Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:51 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    The mortars of 82mm successors of the old 2B9 Vasilek (over 600Kg) are of man-portable size since the 1980s. The 2B14 Podnos is of 42 Kg, and the modern 2B24 and 2B25 have 45Kg and 13Kg of weight. This is the artillery of man-portable size I was talking about. It is succeeding in the Russian Armed Forces like the self propelled artillery.

    In the other side, in recent years the development of heavier towed artillery seems to have the purpose of developing guns for new self propelled artillery models and/or for export, since there is not a single model since the 80s succeeding with significant number or orders for the Russian Armed Forces. The 2B23 (over 400Kg) maybe the best known case and even has not English Wikipedia or warfare.be articles.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%9123

    Russia has some advantage here. Other countries have not enough developed their self propelled artillery to think about to replace the towed artillery, but Russia can think about it even in the short term. The movement is predictable since the current heavy towed artillery in service is from the 80s or before, and will not remain forever



    Mortars are rarely considered as an artillery, but ultra light infantry support weapon. In Serbian army if you call mortar in front of an officer as "an artillery piece" you will probably do 100 pushups. Mortars are mortars, artillery is an artillery.

    Also Vasilek is class of its own, its automatic mortar and it simply cant be replaced with something like 2B14, USSR operated 82mm mortars long before Vasilek came into service and still it found its place. Nona variations and variants are not replacement for Vasilek either, unless it gets phased out completely as idea of automatic mortar, but i am not sure about that still.

    Problem with self propelled artillery is that its useless in so many regions, it simply cant go to all the places it might be required. When D30 variants go to storages Russia is out of real light artillery. Nona-K for an example imo could replace D30, but what will fill the gap between Nona and MSTA/Coalition? Towed or even self mobile light howtizer in 152mm is equired, something like SLWH Pegasus for an example, abit weighty but still alot less than MSTA-B and helicopter transportable.


    Technologically a mortar is artillery and always will be. It is possible to make alternative classifications by function or by other criteria that are compatible with the technological classifications, Serbian oddities appart.

    I was talking about 2B14, 2B24 and 2B25 as successors of the 2B9 in terms of damage done by mortars of the same caliber. Today the concept of fight of the 2B9 Vasilek remains in mortars of bigger caliber, of 120mm.

    I'm not sure if the 2B9 Vasilek remains active as towed gun in Russia. I know these mortars have been mounted on MT-LBs making them self propelled (an obvious step when a country can use MT-LBs as tractors for the 2B9). I do not agree about the troubles of movility that you see in the self propelled guns over the towed guns.

    With the D-30 being the towed version of the 2S1, the natural replacement for the D-30 would be the 2S34 (the upgrade of the 2S1).
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3203
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:05 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    The mortars of 82mm successors of the old 2B9 Vasilek (over 600Kg) are of man-portable size since the 1980s. The 2B14 Podnos is of 42 Kg, and the modern 2B24 and 2B25 have 45Kg and 13Kg of weight. This is the artillery of man-portable size I was talking about. It is succeeding in the Russian Armed Forces like the self propelled artillery.

    In the other side, in recent years the development of heavier towed artillery seems to have the purpose of developing guns for new self propelled artillery models and/or for export, since there is not a single model since the 80s succeeding with significant number or orders for the Russian Armed Forces. The 2B23 (over 400Kg) maybe the best known case and even has not English Wikipedia or warfare.be articles.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%9123

    Russia has some advantage here. Other countries have not enough developed their self propelled artillery to think about to replace the towed artillery, but Russia can think about it even in the short term. The movement is predictable since the current heavy towed artillery in service is from the 80s or before, and will not remain forever



    Mortars are rarely considered as an artillery, but ultra light infantry support weapon. In Serbian army if you call mortar in front of an officer as "an artillery piece" you will probably do 100 pushups. Mortars are mortars, artillery is an artillery.

    Also Vasilek is class of its own, its automatic mortar and it simply cant be replaced with something like 2B14, USSR operated 82mm mortars long before Vasilek came into service and still it found its place. Nona variations and variants are not replacement for Vasilek either, unless it gets phased out completely as idea of automatic mortar, but i am not sure about that still.

    Problem with self propelled artillery is that its useless in so many regions, it simply cant go to all the places it might be required. When D30 variants go to storages Russia is out of real light artillery. Nona-K for an example imo could replace D30, but what will fill the gap between Nona and MSTA/Coalition? Towed or even self mobile light howtizer in 152mm is equired, something like SLWH Pegasus for an example, abit weighty but still alot less than MSTA-B and helicopter transportable.


    Technologically a mortar is artillery and always will be. It is possible to make alternative classifications by function or by other criteria that are compatible with the technological classifications, Serbian oddities appart.

    I was talking about 2B14, 2B24 and 2B25 as successors of the 2B9 in terms of damage done by mortars of the same caliber. Today the concept of fight of the 2B9 Vasilek remains in mortars of bigger caliber, of 120mm.

    I'm not sure if the 2B9 Vasilek remains active as towed gun in Russia. I know these mortars have been mounted on MT-LBs making them self propelled (an obvious step when a country can use MT-LBs as tractors for the 2B9). I do not agree about the troubles of movility that you see in the self propelled guns over the towed guns.

    With the D-30 being the towed version of the 2S1, the natural replacement for the D-30 would be the 2S34 (the upgrade of the 2S1).

    You can't airlift SP artillery. And there are other considerations as discussed earlier in the thread.

    Towed artillery will continue to, at the least, in a niche of its own.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:32 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    The mortars of 82mm successors of the old 2B9 Vasilek (over 600Kg) are of man-portable size since the 1980s. The 2B14 Podnos is of 42 Kg, and the modern 2B24 and 2B25 have 45Kg and 13Kg of weight. This is the artillery of man-portable size I was talking about. It is succeeding in the Russian Armed Forces like the self propelled artillery.

    In the other side, in recent years the development of heavier towed artillery seems to have the purpose of developing guns for new self propelled artillery models and/or for export, since there is not a single model since the 80s succeeding with significant number or orders for the Russian Armed Forces. The 2B23 (over 400Kg) maybe the best known case and even has not English Wikipedia or warfare.be articles.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%9123

    Russia has some advantage here. Other countries have not enough developed their self propelled artillery to think about to replace the towed artillery, but Russia can think about it even in the short term. The movement is predictable since the current heavy towed artillery in service is from the 80s or before, and will not remain forever



    Mortars are rarely considered as an artillery, but ultra light infantry support weapon. In Serbian army if you call mortar in front of an officer as "an artillery piece" you will probably do 100 pushups. Mortars are mortars, artillery is an artillery.

    Also Vasilek is class of its own, its automatic mortar and it simply cant be replaced with something like 2B14, USSR operated 82mm mortars long before Vasilek came into service and still it found its place. Nona variations and variants are not replacement for Vasilek either, unless it gets phased out completely as idea of automatic mortar, but i am not sure about that still.

    Problem with self propelled artillery is that its useless in so many regions, it simply cant go to all the places it might be required. When D30 variants go to storages Russia is out of real light artillery. Nona-K for an example imo could replace D30, but what will fill the gap between Nona and MSTA/Coalition? Towed or even self mobile light howtizer in 152mm is equired, something like SLWH Pegasus for an example, abit weighty but still alot less than MSTA-B and helicopter transportable.


    Technologically a mortar is artillery and always will be. It is possible to make alternative classifications by function or by other criteria that are compatible with the technological classifications, Serbian oddities appart.

    I was talking about 2B14, 2B24 and 2B25 as successors of the 2B9 in terms of damage done by mortars of the same caliber. Today the concept of fight of the 2B9 Vasilek remains in mortars of bigger caliber, of 120mm.

    I'm not sure if the 2B9 Vasilek remains active as towed gun in Russia. I know these mortars have been mounted on MT-LBs making them self propelled (an obvious step when a country can use MT-LBs as tractors for the 2B9). I do not agree about the troubles of movility that you see in the self propelled guns over the towed guns.

    With the D-30 being the towed version of the 2S1, the natural replacement for the D-30 would be the 2S (the upgrade of the 2S1).

    Actually by the book mortars of caliber less than 120mm are classified as "Infantry mortars" and are NEVER being refered to as an artillery piece. Mortars of 120, 140, 160, 240 and other calibers are often classified as an artillery pieces due to fact they are either placed on wheeled platforms or have carriages. But as long as they are "infantry mobile" they are not artillery pieces.

    While self propelled mortar 120mm i would call an artillery piece i would never call 60mm mortar that i can carry in one hand as such. By your logic 30mm automatic grenade launcher is also an artillery piece... however its not, its infantry weapon.

    When its about Vasilek yes, its still used as towed piece in VDV and Ukrainians use it also that way alot.

    Still you cant replace automatic 81mm mortar with random 120mm mortar, does not make much sense at all unless again as i said you are abandoning automatic mortar as idea totally.

    How and why would towed D30 be replaced with modernised already existing Gvozdikas with replaced main weapon? Maybe partially but that is not going to happen in my opinion, 2S34 Chosta is reported to have quite an issues. D30s might partially get replaced by something in class of Nona-K and then maybe they will "borrow" tracked 120mm long self propelled mortar from VDV but still neither of those are real and good 1on1 replacements.

    Light towed artillery has to exist no matter what you imagine. Self propelled howtizers have many advantages but also many disadvantages over good old towed pieces.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:27 am

    flamming_python wrote:You can't airlift SP artillery. And there are other considerations as discussed earlier in the thread.

    Towed artillery will continue to, at the least, in a niche of its own.

    The Russian Airborne Troops have SP artillery of various types (2S9, 2S23 and 2S25). Russia has not a trouble with the aerial transport of self propelled artillery. I do not think this is a trouble for Russia, and less when new SP artillery models can be developed to replace the current artillery of the Airborne Troops using the new chasis of the BMD-4M.
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3203
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:52 am

    eehnie wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:You can't airlift SP artillery. And there are other considerations as discussed earlier in the thread.

    Towed artillery will continue to, at the least, in a niche of its own.

    The Russian Airborne Troops have SP artillery of various types (2S9, 2S23 and 2S25). Russia has not a trouble with the aerial transport of self propelled artillery. I do not think this is a trouble for Russia, and less when new SP artillery models can be developed to replace the current artillery of the Airborne Troops using the new chasis of the BMD-4M.

    That's a good point, but applies only for VDV. Mountain units and others won't have airlift-able artillery. Perhaps this is not a critical shortcoming, dunno.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:05 am

    flamming_python wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:You can't airlift SP artillery. And there are other considerations as discussed earlier in the thread.

    Towed artillery will continue to, at the least, in a niche of its own.

    The Russian Airborne Troops have SP artillery of various types (2S9, 2S23 and 2S25). Russia has not a trouble with the aerial transport of self propelled artillery. I do not think this is a trouble for Russia, and less when new SP artillery models can be developed to replace the current artillery of the Airborne Troops using the new chasis of the BMD-4M.

    That's a good point, but applies only for VDV. Mountain units and others won't have airlift-able artillery. Perhaps this is not a critical shortcoming, dunno.

    Americans in Afganistan praised 105mm M118 light howtizers even over already "feather" class M777 for an example coz they are so light they can be even parachuted without boosters, airlifted by even fairly light helicopters, pushed by 2 men only for short distances, no need for recoil pit, extremly fast change of targets, very high rate of fire coz loaders work with light shells and ability to be towed around even by lightest vehicles.

    Mobility, Mobility and Mobility especially needed in VDV and mountain units. There are simply wast forests and mountains where nothing except bird can land. You have examples also like GIAT LG1, G7, M56... all 105mm howtizers mainly used by units that require artillery support but also need extremly high mobility.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:18 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    The mortars of 82mm successors of the old 2B9 Vasilek (over 600Kg) are of man-portable size since the 1980s. The 2B14 Podnos is of 42 Kg, and the modern 2B24 and 2B25 have 45Kg and 13Kg of weight. This is the artillery of man-portable size I was talking about. It is succeeding in the Russian Armed Forces like the self propelled artillery.

    In the other side, in recent years the development of heavier towed artillery seems to have the purpose of developing guns for new self propelled artillery models and/or for export, since there is not a single model since the 80s succeeding with significant number or orders for the Russian Armed Forces. The 2B23 (over 400Kg) maybe the best known case and even has not English Wikipedia or warfare.be articles.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%9123

    Russia has some advantage here. Other countries have not enough developed their self propelled artillery to think about to replace the towed artillery, but Russia can think about it even in the short term. The movement is predictable since the current heavy towed artillery in service is from the 80s or before, and will not remain forever



    Mortars are rarely considered as an artillery, but ultra light infantry support weapon. In Serbian army if you call mortar in front of an officer as "an artillery piece" you will probably do 100 pushups. Mortars are mortars, artillery is an artillery.

    Also Vasilek is class of its own, its automatic mortar and it simply cant be replaced with something like 2B14, USSR operated 82mm mortars long before Vasilek came into service and still it found its place. Nona variations and variants are not replacement for Vasilek either, unless it gets phased out completely as idea of automatic mortar, but i am not sure about that still.

    Problem with self propelled artillery is that its useless in so many regions, it simply cant go to all the places it might be required. When D30 variants go to storages Russia is out of real light artillery. Nona-K for an example imo could replace D30, but what will fill the gap between Nona and MSTA/Coalition? Towed or even self mobile light howtizer in 152mm is equired, something like SLWH Pegasus for an example, abit weighty but still alot less than MSTA-B and helicopter transportable.


    Technologically a mortar is artillery and always will be. It is possible to make alternative classifications by function or by other criteria that are compatible with the technological classifications, Serbian oddities appart.

    I was talking about 2B14, 2B24 and 2B25 as successors of the 2B9 in terms of damage done by mortars of the same caliber. Today the concept of fight of the 2B9 Vasilek remains in mortars of bigger caliber, of 120mm.

    I'm not sure if the 2B9 Vasilek remains active as towed gun in Russia. I know these mortars have been mounted on MT-LBs making them self propelled (an obvious step when a country can use MT-LBs as tractors for the 2B9). I do not agree about the troubles of movility that you see in the self propelled guns over the towed guns.

    With the D-30 being the towed version of the 2S1, the natural replacement for the D-30 would be the 2S (the upgrade of the 2S1).

    Actually by the book mortars of caliber less than 120mm are classified as "Infantry mortars" and are NEVER being refered to as an artillery piece. Mortars of 120, 140, 160, 240 and other calibers are often classified as an artillery pieces due to fact they are either placed on wheeled platforms or have carriages. But as long as they are "infantry mobile" they are not artillery pieces.

    While self propelled mortar 120mm i would call an artillery piece i would never call 60mm mortar that i can carry in one hand as such. By your logic 30mm automatic grenade launcher is also an artillery piece... however its not, its infantry weapon.

    When its about Vasilek yes, its still used as towed piece in VDV and Ukrainians use it also that way alot.

    Still you cant replace automatic 81mm mortar with random 120mm mortar, does not make much sense at all unless again as i said you are abandoning automatic mortar as idea totally.

    How and why would towed D30 be replaced with modernised already existing Gvozdikas with replaced main weapon? Maybe partially but that is not going to happen in my opinion, 2S34 Chosta is reported to have quite an issues. D30s might partially get replaced by something in class of Nona-K and then maybe they will "borrow" tracked 120mm long self propelled mortar from VDV but still neither of those are real and good 1on1 replacements.

    Light towed artillery has to exist no matter what you imagine. Self propelled howtizers have many advantages but also many disadvantages over good old towed pieces.

    Personally I'm not friend of classifications based on calibers because they give many troubles in a longer timeline. As example if you try to apply your classification to WWII guns, you have a trouble because today's calibers are different. To be man-portable is the characteristic that can make us able to talk about "infantry mortars", but even in this case, infantry mortars are technologically mortars, and are technologically artillery.

    Our gun classifications need to be stable with the time, need to be valid for guns of different centuries. This is why I prefer and I use classifications based on technologies.

    I expect a success of the 2S34 because I expect the new gun to be well selected. It is the key of this project. But if the 2S34 is not successful, new SP artillery models will come surely using both the chasis of the 2S1 and the new chasis of the BMD-4M. The question is that Russia can replace all the active D-30s in the short term using its self propelled twin, the 2S1 since Russia has enough of them in the reserve.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:04 am

    With most infantry units having a BMP-3 with them not having a towed artillery piece for fire support is likely not so much of a problem as they already have quite a bit of indirect He fire power out to 7km range already.

    In terms of HE ranged fire power I would expect long barrel 120mm gun/mortars with the range of a 122mm piece but the ability to use a range of rounds including mortar bombs and shells and indeed guided munitions developed for the 120mm weapons and also the 122mm guided rounds I would expect a towed 120mm gun mortar would actually be just as useful as the M777 but would be lighter... AFAIK the towed model of the NONA-K is something like 1.2 tons which should be easily air portable by helo... even a Ka-60 will be able to carry that... So what if the M777 can outrange it... if range is a factor then a light truck with a 6 tube 300mm rocket artillery pod... targets 120kms away are not safe...

    The question is that Russia can replace all the active D-30s in the short term using its self propelled twin, the 2S1 since Russia has enough of them in the reserve.

    The Russian military have a long tradition of towed artillery pieces and also towed anti tank guns like Sprut... which are actually just tank guns on towed mounts... no projectile length limitations there BTW....

    I would expect they will make a towed model of Coalition too.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:27 am

    franco wrote:
    George1 wrote:Eastern Military district units armed with 2S7 Pion. So these pieces are from stored capacity probably not new of course

    https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151203/1334820325.html&usg=ALkJrhjjmB-6EaVHaf6bW64UKCVHALKXVA

    There was a story last month that they also got a 2S4 unit of 240mm SP Mortar's. Don't know if the single units of each staged in Tambov were transferred East or second units was formed. There were several hundred of each in the reserve.

    It would be interesting to know what pieces are replacing the 2S4 and 2S7 returned to the service. I tend to think that are towed pieces.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:32 am

    eehnie wrote:
    franco wrote:
    George1 wrote:Eastern Military district units armed with 2S7 Pion. So these pieces are from stored capacity probably not new of course

    https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20151203/1334820325.html&usg=ALkJrhjjmB-6EaVHaf6bW64UKCVHALKXVA

    There was a story last month that they also got a 2S4 unit of 240mm SP Mortar's. Don't know if the single units of each staged in Tambov were transferred East or second units was formed. There were several hundred of each in the reserve.

    It would be interesting to know what pieces are replacing the 2S4 and 2S7 returned to the service. I tend to think that are towed pieces.

    From what i could figure out from articles i saw those are not replacing anything but it seems they are newly formed batteries attached to already existing units.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:09 am

    Like a special reserve for tough targets that need an extra punch.

    I would suspect they would also be more useful in some roles like mountains and urban where the near vertical descent of the rounds would make them rather more useful for getting between buildings or cliffs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 12, 2016 12:20 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

    Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

    Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

    Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
    And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

    I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

    It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "heavy" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.


    This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:10 am

    Russia has always had towed guns and is unlikely to get rid of them now... they are simple and cheap and still very effective.

    There is nothing man portable that is equivalent to a 122mm D-30 Artillery piece.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:05 pm

    GarryB wrote:Russia has always had towed guns and is unlikely to get rid of them now... they are simple and cheap and still very effective.

    There is nothing man portable that is equivalent to a 122mm D-30 Artillery piece.

    Well towed guns are cheap for the armies where the human factor is not important in economic terms. It is cheap while the soldiers of their big crews are unpayed or low payed. Also are cheap while "civil" style unarmoured trucks are used as tractors even in contested areas. In professional and advanced armies with decently payed soldiers and armored vehicles as tractors, the economic balance for the towed arms vs the self-propelled or the man-portable begins to be different.

    Russia is a leader wordlwide in self propelled guns. It is one of the few countries that is affording the costs of development, and surely is the alone that is covering the whole range. The European research as example is a lot more inefficient, with many countries developing tanks, apcs and ifvs and almost no-one developing the rest of the range of self propelled guns.

    Russia has done the evolution from heavy towed guns to self-propelled or man-portable guns in the areas of surface-air and surface-surface guns. Only some of the biggest towed intercontinental missiles remain in active service and their number is decreasing. There are not reasons to think that the same will not happen in the areas of anti-tank guns, howitzers and mortars. There is a very clear trend there.

    It means not that heavy towed artillery is unuseful. The heavy towed guns can remain in the reserve while Russia reach the saturation of their reserves of self propelled guns. As example, the heavy towed guns are being important for Novorussia, but the Russian army is one step more advanced.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Jan 14, 2016 2:31 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

    Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

    Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

    Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
    And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

    I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

    It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "y" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.


    This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

    When its about artillery Bofors is one of the world leaders no question about it. Basically 90 countries is using Bofors products it says something.

    And i am not sure what man portable device could match 52 caliber towed howtizer like FN77B05.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:02 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

    Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

    Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

    Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
    And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

    I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

    It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "y" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.


    This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

    When its about artillery Bofors is one of the world leaders no question about it. Basically 90 countries is using Bofors products it says something.

    And i am not sure what man portable device could match 52 caliber towed howtizer like FN77B05.

    Not man-portable, but yes self-propelled. Bofors is a good gun maker, one of the bests in Europe. They try to do self-propelled guns, but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour. Their best self propelled guns have been:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandkanon_1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System

    The fact that Norway, one of the promotors of the Archer project, rejected finally them, means something.

    To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:42 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    flamming_python wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

    Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

    Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

    Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
    And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

    I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

    It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "y" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.


    This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

    When its about artillery Bofors is one of the world leaders no question about it. Basically 90 countries is using Bofors products it says something.

    And i am not sure what man portable device could match 52 caliber towed howtizer like FN77B05.

    Not man-portable, but yes self-propelled. Bofors is a good gun maker, one of the bests in Europe. They try to do self-propelled guns, but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour. Their best self propelled guns have been:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandkanon_1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System

    The fact that Norway, one of the promotors of the Archer project, rejected finally them, means something.

    To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

    Archer is overly expencive, that is the reason for rejection, budget cuts made countries to bail out of many other projects not only Archer, had nothing to do with its performance in general.

    So... following your logic AK is shit coz its used by some 130 countries? Artillery is not capital asset, its being sold like penauts, you cant put F22 or nuclear attack subs in same bag with field artillery.

    No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

    If Bofors had market for tracked self propelled howtizer they would make it, but there is no space on the market due to US and German already existing products. If one Poland and Serbia can manage assembling decent SPGs Bofors is capable of far, far more.

    When its about "armor", you are forgetting who developed CV90.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2029
    Points : 2036
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Regular on Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:01 pm

    Militarov, You are forgetting about lobbyists in NATO and allied countries. They are the ones who drive the sales.
    I don't see how FH77B is so superior to MSTA-B? Both are roughly equal.
    And CV-90 is nothing to write home about especially when Kurganets is out
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 16, 2016 12:23 pm

    Regular wrote:Militarov, You are forgetting about lobbyists in NATO and allied countries. They are the ones who drive the sales.
    I don't see how FH77B is so superior to MSTA-B? Both are roughly equal.
    And CV-90 is nothing to write home about especially when Kurganets is out

    CV90 - 25 years old design and even then it wont be much inferior to Kurganec in terms of armored protection if at all.

    Even tho not directly comparable due to design differences, FH77B is simply far better in terms of techologies used.

    FH77-B/A and later variants have APU, hydraulically powered assisted loading, 3 times higher sustained rate of fire, higher burst rate of fire during first minute, M982 Excalibur, loading assisting crane, digital balistic computer, bore temperature sensors etc etc...

    MSTA-B has abit better range with its base ammunition due to abit longer barrel but oh well.

    MSTA-B was a dinosaur at the moment when it appeared, sure base design is good, nothing wrong with mechanical side of it, however in terms of electronics, loading asistance, navigation, aiming devices its ancient.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:56 pm

    Militarov wrote:Archer is overly expencive, that is the reason for rejection, budget cuts made countries to bail out of many other projects not only Archer, had nothing to do with its performance in general.

    To be expensive even without armour is a design weakness, and many projects fail by this reason.



    Militarov wrote:So... following your logic AK is shit coz its used by some 130 countries? Artillery is not capital asset, its being sold like penauts, you cant put F22 or nuclear attack subs in same bag with field artillery.

    Better to remember my own words.

    eehnie wrote:To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

    Where is the Word shit? According to my logic the AK is a good gun but not necessarily a tecnological leader. And this is just what the AK is.


    Militarov wrote:No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

    If Bofors had market for tracked self propelled howtizer they would make it, but there is no space on the market due to US and German already existing products. If one Poland and Serbia can manage assembling decent SPGs Bofors is capable of far, far more.

    It is wrong to use the Msta-B as if it would be the top of the technological level of Russia on artillery. It is necessary to look at the new 2S35 to talk about the technological level of Russia, and also at the most modern Russian ammunition.

    Sweden is not a military leader by its own power and keeps not technology like this for exclusive own use. Despite it, neither the Bandkanon1 and the Archer have been exported. If they would be real leaders, the western countries with bigger defense Budget and spending would have been open to these guns like they are to others.


    Militarov wrote:When its about "armor", you are forgetting who developed CV90.

    Again I want to remember my own words:

    eehnie wrote:but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour.

    The word modern is important in my comment. the CV-90 is technology of 25 years ago. Maybe you remember the cars, the computers or the tvs of 25 years ago.

    Why the CV-90 platform has not been used for the new Archer? I tend to think that has been considered, but ruled out.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:49 am

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Archer is overly expencive, that is the reason for rejection, budget cuts made countries to bail out of many other projects not only Archer, had nothing to do with its performance in general.

    To be expensive even without armour is a design weakness, and many projects fail by this reason.



    Militarov wrote:So... following your logic AK is shit coz its used by some 130 countries? Artillery is not capital asset, its being sold like penauts, you cant put F22 or nuclear attack subs in same bag with field artillery.

    Better to remember my own words.

    eehnie wrote:To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

    Where is the Word shit? According to my logic the AK is a good gun but not necessarily a tecnological leader. And this is just what the AK is.


    Militarov wrote:No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

    If Bofors had market for tracked self propelled howtizer they would make it, but there is no space on the market due to US and German already existing products. If one Poland and Serbia can manage assembling decent SPGs Bofors is capable of far, far more.

    It is wrong to use the Msta-B as if it would be the top of the technological level of Russia on artillery. It is necessary to look at the new 2S35 to talk about the technological level of Russia, and also at the most modern Russian ammunition.

    Sweden is not a military leader by its own power and keeps not technology like this for exclusive own use. Despite it, neither the Bandkanon1 and the Archer have been exported. If they would be real leaders, the western countries with bigger defense Budget and spending would have been open to these guns like they are to others.


    Militarov wrote:When its about "armor", you are forgetting who developed CV90.

    Again I want to remember my own words:

    eehnie wrote:but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour.

    The word modern is important in my comment. the CV-90 is technology of 25 years ago. Maybe you remember the cars, the computers or the tvs of 25 years ago.

    Why the CV-90 platform has not been used for the new Archer? I tend to think that has been considered, but ruled out.

    Why would Archer have to be armored? Artillery should not come into contact with enemy at all, reason why Phz2000, MSTA-B and similar designs are "armored" is simply due to platform they use, anyways superstructure does not protect aganist anything but shell splinters and small arms fire, so you cant call them "armored" at all. Only parts of howtizer that really require armor if any is crew compartment, which Archer actually has crew and engine compartment armoured and the cab has fragmentation-proof windows, that is more than enough. Beside that it has Level 2 STANAG 4569 AT mine protection lvl.

    Archer was not exported due to reason that you have 4-5x cheaper overhauled PHz-2000 on the market which will fit the needs of most customers. I dont see why would superpower like Croatia buy Archer if they can get used PHz-2000, if someone really wanted truck mounted system they have French Cesar for an example which is again alot chepaer. Then you have countries that are forbidden to buy either of those and then they get Serbian Nora or something Chinese.

    Why would i compare 2S35 Koalitsiya which hasnt even entered service with 25 years old systems from the West? Are you trolling me here or you are really serious with this one. MSTA-B is best Russian towed howtizer in service atm, and when i compare FH77B or G5 i have to compare it to MSTA-B coz that is latest Russian built towed field howtizer. On other hand Russia does not have atm system comparable to Archer till truck mounted Koalitsiya enters service, if ever.

    You are naturally aware CV90 is still worlds best armored IFV and potentialy best armed one depending on customer? They did not keep CV90 the same for the last 25 years. What did Russians come up with 25 years ago, yea right BTR90 -.-... CV90, K21, Patria AMV and other similar armored platforms saw various updated and evolutions though last 25 years and they will see them probably next 25. World did not froze 25 years ago for Patria, Bofors or anyone.

    However it was frozen for Russians almost 15 years due to we all know what, and now they have to pick up their game or they will still use paper and 1:25.000 section to direct artillery fire.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jan 17, 2016 3:15 am

    Now you went full bogus militarov.

    Russians already have better system than the archer and that is about the total and overall performance and they certainly do not need a different vehicle to outperform it. You look only on one parameter and consider it better, the issues such systems have is they are nowhere near sustainable neither in doctrine and military division structure nor in logistic terms for combat conditions compared to MSTA-S or PzH2000.

    CV90 might be well armored but certainly will never be best armed that goes always to russian plattforms and BTR90 is no IFV the russians have BMP-3 older than last 25 years but still the best armed without doubt and still beats CV90 or any other IFV. The protection level of all of them does not exceed any weaponary they are carrying and BMP's carry weapons with more lethal and further range than any other aswell being fully digitalized FCS and equipped with auto-tracking.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5488
    Points : 5533
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sun Jan 17, 2016 3:35 am

    Werewolf wrote:Now you went full bogus militarov.

    Russians already have better system than the archer and that is about the total and overall performance and they certainly do not need a different vehicle to outperform it. You look only on one parameter and consider it better, the issues such systems have is they are nowhere near sustainable neither in doctrine and military division structure nor in logistic terms for combat conditions compared to MSTA-S or PzH2000.

    CV90 might be well armored but certainly will never be best armed that goes always to russian plattforms and BTR90 is no IFV the russians have BMP-3 older than last 25 years but still the best armed without doubt and still beats CV90 or any other IFV. The protection level of all of them does not exceed any weaponary they are carrying and BMP's carry weapons with more lethal and further range than any other aswell being fully digitalized FCS and equipped with auto-tracking.

    Fact stays, MSTA-B is based on ancient doctrine, when its about towed pieces Russians are so behind the world that its retarded at least in aspect of electronics used (read none) and materials. How MSTA-B operations differ from M46 field gun? They dont.... its still chart 1:25.000, compass, tables with imput values and calculator...my grandfather served like that in 1953. Mechanically MSTA-B is fine artillery piece, but its painfully outdated in every other way. Both FH and MSTA have own advantages but overall, MSTA is just...crude.

    BTR90 was an example of what Russians came up 25 years ago and what load of junk it was compared to what was happening on the West. As i said "depending on customer", you can put on CV90 whatever you are pleased, even BMP3 turret if you wish actually.

    You cant say i am not right here, not sure if you are really trying to say how MSTA-S and MSTA-B are better than Archer and FH77, i really hope not coz that is not true, not even by a long shot. Better value for the money? I suppose. Easier for maintenance? I guess. But better? Hell no. If they were better, Coalition would never happen.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:51 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Fact stays, MSTA-B is based on ancient doctrine, when its about towed pieces Russians are so behind the world that its retarded at least in aspect of electronics used (read none) and materials. How MSTA-B operations differ from M46 field gun? They dont.... its still chart 1:25.000, compass, tables with imput values and calculator...my grandfather served like that in 1953. Mechanically MSTA-B is fine artillery piece, but its painfully outdated in every other way. Both FH and MSTA have own advantages but overall, MSTA is just...crude.

    BTR90 was an example of what Russians came up 25 years ago and what load of junk it was compared to what was happening on the West. As i said "depending on customer", you can put on CV90 whatever you are pleased, even BMP3 turret if you wish actually.

    You cant say i am not right here, not sure if you are really trying to say how MSTA-S and MSTA-B are better than Archer and FH77, i really hope not coz that is not true, not even by a long shot. Better value for the money? I suppose. Easier for maintenance? I guess. But better? Hell no. If they were better, Coalition would never happen.

    IT seems you have been outrun by russians and your knowledge since they have mobile FCS systems for artillery which are assets to be used for older systems of fieldhowitzers, they have modified MT-12 Rapira with FCS capable of guiding GLATGM's. It is true they do not have it in brought use, but no country has it in brought use while the russians have mobile tracked artillery in very brought use all pretty modern with FCS while many western systems completley lack modern FCS and automatization of the artillery and battery fire.


    You are comparing BTR90 which is the best in its field (APC) not (IFV) with actual IFV's that are not even best in their fields. You are comparing literally apples and coconuts.

    And no modification of CV90 will ever have better armament than BMP-3 or any similiar russian system. Trying to argue that it could fit any armament is just like trying to argue they could mount all available technologies the very next day while non of those technologies is in active service.

    The MSTA-S is far better than the Archer in terms of military which it can not compete with. The Archer is just another system like the Paladin, often refered to but none in active service with no factual deployment and availability with modern ammunition while russians have modern guided ammunition for artillery since quite some time. This is not about fantasy but about real world of technologies being in active service and technologies being nothing else but presented in fancy infographs.

    A trucked plattform that could not be used in any established military structure which all of all major militaries obligatory have to be trucked plattforms to accomodate the needs of army aswell fit the logistics chain. A system that is designed in such a manner that can not fit the logistics chain aswell military structure is a failure because it would need customized and specialized logistics and military structure just to make any use of it. It is not superior in range, accuracy, nor logistics, inferior mobility and not even that impressive in speed either despite being a trucked plattform weighting just 30t.

    It is no good for any military with needs.

    8-9 rounds per minute
    70km/h top speed
    30ton trucked
    30-40km with normal ammunition and only 60km with Excalibur which does not exist but is a total failure so far never come out of X-phase (prototype).
    40 rounds total 20 in Autoloader 20 stored.

    The fidelity of the FCS is also very questionable to what degree it is capable to be integrated for military needs other than simultan hitting location.

    MSTA-S is no worse while being older and still surpassing it.
    50 rounds total, semi-autoloader magazine manages to fit 46 rounds.
    8-10 rounds per minute 2S19M1 -M2 6-7 rounds per minute if loaded via external ammunition feeding by ground personal of established artillery batteries. It has various ammunition types that outclass any other military in versitility and means of engaging varierity of targets. It is NBC protected, armored more than just 7.62mm which is the least of the crews concerns but high concern of counter artillery which the Archer will not even be identifiable after it recieves remote detonations around it. The tank plattform will provide protection to crew from fragments and close detonations. It has integrated battery management system "Kapustink" to have directed and controlled fire while the Archer lacks integrated system and relies on external feed.

    Direct fire capability integrated in FCS that extents far 2km of the Archer and has no deadzone unlike Archer due trucked design. The heavier plattform on tracks also gives it capability in defensive means to drive and shoot towards enemy ground vehicles in direct fire, the Archer could not do that nor could it withstand any incoming projectile bigger than .50 cal. It does not make it a tank or a tank destroyer but having any means of protection is better than being a paper target. The mobility is also superior due to tracked plattform and capability to cross rivers without bridges up to 5m deep and 1km long.

    Yes any military would take MSTA-S or PzH2000 over Archer or similiar systems that have no future in real militaries.

    It isn't as good nor is the MSTA-S as bad or inferior than the Archer and for military needs it is actually superior, the introduction of new ammunition is only enhancing and assuring russian superiority in artillery systems while western counterparts and their engagement ranges is constantly and almost exclusively given with ranges for RAP ammunition of prototype stage like Excalibur which are failures to say the least.

    Coalizya did not happen because of any Archer but because it is a deep modernization of equipment and russians certainly do not need to pay attention to broken countries like Sweden that have nothing to offer to the world stage in technology that russia does not have it already.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16172
    Points : 16803
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:19 am

    I don't see how FH77B is so superior to MSTA-B? Both are roughly equal.

    I would go further and say if FH77B is space age and MSTA-B is WWI then the Russians and Soviets are geniuses who wouldn't want a simple system able to perform to space age levels?

    CV90 - 25 years old design and even then it wont be much inferior to Kurganec in terms of armored protection if at all.

    To make any comparison you would need detailed knowledge of both... what is the armour protection of Kurganets? And I mean actual protection... I am not interested in estimates.

    Also what sort of APS system is CV90 fitted with that will stop APFSDS rounds?

    Most importantly which entire units will be equipped with CV90 based vehicles... from command, to engineer, to IFV, to MBT toAPC, to artillery, to mine clearing, to ambulance etc etc.

    CV90 is not a vehicle family where an entire unit will use same engines and components.

    Why would i compare 2S35 Koalitsiya which hasnt even entered service with 25 years old systems from the West?

    Archers design started in 1995 which makes it less than 20 years old by my calculations and you talked about Excalibur which didn't enter service until after 2005... which is very amusing that a WWI MSTA can both outrange your super sophisticated space age truck mounted artillery piece and also be vastly more accurate using Krasnopol guided rounds... Rolling Eyes

    The real funny thing is that final development and approval of Archer came in 2008 so it was probably less than 5 years between Archer and Coalition which has been in development for a very long period of time... it was a joint programme with the Russian Navy BTW.

    On other hand Russia does not have atm system comparable to Archer till truck mounted Koalitsiya enters service, if ever.

    yeah but truck based artillery pieces are really only useful because of their reduced purchasing and operating costs and mobility on roads. In that sense a towed gun has all those advantages and more... especially when they had guided artillery shells for their operational lives... unlike your space age super dooper Archer.

    You are naturally aware CV90 is still worlds best armored IFV and potentialy best armed one depending on customer?

    Bullshit. the Israeli APCs based on tanks should have far superior protection.

    The protection of the CV90 reportedly offers protection from 14.5mm HMG rounds from all directions and 30mm cannon fire from the front... which suggests it is not much better protected than many other much lighter vehicles.

    Fact stays, MSTA-B is based on ancient doctrine, when its about towed pieces Russians are so behind the world that its retarded at least in aspect of electronics used (read none) and materials. How MSTA-B operations differ from M46 field gun? They dont.... its still chart 1:25.000, compass, tables with imput values and calculator...my grandfather served like that in 1953. Mechanically MSTA-B is fine artillery piece, but its painfully outdated in every other way. Both FH and MSTA have own advantages but overall, MSTA is just...crude.

    Russian use of guided artillery shells predates the west by some time... do I have to talk to you about the in the field differences between Krasnopol and Copperhead?

    Perhaps you might like to educate yourself regarding Ratnik and other infantry upgrades... do you think equipping every soldier with night vision and satellite guidance equipment and troop commanders with tablets to manage combat that they will issue paper maps and pencils and a compass to artillery units?

    [qutoe]you can put on CV90 whatever you are pleased, even BMP3 turret if you wish actually.[/quote]

    Yet no body is... for all its armour it has no ERA and no APS and therefore most light RPGs should penetrate it from any angle... doesn't sound like much to me... it seems only Scandinavian countries are even buying it.

    [qutoe]You cant say i am not right here, not sure if you are really trying to say how MSTA-S and MSTA-B are better than Archer and FH77, i really hope not coz that is not true, not even by a long shot. Better value for the money? I suppose. Easier for maintenance? I guess. But better? Hell no. If they were better, Coalition would never happen.[/quote]

    Cheaper, easier to maintain, similar mobility, longer range, more accurate ammo with guided shells that are 50 times cheaper... why would anyone prefer a space age white elephant?



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:39 pm