Is there any reason why ammunition used for naval guns is never

Because heavy arty hasn't seen use seen WW1

>>33321179
Name one use for it that isn't being covered already.

>>33321179
They'd have to share the ammunition then so they'd each have half as much.

>>33321197
127mm isn't heavy

File: M777_Light_Towed_Howitzer_1.jpg (4MB, 3648x2048px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3648x2048px

>>33321197

>Because heavy arty hasn't seen use seen WW1

Objectively false.

>>33321204

I cannot. I'm just wondering why it seems like there is no overlap whatsoever in ammunition, or am I wrong about that?

File: Skoda Siege Artiller WW1 Eastern Front.jpg (65KB, 736x538px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 736x538px

>>33321197
Let me correct my bitch ass self; Heavy arty hasn't seen used since WW2
>>33321211
It's not anti-personnel field gun tier either

>>33321214
That's not the Skoda/Krupp tier artillery i was implying.

>>33321257

The Russians have also used 203mm artillery in both Ukraine and Syria.

>>33321311
Why? Isn't that a bit overkill in an age of precision guided weaponry?

>>33321380

u cen pesishun gyde the big wunz two

>>33321380
no?
155mm shells leave a lot to be desired in terms of lethality

The US solves the problem by just spending 10x more to bomb goats with fighter jets

>>33321380
Russians? Precision? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA"snort"HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHH.

>>33321179
You shouldn't be asking why the Army isn't using 5 inch rounds. You should be asking why the Navy isn't using 155 mm guns.

Protip: NSFS is obsolete.

>>33321380
Russia specializes in overkill but is lacking in efficiency (see the Chechen Wars)

>>33321240
The Zumwalts use a 155mm gun, can use the same ammo as a M109A6 Paladin

>>33321399
>>33321396
No I meant that, other than cheap yet pointlessly destructive area denial, what else would you use a battery of 203mm arty for?

Or is it simply the most cost effective way (for the Russians) of forcing out enemy combatants from Urban areas?

File: you'rearetard.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>33321197
Fucking what?

File: 800px-Armata_samobiezna_2S7_Pion.jpg (213KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 800x600px

>>33321380

>Why?

Why not? Russia still has hundreds of these things in storage from the soviet era, practically begging to be dusted off and fired in anger. They were designed to fire nuclear artillery shells great distances, but they can be used to fire conventional 8-inch (203 mm) artillery shells as well for situations where extreme range is needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bey1mYOvREE

>>33321535
While he's wrong about the WW1 part, he's right in that siege artillery hasn't seen action in almost 70 years.

>>33321380
>anti-russian group occupies theater and holds hostages
>russian special forces gas the entire place, kill the hostages, and don't tell the doctors what they used to gas the place so a lot of victims die (it was nerve gas iirc)
>anti-russian group occupies school
>russian military flattens said school

>>33321473

>The Zumwalts use a 155mm gun, can use the same ammo as a M109A6 Paladin

That's not actually true. The Zumwalts use special 155mm ammunition that is much more powerful than the kind used by the army. You would not be able to fire Zumwalt ammunition for an army howitzer or vice versa. It's part of the reason why the ammunition for the DDG-1000 is cripplingly expensive.

>>33321562
Could you show me a US OP with dozens of terrorists and hundreds of hostages? one where they didn't just burn the building down that is.

>>33321624
i wasn't having a dig at russia or america, i was just saying russia is not known for precision

>>33321497
You need less 203mm shells to do the job of 152mm or 122mm shells. Its longer ranged as well.

File: LoIKxvA[1].jpg (187KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 600x400px

>>33321562
10 terrorists
30 hostages
40 bodybags

Spetznaz

File: 497.png (2MB, 1079x1399px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1079x1399px

>>33321635

It's weird how Americans simultaneously believe that Russia is not capable of doing anything high-tech and at the same time believe that Russian hackers rigged their election.

File: liberatedbyUSAF.jpg (164KB, 1143x682px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1143x682px

>>33321635
>i was just saying russia is not known for precision
And who is?

>>33321687
>MSM
>Americans

>>33321711

Israel.

>>33321720

Also Congress and numerous American intelligence agencies.

File: bbc-israel-wp.jpg (21KB, 466x220px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 466x220px

>>33321733
yep

>>33321562
objectively wrong

They went in with epi pens with the antidote to the gas and saved a number of people but they simply didn't get to everyone in time

>>33321604
LRLAP has been dead for awhile. There's been talk about using Excalibur but it'll be years before anything is servicable.

>>33321748
>It was reported that efforts to treat victims were complicated because the Russian government refused to inform doctors what type of gas had been used. In the records of the official investigation of the act, the agent is referred to as a certain "gaseous substance", in other cases it is referred to as an "unidentified chemical substance".[1]

at the time the first responders didn't know what was used, some doctors made educated guesses and used naloxone. the russian government did not tell them what the gas was, so a lot of people died.

>>33321747
>/k/
>this retarded

Those are countermeasures, not weapons.

>>33321179

Different needs.

Modern naval guns are descended from WW2 era DP (Dual Purpose) guns that served as the primary weapon for destroyers and secondary armament for larger ships. These guns were designed for both shooting enemy ships and shooting at planes. Muzzle velocity was critical, since higher muzzle velocity gave AP projectiles better penetration against ships and less lead time against aircraft. These naval guns had much higher muzzle velocities than land based artillery.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_2A18_(D-30)

The 130mm B13 has a muzzle velocity of 870m/s

The 122mm D30 has a muzzle velocity of about 700/s

Higher muzzle velocity means the barrel needs to withstand higher pressures, which means it has to be more heavily built and thus heavier. Higher muzzle velocities also means greater barrel wear and needed to replace the tubes more often.

The 130mm B13 weighs 5 tons for the barrel

The 122mm D30 weighs 3 tons with the ground mount

The benefits of such high muzzle velocity are mostly wasted on land based artillery, since we don't use heavy artillery for anti air anymore. However, the weight and service life penalties are a killer. You do get more range, but it's generally cheaper to use RAP (Rocket Assisted Projectiles) to achieve the same range than to use a high velocity gun.

However, the benefits still matter to ships, who can use their main guns for CIWS or engaging speedboats, both of which want high shell velocity to hit a moving target. It comes down to the higher muzzle velocities not being worth it at all for land based artillery.

Cont.

>>33321711
the US military considering they use precision weapons almost solely now

>>33321549
> posts it shooting blanks


heres live rounds


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHUBYzz2KKA&spfreload=10

>>33321687
Usually those are different people.

>>33321826

Other things to consider.

Naval guns prefer to use cased rounds, since they are safer and allow for higher rate of fire. Cased rounds are much heavier and cumbersome for land based guns.

Naval guns can have large and complex auto-loader to handle those heavy rounds. Land artillery can't be that heavy.

There was one scenario where the high velocity naval guns could have found a use, and that's tank killing. The Soviets put the same B-13 gun on one of their experimental heavy tanks, the IS-7. While the gun can punch a hole through anything, it was still too heavy even for that 70 ton monster, and ROF suffered despite having 2 loaders and assisted loading. Once smoothbore guns showed up it was pointless anyways.

>>33321832
And only to precisely hit weddings and MSF hospitals

>>33321826
Barrels are cheap enough that lifetimes don't matter. With guided shells, there's now a reason to overpressurize. Doubling your range in the process more than makes up for the maintenance costs.

>>33321875
>poor intelligence and shitty communication means the weapons themselves are useless
an F-15E could drop a bomb from 36k feet and hit you on the head with it, the weapons are not the problem

File: vPgkqrJqy9Q.jpg (91KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x540px

>>33321179
Because you don't need a million dollar missile to destroy every target.

>>33321834
>Pion

If you ever wondered how much damage those things do take a look. The Ukrainians love these things. They have enough range to stay out of Russian counter battery.

>>33321871
Don't forget the SU100Y which just the SMK but with the turrets removed to fit the 130mm gun off the Aurora

>>33321441
Maybe, but those giant fuck all guns are badass.

>>33321380
It's fucking Russia man.
I dunno. Are YOU gonna go ask Putin "hey, why the fuck did you just kill those guys with one big bullet when you could have quietly shot them with a little one?"

>>33321687
to be honest, gaining unauthorized access to an Internet-connected device isn't particularly "high-tech," generally speaking techniques from the 80's work fine.

>>33321821
That's WP mate.

File: QIExKH.gif (2MB, 320x239px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x239px

>>33321871
>>33321826
>Muzzle velocity was critical, since higher muzzle velocity gave AP projectiles better penetration against ships and less lead time against aircraft. These naval guns had much higher muzzle velocities than land based artillery.
You explained why naval guns need velocity, but only mentioned the weight & barrel wear issues for why land artillery needs less. One other factor is the desire to have a steep-ish trajectory in order to shoot over terrain features. Ground terrain can have much more relief that the almost flat ocean. This was a big problem during the Gallipoli campaign. The British were relying mostly on naval fire support and a few M1897 field guns. They had trouble bringing their firepower to bear in the hills and crevasses of the area, whereas the Turk could bombard them at will with howitzers. This is why almost all modern field pieces are howitzers or gun-howitzers. The latest 155s and 152s may have long barrels, but they retain the adjustable charge capability to hit near targets with a more reasonable trajectory.

>>33321441
>NSFS is obsolete.
Not when you do it via Tomahawk and Naval and USMC aviation assets

File: DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class - Multimission Destroyer, United States of America Michael Monsoor (DDG 1001). usan navy (10).jpg (83KB, 950x410px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 950x410px

>>33321875
MSF are literally an enemy asset

>>33321562
You do realise the Islamic terrorists strapped explosives to the children during the beslan school siege it was a fucked situation from the beginning
Chechen terrorists are far more ruthless and switched on then the average Iraqi, afghan,Saudi or homegrown terrorist you have in the states

>>33322573
It should be designated a terrorist organization and destroyed

>>33322494

On closer inspection, that pic does kinda look more like air burst arty, and a quick look on the googles makes it sound that Israel did use WP arty shells. You're right, at least it was only used on sand people then.

Usually Israel is pretty pin point though, especially on the assassination front.

>>33321179
Naval guns use unitary rounds for high rate of fire.
Land arti needs variable charge for indirect fire (dispersion reduction and high angle fire).

>>33321871
>There was one scenario where the high velocity naval guns could have found a use, and that's tank killing. The Soviets put the same B-13 gun on one of their experimental heavy tanks, the IS-7. While the gun can punch a hole through anything, it was still too heavy even for that 70 ton monster, and ROF suffered despite having 2 loaders and assisted loading.
Fun fact: D-10T gun of T-54 uses ammo of B-34 naval gun.

>>33322760
The Chechen war fascinates me. It was truly a conflict with no good guys.

File: Rheinmetall 130 mm gun.png (380KB, 1139x734px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1139x734px

>>33321826
>>33321871

I'm satisfied with these answers. It makes sense that land-based artillery has to fire at a lower velocity so that it can get be angled over buildings and obstacles, whereas naval guns used at sea don't have to worry about such things. I remember now what originally sparked this question in my mind. I read that Germany is planning to develop a 130mm tank gun. It made me wonder why they wouldn't just take a 5-inch (127 mm) naval gun and adapt it to fit inside a tank.

>>33325326
>German gun
>French turret with sensors, FCS, data fusion and autoloader
>German hull and motorisation

The Main Ground Combat System makes me erect.

File: 2s4 tyulpan.jpg (431KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1200x1600px

>>33321311
No, they did not. 2S7 gun (I suppose you are referring to it) was never used by Russians. It first saw combat in 2008 used by Georgians and later in 2014 when Ukrainians Army recommissioned some from their stock. And it sure as hell never was in Syria.
What you are probably thinking about is 240 mm 2S4 Tyulpan mortar. It was used by Russians in Afghan and both Chechen Wars. It also saw combat in Syria, however by SAA, not Russians: Syria bought some from Soviet Union in the 70s. It was not used in Ukraine though.
>>33321380
What makes you think there is no precision-guided munition for these? They are used as bunker busters, a task that requires large calibre artillery. No matter how well you guide your typical 152 mm shell, it will never be even nearly as effective as 240 mm mortar round.
>>33321428
Eat shit, ignorant nigger clown.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IQmo6fzOYLwJ:fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/High-precision-tulip.pdf
>>33321465
Coming from a country that excessively used carpet bombing, lol.
>>33321562
>anti-russian group
They're called "terrorists".
>russian special forces gas the entire place, kill the hostages
>russian military flattens said school
Well memed. I would like to see any fucking one any fucking where in the world treating a same scale hostage crisis with less casualties.
>>33322317
What does it have to do with Putin? If you are gonna ask it, ask Shoygu. And the answer would be that "those guys" are sitting in a bunker that gives no fucks about 152 mm shells.

>>33321908
>They have enough range to stay out of Russian counter battery.
You mean rebel counter battery.

>>33321214
>heavy arty
>the titel of your pic literaly says light

>>33326483
Found the Putinbot

>>33321687
russian hackers is code for american alphabet agencies you dumb fuck, always has been

>>33326483
slavaboo go and stay go

>>33321557
Yeah, and OP was talking about current naval calibers, explicitely 127mm, and outside of some 155mm guns (initally a land-based caliber) used by the US or Germany, the biggest naval gun currently in use is a 130mm.

tl;dr: Anon wanted so much to appear smart that he forgot to actually answer the question.

>>33321197
False, it was used quite extensively in WWII and is still used in most conventional wars on open terrain.

>>33321204
We have 105mm guns in land artillery, 120 and 125mm on tanks. Those are close enough to 127mm, so why don't we choose a unified ammunition rather than having a bunch of different calibers in the same general range?

>>33321380
>Russians
>precision

>>33321557
127mm isn't really "siege artillery"

>>33325647
>>German hull and motorisation

V8X1500 > MT-883

>>33321311

>precision guided missile/shell
>$500k upwards
>accuracy within 5m

>modern unguided artillery
>$500-$1000
>accuracy within 15m

Artillery is accurate enough that 2-3 guns in a barrage will more than likely hit your target. Those precision artillery/missiles are obscenely expensive for their role and should only be used in high risk/single chance missions where you can't risk a chance of a miss.

Otherwise the cost difference is fucking obscene for very little gain. It's why Russia uses iron bombs against ISIS. Why spend more when there's literally no reason?

The reason munitions were developed to the level that they were was due to the expectation that the USSR would outnumber the NATO forces 30-1 and have vastly higher number of tanks and light armour due to soviet doctrine hence why first shot lethality was so important.

Against Sandydan the kebab man? It's obscenely wasteful since they are still running off WW1 logic and even Cold War dumb bombs are still leagues better than anything they can deal with.

>USA uses only precision weaponry
What is 155mm
What is leveling iraqui cities

File: 542352345234.jpg (57KB, 1149x426px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1149x426px

>>33328650
>>accuracy within 15m

>>33328744
>implying arty is always for max range

>>33328650
>Against Sandydan the kebab man? It's obscenely wasteful since they are still running off WW1 logic and even Cold War dumb bombs are still leagues better than anything they can deal with.
Until you factor in the cost of manning, defending and supplying artillery posts over entire countries. Or did we somehow forget that artillery requires that it be on the ground, defended, supplied and within range of the target? Before you know it, you've got 40,000 military boots on the ground plus another 20,000 various combat and non-combat contractors.

Artillery is even less efficient than strike aircraft for COIN.

>>33328773
>implying artie gets 15m CEP ever

Feel free to provide any actual, factual sources to back your feels.

>>33328773
Well you have a point. Shooting from 3 km you will get 15m CEP.

File: 1453699996056.jpg (19KB, 320x480px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x480px

>>33321399
>155mm shells leave a lot to be desired in terms of lethality

File: money to burn.jpg (34KB, 535x335px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 535x335px

>>33321604
>It's part of the reason why the ammunition for the DDG-1000 is cripplingly expensive.

>>33328779

Don't be so rational. Half of /k/ doesn't even know what logistics are and a futher 98% haven't ever heard of the term force structure before.

>>33321748
Nigga they gassed them with a fentanyl derivative and didnt have enough narcan

File: pgk.png (298KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1366x768px

>>33328650
Excalibur is ~$68k and accurate within 3m
PGK is ~$11k and accurate within 30m
M795 is ~$1.5k and pic related

>>33329476
M795 max range is 22km.

>>33329685
Woops, was reading the wrong slide.

File: IMG_2048.jpg (102KB, 632x419px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 632x419px

>>33321441

File: ebbbyy8vbfgspxupbgbi.jpg (75KB, 760x569px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 760x569px

>>33331408
Times have changed grandpa.

>>33331545
>pic literally has both 5" and 155mm notations in it for different systems

>>33321812
>some doctors made educated guesses and used naloxone.


And they were absolutely correct to use naloxone. The gas was an aerosolized carfentanyl.

Unfortunately, I would have taken all the naloxone in the country to keep that many people from carfentanyl OD.

Just one carfentanyl OD would take a fucking IV drip of NARCAN to save them

File: 1475191556507.jpg (9KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 276x183px

>>33321428
That "snort" in your laugh just made my day ;^)

>>33328390
>Amerishits
>Education