|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1640278496118439937 this is like when I play Allied General and have so much prestige that all my artillery are M7 Priests and Mk1 Bishops
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
you can trust wheels tho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 07:21
|
|
|
I wonder if the elimination of 152mm guns at the brigade level was the right choice though, I would argue this war has showed more than the importance of mobility but the lethality brought by large caliber artillery on the battlefield. You want something that can beat down fortifications and can assure constant attrition. Mobility is fine but I think this war has showed though it isn't necessarily going to always be possible and once frontline holds you need something with a higher caliber. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 08:59 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 08:56
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I wonder if the elimination of 152mm guns at the brigade level was the right choice though, I would argue this war has showed more than the importance of mobility but the lethality brought by large caliber artillery on the battlefield. You want something that can beat down fortifications and can assure constant attrition. I guess if you produce more than half the world's steel you don't really have to choose one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 09:37
|
|
|
genericnick posted:I guess if you produce more than half the world's steel you don't really have to choose one or the other. They have 155mm guns and spgs, it is more about doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
Truck mounted guns have the fragility and bulk of a truck, so can’t be camouflaged or dug in easily either. It’s still halfway embracing 90’s ideas of deployability and mobility. I think 122mm is a fairly reasonable choice. The move to 155/152mm artillery as a general purpose field gun instead of Medium Artillery (in artillery bdes) was because it was more suitable for container munitions like DPICM. If you remove that, in terms of bulk, weight, requiring a rammer etc. it’s not really a great choice for most applications. 122mm is considered by many almost an ideal calibre in ballistics, capacity, etc. It outperforms 105mm without the gun and carriage needing to be much bigger, it’s lighter than 152mm, the shells can be manhandled by one man, you can ram with or without assistance. If you think of the utility of the 5” naval gun, they’re very similar. 122mm is also just big enough to fit guidance units or container munitions, though again, I think people really overstated the importance of either in the Cold War. As for the doctrine of it, usually you do have a mix of 2 or 3:1 of batteries or regiments of your smaller calibre to larger, so 105mm to 155mm, 122mm to 152mm and then one echelon up 152/155mm to 203mm or these days MRLS. Having this mixture be within division or brigade artillery or as independent brigades is an organizational choice, and I suppose depends on how you arrange tasking. If Joe platoon commander able to call on the separate artillery bde’s guns? Or are they firing preplanned missions or coordinated by their own dedicated FOOs and UAVs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
i feel like the solution to this is to build a telescoping cannon with some kind of adjustable inner barrel so it can shoot ammunition of any caliber and also double as a convenient fastener for poles and such hey defense folks i know you're reading this so that will be a billion dollars please, you can wire it to my cayman islands holding company
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:i feel like the solution to this is to build a telescoping cannon with some kind of adjustable inner barrel so it can shoot ammunition of any caliber and also double as a convenient fastener for poles and such This has been an extended grift by Rheinmetall for over 30 years now, who promised an autocannon that could be converted from 20/25/30/35mm in the field. I can look for the documents on it but, lol yes you are starting to think like a contractor now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Truck mounted guns have the fragility and bulk of a truck, so can’t be camouflaged or dug in easily either. It’s still halfway embracing 90’s ideas of deployability and mobility. I would say the issue in the future is going to the type of environment you have to plan for. Mobility is useful but then the question become when you have to deal with heavy fortified/urban environments when you have to potentially cut through concrete apartment buildings. It seems like the blast potential for 152/155 would simply be higher even if it is more awkward. If the Chinese needed to turn a city into dust what would be the best solution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
If an artillery barrel can only shoot about 100 rounds before it has to be replaced, an adjustable barrel seems like a non-starter from a practical standpoint because it would cost more for very little reason. And i suppose if you're replacing the barrel you'd need a workshop to get it precisely in place. Therefore the best solution is a multi-barrelled gun. It could have one firing platform and some kind of revolving mechanism to switch the active barrel in the field. The platforms are probably more profitable than the barrels anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say the issue in the future is going to the type of environment you have to plan for. Mobility is useful but then the question become when you have to deal with heavy fortified/urban environments when you have to potentially cut through concrete apartment buildings. It seems like the blast potential for 152/155 would simply be higher even if it is more awkward. If the Chinese needed to turn a city into dust what would be the best solution? 152/203. This has always been a, some might say the problem. A good field gun - which traditionally separated them from siege guns - is lightweight, mobile, rapidly fires a flat shooting projectile that is effective against targets in the open (a field battle, if you follow me). So that would be your 75mm shrapnel shell and later 105mm VT. Now, the problem in both of the world wars was that they are very effective, the enemy naturally digs in, even in field battles, because trenches are no longer a feature of sieges but what every infantry unit does when they pause. Well as soon as that happens, the effectiveness of these calibres and their projectiles declines pretty steeply. Part of the reason the Great War played out as it did on the Western Front is that 75mm guns firing shrapnel shells, used by all sides, could rapidly mow down any attack in the open but could not destroy entrenchments. So, obviously bigger, heavier guns were produced, and in 1916 the British and French can consistently break through German front line trenches. Only, the bigger guns can’t be moved up through the moonscape of craters and barbed wire to new gun positions, let alone manhandled, the Germans counterattack, because their artillery doesn’t need to be repositioned, and the Entente offensive stalls out having broken in, but never through, German lines. It’s why SP mounts were originally for these bigger guns. Anyway, I suppose my point in all of this is that there have nearly always been two main calibres of gun, alongside mortars and howitzers in use. Obviously, more than that in practice, but in theory, going back to Napoleonic 6 and 12 pdrs. You need the mobility, rapidity and flat shooting of a lighter gun for meeting engagements and battles of manoeuvre, and you need something more substantial if that fails. The 122mm is about as close as there’s been to a universal gun, because it’s a compromise between the two “bands” of 100/102/105mm and 149/150/152/155mm, or 4” and 6” naval guns, but against concrete, yeah it’s not very satisfactory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Granted, I think I am just biased against “universal” concepts, standardization is good and you want supply chains but you often lose something in that compromise. I won’t get into the f-35, that is a bit too low of a bar, but there is also the mg42 which was proof of the possible effectiveness of a universal machine gun conscript and it certainly wasn’t a bad gun. However, you could also argue this lead to some gaps for the Germans on either end of the spectrum (very light squad support weapons or heavy .50 cals). The Chinese have access to higher calibers, so I don’t think it is decisive liability but again I think perhaps they are fighting the last war so to speak. That said, I think it will take time to fully absorb what went on in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Part of this choice may be a matter of industrial / logistical policy though, because as I said all Chinese 155mm guns are licence built copies of an Austro-Canadian gun from the 1980’s, a fairly expensive one too. Because of that, and new Chinese medium guns are based on it and therefore 155mm, they had to do something about their legacy park of 152mm guns to simplify their supply situation anyways. Rather than replace them 1:1 with 155mm guns, 122mm guns are the budget option, not just in the cost of the guns but the licence. The cost of a new truck based SP mount is higher than a new towed gun and prime mover (you could have used existing trucks with new guns), but less than the armoured and tracked SP mounts they’ve favoured for 155mm guns. This also frees up their stockpile of 152mm shells to give to an ally in need, if that diplomatic card proves useful. e: To your point on GPMG, I don’t disagree. There’s a reason that M60s and FN MAGs were augmented by FN Minimis. In theory, the universal machine gun can do everything, in practice the Arab Israeli Wars, Vietnam and the Troubles proved it’s pretty heavy to lug around all day. I think the Germans have some sort of LMG now in addition to the MG3? They were the last holdouts iirc. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 16:02 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
If only we hadn't let Mossad assassinate Gerald Bull, we could build a bunch of artillery guns in Missouri and shoot at anywhere else in the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
sullat posted:If only we hadn't let Mossad assassinate Gerald Bull, we could build a bunch of artillery guns in Missouri and shoot at anywhere else in the world. Gerald Bull did noth...well... uhhhh... hmmm
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say the issue in the future is going to the type of environment you have to plan for. Mobility is useful but then the question become when you have to deal with heavy fortified/urban environments when you have to potentially cut through concrete apartment buildings. It seems like the blast potential for 152/155 would simply be higher even if it is more awkward. If the Chinese needed to turn a city into dust what would be the best solution? rocket artillery, which the Chinese have a ton of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Gerald Bull did noth...well... uhhhh... hmmm Look, who amongst us hasn't turned to a little arms dealing to fund our hobbies?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:rocket artillery, which the Chinese have a ton of. Larger caliber rocket artillery is also more expensive and time consuming to produce than HE, China has it but it probably isn’t going to an efficient use of it. I would have having to use Western licensing is also its own issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Larger caliber rocket artillery is also more expensive and time consuming to produce than HE, China has it but it probably isn’t going to an efficient use of it. Do countries usually uphold licensing laws from other countries that they're in direct war with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
NeonPunk posted:Do countries usually uphold licensing laws from other countries that they're in direct war with? I would say the issue is before the war tbh. They got this tech but it does force compromises.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Germany paid Hiram Maxim and John Browning for their licences, at least during the Great War. No idea how that would work now. Rocket artillery is also usually (much) less expensive than guns of the same calibre. If you were to design a gun to fire a firework, you would need a built up tube, chamber and breech mechanism to fire the same projectile as a waxed cardboard tube, when it’s attached to a rocket. That distinction is more obvious with things like Congreve and Hale’s rockets, WW2 rail launched rockets etc. but systems like the Type 63 as well  Because acceleration takes place over time, both the launcher and projectile only have to withstand the impulse of firing, which is much lower than a gun’s which must produce enough energy to sustain the projectile through the whole flight in an instant. Granted, that changes with liquid fuels or more complex solid fuel designs, guidance units etc etc. e: It would be more fair to say rocket artillery is intended to be simpler and less expensive than guns of the same calibre. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 18:22 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
Doesn't it also scale better? Like you can have a whole rack of 250mm rockets fired all at once from one vehicle vs a battery of 203mm guns slowly firing one round at a time
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:26
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Doesn't it also scale better? Like you can have a whole rack of 250mm rockets fired all at once from one vehicle vs a battery of 203mm guns slowly firing one round at a time The problem at that point would be accuracy, that you want to level a specific building. Obviously, there are more accurate rockets but they usually also cost significantly more. The Chinese have large accurate rockets but the issue becomes one of efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Germany paid Hiram Maxim and John Browning for their licences, at least during the Great War. No idea how that would work now. when I was a kid we went on several school class trips to decommissioned naval vessels (there are a ton of them in NJ) and one of the things that really struck me were how there were some interesting weapons systems that were never in the war movies I watched, probably because they just weren't exciting or cinematic this is a "hedgehog" launcher, hedgehogs are basically small depth charges that would only ignite if they made direct contact with a submarine, they'd launch a bunch rapidly and were found to be more efficient (in terms of the ratio of number of attacks vs sub kills) than depth charges designed to detonate at certain depths and create much larger explosions that were close enough to damage subs with shockwaves comparatively cheap, simple and effective but not sexy enough to compete for screen time with torpedoes and depth charges
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Doesn't it also scale better? Like you can have a whole rack of 250mm rockets fired all at once from one vehicle vs a battery of 203mm guns slowly firing one round at a time Yes, sort of. It’s offset by the reloading time for rockets, which on the larger end need winches and cranes, and the logistics because those rocket reloads take up far more space. Just like you can think of a gun vs rocket motor as immediate or sustained impulse, how they deliver weight of fire over time has a similar distinction. Only it’s reversed, with rockets delivering weight of fire immediately but not sustainably. It’s why rockets are used to open big preplanned missions, smothering targets in initial strikes, or hitting depots, HQ etc, while tube artillery maintains fire throughout the fire plan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Seems like a missed opportunity, a sub having to dodge a rain of little death bombs would be cool to see
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Yes, sort of. It’s offset by the reloading time for rockets, which on the larger end need winches and cranes, and the logistics because those rocket reloads take up far more space. That makes sense Really what everyone needs to develop is an LRM20 mounted on a truck
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The problem at that point would be accuracy, that you want to level a specific building. Obviously, there are more accurate rockets but they usually also cost significantly more. Trade off i suppose, how much efficiency do you need when leveling a city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
what's the big difference between 155mm and 152mm. three millimeters big whoop. just wrap some tinfoil around the 152s and put them in the big gun
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Really what everyone needs to develop is an LRM20 mounted on a truck in the distant future of 3050, long range missiles max out at a ways short of 3km. incredible reload times and ammo capacity though yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:57
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Trade off i suppose, how much efficiency do you need when leveling a city. I would argue in a logistics sense it would probably be the important thing. It is going to get millions of rounds of something so you probably want the most price/cost efficient bang. Granted, I don’t think it is something that may come up immediately but it is a lingering question from this conflict of how to deal with entrenched defenders in urban areas without just blasting them out. Best Friends posted:in the distant future of 3050, long range missiles max out at a ways short of 3km. Mechwarrior probably wouldn’t be fun if your giant building sized walking vehicle was just being constantly pelted with guided missiles from every angle to be fair. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 19:02 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
but actually what is the difference between 152 and 155. if 152 is being replaced by 122 by the PLA I assume it's appreciably less powerful, but it's almost the same size so: why
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
indigi posted:but actually what is the difference between 152 and 155. if 152 is being replaced by 122 by the PLA I assume it's appreciably less powerful, but it's almost the same size so: why 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
that's a really bad terminology system then
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
explosive charges and rockets are for cowards, real warriors only use spring-powered munitions
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:explosive charges and rockets are for cowards, real warriors only use spring-powered munitions PIAT lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
why do mortars make a cool fwump sound when they launch in movies instead of a boom?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:why do mortars make a cool fwump sound when they launch in movies instead of a boom? They do in real life as well. They have a much lower pressure. I'm sure the science has something to do with the shockwave, speed of sound or whatever, but the gist is that they have much less muzzle energy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
eventually the fwump sound will have to be pumped out of the mortar speakers bmw style
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:eventually the fwump sound will have to be pumped out of the mortar speakers bmw style Wait, is the engine noise coming through cabin speakers in bmws? lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 20:06
|
|