Howitzers General

File: 1481957486087.jpg (76KB, 482x475px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 482x475px

Pew pew!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM

Pretend I know nothing about artillery. How has it improved since, let's say, WWII. Who had the best arty of the war? Do any modern arty pieces use smart ammunition, or has it gone relatively unchanged since the 40's?

>>32355039
Other than greater degree of automation, better munition and more advanced metallurgy (as well as precision targeting from FO and GPS), no.

South Korean basically still used a modernized version of WW2 105mm and 155mm gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awo1XKyIeiw

File: 14560432901751.png (878KB, 750x601px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 750x601px

>>32353055
>the best guns of it's kind.
it have shitty range though

>>32355039
>Who had the best arty of the war?
i would say the Russia.

>Do any modern arty pieces use smart ammunition

laser guided shell are pretty common, many country are using radio control MRLS
the US refer GPS round though

>>32355039
>Do any modern arty pieces use smart ammunition
The howitzer in OP's pic is capable of firing the excalibur round. You can also slap the PGK onto existing rounds which works like a JDAM kit.

Americans still using a towed howitzers?

Why so backward?

File: YPI8ltO.png (24KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 625x626px

>>32355144

>>32355090
You now know the 52 cal version is already underway

>>32355144
Because those same howitzers can be airlifted by rotary-wing assets.

>>32355090

> i would say the Russia.

The soviets certainly had the most, but they also had the worst fire protocols.

In terms of quantity

1. USSR
2. USA
3. UK
4. Germany
5. Japan

In terms of fire control

1. USA
2. UK
3. Germany
4. USSR
5. Japan

The US had the best fire control because they distributed radios to the lowest level of units. Lieutenants and their platoon sergeants had radios that could reach far enough back to the artillery, and they were all trained in artillery protocols. The British were only slightly worse with their radio proliferation, but couldn't afford to expend ammo in the way the US could. Germany had the radios, but not the protocol nor the number of guns to make it effective. USSR didn't have enough radios to give to everyone, which meant that it took a long time to call in a fire mission, and more often than not, the fire mission is planned rather than spontaneous. However, when Soviet artillery started firing, it fucking rains.

>>32355090
Russia was part of the Soviet Union at the time. It would be more appropriate to say the Soviets had the best arty of the war (if that is something you believe).

File: snaryady_130_mm.jpg (31KB, 520x520px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 520x520px

>>32355178
>already underway
like 10 year late and 10 time over budget?
>>32355144
they are cheap and fast
and really effective if you have a competent army

>>32355188
>USSR didn't have enough radios to give to everyone
They have. Quality was shit, and training wasn't much better though.

>>32355229
More likely put in the backburner.

The army (and muhreen) does not have any immediate need for 52 cal M777. If they wanted to hit farther they would just gonna call M270 or Himars or even airstrikes

So prolly some units would get them (like those in Korea) but that's about it.

>>32353055
>Its not semiautomatic

Shit howitzer senpai.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R28MksnGCBM

File: wespe_2.jpg (25KB, 500x301px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x301px

Self-propelled arty is pretty cool.

>>32355293
Just because it had automated feeding system (which M777 also have) doesn't make it a semi auto gun

File: Pack Howitzer Defense Studies.jpg (51KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x300px

Short cannon for short asian people

>>32355144

> setting up new FOB in buttfuckistan
> M109 has to be driven in a convoy up an unpaved road, through IEDs and whatnot
> M777 dropped off by Chinook
> Time to leave
> drive M109 through same IED filled road, or
> have the M777 flown out by same helicopter.

>>32355144
American artillery is largely for cheap fire support during occupations, airpower is for invading.

>>32355349
I confused it with the FH-77A. That one had a semiautomatic system.

>>32355039
>Who had the best arty of the war?
Yanks

VT FUSES
T

F
U
S
E
S

Same clueless anon, here. What's the range on modern artillery? Do we have stuff that can throw shit as far as that big Gustav? How far out could the Gustav hit, and what size rounds? I could, admittedly look this stuff up, but you guys are Johnny on the spot

File: 240mm_howitzer.jpg (412KB, 1388x1104px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1388x1104px

>>32355755
>VT
Ardennes offensive, defense of Elsenborn ridge:
these big fat fuckers were loaded up with 240mm HE-VT, shredding German infantry assaults. Super-heavy arty, normally reserved for deep fires. Only instead, they were dropping frag on some unfortunate infantrymen.

>>32357272

Now they wait to spread their love over the heads of invading Chi-coms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ElP_uwSww

>>32353055
I deployed on one in 2011.

Other than the mechanical complexity that makes maintenance annoying, and the fact that you have to manually pump to raise the gun to if you need to change azimuth.

>>32353055
just out of curiosity, what makes this a better design than the m198?

>>32358471
5k pounds lighter, thus greater airlift capability.

>>32358820
Correction: 6k lighter

>>32358842
>Correction: 6k lighter
is that it?
because both are air mobile.

>>32358880
Also has a better rangefinder and fire control system.

But as for the gun bit itself, there's not much you can do to improve a breech-loading howitzer that utilizes "loose" projectiles and propellant.

>>32358880
Because you're too lazy to read Wikipedia

>The M777 is smaller and 42% lighter, at under 4,100 kg (9,000 lb), than the M198 it replaces. Most of the weight reduction is due to the use of titanium. The lighter weight and smaller size allows the M777 to be transported by the MV-22 Osprey, CH-47 helicopter or trucks with ease to provide increased mobility and more compact storage over the M198. The minimal gun crew required is five, compared to a previous nine.

File: needs to be bigger.jpg (75KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 600x580px

>>32355039
>How has it improved since, let's say, WWII
It hasn't, it's taken a step back.

I mean LOOK HOW BIG THEY USED TO BE

what's with all this love for the m777 on this board? most of the crewmen i know hate the piece.

File: sdfg.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

>>32359354
>Because you're too lazy to read Wikipedia
damn you caught me being lazy.
but that's what happens as you get older.
isn't that the reason there are weapons boards, and not to sperg out about stupid shit.
and while your on the subject of wikipedia where is his fuggin money?

>>32359354
>transported...with ease
ha ha
you actually believe that shit.
nothing is easy when schlepping a big fuggin howitzer around a combat zone, and those extra four crew members will be sourly missed trying to emplace/displace, security and fire missions.

>>32355039

Artillery was one of the only areas in which the US Army put a lot of R&D into between the wars despite the depression, being that they relied on French guns in WWI. They were arguably the most modern in terms of equipment and tactics; time on target, proximity fuze, and just all around better communications and logistics. They had a very detailed system of pre-calculated variables that allowed very quick and accurate fire, but it also required having detailed maps which wasn't always the case.

The Soviets lost a lot of their guns at the start of the war, and though they had made an attempt at motorizing artillery the tractors were licensed American designs intended for farm use and were employed on communal farms when not needed by the military, more or less the reason they put an emphasis on rocket trucks to help overcome the lack of arty until production kicked off.

I know why we no longer use horizontal field-guns instead of Howitzers but a part of me is sad about it all the same if only because my strategy of defensive lines with lots of big fucking guns in Men of War is no longer possible in the modern call to arms vidya.

>>32355039

Not an expert but from what I read at http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/artil.html

-Burgers had an exhaustive, template driven strategy that tried to provide for every possible wind/temperature/barrel wear/elevation differences and have calibrated tape measure for every such case. As long as they had super accurate and detailed maps, the US would be able to have a fire mission engage 3 minutes after being called in with the accuracy of a proper forward observer system.
-Also made it so easy and standardized that they could train all officers with it and walk enlisted men through it over the radio
-Created system to make it so all the artillery batteries firing on a target hit it at the exact same time.

Too busy atm to re-read over the British and Germans but I think the Germans had accurate forward observer based (with wire, not radio half the time) artillery that was slow to fire but accurate, the British had speedier artillery but not as accurate as Germans. Either, or the Russians too, would naturally do very well with a highly prepared and static situation (either defending or initiating an offensive). But when the situation past that, the Russians fell far behind at least in the early war (According to the site), and the Americans held the trump card in that fluid situation

No idea if the site mentioned is legit in the research or not.

File: 679.png (32KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 550x550px

>A minor problem encountered by the British was that the fuses were sensitive enough to detonate the shell if it passed too close to a seagull and a number of seagull "kills" were recorded.

>>32355039
Soviets had very nice guns, mortars, and rockets, but rather poor fire control. This was because observers usually relied on wires instead of radios, forcing the lumping together of pretty much everything and limiting responsiveness. There was also a strong urge to use direct fire as it was more shell efficient, which I think started when all the factories had to be shipped hundred of miles. As previously stated, American fire control was a goddamn generation ahead of everyone else.

The rock bottom garbage artillery was French. Rigid and slow even by WW1 standards, and reluctant to enlarge their artillery from the 75s they used back in the day, they were just not ready. I want to stress that even in 1918 Americans were bitching that French doctrine was not suited to the speed of modern combat.

>>32360108

The Japanese were even worse than the French, but then again, they were a second rate power when it came to everything but ships and planes.

>>32359439
I have only seen it up close, but I can see why

File: SS1VF.jpg (73KB, 502x422px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 502x422px

>people in this thread knowing jack shit

>>32355185
>>32355436
I guess ammo just magically appears next to the guns when need, isn't it?

File: T-72.jpg (504KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1200x900px

>>32362346
looks like a t-72 and if so, that's pretty rad.

M777A2 digital.

On the gun itself.
Tracks rounds fired since new.
GPS locating
Tilt sensors.
Temp sensors
"Reads" the round and charge loaded
Muzzle velocity radar.
Digital fire control link.

Through the FCS
Meteorological data
Battery centre
Target location in ten figures in three dimensions
Fuse settings

On the rounds
Multi purpose fuse
New ogive for longer range and stability
Base bleed rounds
Rocket asssisted rounds
Course correcting fuse
GPS guided rounds

All as up to a cold barrel first round hit CEP of less than fifteen meters.

File: images (95).jpg (13KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x225px

This sexy beast doesn't get mentioned much, but its an excellent weapon

Who knows what it is?

>>32355436
>use c-130 to tow heavy gliders carrying an actually modern howitzer, aka not m109

problem solved

>>32359654
Then explain how the m777 sets up and packs up in half the time of the m198? Even with the smaller crew?

File: gv5deploying0433060.jpg (130KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x531px

>>32353055
>best howitzer coming through
>50+km range
>has the engine from a VW beetle built in so that it can scoot about after being unhitched from its tractor

>>32362558
GV6 "Rhinoster"

One of the few field guns that can claim to have shot down a Mig

>>32359883
LOL - Reminds me of the story I read once about what happened when they tested one of the first radar guided Gatling CIWS guns and a flock of seagulls took off from the platform it was mounted on.

>>32363255
And crash a 20 million dollar heavy glider every time you need to set up some FOB consisting of some plywood boards and sandbags?!

>>32362568
I have never ever before seen a photo with a G5 in deployed configuration
thank you

>>32363662
vs how much a chopper costs when one of them crashes or is shot down?
Or how much a couple KIA cost since the choppers give away their location?
Gliders will be recovered

>>32363445
i never said it wasn't an improvement over the older design.
i was laughing at you're implying it was all now easy especially with loosing almost half the crew.