Thoughts about using tanks as artillery?
>>64224547It's a cope. If you had tube artillery to spare, you wouldn't be repurposing tanks, and if you had actual good tanks, you wouldn't be using them as artillery.
>>64224547Where's the actual artillery?
>>64224547If you want shells in an area RiGHT NOW then why shouldn't tanks be used temporarily?
> a tank is a tank
Maybe it was LESS of a cope in the 50's but it's a gigantic cope today.Accept the no artillery L and end the war.
>>64224547Shameful>>64224595may as well just write the enemy a letter to tell them how fucked your logistics are.
>>64224547If it's what you have then use it.
>>64224637>may as well just write the enemy a letter to tell them how fucked your logistics are.Well maybe they are but that doesn't answer his question, why shouldn't you if you need shell in area RIGHT NOW.>Oh then they might know logistics are bad!Kinda like>Lets not resist this invasion because then we will showcase how badly we can resist invasion so just let it happenYes it's a shit situation but what are you genuinely supposed to do?
I love how /pol/ brainrot subhumans are wagging their tail to shit on the idea because the picture is a Russian tank.Although the Soviets abandoned/discourage the idea since T-72s, both sides have been using drone assisted indirect fire with rather good accuracy since 2014.No doubt it is shit compared to an actual artillery, but it does get the job done without exposing the tank.
>>64224547>Thoughts about using tanks as artillery?in video games you want your tank to have most AP ammo, in real WWII most tanks had mostly HE ammo
>>64224608> a tank is a tankyes it is
>>64224690You’re arguing in bad faith. If you wanna discuss russian hardware seriously, blame the russhits who keep parading their junk like it’s revolutionary. Don’t whine when it gets dunked on every time, they set the bar, not us
>>64224690>brings /pol/ out of nowhereobsessed
Smoothbore guns have plenty of APFSDS and HEAT shells, but I wonder how many fragmentation HE shells suitable for artillery fire are in stock.
>>64224547I'd say it'll get far more common soon. Let drones (copter and UGV) do the bumrush stuff with tanks providing closeish artillery support until it's safe for them to move into line of sight.
>>64224547It's yet another point of proof of armor's objective superiority. You don't get that kind of versatility out of a soldier or plane. It's based and anyone who says otherwise is a would-be victim of Tanktillery™.
>>64224711It just works.
>>64224547Waste of ammo and waste of barrel life. 115 HE is anemic at best compared to actual artillery round, and it being a smoothbore gun, accuracy beyond line of sight would be abyssmal.
>>64224690>because the picture is a Russian tankAre Pershings also Russian tanks?
>>64224589if your vehicle can do both, you double the amount of tanks/artillery/SPAA you have
>>64227447Except you're burning out a tank barrel to provide marginally effective indirect fire whil providing none of the benefits of an armored vehicle.
>>64224547they would be a solid choice despite not being the biggest baddest guns you can get ahold of, and can easily shoot out to a few miles away giving you a massive range advantage over infantry, however they have a severe bottleneck for the role, and thats the type of ammunition they usethey're equipped with anti personnel and anti tank shells, neither of which are good against infantry or fortifications at those ranges, and additionally a lot of tanks lack rifling these days which makes it impossible to fire the kind of shells you would need for artillerywith older tanks you could probably get regular shells to work in one, but you'd likely need to go all the way back to cold war techtldr; its not the tank's fault its the ammunition
>>64224547They did that in ww2 and it actually was okay. Not great not terrible.
>>64227593actually i take some of that back, HE shells are still probably issued to tanks
>>64224615In the modern day a tank FCS can instantly point the gyn in the cirrect direction and fire for an artillery barrage.
>>6422477276mm HE was used and effective in both world wars, and 115mm can tear you a new asshole, i think you underestimate just how devastating it can be just because its not as big as 155mm, accuracy is the main issue here
>>64227491HE shell doesn't have to be high pressure and high velocity
>>64227491is a smoothbore gun even that hard to wear out though? i assumed it was more about the rifling getting fucked up over time
>>64224589I think the problem is more that tanks are fucking useless and the only way to make them not useless is to turn them into dogshit SPAs.
>>64224547Poor countries doing desperate things.>>64224595With a static front there is no reason to ever have an area that isn't covered by conventional arty unless you lack tubes and shells.>>64224690It's a desperation move by both Ukraine and Russia.
>>64228692So the US was poor and desperate back in the Korean War?
>tank as artilleryOnly if the main gun is rifled. This makes the Bongs out to be some sort of idiot savants.
>>64228930Poor no, desperate yes.
>>64228930The US had much more important things going on in Europe. Korea was a strategic backwater. This may be difficult to understand like the lack of trained US troops (Marines excepted) garrisoning SK because it doesn't make it to the movies.
