|
Booblord Zagats posted:Its fun to think how one sided WW1 would be with just a dozen pieces of modern artillery w/ trained crews given to a single side. To see it go from spray and pray of iron shells to dropping shells within a few inches of the intended placement with an HE round would have completely sent it to a one sided event not really WWI guns were perfectly capable of wrecking poo poo, it's the rest of the forces that were lacking if you had given on side a shitload of small radios and trucks it would have made a bigger difference and capable tanks too ofc
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:When I worked briefly with Canada's department of national defence, my boss was telling me about this Canadian guy who figured out how to do indirect fire with a small "battery" of browning .50s This most likely occurred from firing in defilade using a beating zone. With machine guns the ammunition used isn't entirely uniform, so some rounds go slightly farther, some hit shorter when fired at the edge of the maximum effective range of the weapon system. This is referred to as a beating zone. When you arc the projectiles at a higher angle, say by firing from the military side of a hill, you increase the beating zone and essentially make mini artillery. In a modern military it is used with automatic grenade launchers, i.e. MK19, to the same effect with a more lethal coverage. The Soviets used it in Afghanistan, but I'm not sure if anyone uses it anymore really with the abundance of CCA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Hot Karl Marx posted:When I worked briefly with Canada's department of national defence, my boss was telling me about this Canadian guy who figured out how to do indirect fire with a small "battery" of browning .50s That's one of the points for the elevation and traverse knobs on heavy MG mount. Heavy MGs have been used for indirect fire since they've been around, it used to be a standard use although it appears it's no longer taught. Even smaller guns like the Vickers were frequently used in that role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun#Use http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_9_07/Brus_400pm.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_HYmcm9A2o
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
quote:The Vickers was used for indirect fire against enemy positions at ranges up to 4,500 yards (4,100 m). This plunging fire was used to great effect against road junctions, trench systems, forming up points, and other locations that might be observed by a forward observer, or zeroed in at one time for future attacks, or guessed at by men using maps and experience. Sometimes a location might be zeroed in during the day, and then attacked at night, much to the surprise and confusion of the enemy. New Zealand units were especially fond of this use. A white disc would be set up on a pole near the MMG, and the gunner would aim at a mark on it, knowing that this corresponded to aiming at the distant target. There was a special back-sight with a tall extension on it for this purpose. The only similar weapon of the time to use indirect fire was the German MG 08, which had a separate attachment sight with range calculator. Oh poo poo eh. GAU-8 in the indirect role would be a monster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Oh poo poo eh. Eh, compared to other weapon systems of similar mass, not really. Once you're stepping up to vehicle mounted indirect fire, computer controlled self-loading mortars are much scarier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
what was that one kind of useful gun invented in 1917 or w/e. I think they added a safety since then
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
How does counter-battery fire work when you don't have radar to home in on?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Syncopated posted:How does counter-battery fire work when you don't have radar to home in on? You have your own radar, and it tracks the shells and does math. Or if you're still doing it ghetto style, you have observers spotting horizon flashes and counting the seconds until they hear noise like it's a thunderstorm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Air assets doing observation works too. Hot gun tubes show up pretty drat well on FLIR.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Syncopated posted:How does counter-battery fire work when you don't have radar to home in on? Historically, sound. You set up an array of microphones, simple triangulation can get you the bearing and the difference in time of the sound's arrival at different microphones plus the law of cosines gets you distance. To get a precise solution requires math that's difficult to do rapidly pre-computers, but you can draw up physical templates (cut-out conic sections) which can get you fairly close. By WWII everyone had this pretty much down, and it didn't go away until higher-frequency radars could let you trace artillery paths.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Early sound detection of planes and artillery led to some very interesting devices  
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:Early sound detection of planes and artillery led to some very interesting devices Early VA treatment for soldiers with hearing loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:Its fun to think how one sided WW1 would be with just a dozen pieces of modern artillery w/ trained crews given to a single side. To see it go from spray and pray of iron shells to dropping shells within a few inches of the intended placement with an HE round would have completely sent it to a one sided event i think youre really underestimating the sheer scale of conflict in ww1 bud. there were more artillery pieces employed during the great war than ww2, korea and vietnam combined by a wide margin
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:i think youre really underestimating the sheer scale of conflict in ww1 bud. there were more artillery pieces employed during the great war than ww2, korea and vietnam combined by a wide margin I get that, but my history professor (at a tech school in Southern GA, which, yeah, you're probably right) always pointed out how most artillery in WW1 was wildly innacurate, slow firing and the aiming of was more an art than a science for the longest time, all the while most shells fired were very poorly made, making accuracy an even harder hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Don't forget the war tuba  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_tuba 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Modern counter-battery is scary as gently caress. As much as I like the Triple 7, I don't have high hopes for my battery if the balloon goes up. The poo poo the Russians were able to do to the Ukrainian artillery park is pretty frightening. MRLS coming down within minutes of the Ukrainians opening up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Derek Dominoe posted:Early VA treatment for soldiers with hearing loss. Early?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Modern counter-battery is scary as gently caress. As expensive as it was, I really feel like cancelling Crusader was kind of a dumb move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Modern counter-battery is scary as gently caress. This has been the case for a long time though. I was never arty, but a classmate of mine was a loader on a Norwegian Army M109 back in 1999, and all they ever drilled was six rounds rapid and bug the gently caress out. Another classmate was a forward artillery controller, and they hardly ever drilled spotting as time for corrective spotting was regarded as a pipe dream. Then they were all given laser pointers and converted to forward air controllers instead. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Early? Wanna fart in that horn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
WW1 artillery wasn't as bad as you think. The techniques used today in the FDC were pioneered by the British and German artillery corps during WW1. Weather corrections, muzzle velocity loss from tube wear, and consolidating like ammo lots were techniques used then and now, with almost no changes. The difference today is that computers can calculate firing date using these corrections for every piece on every mission, where manual gunnery was a "good enough" solution using corrections calculated for a certain range and azimuth for the whole battery. A good FDC can calculate firing data manually aalllmost as fast as a computer can. The difference can come down to 15 seconds. Where the computer trumps is the accuracy of that firing data. Old artillery compensated by adjusting and shooting a battalion at a target. Then 200 or 300 meters doesn't matter. I wouldn't hesitate to fire off a manual chart today and would be confident in my firing data to get close enough. Area fire weapon after all. Honestly the biggest difference today is accurate gun location... you originally had to register your pieces to help determine corrections for incorrect gun location... now you just whip out a GPS. Also, surprisingly, counterfire pre-radar was pretty accurate. I've read studies saying sound location during WW2 could be accurate to within a 100 meters or so. Aerial observers were also hugely popular with the American artillery, and frequently hunted German artillery with flash spotting. A half decent map and a spotting round or two and boom rounds on target. WW2 artillerymen faced the same issues we'd be facing today and came through just fine, we'd end up suffering more from modern counterfire but it isn't the end of artillery on the battlefield. Counterfire radars actually have some pretty big disadvantages: it's an active emitter for one, so anyone with half decent EW capabilities can locate it and target it effectively. They are big and expensive, and with all the complicated electronics aren't exactly repairable by a soldier with a welding torch. They can't operate 24/7, and if the radar isn't on when you fire it can be difficult to determine the exact firing location, even it turns on and sees the round mid-flight... Poor location of the radar can have terrain (and trees! lots of trees in Europe...) obscuring the round, so placement is extremely important (and the enemy knows this too, and has a map...). Older (Soviet) style radars can only track a handful of rounds and can be overwhelmed by too many guns firing. The radar can only point in certain directions at a time, and if it isn't looking that way, it ain't seeing it. You can jam it as well. It's truly not the all seeing, all knowing god ruling over the battlefield and smiting artillery, it has definite limitations and would be targeted whenever we detected it. (I nerd out about artillery) TonySnow fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
My only experience with modern counter battery was another company's mortars almost murdering half my platoon. Pro tip: if you are going to counter fire after the COP gets mortared, make sure the mortar isn't still pointed where you were planning to shoot flares.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:As expensive as it was, I really feel like cancelling Crusader was kind of a dumb move. No, Crusader was specialized to deliver high volumes of dumb shells, like the Swedish Bandkanon or that two-barrelled Russian nightmare. It just doesn't compete with smart shells. The bigger loss was the armored resupply vehicle that went with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Meh. It's been tried. And the boys from Syracuse flew that poo poo for about one and a half ATO days during Desert Storm before they said gently caress that poo poo, give us some CBU-87s and Mk-82s please.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Yeah apparently putting avenger recoil into a bomb hard point isn't the best. So's not having a good sight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
And also not having enough penetration to kill anything with more armor than a British APC. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
oh my god it happened  brrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaphttps://youtu.be/Cuebj4kVOy4?t=68
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
I like that the Marines wanted to put one on a shipping container to put on LCACs as makeshift fire support platforms. It is such a Marine thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Artillery Nerd-Out I was really excited to read some of the accounts from Ukraine. 85% of casualties from IDF is almost on par with the World Wars and Korea. This is also a testing ground for the Russian's new artillery park, vs. the Ukrainian's which is based on the Cold War Model. For example, the Soviets and Ukrainians had 1 MRLS to 4 guns, and usually attached to higher formations. The classic piece for this is the 122mm BM-21. The Russians have increased that to 3/4, have been using smart, cluster and thermobaric warheads. The 220mm and 300mm Smersh and Uragan are available in larger numbers, and it looks like each battery may be operating their own UAVs. This is an evolutionary change, but the increased flexibility has let the Russians hit the Ukrainians particularly hard on the march. Those images of roads lined with burnt-out BMPs come from Ukrainian mechanized formations being interdicted in a way that I don't think anyone expected. On the tube side of things, I'd love to know how the Krasnopol guided shells are performing. Russian artillery doctrine was always based on weight of fire, and pre-planned missions so how they incorporate new technology would be interesting to see. The Russians also still use 203mm guns, a caliber NATO turned away from in the 90's, but I'm guessing they're mostly used to fire cluster munitions and not just massive HE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:
Quoting myself from the military history thread. I had the chance to meet a whole bunch of 8th & I Marines when they came to the fort I was working at this Summer, and we have a shared tradition of a field gun firing race. Taking part in the competition is probably one of the cooler things I've ever done. The Marines on the gun were mostly drum and bugle corps guys, and were really chill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Quoting myself from the military history thread. I had the chance to meet a whole bunch of 8th & I Marines when they came to the fort I was working at this Summer, and we have a shared tradition of a field gun firing race. Taking part in the competition is probably one of the cooler things I've ever done. The Marines on the gun were mostly drum and bugle corps guys, and were really chill. did you ask them how hard it is to wash edge dressing off their balls taint and anus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1wJ4qdxR4 Houthis hatin' on M113's (and other poo poo) 3:25 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:did you ask them how hard it is to wash edge dressing off their balls taint and anus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
I bring a gift, a glimpse of what ~could have been~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyUCSy9dzQU
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
The Saudis are having a tough time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OwwJRtAWv0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sex1fXprvS4 We shouldn't have sold them anything more sophisticated than M60s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:We shouldn't have sold them anything more sophisticated than M60s. And somehow, there would still be YouTube videos of burning M60s abandonded along the side of the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
theres a strong possibility that at least some of those tanks are m60s tho 6 road wheels=m60-2000 7 road wheels=m1 abrams
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
The turrets and hulls look completely different from one another though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:The turrets and hulls look completely different from one another though. uhhh wiki article posted:The M60-2000 was a GDLS supplied conversion kit, including the gun turret and 120 mm (4.72 in) smoothbore gun of the M1A1/M1A2, to the M60. The upgrade was marketed at those M60 users with the industrial capability to convert the tanks themselves. Along with a new turret, a new diesel powerpack and the transmission system of the M1 were installed on the M60-2000, and has been tested in a standard M60 chassis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:43 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:We shouldn't have sold them anything more sophisticated than M60s. Dead Reckoning posted:And somehow, there would still be YouTube videos of burning M60s abandonded along the side of the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:32
|
|
