field gun rules apply when tank cannons are used by infantry. Why wouldn't field artillery rules apply to WWII artillery? especially since we don't know for sure that BT artillery isn't WWII vintage?
field gun rules apply when tank cannons are used by infantry. Why wouldn't field artillery rules apply to WWII artillery? especially since we don't know for sure that BT artillery isn't WWII vintage?
two things: we can be pretty sure BT artillery isn't WWII vintage, because of two things:
1. WWII artillery doesn't autoload.
2. WWII vintage guns can be destructive as hell, but the accuracy and rate of fire just between circa 1940 and circa 1990 off the scale, as well as effective range (the range at which your rounds will hit a designated target).
unless military development took a break from 2000 to the founding of the Star League, the gun barrel might be similar/following a basic design concept, but it's not going to be more similar than, say, an M-16 is similar to a Remington Rolling Block rifle. both will kill you with one shot, but one of them is going to repeat the feat a lot more quickly and more reliably than the other, even using the same caliber and cartridge. (Yes, you can build a Rolling Block copy using modern steels and it will digest modern ammo just fine, just...why?)
Presumably you'er going to see differences in gun-laying speed, (The setup), accuracy, and repeatability being the primary drivers. A "Tank rifle" or 'Cannon' is just one part of a weapons-system, basically if your rifled bore is consistently well made and the breech is strong enough, it comes down to the carriage, mountings, and associated hardware, because your main damage is contained in a shell that is designed to handle the temperature, shock and pressure of your propellant charge, with a fuse that is also designed to do that AND ignite your payload of whatever explosive you're filling it with, (or secondary systems like scatterable sensors, minefields, flares...whatever).
so going to era differences, it really comes down to how technology tightens your radius of error, and speed of getting the gun up between shots. You're still throwing a bullet with the same external dimensions and weight, the same distance, over the same time-the basic principles don't necessarily change, but how accurately you throw that package changes with technology, as does the time it takes to throw that package accurately. Unlike direct-fire guns, with howitzers you're firing indirectly, which means MATH. (Trigonometry and calculus mostly, to account for wind shifts and atmospheric conditions, target distance, intervening terrain, desired angle of splash..)
whereas with direct-fire guns it's speed and windage along a mostly-low-angle-arc (as close to straight as your velocity allows.)
which is a LOT simpler to mechanic out than plotting a bombardment pattern on a target hidden on the far side of the trees over there, behind a hill, based on what some nineteen year old with a radio is telling you.
that you probably can't see.
twenty miles away.
thus, my suggestion: takes longer to lay in the gun, and longer between shots. because if you just compare a 105 from 1942 to a 105 from production runs in the eighties, those are MAJOR differences.