Could this be made into an artillery sized full auto asskicker?

>>32214828
Muh dick

>>32214828
Don't over complicate what already gets results?

File: IMG_6404.png (59KB, 177x167px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 177x167px

>>32214828
this
instant erection

>>32214828
That would be a fucking huge chunk of metal slamming back and forth. I'd be scared to be anywhere near it desu.

>>32214828
>Why no full auto tenks or artillery?
There are (more or less), they are used for anti-air.

>The rings that keep the shells in place could be made like clips and after the last round fires the clip breaks off and another stack of ammo rises, I guess.
There is a thing called spatial efficiency...

>>32214828
It wouldn't be field artillery, it'd be naval. And historic battleships already had a conveyor system

>>32214972
Also, that would be a motherfucker and a half to reload. You'd probably have to take the whole turret off unless you want to load shells individually.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

37mm

>>32214828
Thermodynamics. The sustained rate of fire of a tank gun or artillery has far less to do with the feed system then the ability of the barrel to cool between shots.

File: Sodak.jpg (269KB, 1600x1156px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1600x1156px

>>32214828
C..can.. can we install this on the Trump class Battleships?

Twin Linked. Depleted Uranium preferably with the mechanisms exposed for maximum awe

>>32215066
France were developing autoloaders with small calibres and fast firerates.
They never were hindered by the barrel warping.

>>32214828
huh, now I see why there are ridges in the magazine.

>>32215085
Autocannon can sustain higher rates of fire, but barrels fail quickly at maximum rate.

A modern 155 can shoot once every fifteen seconds at most. You just don't need an autoloader for that.

>>32214828
because simplicity in the field is worth a hell of a lot, even at the cost of performance sometimes. Or at least, in certain instances it can be.

>>32214828
elevation is going to be limited ?

>>32214828
No. That indexing arm is way too complex and when scaled up to tonk-size, would just break from the force of a giant cannon shell being fired.

Additionally, the recoil of a full auto tank or artillery sized cannon would require an obscenely strong and heavy tank or artillery piece. Which would cost a ton to build and maintain as well as be ridiculously difficult and expensive to move around.

You're better off just buying another cannon if you want double the fire rate.

>>32215010

Perfect for hit and run though, and blitzkrieg.

>drive by shell dump
>reload an route to next target
>repeat

>>32215035

I was thinking more like 150mm or so dumping a fuckton of HE/incendiary ordinance.

>>32216220
In short. No.
In long. Noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

>>32215010

Forgot, you pretty much have to load individual arty sized rounds anyways.

>>32215066

Tungsten lined barrel? Whatever. We have materials that can theoretically survive being dropped into a damn volcano.

>>32214828
Artillery does not like to be gas piston operated. the sheer force of the gas and mass of the bolt traveling backward would destroy it quickly. you'd be better off scaling short recoil weapon fed from the top and ejected out the bottom, for ease of extraction. simmilar to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nkm_wz.38_FK

the magazine would be better off being gravity fed. big cannons are better suited for blow back. an issue would end up being loading more shells from the top though

File: m270_mlrs.jpg (349KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1024x672px

>>32214828

File: IMG_0516.jpg (186KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1920x1280px

>>32216220
Then trying to run away with a heavy ass gun.
Also this

File: nope.gif (535KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 200x150px

>>32216232

isnt there some russian artillery with two barrels where firing one loads the other and the recoil just keeps it going like that?

File: Koalitsiya.jpg (80KB, 1248x948px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1248x948px

>>32217446
Early prototypes of the 2S35, but the final version only had one.

>>32217446
ZSU 57-2, twin 57mm autocannons

wouldn't call it artillery, it's almost purely for AA purposes and is also ye olde 80's cold war shit

File: 1465238831206.jpg (28KB, 500x555px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x555px

>>32215091
indeed. For the gun's pleasure.

I don't even want to think of how heavy and strong that system would need to be.
It probably could be done, but there is absolutely no reason to do so because it offers no benefits.

>>32217506

Not even 80s. It's like pre-shilka 50s or something.

I think the only operators left are Iran and North Korea.

>>32217502
>2S35
>16 rounds per minute
>1 round every 4 seconds
>152mm
why even bother with rocket artillery

>>32215595
Thank you for one of the few reasonable answers of the entire thread.

>>32220149
it's pretty workable imo, first of all to fit a fuckhuge mag like that on a land vehicle is insane but you could do it on a super heavy tank chassis which could support elevating the entire turret if needed be.

>>32214828
M-MUH

>>32217446
The russian twin-barreled autocannons that they put on aircraft do that

>>32214828
Lots of engineering doesn't scale up properly. For one, we really don't have springs to lift a 120mm round to the chamber. You can flip the design over but since gravity is a constant the time it takes the next round to fall into the chamber becomes a limiting factor. Also, it throws off the timing of the recoil system.

While tank autoloaders do exist, they don't handle variable shells very well. If you want to take out a building an AP shell is just going to poke holes in it. Likewise, if you want to destroy a tank an HE isn't going to cut it.

>>32216220
By ww2 we had drum autoloaders that could do that but the extra space requirements meant they had to mount a smaller gun to fit everything.

>>32215595

Damn, you're right.

>>32220345

You're right, too! The Sheridan's normal shells use a combustible cartridge so there's nothing to eject. What if the ejection mechanism wasn't necessary?

>>32216552

Damn good point. But like I said in >>32216248 we have impressive materials available. As for springs, any compressible materials will work. Metals are used for springs but metal doesn't compress so anything can work. It could use atmospheric air hydraulically.

>>32220448

The idea is to create something that can fit in an unmanned turret. The OP pic scaled to tank size will fit in virtually any tank turret.

>>32220345

>You can flip the design over but since gravity is a constant the time it takes the next round to fall into the chamber becomes a limiting factor

So keep the spring and flip it over. Or you could use some recoil force to lift the next round.

>>32222328
I'd be tempted to get rid of the springs and use linear motors instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm2nqOBA9Y0

File: t-72autoloader.jpg (181KB, 669x600px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 669x600px

>>32214828
I mean this is kinda how soviet style autloaders work. the reason it's bad is that the carousel needs to get bigger to accommodate longer shells with more penetration. which means you are limited by the tank's size

File: bkan1.jpg (84KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 600x450px

>>32214828
>Why no full auto tenks or artillery?
There is.

File: Lewis Gun.jpg (140KB, 2800x1169px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 2800x1169px

>>32214828

File: 1480711644463m.jpg (140KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 768x1024px

>>32214828
>where is the clock spring?
>why does nobody else on /k/ notice this.
>fuck.

>>32224987
There are 2 reasons I bought DOI
>Lewis gun
>Gewehr 43
Guess I am not gonna get this accounting shit done tonight. I'll be on the toronto co-op #2.

>>32215074
>Trump class Battleships
YES

>The USS KEK and USS PEPE Battleships were deployed to the south CHINA sea this week in support of Operation Employment. The two Trump-class battleships sustained artillery fire for two straight days.