Stubby assault guns

>>34959337

It's not. It's just easier and less expensive to make than high velocity guns.

Because if you want a higher velocity gun in the same caliber it's going to be three times the size

HEAT needs to be fairly slow to be effective, or at least early HEAT shells did

>>34959348
Does the breech assembly get bigger, too ?

>>34959337
Higher velocity shells require a stronger shell so it won't break apart from being fired. Low velocity mean you can pack more explosives into the shell.

>>34959354
Not the same anon, but yes - it's got to be beefed up in order to handle the higher pressures involved. That means less room in the turret due to not only the breech, but recoil mechanism, larger ammo, and so forth. Take for example how the BMP-1 had a 73mm gun. The turret is small and cramped, yet was able to fit that gun, because the gun is small. Why? Low velocity.

Smaller ammo. Smaller breech. Etc.

>>34959354
Of course it does. A faster shell means a bigger propellant charge,and more pressure. The chamber walls and breech need to be thicker to hold it. Plus, you need a bigger counter recoil mechanism. So a small howitzer is perfectly fine for an assault gun.

File: 1494652268536.jpg (147KB, 1024x746px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1024x746px

I see ! Thank you all for your answers !

>>34959388
This is not a howitzer though, but closer to a rocket launcher. Still holds true anyway.

>>34959365
This is exactly why a 81mm mortar can carry a charge equal to a 155mm howitzer despite weighing a bit more then 10% as much.

>>34959469
sauce?

>>34959469
This is wrong.

>>34959567
>http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mortar/81mm.html

No where on this site does it say that a 81mm mortar shell is filled with 4.5 kg of TNT. It say the whole shell weighs that much.

>>34959572
>>34959567
>>34959469

Incase you didn't quite catch that, it means that a 155mm shell has more explosive filler, than the total weight of a 81mm mortar shell, you big fucking dingus.

I love it when people delete their post, because they only too late realise the meaning of "Weight"

>>34959567
M252 mortar (81mm) of 41.3 kilograms (91 lb) - 4,5kg of TNT

M114 155mm howitzer of 5,800 kg (12,800 lb) - 5,74kg TNT

vs

That's 78% the mass of TNT through 0.7% the mass of the firing platform.

*farts*

>>34959596

Ok, so the 0.7% of the platform stands, the masses of the charge were based off the dumbass post.

>>34959621
Argue with Wikipedia. I just copypasta'd first things that matched the rounds in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M114_155_mm_howitzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M252_mortar

>>34959469
and this is why every military in the world has adopted mortars over field artillery...not.

>>34959388
I wish this was in warthunder

File: 1469655677348.jpg (268KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x960px

>>34959469
Yes mortar rounds can pack more explisive by weight than conventional arty, but youre way off. A 155mm shell weighs ~90lbs, with about a 15lb explosive charge. AN 81mm mortar shell is about 16lbs. The rule of thumb I heard was mortars have about as much blast radius as the next up size of arty: this a 60mm mortar is roughly equivalent to a 75mm gun, 81mm to 105mm and 120mm to 155mm. Light, medium and heavy are about the same.