Is there a need for field guns?

Christian Hill
Christian Hill

Is there a need for field guns?

Attached: German-First-World-War-110-cm-K-04-Field-Gun--Advance-East-of-Arras--France--Aug-1918---MIKAN-No--3397930.jpg (194.78 KB, 927x566)

Other urls found in this thread:

military-today.com/artillery/2s31_vena.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanterikanonvagn_91
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m933.htm
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/Rooikat.php
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/ratel/
military-today.com/artillery/draco.htm

Colton Cooper
Colton Cooper

No. We have man-portable things that fit the same need.

Attached: AT4.png (206.14 KB, 929x520)
Attached: RPG-32.png (672.05 KB, 712x487)

Joshua Scott
Joshua Scott

They were a bad idea from the start. Use a mortar, its more versatile and better suited to quickly developing front lines.

Carson Flores
Carson Flores

A mortar has a much longer time of flight making it harder to hit vehicles.

Justin Morales
Justin Morales

Use portable AT then. Or call for air support. Or artillery.

Lincoln Hall
Lincoln Hall

You couldn't do that during the beginning of the 20th century, dipshit

Samuel Nguyen
Samuel Nguyen

Is there a need for field guns?
"muh beginning of the 20th century"

What the fuck are you talking about? No one is arguing over why anyone used field guns, the thread is about whether there's any use for them now.

Matthew Parker
Matthew Parker

You will never be this retarded
Feels good man

Attached: fufufu.png (406.28 KB, 673x851)

Charles Long
Charles Long

Anything that big and heavy needs to be self-propelled today, and as others pointed out, you have weapons with similar firepower that can be be moved and operated by a single man.
I'm not sure why'd you want to use such weapons against vehicles, but the Russians seem to came up with a solution to the problem of long time of flight:
military-today.com/artillery/2s31_vena.htm
This mortar system can be used as mortar or howitzer, delivering direct or indirect fire. Maximum range of fire is 7.2 km with mortar mines and 13 km with gun shells. Various munitions can be used, including HEAT, HE-FRAG, smoke. Vena is compatible with all munitions, developed for the Soviet/Russian 120 mm combined gun/mortar systems. It can also fire any 120 mm mortar rounds.
Or if we want something more esoteric, then take a look at high-low cannons:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
Because the ammunition was developed from the standard infantry mortar, any type of round developed for the mortar could have been readily adapted for the 8H63, including high-explosive (HE), smoke and illuminating rounds. The HE round, the 8 cm W Gr Patr 5071 with a 4.46 kg projectile and total round weight of 8.30 kg was developed. This could employ three different charge increments for maximum ranges of 3,400 meters @ 220 mps, 5,600 meters @ 320 mps or 6,200 meters at 420 mps - about three times the range of the mortar and with the possibility of direct or indirect fire.
81mm mortars have a muzzle velocity of 220m/s, so it would be faster. And you could scale it up to 120mm.

Are those five and six pointed starts that are painted on to act as camo?

Attached: 2s31-vena.jpg (88.28 KB, 600x392)
Attached: PAW600-8cm-1.jpg (22.67 KB, 495x201)
Attached: PAW-600-ammo.jpg (120.12 KB, 1022x476)

Landon Robinson
Landon Robinson

ATGMs, tanks, Howtizer-Guns and such have basically replaced them.

they exist in practice (tanks and howitzer-guns) but on their own with just their role no it's too limited.

Evan Watson
Evan Watson

high-low cannons
The 90mm armament of the Swedish IKV-91 tank destroyer was a high-low gun firing HEAT rounds in the AT role.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanterikanonvagn_91

Logan Jackson
Logan Jackson

Just says low pressure, any more details you can find anywhere else?

David Rivera
David Rivera

The leaf said they were a bad idea from the start i.e. the early 20th century. It was a reply to that.

Blake Williams
Blake Williams

Yes.

Attached: 11111111111111111111111111.png (390.72 KB, 1273x541)

Parker Brown
Parker Brown

They've been largely replaced in their role by SPGs and heavy armor, but they're still useful for specialist units like paratroopers that can't operate armor for whatever reason.

Mortars aren't very good for anti-structure work, you want a low-angle gun for that.

Ayden Foster
Ayden Foster

You name me a single man-portable RPG or missile launcher that can fire over a thousand kilometers precisely while also being capable of leveling the radial area of both vehicles and structures.

Hudson Barnes
Hudson Barnes

Ok
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin
Effective firing range 4,750 meters
8.4kg/18.5lb warhead

Julian Nelson
Julian Nelson

over a thousand kilometers
Doctor Bull? Is that you? Are you going to take revenge for what Mossad did to you?

Dominic Cox
Dominic Cox

Anti-tank missile
Unless your looking dead at a structure you aren't going to magically lock on to it as if it were a vehicle from the distance it's effective range is rated. Compared to artillery you aren't going to be carrying many warheads to do anything else besides knock out a tank or two. Good luck clearing a forest line of infantry with a single warhead too.

Jaxon Cooper
Jaxon Cooper

Good luck clearing a forest line of infantry with a single warhead too
Good luck clearing a forest line of infantry with a single shell.

Hudson Diaz
Hudson Diaz

you aren't going to magically lock on to it
You don't lock on at all with field guns. You have less range with field guns. You have less precision with field guns. You have less penetration capability with field guns. Field guns are not meant to clear a forest line. You are confusing indirect artillery with field guns. Please accept that you have autism and blatantly antique pieces combined with their blatantly antique doctrine will not outperform guided missiles with HEAT.

Angel Gomez
Angel Gomez

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (184.96 KB, 376x302)

Blake Lopez
Blake Lopez

Attached: Bees.jpg (28.24 KB, 496x304)
Attached: more-FSB-Jager.jpg (72.39 KB, 512x336)

Ayden Barnes
Ayden Barnes

Would it be possible to replace the tail section of a mortar shell with the chambers required for a high-low system? And how much would it imporve performance? Of course, you'd have to keep the shell fin-stabilized if you want to use it in a non-rifled mortar, and you couldn't change the number of charges so easily, or more lthere would be just one fixed charge inside the high-pressure chamber. But maybe this way you could use a gun-mortar as an effective high-low cannon for direct fire and also for indirect fire at longer ranges. E.g. use high-low shells for direct fire against targets 1-3km away, use normal low-pressure shells for indirect fire in the same range, and use high-low shells for indirect fire against targets further away.

By the way, according to this page flight time for this 120mm mortar varies between 2 and 22 seconds, depending on range and the number of charges:
fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m933.htm

Kevin Gutierrez
Kevin Gutierrez

ClipboardImage.png
That's really cute.

Joshua Reyes
Joshua Reyes

It wouldn't increase performance much unless you turn it into an infantry gun with some sort of breech loading system.

The system uses about as much charge for as much velocity to mass of a projectile of a regular system. The advantage just makes the gun itself lighter and makes the projectile walls thinner so it can hold more charge.(or even using a lighter material overall).

You can theoretically even make APSFDS rounds for a Hi-Lo system.

Jeremiah Roberts
Jeremiah Roberts

If you want to bring back field guns, then bolt them on IFVs. The Ratel 90, as the name suggests has a 90mm gun for direct fire, and it can still carry 6 soldiers. And even the Americans managed to put an unmanned turret with a 105mm gun and an autoloader on a Stryker. Although that vehicle doesn't carry infantry, so that is more like an armoured car. And of course it's the good old 105mm L7 tank gun, not an artillery gun. But look at South Africa again: Denel applied Gerald Bull's witchcraft to make the G7, a 105mm howitzer with a maximum range of 32km (although that's with base bleed projectile). And they were plans to put it on a Rooikat. So I think it would be possible to go all out and make an IFV that has a 105mm howitzer in its turret.
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/Rooikat.php
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/ratel/

Attached: Ratel-90.jpg (2 MB, 3532x1616)
Attached: Ratel-90-armyrecognition-South-Africa-008.jpg (229.93 KB, 1024x683)

Noah Hill
Noah Hill

GRRRRRRRRR! HOW DARE YOU NOT METICULOUSLY DOWNLOAD AND SAVE EVERY SINGLE REACTION IMAGE THAT YOU PLAN TO USE ONCE!?

Attached: hansolosmirk.gif (886.43 KB, 294x233)

David Rogers
David Rogers

Around ww2 most nations tried to use the same gun in anti-air, anti-tank, and field gun roles. Soviet 76.2mm guns were actually quite good at combining the later two. And German 88mm Flak guns were really used at all three roles, although usually because they were simply underequipped and had no other choice. Now, even if we disregard the AT role, how would 75-90mm guns fare as artillery? Could the Draco give firesupport to infantry, or would it simply lack the "boom" required for the job?
military-today.com/artillery/draco.htm

Luis Howard
Luis Howard

that filename
TRIGGERED

Mason Brooks
Mason Brooks

And even the Americans managed to put an unmanned turret with a 105mm gun and an autoloader on a Stryker.
Define "managed".
Because afters decades of reports that it doesn't work, the US army stopped production and is phasing them out while the paint isn't even dry…

Jose Morgan
Jose Morgan

Needing field guns.
Needing artillery of any kind.
Not just crashing F35s into the enemy in a throwback to kamikaze.
Not buying more F35s to kamikaze.
t. Totally not Lockheed

Henry Collins
Henry Collins

Oh wait, forgot one thing.
You got to load all the F35s with the priciest Raytheon missiles available and arm them all right before crashing the plane into the enemy. The more expensive the missile, the more effective the boom.
I am of genius. Government contract, pls.

David Clark
David Clark

Were the problems inherent to the design, or it was something to do with the quality of manufacturing?

Colton King
Colton King

Were the problems inherent to the design, or it was something to do with the quality of manufacturing?
It's a bit of everything I think. Modern day US army seems to think "airborne" is only something pathogen related, the Strykers all have weight/power ratio issues, putting a big gun on a chassis that wasn't designed for it in the first place (especially without a turret which typically helps) is never a good idea, etc…
It's hard to pinpoint what exactly is wrong with it, because the US army definitively clearly quietly killed it but everything they ever wrote on it was how it was super cool and worked great while everyone else accused them of everything from Jesus crucifixion to spreading the black plague.

Oliver Watson
Oliver Watson

It overheats easily, the autoloader is slow and unreliable, the gunner can't access the autoloader if it does jam, the ammunition stores are tiny, and because it's even more top-heavy than a regular Stryker it can barely handle its own recoil when not firing straight ahead. It also has all the problems inherent to the Stryker hull, i.e. a shit engine and paper armor.

Thomas Ward
Thomas Ward

That's the only video in situation I can find and:
1- You can hear the soldiers say that it tried to fire and it didn't, already.
2- Look at that jump.

Here is the video of the 120mm version of the centauro there is a side shot and it's not a sharp jump like that.

Tyler Russell
Tyler Russell

And it's the 120mm, on the 105 it doesn't jump (neither the AMX-10RC).

Ayden Thompson
Ayden Thompson

using a javelin to destroy structures
Only burgers could be this stupid.

Why? Hilo is unnecessarily mass inefficient, it only works for grenade launchers because you're shooting point blank out of paper thin barrels and don't care about range.

105mm gun and an autoloader on a Stryker
Can't carry troops with the loader, the entire compartment is taken up by the massive reload clips. It also can't fire sideways without flipping over, which is hilarious.

Hand loaded 90mm is just fine for infantry support, even as low as 75mm is fine.

concrete fence on the side of the road literally only thing stopping it from tipping over
Fucking lol.

Josiah Cox
Josiah Cox

Bring back assault guns!
Cheaper
Simpler
Lighter
Low silhouette
Can mount larger cannons due to firing forces being only in one direction.
The 103 was, as far as I can tell, on par with all other MBT's of the time if not better. And for urban combat you could remove the gun, stick on a turret with a 60-90mm gun with good elevation and depression and do just fine.

Attached: Stug-III.jpg (164.77 KB, 1176x699)
Attached: stridsvagn-103.jpg (95.84 KB, 800x534)

Brandon Martinez
Brandon Martinez

on par with all other MBT's of the time if not better.
It was leagues better.
Smaller, faster, lighter but heavily armored due to it's insane slopping, packed the same punch tank of his era had and it's automated track stabilization system and his fucking twin engine gas turbine (on a 1967 tank) did gave him a response time close enough to a turreted tank for it to not matter. Of course it also had a diesel engine to cruise without eating too much fuel (so better than much later T-80 and M1…).
Oh and it fucking swam.

I fucking hate this world.

Grayson Cooper
Grayson Cooper

Does it go on the list along with the EM-2?

Benjamin Campbell
Benjamin Campbell

The EM-2 was a bad rifle in design, it was complex & expensive to manufacture and there was nothing special about it. The .280 British is an okay cartridge, it's a 7mm rimless 30-30 with a spitzer bullet and that's it. The .308 only weighed 3 grams more so it wasn't lightweight. We should've gone with the 7mm-08 that the British later purposed, or a .277-08 so America's military leaders wouldn't have to sully their hands with non-American bore sizes.

Jayden Rodriguez
Jayden Rodriguez

You will never be on as much dole as he is
feelsbadman.jpg

Tyler Mitchell
Tyler Mitchell

Don't forget the 3-man crew, workable with a 2-man and possible as a 1-man crew. And the rear-facing radio-operator with his own set of driving controls to allow for quick getaways. And the 15rpm autoloader. And of course it's aesthetics.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit