Artillery

At least the round fired. Our ammo is so old that the propellant has degraded.

It's a real beauty though; we're still fielding them after we adopted her in the mid 80's and use it in the artillery corps, though they're being replaced by the Type 99.
Use it as an instrument.

Attached: Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture with M110 203mm Self-Propelled Ho.webm (1280x854 3.24 MB, 219.91K)

Artillery is far too fucking loud to be used in conjunction with other musical instruments. After a couple shots the musicians and audience will have a ringing in their ears, even if they use earpro. The ears also need some time to readjust to the sound level of the much softer music from the artillery.
If you really want to do music with artillery, you will have to make it sing in a can(n)on choir with other pieces as well.
Some HMGs in indirect fire for the drum roll, a couple mortars for highhats, air-alarm sirens for concert flutes, and rotary guns for oboes or sax.
Just imagine it. A battle orchestrated for the sole purpose of deafening the combatants in the most pleasant way possible.

...

Why? What benefit does this have over a SPG? I thought mortars were just a squad based portable explosives platform that was between rifle grenades and actual artillery. Why make a giant version of a small portable version of a normal artillery piece? And why waste an armoured chassis and vehicle for it? This seems like a Ukrainian idea.

Such questions will only lead to useless pissing contests, as you can't just make such sweeping statements in a vacuum. But here is an objectively good one:
military-today.com/artillery/g6_52.htm
The amount of explosive filter depends on the size and form of the shell, and the thickness of its walls. Your options are somehow limited depending on the method of stabilization and the velocity of the shell. E.g. a trench mortar fires a fin-stabilized shell at a very low velocity, therefore you can make it very long with very thin walls, especially compared to a howitzer. This is why a 120mm mortar is about as destructive as a 155mm artillery shell. So you have to go the other way around: you have to figure out how much explosives you need, then you can figure out what kind of shell you can use to deliver it. Also, a "concrete 3-story building" is not a very concrete target, but I doubt it's more tought that a bunker.

That's a proper soviet mortar on a proper soviet chassis. Although the design is based on the trench mortar, it's closer to the siege mortars of old in practice. They are supposed to be parked next to a city or in front of a defensive line, where they have many targets within their range. So it's for static warfare. As for the chassis, it has an autoloader and a gun-laying system, and it also gives the crew some protection.

Attached: M240.jpg (1280x910, 132.42K)

I feel sorry for you gyrosfriend.

Rolled steel is very brittle and doesn't expand like brass does, meaning it can't handle the same pressures and also won't be able to obturate the chamber as well. You can see the same happening in small arms. Steel is used only for cheap, low quality ammo, and steel cases are almost never advisable to be reloaded.

I don't truly know why, but I can offer some likely explanations
1. Brass is slicker than steel, making loading and extraction and any sort of movement more reliable.
2. Brass is easier to form into shapes, especially the way cases are made.
3. Brass is much better at expanding without splitting, which is a pretty important property to have the higher pressures you go.

I can't get you the accurate numbers, but from what I've read, the cannons/howitzers are used exclusively outdoors, and they usually keep it a distance 50~100m away from the main body of the crowd, and the guns are fired a quarter of a second earlier to account for the travel of sound. However, there seems to be many instances where the crowd were seated very close to the guns, but I'm not sure of the protocols regarding that.

From videos, I've seen the usage of the M101 105mm gun reserve artillery kept largely for ceremonial roles, the FH70 155mm gun to a lesser extent there's a beano-esque boy's mag from 2009 that claims that the FH70 was far too loud, and the M110 203mm SPH used only in Hokkaido. The rounds they use are blanks, but I don't know if they use a reduced load or not, that sort of information isn't released to the public. I've also heard tanks have been used.

I read on one blog where the guy was seated in front of the cannons and was cautioned to cover his ears as the salvo would begin.

Still, I don't think you guys have enough shells to waste for music in the Bundeswehr, so you can stay jelly :^)

Attached: IMG_8435_800x.jpg (800x533, 85.65K)

Meant to link to

I know that brass is better than steel, but most militaries want the cheapest, not the best. They also don't bother with reloading. So if e.g. the Warsaw Pact bothered with developing steel-case ammunition for small arms, then why didn't they do it for much bigger cartridges? My first idea would be insufficient knowledge of metallurgy, or a lack of quality control would render the whole endeavour useless. Is that correct, or is there a fundamental problem with steel cases?

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-204-1727-09,_Balkan,_leichte_Feldhaubitze_in_Feuerstellung.jpg (575x800, 130.81K)

I'm no metallurgy major, but perhaps the nature of steel giving off sparks when hitting any hard surface be a potential hazard when handling high explosives?
In addition to the disadvantage in their strength of steel, and the lack of "lubricating"properties, and the test to rust ina manner that make steel so rough, I'm quite sure that there's no reasonable reason to use steel for Artillery casings. The usage of steel would make sense in a situation where you do not have sufficient copper supplies as Germany did in both world wars, but even then, they use copper lining for their support casings.

Steels problem is its prone to rusting, though that can be offset by zinc coating, copper washing or straight up laquering.

Attached: combust.jpg (362x973 30.24 KB, 28.35K)

I want to hear someone adapting the great white theme to using a creeping barrage.
It starts off with artillery landing far away, then coming closer and shooting more frequently, add MG barrages, add illumination shells for the flute parts.
Can you hear it in your mind? Can you feel it with your dick?

It's a start.

It's mostly the fact that steel is a lot harder. You want to use a soft metal for casings, because a softer casing means that extraction is less likely to rip off the bottom of the case. This was a common problem for the Wehrmacht in WWII. They had to fall back to steel cased ammo eventually, and it got so bad, that MG gunners would attempt to keep a belt or two of "good" brass cased ammo in reserve for tough situations where they could not afford the gun to jam. It's very well documented, especially in the book "Blood Red Snow", which is a good read.
Get a stuck case in a machine gun? No problem, change the barrel and let your secondary gunner take care of the problem while you shoot.
Get a stuck case in an artillery piece? Tough shit, your carefully calculated barrage is completely ruined because some grunt has to fiddle with the barrel.

The US military's main guns have to be adjust after being fired. It's ridiculous;

The round on the right is an single-piece M831 with a combustible aluminum casing and reusable steel casing base, not a washed or coated casing.

i always thought it was because steel on steel generates too much friction and sparks which you definitely don’t want when transporting explosives

Did they blowed up?

I'm not much of an artilleryfag (that would be my stepfather), and thus this question is probably going to be retarded, but I was wondering what would be better for the future of SPGs: focusing on lighter and faster SPGs to keep up with what I believe to be the more important demands for constant maneuver, over firepower, or creating newer tanks, particularly MBTs and heavy tanks, with rifled cannons and such, so that tanks can take over the SPG role?

Don't see the point, SPG and tanks fulfill totally different goals.

It's about having multi-role tanks, essentially, reducing the resources consumed in making vehicles, while having tanks that can shoot extremely accurately from thirty meters or thirty klicks away.
The way I see it, the main advantage of tanks, heavy weaponry covered in armor, is still useful, but it has also been usurped by infantry weapons like rockets and RPGs, so infantry isn't always completely helpless against an AFV. So I figure a good evolution of the tank would be for it to serve multiple roles, including SP artillery.

What you want is the idea of universal chassis, not of a multi-role tank.

And this has been done before.

I want a universal chassis, as well, Spergook. Believe me, I've spent plenty of time fantasizing over what the Entwicklung-series vehicles would look like, how they'd perform, and so on.
But I also believe that multi-role tanks would be the best course for tankery, even with the obvious problems with jack-of-all-tradeism. The average future army is going to look like the late-war Wehrmacht, as I see it.

(Czechoslovakia)
The future of tanks is a multi-turreted SPG/SPAA/MBT/APC landship.
Muh dick.

Attached: EA12DF3E-703F-43D8-A0B1-9E5DBE9C6225.jpeg (640x569, 126.04K)

Nah, the fuse safety only lights after a successful propellant ignition (after sufficient rapid acceleration in the forward direction breaks something inside the fuse mechanism), and after a certain time has passed (a fuse burning off inside the trigger, making way for metal parts to move where the fuse used to be).
What you see in the video is the primer going off, but the propellant failing to ignite. This video shows how powerful even a primer is for artillery of any kind. The primer alone has enough power to push a heavy round out of the tube and make it fall to the ground with a comical noise.
It also illustrates how important shelf life of artillery ammunition is. Shooting off old ammo is dangerous and deadly. Imagine what would have happened if the fuse safety had rusted through or was faulty? See how densely packed all of them are standing together? That's 20 dead and 30 wounded artillery men.
Now imagine the same but with a 155mm cannon. Say goodbye to your >10mil a piece artillery vehicle.
The same is true for any guns of any kind. Shooting old ammo is dangerous, kids. A ruptured case, an oversensitive primer, or just a load of powder that burns off too slow. All of these problems can be lethal. Don't use old ammo.

In this video you can see the effects of an old/faulty primer.
The MG3 is an open bolt weapon. Once a round is in the chamber the bolt has to be moved back to extract and eject it. If the primer doesn't fire immediately, the round remains inside the chamber because no recoil was generated to operate the mechanism.
You can see the instructor taking the weapon and opening the cover. You can also see him move the bolt back to inspect the chamber. At this point he is in the danger zone.
Either the round ejected properly and fell down, where it could have still gone off, or the round is still inside the chamber, in which case he is looking at what is essentially a shotgun aimed at his face. If the primer were to ignite now, the propellant would ignite as well, causing the pressure inside the case to rise. Usually this leads to the bullet being accelerated forwards and the bolt not moving, because it is locked in place. Now however, there is no bolt. Nothing to stop the gasses from taking the path of least resistance and into the face of the operator.
Remember kids, if your open bolt gun has a stuck primer and fails to eject at the same time, point the gun in a safe direction and wait a couple seconds before attempting to fix the problem.

...

Fuckit m8ey, wait until you see the G6. Can't exactly brag about it anymore but still rather capable in today's time would it not be for the current (((situation))) and wonderful diversity and all.

How does that long range SA artillery compare to American?

Attached: ZHmHih5.png (441x302, 57.62K)

Attached: EEAFFDC7-2E74-4FA4-BF1A-8BE93F191FA3.png (1334x750, 1.51M)

That instructor is a Dane as far as I know.
Though the shooter was an American.

At least Trudeau with his Castro genes, multiple personality disorders and outrageously absurd marxist quotes can provide some laughter and bantz. Koulis is like Jeb Bush without pocket turtles and with plain avocado instead of guacamole.

Attached: if only.jpg (649x1024, 90.84K)

You have a point there, user-kun. Just like your chink adversaries turkroaches too rely on insectpeople-wave tactics, at least they still did so back in Cyprus, so a barrage every 2 minutes against masses of trespassers having to run for 30 kms through its range might still be kinda effective.

Attached: artillery dickbutt.jpg (700x393, 59.67K)

Is that a lot or little? I don't really have the context to know.

Its obsolete, used to require it back when nukes were large and their electronics sensitive to acceleration.

Now it basically ruins runways, like SRBM.

Most howitzer shell fillers are measured in grams, not kilograms. Largest howitzer filler in service I know of is a 155mm HE which is around 8kg filler.

This thing is four times that.

General purpose bombs are 3:1 ratio metal fragments and casing weight, to explosive weight. So this thing is equivalent to a 100kg/220lb bomb.

Oh, that's pretty fucking nice then. No wonder they have the tube sit on a plate on the ground, the recoil has to be fucking huge.

Imagine a tank with built-in mortar/grenade launchers, a SAM launcher or two, a rifled cannon that can shoot from here to the wild blue yonder, and you've got yourself a tank. More like a Tiger with rockets and shit, than a P1000 Ratte.

Attached: P1000_ratte_scale_model.png (896x320, 233.5K)

It's actually tougher construction than most mortars, it's well over 3:1 ratio of frag to HE. Using thinner walls it could be built to contain over 100kg HE, or by filling it with thermobaric mix it could get equivalent of 500kg HE.

Just listen to that sound man.

That's called a Bolo, or a T-95

Not really, my Canuck friend.

I don't see how, allegedly they've been used in Syria for dealing with heavy fortifications, they're also capable of using guided rounds which similarly to your point require electronics that can withstand the forces of firing. Obviously a mortar would be a far more benign environment for a guided round than a howitzer hence making guided fires from these things at least far cheaper than the equivalent howitzer shot.
Though there appear to be not too many in service so who knows. I'd have thought they'd be very useful for the money starved slavs at this time.

...

Way to miss the point faggit.

You could take the 3 seconds to search “32kg to lbs” and see it’s about 70lbs.

What about anti-air capabilities?

Jesus fucking christ

Attached: Too hot.png (771x1362, 1.98M)

You do know what a SAM is, Canuck?

The problem was that he didn't know how much HE was usually in a shell, not that he can't convert metric to imperial. Where did you even get that idea?

Fuck, I read that and thought surface to air missile and then associated it with a TOW. Please excuse the retardation, I don’t know how I mixed them up.

Just assumed he didn’t know what a kilogram was since burgers and metric don’t mix well. Again pardon the retardation.

Attached: 966C7FDC-82DE-4E37-815D-3913CD3179D9.jpeg (500x496, 61.1K)

About 4 times the charge of normal 155mm HE shell.
Shit,you can kill a small hill with it

Oddly enough, I use metric all the time because I measure chemicals.

I'm not familiar at all with normal artillery, and because this guy used an image I normally see with mockery, I was wondering if it was woefully underpowered for it's size, which would be very odd for slavs to do.

But no, turns out it really does just throw around big fucking bombs.

Attached: russian anti alien artillery device.png (1733x507, 110.99K)

There is no point. You misconstrued something I said, told me I was wrong, then went on a tangent.
It's true guided electronics are cheaper the lower the acceleration, there's a reason most guided shit is fired on soft launch rockets. Nothing to do with what I was saying though…

It's basically an aircraft bomb which has some fins welded on it and is fired out of a mortar tube. I bet it can do everything an air launched bomb can.

Their anti ship missile has as much as ten times more explosives as ours and is two to three times faster

You should read this:
defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/medium-calibre-allround-option.html
Italians tried to create such an anti-everything vehicle:
military-today.com/artillery/draco.htm
But they completely fucked it up, because they mounted an actual naval cannon on the chassis of a ground vehicle, so the whole thing is too big and heavy to carry a sufficient amount of shells, not to mention infantry. But there is hope:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/South_Africa/Rooikat.php
The Rooikat uses a much lighter cannon that fires the same ammunition (expect that it has a different primer for some reason, but I doubt that you can't solve that problem) and even has the same barrel length. Make it a mount like vid related, but with a much bigger magazine (and modern electronics), and turn the whole package into an unmanned turret that fits into the turret ring of a BMP-3. An infantry squad with that vehicle now has an integral 76mm autocannon that can give them both direct and indirect fire support, along with some anti-air firepower. On the battalion level you should support them with a battery of MRLSs that have guided rockets that are individually about as destructive as a 120mm mortar shell. Now you have a mechanized infantry battalion with more firepower than the average infantry division of the second world war. But don't just stop there: every division should have an artillery regiment with ~203mm I prefer 210mm, but that's just my autism CLGGs, modernized V-2 flying bombs, and reconnaissance drones. The cannons are there for heavy duty artillery work, and the flying bombs are for more concentrated desctruction (essentially replacing air strikes). You could also launch (sc)ramjets from the cannons to take out enemy aircraft.

Also, did we go through some kind of a Barenstein-change with 76.2mm cannons? I remember that all artillery weapons of this calibre were referred to as 76.2mm weapons, yet now it's 76mm everywhere.

To summarize your post, you're talking about equipping each squad in a mechanized infantry batallion with a multi-role tank, perhaps built similarly to a Merkava, or in your example, converted from a BMP-3, armed with a 76mm autocannon, to serve as the multi-role I desire, while also having a battalion-level battery of rocket launchers, mounted, say, on trucks or other multi-roles, like the Calliope, with powerful rockets each equivalent to the RAIADO shells (I'm assuming). Then each mechanized division has an artillery regiment with 203/210mm light gas guns, modern flying bombs, and recon drones, plus scramjet SAMs for anti-air purposes.
I gotta say, I really like your ideas, Magyarbro. I think that's the best rough sketch of my ideal multi-role tank, or at least a light version thereof, and a good place to start masturbating my corpus autismus kommandus.

Attached: 1542472572.jpg (720x540, 71.32K)

Ah my apologies again burger.

Shall I assume this because the Reich was running out of paint or was it just Hitler’s personal tankfu?

I wonder the kind of material an anti-tank shell would need to be made of in order to withstand enough velocity to go right through a heavily armored MBT, exit, and still have enough velocity to penetrate an APC.

I'd say it was Rumia's personal tonk, considering her extremely important role in the Reich. I mean, she and Hitler were very close after all.

Attached: Hitler and Rumia.png (592x865, 813.64K)

In that case here are some more.
That turret should have both of those. The AGL should be something like the AGS-30 or AGS-40, and for the missile think of the Missile Moyenne Portée. With the AGL the IFV can suppress a greater area or engage enemy behind cover without using the ammunition the main gun, and with the ATGM it has a fighting chance against enemy MBTs. Of course both of those are infantry weapons, so non-mechanized infantry would have access to some of that same firepower. The AGL would replace mortars and machine guns on tripods, and the ATGM would be quite obviously their AT and bunkerbuster weapon.
The equivalent of a truck should be a tracked and slightly armoured vehicle with a crane like pic related. Of course it should share as many components with the IFV as humanly possible. Then you just need a continerized rocket launcher. With that they can drop off an empty one and pick up a loaded one rather quickly, then the empty one can be refilled in an ammo depot. You could also use this vehicle to haul supplies, drone launchers, and maybe even the flying bombs.
thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/11/a-universal-missile-and-rocket-launcher/
By the way, that site has lots of great container-related articles if you are into that.
Obviously it should be a SPG. It should have a "continerized magazine". That is, a container that has the shells and the gas(es), so that it can be reloaded the same way as the MRLS. Of course it would be a rather big vehicle, and it would need an autoloader that features a crane system and a robotic hand. But then I think it would have at least a good 200km effective range, therefore you could leave it in the second line.
I think I hold quite old-fashioned ideas here. A battalion should have 3-4 companies with 10 IFVs each, a logistics company, a MRLS battery, and the HQ, so just the good ol' model here. You don't even need dedicated AA when you can have up to 30-40 AA cannons at the same time. Then 3-4 of those should form a regiment or a brigade. The only difference is that the later has all those often forgotten yet essential support units (medical, reconnaissance, engineering, etc, etc). Then a division is 3-4 of those regiments, an artillery regiment, and a combat support regiment that has most of those support units pulled together. In peace time (or during low intensity conflicts) you'd have brigades and independent artillery regiments (mostly on AA duty with their tube-launched SAMs), but there would be regular exercises to switch to the division-model in a timely manner. Then if it turns into a total war scenario you can form ad-hoc divisions with the brigades and artillery regiments, and then gradually start building proper divisions by raising new units and distributing the already existing support units.

Attached: container_truck.jpg (800x477, 28.94K)

I actually thought of having 40mm AGLs on these tanks, but I didn't account for tank-mounted ATGMs, since my train of thought concluded they would be best used by the infantry, and the IFV has the 76mm gun anyways.
I disagree with this statement, if only because I believe both mortars and machine guns on tripods are still useful, especially if a unit's vehicles get disabled, or if they run out of fuel. If nothing else, the AGL should be easily man-portable, for the aforementioned events.
This sounds like a modern version of the sWS half-track to me, and that would be pretty cool to work with.
Well, I've been thinking about the requirements for standardized MBT and heavy tank chassis, to account for big guns 4u, and I figure the heavy tank chassis, which would be the equivalent to an M1 Abrams in weight, at least 70 tons, with Chobham armor, would be the best fit for any light gas gun.
I agree with you with many of your 'old-fashioned ideas', if only because I've played a little too much Darkest Hour than is healthy for me. My ideals for unit size are a bit different; I believe in slightly larger unit sizes. In my view, a battalion should be 3-6 companies, with each holding 8-12 IFVs. Each regiment should be 3-5 battalions, plus a supporting MBT battalion, with 5-10 tanks per company, while brigades should have 4-7 battalions, plus two MBT battalions. 3-6 regiments, or 2-4 brigades, form a division. Other than size differences, I agree with your system.

Watch this glorious video of nineties. Although the AGS-40 is heavier, but it's also much more effective.
The problem with tripods is that a machine gun with one of them needs to be set up properly with pre-determined firing zones, otherwise it doesn't have that many upsides compared to a machine gun with just a bipod. It's actually worse, because it's much heavier. Meanwhile for the same weight you could bring along an AGS-30 for the attack, and that is a more destructive and versitale weapon. Mortars also need to be set up properly, expect if you go with handheld 60mm mortars that are far less effective than their bigger cousins. And an AGL should bring about as much firepower as a 81mm mortar. The only real downside is their limited range, but that's not that much of a problem inside a city, where most of the infantry combat should happen in the future.
Forgot to mention, but I have to wonder if you could make it amphibious. Although with its size and weight it would resemble a Landwasserschlepper II.
Modern tanks are built with the idea of fighting other tanks in mind, which isn't that realistic to begin with. But for this reason they need a really big gun, that requires a big turret, and you need a big vehicle to carry that weight. But ATGMs can be just as effective against a tank than a cannon, if not even more so. And that questions the whole point of the big gun, and thus the very concept of the MBT. You also have to consider the future development of active protection systems and related technologies. In theory the new Russian radar-triggered ERA can intercept even APFSDS projectiles, and if that is true then you'll need volume-of-fire to overcome it. Which would work with this IFV, because you could shoot a burst of 76mm shells to trigger the APS, and then follow up with a salvo of ATGMs immediately behind them. Of course you could program the system so that the whole firing sequence happens automatically on the press of a button. The other two factors of a tank are protection and mobility, but there is no reason you can't make a heavy IFV. Although I prefer amphibious vehicles, and that somehow limits the weight, and that has an impact on protection.

To sum up my limited understanding on the subject, the faster a projectile goes, the harder it is to have it (and anything it contacts) actually survive intact, because everything starts acting like a fluid. So APFSDS tungsten and depleted uranium rounds are really the best we can achieve if passthrough is the goal.

The M829A1 was known for passing through obstacles and occasional t-72's. I don't know if any multi-kills happened, but it was certainly possible.

Attached: hypervelocity.jpeg (768x512, 44.58K)

AGS-30 is a 30mm grenade, but it is more potent than the Western 40mm grenade. Image is real relative size.

Attached: grenade launchers.jpg (3528x3040, 1.3M)

Oh and…. rocket truck that self loads with a mini crane?

Attached: 7801.jpg (1229x800 93.64 KB, 270.33K)

Why the fuck are they still wearing steel helmets in that video?

The outside is steel, the inside is composite.

...

Yep, that too, it has a much better ballistic coefficient (thinner, longer, more aerodynamic round) and the design of the launcher is superior as it allows higher elevation and has sights that are better.

For those who don't know
It's so light that one man can carry a loaded one like a frigging rifle even up stairs, it has superior range, it has superior explosive power, it has superior rate of fire… there is no dimension in which a Mk19 isn't a huge disappointment compared to it.

AGS-40 is a massive improvement. Has all the improvements of the AGS-30 including one-man portability…. but it also fires self contained, caseless, semi-gyrojet rounds out to 2.5km… They could have designed it to fire farther but then the larger sights would add weight and more complex things to break in the field. the key importance of these rounds is that they carry their own casings out of the launcher as fast as the grenade leaves the barrel, which reduces contact and thermal transfer, meaning this thing can be fired for hours with no need to cool off. It carries about 2x more explosive mixture than the 30mm grenade…. and it has a radar sight that makes the AN/PAS-13 look like a joke.

Look at the noses of the grenades in the picture, the Russian ones have a huge spot for a simple screw-in external fuse to be put in, instead of an internal fuse like in the 40mm which robs volume that HE filler needs. I bet a half blind retard could screw in fuses in an explosion crater during heavy rain! Now look at the American fuse…. first of all it's internal… but look at the cap! It's some weird factory crimp, probably the brass has to be heated to expand it and then it's cooled to shrink it over the steel, good luck doing that in a dusty factory let alone combat conditions! Look at the sheer efficiency with which both the Russian cartridges are designed with, there is no empty space, no wasted room for fuses, everything is packed as snug as a bug and oriented towards maximum lethality - no compromise!

Attached: main-qimg-79346490b08ce763b844d94a7f89ea0f.png (5312x3040 140.51 KB, 1.66M)

What a comedic sound it made when it flopped out.

Why do we keep using retarded multi-purpose NATO weapons when we could just buy superior Russian designs instead? I want my troops armed with AK-107s, AGLs, AGS-30s and overall, with more stuff capable of actual warfare and less stuff made to impress hollywood actors, retarded collectors and children.

The problem with NATO weapons isn't that they are multi-purpose, the real problem is that R&D works like a shitty gacha game: you threw in a few millions (or billions) of dollars into a program, and you get a random piece of equipment. Then you threw in an other few million, and get a new one that might be better or worse than the previous item. Then you can also throw an additional few million on that equipment, and it will give you a random enchantment that might be good, or it possibly ruins the whole thing. It's because there isn't a solid doctrine behind everything, you just have generals and private companies pushing their ideas to politicians. Compared to that Russian R&D is like installing mods to the game that give you exactly what you want. You might have competing teams of modders who all push their own mods, but at least they are making the mods that you want.

To illustrate my autistic point, take a look at the development of tanks during the Cold War: the USA (and Germany) tried to develop the MBT-70, and it turned into a complete mess, so they settled down for the less complex M1 Abrams (or the Leopard II in the case of the Germans). Meanwhile Russia had a bunch of different tanks in production, from the T-55 to the T-80, simply because all of their tank designers pushed for their own designs. But at least all of those tanks actually worked as intended, because the soviets knew what they want from a tank.

Because pressure from America, which really means pressure from American politicians owned by Locktheon. Despite being one of the only contributing NATO members, both Greece and Poland got ass raped out of NATO funding because they adopted things like battle rifles, sniper rifles, machine guns, or missiles from Russia.

All continental European nations had more ground combat experience in WWII and learned some basic facts that Anglos simply didn't get the chance to. France and Germany even retained a lot of that knowledge, but it seems the first thing America does when it parasitizes some country into NATO is kill off all of the capable officers of the protectorate nation.

Here are just four basic WWII lessons out of dozens and dozens:
1. Torque and all terrain matters more than power and sprint. A vehicle that moves at 10kph across every terrain on the battlefield is more valuable than a vehicle that sprints at 100kph on a paved highway but stalls to 0kph when it enters plowed agricultural fields wet with recent rainfall.
2. Full sized spitzer rifle ammunition and high explosives account for 4/6 of combat casualties. Disease and exposure to elements kills 2/6, which is why good uniforms and real cooked food are imperative (not boots with holes in them). Small caliber bullets and fragmentation basically kills no one, it's only there to convince the enemy not to move. Basically equivalent to landmines, useful but not the primary weapon.
3. You need to be able to put eyes on a target before shooting it. This applies to boats, it applies to airplanes, it applies to tanks, it applies to infantry. No one is exempt, because even if you don't care about killing civilians (which no one does) the fact that you're wasting time and effort on it makes you vulnerable.
4. Local commanders have to be trusted over officers who aren't seeing the field themselves. This is a lesson that Zhukov learned in the far east, and brought into Europe to deliver a one-two punch the Germans couldn't handle. It's also something the Germans instinctively knew from the start of the war, which is how a tiny nothing country managed to capture a continent.

Is that supposed to be

If it flies 1/3 as far that means it flies 2/3 less than the American grenade. You’d want to say “flies 1/3 farther.”

So, essentially, for NATO (or rather, America) to get its shit together, it needs to wrangle up the corporations, espouse basic doctrine to the militarily ignorant and avaricious among the leadership and stockholders of each company, or else remove and replace them, and get 'em working on actually good equipment, n'est-pas?
Good luck with that

What user means is that to avoid wasting ammo, time, and possibly being thrown into a battle where the enemy gets the jump on you because you're too busy shooting at nothing (or civilians), you need to have an idea of what you are shooting at. Recon is essential. You use recon to see where the enemy is, where their biggest weaknesses and strengths are, and what are targets of opportunity are/could become available to you. Why waste 100 shells of artillery to kill a bunch of civilians when it could be used to ruin the day of a concentrated force instead? To also add to this, imagine you are busy shooting into a city because you saw movement (which are actually just some bumfuck urbanites. While you're busy doing that, the enemy might get an idea where your troops are and send fire your way. At best it might be mortar and artillery shelling, but it could get serious if they send people in to take out artillery they would have not had a clue was there was it not for them firing indiscriminately into a city.

Another reason it's important to know what you're shooting at is so you don't make some huge mistake. What comes to mind was the Russian fleet who was trying to sail around Europe to fight the Japanese. Partially due to a general lack of training and partially due to faulty intelligence, they thought the entire journey was a death trap with elite Japanese forces around every bend. At one point during the night near England a ship claimed it was under attack by the Japanese. As the other ships rallied to its rescue, a Russian ship was hit with shelling from another Russian ship, another fired over 500 rounds and didn't hit a thing, and when they finally turned on searchlights to see their damage caused, they found out their targets were merely three British fishing trawlers, of which only one was hit. Even if you ignore the consequences this caused (the British sent a fleet of its own to force the rag tag Russian ships to port and forced Russia to pay large sums of money so their ships would not be sunk in revenge) note that because they had no clue what they were fighting and just fired however they pleased, they managed to have a friendly fire incident and sink only 1 of three fishing trawlers. If there really was Japanese forces out there when they were distracted shooting the trawlers, they could have easily destroyed the Russians while they were distracted.

To essentially quote the user you were replying to, you need eyes on the enemy so to not waste ammo, time, and possibly casualties from not realizing what you're attacking.

But that's fucking wrong??!?

Basically remote sensing is not to be trusted.

Read this entire 4 page article, especially the first part of page 2, and you will understand the difference between seeing something with your eyes and seeing something on the screen of an instrument that jumps through thousands of hoops and engages in ridiculous mental/digital gymnastics to translate a halfway legible image from sensors that simply don't work like human eyes and can't be really comprehended by the human brains.

Remote sensing gives valuable data if you're otherwise blind, but it can't give you confirmation of what you're looking at. Even with insane res satellite photos of a given area today it takes weeks of analysis for someone to identify a threat that would be instant, instinctive and downright obvious to a person who can put eyes on the same area optical magnification is fine because its instant and unfiltered.

It's not even the cost of artillery shells on an individual basis. It's taking a few hours to transport an artillery brigade, a few hours to set it up, and then a few minutes of shelling. And then this brigade is out of position to support a real attack.
When, given eyes-on, you don't waste all that time, and instead you're using that time to kill the enemy, AND your units are in position to support real attacks.

Oh shit, this article:
harpers.org/archive/2014/02/tunnel-vision-2/2/

And this passage:
And this is VIDEO, as in full color TV optics, and it's basically useless because a computer is involved and does part of the thinking for you instead of your instinctive cortex.
Imagine how much detail an infrared image strips away…. and a radar image is just a joke.

And an example of remote-sensing centric military, basically tying up three high value resources for HOURS just to kill a small farming family:
This is cartoonishly bad.

And in case Russia or China or Aliens invade Canada, these ^^^^^^^^^^^^ are the people we've subjugated ourselves to for 80 years in exchange of an offer of protection.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO I'M DEPENDING ON TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY FAMILY CAR AND A RUSSIAN BTR

Which is why my blood pressure rises when retards call me RIDF every time I criticize NATO. It's a shit organization and anyone who supports it should be gassed for the good of us all.

Are you from tumblr, faggot? Stop typing like a blogger and provide evidence. Or are you just so unsure of your statement that you feel the need to turn it into a question?

If the American grenade has a range of 100 metres and the Russian grenade “flies 1/3 as far” that means the Russian grenade can only fly 33.3 metres, snce 1/3 is a fraction of a value less than 1 (or 33.3%). And you used “as far” which is a comparative statement you must compare the American grenade’s range and compare it to the Russian grenade’s range. I’m not going to look up the American’s ra ge because it is irrelevant, so I’ll use 1 unit as the value. The Russian grenade flies “1/3 as far” as 1 unit, once you use a proper value for the American grenade’s range you divide that by three to get the Russian range since the words you used are comparative.

To say it correctly, mathematically, you take the distance of the American grenade’s range, which is 1 unit or three thirds (the exact same number) and add a third to that number. To keep your wording you would have to say “it flies 4/3 as far”, since it is a comparison. I shouldn’t have to tell you that four thirds is 1 third more than a value of 1. To keep the number you must change the wording to not be a comparison but a statement that conveys addition: “it (the Russian grenade) flies a third again as far.” Or “it flies a third farther.” This is elementary school math and maybe middle school grammar.

Are you trying to explain to me what speech is, and you wrote three paragraphs? Nigger I know what you said, it's just nonsensical so I didn't take it at face value, I thought you made a simple mistake in writing your short reply.

1. What you said is ">flies 1/3 as far" and I assumed you had an IQ over 83 and meant the Mk19 has about 2/3 the range of the AGS-30. This isn't a mistake I made, it's perfectly reasonable, you're just dumb at writing replies and even dumber for not knowing the effective ranges of the devices before writing the post.

2. If your point was to say AGS-30 is effective to only 1/3 of the distance a Mk19, that is fine, but given that the range of the AGS-30 is readily shown to be 2100m with a simple google search - how about you provide evidence a 40x53mm grenade can have any kind of accuracy at 6300m?

Blind firing just doesn't work. From the rifleman to the carpet bombing to the artillery there is always more space that what you can shoot at.
Just looking at a map or a city a guessing there might be enemy where you lay down fire is the same shit as shooting in the general direction of the enemy with your eyes closed, you're not gonna hit anyone, even if you know full well there is someone there.

The London Blitz/SAC adventures (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) are the most well known examples of that, even today there is a debate on whether or not they actually did something else than wasting resources and lives.
In Vietnam it's known that it did exactly zilch, in Korea the results of the war speak by themselves (despite the SAC leveling the country flat by their own admittance) and in WWII German records show that the air raids were more a nuisance than an actual threat to the German industry, concrete being cheaper than planes + fuel + bombs + pilots.
The most typical example of that being the St Nazaire docks (where the U boat pens are still there because the city literally could not destroy them) that where bombed to hell and back (including with Tall Boys) and it did utterly nothing despite the SAC pretending they could see it working, while a commando raid did the most damage and a spy allowed to track sub movements and heavily disrupt wolfpacks form there.

checked
Yes because English is a retarded language and non-English speakers exist especially in our shit-hole country.
Right I quoted your picture (see pic related) because it is wrong.
At least here we are on the same page.
Yes it is.
It wasn’t I don’t know shit about automatic grenade launchers and your posts were good and informative. What I’m complaining about on is the image you posted (and presumably made) that states the American grenade has poor aerodynamics and poor range, which is listed as a negative. Only then to praise the “great aerodynamics” of the Russian grenade and then state that it can only travel 1/3 the American’s range. That is my issue, not with any of the information you typed but your image that is wrong and contradictory. Of course you might have just posted that image because it was relevant, though I assumed you made the image, perhaps falsely.

Attached: A476A501-A169-4304-BF05-8AC29C7F0814.jpeg (1959x1688, 454.69K)

Ok thjis is what this entire conversation looked like from my end:

>it only flies 1/3 as far as the 40mm shell
What are the respective ranges of both of those two shells?

Attached: confuss megane loli.jpg (1280x720, 397.77K)

CTRL+F: km

...

Please pardon the VPN, I often forget to shut it off.

Attached: 1538018765501.jpg (1280x905, 189.84K)

Good enough for the Legion.

Attached: ww1 arty.webm (900x643 3.73 MB, 171.08K)

Can't imagine that's why they're far enough away from the pieces.

Attached: frustrated_sigh.gif (736x644 494.94 KB, 115.63K)