I guess it boils down to what role you are looking for your support weapons to provide. Granted if you are employing them in and H+I role – a shoot and scoot option probably will save them.
The point is that the Tulip is not a take everywhere do everything tool.
Like I said it is most effective in the mountains and while it is probably better in a more one sided conflict like Afghanistan it is certainly able to hold its own in a conventional war... dropping shells beside tall buildings would be a forte that would otherwise be in the artillery shadow of a gun.
But to call in that support, you needed to be sure that when you wanted it – it wasn’t mobile! A hell of a lot can happen in the time taken for a mobile unit to get into action! Whereas, the 81mm and 120mm mortars were there and basically only time of flight away – splash over!
Well if you are on foot patrol it could probably cover you without moving.
Yeah, I agree, rate of fire looks horrible, any numbers regarding that? Also, would thermobaric warheads be avalible? Very Happy
Rate of fire is given as one round per minute per gun, so a battery will land 6 shells per minute. I don't know of any thermobaric rounds, but cluster munition rounds, HE rounds and laser guided shells are known to be in the inventory. I understand the nuclear bomb shell has been withdrawn from service and the chemical and bio weapon shells are probably withdrawn too.
A Thermobaric round is probably likely as they have thermobaric warheads on their ATGMs as HE options.
To be most effective however thermobaric warheads work better in large volleys like with the TOS.
I’m unsure as to the effectiveness against caves/tunnels – I imagine that there is substantial oxygen depletion in the detonation so it might work well against creatures in the caves/tunnels.
A Soviet favourite. Kills creatures underground in bunkers and tunnels by suffocation and heat... they burn real hot.
I suppose, 1 or 2 of these along with Smelchak and a UAV w/ designator would work well for fire support if Su-25s aren't airborne, but highly mobile, rapid fire and precision guided 122 mm rounds would work better IMO.
A guy operating in front of the Russian army will have quite a few options from 82mm mortars and 30mm grenade launchers, to 120mm mortars, 122mm rockets, 240mm mortars, 240mm rockets, 300mm rockets out to 90km, then you have the tube artillery of 122mm, 152mm, 203mm (the 203mm fires a 110kg shell BTW compared to Tulips 130kg), and then you have the tactical guided weapons like Tochka and Iskander... and that is not including tank guns and MIFV guns.
Fire power is not something in short supply.
Hard to say - horses for courses as we say. Nothing seems to kill troopies better than Artillery and howitzers would offer the benefits of mortar with the advantaces of artillery. But with almost any system, there is a counter-system [you just hope "he" hasn't deployed it in your sector!]. Because of the Hoz's short range per sae - it is very vunerable to CB fire and as soon as they start getting in-coming, you got a good chance of loosing your fire support.
The standard counter battery fire weapon the Russians use is the 300mm SMERCH. It can launch a UAV from a rocket tube that can fly 120km to the target area and find targets and then assess damage.
The standard anti enemy battery round would be the 9N176 rocket which contains 646 HEAT fragmentation minelets, range is 90kms, but they are working on a model with a range of 150km. The current rockets have gyroscopes to stabilise the rockets in flight and to ensure tighter groups on target, but they are set for a slight diversion when used in roles with minelet warheads to spread the love so to speak.
Tough - we didn't have [don't have] RPG's. VC and the RNVA got in very close. For them it was simply survival! Fire power that could be called in on them was far greater than anything they could muster. Hand-to-hand reduced the odds considerably as support had to stand off. Claymore mines were very useful - 700 aimed ballbearings with about .7kg of plastic behind them.
I am sure the VC and NVA would have changed tactics and fought fair if you promised not to use all your overwhelming military superiority on them...
BTW the Russians have a series of claymore like weapons called the MON series. The MON-50 is rather like the Claymore, but the MON-100, MON-200 and MON-300 have no western equivelents AFAIK.
Hard to say - horses for courses as we say. Nothing seems to kill troopies better than Artillery and howitzers would offer the benefits of mortar with the advantaces of artillery.
Like I said, sometimes the steep terrain makes a mortar better.
The Soviet forces liked the 120mm mortar because they took it with them so it was always available to support them... unlike their airforce that took a beating to start off with and didn't really recover till about '43.