>remote controlled howitzer
>only requires a crew of two
>built on a proven M270 chassis
>lighter than normal tracked SPHs
>better protected than wheeled SPHs
>better mobility in mud than wheeled SPHs
>top of the line PzH 2000 system
>can be transported in A400M
>can be uparmored if required
this is the ideal SPH
you might not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like
>get into war
>cant get parts because germs are spineless homosexuals
So just manufacture your own parts, shouldn't be a problem if you know in advance that they'll cuck out.
>Just manufacture your own parts
BWAHAHAHAH
Oh God you are serious
BWAHAHAHAH
If fricking Iran has managed to keep their F-14s alive, then any excuse your country's MIC spews out is just evidence of corruption. I'm of course excluding illiterate third world shitholes.
Iran has kept maybe a squadrons worth of F-14s alive by cannibalizing the other 60-70 aircraft they had in invetory.
Ukraine war has proven that a battery of high precision guns is better than an army's worth of dumb artillery.
The Iranian F-14 is what has convinced me that it's simply not possible to "make it yourself."
Even the Chinese weren't able to make sufficient quality copies of parts they needed.
>it's just that easy guise! Really!
You're actually dumb
"cant get parts because germs are spineless homosexuals"
sigmund freud theorized that the semi conscious mind expresses repressed desires, which leads me to believe, that you sir are the homosexual
>that you sir are the homosexual
actually im spinesexual
>if you hate spiders you are actually a spider
and sometimes it's just a cigar
careful bro I have arachnophobia and want to frick the spiders from "The Bad Guys" and "James and the Giant Peach". It can happen.
freud was a israelite, studying israelites, surrounded by israelites, projecting israeli sexual neurosis onto everyone else because otherwise he would have to say nasty things about israelites
Poles will feel really silly when the war is over, they want to punish germany for its alleged wrongdoings in ukraine... and everyone just tells them "frick off, we're doing good business so play nice". Especially ukraine, which has recently ordered artillery and AA from germany with several years delivery time.
Now just mass produce it
Order 500
That is one ugly fricking gun. Send the kraut who made it into a shower
>nobody making a counterargument as to why wheeled or more heavily armored tracked SPHs should be superior instead
I consider that an agreement with my observation
Ok I'll be the one to state the obvious.
>Wheels faster
>Wheels more fuel efficient
Sometimes wheels are superior and sometimes tracks are. There isn't really anything to be learned here.
OP doesnt sound like someone who does much learning anyways.
>remote controlled howitzer
Check
>only requires a crew of two
Archer can be used by a single person if needed
>built on a proven M270 chassis
Built on proven dumper chassis
>lighter than normal tracked SPHs
Same
>better protected than wheeled SPHs
Both have the same STANAG level
>better mobility in mud than wheeled SPHs
Probably true
>top of the line PzH 2000 system
Same
>can be transported in A400M
Same
>can be uparmored if required
Same
Archer weighs the same as Donar and isn't tracked
that means its mobility is worse
and if the driver has to operate the gun that's a disadvantage too, obviously the driver could theoretically operate the gun of the Donar too, but that would be moronic
it's the same speed as Archer
only the CAESAR is substantially faster, but that isn't armored, has no autoloader, and can't be remotely controlled
and thanks to its tracks Donar is more maneuverable offroad than either Archer or CAESAR, especially during mud or snow
The whole tracked vs wheeled arugment is moot anyway, since both have advantages, and disadvantages. For certain types of terrain tracks are far superior and for certain ones wheels are. Its a descisíon that should be made mainly depending on where you intend to operate and in what sort of unit.
>it's the same speed as Archer
I can atleast confirm now that you have never traveled at high speed in a tracked vehicle. What will bring down the speed at that point isnt the technical limit of the engine or transmission, its that it will be bumpy as all hell for the crew, hence why you rarely see tanks, SPGs or IFVs travel close to their technical max speeds while wheeled vehicles comfortably does this.
>its that it will be bumpy as all hell for the crew
There are some simple and really complex ways to mitigate this. A simple one is using rubber tracks, but IIRC there's been successful tests on the CV90 where they had a LIDAR scan the ground in front of the vehicle and had a system where the suspension of each road wheel was adjusted in anticipation of each bump and depression it was about to face. Supposedly reduced fuel consumption a lot and made the ride a lot more comfortable.
>that means its mobility is worse
Truck is faster on roads and usually requires way less maintenance than tracked chassis.
>Built on proven dumper chassis
Aren’t they offering it to Switzerland with some MAN truck instead of this one?
Yes, they have a prototype on a MAN chassies too.
Proving they can shift out Archer's chassis for other shit makes it even better honestly
>archer ammo capacity
frick all
expensive piece of shit. mutts won't like this but the truth is that a barrage of fire from 100 antique north korean pieces will outgun this germanic piece of overpriced garbage any day
Do you really belive that training hundreds of artillerymen to use old D-20s is cheaper then training what, 2 - 3 guys to use this shit?
And thats before we include the cost of all the trucks to tow those 100 howitsers and logistics to run and feed all of that.
Cost involves a lot more then just the list price for buying a pice of equipment
the Ukraine war is proof to how moronic your post is
That baby would shell the supply lines of norks before they managed to carry the shells to all those artillery pieces with shit range and accuracy
i think this may be the ultimate example of how autistic this board has become. the entire point of artillery is to saturate the enemy with sheer volume of fire, it's a suppressive weapon.
it makes no sense to have one of these when for the same price you could have a dozen normal artillery pieces which would do significantly more in the field
shit like this has literally no reason to exist
>i think this may be the ultimate example of how autistic this board has become.
projecting pretty hard there
you're fricking moronic if you think "saturating" the enemy by firing random shells of which 90% don't hit the target is more economical than having precision weapons reliably take out high value targets
artillery is not, should not, and never will be a precision weapon. this concept that it should is completely made up by the MIC to justify jamming artillery with expensive, worthless electronic shit.
precision fire has always been the job of cruise missiles.
>90% of muh shells don't hit the enemy
go back to r*ddit moron what part of "suppressive fire" did your Black person brain not comprehend
because the enemy with more volume of fire can simply afford to evaporate the entire area code where the fire is coming from. have you heard of counter battery fire?
>thing good because everyone doing it
npc
they're doing it because it enriches the MIC frickwit
>artillery is not, should not, and never will be a precision weapon
t. World War 1 vet
You're moronic. Why suppress an enemy when you can destroy him.
>because the enemy with more volume of fire can simply afford to evaporate the entire area code where the fire is coming from. have you heard of counter battery fire?
These days more and more objectives are centered around cities or built up areas (see Ukraine as a perfect example) and just removing a grid square of your own civilians because you refused to invest in precision artillery is quite fricking dumb if you intend to win any wars. Artillery has allways tried to be as accurate as possible, because again, the supressive effect comes from landing on or near your target, not wasting 10 000 rounds on the forrest a kilometer away.
>Everyone does it so it must be bad!
Contrarian bullshit is just as bad of an argument as calling me an NPC because the whole world is investing in somthing that doesnt fit your view of what le glorius artillery battle is.
first of all i'm talking about counter battery fire moron
>If it made no sense, then why is literally everyone switching over to it.
this is literally the definition of argumentum ad popularum lol it's not contrarian you're just a fricking idiot
>muh precision artillery
t. amerishitter who is a slave to lockheed martin profit margins
because cruise missiles are better at that objective almost 100% of the time, artillery is meant to be used in great volume
that's the founding principle behind this nonsense and i'm saying it's fricking moronic
You are still wrong and the rest of the world is right. And yes, even Russia tries to improve accuracy on its artillery and has developed precision munitions like the Krasnopol. Fact of the matter is, that if you have a target you need to destroy within artillery range, a few precision rounds will do that job faster, cheaper and better then a cruise missile will.
This does not mean that cruise missiles are useless, it just means you can use them on the targets that are out of artillery range, aka the way they are supposed to be used.
>Counter-battery fire
Sorry bro your Artillery has been destroyed by Guided Shells
You could have destroyed my artillery too but You kept missing
>Cruise missiles
Literally moronic and also interceptable
Why waste a multi-million dollar Missile on some Counter battery radar when you can just use Guided Rounds for 10% of the cost?
>Le Volume of Fire
If you Fire 10k Rounds and only 10% of those actually reasonably shit hit then you have effectively wasted 9k Rounds
Imagine how much logistic,maintenance and time this requires to Fire 10k Rounds
also Due to the advent of Counter Battery Fire Radars the Idea of simply firing as many Rounds as possible has also become Risky as Each shot increases the Chance of your Artillery being Destroyed
Now if only there was such a thing where you could Reduce the amount of Fired Rounds by more than 50% for the Same effectiveness which could significantly reduce the downsides listed above
>cruise missiles
Not a tactical-level weapon, you absolute fricktard.
The artillery battle is not won by volume of fire (that didn't even work in WW1) but tactical reconnaissance and intelligence and the capability of getting a fast and accurate firing solution done.
>have you heard of counter battery fire?
>ITT, moron still think that "cheap" dumb shells aren't just all-around inferior
One gun firing half a dozen smart shells achieves more on the battlefield than half a dozen guns firing a hundred dumb shells, and does it at cheaper overall cost.
>muh suppression
Guess what, a shell landing on top of your trench does more to supress than twenty shells landing a hundred feet away from it.
How are you going to saturate anything when the enemy has more mobile artillery with higher range, higher rate of fire, higher accuracy than yours?
>i think this may be the ultimate example of how autistic this board has become
I have been here for 10+ years and it has allways been this autistic, and you are part of the problem
>it makes no sense to have one of these when for the same price you could have a dozen normal artillery pieces which would do significantly more in the field
If it made no sense, then why is literally everyone switching over to it. You will supress someone far better if your munitions doesnt land half a kilometer away from them.
>the entire point of artillery is to saturate the enemy with sheer volume of fire
The point of artillery is to hit things from far away. Suppressive fire is nice but if you can just put a shell through the roof of a tank or his tent or something then that's ideal. Enemy in cover will get up, dead guy won't.
>war tourist
go back
I'm a 2016 election tourist actually.
Hi Putin, how is Ukraine going
The only real downside to this thing is speed and fuel economy, but I think the other benefits make up for the trade off.
I like how these are starting to look like naval deck guns mounted on flat bed trucks, it just looks neat.
it literally is an independent module, it can be mounted on various types of vehicles
cute
So it's just a driver and one guy out back playing with computers and handling shells, making small repairs.
Kind of like a sci-fi spaceship or the Millenium Falcon
How long until fully autonomous howitzers and mortars trail armored/infantry advances?
Seems like one of the easiest things to automate to a large degree, aside for reloading and some human guidance. They can drive from spot A to B if directed. Then recon drones pass back targeting data to them, an appropriately sized munition for the target gets autoselected and a added to a queue, and then the next free artillery drone in range snaps off a shell.
I can imagine advances where it is all small drones moving up and picking targets to pound with artillery, while armor and infantry essentially just mop up anything that was missed somehow.
Frick off, Hans. Once Rußia is buried and properly balkanized it's Your turn
https://m.bild.de/politik/ausland/politik-ausland/selenskyj-interview-nach-putin-drohung-er-will-die-ukraine-in-blut-ertraenken-81391902.bildMobile.html?t_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-germany-leopard-tanks-marder-blunt-criticism/32031613.html
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/bundestag-postpones-vote-on-transfer-of-tanks-and-armored-vehicles-to-ukraine/
frick off to /misc/, chud. This is a weapons board.
They really slap the AGM onto everything.
Trannies and gentlemen, may I present:
The AGM pickup truck, coming to the new caliphate near you!
Make one but with a donkey and a cart pulling that cannon
Perfection
>Never runs out of fuel
>Passes on any terrain
>Low noise
>Enviromentally friendly
I'd use it
the platform that won the spanish civil war
>tfw it gets mounted onto a Chinese electric truck off of Alibaba
Given the popularity of the Ford Transit in Europe I'm surprised we haven't seen them converted to technicals in this war.
This BTFOs the Korean SPH
except the korean sph won't run out of fuel, spare parts, and ammo 3 days into a real war
germans really should know better than to do the vatnig tier shilling of equipment thats not even produced yet
Am I wrong in thinking that tube artillery in general is borderline obsolescent now that GPS guided rocket artillery is so cheap?
You are.
The ammo for normal artillery is still massively cheaper and easier to store.
Or basically
>rocket artillery
for big fixed targets like ammo dumps, bases, supply points such as railways/railway stations
>tube artillery
mobile targets, tanks, infantry and so forth
Both can target houses, but that's about it
Something like SMArt has yet to be replicated for MLRS and similar systems, and that's pretty much dedicated to absolutely smushing tanks and other lowlives.
Rockets take up 5x the space of shells. Rockets had an initial advantage when guidance chips were primitive and expensive, but as time goes on, chips are coming to tube artillery and equalizing the difference.
That's just you spending too much time staring at pretty HIMARS-produced fireworks shows and loosing track of the rest. Shells remains a lot cheaper than rockets. Shells remain a lot smaller than rockets. Fire a few to blow up a depot? Price and volume per shot doesn't matter much. But when you're looking to blanket an area to suppress the enemy and soften up not all that well known defences? You're going to be firing a frickhuge number of shots then, and suddenly shit starts adding up in a hurry. And while rocket artillery can launch one hell of an initial volley it then takes ages to reload to go again, while tube artillery can sustain things.
It's not just about costs, it's about mass and volume (i.e logistics). For small payloads there's a frickton more mass and bulk to transport for each shot if you don't have tubes.
You could make a pace for a compromise in some cases though, like extra large mortar rounds with sustainer motors.
Important is not some total volume of fire but what you can pull out in a 1 min surge.
i fixed it