Tanks as Artillery

bumping for interest.

Philippinos used their Shermans as mortars during the Battle at Yuldong in the Korean war.

>>33694949
I feel the Americans still used their Pattons and Sherman variants in the artillery role in Korea too, it following directly after ww2

If you are down to use tanks as an improvised low caliber artillery, you are doing something wrong.

Not that it was never done, nor it wasn't even effective in some cases but it's an act of desperation.

>>33694949
Rommel used tanks as artillery in North Africa. He even burried them in the dirt exposing only the cannon for extra protection.

File: isu152.jpg (22KB, 500x235px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x235px

Semi-Related but Soviets made it a huge part of their doctrine to use AT guns and Artillery interchangeably, especially with their SPG's.

The ISU did as much Anti-Tank duty as it did in the artillery role.

The same can be said about their actual artillery guns too like the 203mm B4 cannon. They put actual sights on those things so they could be fired directly at tanks and bunkers.

File: San Pietro.png (203KB, 502x349px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 502x349px

>>33694966
The allies did it in Italy too.

Seen here are dug in Hellcats under camo-netting, during the assault on San Pietro and heavily entrenched German positions.

>>33694898
Modern tank guns are too high velocity for any ad hoc impromptu indirect fire

>>33694993
>Hellcats
>Clearly M10s

>>33695032
Mate thats a panther

>>33695037
>those are clearly tanks
well, I mean you are right I guess.

>>33695052
Not the guy you responded to but, what the fuck are you on about?

>>33695086
Not that guy, but he makes a good point.

>>33695019
Can you explain why a high velocity gun is worse for firing an indirect shell than a low velocity one?

I faintly recall the German 88's being relatively high velocity for their day, and still were used for all sorts of things (artillery, Anti-Tank, Flak).

>>33695167

Too flat-shooting I would imagine, also HE rounds are relatively uncommon.

>>33694898
>tank
>mobility should be more concerned
>use ammunition specialized against point target and penetration

>artillery
>firepower against area target

>>33695096
Not that point, but he makes a good guy

>>33695182
2 functionally identical concepts

Literally no reason why they can't be merged.

File: 1452061939131.gif (1015KB, 400x240px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 400x240px

>>33695167
The round is so fast and fires in such a flat arc, you'd either have to have a tank turret that elevates to the heavens or be shooting at targets absurdly far away to get any sort of parabolic artillery shot. and if youre that far away, the accuracy of the round would be fucked beyond belief, I bet.

Not to mention just the types of rounds we use these days probably wouldnt be very effective in general.

>>33694898
please don't confuse /k/ommandos w/ reference to tanks and artillery.
the average /k/id/autist on this board already cannot distinguish between tank/tank killer/StuG/ SPH/ etc.

>>33694966
Allies, Japan in WW2 and Israel did it too
Quite common tactics

>>33695212
Nothing stops them from producing a lower velocity "artillery" round

>>33694972
Well, if there were no tanks around, your AT guns will just be guns.
Soviet philosophy was good

>>33694972

They had dedicated rounds for artillery role.

Usually, if you are using tanks as arty, it is nothing more than act of desperation. You can`t substitute artillery with tanks alone

>>33695208
>2 functionally identical concepts

No, they are not

>>33695237
If the tank was designed from the beginning with an expanded magazine & larger caliber.... then it would do the same thing as a self-propelled artillery.

Would it not be possible to down load HE tank rounds so that they performed more like a arty shell?

>>33695214
StuG was actually used as tank killer by mounting longer gun after they encountered soviet T-34.

>>33695237
>You can`t substitute artillery with tanks alone
Of course.

But the jist of it was using tanks as a supplement to sustained artillery shelling, ala what many armies did in WW2.

File: SU590-25.gif (860KB, 360x204px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 360x204px

>>33694972
>>33695234

>>33695096
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
Just going to leave this here and give you a chance to show everyone you have half a braincell.

>>33695208
>identical

compare what type of ammunition and sight it use

I swear I've seen this thread before, literally the exact same posts.

>>33695264
>>33695229
Aren't modern tank rounds designed around standardised propellant charges with different "warheads" (e.g. HE, APFSDS, etc.) stacked on top? Not only would you need storage for whatever artillery round you'd be using (I guess you can double up on stuff like HE, but specialised e.g. illumination rounds that tank wouldn't normally use would need it's own storage) but also seperate storage for the slower propulsion charges.

God help you if you're trying to integrate all these seperate storages and things with an auto loader.

>>33695273
Stugs were intended to have an antitank capability from the beginning when von Manstein suggested them.

>>33695212
Which fast and furious is this from?

>>33695214
Because those distinctions are more theoretic than practical. For example, the Pz IV was initially intended as a support tank much like a turreted assault gun, an american tank destroyer is indistinguishable from an open-top tank, and many german and soviet SPG were also used as assault guns. For example : is the Sturmpanzer I Bison a self-propelled howitzer, or an assault gun ?

>>33695371
>short barrelled
>so lack of armor
It was meant to support or protect infantry and artillery unit.
Definitely early doctrine of StuG was far from that of panzer.

>>33695229
Nothing stops them from producing a lightly armored "artillery" tank.

>>33695387
Tokyo drift is the only one that didn't suck.

>>33695212
>not having the tank round that pierces the heavens

>>33695440
I haven't seen a single one

>>33695537
Consider yourself lucky. If you ever do only watch Tokyo Drift. As mentioned before, only one that's not shit.

The real answer is that it's pointless to use tanks for indirect fire because then it's armor is useless. The whole point of indirect fire is to shoot from a controlled position for protection.

>>33695422
>>short barrelled
hrurr durr what's HEAT and why did short barreled pz4s and stugs have them?

>>33694972
Yes, the Russians required their guns to function in both an anti tank and artillery role, but Russian assault guns like the SU-152 and the ISU-152 rarely used their main guns in the indirect fire role.

They had plenty of other artillery options available, and if they had to use the SU/ISU-152's main gun as actual "artillery" then they fucked up some how.

>>33695278

Fucking Ivan forgot to engage the brakes.

>>33695214
>please don't confuse /k/ommandos w/ reference to tanks and artillery.
>>33695401
>Because those distinctions are more theoretic than practical?
I rest my case.

>>33695717
>if a tank isn't being shot at, then it's useless

lmfaooo

>>33695052
You confused panther with panzer dipshit.