This is a WW1 common German artillery piece, 11-12km effective range, it fires HE shells with over 100Kg of HE filling. Firing rate is 2 rounds per minute per cannon.
Now let's say we have 10 Abrams advancing trough a more or less open field at a moderately fast pace of 30km/h towards 10 of the aforementioned artillery pieces, in a relatively close formation as they need to squeeze trough narrow areas to avoid landmines. The Abrams can engage the artillery at 4km.
Let's assume the 10 artillery pieces have properly trained crews, clear presighted grid and good spotting (like with a generic 1000$ Chinese drone).
Would any of the Abrams realistically make it to the artillery pieces without being disabled?
Looking at the combat footage from the destroyed leopard 2 in Ukraine it looks like that even relatively far misses are still enough to disable the tracks and ultimately leave any tank as a sitting duck till some shell falls close enough to destroy it.
So the 10 Abrams have to advance 7km or 8km before being able to sight and destroy the WW1 howitzers, which assuming they can keep the relatively fast average pace of 30km/h takes 15minutes.
This gives the 10 artillery pieces enough time to fire 2 shells a minute each for a total of 300 shells fired before the Abrams can fire back.
Assuming that a proficient enough crew can get shells close enough to the target to cause damage can do so by the 3rd round means that roughly 270 shells with 100kg of HE filling each are falling more or less around the tanks.
Considering that these old cannons are less precise than modern cannons even if only half of the sells fall close enough to cause serious damage that is still plenty to disable all the Abrams tracks (and possibly even score a few direct hits) in my opinion before they can engage.
CONTINUED:
So why did i write this?
Besides to have your opinion on this regard it is to express the idea that suppressing artillery should not be a task for tanks, it should be done by air forces, missiles or your own artillery in my personal opinion.
Launching tank offensives against artillery it's pointless as ultimately math is math.
Back in the day often sudden or dawn tank offensives were spotted late and the mobility of the tank together with the delay of the information being related to the artillery units meant that it could take several rounds before they were on target just because of communication-to-firing lag. Now with real time streaming from drones (and satellites clear enough to read a car license plate) the tank can be spotted even before it enters the firing range and artillery fire can be corrected immediately and precisely even with obsolete artillery pieces.
Also enough HE splash damage can de-track, disable or even destroy even the most modern of MBTs as seen on Ukraine and once a tank column is disabled within artillery range it is just a matter of time until a lucky large shell scores a direct hit on the top where the armor is thinnest and destroys it.
>Besides to have your opinion on this regard it is to express the idea that suppressing artillery should not be a task for tanks, it should be done by air forces, missiles or your own artillery in my personal opinion.
>Launching tank offensives against artillery it's pointless as ultimately math is math.
The problem with this statement OP is that you set things up with artificially moronic conditions. Tanks are about maneuverability and combined arms. If the terrain is totally flat for miles with no cover and enemy has perfect observation and is fully dialed in with well maintained artillery and good rested experienced crews who aren't exhausted/tired/green and you've got zero support and there's a ginormous minefield then sure, that's dumb to attack into DUH.
But the whole issue is that in real war this is rarely the case across an entire huge line. There will be arty that is beat up, crews that suck and have been harassed for weeks/months, lines of approach that allow maneuver, other combined arms, your own artillery doing counter battery fire, and so on and so forth. Tanks are an important component, not solo mecha wanderwaffen. That's it.
>Besides to have your opinion on this regard it is to express the idea that suppressing artillery should not be a task for tanks, it should be done by air forces, missiles or your own artillery in my personal opinion.
Your situation is a little moronic but this specific line has some (accidental?) merit to it. Suppressing a threat specifically means degrading its ability to attack you for a specific period of time. Tanks do not suppress artillery, even in your scenario, because tanks are fundamentally a direct fire system and artillery is an indirect fire threat, so as you pointed out it's impossible for the tanks to really begin putting pressure on them until they close the difference. Tanks are absolutely fantastic for assaulting artillery and forcing them to displace or be destroyed though.
>over 100Kg of HE filling.
i assume this would destroy any modern tank.
threads about old weapons vs new armor are really interesting
100kg of filling is like taking a Mk82 straight to the face. That’s structure demolishing size
frick ya muddha
12 yo thread
>thread would be from 2011
Ughh…take me back
>100kg HE
>152mm KV2 HE round <10kg HE
>believed to have knocked a King Tiger turret clean off
Yeah it's a safe bet no ones having any fun after a direct hit
I strongly suspect you're overestimating the sustained rate of fire for those big guns. Sure the first few shells can be fired at 2 RPM, but your loaders will tire and have to replenish your ready ammo.
WW1 guns look so cool.
>Chinese
And it fails
Have you considered suicide today, OP?
The HE shells for Morser howitzers weighted about 115 kilogrammes, I don't think 85% of that was explosive filling
>it fires HE shells with over 100Kg of HE filling
Can I get a fact check on this stat? A major issue is going to be that any forward maneuvering is going to throw off their aim.
It's an 8" howitzer firing 250kg HE shells, although I can't find the filling weight on a cursory search it would roughly check out for WW1 common shell
>BL 8-inch howitzer Mk VI
>HE shell weight: 200lbs
>shell empty weight: 177lbs 0.5oz
>presumed HE filler: 22lbs 15.5oz
The prosecution rests it's case for OP being a gay
In its defense, he's probably an underage newbie that doesn't know anything about weapons.
>12" Howitzer
>750lb shell weight
>83lb, 2.75oz bursting charge
Shall we continue?
>750lb shell
>rate of fire at 2 rpm
Yeah, no. They would need a fricking crane to load those shells. Rate of fire is probably closer to 2 minutes per round.
>They would need a fricking crane to load those shells
Cranes weren't used in WWI you dummy, only pigeons.
There are several issues with what you are saying. The most egregious one is that this isn't the scenario you purport it to be as the Landmines are as important if not more important aspect than the artillery.
1. It's likely not 'over 100 kg' of HE filling as other have pointed it out
2. This is the theoretical rate of firing. Even trained crews are unlikely to be able to sustain that. Maybe for the first minute, specially as you are saying those are massive shells.
3. The gun will heat up after so many shells are fired. This isn't an issue when you are firing a few but firing 30 in such quick succession is unlikely to be doable.
4. Even if assuming that you can actually fire at that rate, what about aiming? People need to locate the target from the drones you said, calculate the angle and position the gun need to be set, move it then fire.
6. Such massive gun with extremely massive shell is also going to be moving around just from firing. Ofc, you are anchoring it in place, but that still has limits so accuracy will suffer a lot.
7. Why only 30 km/h? Abrams can go over 60 km/h.
8. The effects will depend a lot on where it misses/hit. A miss to the front would have much less effect to the tracks than if it's done by the sides.
9. You underscore the importance of the minefield in your scenario. Basically it's not about old Artillery vs Modern Tank but Old Artillery with a lot of Modern landmines vs Modern Tank.
>fires HE shells with over 100Kg of HE filling
It does not. 113kg is the total weight of the GR. 18 HE shell. It contains ~17.3kg of TNT filler.
For reference.
>Open field
In open field, the Abrams are going to have an optic advantage to see far enough to know to just go where the guns aren't pointing, and then move towards them. That's the thing, it takes really only 1 tank to reach the 10 arty units to absolutely kill them, so they could just theoretically disperse into a giant circle and then just close in as the arty unit sits there constantly trying to re-adjust. The chinese drone can't view all angles at the same time, even if it can rapidly shift between them. And the Abrams can go FAST. Easily can do 45-50 km/h on relatively flat terrain, 60km/h if we assume it could be a theoretical infinite tarmac.
Alternatively the Abrams have a god-tier advantage over any ww1 unit ever--night vision. If the Abrams can pull back and just... wait a few hours, it'll be night time. And chinese spotter drone or no, it'll be significantly harder for the WW1 peak crew to operate their equipment in the dark and ensure they are hitting what they are aiming at. Even if the tanks can be killed by a ww1 arty hit--a questionable IF--the problem ultimately just comes to the fact that the Abrams are going to be so much more maneuverable and faster that it is unlikely that the WW1 arty pieces can catch up and adjust as fast. Once even 1 Abrams closes to engagement range the game is effectively over as the fires from the arty will massively drop with every loss, and the Abrams is far more likely to hit what it is aiming at.
how did they make firing solutions in WW1? if the tanks are zigging and zagging at top speed where would you aim the artillery?
He removed that possibility by adding a minefield. Which is why this is so moronic,
They had mechanical artillery computers, tables and slide rules. They had radios, aircraft, manned tethered balloons and field telephones that let observers call for fire and adjust fire.
>mechanical artillery computers
That was for ships. Those were too big and expensive to be used in field artillery
WW1 had artillery directors(computers) that answered the telephone between the people asking for artillery and the guns receiving the firing orders.
With telephones they could be at separate locations and an operations center could coordinate miles of front and dozens of batteries.
The static nature of WW1 was why big bore artillery and telephone lines everywhere was such a thing.
you're a big bore
Generally not. Even a direct hit isn't likely to do anything and probably not even mobility kill. And WW1 artillery isn't accurate enough to hit an Abrams on the move, and would be well within the Abrams direct fire range if they had a reasonable chance to hit.
> Even a direct hit isn't likely to do anything and probably not even mobility kill
Excuse me?
>Dude modern tanks just shrug off 8 inch shells lol
No you moron. Ww1 used like 50 or 100 artillery tubes per kilometer of the frontline
>Ww1 used like 50 or 100 artillery tubes per kilometer of the frontline
Ah yes the...40,000 to 80,000 guns present on the Western Front at any one time
You’re asking if 270 shells fired over an 8km stretch (let’s say 8 square kilometers) can destroy 10 Abrams?
270 shells fired over 8,000,000 square meters?
Are you a moron
>If I aim and fire 270 bullets at you while you run over 8km2, then I'm firing over 8,000,000 square metres
>itt, what is the difference between direct fire and indirect area bombardement
the point is they're not bombarding that entire quadrant at once, it doesn't matter if they're travelling 8km or 800km
who the frick said anything about 8km2 in the first place? OP said an 8km straight line
>it fires HE shells with over 100Kg of HE filling.
The shell weight of a 21 cm mörser is about 110 kg. The HE filling would be about 12-15 kg.
>Assuming that a proficient enough crew can get shells close enough to the target to cause damage
Dude. They had to fire shells by the trainload against static trenches and fortifications to make up for accuracy through volume back then. 300 shots against rapidly moving targets? LMAO, by the time they dialled in on target those Abrams will be all over them.
>>LMAO, by the time they dialled in on target those Abrams will be all over them.
Are you the guy that planned the Ukrainian offensive with leopards and Bradleys against Russian arty e trenches last week?