[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / asmr / fast / mai / sw / tf / vg / wmafsex ]

/k/ - Weapons

Salt raifus and raifu accessories
8chan Cup Finals - Saturday, January 19 at 08:00 p.m. GMT
Winner of the 65rd Attention-Hungry Games
/cure/ - Your obscure board for medical-tan appreciation

December 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

There's no discharge in the war!

File: 34807562ee08aaf⋯.jpg (36.99 KB, 550x351, 550:351, tunguska1.jpg)

File: 4663c94f4f72e5b⋯.jpg (116.33 KB, 1105x924, 1105:924, ggngn.jpg)

File: 5a3fd1c4f80519b⋯.jpg (51.92 KB, 640x427, 640:427, 58ZSU_23-4_wreck.jpg)

File: 7298ecf47a94116⋯.jpg (2.76 MB, 3000x2028, 250:169, Zsu-23-4-radar.jpg)

9bd6b4  No.640225

Why aren't armoured self-propelled autocannons more of a thing in conventional terrestrial warfare? They have the capacity to engage more light-armoured targets per kg of ammo, are more effective against infantry and can provide more sustained supressive fire than MBTs, they are relatively proven in being used for anti-ground and of course are much much less vulnerable to enemy aircraft.

965b0a  No.640228

Due to retarded military doctrine that for some reason completely ignores every war ever since WWII. Retarded generals think wars will only be fought with missiles and drones.

0da1b2  No.640229


You do see them on most IFVs (Bradley, BMP, Warrior, Ajax etc). As for just having self-propelled-auto-cannon-carriers I imagine it's just an idea that's been shelved as 'impractical' or 'not something we can sell the politicians on'. It's a shame, but if the current peacekeeping phase in military history continues for another decade or two then the idea should click in time for the next big war.

9884e1  No.640233


They're mean and probably break some war crime law.

eb4cea  No.640235

File: 7261448bed6fa9a⋯.jpg (807.96 KB, 2496x1664, 3:2, Gepard_1a2_sideview.jpg)

File: 2ab7c6c7d640a4c⋯.jpg (324.38 KB, 1600x1062, 800:531, K30 Biho.jpg)

File: 3cebb52e76e9acd⋯.jpg (340.96 KB, 1000x665, 200:133, JGSDF Type 87.jpg)

File: c56ab3a50eb96fe⋯.jpg (91.85 KB, 800x512, 25:16, Leclerc 'Flakpanzer'.jpg)


>Why aren't armoured self-propelled autocannons more of a thing in conventional terrestrial warfare?

They are.

Then budget cuts happened.

eb4cea  No.640236



Also this:


Essentially the US MIC have continuously FAILED to provide any sort of half decent short and mid-range AA to the US army since WWII.

As in they have had half a dozens decade spanning programs for it that only made lemons.

So the US generals in their infinite wisdom decided they didn't need them and that it was a feature for US army to not have any instead of a bug (even if said programs stem from the Vietnam era adoption of emergency stop gaps like Vulcan and the Chaparral, because the enemy air force were managing to bomb US troops, but hey).

And since the US army doctrine heavily influence NATO allies that's the first thing that died when the cuts happened.

9bd6b4  No.640251


> but if the current peacekeeping phase in military history continues for another decade or two then the idea should click in time for the next big war.

Yeah, that kinda was my point. Shilkas in the ME have probably fired more rounds against ground troops than against aircraft.

44e925  No.640596

File: 598dc2b75cc40b1⋯.jpg (351.76 KB, 2109x1275, 703:425, 3036_39_124-120-velocity.jpg)

File: f9c0ff3fcdf17fd⋯.jpg (17.88 KB, 400x248, 50:31, FN BRG-15 (2).jpg)

File: 064e7eb8d89c748⋯.jpg (45.44 KB, 540x405, 4:3, C4qUP6PWAAE6Upn.jpg)

Because of ammo expenditure. Flakpanzer Gepard has less than 20 seconds of fire before it has to retreat and get rearmed by a specialist squad.

The only way to bring back the utility of SPAAGs is to upsize machine guns to 15mm or 16mm with enough velocity to have similar range to a 35mm autocannon. Then and only then could the guns carry enough ammo to be slewed horizontal for defense against infantry.

44e925  No.640597


But they managed to save trillions of dollars without which the F-35 wouldn't have been possible!~

e160a6  No.640600

File: a167c05a1a17381⋯.png (583.36 KB, 1920x757, 1920:757, BV206_clipart_side.svg.png)


I know that hauling a trailer behind a tank is universally a bad idea, but what about a two-part semi-articulated vehicle like the bandvagn? Front half is built like a typical AFV, rear half carries ammo, is lightly armored, and can be jetissoned in an emergency.

655ad3  No.640603


I always thought the ultra-heavy machinegun in ground use was underexplored territory. The Soviets did well with the 14.5mm, but pre-WWI we had machineguns up to 37mm on ground mounts being used against infantry. I know it's rather contentious whether it should be called an autocannon at that point, but the almost universal exclusion of guns this size to vehicle mounts is a waste of potential firepower in my opinion.

44e925  No.640629


HMG ammo isn't so dangerous that it needs to be seperated from the main vehicle, or carry that much ammo. ZPU-4 carries enough ammo for 2 minutes of continuous fire on the gun itself, that's maybe 5 minutes of suppression of an enemy ground assault across a 120 degree arc. It would be easy to double the size of the ammo cans to hold 10 minutes of suppression ability, and then carry maybe a dozen boxes of ammo hanging off the sides of the vehicle to supply it for up to an hour. Those selfsame ammo boxes, when empty, can serve as gap armor.


Autocannon is specifically anything which is autoloaded to fire very rapidly, but also carries explosive filler in the projectile, thus being "cannon". They used to call things which fired inert bullets "rifles" no matter what the size.

Machine guns are different in that they don't have the explosive filler. This reduced complexity means less cost, and often less bulk, which means more bullets to shoot. It also means they don't explode too much when shot, or when on fire.

eb4cea  No.640642

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


You mean like this?

5b3bfe  No.640643


Well the Russians have their BMPT-72 which they've finally decided to adopt after it proved itself in Syria. I'm not sure how well armoured standard (the giant turret in particular) SPAAG's are but the BMPT has the armour to survive and the armament.


Even worse than that. It was decided that guns were outdated and so we canceled the t249 vigilante to make a short range SAM launcher, the MIM-46 Mauler, which failed. The U.S. MIC would never go back to gun systems now anyway. If they thought it was outdated back then they will say it's "outdated" today to squeeze more shekels. As far as I know most of the U.S.'s short ranged AA today is the stinger missile slapped onto various vehicles. Only the marines with the Lav-AD have anything half-decent.

eb4cea  No.640655


>Only the marines with the Lav-AD have anything half-decent

LAV-AD have been retired before they had finished to be deployed. They only made 17 and never made any real parts for them that led to them being retired after a couple of years.

Same with the M6 Linebacker they only made 99 and 88 of them were converted back to regular Bradleys.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / asmr / fast / mai / sw / tf / vg / wmafsex ]