/k/ - Weapons

How could the PIRA have made and employed mortars better?

>>654044

By not being commies.

>>654086

There is something about K.u.K. Army uniforms that is simply pleasant to the eye.

>ywn bombard turkish civilians with your daughter

>>654228

>Why isn't (((the West))) using a cheap and effective means of transporation

wow, I don't know, but what I do know is that lockheeb martin is always hiring people to shill defend their goodname online

>>654137

first we remove them from the islands, then the mainland.

>>654208

kek'd

>>654228

>Build it out of a 'high tech' Titanium/Carbon Fibre/Aluminium/Balsa Wood hybrid material

>Install more computers than were used in the lifespan of NASA

>Make it at least 20 tons

>8 wheels (with the worst suspension modern engineering can provide)

>Still using the same engine as your 1 ton truck though

>Some idiot consultant/general is going to want to make it 'multipurpose' so be sure to get out ahead of that and add all kinds of shit it could never need in its life as a mortar carrier (AA radar, visual surveillance kit, 'troop transport capability' that can hold 2 guys if they don't mind spooning and are only carrying light kit, and all the electronics and hardware for an unspecified ATGM that will never get off the drawing board)

>All of this means that the firing compartment is cramped, awkward to work in, filled with hard edges, requires the mortar crew to work bent forwards 90 degrees at the waist, and limits the angles that the mortar can be fired at

>And it can only hold 5 shells

>Can't be driven by anybody over 5'0"

OK, you can now sell the idea to Lockmart. Be sure to mention that the design additions listed above will bump the final retail price up to 4.5 Billion per unit (without the mortar), with an additional engineering support contract for half that per unit per month for as long as they're in service. Then sell them at cost to some 3rd world shithole when the contract gets pulled after you've sucked up a few billion DoD dollaridoos.

>>654246

never forget

>>654246

I'll sell you a old Toyota Hilux with few knee mortars in the bed and a couple cases of shells bolted on that can serve as trunk space when empty. Oh and I'll throw in a couple AKs and a bottle of vodka in the cabin as a little extra.

>>654250

Oh yeah? Well mine creates jobs in 30 different states (and more jobs in the constituencies of any senator who approves/shills for it), and even more transport jobs. My design also allows the Pentagon to keep its budget nice and high. In addition to that it will look completely fucking awesome in the PR shots.

>>654136

Low key wanted to be an LAVcrewan but im colorblind so I got banned from it.

Anybody know where I can buy a replica of a napoleonic black powder mortar? That shiny brass bell and polished wood is aesthetic as fuck.

>>654291

>LAVcrewan

Mate, being a crewman in a tank or any other fighting vehicle is asking for death. You are always number 1 target priority for every single RPG and ATGM the enemy has on them, plus artillery will burn you alive.

>>654328

How can Lockmart charge the DoD another trillion dollars for something you already have that just works?

>>654367

You answered your own question mate >>654367

They will just add all this shit on an existing chassis

>>654302

Nigger we aren’t exactly in combat at the moment.

>>654302

There is no better big game than tanks and fully loaded IFV/APC's especially when the latter has some sorry asshole somehow crawls out from the back. Its all I can dream of, luring unsuspecting armor into a killzone of tank hunting teams who laugh at the dumb useless cage welded onto the steel beasts. 2014-2015 best years of my life.

>>654025

Mortars are shit and are 60% less effective on an enemy combatant just by them laying on the ground. Short range, inaccurate and cumbersome sums up any man portable mortar system like 60s or 81s. Mortars aren't even an effective destructive weapon, their only use is suppression of enemy units while the forward infantry maneuvers around the target area, and even then if you are too close or in a combat situation with enemy units and you have to use mortars, you might as well call them on your position and hope the team's first rounds are long, better than giving the proper coordinates and having them land short. I forgot exsctly what the probable error in range for mortars is but i know it's a lot more than conventional artillery, it's like 250m or some shit where true artillery is only 100m, especially with the newer M777 systems. That shit is pretty accurate for a howitzer.

>>654499

While all that may well be good and true, mortars represent the peak of guerrilla artillery in many cases. That and the idea of dropping something in a tube and it shooting out blowing people up a football field away is hilarious

>>654499

> 60% less effective on an enemy combatant just by them laying on the ground

While he's laying on the ground his isn't advancing or retreating, he isn't suppressing your guys or effectively commanding his.

As for range an accuracy that comes from people trying to push them further than they should, 1km should be it despite the fact 81mm it claims ~5km.

In the war we have been fighting the last 18 years they way to go is have your truck mounted mortar park just inside the edge of town while dismounts push through, if they don't need it then great but if they do the flight time is going to be ~20 seconds and the accuracy is going to come down to ~50m.

>>654693

>improvised coastal improvised morters

Shit meant just to say improvised costral morters. Tired as fuck right now.

>>654695

>costral morters

Have a nap, buddy.

>>654499

>60% less effective on an enemy combatant just by them laying on the ground.

And firearms are significantly less effective on enemy combatants taking cover behind solid objects.

>their only use is suppression of enemy units while the forward infantry maneuvers around the target area

So in other words they have a specific use and a very important one at that.

>you might as well call them on your position and hope the team's first rounds are long, better than giving the proper coordinates and having them land short

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? If a mortar lands incorrectly, you adjust the fire the same as any other indirect fire weapon.

>I forgot exsctly what the probable error in range for mortars is but i know it's a lot more than conventional artillery, it's like 250m or some shit where true artillery is only 100m, especially with the newer M777 systems

The issue with that being that dedicated artillery platforms exist at a higher level than mortars. Obviously a Tunguska is going to provide better defense against helicopters than an Igla, but you can't distribute Tunguskas at the platoon level.

>>654699

>you can't distribute Tunguskas at the platoon level

Not with that attitude.

>>654710

>He wants Tunguskas at the platoon level

Other than cost is there any good reason not to have every man supported by his own dedicated Tunguska/Flakpanzer/Loara/Type-87?

Fresh relevant autism here, trying to channel my inner Magyarnon; dual use rifle grenade-lance mortar projectiles. Seeing as the intended uses (hitting dug in infantry) are quite similar, with the main difference being angle of attack and intended range, why not design a family of standardized projectiles for use out of both knee mortars and muzzle device spigot launchers?

In one swoop, you eliminate the need for hi-lo underbarrel launchers carried by dedicated grenadiers by providing a bullet trap spigot type design, and unify projectile production lines with the similar fireteam level light mortar, which does not have to totally encapsulate the projectile, only socket it into the tube to a reasonable depth. The projectile can be of an overlength, overbore design with no great problems in a lance mortar, though you'll have to account for different projectile weights and their respective ranges in training and try to keep design weights for each 'tier' of projectile similar.

With a standardized baseplate/overmuzzle socket, you can unify projectiles across a broad spectrum. Short, light 35-40mm type light grenades that are typically fired out of hi-lo launchers, maybe a tiny bit weight inefficient when remodeled for a spigot launch compared to the hi-lo solution, but if you want extra light, long range and universal that's what you get. Longer grenades and moderate overbores like the APAV40 and AC58 in the 40-60mm range, with double or more the explosive load of the light grenade, more weight efficient for bang delivered, good general purpose. Heavy overbores styled after the 75mm ENERGAgoing up to maybe 90mm diameter, which can deliver near-heavy mortar levels of explosive firepower and/or RPG levels of HEAT at close ranges and potentially eliminate the need for LAW launchers and RPG-7 type systems outside of dedicated light and heavy AT hunting elements respectively, depending on how bad the kick is and on whether a rocket boosting system as in the Super ENERGA can be a click on/click off attachment or has to be built into the projectile to work just right.

>>654764

Maybe make the APAV40/AC58 style spigot bottom and the applique rocket motor both coarsely thread on & off the outside of the tail mount with any fins placed further up the body than the ENERGA, with a fold-out assist handle to give the soldier leverage to quickly change out these pieces? It's not extremely fast, but you can technically decide in combat whether you want or need a fat mortar bomb/rifle grenade versus a dedicated rocket grenade. It won't have the range of an overshoulder launcher with a longer rocket motor element, but a squad level AT solution doesn't need it; assuming there's somehow no improvement over the actual cold war ENERGA, an effective 200m/max 550m range is acceptable, as the LAW is no better in this respect though it may be handier in some situations with its all-in-one tube.

If you need direct fire on an enemy in close, perhaps to blast through cover that's within the minimum effective range of your squad mortar, you hand off projectiles to your designated grenadier or to any rifleman depending on training level and pop them wide open that way. If the enemy is 50-100+ meters out and is presenting no lateral target, you can drop a bomb on their heads vertically, with the entire fireteam acting as a potential ammunition reserve for the mortarman no matter if it's a commando team engaging in backline raids or a bunch of regular frontline ground pounders. If there's an enemy IFV element on the attack, you can send them scurrying off with an AC58 or definitely slice through it with a fat ENERGA projectile, like shit through a goose, with no need to unsling and ready a launcher, just for a squad AT projectile to be socketed for the grenadiers' prompt use, while lance mortar bomblets turn the infantry into swiss cheese.

If there's an older secondary or tertiary armor element trying to provide close-in support without sufficient cover, like say a T-72 in a Russian Federative brigade that thinks it's hot shit in a NATO tank deprived environment, put the fear of God back into them by peppering their ERA with light projectiles and then sending a few of the ENERGA style pocket RPGs their way to eat through the now naked steel. After a couple positive impacts in similar location, laugh as the ammo goes off and the turret becomes a pop top frying pan and heroic contributor to the post-Soviet space program. If there's no major wind, the range is close, and the lance mortar operator really knows what he's doing, it would be theoretically possible though not necessarily probable to drop an ENERGA in a very lazy arc through the top turret or engine deck and cause an immediate bailout if not knockout. Lighter projectiles could be used to find the right range to do this and 'walk' the fire in, with a good understanding of the different angles needed for each projectile weight class.

I'm interested in designing bullet-trap rifle grenades a la the Improvised Munitions Handbook, designed to work with the rifles in that book. Perhaps use pumice gravel in the base as a bullet trap (I seem to recall seeing a video demonstrating that pumice gravel could catch high-power rifle rounds), and hook the improvised match pull tab to some part of the rifle so it arms as it's fired. This would allow the pipe guns to pull extra duty as mortars without significant redesign or carrying extra equipment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I

>>654764

>>654766

You've made me think, and currently my autism regarding section-level explosives stands here:

<combined rifle and hand grenade

This is your light 35-40mm grenade that looks like a small mortar shell. It has a delayed fuse in the head that is activated by pulling out its pin; and the tail has an impact fuse that is activated by the (passing or impacting) projectile. They should come in thermobaric and white phosphorus variants, with a weight around 250-350g. As a rifle grenade they should have an effective range of 300m, more than that is a waste. As a hand grenade they should be like a modern potato smasher. The big idea is to give every soldier at least half-a-dozen or more, and let them win the average firefight by drowning the enemy in explosions and smoke.

<rocket-propelled rifle grenade

It's basically your heavy grenade. But for maximum versitality in its basic form it can switch between HEAT and HESH, like a miniature rifle grenade version of this:

http://www.military-today.com/firearms/matador.htm

Of course that rocket weights 2.6kg, and our rifle grenade shouldn't be more than 700-1000g. As you said it doesn't need a maximum range more than 550m, and that's already stretching it. Now, to make it even more versitale, it should have a detachable fragmentation sleeve, so that you can still use it against buildings and tanks that are very close without accidentally killing your mates. I think the detachable rocket motor is a good idea, but for a different reason. You could make an other variant that has some electronics to turn it into a missile, like this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(munition)

I don't see why would you want to launch the heavier grenades without a rocket motor, and I also don't see the point of an intermediate class of grenades between this two. And if you don't intend to use these against targets that are more than 300-500m away, then a knee mortar just seems to be dead weight. Expect if your rifle isn't that good for launching rifle grenades, but then the whole premise of these ideas goes to the trash anyway.

Now for the platoon and company:

<automatic grenade launcher

Something like this:

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

And we are going for maximum autism here, therefore the section with the AGL needs a handcart. With 100 grenades the total weight is 112kg, plus the weight of the handcart itself. That isn't a lot even for one person, and you'd have at least 6-7 to drag it into battle.

<ATGM launcher

Look here for inspiration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Moyenne_Port%C3%A9e

But to make it more versitale, it needs an other kind of projectile: a dumb HE rocket. If you replaced all the electronics and whatnot with explosive filling and a fragmentation sleeve, then you'd have something very cheap and spectacularly destructive. Maybe too destructive, because its effectiveness should be more similar to a 75mm infantry gun or a 81mm mortar than to something bigger. And of course we are speaking about a dumb rocket, therefore you'd have to add an additional reticle to the optics to aim it. Anyway, the launcher is 11kg, and the ATGM is 15kg, so they could carry 6-7 of them with a single launcher. And that dumb rocket could be lighter: a Hydra 70 is just 6.5kg, less than half of the ATGM.

I guess the basic ToE for a company with 3 platoons of 3 sections should be would be to appoint one of the platoons as the fire support platoon with a single ATGM launcher and a pair of AGLs. One of its sections get a cart full of rockets, the other two get AGLs. Now, as you can see there are no mortars there, because these weapons are supposed to do their jobs too.

>>654872

>light 35-40mm grenade (…) small mortar shell (…) 350 g (…) potato masher

I don't think we could get any more versatility or cost saving points here unless we made the whole lineup where possible out of a simple solid-molded hard plastic explosive body like Nipolit, with important fixtures inserted in or onto its almost all-explosive body. Put some serious fireproof lacquer on it so they don't go up as incendiaries when you don't want them to and you're good to go.

>interchangeable frag sleeves & smart rocket guidance options, dual HEAT-HESH capability

Sensible. More possibilities for not a great deal of additional cost past the R&D, since these are applique solutions that are developed parallel to the main system of the heavy grenade itself and its basic launch options. The MATADOR probe in-probe out switch seems very simple, although if you do go for a hard plastic explosive body for the ENERGA, it might become constructionally "interesting" to make the soft bodied HEAT/HESH load play nice with the self-destructing high explosive body. It'll certainly have to have a composite non-explosive tail to use rocket boosting.

>I don't see why would you want to launch the heavier grenades without a rocket motor

The motor piece has been damaged by enemy fire or otherwise fouled, lost with an abandoned kit, not issued, or you have come across a supply of grenades without motors dumb or smart in a supply line breakdown situation. You have a tenement complex, bunker, IFV or tank that needs to be skullfucked by raw HE/HEAT mass in close enough that you can bop it with just the bullet trap for launch energy, without being close enough that you'll be fragged by the bomb yourself. Or maybe you want to be sneeki and not reveal your close in ambush position with a large rocket plume, instead hitting the enemy convoy with an initially undetectable pomf of kinetically launched explosive death.

The heavy line of grenades must have basic shoot-through spigot launch capability as an afterthought of its being usefully projectable by the commando style squad mortar if nothing else. All this won't be hard at all, since the initial ENERGA design had no rocket booster at all, and had a range of 100m effective-300m max. South Africa's R1M1, which combined the heavier redesigned Super ENERGA warhead with basic spigot launching, has the peculiar range of 75m eff-375m max. This is not ideal but is usable in a pinch. Therefore, there is no reason not to provide for it as an option, if a threaded-on solid rocket element is feasible. The Nebelwerfer having its rocket engines in the front with spin stabilizing exhausts at the mid-body suggests this is certainly the case. Furthermore, with what is basically an RPG warhead with an optional light rocket element anyways, a dedicated spigot shoulder launcher for increased handiness/accuracy ala the PIAT is in the cards. Though thinking of the PIAT in particular makes me worry about recoil stiffness of this gaggle of heavy projectiles launched off a standard service rifle, the French APAV can knock you on your ass already if you aren't braced properly.

>I also don't see the point of an intermediate class of grenades between this two

It is assumed the high-low pressure grenade ala the M203's 40mm or moreso the superior explosive packing GP25 projectiles are still useful (the Balkan you suggest later here indicates they very much are) and the French APAV40/AC58 exist as proper rifle grenades, therefore were used as templates. These seem to be quite similar to the usual 5cm commando mortar bomb, though smaller and larger in max diameter respectively. If anything, I think you should have asked, 'why have grenades down to the M203 equivalent level?' The answer to that being relative surgical ability compared to larger explosive masses and the ability to carry more spigot mini 40mms than longer 'medium' rifle grenades. Your stick-mortar grenade would more resemble the aforementioned French grenades with an extra fuzing option than a teensy hi-lo projectile readapted for bullet trap spigot firing, which is more like a typical egg grenade with a funny shell like shape and a finned tail end.

>And if you don't intend to use these against targets that are more than 300-500m away, then a knee mortar just seems to be dead weight.

You can do fancy dickery with mechanically set airburst fuzing that's less effective in lateral firing, perhaps? You are in an urban/hilly/otherwise broken up environment and know an enemy position full well through good intel, analog calculation, or Future Warfare™ means but don't have LOS or a safe lateral attack angle? And it's only ten pounds or so of dead weight. That's not good, but it isn't awful, is it? Especially as the entire squad or at least the support fireteam is the ammo reserve and any standardized rifle or combo hand grenade is launchable.

>>654973

>platoon saturation grenade launcher & nu-Buzogányvető mega rockets on a standard ATGM platform

I like where this is going. And no, with the amount of small/medium bore area saturation explosives on hand, there's no need for an underbore or underloaded dumb saturation rocket with the 'reasonable' firepower of an infantry gun or 81mm mortar instead of cramming as much hurt as you can in the one rocket package to completely flatten the enemy like a lateral launch Daisy Cutter. The platoon rocket/missile projector should be raw terror to the man or tank that tries to advance over open field against your weapon positions, not merely a tangible threat, and its fighting power should be frontloaded in case it is quickly vectored and destroyed after the opening exchange of fire. No half measures, only explosions now; the nu-Buzo is a way to get instant company or divisional level artillery BANG and disruption in an emergency, such as an enemy breakthrough attempt. Just make sure it's stored in a really tough fire & shrapnel proof case, because more than any of the standard ATGMs you do not want it cooking off anywhere near you.

>no mortars

Just what thread do you think you are in? In any case, can this auto grenade launcher firing the lightest straight walled 40 bore projectile in our hypothetical standard bomblet inventory really pull the weight of high angle indirect fire duty over the equivalent weight in light tubes? Alternatively, is it really sensible to issue these handcart explosive blanket launchers uniformly at the standard weapons platoon level rather than as a heavy infantry or company option, with a concentrated commando mortar section acting as a kind of mini-Weapons Company for light and regular platoons? Squad level mortars vector the enemy in, platoon mortar section walks their fire on the same target and ends its existence with saturation fire. Much lighter pack weight and similar firepower on more tubes than equipping the platoon weapons company with 81mm and similar mortars, though you lose out on range, and less weight than a carted AGL, though it won't blanket the same area as quickly. But that's what higher level company tubes are for, which can be in the 81-105 range. Maybe even 120mm? Not sure. Bit new to this branch of theorycrafting.

Handcarts are smart and make the load a lot lesser on the trooper and I think the auto grenade launcher element proposed is sensible, but for a number of purposes like insurgent fighting, longer range engagement, and lighter pack load, I think the commando mortar is absolutely the better option at platoon level and is probably essential at squad level. The Lance-grenade individuel Mle F1 again only weighs 4.8kg, with the hypothetical standard light mortar being in a similar range, but can launch similar or in this case the exact same 40mm bomblets as the platoon AGL while also being able to fire overbore projectiles like the larger stick-mortar grenades or the neo-ENERGA as a ghetto top attack AT weapon. Or a proper one, if equipped with a vector rocket guidance & sensor package. It's a dirt simple do-all solution.

>>654797

>>>/cuckchan/

>>>/reddit/

>>>/facebook/

>>654974

1 weapons platoon+3 main platoons-3 squads/sections-2 fireteams. That's my proposition. Going by the French model, the assault squad is equipped for close attack and has obligatory AT/HE rifle-rockets, at least one; the support squad is equipped with the sections' SAW or maybe light GPMG and a commando mortar. With this arrangement, in every company, you have 9 light mortars capable of reaching out and touching the enemy and/or smashing them after pinning fire out to standoff ranges, 9 bases of reasonable automatic fire, and at least 9 potential dead armor elements on a spigot stick instead of a LAW tube distributed down to squad level. Two men to a mortar, two men to an MG, one commanding NCO and deputy, add riflemen from there to increase section strength & support weapon ammo capacity as needed. More ammo, DMRs, universal light or medium bomblets, rifle rockets likewise as needed.

With the perhaps optional weapons platoon, performing a similar job to a maneuver support company at a lower level, you uprate to (light?) tripod medium machine guns and increase the mortar proportion; strictly speaking you only need two men to operate a commando mortar, one to aim and one to load & fire. No need for the five man crew of the M252, you don't need a swabber or a second ammo man with the double duty of running strict inventory of every shot, and one NCO can reasonably command a whole team of multiple light tubes. And with thirtyish men in the not-quite-backline, why not triple the proportion to a maximum nine or so, roughly one per three or four men with 18 as crew, nine of whom are carriers spreading the 45ish kg/90 lb load? The remaining men are your three NCOs and deputies overseeing their squads/section in the firebase and three GPMGs with gunner & assistant gunner.

That's 30 men obligatory, for as many light mortars as are spread through the rest of the company's fireteams. Add an extra man or three to each MG subsection for more point defense (the mortarmen are perfectly capable of this role in an emergency with their carbines or close range bombardment) and belt carrying capacity for a range of 33-42 men. Insert ATGM+crew in addition to or in place of a proportion of light mortars as needed; maybe nix two mortars for each launcher if you're trading, not an equal weight exchange by any means, but tidy. How many men are needed to effectively serve an ATGM, strictly speaking? Just gunner-loader? Do you need a dedicated rangefinder/spotter? Should these third men also be deputy NCOs or is that a silly amount of redundant command structure? Furthermore, just how light are we going with a weapons platoon AT weapon? A TOW scale launcher is company infrastructure minimum to be transportable & effective. Are we going around Javelin scale or lighter yet?

That is in any case lot of tube weight and MG defense in a package that is completely man-portable, zero handcarts necessary though you can still use them for ammunition loads or the ATGMs and ought to in the latter case. The light mortar goes out to at least 675 meters effective citing the French lance mortar, but probably further with good fire control, training, and some form of sighting or ranging apparatus; maybe some kind of bubble device that informs you not about whether you're level with the ground at some intended fixed angle, but exactly how un-level you are, that information being used to figure out the angle for a given range of a given projectile weight.

Assuming you can't reach par with these measures, it'll be less than the Balkan's alleged 2500 meters, but the Balkan is a heavier and more complex weapon with a lesser explosive charge in each of its many rounds. The AGL is better pushed up to company level as a bomblet dispenser & backup explosive ranging gun for the company level medium/heavy mortars at long but less than standoff ranges. Take your AGL, thump out one round, two rounds, etc, it goes bang as many times as you need to walk in and say, 'oh, the enemy's about there,' and then the heavy shells rain down on this rough math and are corrected from there.

Mortar for explosives and smoke and flash bangs. Yeah!

>>655043

How large of a mortar shell would you have to use to fit flash/stun, smoke, and a reasonable weight of HE & shrapnel into it for an all purpose 'fuck you m80' round?

>>655138

IIRC there is a flash-bang artillery shell, basically for calling in non lethal artillery strikes

>>655150

You need some NBC suits in that scenario. Don't want diseased blood anywhere on you.

>>655153

>ANTIFA AIDs blood everywhere

True, I suppose it's too high risk an environment to get away with basic medical covers and a face mask if nothing else morale would go to shit after the first few dozen confirmed infections, but while it may be safer to deal with that scenario by firing WP shells (using kommando spotters at least 1km from the target area) there is a lot to be said for confirming your kills the old fashioned way.

>>655249

But you typically don't need to fire that quickly, though there is value in salvo speed, and you're generally not reloading and refiring a single tube; if you are, why aren't you using a mortar or hi-lo gun anyways? Rocket boosting gives extra range to that platform, and it can kick shells out without said booster. And as for the PaW, the 600 weighs 640 kilograms, less than the Nebelwerfer 41 at a loaded 770 kgs, though more than the 510kg unloaded weight. Apples to oranges maybe, because the PaW 600 is an 81mm weapon and the 1000 a 105mm, while the Nebelwerfer is 15cm, plus barrel count.

Yes, there are weight savings, and yes you can go that light, but is a rocket platform on a sheet metal carriage with spindle legs truly field ready? I understand it's hyperbole and one would not go quite that light. The description still lends to one thinking of a good solid bang on hilly terrain bend or breaking something to the point of uselessness, worst possibility being the guntube getting deformed.

I think you make a good case, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of low(er) caliber dumbfire rocketry as the one true artillery cureall. Rockets can salvo a rich target area or smash a target before it can react nicely, but you need a lot of rockets on a heavy platform with potentially long reloads inbetween. And if you're making a few or monotube design to fire continually, what does the ammunition cost look like for solid propellant rockets versus mortar shells? What's the weight comparison for complete projectiles and cases of similar bore and length? How sustained can you make rocket fire with how thin the launch tubes potentially are? You could use solid rails instead, but are those feasible in the modern era?

>>655329

>2B9M Vasilek

That's good. That's really good. That gives you a good chunk of the fast multi-shot capability of a salvo rocket carriage, making it more of a wash for weight between the two options and maybe keeping obligatory propellant loads lower than a pure rocket. It can go to 85 degrees of elevation and has a reasonable 60 degree traverse. 120mm bore is both that nice sweet spot for mortars, and your typical MBT cannon caliber; it'll kick rocket HEAT bombs that are a legitimate threat to mainline armor assets at reasonable velocities. Since it's low pressure launch with boosting, the projectile itself can be densely packed and thinly walled, though with modern materials I wonder how much difference that makes over a high pressure gun.