Before the war modernized 40km grad rockets were about $8-10k each, 40km base bleed 155mm shells were $2-4k. Grad is also much less accurate so attacking point targets gets very wasteful, at 40km artillery hits within +/- 200m in range and +/- 40m azimuth, good grad rockets are about 2x worse meaning you have to expend 4x as much ammo for the same hit probability. Even if you take the worst 20km grads for $750 each and <30km 155mm shells for $2k grads are still not cheaper, only the Brezhnev era surplus could be. The calculations change of course if you are attacking an area target but that would be rare
>i would hazard artillery is more accurate and logistics are easier
Spot on, plus the fact that sustained fire is a lot easier. That said you can create just as accurate rocket artillery these days, but they are significantly more expensive.
look at a rocket, it's a complicated and delicate piece of technology that takes a lot of time and money to create, now compare it to a simple artillery shell, something that can be easily stamped out of a factory in the thousands and there's your answer
it's economically viable,dude no country wants to spend the maximum amount of money possible in wars,the best equipment will be and is sacrificed for lesser equipment due to higher costs of operating and using them
Artillery has a role, both armored self propelled and the traditional towed types.
Wheeled systems like the Caesar and similar are rapidly becoming obsolete as rocket artillery systems like HIMARS, Chunmoo, etc show they fulfill the niche much better.
>Wheeled systems like the Caesar and similar are rapidly becoming obsolete as rocket artillery systems like HIMARS, Chunmoo, etc show they fulfill the niche much better
moron?
Logistics.
Rocket artillery consumes 5x more trucks to supply it than gun artillery for the simple reason the rockets are bulkier.
So while precision rockets are useful for killing known targets, if you want to use cheap dumb arty to suppress things for conventional warfare in peer to peer style, 155s are mandatory.
money
See
Also shells reload faster and are better over a sustained period.
it's cheaper
cheaper than grad?
i would hazard artillery is more accurate and logistics are easier
yeah cheaper than grad with the difference being rather huge. An artillery round is in the thousands while MLRS are in the tens of thousands.
that's cpr
Before the war modernized 40km grad rockets were about $8-10k each, 40km base bleed 155mm shells were $2-4k. Grad is also much less accurate so attacking point targets gets very wasteful, at 40km artillery hits within +/- 200m in range and +/- 40m azimuth, good grad rockets are about 2x worse meaning you have to expend 4x as much ammo for the same hit probability. Even if you take the worst 20km grads for $750 each and <30km 155mm shells for $2k grads are still not cheaper, only the Brezhnev era surplus could be. The calculations change of course if you are attacking an area target but that would be rare
>40km base bleed 155mm shells were $2-4k
more like 900$
I still remember some people swearing when they got up to about 1.5k$
in the US? quite possible, European manufacturers were always more expensive because of low order volumes
>i would hazard artillery is more accurate and logistics are easier
Spot on, plus the fact that sustained fire is a lot easier. That said you can create just as accurate rocket artillery these days, but they are significantly more expensive.
its cheep!
it costs less
Without shells both are useless
another slide thread
>another slide thread
Sliding what? Or don't you understand a term you read on Facebook?
look at a rocket, it's a complicated and delicate piece of technology that takes a lot of time and money to create, now compare it to a simple artillery shell, something that can be easily stamped out of a factory in the thousands and there's your answer
>easily
citation needed
What’s the point of weapons when nukes exist
What's the point of nukes when stick with a poo exist
What's the point of stick and poo when I shid and fard n a lil pee come out.
Typical man, forgetting the G spot. MLRS is basic b***h rocket artillery. HIMARS is guided.
it's economically viable,dude no country wants to spend the maximum amount of money possible in wars,the best equipment will be and is sacrificed for lesser equipment due to higher costs of operating and using them
Artillery has a role, both armored self propelled and the traditional towed types.
Wheeled systems like the Caesar and similar are rapidly becoming obsolete as rocket artillery systems like HIMARS, Chunmoo, etc show they fulfill the niche much better.
>Wheeled systems like the Caesar and similar are rapidly becoming obsolete
except they aren't?
>Wheeled systems like the Caesar and similar are rapidly becoming obsolete as rocket artillery systems like HIMARS, Chunmoo, etc show they fulfill the niche much better
moron?
One is for area denial. The other is for hitting specific targets.
Logistics.
Rocket artillery consumes 5x more trucks to supply it than gun artillery for the simple reason the rockets are bulkier.
So while precision rockets are useful for killing known targets, if you want to use cheap dumb arty to suppress things for conventional warfare in peer to peer style, 155s are mandatory.
Shells are cheaper to produce than missiles and harder to intercept.
They are also easier to bring to the launcher and reload it.