whats the verdict on heavy artillery? are they useful?

whats the verdict on heavy artillery? are they useful?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and no

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Absolutely

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    feel like rate of fire and mobility should be number one priority over caliber
    the perfect SPG is probably some semi automatic 120-155mm with 10-15 round magazine that just dump it all in a minute then move out reload and do it again

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      here is your ideal artillery bro

      ?t=138

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        look very neat and stable too

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >loads 155mm clip

        • 3 weeks ago
          Grond

          >The loading of the magazine happens via machine using the loading boom (?).
          >It uses a cassette containing 14 shots.
          >The entire cassette weighs 1400 kg.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It uses a cassette containing 14 shots.
            >The entire cassette weighs 1400 kg.
            imagine aftermath of full auto slamfire incident

            • 3 weeks ago
              Grond

              The swedes had an automatic 120 with a 52 round magazine, with an 80 rpm.

              Imagine 10 of those used for ground attack.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Grond

                Meant that the auto 120mm wat designed as AAA, and tha using it doe direct fire ground attack would be interesting.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pions are siege artillery, they are for cases when you need to relatively quickly destroy a bridge or concrete fortifications, not just lobbing shells in the field.
      NATO forces would probably just deploy aviation for such missions, but in a situation of contested air siege artillery is optimal.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Faced with a sophisticated adversary who's isn't a middle eastern shithole, aviation becomes infeasible.

        Easy to shoot down. Risky.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Against static targets like bridges and fortifications you dont need to come close enough that SAMs is an issue. That said enemy fighters might still be.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Russian S500 SAM has a 600km range

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's an ABM, and like all Russian weapons the numbers are fake.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Pzh. 2000 can serve in this role.
        A battery of 4 units can destroy a bridge in 1 MRSI salvo using m107, that was one of the design goals.
        That's 864kg. of steel and composite B hitting the bridge in the span of 1,2 seconds.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well, good for them, I guess. Pions are two decades older so it's no mystery they have much less sophisticated functionality.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think accuracy trumps either.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        you can use guided munition for that

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          would probably be easier too considering you have more room then with a 8 inch vs the what 6ish inch guns most nations use

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      rate of fire is constrained by barrel life

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >barrel life
        mass produce course correcting smart munitions and you don't have to care about rifling or the barrel turning white hot

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the holy grail of SPGs is a stabilized gun on an all terrain chassis for non-stop mechanized warfare

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anything above 155 gives you diminishing returns to where you're better off using rockets.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This
      NATO standardised on 155mm and got rid of the 203mms for a reason
      Part of it is the logistics of the bigger shell, which of course is lost on Russhits and thirdies with their perennial BIGGER IS BETTER mentality

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        203mm still easily outranges 155mm.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Perhaps if you built a new 203mm gun.

          The 2S7 Pion 203mm can reach out to around 45 km with rocket assisted rounds. There are 155mm systems that can do beyond 50km with base bleed alone

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not correct.

            Pion can do 37km with standard shells. Far better than M109 155mm or M777.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What has it actually hit

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Their wallets

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Who said anything about M109s or M777s?

              Pzh2000, Archer, Caesar are all in the same ballpark with regular rounds. If you really need that extra few kilometers of range, just add BB or RAP to any common 155.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/Z7h6jd0.jpg

                >loads 155mm clip

                https://i.imgur.com/hhzpyd1.jpg

                here is your ideal artillery bro

                ?t=138

                Ideal 155mm artillery unveiled.
                By far the best.

                [...]

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Meh, I still like the Archer more as far as wheeled arty goes. Especially since I have actually been inside one and they are very comfy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you're biased obviously. Archer is nice however can't fire while moving.
                RCH 155 can do so.
                Making it virtually impossible to hit with counter fire

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >*shoot and scoots*
                >*incoming shells adjust mid-flight*
                >*splash on target anyways*
                nothing personnel kid

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Adjust how exactly?

                Keep in mind RCH155 outranges your artillery.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Adjust how exactly?
                using the backdoor data access your own side sold to enemy

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Needing to stop for 30 seconds or beeing able to fire on the move doesnt seem to make much difference to me.

                But now Im curious. At what angles can it fire on the move? At what speeds and over what terrain? Whats accuracy on the move like? Is it some funky fully stabilized mount likr the naval 5 inch?

                Has anyone actually bought it, and is there video of it fiering on the move?

                Sorry about the question spam

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Video

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing is known about the accuracy while firing conventional munition on the move, I can't imagine it to be good.
                This is not the point though since it can fire GPS guided vulcano rounds.
                It can fire at any angle, so at maximum range too.
                It can drive up to 30km/h while firing.
                That's a vehicle driving at 30km/h. firing and hitting a target 70km. away with pinpoint precision.

                Ukraine ordered 18, Germany will probably get over a hundred, Switzerland is interested and the UK is also looking at wheeled artillery and already uses the boxer so the RCH will probably win.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It can drive up to 30km/h while firing.
                Damn, that's fast. That's like 200miles/h?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More than fast enough for counter battery fire to be obsolete.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >More than fast enough for counter battery fire to be obsolete.
                What about shit like javelins?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why would there be enemy ATGM teams 10km. deep inside your territory?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why would there be enemy ATGM teams 10km. deep inside your territory?
                Probably because they know about your capabilities and are interested in neutralizing them?
                I mean, it's like if you are going to commit a crime, you would presumably plan things out ahead of time so you could get away with it, right?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not how it works man.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not how it works man.
                Yeah. We wouldn't need jails or prisons if criminals had an IQ above 65

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I've you're that close to enemy infantry you're done.
                But artillery would be tens of kilometers behind the front line.
                Biggest threats are enemy precision strikes, aircrafts.

                This is why you want to be moving m

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > bob around for 30 seconds between each shots
                into the trash it goes

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nonsense? High firing range

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The real advantage of RCH 155 is that if can be moved by medium transport plane and only needs 2 crew. Shooting on the move is nice, but you will likely have left the grid already when CB rounds are coming in even if you fire stationary.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                boxer needs it's modules removed for flight on A400M, it's too tall. It's also pure fantasy that a single vehicle is all thats required for a single gun in the field, there's multiple other vehicles with ammunition, personnel and mechanical logistics for every single actual gun. Go look at an artillery regiment order of battle.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A single battery of 6 guns in the US Army requires 28 vehicles total. That's before observation, HQ and force protection.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fucking Americans.
                I can do the same with 5 Ural trucks and 500 conscripts.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Germans solved this problem already

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's not a solution to any of the problems i outlined.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The thing is that it can be transported by A400M. It does not need to go by ship or big Antonov. That is a huge plus because those planes don’t need proper tarmac to operate. You can just fly a battery of them to the middle of bumfuck nowhere and have heavy artillery on a fairly mobile chassis in your AO. Think Africa.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Cant you transport something like a Caesar or Archer in an A400 too?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That said, Im not shitting on the Pion, its cool as all hell and seem to work just fine for Ukraine. But there is a reason nobody has developed a new 203mm SPG since the 1970s.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But there is a reason nobody has developed a new 203mm SPG since the 1970s.

                I call bullshit. Pic related is from the 80s. 58 km with streamlined shells and base bleed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And how many if those were sold?

                Anyway, 70s or 80s doesnt matter, my point still stands

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Hey, I recognize that gun!

                That particular SPG was the result of a Canadian artillery mad scientist, Dr. Gerlad Bull. It was based on research conducted by the USA/Canada during Project HARP. That was NOT the Soviets. It was a Soviet platform (because that was who sold Iraq the guns), but the modifications to make them good were entirely the result of Bull's work within USA/Canada. I'm almsot certain it was beyond what the Soviet Union was capable of producing for themselves. He was such a problem that Israel killed him. No seriously, the garden gnomes actually killed him because he was a bit of a mad scientist and they were worried he would make the Iraqis too competent.

                All PrepHole users should worship Dr. Gerald Bull who tried to shoot shells into orbit.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yup, I posted it to show the amerimutt that his country is not and have not been at the forefront of artillery developement.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why are you comparing a L56 gun to an L39 gun?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I unironically hope the Ukraine war will make people reconsider >155mm artillery regardless of the valid counter-arguments
            Even more so since the range of a modern, say 203mm cannon could make railway artillery viable again
            Fuck, i bet you would get some out of it even if you'd slap some 155's on carriages MONARC style right now

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nothing will ever make railway artillery viable again, because it is bound to the tracks.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                what if you could fire them from 100km away ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                just use a missile at that point.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neat, also a bit unpractical. Rocket artillery can do it with less effort

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Satellites can easily find the tracks, then use drone to pinpoint the location of artillery, blow up the tracks at different points to prevent it from moving away then send a missile to finish it off.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I doubth railway artillery will dver be viable again since that means you need to build a railway to a place near your target. That said, while I doubth it will happen, a modern 203mm SPG with guided shells would be cool as all hell.

                >you need to build a railway to a place near your target.
                That's the neat thing, you don't
                At least if we're talking about countries with existing railways and >100km ranges
                That said, it obviously wouldn't put rocket artillery out of business

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                A lot of those countries uses different gauges anon, so you would need something really funky if youwant to operate it anywhere not close to home.

                And unless you mount it in a turret you still need a pice of railway that lines up in the direction you intend to fire.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                On the euro mainland your only concer would be former USSR/Finland and the Iberian peninsula.
                And yeah, as much much as I like the massive WWI railway guns, the only way it would be feasible is a monarc-like system that doesnt need dedicated carriages so you could slap it on a different one if the need arises.
                The 60 tonnes a basic carriage provides should be plenty enough for a turret given that a whole pzh2000 weighs less

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Road bound "rail artillery" was developed in USA in the 50s, it was 28 cm in caliber and called "atom annie" because it was meant to fire nuclear shells. So its not impossible.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >meant to fire nuclear shells.
                Fuck yeah, atomic annie and the soviet 406mm condensator and 420mm Oka

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Fuck yeah, atomic annie and the soviet 406mm condensator and 420mm Oka

                There was this 40 cm russian recoilless rifle too, it broke on the first test firing. Unlike the russian experiments, 28 cm atom annie worked and was deployed in an actual field unit.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I doubth railway artillery will dver be viable again since that means you need to build a railway to a place near your target. That said, while I doubth it will happen, a modern 203mm SPG with guided shells would be cool as all hell.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Guided shells are terrible. Barely used. 99% of all rounds fired are standard shells.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          if you want range you go for missiles and rockets, not really any reason to go for a gun in that case

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how do you even aim shit like pz2000 and other systems when the target is 20 miles away?

    do you have to call the gunner, give him a bunch of coordinates and hope that there's a clear line of fire between the artillery and the target?
    I feel like missiles or airstrikes are so much more practical than artiller and the fact that i havent seen a single video of western SPGs doing shit in ukraine kinda underlines that fact

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      artillery goes really high so it won't hit anything until it reaches the target.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >top 10 sayings of the militarily illiterate
      Artillery is both faster and easier to use than air support.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Maths and observers.

      Your altitude and position, the target altitude and position, to get between the two there are usually a number of different trajectories and charges that get you there. Lower trajectories are faster and less prone to wind but might be blocked by terrain or trees near the target, high trajectories take longer with more drift but come in near vertical. (you can fire through a range of different trajectories for a near simultaneous impact).

      Anyway once the geometry is worked out and trajectory is chosen you fire and normally get an observer to call an adjustment, while you know the wind in your location its not an exact science because wind gusts and is different speeds in different locations and altitudes.

      If the shots are on target then you will be told to fire for effect with your remaining number of tasked rounds.

      Sometimes with enough time prearranged target reference points will be set up - a treeline, a bridge etc, then all the troops have to do is call out the identifier and the battery could in theory porgess straight to firing for effect in less time than would otherwise be the case.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Geometry, trigonometry, and physics.
      Or artillery tables if you're lazy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >do you have to call the gunner, give him a bunch of coordinates and hope that there's a clear line of fire between the artillery and the target?
      press esc, go to settings -> key bindings -> search for "display ballistic trajectory", enable it and save settings.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, you are looking at about double the range of conventional arty which is ideal for an arty heavy / counter battery focused war like Ukraine.
    Russia lacks the counter battery radars to make full use of them but they aren't a terrible idea.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    judging by the rate of ukkie propaganda clips their pions are shooting 24/7 and there are stories how before himars it was the longest range arty they had and played a crutial role

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only a few Pion are left.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The big stuff (175mm and up) offers too few advantages on the modern battlefield, very slow to react and reload, while not delivering a much more meaningful punch through explosive mass or range. 152/155 is about as heavy as you can go while having the best of all worlds.

    Personally I'd rather have 127mm guns with longer barrels so that we can have standardisation with 5 inch naval guns and have shared R&D funding for specialist ammunition.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The big stuff (175mm and up) offers too few advantages on the modern battlefield
      I'd like to have some heavy stuff on standby that can basically nuke entire tank company within 60 seconds if they bunch up thinking they haven't been seen

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's called a salvo of 155mm BONUS rounds

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what if enemy develops and widely deploys new type of reactive armor making them highly resistant? brute force option

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >brute force option
            PGMs are reliable enough now to compete with
            But if you insist, there's MRSI which on a 203mm gun is prohibitively heavy

            That's what missiles are for.

            [...]
            Bonus is a bit of a cheap meme, Germany couldn't afford missiles to replace their cluster munitions so made a fairly clunky solution that relies far too much on luck.

            >clunky solution that relies far too much on luck
            NATO was all working on similar weapons so it's not a nation-specific thing
            I don't recall what the US equivalent was it had 4 sensor aerials

            203mm still easily outranges 155mm.

            Like I said, logistics: NATO determined that it's easier to build 155mm guns that can shoot and scoot than 203mm, thus negating the range advantage with tactics

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >NATO was all working on similar weapons so it's not a nation-specific thing

              Germany developed their own solution and it's probably the worst of the DPICM/cluster munition replacements.

              >I don't recall what the US equivalent was

              The US still has DPICM but has ground and helicopter launched anti-tank/GP missiles in addition.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's what missiles are for.

        That's called a salvo of 155mm BONUS rounds

        Bonus is a bit of a cheap meme, Germany couldn't afford missiles to replace their cluster munitions so made a fairly clunky solution that relies far too much on luck.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          even the short range GMLRS is 2 and a half minutes away

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >2 and a half minutes away

            So what? 155 is going to take a minute of flight time and thats just the first round before observation/correction, you can add another minute for the followup and a third minute for set up assuming the crews are already unpacked and next to their guns with ammo stored nearby. More likely that your guns and trailers will have to move to their firing position from their concealment.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        First world countries drop some hellfires and move on

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's literally the entire purpose of GMLRS, engaging targets of opportunity with a very heavy barrage without having to fuck around coordinating dozens of artillery pieces and hundreds of men for the same effect

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >coordinating dozens of artillery pieces
          or one really big one

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tanks are the hard counter to dumb artillery. One BONUS shell will kill more tanks than hundreds, potentially thousands of 203mm dumb shells.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Bonus only opens up 200m above targets. The area covered is small. Around 65 sqm per shell.

          So you need to know beforehand where a target is located.
          Not that helpful. A standard round does more damage.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            BONUS is a step down from DPICM, having only two sub-munitions is a huge problem but it's required to avoid being classified as a cluster munition.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It wasnt really a step down for Sweden, since Sweden had no cluster munitions before it, and relied on old conventional shells. For other countries it might have been tho.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *32 000 sqm

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nope. Bonus has a ballistic trajectory until the two sub-projectiles are deployed. Fairly close above ground.
              Not much area covered.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then why does the tech-sheet from BAE state 32,000 sqm search area covered?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I200m search diameter. Not exactly huge

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                200/2 = 100
                3,14x100x100 = 31 400 m2

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Then why does the tech-sheet from BAE state 32,000 sqm search area covered?

                The submuntions rotate on the way down and scan the ground in a circular path, and as they come closer and closer to the ground this circle decrease in diameter. Once they spot something they fire off the EFP. Its this circle that is 32 000 square meters large.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, so it can seek out a target within 32 000 sqm and engage that target

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You realise a search area of 32,000m2 means a square with sides of 178.8m?

                Square roots, hard innit?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You realise i was commenting on a post claiming it only covered 65 m2 and not 32 000 m2 as per the manufacturer's technical documentation?

                But yeah, square roots and all that

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        in a NATO conflict those kind of targets would be smoked by air support or missiles

        in the particular conflict in Ukraine, those 203mm cannon just happen to be highly effective because they outrange most other artillery on the field and the air is a death zone full of AA

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The big stuff (175mm and up) offers too few advantages on the modern battlefield, very slow to react and reload, while not delivering a much more meaningful punch through explosive mass or range.

      This has nothing to do with the caliber but with the lack of mechanization, and this was driven primarily by the design directive to minimize weight at all costs. You see similar rates of fire from a M777 which is also completely unmechanized.

      The advantages of heavy artillery are longer range fire, (potential) better accuracy at long range because of less weather affected ammunition and much better terminal effect in protected targets.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Personally I'd rather have 127mm guns with longer barrels so that we can have standardisation with 5 inch naval guns and have shared R&D funding for specialist ammunition.
      based, also someone should put a Mk41 cell in an armored box on tracks, Raytheon pls

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a shame we never go to see special ammunition for NATO 203mm (besides DIRCM and nukes obviously)
    203mm Excalibur with the lofted trajectory could probably get pretty crazy range, and the ram-rocket boosted rounds would have a more useful payload in larger diameter shells.

    The argument that GMLRS style rockets make more sense is true though, at the size of 8 inch artillery, the rounds and the gun start to become really unwieldy and you don't have the rate of fire to do typical artillery missions as well as 155 or smaller artillery.

    I wonder how 8 inch arty and guided rocket artillery compare for reaction times for counter battery.
    Might be worth pursuing hypersonic depressed trajectory missiles for shorter flight time to target, similar logic to HARM for example.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, they absolutely raped russian columns to the east of kyiv, no idea how would we do without them. There was a strat, it's not a secret, one head of a military fund was explaining somwhere, that there was one Tochka to the head of the column and another one to the end, and everything inbetween is the food
    t. Kyiv-anon

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They are only usefull when they are made by western ubermensch and used in strong ukrainian hands.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's the only thing slavic retards know how to use.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In the ancient times (pre-1980s) heavy arty served a dual role: bombardment of fortifications and long ranges for counter-battery. Today guided rockets do both better and 155 is the artillery default.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only thing heavy artillery really did that was useful was give you better range. Until the 1980's it served that role. Now that the west has rocket assisted projectiles for the 155MM that out-range the 203MM, they became kind a redundant and pointless. Going all 155MM allows you to standardize your logistics chain, gives you a ton of different options for whatever platform you're using, standardizes things for industry so they can make new rounds that have an existing market, and a bunch of other benefits.

    Ukraine is only using their 203's because they're burning through stockpiles of ammunition that the west is finding around the world. It isn't really by choice. Russia uses their because they're too poor and stupid to build proper 152MM rocket assisted projectiles.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It depends.
    Can you continue replacing enough shells to maintain a decent enough fire rate to blunt enemy attacks on demand and crack enemy fortifications fast enough to maintain the pace of a rapid advance?
    Is the platform mobile enough to reposition fast enough to avoid counter battery and stay in range to support your other forces?
    What's the actual fire rate for the platform itself?
    What sort of terrain does the platform require (IE, are we talking Schwerer Gun levels of infrastructure to actually fire it or can it move just about anywhere of it's own accord)?
    It's a bit pedantic sure, but stuff like that tends to weigh a lot more into how good arty systems are than round size alone, though having a big enough shell to actually DO something on impact is still important.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Can you continue replacing enough shells to maintain a decent enough fire rate to blunt enemy attacks on demand and crack enemy fortifications fast enough to maintain the pace of a rapid advance?
      If you have the factories than why not? For SU it wasn't a piece of some dark age of technology, they could pomp out both guns and shells for them at pretty steady pace.
      >Is the platform mobile enough to reposition fast enough to avoid counter battery and stay in range to support your other forces?
      It is not a regular artillery, it's not supposed to participate in counter battery at all, iirc pions had twice the range of regular soviet guns, so normally you would have problems even reaching it. Difference is comparable to bombers and fighters in aviation.
      >What's the actual fire rate for the platform itself?
      What sort of terrain does the platform require (IE, are we talking Schwerer Gun levels of infrastructure to actually fire it or can it move just about anywhere of it's own accord)?
      Fire rates are pretty slow because it requires separate vehicles to reload properly, but in general that's and terrain requirements are a question of mechanization, you can solve it if you have a competence.
      >It's a bit pedantic sure, but stuff like that tends to weigh a lot more into how good arty systems are than round size alone
      Yeah, size is a problem. USA for example wouldn't opt for siege artillery simply because it would be a nightmare to move it around the globe and then supply.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's a fair perspective on it, I would say that if you can keep stocks of shells up and keep them moving to the line fast enough to feed your guns, have the ability to maneuver and reload relatively quickly, and have the potential to encounter a land war on your continent, it'd definitely be worth having heavy artillery for situations where you need to saturate a distant target with shells.
        I guess in places like Europe and Asia such platforms would make the most sense, while regions like North America and Australia probably wouldn't need to worry as much, though they might also make for decent coastal defenses if designed to remain stationary.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They became obsolete after long range missiles became affordable enough to be used for counter-battery fires. When compared to 155/152 they suck because of the slower firing rates while only providing slightly better performance per shell. But during the cold war they were great since you could outrange the enemy, with them only being able to counter with their own heavy artillery/air strikes

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They became obsolete after long range missiles became affordable enough to be used for counter-battery fires
      They serve completely different purposes, sod off. Missiles will never be as cheap or as quickly producible as artillery shells.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wich still doesnt invalidate what he said.

        Tube artillery absolutly fills a general role, especially 105mm - 155mm. But the idea of larger scale tube artillery during the early cold war was created for two reasons, first one is to counter battery fire the smaller systems and the other one was to fire nuclear warheads. Both of those latter roles can be now be done much better with rocket systems, hence why no new artillery systems beyond 155mm has been produced for many decades.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Both of those latter roles can be now be done much better with rocket systems, hence why no new artillery systems beyond 155mm has been produced for many decades.

          Dont forget the third reason - the demand for air mobility, particulary for american systems.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They serve completely different purposes, sod off. Missiles will never be as cheap or as quickly producible as artillery shells.

        A 100 km missile is way cheaper and easier to build than a gun that fires 100 km shells. And because of the soft launch of the missile any guidance package will be far cheaper as well and you can stick fragile cargo in it too.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A 100 km missile is way cheaper and easier to build than a gun
          Go have your breakdown back on therapy.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know, but they look cool as fuck

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I just want to see a 203mm PZH2000. It would probably weigh more than an Abrams lol.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dumb question, would a Nato 203 round fit in the Pion's soviet 203 gun?
    Because I am wondering with the Pion not being that wide spread and the Ukies burning through ammo like no tomorrow could those old 203 rounds that south Korea got laying arround be used by them? Because they should have the m110 in storage and I guess there ammo and propellant charges as well.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not so dumb
      The Russians use slightly different calibres even for guns that should be the same, eg 152mm vs 155mm for what is nominally a 6" gun
      No idea if this is intentional or not

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In the west, we measure the diameter from groove to groove, while in Russia they measure from land to land. Ie. in the west, we measure from the low points of the rifling, rather than the high points. With the depth of rifling on a 155 barrel being... 1,5mm

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends what you're trying to do with it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *