in NATO is about as good as anything else in range/calibre and the PzH2000 is probably the best gun arty piece in the world, although it is quite pricey. There really hasn't been too many advancements in artillery since rocket-assisted munitions and modern fire control, so basically the 80s/90s was when any real advancement in gun artillery ended.

>>642120

Well, their tank guns couldn't as far as I know.

>>642509

Because its one of the biggest land-based dongs around. Unwieldy, but damn, when you bust that thing out, I believe command and your girl/trap will notice…

>>642510

Destroying counter-battery batteries and fucking traps are a top priority of anyone above Lt anyways.

>>642496

>How come?

You look at some of the stuff Russia has been testing in Syria (aka: Spanish Civil War 2 - Muslim Boogaloo) their artillery has been developing quite a lot for the ~30 years that NATO artillery has stood still. Their batteries are reporting first round strikes within 10m of the target (confirmed by drone footage) and they still have the edge in sheer volume of rocket artillery, especially with that new Tornado thing they rolled out a few years ago.

>>642515

To say that NATO artillery has stood completely still for 30 years is just retarded. NATO has been replacing their old pieces since the 2000s, see PzH 2000 and K9 Thunder. New ammunition like the Excalibur have also come out in the 2010s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur

>During the testing, the PzH2000 fired 10 Excalibur projectiles at targets at ranges from nine to 48 kilometers. Every round delivered precision effects, striking within three meters of the targets

>>642521

>krasnopol started in 1978

>entered service in 1986

>excalibur started in response in 1992

>still not in service 28 years later

>krasnopol used in multiple wars since

>is superior in performance

Come on now.

The Excalibur is a response to Krasnopol and it PROVES how little NATO countries regard artillery.

That's a nice firing base. It would be an ashame if it was countered.

>>642515

You can't compare with Russia.

Russian armies since at least the XIXth century are artillery based, the core of their army is firepower.

There are more artillery pieces in a Russian brigade that there are in the entire french or German army.

>>647194

Given that it seems to be the most cost effective way of 'making things over there go BOOM' and that (not particularly) modern tech makes artillery about as precise as the more expensive ATGMs I think it's a necessary comparison.

>>647204

Well, NATO is lead by the USA and it cannot into cost effective so…

>>647256

You'd think that Trump (of all people) would be interested in auditing the DoD and pushing them into making more sensible decisions.

>>647272

Too bad Trump is just a puppet.

>>647199

I tried rimworld for a while, but DF is simply better.

Z-levels or GTFO.

>>647272

The DoD has been audited under Trump; https://dod.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1692138/dod-completes-first-full-financial-statement-audit-findings-will-directly-benef/

>>642470

>>642496

The problem is that America specifically had two different, and honesty pretty good, mobile artillery systems built and ready in the 90s and 2000s, one was a heavy, fully NBC protected and automated piece, and the other a more simple SPG that was very mobile. Neither were purchased, so our artillery rains shit.

And G.Bull was a god…shame about South Africa.

>>647789

Any action taken afterwards? Even the slightest attempt to curb the rampant corruption and cronyism in American defence acquisition? Or did he accept 'that's just how much stuff costs' like any of his predecessors who opened up that can of shit?

>>647811

Nice dubs, which systems were those? Were they planning to upgrade the shells or were they going to stick to the same ones you've already got stockpiled?