Why don't we use Coastal Artillery in modern war?
seems like a good deterrent to a amphibious assault
>>30582829
static position are pretty vulnerable to long range missile/aircraft attack, no matter how fortified they are
the only country who still invests a shit ton of money in coastal artillery is Taiwan
>>30582829
well no foreign army is invading the USA
>>30582829
Operation L.A.P.-D.A.N.C.E. Littoral Attack Plan - Detect and Neutralize Coastal Enforcements
>>30582857
No foreign army is invading any country right now
>static defenses
>2016
>>30582829
Who is "we," the USA?
If so:
A) no nation is going to amphibious assault us in force, ever, it's not feasible to stage a sea invasion across the atlantic or pacific unless 99% of the population is already dead of some engineered plague or such nonsense, and
B) we kind of have a lot of coastline, ya know, it makes more sense to stick some guns and missiles on planes and shit that can go the place where the enemy is attacking rather than try and stick a big-ass cannon and supporting artillery and machine guns in the sand every thousand yards.
>>30583014
well except the US just driving across parts of Europe and the middle east like its a golf course.
>>30582829
Missiles. More expensive, but more convenient and easier to place. Once railguns are mature enough, we will probably see that happen, but it will still likely fire a smart/ hybrid projectile.
nitrocellulose/nitroglycerien + zirconium or other options.
tl/dr: send a projectile out to its target already going fast as fuck, and at the best possible moment, ignite the rocket for a final push.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4971
Coastal artillery in the modern days are mostly mobile robot systems because you need to attack and reposition in order to avoid counter artillery. Stationary installations are as previously mentioned too vulnerable to be useful. If someone plans to attack they would knock them out first.
So instead they use anti ship missles fired from vehicles or man portable.
>>30582829
Ships, subs, and planes carry anti-ground missiles that can blow the fuck out of any gun emplacement from superior range.
>>30583049
Freedom. Democracy. Justice.
All goals of the American people, and soon to be yours too for the right barrel of oil.
Now watch this drive!
>>30582829
Why did you make the same thread twice?
>>30582708
Is this another one of those situations where something happened on a popular show so now people will make threads about it all day?
>>30583186
except that anti ship missile batteries are in-use worldwide and have potential, it's within the scope of a /k/ discussion. Same can't be said for coastal guns
>>30582829
Expensive to set up and entirely immobile. Good for area denial but little else.
>>30582829
Taiwan is still using a fucking coastal artillery to defend its shore against them godless commies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1ElP_uwSww
>>30582829
Basically unused because they are not mobile which makes them easy targets from long range.
>>30582829
Obsoleted since before WW2, though some were still used in combat then.
>>30583978
Coastal artillery was absolutely not obsolete in WW2
>>30582829
But we use.
T: Finland
>amphibious assaults
>not travelling inland to amphibious assault where people least expect it
Coastal artillery?
>>30582847
alot of coastal european nations have 25/30/40mm emplacements still, though I assume most of those are autonimous and made for AA purposes given europes affinity for getting the fuck bombed out of them
Russians do, albeit mobile and supplemented with mobile ASM launchers and radars.
>>30584253
COASTAL ARTILLERY
>>30584253
anon
anon
anon
put it in Krig anon
>>30582829
>country spends millions putting giant guns on the coast
>war breaks out
>it's post WWII so everyone has missiles
>all of the guns are eliminated by missiles
>>30584259
Yeah but they're old models from the 60s and 80s at least in my country lol
>>30584307
desu senpai not that simple
>>30584357
>hurr durr dis turret is invulnerable to missiles
Apply yourself
>>30584199
That pic gave me a funny feeling in my tummy
>>30584156
Coastal batteries only sunk a few ships in WW2. Compared to a flight of planes from a carrier, they were woefully ineffective. Though they were relatively cost effective, and were a decent area denial until destroyed.
basically this
>>30584307
>the guns are all holograms
>the real guns teleport behind the missile launchers
>"we are remote operated via fibre optical cables and thus contain nothing personnel, kid"
>gun pulls out katana
>katana pulls out knife
>knife pulls out rock on a stick
>stick pulls out thigh bone of reindeer
>bonks missile launchers into peices
>>30583049
drive for the show, putt for the dough
>>30582829
Missiles and aircraft do the same job better.
>>30584174
Get to my level Finland
>>30584199
This blin gets it!
>>30584445
Wow, that actually looks like it would be extremely difficult to knock out with guns.
>>30584464
Now we just gotta invent a time machine so we can send it into a war where it would be relevant.
>>30583081
the sprint missile was not a neutron bomb, it was a regular nuke
>>30584478
>>30584445
what and where is it?
>>30584464
And insqnely easy to knock out with bombs.
You know, like in ww2.
>>30584508
Anywhere prior to the invention of aircraft.
>>30584508
Read the file name, it's outside the copacabana club.
>>30584516
So then it is better to not have any coastal defenses at all?
That's silly.
>>30584550
>Not having mobile artillery vehicles handling the work of coastal artillery
>not having movable missile defense systems and missile launch vehicles
>>30584619
Missiles weren't accurate enough in WW2 for that to be a viable option. Also, how would you make a 16-in (406 mm) mobile?
>>30582829
range
>>30584619
>Also, how would you make a 16-in (406 mm) mobile?
by putting it on a battleship
Coastal defense battery Fort Foster Maine.
>>30584714
Battleships actually were obsolete in WW2 though. Anybody who was still making battleships after 1921 should have been making aircraft carriers instead.
>>30584445
Xenonauts?
Battery Erasmus Keyes, Fort Williams Maine.
>>30584749
>Battleships actually were obsolete in WW2 though.
that wasn't the question
>>30582829
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-explores-anti-ship-howitzers-anti-aircraft-strykers/
According to this article, the US army is currently exploring the idea of using artillery for anti-ship roles.
Battery Blair, Fort Williams Maine.
>>30584845
You got me there.
>>30583000
lewd
>>30584550
just use missile silos
>>30584876
Regular, existing artillery.
Which is mobile, not a fixed position like coastal guns.
OP, ever hear of the atlantic wall? If that shit didn't work against WW2 amphibious tactics, what chance does it have in 2016?
>>30582847
>static position are pretty vulnerable to long range missile/aircraft attack, no matter how fortified they are
>no matter how fortified
fuck you
>>30583027
>2016
>not knowing of force shields
>>30584181
That looks kinda like a 10,5cm long cannon.
>>30583098
>Coastal artillery in the modern days are mostly mobile robot systems
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>30582857
>well no foreign army is invading the USA
So, What your saying its high time that Nazi Germany or Germany attempted another try in the third world war?
>>30585415
Genuine autism.
>>30585432
Field Marshal Autism.
>>30584445
>>30584464
I take that back, while it looks well protected, it was actually shit.
A late 1800s dreadnought blew open that battery in 1922.
>>30582829
Who doesn't? Pic related, coastal artillery
>>30582829
Because anti-ship missiles do the job better.
>>30584906
>just use missile silos
Missiles weren't accurate enough in WW2 for that to be a viable option.
>>30584416
kek
How about an armored train whose tracks follow the coastline?
It would be mobile coastal artillery, alongside anti air guns and missile launchers and can carry infantry all in one load.
And the tracks can also go inland too, so you can bring all that shit inland in case the beaches are taken and new front-lines are established.
>>30586110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8gV4DJZUw
Guys.
Guys. I've got it
guys.
What if we
guys
What if we put PLANES on a BOAT and we used that to defend the coasts?
>>30584259
>a lot od European coastal countries still have 25/30/40mm emplacements
Since when? No one uses coastal artillery that small, not now, not in world war two, not before then.
>>30586696
You fool, everyone knows the aeroplane is just a fad, and that they are totally irrelevant to the modern military. Wars are won with steel wills and strong horses.
>>30585546
>Late 1800's dreadnaught
>Dreadnaught
>1800's
Tripfags tripfagging again.
>>30586746
Admiral Beaty, we've been over this!
>>30582829
missiles
>>30583027
missiles
>>30583944
>Good for area denial but little else.
Good thing area denial and deterrence is their entire purpose then.
>>30583954
wtf taiwan, no automated targeting system or loading?
>>30584262
aka: the proper way to do it.
>>30586766
Woops, thought I had read that the ship in question was laid down in 1898 for some reason.
>>30582829
>static defenses
>versus aircrsft carriers
>>30584791
>xenonauts mentioned
>swell with high casualties and 50% female recruits
>>30584912
It didnt work because it was still being constructed in some places and massively understaffed over all
>>30586943
...No, it didn't work because fixed fortifications were obsolete before it even started.
For fucks sake, are you going to say the maginot line was a good idea?
>>30587011
>use 5% of the budget and a fraction of the manpower to completely deny the most important front to the enemy
>shield the industrial region from being overrun
>not a good idea
wew
>>30586880
Dreadnaughts didn't exist then for starters.
>>30587047
I think you mean hon hon hon
>>30583038
>stick a big-ass cannon and supporting artillery and machine guns in the sand every thousand yards
Oh god muh dick
>>30587011
I mean the maginot line did stop the germans from invading across that border.
>>30583049
Looking for those goddamn golf balls in the trees and fucking around in sand traps.
>>30586943
Yeah, Wolfenstine: The New Order showed what that bitch would do if completed.. and with robots n shit.
A modern wall with laser cannons and CIWS would be undeadable.
>>30587153
...That doesn't mean it was in any way useful. A fortification the enemy can simply go around without engaging is worthless.
>>30587228
Not true, that funnels the enemy, making it more predictable and easier to counter.
>>30587245
Tell me again how the maginot line made the nazis easy to counter
>>30583954
that was sexy
nice camo too
>>30587228
Yeah but that was Belgium's fault.
If they weren't such a useless speedbump then the wall would be more useful.
Or hell if the French just KNEW the Belgiums were going to suck and just lengthened the wall to accomodate that.
>>30587267
It forced them to got around through Belgium instead of invading France directly. That bought the French a lot of time to get ready.
Of course, the French completely failed to take advantage of that extra time so it didn't matter but If the French had been more on the ball, they could have easily stopped the German Army.
>>30587334
Sending the cream of thier army, plus the british, into belgium to meet them didn't count as getting ready or taking action?
>>30587011
Fixed fortifications can never be obsolete.
The nature of them has changed and will continue to change, but they aren't going away anytime soon.
In the city I live in in New Zealand, we have some old pre-WW1 coastal batteries and some WW2 stuff when we were afraid the Japs were gonna show up.
I would love to see an updated version of the disappearing guns, they would be raised up from a fortified pit, fire and the recoil would drop them back into a hiding position.
>>30582857
Look at the border down south.
>>30587385
Bullshit.
Texans are already inside our border.
>>30583000
Someone give this man a job at the DoD.
>>30586110
Why limit yourself to tracks when you can attach it to a glider?
>>30587459
We could name it after a general.
Aerogavin.
>>30585546
Fuck of weeb
>>30584174
Only because we still have shitloads of ammunition for the couple cannons we have still in use.
>>30584464
It's Brazil, an invading force would only have to contend with literally a couple of dozen aircraft being a mish-mash of F-5M and AMX-M modernized with avionics from early 2000s. After their AA shoots down these pesky mosquitos, anywhere would be an easy target. Those cannons also have been useless since long ago.
>>30587487
>implying the entire might of the US Armed Forces would be enough to rob Brazil of its' air superiority
Not while they have those 99 Super Tucanos!
>PROP PRIDE
>WORLDWIDE
>>30587537
10/10 made me laugh
>>30587479
>he said on 4chan.org
>>30587537
>>PROP PRIDE
>>WORLDWIDE
kek, you're pretty good
>>30587560
>4chan is for weebs only, baka gaijin!
Last time i checked this board was not for anime.
>>30587366
We're talking about against a real army in a conventional war, not occupying a country of people who fuck goats.
>>30584307
This essentially. A lot of the extant still in service coastal artillery dates back before the 1970s.
>>30588053
How many times must we have this discussion?
>>30582829
because a modern well place mobile artillery battery works better.
Fixed positions in the era of cruise missiles and air strikes are stupid.
>>30584262
>>30586872
what is the name of that system/unit ? looks interesting.
>>30584946
moron
>>30586110
severe train track with missiles in several points
>>30586806
>missiles
missiles
>>30588272
So I guess no war against rural England?
>oh wait, that's sheep. Never mind.
>>30588420
Rubezh, IIRC
>Be fixed coastal artillery
>Get hit by cruise missile from 1,800km away
that's why
>>30588420
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/130_mm_coastal_defense_gun_A-222
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-15_Termit
>>30588727
Do not be fixed coastal artillery. It's that easy.
Are cruise missiles capable of bunker busting?
I was under the impression that such weapons are generally air dropped.
>>30583000
Nice trips, great idea.
>>30584749
Everything in this thread is obsolete.
>>30588272
So you think FOB's should just be completely unprotected?
And it baffles me how many people don't understand the purpose of the Maginot Line. If the Germans had not sent tanks through a forest believed to be impassable to tanks it would have worked fine.
Without it the French would have been without a chance.
>>30589599
thats fucking sweet
>>30583978
>what are the guns of navarone
>>30589108
air power would still rip these apart.
>>30587577
>>30587537
>>30587558
I just looked this shit up and it looks like it's been ripped straight out of some dieselpunk anime
Does this thing work?
Is it supposed to be used like a budget A-10?
Or is it only usefull in wasting coca plantations and glassing drug planes?
![RDN_mobile_misbat[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xaVl5p7.jpg "RDN_mobile_misbat[1].jpg")
Because we have these.
>>30584498
Might want to research a little harder there, bub.
>>30592827
A: Not if they are fortified
B: Not if they have defenses
C: Not if the air power doesn't know your exact location
D: Not if you ran out of missiles hitting wooden decoys
Obviously all existing fixed fortifications are old shit designed to fight WW2 threats, so they are obsolete.
>>30592827
Good luck I'm behind seven Shilkas.jpg
Or actually go for the best solution.
>>30583049
>securing all the worlds shipping routes
Sorry about that.
>>30584181
I don't get it what about the house?
>>30585371
>I saw it in an anime once
>>30584156
orly tell that to Iwo Jima where they shelled us from hidden camoflauged emplacements and not a stupid fort
>>30584199
10/10 thank you
>>30584416
good god i haven't laughed this hard in a while
>>30587311
>why did fucking Germany ran over FUCKING LITTLE BELGIUM ????
moron
>>30593389
Fort Drum, Fraile Island, the unsinkable battleship. Had the fuck bombed and shelled out of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Drum_(El_Fraile_Island)
>>30582829
Because battleships will just destroy them while heavy gliders will land behind them and unload the light tanks without having to face coastal artillery.
>>30584181
>mirage_tank_irl.jpg
>>30585546
>not protected
The Larger one has 305mm of Krupp Steel.
Also fuck off tripfag
>>30594071
Don't forget the orbital drop power armored infantry smashing through the fortifications and unleashing hunter-killer Big Dogs into the hallways of the fortress.
>>30582829
In a sense, China has implemented a modernized evolution of coastal artillery--their anti-ship ballistic missiles essentially complete the same role: using a ground site to launch projectiles with greater range and firepower than can be launched from most, if not all, naval vessels.
However, the coastal artillery concept may also be applicable to cruise missiles as well. Since most anti-shipping missiles are tailored towards relatively thin-skinned targets, subterranean missile sites around strategically-valuable ports may prove problematic to a surface navy. Earthworks have been shown time and again to be quite resilient to naval bombardment.
>>30594119
Which is why bunker busters were invented. It's not like it needs to be destroyed with battleship guns.
>>30594071
>Because an obsolete platform will destroy them while another outdated, ultimately forgotten concept unloads something else that no longer exists
>>30594125
Do destroyers and cruisers generally carry cruise missiles tailored towards that specific task? I was under the impression that bunker-busters are generally used in bomb-form.
>>30587366
Wow, those Hesco barriers are useful.
I'd say almost semi-mobile because they speed up fortifying positions a lot and can be emptied and moved easily.
>>30593901
Camouflage, obviously.
>>30594100
It got rekt and silenced by a shitty Brazilian dreadnought.
I didn't even bother reading most of the posts, because they seemed quite retarded.
Ask a former finnish coastal artillery fire observation trainer anything.
>>30594890
Can your batteries hit a destroyer that is within missile range of you?
>>30594890
>/k/
>not retarded
Seriously though, it's summer and chinkshills are out in full force because
>muh islands
Come back in a month or so when school starts again (and college).
>>30594939
No. That's why we have coastal- and naval missile systems.
>>30594890
>>30594970
In what situation would you use spurdos on the enemy?
>>30594986
Already using in a very subtle hybrid-cyber-attack on every nation globally to make ourselves look like harmless retards.
No one will expect us to seize the other arm of Lady Finland back to regain Petsamo and gain access to thag sweet ass northeast passage
>>30585371
In Swedish, robot can mean either the beep boop variant or a guided missile.
Evidence suggests that anon is from Sweden, a country which has replaced most of their coastal artillery with homegrown missiles named Robot system 15.
>>30584382
Because ships don't go close to them, thus not many ships sunk. Search up the jersey coastal battery's. It is why they chose Normandy for D-day
>>30594890
Does the coastal artillery version of the combat cocks differ from the other branches of the military?
Do your combat cocks feature driftwood?
>>30595059
Wood is scarce on the cold small rocks we operate on, so no combat cocks.
>>30583098
Tell me more of robo artillery. And please tell me it's in train tracks...underground, that then burst from the city streets.
>>30584382
Carrier born aircraft did zip in ww2. Land based aircraft and subs did all the heavy lifting.
>>30595113
>no combat cocks
So in other words, the coastal artillery suffers the worst morale in the Finnish armed forces?
>>30586842
Don't have to, don't need too
Kinmen is a turd's throw away from Xiamen City on the other side
>>30584174
Actually Finnish fixed coastal guns have been on their way to be removed from use for quite some time, the decision about this was made already around year 2000. All "100 56 TK" gun turrets have been removed from use and "130 53 TK" gun turrets are also kind of semi-retired as well.
That is kind of a pity, since "130 53 TK" is quite possibly the most advanced fixed coastal artillery artillery system ever issued for large-scale use, but unfortunately in this age of satellites and precision guided ammunition fixed fortifications far too easy targets. Hence mobile anti-ship missile systems have basically replaced them, but considering that some warships now having capability to shoot down incoming anti-ship missiles, I have lately started wondering if there might still have some use for mobile long-range guns in coastal defense as well. Shooting down incoming artillery shell is considerably more than shooting down missiles - unless scramjet engines really start catching up.
>>30584655
By turning it into a railway gun?
Quite a few countries did just that when they wanted mobile heavy or super heavy coastal artillery batteries after World War 1.
>>30585415
>the only people who invade other countries are all possible historical and trans-dimensional versions of Germany
>>30588557
Wheely fortress.
>>30586746
Lind, is that you?
