If push came to shove, how well would modern artillery fare in

>>30391012
Not very effective. Sure, the rounds are heavy enough to take out practically any sort of armor but you wouldn't be able to train your gun fast enough. If you get outflanked, you're dead.

>>30391354
I gather it's a lot harder to traverse and elevate a paladin's gun than say a STUG III?

>>30391354
Any doctorine that's going to use Tank Destroyers (or in this case, an artillery piece filling in for a TD) is probably going to be pretty heavy on setting up ambushes, and fast withdrawals. What's that one nordic fixed gun vehicle that can go fast as fuck and was basically designed to do hit and run attacks?

File: Archerside_commons.jpg (111KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 800x600px

>>30391470

Archer artillery system

It could loosen tracks and would remove most of the external equipment. It wouldn't knock the tank out or harm the crew. If you were fortunate, you might knock the gun out of alignment.

>>30391498
Isn´t this thing shit off-road compared to tracked systems?

>>30391581
But it's just so damn cool.

File: 143458689747.jpg (130KB, 1280x889px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x889px

Sure, if the enemy was obliging enough to come at them in a straight line, otherwise not so much.

>>30391404
Yep
>>30391470
Fair point, but using that doctrine nowadays effectively would be extremely difficult considering how effective detection systems on tanks are nowadays, something which modern SPGs lack and do not need.
>>30391511
No. A direct hit from a 155mm round will almost always destroy the tank.

File: Centauro_155_39.jpg (543KB, 1024x638px) Image search: [Google]

543KB, 1024x638px

>>30391470
Why not put a 155 on a tank destroyer?

>>30391680
That's an LAV-155. Used by the Marine Corps

>>30391788
Stop posting if you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>30391012
>Soviet-style
>Used by the British in North Africa vs tanks and by the USA in Vietnam against the gooks

>>30391676
>A direct hit from a 155mm round will almost always destroy the tank.

MBTs are rated against all sorts of penetrators that are far more deadly and designed for the task than lower velocity HE rounds.

MBT guns are designed to knock out other tanks and have struggle disabling tanks. A round traveling slower with less energy, spread over a wider surface area, isn't going to do the same damage.

File: image.jpg (295KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1024x768px

>>30391907
Incorrect. Penetrators and artillery are two different animals.

Pressure waves would transfer into the tank interior upon impact. These waves create huge differences in pressure that will try to equalize rapidly through the weakest points separating the inside and the outside of the tank. Thus equipment and personnel inside the tank can get destroyed and killed.

Pic related is a T-64 that took a direct hit from artillery.

They still outrange tanks, so well?

>>30393337
>Pic related is a T-64 that took a direct hit from artillery.

That's a funny way of saying its ammo rack went off after being hit by an ATGM lolera

File: Close Range.png (415KB, 1008x630px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1008x630px

>>30391012
>close range
MFW

>>30394285
Not him but nope. I seen that picture before, ATGMs have barely been used in Ukraine. That particular T-64 took a direct hit from a Rebel BM-21 Grad.

File: 1431367346074.jpg (57KB, 500x670px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x670px

>>30391907
At the very least, you're going to completely and totally fuck up every optic on the tank, and probably most of the sensitive electronics too.

The concussive force might also injure / kill the crew, but that's some physics shit that depends on a lot of variables that you cannot accurately account for.