The King of Battle
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Requesting an artillery thread. From early bombards to to M109s.
Stonk (“Standard Concentration”)
This was a Linear Target along a Regimental front of 600 yards identified by its centre point and vertical axis (Hassett & Burns, n.d. a). According to Evans (2001-5) by 1944 stonks were standardised as 525 yards long (Ellis, 1980, implies 1943). Evans also says ” 2 NZ Division continued to use its 1200 × 300 yard stonks” but the dimensions actually correspond a Rumpus (see below).
Additional facts about a British “Stonk” (Hassett & Burns, n.d. b):
-The name “Stonk” is probably a portmanteau word for “standard concentration”.
-The original 1940-1941 Stonk was a square of 300 yards by 300 yards, each battery covering a linear frontage of 300 yards, with the batteries echeloned plus and minus 100 yards from the centre point.
-The Stonk in the latter part of the war, post Alamein, was substantially different from the original version. It was a 600 yards linear regimental target based on a grid reference and bearing .
-Stonks were generally pre planned in the sense that they were nominated and recorded and it was unusual for them to be initiated on the spot.
-Observation Posts (OP) could initiate Stonks but there is no record of the technique ever being used as part of an observed fire programme.
-Each Stonk was given a codename or number.
-The number of rounds was nominated each time the Stonk was called for.
-In the post Senio period they were occasionally used by the medium guns as a means of covering an area where German tanks had been seen.
-The technique was used post Alamein for the definition of Defensive Fire Tasks in support of the infantry in static positions.
-They were also used in depth on some occasions ahead of the line of the barrage.
>>29353813
Post a better SPG
>pro tip, you cant.
>>29353888
>Slower RoF
>Less rounds in MRSI.
>Shorter range
The only advantage I can see is that it can carry more ammunition.
Biggus Dickus
>>29353925
>Slower RoF
don't remember exactly. But not far off.
>Less rounds in MRSI.
same
>Shorter range
nope, same. Can't bother to look at wiki, but not everything there is true.
>>29353957
Okay, I just looked at wiki. The range should be similar as both have 155mm L/52 guns.
If wat you say is true, that makes it what? Equally good? Or does it have any other advantage? Can it fire guided shells like the Excalibur?
>>29353878
Not gonna say M109A3N because that sucks as well, but seeing how the only other nation in the Archer-project found it so lacking that they went "fuck it" and dropped out after spending hundreds of millions should tell you sonethibg...
>>29353967
>Can it fire guided shells like the Excalibur?
yes.
Archer is better on road, K9 beats it in terrain. It is also very comfortable, it has a modern suspension which helps during driving. everything is big, so there's a lot of room inside. K9 Thunder comfort: A+.
>>29353995
also. K9 Thunder has a higher level of protection, ecpecially against shrapnel and machine gun fire
>>29353995
Id probably say that the Archer is even more comfy as all personell sit in nice seats in the front, is far away from the gun and has good visibility, but then again I have never been inside a K9. Is the K9 manually loaded or automatic?
Off road a tracked vehicle should be better if its not extremly heavy, so ill give you that. But as you stated it will be less mobile on roads and light terrain.
>>29354008
Has it tho? Afaik they both are protected against 14.5mm ball. And the RWS on the Archer should be better at fiering back at said MG team.
M777 BEST GUN
no time to expand on this
but anyone interested in interesting artillery of interest
ought to check out two things
first, british artillery doctrine in ww1
but even more so, american artillery doctrine in ww2
that shit is wack yo
everyone else having minutes-tens of minutes response time after going through FOs/regiments etc.
with americans going as low as 30s for a barrage called by some lowly LT on a radio
also the maps! literally having the maps & tables to calculate arty fires from anywhere to everywhere else
blows my mind
There are plenty of accounts of (typically) cavalry charging and routing artillery units. Does anyone know of accounts where the artillery hold their ground and repel the attack?
>>29354029
I'm not agreeing with you on that. Sitting around all day, not being able to stand up and walk would kill me. But that's my opinion, though.
It is half-automatic. Rounds being loaded automatically, charges manually.
The K9 was killing the CV90s in the tracks, I heard.
>>29354042
Hmm, maybe. If Norway is going K9, it will have a RWS.
>>29354048
kek no
>>29354052
Beside forebases on Vietnam firing HE and Beehive-shells at gooks from 50-100 yards, not really. There are stories of US Army M109's having to shoot it out with BMP's and shit while advancing on Baghdad though
>>29354056
Actually manually loading severly reduces the comfy level if I get to say it. And you can stand up inside the Archer if you are not extremly tall. The cabin of the Archer is also not as loud as beeing inside most tracked SPGs.
The norwegian variant will in that case have exacly the same RWS as our Archers.
>>29354064
*firebases
>golfing club Forebase reporting in
>>29354070
Everyone is entitles to their opinions. I would doze off if my job was to steer the RWS with a joy stick.
Yeah, being that the Protector RWS that it uses is norwegian, that is completely natural.
>>29354070
We sure do love putting that RWS on stuff. Cant really blame us though, that thing is dope as fuck
Infantry is the queen of battle because it gets fucked by the king.
>>29354087
It is. You did take it to far when you put them on your CV90s tho.
>>29354114
don't be mad cause you're a POG FAG.
>>29354116
The whole "RWS on the CV" thing does seem like quite the overkill, but when you think about the way its used then it makes sense. It gives you a completely hull-down capacity while allowing high-res day and thermal observation, 12.7mm or 40mm prescision fire, and it allowes the squad leader in the back to use it for overservation before the squad disembarks. I tried using the 40mm back when they were developing the balistics-software, and they had to program in dispersion because you had every burst landing inside the same 4x4 meter area, lovering its effectivenes. I can see a problem with having something that high on your vehicle while driving fast under low-hanging trees though
>>29354253
*observation
>>29353878
Anything that has been produced and will be produced more than 24 units.
>>29354321
Seeing as the Archer will be produced in 48 units, your point is invalid.
>>29353981
Why Norway is a mystery, and they dont even seem to have a reason themselves. The main reason that i've heard unofficially is that the poor road system in norway coupled with their doctrines means that tracked guns are really the best alternative.
I think they should be glad that Sweden was the bigger man and didnt make them pay for the 24 pieces anyway (as was stated in the clauses of the contract), but all in all, the norweigan decision was strange and stinks bad faith.
>>29353813
That's not how you spell "Aircraft"
>>29354052
The charge of the light brigade is the most known example.
Senarmont's artillery and the russian Guard cavalry at Friedland, too (he had himself charged a few moments before, being horse-mounted artillery).
Probably a whole lot, but IDK much about that period.
>>29353813
How about floating artillery?
>imagining some chicom column moving through a narrow valley when the Big J drops 9 406mms on them
>>29354392
It's an expression.
>>29354386
Yeah i know. The whole road-thing I cant really get behind, seeing how the M109 has some of the shittiest of-road capability i've ever seen(in our terrain anyway), and unless its dry and somewhat solid, is just as much bound to some kind of road network as a wheeled vehicle would be.
I have heard talk about the gun though, and that it was not satisfactory enough, along the lines of reliability, maintenance, and so on. Only hear-say though.
>>29354350
24, now that Norway has dropped out.
>>29354386
>>29354520
I've heard something about too heavy ground pressure(can't find the GP of Archer), accuracy of the gun and problems with the ammunition trucks.
>>29354386
Where did you hear that Norway does not have to pay for them? last i heard Sweden was pulling Norway to court over this.
>You'll never see a railway gun fire its shell miles away in a thundering roar.
Why live ?
>>29354535
Bofors still has a deal for 48 pieces, and payment for this is probably guaranteed by the swedish state. They will make 48 units, otherwise it would severely hurt Bofors.
>>29354552
Yes, i've also heard that the axle pressure was a problem. The lowest level of bearing on swedish roads is higher than the highest level of bearing on their norweigan counterparts. The accuracy of the gun has never been in question, the stability of the platform has been in the prototype stages though. Don't know if it was still a problem when norway bailed, but it has been solved for a while now.
>>29354663
>>29354596
They will probably have to pay a hefty fine, but last i heard; not the full 1.3 billion SEK that the contract stipulates.
>>29354739
Ok, same as i heard then, Sweden want to avoid making this a long drawn out affair.
>>29354758
They probably dont want to antagonize a future buyer; however, this will probably cause some severe trust issues between FMV and Norways counterpart.
>>29354702
Heh, funny if the Swedish artillery suddenly doubled over night.
>>29353995
Can't really say for sure who beats who in terrain; most likely it depends on what kind of terrain were talking. The dumper chassi has articulated steering and 6 wheel drive and performs very well in terrain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIHLkntah9Q). It's also much lighter and some of the tracked artillery pieces have very narrow tracks...
>>29354826
it has ~10 hp/t, the K9 has 21. Tracks will beat wheels in terrain any time. There's no question about it. Also, the tracks on the K9 are as wide as on a MBT.
There's really no question.
>>29354800
To be fair, us Norwegians have quite a long history of buying good stuff from the Swedes and the Finns. The whole Archer-thing is the anomaly. Most of us who served are more pissed at the useless decisions made from FLO/government than from our neighbors.
>>29354826
>>29354871
In snow, where the Norwegian army operates 9/10 times( i swear it never fucking melts), tracks are the way to go. We do of course use the road network as well, but again, except for like..4 months, its covered in ice up north(or at least around freezing), making all military traffic slow down to the point where tracks/wheels make no difference.
>>29354253
I see. That sort of makes sense. But still, during the development of the CV90 one requiment was that it was as low as possible. And well. You fucked that up.
>>29354321
>HURR DURR not producing a million of them means that they are shit
Not producing many of them is a result of a shitty defence budget. They are still (individually compared to other SPGs) some of the best ones available.
>>29354925
Heh, yeah we might have fucked up that bit :p But does the whole "low as possible"-idea come more from "keep the crew safe" or the "harder to detect"-idea? Because the crew is no more exposed, though you can argue that it is now easier to detect.
I's sure someone at some point worked out the pro's and con's regarding hight/detectability vs observation/awareness. Or at least i hope.
>>29354925
Being lower is nice, sure, but it was never a priority that the CV90 was to be very low, where have you heard that?
>>29354959
This was in the 80s so I guess things have changed.
>Being lower is nice, sure, but it was never a priority that the CV90 was to be very low, where have you heard that?
SPHFs CV90 Photo Guide (Pic related). I would trust that very much, as it was created by the very people who designed the CV90. It was not a main priority, but it was still specified by FMV that the weight and size of the vehicle was to be keept ata minimum.
The last part of
>>29355074
was intended for
>>29355027
>>29355089
fuck, i wish we also went with the CV90 ARV.
>>29355074
No, the priority was to get a light IFV with very good terrain capacity to combat air landings and flanking forces in roadless upper Norrland. This however, does of course mean that weight and volume is important, especially seeing the other specifications (ie. 2 man 40mm turret, 8 men in the back etc).
>>29355293
>Yes you should. They have a M1919 MG. If you ask nicely enough you could probably get one in 6.5x55
Former Army 13B here, served on the M109A6 primarily. If anyone would like to know anything let me know. There are several of us around usually.
I would bet that no one on this thread has been on the receiving end of and artillery barrage...because if you would have more reverence for the King of Battle. To be the subject of intense concentration of hot steel would make one familiar with terror that would be hard to comprehend.
I myself have never, but have came VERY close.
>>29356471
closest i got was those fucking 107mm rockets.
>>29356387
wat?
>>29356804
I never meant to greentext that.
>>29353878
What went wrong?
I miss us having this in the British Army. AS-90 is massively superior, sure, but the Abbot was such a neat and light thing.
Only 16.5 tons, can do 47km/h, fully rotating turret, 40 rounds of HE (for lobbing) and HESH (for direct fire) and all mounted on the FV432 chassis for commonality. Range with the modern 105mm ammo in the Army would be just over 20km.
It was simple, very light on logistics, you could carry it in a C-130 and shared ammo with the other main gun. Nothing spectacular, no world beating elements, but something about it just appeals to me. Wish we still had them to supplement the AS-90 for lighter deployments.
>>29357840
I agree. I love this little vehicle.
>>29357771
It's not a Panzerhaubitze 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc9sb71px5I
>>29353865
>who says dumb artillery rounds can't kill armor
no body, it's just something that the jews keep asking to make their shit seems high tech like spraying plastic fuss on a $150 million dollar jet before every sortie and called it "stealth" tech
![2s5_giatsint[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YEFrhk2.jpg "2s5_giatsint[1].jpg")
For awhile I disregarded this piece in favor of the fully enclosed 2S3, but then I ended up reading that it had effectively twice the 2S3's range, and largely equipped with DPICMs.
It could also fire nuclear shells in the range of 0.2 and 0.4kt, making it ideal for the first mission of the Soviet artillery.
Hierarchy of target priority being:
- Nuclear weapons and nuclear capable systems
- Artillery and Air Defense
- Defensive strong points
- Command Posts, OPs and communications facilities
- Reserves and logistictal support
- Routes of possible counterattacking forces
fire mission...battery 3 round, shell h.e., fuse p.d. charge 7 white bag...deflection 3287 quadrant 142
>>29360075
NUUUUUUUUUUMBER 1...FIRE
