should NATO develop an equivalent to the 2S7 Pion?

should NATO develop an equivalent to the 2S7 Pion?

200mm+ long range artillery, i feel it might outrange 155mm shells if the same tech was used on it

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What do you need to hit with an 8" shell that an 6" won't kill with a direct hit?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its not about the kill power, its about the range

      both ruskies and Ukis found the Pion very useful in the most grinding moments of the war, since very few other arty pieces can match its range, 40 Km is not bad at all

      take the concept and apply some NATO precision guided munitions, you could have a decent piece for arty duels

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        We already have a precise, long range, indirect fire system. Why do we need another?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't understand the question.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But most western artillery already comes up close that that already. Hell with base bleed/rocket it seems like most western artillery piece already get closer to 50 km with the phz2000 shoting over 60 km with specialized munitions.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That kind of long range artillery is mostly for counterbattery fire. The west has dropped the old 8 inch guns in favor of MLRS. Rockets can carry larger warheads and it's easier to make them long range. They cost much more per round fired. But if their main job is knocking out the enemy's artillery it is more Tham cost effective.
        Rockets are also more easy to incorporate guidance systems into as they don't experience anywhere near as much g force upon launch. And if you are going to pay for a really expensive guidance system, you might as well have a massive warheads to back it up.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >its not about the kill power, its about the range
        You are making the assumption that 203 mm rounds can out-range 155mm rounds, and are presenting it as a fact. I don't think that that is the case at all.
        For traditional artillery rounds, bigger caliber results in longer range, but for base-bleed and rocket-assisted rounds, that might no longer be the case. It's possible that there's a "sweet spot caliber" for maximizing range, and it's somewhere near 155mm.

        Russian 152mm 2S35 Koalitsiya SV can hit up to 70km.
        US 155mm XM1299 can hit up to 70km.
        South African 155mm G6-52 can hit up to 67km.
        As far as I'm aware of, no >200mm land based artillery can reach further than 60km.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Completely unnecessary if you have functioning air support and SEAD capability

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_howitzer

      No point, air power and precision MLRS took its role.

      its not about the kill power, its about the range

      both ruskies and Ukis found the Pion very useful in the most grinding moments of the war, since very few other arty pieces can match its range, 40 Km is not bad at all

      take the concept and apply some NATO precision guided munitions, you could have a decent piece for arty duels

      >he hasn't taken the Al-Fao pill
      >"It is one of the world's most powerful artillery pieces, with a caliber of 210 mm (8.3 in) and a range of 56 km (35 mi)."
      >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fao

      I have no idea why NATO did not adopt something similar. Yes, there is air support and rockets but still.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just because you don't like the reason, doesn't mean the reasons aren't valid. It simply doesn't add anything to the alliances capabilities. Even if you can deny NATO air superiority (which nobody can) they still have long range precision rocket artillery.
        The only thing that the al-fao has that HIMARS does not is rate of fire.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Just because you don't like the reason, doesn't mean the reasons aren't valid
          Are you done projecting from the Eglin airbase? Or are you upset that that your branch might get a budget cut because there are decent land based alternatives to certain air power capabilities?

          Why did the garden gnomes have to kill him? All’s my man wanted to do was build big guns.

          No idea but the dude was a turbo autism that would make PrepHole blush.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We have 155mm systems for medium range artillery, we have rocket artillery for long range. What does a large caliber tube artillery for medium-long range do for us, and why would it impact the air force?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why did the garden gnomes have to kill him? All’s my man wanted to do was build big guns.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          murders comes easy to a criminal

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They're the worst.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          To be fair he was building a huge gun to shoot Israel for a bit, which seems like a pretty good way to get out on mossads shit list.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >design gun for shelling Tel Aviv
          >get Mossad'ed
          They warned him several times to knock it off. At that point he was just asking for it.
          Like, get a fucking clue, retard.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Completely unnecessary if you have functioning air support and SEAD capability

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_howitzer

    No point, air power and precision MLRS took its role.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    your stuck in ww2 boomer like the dipshit russians. Unmanned drones are the way of the future

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know exactly what they need

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That damn thing was even more inaccurate than a Russian missile. That it did hit something once was purely by chance.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It does not matter.

        >Big gun goes boom
        >Big bullet goes BOOOOOM

        That's it. That's the stuff

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >should NATO develop an equivalent to the 2S7 Pion?
    It serves no real purpose and is nothing more than a logistical burden. Precision fires > weight of fires.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If American wanted to turn a city into dust, they would just bomb it from the air.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >i feel it might outrange 155mm shells
    Nah it doesn't work that way. Back in the day 8" arty outranged 6" arty because the heavier shells slowed down slower. But with better shell design, longer barrels and new materials, the range is 30kms for everything from 4" to 20"

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    RUSSIA JUST GONNA KEEP SENDING IT

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    With current Western tech, going from 6" to 8" shells doesn't gain that much range but makes logistics much more onerous.
    If ramjet tech was to advance far enough, then larger calibers might be king once more.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      shells that destroy even MBTs in the unlucky zip code are scarier than shells that need near miss or direct hit

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Literally no.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia tier planning
        Intelligent submunitions such as SMART shells are better for quickly taking out multiple tanks, accurate dumb shells are better for economics, missiles are better for when you just need a big warhead...
        Large shells are simply not useful under current constraints.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    8" is too heavy for the advantages it gives

    With 6" you can more easily build an SPG which can do rapid fire shots and therefore MRSI

    An SPG that carries an 8" howitzer that has all the auto loading shit for MRSI and a useful supply of ammo would be fuckhuge and thus a big slow target

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You guys are confused. 8" is more deadly, but we settled on 6" because it was the best trade-off between target effect, mobility and economics. That’s all. Larger was seen as beneficial to the Soviets probably because they wanted to compensate for poor accuracy and as they expected to fight a land war in Europe the reduced mobility was worth it.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    155mm has better utility, is easier on logistics and NATO doctrine is that traditional targets of heavy artillery are better served by striking with missiles or air power. The M110 was a cool vehicle, but 8" guns have little utility these days.

    >muh range

    ERCA tubes give you 50km base range and are designed to be retrofitted to older 155mm cannons.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The thing is anon, NATO has something known as a functional air force.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how did we get 35 posts in without anyone mentioning NATO had 203mm guns that are still operated by secondary allies like Taiwan and Japan?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because the Lockheed shills don't want you to mention how based the 203mms are.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No just build missile systems at that point

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if we ever need it instead of a missile of air launch missile we'll just pull M110 back into service, because it's literally the thing you're talking about.
    Greece and Turkey still operate them.

Your email address will not be published.