Do you think anti tank guns will ever make a resurgence? also what is your favorite? mine is the pak40

personally i like indirect fire the best but direct fire is a close second

I meant favorite AT gun

why would you stick rockets and fins on a gun?

I just like fire

>Note that modern artillery can do with indirect fire what used to need direct fire AT.
yep

Attached: ukraine tank hit by 152 or 122mm HE shell on glacis, destroying left side treads and opening gap in (1200x736, 333K)

towed AT guns arent anymore sustainable

while the ammo is cheap, the launcher is more expensive
and in order to pierce MBT armor, they would be huge cumbersome weapons and need APFSDS ammunition
their immobility makes them very prone to simply being immobilized then abandoned
the solution is to mount the gun on a vehicle, then armor the vehicle to protect it from counter fire, but this is just called a tank

light weight AT guns might have a niche threating IFVs and APCs, but this might not justify having a whole new weapon which needa trucks to drag it around

Honestly some sort of free fire recoiless/ traditional gun system is needed. Rows are great but much to expensive. An updated recoiless rifle that fires cheap HEDP shells and tandem-shape charged anti armor rounds might be the ticket. But honestly we only buy guns that cost millions that enrich some general.

TOWS*

No, because missiles are more portable and survivable for their users

So like the M50 series that's no longer around?

No. Rocket based anti tank weapons either guided or unguided are always much more portable and quick to action

carl gustav is still in use for destroying bunkers, buildings, and light vehicles

actual MBTs need a javelin, but the carl gustav ia good for a broad spectrum of threats

That isn’t even a catastrophic kill.

>not a catastrophic kill
nigga did you even see the turret off kilter

I don’t have any puppers mr ATF

the fuck

>anti tank guns will ever make a resurgence?
They never went away, they are just ATGM now. Nearly identical implementation and role.

>based schizo poster

not even schizoposting
the turret's popped, it's off its track

I do understand that but I have been thinking about a modern world war where production speed is necessary and guided munitions seem like they would be slow to mass produce. Shouldn't we still have pieces like this for static defenses? The other anons saying modern artillery pieces makes the most sense if their role can be as effective as direct fire.

But are they capable of being produced quickly at a very large scale?

The skirt is destroyed at the very least, that whole side looks fucked up though.

So you're wanting to refurbish WWII and Korean wheeled artillery and have people fire archaic APHE at modern tanks? By golly that's ingenious!

>Shouldn't we still have pieces like this for static defenses?
current doctrine for static defence against tanks is ATGM infantry and hull downed tanks or missile carriers

the solution to cheap direct fire artillery isnt to build big, heavy guns that need to be towed
its to build more tanks
AT guns served well in WW2, but it was obvious by 1945 that the anti-tank battalions had a huge preference for TDs or just plain old tanks
modern day combat would find towed AT guns overshadowed in their intended role either by wheeled gun systems or tanks

Nope thinking more of recoilless rifles or a newer CG with upgraded but unguided ammo.

there are modern towed AT guns

the russian 100mm T-12 is still in service
but it is comically large and heavy, with a gun barrel the size of my dick
it also still cant pen an MBT despite its mass, and is an artillery piece in all but name, having primarily HE-frag rounds

So an answer to a question nobody asked? Good job user! We're all so very proud of you!

Makes sense so in a large scale conflict we would emphasize the buildup of mobile guns, tanks and indirect artillery?

Appreciate the patronizing comments but with the US military shifting back into a direction of conventional warfare there is a question of what makes industrial sense.

Yeah, more tanks. We figured this out in the 40s. Keep up.

Obviously a large buildup of tanks is required but when thinking of replacement rates and expenses MBTs cant be our sole reliance. The conflict in Ukraine has shown us that armor will be more important in future conflicts than we previously expected and that atgms are easily defeated. So that means destroying modern armor will require overwhelming or exhausting anti projectile systems. If that's the case and you have to fight armor on a large scale then speed and quantity at which those projectiles can be made is a factor that has to be considered.

So you play the catch up game with portable at that's been happening since they were first introduced. Tanks get a buff, AT innovates. Something new comes about in the world of tanks so AT hurries to defeat it. The game of cat and mouse continues forever. No reason to regress 80 years and hope that a technology phased out for multiple reasons that still exist today would be the magical end all.

china still makes export APFSDS AT guns iirc

You are intentionally avoiding the production aspect that I brought up. Guidance systems aren't easy enough to mass produce. My question was answered here indirect artillery took over the role of direct at guns. So that is a platform we would rely on but my question was not as stupid as you seem to think.

Maybe I'm just dumb, but aren't AT gun rounds harder to stop because they're traveling at very fast speeds and won't be deterred by attempts to jam them since they lack guidance systems?
The obvious drawback is that a powerful AT gun is big and requires a crew to transport and fire it. Or it needs to be mounted on a vehicle, which presents a larger target. So in most cases, an ATGM is better.

As for a favorite, I'm going to cheat a little bit and say I like recoilless rifles. The idea behind them is neat, the look good, and the controls look satisfying to operate.

Attached: Ethiopian_soldiers_Korea1951.jpg (2565x2600, 1.07M)

No it's pretty fucking stupid forcing infantry to be weighed down by a very expensive gun with no armor in the hopes that it knocks out enemy MBTs (it wont) and they don't get ass raped losing the piece or having to abandon it to enemy hands. Also are we just forgetting about the Air Force for you convenient little scenario? Or have plot fairies made aviation impossible and given tanks 10 meters of armor all around?

I'll have to look these up

an AT guns large enough to penetrate the frontal armor of an MBT would be huge and cumbersome
effectively a tank gun but no tank
the enemy will go around it or call artillery on it to destory it
ATGMs are usually limited to 1 or 2 shots, making them limited to shoot and scoot tactics
tanks are the primary AT weapon of choice due to being a compromise between power, mobility, and staying power

recoilless guns are still popular in fact, but are more emergency weapons than offensive tools
AT4 is dangerous to MBTs but only in built up areas, the threat of the AT4 in every squad however is more dangerous than the actual AT4, as tanks now cant just run over infantry but have to stop and wait for support

Hi there, I bet you're wondering why vehicles like me aren't still around. Well funny story you see, we were made obsolescent by an extendable pringles can. Funny I know right? Higher powers realized that AT weapons could be made for cheaper and have a fraction of a logistical footprint compared to weapons like me. Crazy I know but stay with me here comes the fun part. An individual squad could be outfitted with enough of these spicy little tubes without impeding functionality and maintain firepower that would rival my own. By golly what an interesting method to have the infantry not be stuck with keeping up with a vehicle and being able to have increased maneuverability because of it!

Attached: M50.jpg (300x257, 27K)

>very expensive
Literally the opposite of my question. We've seen enough examples in us conflicts where air superiority cant come to aid fast enough. Also against a modern military anti air could still be a valid concern. But if we were ever to get into a conflict where our troops are facing large amounts of modern to semi modern armor AT could we supply enough atgms to handle sustained combat?

Far cheaper than splitting logistics with a new xboxhueg gun on wheels. Think about it, if you're defending then the enemy is attacking. What cracks the front of mbts? Other mbts. Looks like you're putting a 120mm on wheels in hopes of putting a stop to them. Or instead of wasting all that time and money on that you can pump out thousands of javelins and other neat AT shit that helps keep the fighting force on their feet and not weighed down by more needless bullshit. Spam tactics with rockets that require no more training than is already there and no re-education on how to do your job. Win-win for everybody.

>implying infantry with AT4s can do jack shit against infantry supported armor

Yeah, for an AT gun (with solid shot, not that anyone would use that anymore) to knock out a modern MBT, the strength of the projectile and the charge behind it would need to be insane. Resulting in a very bulky, large, easy to detect gun.Something like the Soviet-made 100mm guns could probably work against things like T-55's or maybe even the sides of early T-72's, for anything with composite armor/ERA you're going to need a projectile with chemical effect (HEAT) or even multiple warheads. Those things could be fired out of a gun but it's not worth it when you can stick it in a tube, give it a rocket motor (and guidance system) and you won't have to worry about the pressures of firing.
Unless you're expecting a big wave of armor to be approaching your position, an ATGM or even recoilless gun would work against a lone tank or two. And for an area where enemy armor is expected, chances are friendly armor will be in the area as well.

Attached: Libya T-55 ATGM.webm (1280x720, 2.77M)

I guess my questions are how quickly could we pump out javelins? Couldn't a more modernized Carl Gustav be worth investing in and shouldn't a cheap vehicle mounted recoilless rifle type at weapon be researched and available in case we couldn't produce javelins fast enough?

Put a call into the DoD. But my guess is extremely quickly compared to a field artillery piece.

>lightweight APCs etc
There’s a 40mm grenade I can’t remember the designation of now that can pen 1.75 RHA.

modernized carl gustavs are in use today as a complement to the javelin

the javelin itself was made as a cost effective counter to soviet armor
soviet armor greatly outnumbered NATO armor, so javelins were already an answer to the question "what if we dont have enough tanks"

Guidance systems can be cranked out by the millions if needed. It takes one or two old chip fabs on a node that is borderline obsolete for consumer use. Consider the number of fucking Playstations and Macbooks in the world.

The only reason they cost so much now is because of low demand and competition for fabrication resources from larger volume products. If the government wanted to order a hundred thousand javelin equivalents to fight the Korean War Part Two This Time We Cross The River the capacity is there, particularly compared to large caliber gun barrels which actually require more specialized tooling.

looks cool

Which is funny because the user above answered it perfectly. Atgms and tanks take the role practically but if necessary indirect artillery can now pick up the role of old direct artillery. So if we ever had production issues with guided missiles we could still produce the shit out of arty

Artillery is significantly harder to manufacture than guided missiles.

Why?

10,000lb of steel versus 50lb of Javelin. Precision tooling and manufacturing to get the howitzer ready to go. Not to mention the logistical costs of shipping a howitzer somewhere versus a crate that a single man can put on the back of a robust moped.

Yeah but ammo wise artillery would be easier and in a large war artillery peices are less likely to be captured or destroyed than javelins

Javelin unit cost $126,000
Individual missile $76,000
M777 Howitzer unit cost ~$6 million
Excalibur round ~$140,000
Dumb munition round ~ a few thousand

and what is the speed at which you can create the missiles?

Probably within a day assuming all parts on hand

So it would be as easy as dumb munitions?

Probably

>also what is your favorite? mine is the pak40

6 pounder
lightweight and effective

Got a pic?

it could penetrate panzer IV up to 1km, Tiger (in theory) up to 500m
it could penetrate the panther from the side, though it needed british APDS to penetrate the frontal armor

its most important attribute was its small size and easy to transport nature, which meant these assholes could be anywhere and from any angle

Attached: QF-6-pounder-batey-haosef-1.jpg (1119x647, 154K)

Computer doesn't do everything dude. There's a bunch of little mechanical actuators that control the actual steering part, and they aren't that simple.

Pretty sweet I like that its low profile like the pak. I'll have to look at it more

Any love for the m5

Attached: main-qimg-b627036792f93bacdacf2e53769496f4.png (600x460, 251K)

its record is mixed to say the least
it outperformed the 37mm and 6 pounder in performance, but it had a needlessly large and heavy carriage

its large size and heavy weight made it difficult to get a flanking shot against big cats, while the smaller and lighter 6 pounder could stay hidden longer to get one
the M10 and M4(76) also had guns with the same performance but were mobile enough to get side shots

but most german tanks were IVs and stug IIIs, which the M5 could actually handle well, so they did good most of the time nonetheless
so, while not perfect, it was good enough

Why did big recoiless rifles like the M40 become obsolete? Wouldn’t maintaining their AT capabilities just be a question of updating the warhead? They would be much cheaper than ATGMs wouldn’t they?

2-man ones like the carl gustav are still use today specifically due to cost
they see use against enemies in heavy cover, buildings, bunkers, light vehicles, and distant enemies at a fraction of the cost and complexity of the javelin

large crew-served recoilless guns however, dont really have a niche in a truly mdoern war, since if a target is too big for a carl gustav, its probably worth using a javelin on
or a TOW, which is what replaced it in the US

the M40 is still used today by smaller countries, who dont have tanks to worry about but still need a 105mm load to deliver
so it never truly left us

I don't know. Considering how the Ukranian TOW teams have issues with Russian tank equipped with IR jammers and how APS can intercept guided/unguided rockets it does seem like throwing something really hard at something might make a comeback.

You could also just throw an engine on the AT gun and drive it around
youtube.com/watch?v=Irf2AUYPQYc

>its large size and heavy weight made it difficult to get flanking shots
excuse me but why the fuck are you trying to flank with a fucking AT GUN? they were literally designed to be put in prepared positions for defense or ambushes. this is a stupid point of comparison.

Attached: 1447768491052.png (351x351, 153K)

for clarification, its carriage was very large for its size, making it difficult to properly hide in comparison to smaller guns, so it couldn't get a side shot as often
this was a major problem in the battle of the bulge where germans were able to knock out the 3-in gun easily

That is incredibly weird but Ukraine is the reason I started this thread.

I can see one way - the possibility of EPFCG powered single shot rail/coil guns

But yeah missiles are just better.