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
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
What do you need to hit with an 8" shell that an 6" won't kill with a direct hit?
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
We already have a precise, long range, indirect fire system. Why do we need another?
I don't understand the question.
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
>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?
No idea but the dude was a turbo autism that would make /k/ blush.
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?
Why did the israelites have to kill him? All’s my man wanted to do was build big guns.
murders comes easy to a criminal
They're the worst.
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.
>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 fricking clue, moron.
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.
your stuck in ww2 boomer like the dipshit russians. Unmanned drones are the way of the future
I know exactly what they need
That damn thing was even more inaccurate than a Russian missile. That it did hit something once was purely by chance.
It does not matter.
>Big gun goes boom
>Big bullet goes BOOOOOM
That's it. That's the stuff
>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.
If American wanted to turn a city into dust, they would just bomb it from the air.
>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"
RUSSIA JUST GONNA KEEP SENDING IT
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.
shells that destroy even MBTs in the unlucky zip code are scarier than shells that need near miss or direct hit
Literally no.
>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.
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 frickhuge and thus a big slow target
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.
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.
The thing is anon, NATO has something known as a functional air force.
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?
Because the Lockheed shills don't want you to mention how based the 203mms are.
No just build missile systems at that point
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.