>What is a ramjet boosted by a rocket
I do wonder why ramjet GMLRS did not take off, they were quite popular in the 60's for target drones and cruise missiles, hell kub SAM rockets sport a ghetto ramjet. Even more so when rocket boosted ramjets have extensive research behind them, given that with modern electronics targeting and INS systems tend to have a CEP of a few meters at 100 miles it must be something fundamental that makes such systems not cost effective in the large scale
First of all, the underground detonation has been worked around since before WW2
Both allies and axis were trained to use delayed fuze rounds so that the howitzer round would detonate after it had skipped off the ground to prevent it from detonating below the surface
They could also time the fuze to detonate at a certain time, with careful calculation they could time it to detonate at a specific height at a specific distance from the gun
Both these techniques helped mitigate the loss of fragmentantion below ground
Secondly, the allies got VT fuzes in 1944 and almost everyone else got them after WW2
Which allowed the round to detonate at any height of their choosing, cutting out a good chunk of work and allowing for entire airburst barrages
This has only gotten better now that microprocessors have replaced vacuum tubes and allowed fully programmable shells and guided shells
There’s still a myriad of uses for 155mm artillery, HIMARS and MLRS are cool but 155mm arty has never been easier to use, it’s efficient and cheap as well. Projectiles like EXCALIBUR make any 155mm howitzer within the rounds effective range a strategic level precision weapon, thus saving you expensive guided rockets and saving your air force from exposure. 155s are also incredibly useful at leveling enemy defenses and performing SEAD.
In many cases rockets are heavier, more expensive and more flammable than shells+propellant.
Cannons are heat engines with efficiency of 30-40%, rockets have 0% efficiency at launch and improve with the speed peaking at ~1000-1500 m/s. If you aren't a aircraft and gonna shoot many shells over a period of many minutes then a cannon still is better because you're reusing the launcher and sending just the "warhead".
Isn't most of a howitzer shell's effect from the HE?
Don't you know about airburst howitzer rounds?
then why tf the only videos I see are ground burst? Even when hitting entrenched positions.
You probably haven't been looking very well, I've seen plenty.
Give the howitzer a proximity fuse
>Gun based artillery should be replaced with ML-
ACK
>What is a ramjet boosted by a rocket
I do wonder why ramjet GMLRS did not take off, they were quite popular in the 60's for target drones and cruise missiles, hell kub SAM rockets sport a ghetto ramjet. Even more so when rocket boosted ramjets have extensive research behind them, given that with modern electronics targeting and INS systems tend to have a CEP of a few meters at 100 miles it must be something fundamental that makes such systems not cost effective in the large scale
>even guided arty is much cheaper so can use much much more of it
there wasted fragments no longer matters
Even my grandpa could already set shells to explode above ground
A child's understanding of artillery
First of all, the underground detonation has been worked around since before WW2
Both allies and axis were trained to use delayed fuze rounds so that the howitzer round would detonate after it had skipped off the ground to prevent it from detonating below the surface
They could also time the fuze to detonate at a certain time, with careful calculation they could time it to detonate at a specific height at a specific distance from the gun
Both these techniques helped mitigate the loss of fragmentantion below ground
Secondly, the allies got VT fuzes in 1944 and almost everyone else got them after WW2
Which allowed the round to detonate at any height of their choosing, cutting out a good chunk of work and allowing for entire airburst barrages
This has only gotten better now that microprocessors have replaced vacuum tubes and allowed fully programmable shells and guided shells
rockets are more expensive than shells.
Not if you dont have the tubes first.
broke
>howitzers should be replaced with rockets
woke
>howitzers should be replaced with casaba howitzers
There’s still a myriad of uses for 155mm artillery, HIMARS and MLRS are cool but 155mm arty has never been easier to use, it’s efficient and cheap as well. Projectiles like EXCALIBUR make any 155mm howitzer within the rounds effective range a strategic level precision weapon, thus saving you expensive guided rockets and saving your air force from exposure. 155s are also incredibly useful at leveling enemy defenses and performing SEAD.
Oh and it’s cheap and easy to disperse.
okay moron
>what even are proximity fuses
Also gun artillery munition is lighter, smaller and cheaper than rockets, so you can have alot more of it.
Did you never hear about airbursts? The absolute state of /k/
In many cases rockets are heavier, more expensive and more flammable than shells+propellant.
Cannons are heat engines with efficiency of 30-40%, rockets have 0% efficiency at launch and improve with the speed peaking at ~1000-1500 m/s. If you aren't a aircraft and gonna shoot many shells over a period of many minutes then a cannon still is better because you're reusing the launcher and sending just the "warhead".