Could use just collapse trench systems with big enough guns? What I mean is to put a rather long delay on a HE shell and aim at the trenches so that it explodes under them, and then the hapless enemy soldiers end up buried in the sinkhole.

>>6100 >Could use just collapse trench systems with big enough guns Unfortunately ground is one hell of a shock absorber. Underground nuclear launch test site holes to produce negligible atmospheric radiation are less than a kilometer deep (in comparison hydraulic fracking wells are about 1.5-3km deep) and those are city-busting bombs. I'm not sure hoe well it would work or if it's doable without smart munitions. If you have smart munitions I'm more in favor of a delayed-onset aerosol bomb since the trench is below ground level and will lose all of its oxygen first.

>>6101 What if you ˝scaled down˝ it quite a bit, so that a near miss still turns the sidewalls of a trench into a mess? Although that would still give some cover to the enemy, but turning a well set-up machine gun position into a hole filled with soft earth seems to be useful. >If you have smart munitions I'm more in favor of a delayed-onset aerosol bomb since the trench is below ground level and will lose all of its oxygen first. Is bombarding the trenches with napalm comparable in effectiveness? Although I'm not sure if filling artillery shells with napalm is a good idea, but then you just need a proximity fuse so that the shell explodes over the trench system and sprays it with napalm.

>>6102 I think it would still depend on the material properties of the ground like grain size or moisture content, but I'm sure other anons are better versed on these things. Even if the hole is busted in, they may be able to fill it in or just carve out a new pathway into the earth before a siege is possible. >Napalm Napalm's reactions are... Octane: 2C8H18 + 25O2 ---> 18H2O + 16 CO2 Benzene: 2C6H6 + 15O2 ---> 6H2O + 12CO2 The Styrene in napalm slows down the consumption of oxygen, so I don't know if that would be a good or a had thing.

>>6102 It would be more efficient to blast/burn out the inhabitants of said trench that to obliterate them entirely. For one it enables your forces to use them afterwards in addition to any improvement upon them and secondly you'll waste less munitions trying to blow the dirt up which artillery is really inefficient at doing. See the first world war on how a basic and wellmade trench can nuetralize the danger of indirect artillery on your army. >>6103 It's a good thing for persistancy, but if you're just trying to deliver as much heat and shock as possible the more oxygen is consumed in that reaction the better the results.

Considering that the US converted cluster munitions into training shells by replacing the bomblets with concrete and a bit of explosives, I wonder if you could use the same shell body to deliver HE, smoke, and all kinds of submunitions (including illumination). If yes, you could just design an extended range, full bore shell with different payloads and optional base bleed or rocket assistance, and just produce the same shell body. With something like >>6093 you don't even need a different shell body for guided projectiles. Not that this would revolutionize artillery, but maybe you could get rid of one bottleneck if you make a big stockpile of shell bodies in advance, and then choose the payload, fuse, and optional ranger extender modules based on what you need and have. After all, a cylindrical steel object should last for a few decades with proper storage, especially if it's not filled with chemicals and whatnot.

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-2s7-pion-shoots-with-american-203mm-rounds/ https://archive.ph/AoD9Q The article is not very informative, I wouldn't even be surprised if it was written by AI, but the point is that the 2S7 Pion can shoot the shells of the M110 howitzer. I would like to know if it works perfectly fine, or if it fucks with the accuracy to great degree, but I guess we won't learn it anytime soon if at all.

I wonder how well remotely operated SPGs would work. If you have no crew at all you can devote more space to machinery and ammo, and you could have the crew in a different vehicle that can control a whole battery of them, with 4 (or how many SPGs you have in a battery) soldiers dedicated to controlling a single SPG each (mostly driving for them from position to position), and then the battalion commander would be in the same vehicle. I imagine a properly armoured heavy APC with the controllers in the back, so that even if an SPG blows up while they are right next to it they should be fine. Because the control vehicle follows the battery you don't have to worry that much about jamming, in extreme cases they could communicate through line-of-sight lasers or even with good old cables. To be perfectly honest, I can see it going either reasonably well or horribly wrong. And yes, I am thinking about some proper long range artillery that shoots and scoots until they run out of ammo, and then quickly hurry back to a hopefully safe position for reloading.

>>6107 >and then the battalion commander would be in the same vehicle I mean battery commander.

>>6107 The obvious weak point there is that taking out the command vehicle takes out the battery. Of course, it might be possible to take control of the SPGs from a different vehicle, but it's still far from optimal. However, not having any crew might work for the kind of SPGs that genuinely are just guns with tracks, because they usually need to be escorted by at least one extra vehicle that carries most of the crew and the ammo, so you might as well control everything from that other vehicle. But even then, having at least a position for a driver as a backup would be a good idea.

>>6107 Of all the vehicles you could turn into a UGV, you chose the one and only that gets to engage the enemy from a safe distance and has no reason to be remotely controlled in the first place?

>>6110 >gets to engage the enemy from a safe distance If it is close enough to fire at the enemy then it is close enough to get drone'd.

>>6111 >If it is close enough to fire at the enemy then it is close enough to get drone'd. If the drone is close enough to drop a bomb or kamikaze itself straight into the enemy, then it is close enough to be jammed or shot down by AA. Speaking of AA, there's a type of vehicle that would great as a UGV. Rheinmetall slammed the Skyranger 30 turret onto a Ripsaw M5 UGV.

>>6112 That looks mega cute.

>>6113 >That looks mega cute.

Does anyone know where I can find a manual or instructions for using a stereoscopic rangefinder, particularly this model? This was also used by Finland

Artillery is the god of war. Artillery is the indiscriminate form of mass destruction that the /k/ube /k/raves.

>>6061 artillery can't hold the line

This may be people memeing online about CQB, but the use of fire is imperically more effective than the door kicker method, however unlikely normal niggers online claim they'ld comit arson with a flamethrower. Not a horrible idea, but why not use long range projectiles designed to start fires instead of having no stand off distance to keep from accidentally getting roasted, or so it isn't as easy to get shot from someone inside once they realize they're about to burn alive? WP rockets/mortar rounds were used in the Ukraine to convince combatants to abandon their fighting positions, or as an area denial tactic. Similar fire starting munitions are perfectly legal for a civilian to own, but if your idea of CQB is to willingly comit arson I doubt you're concerned about the possibility of being charged as a felon anyways. Surely even a molotov launched from a giant sling would be more practical?

>>6107 > SPG There are already unmanned turrets, so why not. The question is, in what roles this would be actually useful? > If you have no crew at all you can devote more space to machinery and ammo, and you could have the crew in a different vehicle that can control a whole battery of them, with 4 (or how many SPGs you have in a battery) soldiers dedicated to controlling a single SPG each (mostly driving for them from position to position) >>6110 >Of all the vehicles you could turn into a UGV, you chose the one and only that gets to engage the enemy from a safe distance and has no reason to be remotely controlled in the first place? If it was engaging from safe distance, it could be replaced with a cheaper towed gun. Speaking of which, if you need only a more expendable mobile battery without local human spotters and decision makers, SPG is superfluous. It can be reduced to unmanned towed gun. The same unmanned turret carried on a light frame with wheels and hydraulic jacks. If it’s lowered onto the ground for shooting (much like many railway guns work), there’s no no need for unlimbering or having a heavy platform capable of taking full recoil every time. Anything not really needed in the turret goes into cart, if not really needed there either, into the tractor. An unmanned artillery tractor can be made quite flat, too. Also, since the turret must be both lean and self-contained, the gun is modular now, so for a long-term position the turret itself can be either trivially detached and left there much like manned towed guns, or even better: mounted on field fortifications for easier supply and wired control.

>>6116 No, that's KRATOS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rClXqZD2Xrs

>>6119 >Anything not really needed in the turret goes into cart, if not really needed there either, into the tractor. An unmanned artillery tractor can be made quite flat, too. >Also, since the turret must be both lean and self-contained, the gun is modular now, so for a long-term position the turret itself can be either trivially detached and left there much like manned towed guns, or even better: mounted on field fortifications for easier supply and wired control. That vaguely reminds me of this: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/10-5cm-lefh-181-l28-auf-waffentrager-ivb/ >The idea was that the gun crew could keep up with the armoured Panzer Divisions. When needed to fire as an artillery battery, to give long range support firing high explosive shells over the heads of the German infantry and tank crews, The gun would be removed and placed on the ground where it could be fired like a normal artillery gun. >The vehicle could carry 87 high explosive shells. If more were needed the turret could be removed and placed on a gun carriage and towed behind the tank chassis. This allowed for more ammunition to be carried onto the battlefield. The modified Panzer IV tank chassis became a turretless armoured ammunition carrier. This configuration would have only worked in gentle undulating countryside or on roads. The gun carriage wheels and frame were carried on the tank chassis at the rear. >The 10.5cm howitzer could also be fired from on top of the tank chassis. There was no top to the turret. There were a few disadvantages of an open topped vehicle. The crew was exposed to the elements and were also at risk of injury from enemy thrown hand grenades, mortars and shrapnel from air burst enemy shells. A canvas tarpaulin rain cover was produced. Of course, if we wanted something like this (but automated), then it would be best if the whole thing could be mounted on any truck that can carry a standard shipping container.

>"The Caesar gun is very vulnerable". >His criticisms don't spare Western weapons, either. >"Your Caesar self-propelled gun [manufactured by the French Nexter group] shoots very fast and with the precision of a goldsmith. But I use it very little because it's very vulnerable and ill-suited to the realities of war." Because of its large size, the Caesar would be quickly spotted by Russian drones, which make it a priority target. >"If I take it out into the open to fire, it becomes a target for counter-battery fire after three or four minutes. I don't have time to evacuate it out of the danger zone [the Caesar needs at least five minutes to fire and then flee]. >On the other hand, with the M-777 [a towed American howitzer], I can fire an average of 300 shells a day," continues the commander. With the Caesar, if I fire five, that's fine. The M-777 is easy to conceal, and I can install a metal casing around it to protect it from the [Russian kamikaze drone] Lancet." >"Hiding the Caesar means degrading its satellite link, without which it becomes impossible to guide the shot. It should either be possible to guide the shot in manual mode, or the satellite antenna should be detachable", suggests the "Nocturne" commander, who also mocks the gun's vulnerability to dirt: >"This lady [the Caesar] likes cleanliness too much. Her operators are like surgeons, always wearing gloves and overshoes, forced to sleep in them so as not to get her dirty." As a result, there's no shortage of ammunition for the Caesar. But it's not the ammunition that worries him. Not like this frog bros...

>>6122 The great french psyche strikes again, great in theory but too much of a diva for practical use.

>>6122 The caesar is shit because it requires human loaders. I don't understand his complaint about it being vulnerable to counter-battery fire however. How is the Caesar vulnerable but the towed howitzers aren't? That makes no sense. How well you hide a towed gun doesn't matter, counter-battery radar will locate it's position just the same. I think the Ukrainian is just annoyed that they have to drive around in a very expensive SPG that doesn't reload by itself which defeats the whole purpose of having an expensive SPG (<60s set up time, multi-impact capability, GTFO within 30s).

>>6124 He said specifically he can't hide it because it degrades the satellite uplink meaning the Russians locate it faster meaning he doesn't have enough time to more it after firing unless he wants to lose the superior accuracy from the uplink by hiding it like other bits of artillery. It's also probably a priority target over the older soviet systems.

>>6125 Not only that, he implies that it cannot shot without activating radar at all. So basically it gets noticed as soon as it decides to shoot something and then eats 20 HE dildos.

>>6126 It's like none of the modern nato equipment was designed with fighting a foe that has comparable capabilities. Who thought it was okay to make an artillery piece that alerts every elint receiver for miles around before it's even fired a shot? >Look fren we've made an artillery battery that's counterable with SEAD, that'll be $50 milllion

>>6126 >>6127 The critique also mentioned the caesar's finicky need for cleanliness, and how it can't deal with muddy conditions, which is a serious liability for the front. but yea, NATO tech is built around counter-insurgency ops. As I've said on here before, it's very effective within its narrow window, but once outside that frame, it becomes underwhelming & unreliable. In other words, NATO hardware tends to be specialized and lacking in versatility.

>>6128 >need for cleanliness, and how it can't deal with muddy conditions Ah yes, the marks of a truly shitty useless piece of equipment in any engagement that isn't guerilla warfare.

>>6129 I don't expect every weapon system to be like the AK, but extra tight tolerances can definitely be a problem when mud or sand gets into everything.

To be honest its not like any vehicle can reliably function in the muds of Ukraine. Its an extreme environment unlike any other. Maybe island hopping pacific campaign of ww2 would be comparable when it comes to mud/sand/shit blocking the wheels.

>>6131 It's not expected to deal with ostfront tier mud but by the same token you don't want a barrel detonation because someone didn't wipe their boots properly when loading the bloody thing. >>6128 Yeah designed to never be more than 1500m from a vehicle maintenance fob.

>>6132 True, the rasputista is an extreme environment. But having to wear surgical scrubs to keep it running is a bit much. Not only that, but NATO artillery tends to break down from prolonged use and needs much more maintenance & repair, according to another source I read.

>>6133 >NATO artillery tends to break down from prolonged use and needs much more maintenance & repair Do they mean barrel life, hydraulic issues or just general wear and tear on the chassis?

>>6134 What do you mean or? It's probably all of those.