Big artillery thread

G5-52
>tested to 74km

Attached: G5-52.jpg (700x467, 40K)

The tow hook looks like a bayonet.

That's a fucking ICBM, disqualified.

>G5-52
Yee... Most expensive munition and very hot day.

Does naval artillery count?

Attached: USS_Missouri_(BB-63)_RIMPAC-90.jpg (2800x1890, 1.65M)

Ye.

Attached: erca3.jpg (1169x890, 258K)

Cool.

Attached: USS_Missouri_firing_during_Desert_Storm,_6_Feb_1991.jpg (3000x1976, 1.64M)

Attached: D6J-DFxUEAEoXZk.jpg orig.jpg (560x400, 46K)

>That's a fucking ICBM, disqualified.
But ICBMs are the biggest artillery

do any militaries use satellite imaging to help aim their artillery?
something like a satellite using live-images of the battle field to help artillery units guide their shots instead of relying on a spotter
i randomly thought of this concept a while a go & wondered if it was realistic or just a pipe dream

Would be so interesting to see the role of artillery in a modern super-power war. The rate of fire and transportation systems have developed to such an extent that artillery would either be irrelevant or definitive.

Honestly, since we already group surface-to-air missiles with traditional artillery, then it only requires a small stretch of logic and language to classify ICBMs as artillery.

I don't see much of a reason why they would. Taking a satellite for a tactical view seems excessive when it could be achieved with drones.

It would be hellish. The ability for rapid fire and shoot-and-scoot, with both guns and rockets. I know entrenched soldiers in the past could survive bombardments but with modern weapons, I don't know. Even armor that was buttoned up would have to worry about getting immobilized or possibly penetrated through the roof.

Attached: trench aerial.jpg (580x800, 152K)

I imagine it'd be:
>gain intel of the enemy
>ID valuable targets
>fuckin blast the whole grid from 40 km away
>advance troops into the area
>clean up, take-over bombed land
>repeat until war is won

anti-air and artillery mobility would probably be require to prevent the enemy from destroying your own artillery, but it would probably revolve around long-range destruction of valuable enemy locations, with all other units being used as front-line land control, and protection of your own artillery formations, assuming that artillery develops into an even more lethal weapon

i sound like an armchair general, but that's how I feel it'll go
artillery barrages with modern tech seem much safer & equally effective as carpet bombing hostile locations

but again idk lol

>Artillery thread
>no WHAT

It makes me happy and sad at the same time.

Attached: 8e00423u.jpg (3890x2940, 3.23M)

Attached: 150mmsig33.jpg (1175x851, 265K)

Attached: Lyon_04_09_1944.jpg (3842x2797, 1.31M)

Attached: 155gpsgerman.jpg (1180x863, 197K)

Look at Ukraine to get an idea. It's just tanks and arty. Everthing else gets steamrolled by either of those.

Does ANYONE have awebm of Givi shelling Donetsk airport from around 2014? It's been completely scrubbed from YouTube.

Attached: 3922-2.jpg (1961x1407, 1.49M)

Dumb qustion, but it always bugged me
Why is standardization nonexistent in artillery? What i mean by this, is that a typical ww1/ ww2 army or navy used only 2 small arm calibers but had a huge variety of artillery pieces.

COPE

Attached: AR-84-skoda.jpg (1180x852, 484K)

Attached: 1560553031906.webm (1920x1080, 2.45M)

Attached: six-inch-japanese-gun.jpg (1416x1084, 348K)

Attached: s-l1900-50.jpg (1530x1122, 410K)

Attached: l118_field_gun.jpg (3264x2337, 1.32M)

Attached: Finn-152mm-Kane_Makiluoto1942.jpg (4858x3154, 3.79M)

MODS THIS IS A BLUE BOARD
NO PORN

I always liked the way this gun looked

Attached: 3920-1.jpg (1961x1404, 1.29M)

youtube.com/watch?v=7pN_UdUam0s

Drones are what you would typically use in terms of aerial spotting, but I don’t see why satellite imagery couldn’t be used for a static target like an airfield.

There is a reason they call artillery the King of Battle.

While air power has taken over a lot of fire support roles, modern tactics still rely heavily on having infantry pin a target in place and then smashing it with big guns/bombs. Arty has a much faster ToT unless you already have aircraft on station, is generally also more cost effective, but also limited to by range.

With the exception of SPGs, artillery technology hasn’t changed all that much. The only things that have changed are improvements to the gunners life (self loading, safer fuzes, etc)

Attached: Heavy_mortar_Karl_Gerat_VI_Ziu_Warsaw_Uprising_1944_barrel_and_crew-6.jpg (1270x797, 112K)

Tech development for big guns is pretty incremental, and generally does not effect lethality all that much. So if you have a bunch of guns sitting around that do the job just fine, it's not really worth replacing all of them at once when you start getting something slightly better. And for WW1 specifically, it was a time when war was expected to be huge, so you wanted to have huge stockpiles of weapons. Around WW2 you do start to see a shift to more standardization, but also a need for more flexibility. You have the big fixed guns, but then you also need stuff thats more mobile but big, but it's nice to have something smaller and even more mobile that the infantry to really move with them. And lets not forget that you need a lighter piece to deploy with the airborne.

Thing's have streamlined even more since. Here is a cool video showcasing the system in use during the Vietnam war, notice that a lot of them are older systems, or older systems now mounted to armored vehicles: youtube.com/watch?v=B6xQY9Ac8FU

Attached: wallpaper-3023752.jpg (2036x1426, 995K)

youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM

ah I see, thanks
I only imagine that the technology could rapidly i prove if a new conflict arose & militaries saw a use for more advanced arty

Also I believe artillery is rather safe to use when compared to aerial assaults.
It would be easier to shoot down a plane, that it would be to calculate the trajectory of an artillery barrage & return a counter-attack, all while your frontline is under fire from enemy artillery forces.

If your artillery shoots farther, and faster, you win.

this is fucking beautiful

For large static targets like that, satellites are used to plan strikes and evaluate the aftermath. It's was done when the US attacked Syria but that was with cruise missiles. For conventional gun artillery, if someone got their pieces within firing distance of such an important target then someone on the other side really fucked up.

sorry for being a brainlet, but could you clarify your last sentence? by pieces do you mean drones?

What a terrible waste of resources but you have to admit it's cool.

Attached: dora_schwerer-gustav_01br.jpg (714x900, 99K)

I meant artillery batteries. Missiles have very long ranges so they can be used to strike deep within enemy territory. By contrast, if you moved guns that close to an enemy airbase, then something very strange has happened. Either the enemy's defenses collapsed or the guns were moved into firing range without being noticed.

oh that makes much more sense now.
thanks for clearing it up

seems to be over-engineered

Russian 2S4 240mm self-propelled mortar.
This this is awesome. Every time if fires and you hear the ringing.
youtube.com/watch?v=E6I0Vv77PQw

Attached: 9ed96fbdfbbd1ac80f58cda0d0cc299e.png (589x627, 704K)

Attached: Photo03monErebus.jpg (1086x779, 75K)