Is self-propelled artillery obsolete?

>>31811591
No. towed artillery is.

No.

>>31811591
No.

You'd have to be absolutely retarded to even consider this.

File: Dutch_Panzerhaubitz_fires_in_Afghanistan.jpg (3MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2000px

Why would it be?

>>31811591
Why the fuck would self moving, MRSI capable artillery with 40km firing range be outdated?

>>31811591
No, but your thread is

>>31811625
>>31811604
>>31811607
I was thinking more about these armored self propelled pieces i wasnt talking about MLRS.
I mean we're fighting highly mobile wars today who needs heavily armored single gun pieces when you can have much more firepower through self propelled rocket artillery?

Yes because now we have invented artillery that we can just attach to a truck or airlift so no need to make the whole vehicle anymore

>>31811658
Rockets cost more per shot and is easier to intercept.

>>31811658
Because rocket artillery takes 10 minutes between shots

Conventional artillery takes ten 10 seconds between shots

>>31811686
Yeah but rocket artillery fires a much larger volume of projectiles all in just a few seconds then it GTFO's before counter battery fire starts.

Conventional artillery wont be able to fire the same amount of munition and get out in time

>>31811658
>>31811672
>>31811686
>>31811715
Almost as if both technologies had their place and purpose.

>>31811715
Thanks Sherlock.

It's almost like there's a reason they both exist.

>>31811686

Conventional fires a lot faster than that. They can get several shells away, move, and do it again, whereas the rocket artillery can fire everything at once, then has to fuck right off to get reloaded.

As for towed artillery, is it pretty much relegated to highly permissive environments because only self-propelled systems can survive in real nigga conflicts?

>people are seriously arguing about this

This is like arguing that cars are obsolete because trucks exist. Kill yourselves.

>>31811658
Are you retarded?

>>31812160
>As for towed artillery, is it pretty much relegated to highly permissive environments because only self-propelled systems can survive in real nigga conflicts?

No.

>>31811591

>what is cost effectiveness

As long as it does what a military needs it to do, and on a budget, its not obsolete.

>>31811686

>Because rocket artillery takes 10 minutes between shots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3LQE1DDc60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRWxi_kz_sY&t=26s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYaXg5bkMo

What? If you said the reloads maybe I'd agree but between shots? Are you retarded?

>>31812490
this.

Arty is only going to be obsolete when we live in some Star Wars future where an orbital strike is basically free and available 24/7.

until then, the big gun that goes boom will still be an efficient, cheap way to kill everyone in a football field radius.

and we havent even discussed special rounds and how flexible the arty crew can be compared to rocket arty.

>>31812350
SPGs do however have a much higher chance of survival.

>>31811640
Because it needs a tow vehicle, which is kinda stupid.

The future is in self-propelled artillery.

This anon has it >>31811841

Rocket artillery is for massive area denial or suppression barrage, when you positively want to kill something, even if it means to flatten the area.
It's not subtle, it's not precise and it is largely overkill when fighting an asymetric warfare.
It's a weapon best used at the operational level (read between division or even between army corps)

Cannon artillery is more accurate and cheaper per shot. It also allow to fire on an enemy position without leveling a whole district.
It is a tactical weapon, to be used between brigade or even between bataillons, when you need limited fire support asap, not overwhelming firepower in 30 minutes.

>>31812575
He meant salvo
Don't be pedantic

>>31812781
1967 called, they want their Grad back.

Single shot GPS-guided rocket artillery is a thing. Just because you can magdump your MLRS doesnt mean you have to.

>>31811604
Towed artillery is handier then you think.

Hence why we can use helos or vehicles to take them to bases where they can be fortified into.

>>31812835
The helo thing is legit, I approve of that but the fortiefied FOBs of WW1 is not a thing in a high-intensity conflict.

File: Glide.jpg (104KB, 582x437px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 582x437px

>>31811591
You're all wrong.

Gliders are the future of rapid-response munitions delivery.

>>31812894
Gliderfag pls go and stay go

>>31812859
>X is not a thing in my vision of a war

What do you think war is. It's what happens right now. You don't get to make up your ideal version of a war.

>>31813540
Afghanistan is a war, but its not a high intensity conflict you retard.

Do you think we should disband the USAF to as the talibans has no fighters?

>>31813540
Besides, you can just put an SPG in that FOB if you want to.

>>31813607
What the fuck are you talking about? YOU are the one saying something should be removed (towed artillery because it's "obsolete") just because you've decreed nothing but "high intensity conflicts" count.

>>31813607
>Afghanistan is the only war

>>31813607
You're the one saying something is useless because it wouldn't work in what you imagine a war is

>>31813769
>>31813781
>>31813794

See
>>31813617

>>31813617
>You can drive a tracked vehicle everywhere you can drop a gun off via helicopter in Afghanistan
Why post your own ignorance?

>>31813835
could drop a tracked off vehicle via glider anywhere you can drop a gun off via helicopter

Obviously theres also a whole world outside of mountain top fighting in afghanistan.

>>31811591

Look fuckstick, we're getting tired of your armchair general threads, alright? Stop asking shit like "is x obsolete" when its clear you are not familiar with Land Offensive doctrine or shit like the Fires function.

>>31813882
>via glider
Never mind, you're the same stupid fucking worthless troll who hasn't been banned somehow.

BTW, how do you get it down?

File: sgdddsh.jpg (62KB, 450x294px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 450x294px

>>31811672
>easier to intercept
Not necessarily. Shells have a big radar return for their size and follow predictable paths at at a leisurely speed(high subsonic). These minuses apply to rocket projectiles as well, but I foresee near-future MRL projectiles incorporating signature reduction and terminal maneuvers.

>>31812781
Who the hell is doing or even training in corps-level maneuvers these days? I thought distributed ops at lower levels were all the rage.

File: NO-U.jpg (33KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 450x450px

>>31813998
That's the easy part. The gliderborne SPG brings another folding glider with it. The crew merely unpacks and assembles the glider, then attaches the vehicle. To get airborne(gliderborne) they merely have to accelerate until they fly off the mountain!

File: ar_sph_koksan_m1.jpg (57KB, 800x523px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x523px

>>31811622
hy fellow KOK lover

>>31812894
Are you me? How many of us military glider enthusiasts are there? We should form a club.

>>31812350

Can towed artillery emplacements really pack up and move an appreciable distance before counter battery fire lands on them?

>>31813998
the glider lands in much the same ground space that a chopper needed

Is self propelled artillery obese?

>>31811591
YOU SMELLED HICKORY GEESE?

>>31815019
YOU TICKLED SLIPPERY FEET?

File: ioncannon.jpg (47KB, 800x445px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 800x445px

>>31812612
ION CANNON ACTIVATED

File: 14813098_628464577315690_1927820114_o.jpg (113KB, 1152x2048px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1152x2048px

>>31814897
Just doing some napkin calculations.
A M198 battery is 10 kM away from a target, fires rounds at 684 m/s at about 2 rounds per minute.

A counter battery radar can see about 50 kM and lets say theyre gonna let two rounds fly before they do anything just for posterity. I'm just going to assume the radar is traveling at or near c so radiation travel time is pretty negligible.

Further away, 15 kM behind the enemy lines, is a grad battery with a 2 round/s barrage firing at a reported 690 m/s

So lets say after 2 rounds are fired, and the second one is at its apogee, then it takes about 1 second for the battery to react and process the incoming radar data. 30 seconds to make a call to all batteries available for counter fire and about 2 minutes for a battery to react and prepare to fire.

So if you're the M198, by my estimate you have about 3 minutes and 35 seconds after that second round to get your ass out of there.

>>31811591
it's still pretty important it's all about situation

i.e. get a bunch of mobile artillery to bracket a large incoming enemy force, and diverting them into a pre spotted killbox that you have a sack of MLRS ready to fire on

>>31811604
Towed artillery can be slung loaded or air dropped.

Plus the whole bit where you can have a lot more towed tubes than self-propelled for a given logistic footprint.

just wait until railgun artillery