Could assault guns make a comeback in the battlefield? Looking

>>31820410
>what is MGS
>what is sagaie

>>31820410
Pointless. Tanks perform that role well enough. Why build new machines?

>>31820410
>Seems to me that assault guns would do well in urban environments as opposed to meme tanks.
Tanks are for long range shelling; what you will see in urban environments is armored cars/humvees/etc with microwave guns and sonic cannons. How well assault guns perform against that will be answered during our next civil war. It's the future, baby...

>>31820410
an assault gun would be more useless in an urban area than a tank
no turret traverse means you need to turn the entire vehicle, gun elevation is garbage

optimal for urban shit would be a vehicle built on a tank chassis but instead of sporting a 120mm high pressure main gun it should have a shorter, low pressure with with greater elevation. pair it with autocannons, GPMGs and automatic grenade launchers and you've got something that can reach targets through walls, blow apart cover and chew up infantry quickly.

tanks are useful in urban scenarios but hardly optimal.

>>31820410
If you knew why we built TDs and Assault Guns, you'd know why your question is stupid.

File: m113assaulthowitzerfscv_002.jpg (36KB, 606x667px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 606x667px

>>31820520
>gun elevation is garbage
No problem

>>31820601
the gavin truly is the solution to everything

File: m113.png (471KB, 606x522px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 606x522px

Certainly seems like it would be cheaper

>>31820422
why have any vehicle lighter than 70 tons? because it ain't free to move that tonnage around

>>31820410
Against a well equipped enemy, artillery crews would have to pack up and move after about 3 shots anyway to avoid counter-fire, having that artillery piece on a mobile platform would definitely facilitate that

>>31820410
>Wanting something that can't traverse its turret
>For urban environments
>Environments where most contact comes from the sides and rear

I want you to sit down an think about what you've said for awhile.

>some turretless pice of shit?
No
>Something like a MGS, CV90120-T or M8?
Yeah.

>>31820818
But mobile artillery already exists.

File: arisgator7-f-696x299.jpg (54KB, 696x299px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 696x299px

>>31820608
They can even become AAV-7 substitute

File: 20140710130717.jpg (43KB, 983x320px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 983x320px

>>31820933

>>31820827
you can spin the tank faster than you can spin a turrent
Attacks shouldn't be coming as a total surprise now that we can put 24/7 drone coverage up.

No.

A poor country can't afford to develop a new assault gun, so they just use their obsolete tanks (eg T-55 & T-62) for that purpose. Also old SPGs like the 2S1 Gvodzika have been pressed into this role (but are too lightly armoured). theoretically if you could develop an upgrade package to mate a legacy 122 mm or 152 mm howitzer with a T-55 chassis and a frontal armour upgrade, you might be able to create an economically viable assault gun, but I think it's too niche a benefit to be viable.

An advanced country would rather use; MBT, IFVs or infantry carried weapons (eg AT-4) for direct fire. With guided artillery and air strike munitions used on anything too tough for that. No sense in adding more AFV logisitics to an equation when you can do it with what you already have.

File: ASU 85 Assault Gun Vietnam.jpg (65KB, 760x500px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 760x500px

>>31820410
Vietnam actually pressed their ASU 85 Assault Guns back into service.

They're hurting for armor and it is a poor country.

>>31820410
The only circumstance in which it makes sense is for an economically restricted country that does not have access to old Soviet surplus MBTs, or a country in heavy conflict that needs to keep up with attrition and MBTs are too costly to do so.

Right now, the Army literally has more M1s than they even want, so it's not likely.

>>31821068
They do not have many options, though. They cant use proper MBTs and they cant use wheeled vehicles. It is not like the market is full of light tracked vehicles in 15-ish ton range, meanwhile maintaining and using heavier vehicles there is a fuckhuge pain in the ass.

File: ae07ddcba6771a635e609320e8bb6b6d.jpg (66KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x532px

>>31820410
Maybe in the next world war

Imagine an Abrams version of pic related

>>31821077
Except the fact the US is looking for Mobile Protected Firepower goes to prove to you they want stuff lighter than an Abrams

>>31821119
They could do it with the bradley/AMPV
Slap a 130mm gun on it, produce low velocity HE shells, but also good for firing sabots.

why not something like the Sturmtiger or at least its precedessor the Brummbär? Massive overpowered shell to destroy every building at once.
Normal tank guns at about 120mm might not have exactly the amount of HE power needed in urban fighting. 150mm+ shell and a short barrel so the vehicle can turn more easily.
Pack a big but short gun on some proven chassis.
Or grab the old AVRE vehicles

>>31821162

> Or grab the old AVRE vehicles

I believe that both the British Challenger 2 MBT and AS-90 SPG use separate charges for their guns. This leaves open the option of mounting a short barreled 120 mm or 155 mm gun on a Warrior or Ajax chassis and using a reduced charge, but with otherwise the same logistics as they currently have.

>>31820892
Well fuck me then

makes a case against crewed artillery pieces then

>>31820410
A mantis platform would rock for urban warfare:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50bUzbnS39U

>1000 rpm.
>35mm.
>Each exploding projectile releases a spiral of stell balls.

It would be like throwing a frag. grenade into a room, if you shoot into a window.

>>31821304
Are they airburst?

Not an assault gun, but what do you think of the BMPT?
Twin Autocannons, twin Grenade Launchers, MG and additional ATGMs.
No big boom over here but perfect to wreck infantry

>>31821443
sounds like it could handle anti air roles as well, maybe even take light vehicles

doesn't sound so good for an artillery role however

>>31820410
No.
They only existed because they couldn't afford to pump out enough tanks or couldn't pump out enough quickly enough.
Why do you think the US and UK practically didn't bother with the idea during WWII.

>>31821759

While US tank destroyers weren't exactly the same, there were a lot of; M3 GMC, M10, M18, M36. While doctrinally they were designated tank destroyers, in reality they fired far more HE shells.

>>31821942
M18 Hellcat a best

File: DSC_0358.jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x2848px

Hell yes!

Mowag Taifun 2 when?

>>31821042
drones can't see inside buildings, and there may not be room to turn the vehicle on narrow streets

>>31821759

yes and no. i'd vote for a mix of proven results and materiel efficiency

it was efficient to build them, but they were built in a lot of places where you had an tank (panzer series) become obsolete against enemy tanks (think t34) and the resulting assault gun (stug series built on panzer chassis) was found to fare quite well against russian armor.

Take a wheeled vehicle like a LAV or Cadillac Commando or whatever

Put on RPG cages and a 90mm low pressure gun in a turret

Congratulations, you just made a cheap as fuck assault gun for all your technical-smashing, shell lobbing, ISIS destroying, Kurdish needs.

>>31824283

>LAV

That was the idea behind the Stryker MGS. The execution didn't go so well.

The BMP-3 is a ~20 ton IFV with a 100mm gun, but its replacement, the ~25 ton Kurganets-25 has gone for a 30mm gun.

The French still seem to like their wheeled 90-105 mm guns though.

>>31822268
>implying if the vehicle can't turn, the gun barrel can

>>31820608
fuck off Mike