Don’t get us on the news like the war thunder forum
|
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 05:11 |
|
Has there been any research into nonmetallic artillery round casings, like an epoxy granite type material using various sized ball bearings held in a plastic matrix? Maybe a hybrid round where the driving band is metal or something. It seems the bottleneck to ramping up round production is it requires molten casting and machining facilities which is capital and energy-intensive. I would imagine this would be difficult to produce a consistent product though considering how hard it would be to get repeatable CG/MOI characteristics, which would mean bad ballistic performance.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:33 |
|
The entire idea of a "universal gun" was never due to the qualities of 155mm, I'll remind you that was a WW1 howitzer projectile - with inherent limits on sectional density and gyroscopic stability. It was selected by NATO almost entirely due to the emphasis on DPICM - which could not be used in high velocity guns anyway, because of the high stresses acting on container projectiles, and was not deemed useful in 105mm gun-howitzers. 155mm projectiles accelerated slowly enough that the container would not break to pieces. That was a very, very specific situation - the Fulda Gap. There was nothing inherent about the 155mm that makes it a good, or even suitable, choice for use as a light field gun (replacing 105mm) or any kind of long range system. The weight of gun and carriage required is barely worth it at extended ranges considering the expense to deliver less and less explosives (shell walls must be thicker to accelerate to extended ranges, unless basebleed or RA are used... which reduce the space available for fill even more). I'll add that the universal gun-howitzer concept was built entirely around the M109, a vehicle provided to NATO en masse so that it could be used in a CBRN contaminated battlefield and keep up with mechanized forces while protected under armour. Almost none of that applies to the current generation of guns after the M109. Outside of the Fulda Gap, what are we doing here? The other reason planners of the late 70's and 80's wanted the 155mm projectile was for guidance, initially laser, later GPS. Here, again, the reason it was chosen in the first place points to the limitations. 105mm projectiles were too small, so we can quickly move beyond that. Higher velocity guns would shake the guidance units apart, they could not withstand acceleration. Only, we still see very high failure rates in the (relatively) slowly accelerating 155mm Excalibur and Copperhead. This was justifiable in the context of WW3, as was the greatly reduced capacity. Now, if you're talking about a guidance unit and RA or base bleed - because the same slow acceleration the prevents the DPICM container from breaking apart or the guidance unit from breaking (more often) also limits range - you are delivering an actual amount of explosives that pound for pound, considering the cost of the gun, carriage and projectile, is almost unjustifiable. Every single one of these applications of 155mm beyond a certain point becomes more expensive and less useful as they stretch the calibre beyond any common sense. If the requirement is to deliver HE, WP, Illum, Smoke, and DPICM in a variable range band at either gun or howitzer trajectories, that was satisfied by the mid 70's. The idea of a super gun that can be all things to all people at absurd ranges will only lead to more expense in gun, carriage and projectile, while reducing performance in terms of weight of fire delivered to target and certainly in terms of cost effectiveness. People have forgotten what the calibre is for and why it was adopted in the first place. Imagine if this much effort went into making sure .30-06 was a viable extreme range precision cartridge into the 21st century, and a lightweight assault rifle cartridge, and a duplex or triplex projectile. Justin Tyme posted:Has there been any research into nonmetallic artillery round casings, like an epoxy granite type material using various sized ball bearings held in a plastic matrix? It seems the bottleneck to ramping up round production is it requires molten casting and machining facilities which is capital and energy-intensive. For mortar bombs, yes, for anything else, no, it could not withstand firing and be economical and have the same capacity as steel equivalents. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 17:41 on Mar 9, 2024 |
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:34 |
|
which caliber is most suited to deliver vx gas? (remembering a picture i once saw from one of the stalls at a weapons expo)
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:42 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:You're more than welcome to run a calculator comparing the form factor of 175mm projectiles against 155mm Thanks, this supports my argument. 203 and 175 never had a range of 70km. The US continues to debate whether or not the 70km range 155mm is worth it or not.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:42 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Thanks, this supports my argument. 203 and 175 never had a range of 70km. The US continues to debate whether or not the 70km range 155mm is worth it or not. Jfc.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:43 |
|
hear me out here, what if you had one big gun with a series of smaller barrels nesting inside the big barrel and you could just add or remove them depending on what caliber you want to use? that'll be ten million dollars in r&d and consultation fees thank you very much, and if you pay me an additional 100 million i will see to it that said wondercannons will be built and delivered at a future date
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:44 |
|
KomradeX posted:Was it this thread or the Ukraine thread were we talked about the US being unprepared for how costly a peer air war actually is? Because I was just reminded of something I read earlier this week where a guy was talking about how he had a harder time connecting to Masters of the Air, vs Band of Brothers jjst for how relentless, grim and unavoidable all the deaths were why Band of Brothers was more dramatically satisfying with their deaths. Like fighting Iraq for 20 years has really hosed with our preceptions and I think in a way history has been revised to reflect that to where people downplay our air losses.in Vietnam. It really has lost all touch with reality I don’t think we can expect to see WW2-scale losses of aircraft ever again just because nobody fields that many aircraft anymore, but the US has internalized this idea that a combat aircraft is supposed to be invincible and that losing even one is a defeat, which is just absurdly unrealistic With the kind of operational tempo a peer conflict demands, you are going to lose some pilots and machines just from maintenance problems or pilot error without ever even seeing the enemy - I can guarantee you it’s happened on both sides of the Ukraine war. You’ll also have aircraft that aren’t damaged enough to be shot down but get written off as losses upon returning to base, or which will take weeks to repair - and, yeah, inevitably a lot getting shot down, too. The US lost aircraft invading loving Grenada, a microstate the size of a small American city which had no military and didn’t even try to shoot back Today if one US aircraft were shot down by an enemy it’d be front page news and probably a talking point in the upcoming election, losing 10 in one day would be a Pearl Harbor level national outrage, losing dozens completely unthinkable, yet aircraft losses were just a normal day-to-day part of warfare as recently as Vietnam
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:45 |
|
also if the us wanted to move an artillery shell 70 km they'd just send in mlp and tell him that it's actually a set of goalposts
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:46 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Jfc. I mean, it does. You were hinting that there were large caliber guns that already fired 70km. When asked for an example, you dodged on 203mm and implied that 175mm could fire 70km. When asked again to show your work, you provided evidence that there never were large caliber guns firing 70km and that 175mm was firing less than half that far. The 70km range might or might not be a good idea, but you had to retreat from your original claim that there were already cannons with reach of 70km. Would it be possible to build some rocket assistance or base bleed on a whole new very large caliber gun? Probably. Would that be a good idea either, given drag and weight of such a thing? Probably not. At that point you're almost certainly in the world where rocket artillery does it better tthan having some rail-car sized cannon firing rocket-component rounds out to 70km when things like GMLRS and other tactical missiles already exist in smaller and easier form factors. China, Russia, and the US have all opted for rocket artillery for large warhead delivery to such ranges, in lieu of inventing a new type of 203/207/175 class gun and new-design rounds to go with it. The US is kind of an outlier in considering special purpose rounds of 155mm out to 70km. A RAP round 175mm or 203mm would probably be even more of a boondoggle than what is being experimented with now. I never forced you to make up the idea that 175 and 203 could fire to 70km; you came up with that bogus claim all on your own. If I'm wrong and someone out there has built 175mm+ rounds that are going 70km, please let me know. Especially if they're reasonably accurate. Bonus if they actually fielded it instead of looking at it and saying "this is a bad idea"
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:52 |
|
The most unrealistic part of Shin Godzilla is not the kaiju, it’s that after he destroys a significant portion of the USAF’s B-2 fleet the US continues negotiating with Japan and even agrees to help with their plan later, instead of the entire country suffering a collective psychotic break When the Japanese-American lady met with her boss he should have realistically been speaking in tongues and frothing at the mouth
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 17:54 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:also if the us wanted to move an artillery shell 70 km they'd just send in mlp and tell him that it's actually a set of goalposts
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:03 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:also if the us wanted to move an artillery shell 70 km they'd just send in mlp and tell him that it's actually a set of goalposts
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:07 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:The entire idea of a "universal gun" was never due to the qualities of 155mm, I'll remind you that was a WW1 howitzer projectile - with inherent limits on sectional density and gyroscopic stability. It was selected by NATO almost entirely due to the emphasis on DPICM - which could not be used in high velocity guns anyway, because of the high stresses acting on container projectiles, and was not deemed useful in 105mm gun-howitzers. 155mm projectiles accelerated slowly enough that the container would not break to pieces. the 70km shell will be used to fire at a dugout consisting of a few guys on the very front line if we're going to go by the ukrainian experience of firing at the most farthest range possible for nato trained troops
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:12 |
|
I figured I'd check to see if China has some kind of very large cannon, but their very extended range cannon is also a 155mm, rather than opting to extend ranges on 175mm+ cannons. There are some reports that China might be revisiting 203mm families, after having abandoned the idea in previous rounds due to technical and operational problems with the idea. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/04/chinas-secretive-quest-heavier-artillery/385709/ If China figures out a way to make it worthwhile, that will be interesting and break the mold we see today.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:16 |
|
“No one improved projectiles that were dropped to chase universal calibre fairies” is not an argument against the projectile, or laws of ballistics, but the same theory that underpinned it. If they wanted to achieve those ranges, they should not have decided to universally adopt 155mm. They cannot resolve the problems that spring from that choice anymore than they can the others, like replacing lightweight, towed airborne and airmobile 105mm howitzers with 155mm gun-howitzers created the problem of “our carriages shake themselves apart”. The issue is not that it’s impossible to develop guns with range or carriages that are light and durable, but that their own decisions put them in a technical dead end. All of the arguments for universal 155mm - like lower cost than fielding multiple calibres for instance - are irrelevant now that it will continue to drive costs upwards in guns, carriages and projectiles to do what they want to do with a calibre that can’t do it. The new 777 they’re proposing is severely unbalanced and overweight because of the longer barrel, and the “solution” to lighten it with titanium means they will be trashing these guns on a regular basis. It would be cheaper to have a lightweight howitzer and a long range gun, clearly than try to engineer yourself out of that hole. Also, it’s a theoretical contradiction to desire “universality” that is only achievable with boutique handcrafted tools. The former implied cheapness and simplicity - all M109s - only now we’re trying to replace every conceivable piece of ordnance and their missions with over-engineered and incredibly expensive systems. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 18:21 on Mar 9, 2024 |
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:17 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:“No one improved projectiles that were dropped to chase universal calibre fairies” is not an argument against the projectile, or laws of ballistics, but the same theory that underpinned it. Can you name an example of another nation going the other way, successfully fielding 175 or 203 to get ranges of 70km? I gather that you disagree with the US gun designs, sure. What are some successful examples of another country fielding larger cannon rounds that reach to 70km?
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:21 |
|
mlmp08 posted:That you need to practice and organize to be successful for wet gap crossings. Which is less a lesson from Ukraine, and more a constant of warfare since forever, though tactics and tech change.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:22 |
|
Is your argument against ballistic coefficients and sectional densities, or what? What’s easier - starting from the theoretically sound place, or trying to design yourself around the limits of ballistics?
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:22 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Jfc. Why do you buys entertain this clown xD He has never nor will ever argue in anything approaching good faith. Dudes a shitweasle and a waste of time, the worst sort of lob.. If you left him with a jar of peanut butter, he'd gently caress it.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:23 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Is your argument against ballistic coefficients and sectional densities, or what? I am asking for your example of 175 or 203 rounds successfully fielded by any nation that reaches 70km. You’re saying they are the obvious solution, but the US just stupidly avoided the solution. If that is an obvious solution and the US is just being dumb, what other country pursued it? Did they successfully field this research or choose to avandon it? Provide an example.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:25 |
|
https://twitter.com/jesusfroman/status/1766370853304901636 President Xi, please send Hezbollah DJI FPVs to use in their war of liberation against Israel tia.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:29 |
|
Frosted Flakes your argument has devolved from: “This already existed” to “Okay, I was wrong, it never existed, but It could have existed if the US wasn’t dumb” to “I wish a country existed that would invest in my good ideas, but they all refuse to acknowledge my special expertise” There comes a point where if you are arguing in favor of the thing no military has fielded, even after evaluating it and deciding to go another way, maybe your good idea was not a good one.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:30 |
|
Mister Bates posted:I don’t think we can expect to see WW2-scale losses of aircraft ever again just because nobody fields that many aircraft anymore, but the US has internalized this idea that a combat aircraft is supposed to be invincible and that losing even one is a defeat, which is just absurdly unrealistic I'm not saying we're seeing WW2 numbers, just their modern equivalent. Which would be horrible and unimaginable to the modern American
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:31 |
|
If the navy was able to push 203mm subcaliber projectiles out to 66km in the 1960s 70km should be easily doable today.http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk12-15.php#ammonote6 posted:In the late 1960s the "Gunfighter" program at Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station developed Long Range Bombardment Ammunition (LRBA) projectiles. These were Arrow Shells with a body diameter of 4.125" (10.4 cm) and a fin diameter of 5.0" (12.7 cm) which were sized to be fired from 8" (20.3 cm) guns by using a sabot and obturator system. Tests with these in 1968 showed maximum ranges of 72,000 yards (66,000 m). The burster in these shells was PBX-w-106, a castable explosive. Sabot weighed 17.6 lbs. (8.0 kg) and was discarded as the projectile left the muzzle. After a test firing off Okinawa of three inert-loaded shells, USS St. Paul (CA-73) in 1970 conducted a two day bombardment mission against Viet Cong positions at ranges up to 70,000 yards (64,000 m). At the time, St. Paul was the only 8" gunned cruiser still in active service.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:37 |
|
mlmp08 posted:“I wish a country existed that would invest in my good ideas Do think I learned about ballistics in a one room schoolhouse or taught myself in my free time? Or that I paid for my own education in this stuff at all? A country literally did invest in teaching me, and pays for ideas - about this subject - now. I’m not a travelling salesman, going from town to town in search of tutoring the town’s boys in gunnery. e: though I’m tickled you’re describing something like sophistry DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 18:42 on Mar 9, 2024 |
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:38 |
|
wouldn't a bigger shell like 203mm mean a rocket assist would be more effective?
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:41 |
|
Stairmaster posted:wouldn't a bigger shell like 203mm mean a rocket assist would be more effective? Yes but 203mm howitzer shells are short and fat and 203mm guns, like naval guns, are huge and require something like a fixed platform or railway gun on land.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:43 |
|
Polikarpov posted:If the navy was able to push 203mm subcaliber projectiles out to 66km in the 1960s 70km should be easily doable today. Now show me that gun being fielded on land by any nation that would consider it a good idea to add to their land forces.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:45 |
|
mlmp08 posted:Now show me that gun being fielded on land by any nation that would consider it a good idea to add to their land forces. Cerebral Bore posted:also if the us wanted to move an artillery shell 70 km they'd just send in mlp and tell him that it's actually a set of goalposts
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:46 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Yes but 203mm howitzer shells are short and fat and 203mm guns, like naval guns, are huge and require something like a fixed platform or railway gun on land. With how Nazi inspired NATO militaries are I'm shocked they haven't done a tracked "railway" gun
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:47 |
|
KomradeX posted:With how Nazi inspired NATO militaries are I'm shocked they haven't done a tracked "railway" gun Well, I think it’s because going back to the beginning, the M109 was supposed to be a cheap, simple, solution, that would allow them to do away with crazy expense and complexity, but now it’s inverted. It’s like they forgot that 155mm was a cheap compromise. Or the MIC overrode other considerations, or pushing 155mm beyond the limits is more profitable than more cheaply getting that performance from better suited calibres.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 18:50 |
|
I’d say it’s goalpost shifting to say “I could not find a ground system for field artillery, but check out this ship in the ocean.” Ships are famously larger than field artillery units and don’t need to worry about roads and mobility and carry their own ammo stores inside them once deployed. It would be possible to build some insane mega-gun on land; it’s just a dumb idea. Hence why Hitler’s big dumb railroad gun was not repeated.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:06 |
|
would having 80km range shells even be a good idea? considering the strain 40km range shells put on the artillery piece wouldnt it just be better to use rockets or drones
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:11 |
|
Megamissen posted:would having 80km range shells even be a good idea? Yeah that’s the reasonable argument against.
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:13 |
mlmp08 posted:I’d say it’s goalpost shifting to say “I could not find a ground system for field artillery, but check out this ship in the ocean.”
|
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:31 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:
I've sold mono-railguns to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and by gum, it put them on the map!
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:32 |
|
It's easier to manufacture rockets and missiles than artillery shells for this distance. Until you start getting into smart artillery which is basically a flying by wire guided missile being shot out of an artillery canon
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:36 |
|
mlmp08 posted:I’d say it’s goalpost shifting to say “I could not find a ground system for field artillery, but check out this ship in the ocean.” What the gently caress do you think 155mm, aka 6 inch originated as? What were all 6 inch guns until partway through the Great War? It was a naval gun clumsily adapted for land use during the Boer War, and then used as a howitzer with reduced charge. That’s why the ballistics are what they are, it’s derived from the naval shells of the 1890’s. The shape has improved, the basic dimensions and limitations are what they are. It’s as old as, and has similar ballistic limitations to, 8mm Lebel and .303 British. DJJIB-DJDCT has issued a correction as of 19:50 on Mar 9, 2024 |
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 05:11 |
|
mlmp08 posted:I’d say it’s goalpost shifting to say “I could not find a ground system for field artillery, but check out this ship in the ocean.” Battleships?
|
# ? Mar 9, 2024 19:52 |