Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:57 am

    First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

    Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor". We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

    And what sort of APS is BMP3 being fielded with atm? None. Stop bringing up things that are NOT in service at all...

    And how many Krasnoplos are there in units? Probably none. If you cared to read my posts you would find line where i said one of the rare MSTA advantages is its range with base line ammunition meanwhile losing in rate of fire, burst, sustained rate of fire and..basically everything else. And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time, i dont even know from where you are all picking Archer vs MSTA-S here. Stop twitching my words and placing in my mouth stuff i did not say just coz they suit your needs.

    Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

    RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

    I listed all reasons above already. No APU, no balistic computer, no loading assistance, lower rate of fire, lower sustained rate of fire, lower burst fire, no diagnostics... nothing, its just naked artillery piece. And again for 253234th time, i am talking about FH77 variants and MSTA-B. Stop bringing Archer, MSTA-S, Excalibur and Coalition to whole story.

    Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5362
    Points : 5601
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jan 17, 2016 2:40 pm

    Militarov wrote:First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

    Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor". We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

    Yes the K-25 is far superior to any other IFV in protection i would even claim to some regards even similiar protected against specific threats like Namer APC (shaped charges). The ERA/LERA and MERA type panels will certainly give it good protection against most type of shaped charges, large calibre cannon AP/APDS/APFSDS ammunition aswell and on top of that having Afghanit to protect it from APFSDS. The Afghanit certainly will not intercept it with leaving it without any energy however if it breaks it in half which long rods are prone to and starts yawing it will most probably stop it before it can penetrate the entire tank with the crew inside.

    The other funny part is that you claim K25 has no place being evaludated here because it is not in service but it was you who started comparing CV90 how it is no worse than K25 while it is beyound doubt far inferior and already inferior to current IFV's in many things and yes even protection like 2S23 ERA used for light vehicles. CV90 does not offer such protection.

    Militarov wrote:
    And what sort of APS is BMP3 being fielded with atm? None. Stop bringing up things that are NOT in service at all...

    Current BMD-4M have Arena installed at least that is what was reported. The 2S23 ERA is installed on all BMP-3 and BMD4 if used for operations which already withstand 30mm of 30x165mm API rounds from all around due to the ERA configuration of being LERA with composite backplate.

    Militarov wrote:
    And how many Krasnoplos are there in units? Probably none. If you cared to read my posts you would find line where i said one of the rare MSTA advantages is its range with base line ammunition meanwhile losing in rate of fire, burst, sustained rate of fire and..basically everything else. And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time, i dont even know from where you are all picking Archer vs MSTA-S here. Stop twitching my words and placing in my mouth stuff i did not say just coz they suit your needs.

    Krasnapol has been in service for long time and looking at the far to accurate fire in Donbas of artillery there are good chances that it was used already in war especially looking at the T-64 tanks being deadcenter hit and vaporized. The MSTA-S is certainly not inferior in rate of fire it is actually superior since the 2S19M1/2 can fire from 8 to 10 rounds with internal carried and feeded ammunition for the semi autoloader.

    The sustained rate of fire is at least double of the Archer since it carries almost all of its rounds in its autoloader magazine while archer holds only 20 rounds, who runs out first of the autoloader those rate of fire will drop massively and we already know who will drop out first.

    The FH77 and MSTA-B have exact same rate of fire and sustainability of the rate of fire no different and both are manually loaded all breaks down to crew and to nothing else, maybe you shouldn't push something that isn't true. The rate of fire of both is 6-8 within one minute while the crew necessary to operate FH77 is up to 14 people and MSTA-B is 11.

    Militarov wrote:
    Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

    It is in service and the number of Krasnapols in service exceeds any other round of western vassal pact. Guided rounds are like any other guided ammunition never in large numbers available that is a cost issue and even the mighty FIAT money printing corrupt US can not afford to have many rounds. The guidance and seeker of the Krasnapol is certainly not the best thing since it is SALH and takes a painter to mark the target but it isn't easy to develope a NLOS artillery round to acquire a target automatically it will always need someone to paint the target. AWACS, ELINT based aircrafts are far more costly to be used to give the round coordinates of a target which could also be a dummy while a infantry personal with a laser designator can come much closer and much less cost intensive to the target while AWACS or UAV's or anything flying could be restricted to to requests due to cost issue for isolated targets a Krasnapol painter is certainly more likely to be used despite its limitations.

    Militarov wrote:
    RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

    So were mines but unlike CV90 the BMP-3 or even BMD-4 can be protected from 30x165mm API rounds aswell RPG's that is called technology which western countries do not have they either buy NII Stali patents like ARAT ERA for Abrams or they rely on own technologies which haven't been in brought use besides a ME country Israel because they at least haven't a totally narrow doctrine of how to protect crew and tanks while western countries love to say they have high priority to protect crew but on technological level we see that they are far inferior in that regard so far no technology developed to do exact same advertizement.

    Militarov wrote:
    I listed all reasons above already. No APU, no balistic computer, no loading assistance, lower rate of fire, lower sustained rate of fire, lower burst fire, no diagnostics... nothing, its just naked artillery piece. And again for 253234th time, i am talking about FH77 variants and MSTA-B. Stop bringing Archer, MSTA-S, Excalibur and Coalition to whole story.

    Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

    What you have listed i already have replied to which you ignored, russia has this kind of technology and has already modified MT-12 with FCS, GLATGM's aswell artillery battery management system which are linked to light version of Kapustnik, such systems have been in use already that they did not have it on MSTA-B is a different issue related to costs while no other country besides russia has such a doctrine and military structure so focused on artillery coverage and technology. The Swedish, the americans the entire NATO have nothing on russia in ground forces or artillery. Having a few FH77 with computers but not having a single based and established mobile tracked artillery piece that can cover such a broad spectrum from offensive and defensive means shows who is behind who.

    You can not deny the last part the entire NATO are absolutley harmless when it comes to artillery overall capability despite having over 28 countries vs a single country and they still can't beat that little single "isolated" country in anything that is of army and ground forces technology. They do not have enough tanks or quality of tanks to repel or even defend themselfs against russian infantry which are all equipped from RPG to ATGM's of various types, they are equipped with mobile SHORAD and SAM's that can protect their ground forces from CAS planes while western countries almost entirely do not have the technology nor military structure to provide advancing ground forces any sort of Anti Aircraft capability that would give them any chance of fullfilling their duty. The russians could effectively deploy long range SAM's to win every skirmish without any interference of NATO airforces while providing some good protection in advancing formations from airforces. NATO can not it is just one single country in NATO that has anywhere near fidelity and focus on ground forces and it is already among the most inferior countries (USA) they do not have even half the doctrine or technology to drive or have dreams of success of such a ground forces campaign. They are navy military through and through and lack anything where they can not deploy their navy. No air superiority means no ground forces and little Serbia which you know very well has already shown the overall performance of a far inferior and outnumbered country with absolutley zero help what NATO is worth.

    I understand your points that FH77 is in some regard superior which is only based on FCS and on nothing else, everything else it is inferior or on par however a single towed artillery piece will not change anything in the total technology gap russia has created behind every other country. Not a single western country besides germany has anything to offer even to compete with MSTA-S.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 762
    Points : 943
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:30 pm

    Militarov wrote:MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1.

    What is this a joke ?  

    Even taking aside the big cost difference -in money, materials and construction/operational maintence time- between the two systems (a parameter almost sufficient by itself to establish a very huge engineering conception and design roundness advantage in 2A65 favour......KISS anyone ?) we have that :


    1) One of the two towed artillery has almost half the mass of the other (with the obvious implications that this element bring in terms of strategical and tactical mobility performances and ,from this, in the force concentration and volume of fire overmatch over the competitor system ).

    2) The lighter system, between the two, boast a significant range advantage both with the basis and with the assisted standard ammunition.

    3) The lighter system, between the two, show a far greater selection of munition types and the main ones boast also a greater area of assured suppression of enemy soft targets.
     
    4) The transition from fire position to march is lower for the first of those two artillery systems.

    Definitely i wouldn't never find myself in an Army armed with FH-77B tasked to go in a full scale war against a peer enemy employing the same resources in 2A65........

    Very often (in particular in western military products) terribly costly vectronic suit - having the effect to render abishmal the cardinal cost-efficiency parameter - are added to very badly conceived and engineered piece of equiment only in order to rectify constitutive design deficiency.
    That, if any, is a clear sign of technical incompetence or backwardness not the contrary  Wink
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:53 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Militarov wrote:MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1.

    What is this a joke ?  

    Even taking aside the big cost difference -in money, materials and construction/operational maintence time- between the two systems (a parameter almost sufficient by itself to establish a very huge engineering conception and design roundness advantage in 2A65 favour......KISS anyone ?) we have that :


    1) One of the two towed artillery has almost half the mass of the other (with the obvious implications that this element bring in terms of strategical and tactical mobility performances and ,from this, in the force concentration and volume of fire overmatch over the competitor system ).

    2) The lighter system, between the two, boast a significant range advantage both with the basis and with the assisted standard ammunition.

    3) The lighter system, between the two, show a far greater selection of munition types and the main ones boast also a greater area of assured suppression of enemy soft targets.
     
    4) The transition from fire position to march is lower for the first of those two artillery systems.

    Definitely i wouldn't never find myself in an Army armed with FH-77B tasked to go in a full scale war against a peer enemy employing the same resources in 2A65........

    Very often (in particular in western military products) terribly costly vectronic suit - having the effect to render abishmal the cardinal cost-efficiency parameter - are added to very badly conceived and engineered piece of equiment only in order to rectify constitutive design deficiency.
    That, if any, is a clear sign of technical incompetence or backwardness not the contrary  Wink

    Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.

    MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...

    Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 18, 2016 5:44 am

    First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

    If you are going to call equipment made by the country that started the space age WWI crap then expect me to call you on it... don't take that personally... I don't care who said such things my response would be the same without documented evidence to prove it... which you have not provided yet.

    BTW Glonass and Krasnopol were not available in WWI.

    Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor".

    You are the one making claims about protection levels without any knowledge of NERA or APS or Nakidka or other systems that might be standard on the IFV version of Kurganets.

    And why do you think Kurganets needs to have the best IFV armour in the universe? I know for a fact it does not because that is the purpose of the Armata based IFV.

    We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

    You made the claim that a crappy western gun mounted on the back of a truck is 100 years more advanced than anything the Russians have despite the standard Russian gun having cheap affordable guided shells that can be fired to greater ranges at a slightly slower rate.

    I call it crappy because it does not exceed the performance of a towed weapon and likely costs rather more for lower accuracy performance.

    And how many Krasnoplos are there in units?

    You are the expert here making all the claims... how many units don't have them?

    France is a major user, as is India. Are you suggesting the Russians have spent a small fortune on UAVs and not on purchasing their own already developed guided artillery shells?

    Even considering the Coalition will use guided shells as standard?

    And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time,

    Same point applies... MSTA has had guided shells for much longer period and they are much cheaper.

    Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

    They have a range of options to mark targets including UAVs, aircraft and ground forces.

    RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

    RPGs are more widely deployed on the battlefield than 30mm cannons... and you were the one claiming the CV90s armour was significant... in which case the armata IFV would kick its arse... that is what they would use where the threat level was high.

    Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

    The IFV version of Armata is an IFV...

    Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.

    Hold on... you are saying it is obsolete because it is not heavy enough?

    WTF does a towed gun need an APU for?

    So if the FH77 is space age because it has an APU then the old 203 gun the Soviets used in WWII that had caterpillar tracks for short range mobility must have been the starship enterprise...

    MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...

    Yes, of course... Russian artillery is still in WWI... I guess you don't credit the Russian military spending and upgrades in C4IR over the last half decade for anything... it is obviously for nothing they are spending money on UAVs, but not the tube and rocket artillery that would use the information gained by those recon resources.

    If a Russian unit needed a high mobility high rate of fire light artillery unit... Grad.

    Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....

    Yeah... missing a target with 6 shells makes all the difference... those stupid Russians must just pace out the firing location, lick a finger (to get the wind direction) and fire off their allotment of shells and then go back to barracks and drink vodka... job done.

    Thanks for your contribution... despite your claim to extensive knowledge I have really learned nothing of value from your posts on this thread.

    Perhaps in future if you can tell us how wonderful the FN77 is without having to claim it makes the Russian equivalent junk I might listen to what you say. Or I might not.

    You clearly have not brought any useful information about current practises in Russian artillery units that might be useful or interesting and don't know enough about current technology and equipment in Russian units to make coherent comparisons... if you want to educate us as to how wonderful the FN77 is, move it to a relevant thread.

    If you don't know how widely used Krasnopol is within Russian units then don't make claims based on ignorant assumptions.

    The Indians and French seemed to like them.


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian towed artillery

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:30 am

    The rule of thumb of IFV design is to protect the front of the vehicle from the main IFV gun of the enemy or near projected future weapon. The sides are generally protected from HMG fire only and often from a specific distance.

    The main gun is designed to penetrate the frontal armour of the enemy IFV equivalent at reasonable ranges... ie 2km or so.

    With this in mind the design specs of Kurganets-25 would be at least to stop 35mm cannon rounds and likely 40mm rounds too over the frontal arc.

    The 57mm gun will be to defeat 40 ton European IFVs...

    The Kurganets is at least 7 tons heavier than the BMP-3 so I am not going to say such a level of protection is not possible with all the likely equipment they will be carrying including Shtora and other EO dazzling systems and smoke launching systems, Standard APS, NERA, replacements for Nakidka, etc etc all working to protect the vehicle... not to mention TOR batteries and Pantsir batteries protecting them from airborne munitions and aircraft threats... yes... I would say Kurganets-25 IFV model is better protected from enemy fire than any model CV90.

    ...not that it is in any way relevant to this thread.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1137
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:45 am

    I agree with the posts moved to this threat. My first comment was related to the return of some 2S4 and 2S7 to actiive service, but is well here too. Only one comment gets in the other threat, and surely would be better here too.

    About the discussion, I do not think that the Msta-B is a good measure of the current technological level of Russia. A comparation of the 2S35 vs the Archer (both very recent) would be a better measure of the technological level of Russia and Bofors today to see who leads the sector really.
    avatar
    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3198
    Points : 3312
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:35 pm

    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.

    lolwut

    Msta-B is still pretty state-of-the-art, and especially impressive back in the late 80s.

    Lagging behind Krupp and Bofors?
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5362
    Points : 5601
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:29 pm

    I can garantee you that the Kurganetz is safe from 30x165mm API all around while it is using LERA+composite tiles. If someone has still missed it here again a video of BMP-2 which has a relative weak side armor got upgrade with 2S23 LERA tiles that have a backplate of an alloy that stops 30x165mm API at less than 100 meters. The Kurganetz is already far better protected while having an improved variant of LERA of thicker content and more effective to stop threats from heavy auto cannons to RPG's or ATGM's we only need to know how effective it is against Tandem.


    Jump to 04:15 to see a BMP-2 firing ZUBR-8 rounds against another BMP with LERA tiles of 2S23 that stops 30mm armor piercing incendiary ammunition without detonating the LERA tile while protecting the weak side armor from penetration.


    I think i already made a little post that Archer is nothing against MSTA-S it barely manages to stay on par and is totally worthless for militaries since trucked versions are always inferior in accuracy and useless for military structure which require always a tracked vehicle to accomplish operational mobility with combined armed forces which wheeled based vehicles can not offer. Despite your claim the MSTA-S is still superior in sustaining its rate of fire not just by a single round more but also by a semi automatic loader compared with an automatic loader which loads one round less and have only 20 rounds capacity in the autoloader compared with 46 rounds of MSTA-S so far only PzH2000 has anything on MSTA-S despite MSTA-S being the first of its kind and the oldest it got modified quite often.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:08 pm

    flamming_python wrote:
    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.

    lolwut

    Msta-B is still pretty state-of-the-art, and especially impressive back in the late 80s.

    Lagging behind Krupp and Bofors?

    MSTA-B "state of the art". No.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

    If you are going to call equipment made by the country that started the space age WWI crap then expect me to call you on it... don't take that personally... I don't care who said such things my response would be the same without documented evidence to prove it... which you have not provided yet.

    BTW Glonass and Krasnopol were not available in WWI.

    Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor".

    You are the one making claims about protection levels without any knowledge of NERA or APS or Nakidka or other systems that might be standard on the IFV version of Kurganets.

    And why do you think Kurganets needs to have the best IFV armour in the universe? I know for a fact it does not because that is the purpose of the Armata based IFV.

    We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

    You made the claim that a crappy western gun mounted on the back of a truck is 100 years more advanced than anything the Russians have despite the standard Russian gun having cheap affordable guided shells that can be fired to greater ranges at a slightly slower rate.

    I call it crappy because it does not exceed the performance of a towed weapon and likely costs rather more for lower accuracy performance.

    And how many Krasnoplos are there in units?

    You are the expert here making all the claims... how many units don't have them?

    France is a major user, as is India. Are you suggesting the Russians have spent a small fortune on UAVs and not on purchasing their own already developed guided artillery shells?

    Even considering the Coalition will use guided shells as standard?

    And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time,

    Same point applies... MSTA has had guided shells for much longer period and they are much cheaper.

    Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

    They have a range of options to mark targets including UAVs, aircraft and ground forces.

    RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

    RPGs are more widely deployed on the battlefield than 30mm cannons... and you were the one claiming the CV90s armour was significant... in which case the armata IFV would kick its arse... that is what they would use where the threat level was high.

    Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

    The IFV version of Armata is an IFV...

    Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.

    Hold on... you are saying it is obsolete because it is not heavy enough?

    WTF does a towed gun need an APU for?

    So if the FH77 is space age because it has an APU then the old 203 gun the Soviets used in WWII that had caterpillar tracks for short range mobility must have been the starship enterprise...

    MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...

    Yes, of course... Russian artillery is still in WWI... I guess you don't credit the Russian military spending and upgrades in C4IR over the last half decade for anything... it is obviously for nothing they are spending money on UAVs, but not the tube and rocket artillery that would use the information gained by those recon resources.

    If a Russian unit needed a high mobility high rate of fire light artillery unit... Grad.

    Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....

    Yeah... missing a target with 6 shells makes all the difference... those stupid Russians must just pace out the firing location, lick a finger (to get the wind direction) and fire off their allotment of shells and then go back to barracks and drink vodka... job done.

    Thanks for your contribution... despite your claim to extensive knowledge I have really learned nothing of value from your posts on this thread.

    Perhaps in future if you can tell us how wonderful the FN77 is without having to claim it makes the Russian equivalent junk I might listen to what you say. Or I might not.

    You clearly have not brought any useful information about current practises in Russian artillery units that might be useful or interesting and don't know enough about current technology and equipment in Russian units to make coherent comparisons... if you want to educate us as to how wonderful the FN77 is, move it to a relevant thread.

    If you don't know how widely used Krasnopol is within Russian units then don't make claims based on ignorant assumptions.

    The Indians and French seemed to like them.

    So, how many times you saw Krasnopol in units? Ever? I have never seen it except 2 of them fired on artillery exercise in 2013. And here we are talking about MSTA-B as a piece not its ammunition, MSTA-B as a platform is a problem not its ammunition.

    APU? Why do they need APU? For balistic computer, for hydraulic pump, for tactical mobility when on firing position, for loading assistance equipment.... APU is the reason why its so much easier to use in field compared to MSTA, no manual winching around, no need for spinal cord manual labor... naturally all the "conventional" systems exist as a backup. Only real disadvantage of APU is IR spectrum signature, that is reason why Yugoslavians did not put APU on their original towed M84 Nora, which proved as good during 1999. war, however when its about Russia which should be able to actually protect its ground assets from air strikes it does not matter much really.

    When its about weight, we are here talking about L52 howtizer, so weight does not really matter since it wont be lifted by helicopters anyways, for that Ru lacks nice L39 howtizer as we mentioned already above.

    And i am really sorry but MSTA-B is based on early 70s technology... only really modern features on it from pure engineering aspects are hydraulic counter-recoil "rails" and a emulsion/oil (not rly sure which probably pure oil) cooled recoil brake but those exist for quite some time, still they were very nicely thought out on MSTA. Other than that its extremly and way to simple artillery piece. Biggest issue is apsolute lack of any automation, 0, well except spring breech but its not real automation. It takes 10 minutes to set up position for howtizers like MSTA-B or M84, M46 and similar if you do everything by the book, and that is one of the main issues here, meanwhlie with FH77 if terrain is not too bad you can be ready in minute or so.

    I mean seriously even Yugo M84B2 howtizer had pneumatic loading assistance with compressed Nitrogen i belive, lacked naturally APU and other modern features but that was in plans post 1991. which never happened.

    T15 is IFV which is...not..in...service. Can we please limit ourself to stuff that actually exist in numbers higher than 25. At this point we have only APCs based on tank chasis, in future sure we will have IFVs, possibly not only from Russia. But that is not what we talked here about at all. I used CV90 ans an example of armored vehicle being produced by above mentioned countries.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:46 pm

    Werewolf wrote:I can garantee you that the Kurganetz is safe from 30x165mm API all around while it is using LERA+composite tiles. If someone has still missed it here again a video of BMP-2 which has a relative weak side armor got upgrade with 2S23 LERA tiles that have a backplate of an alloy that stops 30x165mm API at less than 100 meters. The Kurganetz is already far better protected while having an improved variant of LERA of thicker content and more effective to stop threats from heavy auto cannons to RPG's or ATGM's we only need to know how effective it is against Tandem.


    Jump to 04:15 to see a BMP-2 firing ZUBR-8 rounds against another BMP with LERA tiles of 2S23 that stops 30mm armor piercing incendiary ammunition without detonating the LERA tile while protecting the weak side armor from penetration.


    I think i already made a little post that Archer is nothing against MSTA-S it barely manages to stay on par and is totally worthless for militaries since trucked versions are always inferior in accuracy and useless for military structure which require always a tracked vehicle to accomplish operational mobility with combined armed forces which wheeled based vehicles can not offer. Despite your claim the MSTA-S is still superior in sustaining its rate of fire not just by a single round more but also by a semi automatic loader compared with an automatic loader which loads one round less and have only 20 rounds capacity in the autoloader compared with 46 rounds of MSTA-S so far only PzH2000 has anything on MSTA-S despite MSTA-S being the first of its kind and the oldest it got modified quite often.

    Why are you still talking about MSTA-S... Are you guys trolling me here or what?

    I am talking about MSTA-B being outdated and crude, whats up with everyone bringing MSTA-S, Archer, Paladin, Phz2000 or God knows what...

    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5362
    Points : 5601
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:19 pm

    I think you are trolling because you are obviously either lying or simply have not ever put effort researching things you are trying to paint black and white.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Mon Jan 18, 2016 9:41 pm

    Werewolf wrote:I think you are trolling because you are obviously either lying or simply have not ever put effort researching things you are trying to paint black and white.

    Lying what O.o I dont really have habit of lying unless if we take in count my elementary school bad math grade i once got and i lied about it to my parents. And where did you see me painting anything "black and white", i clearly said in my posts that MSTA-B has advantage with baseline ammunition in range and that its fine piece in terms of mechanical engineering, what did i paint there black and white exacly.

    I said 5 times already, MSTA-B is good artillery piece from the engineering point of view, however its badly, badly outdated in terms of equipment.

    AK74 is a great rifle, still its going to be replaced in future coz it (among other things) does not have simple rails for electro-optical devices and not that great ergonomy. And its going to be fixed with AK12 or AEK doesnt even matter. Same is with MSTA-B. Its fine from mechanical aspect, but its horrid in "sophisticated" department, come on even famous UK 105mm "light gun" L118 got balistic computer, diagnostics, bore temperature sensors, chamber temperature, position and navigation chip, velocity radar etc... and its supposed to be a toy compared to MSTA-B. I am not sure what are you all trying to say, that MSTA-B is just fine, that it should be kept in this current state next 30 years?

    Its not like i am saying "Russian artillery sux", i am just saying MSTA-B is not really well suited for modern war anymore. While lack of balistic computer can be partially compensated with hand held BC (http://udcusa.com/training-technical-services/universal-ballistic-computer/ saw this one on Partner military expo) it still wont be slaved to the gun and everything is still manual, and that is part that has to be changed. MSTA-B is not ultra light howtizer it needs partial automation if its to compete.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 762
    Points : 943
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:17 pm

    Militarov wrote:Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.


    If an group of engineers have ever let an APU and a loading aid mechanism to bring the weight of FH-77 at.....over 12 tons ( a thing that i don't believe even for one instant, rather instead that just those systems has been "forced" in the design to attempt to mitigate a very badly designed overweight mechanical layout) them should be kicked out at instant.


    The clear tendency in the design of field artillery (that differ fundamentally from that of self propelled ones where the integration of high end mechanical/electronic intensive solutions is much more rewarding and has an effect much lower on strategical and tactical mobility) among the major nations at world has been the  exact opposite  : a rush for sensible weight reduction in reason just of the points i've highlighted in mine last intervention.........plus "air drop-ability".


    Militarov wrote:Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position.


    Thing is this FH-77 will much more likely find already in that area (in reason of a much higher strategic and tactical mobility including on road) on the opposing side from three to four times the number of 2A65 guns, moreover ready to engage it from outside its engagement limit.........all meanwhile that enemy industry lines put out 2A65s at 4-5 times the rate and at less than 1/3 of the cost.  

    will stress it one more time: it is not by chance ,but exactly in reason to the crucial and unavoidable force concentration element, that all designs go toward progressively lighter field artillery and , overall, toward a gradual phasing out of those systems in favour of a much higher percentage of self propelled ones.


    About Kurganet-25 level of protection in comparison to any platform in the same category not only in service but even only at the mere feasibility exploration stage, i take the liberty to suggest to abandon very quickly the subject  Wink  

    In the short terms will be available some news on the level of protection of all three new unified platforms that will render eviodent that the level of protection offered are simply of a totally new level in respect to those ones.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16038
    Points : 16669
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:44 am

    So, how many times you saw Krasnopol in units? Ever? I have never seen it except 2 of them fired on artillery exercise in 2013. And here we are talking about MSTA-B as a piece not its ammunition, MSTA-B as a platform is a problem not its ammunition.

    How many units have you seen on exercise... did you see the exercise from start to finish... every shot fired... every target hit or not hit?

    I have never seen it confirmed that Russian soldiers issued with SVD rifles use specialist sniper ammo... for all anyone knows they might just use MG ammo, but I can make some assumptions... like the fact that if you are training troops to fire a gun then firing lots of conventional rounds is a good way to do that. However if the purpose is to kill targets then firing one round that hits is much cheaper than firing a dozen rounds that should effectively deal with the target mathematically.


    APU? Why do they need APU? For balistic computer, for hydraulic pump, for tactical mobility when on firing position, for loading assistance equipment.... APU is the reason why its so much easier to use in field compared to MSTA, no manual winching around, no need for spinal cord manual labor... naturally all the "conventional" systems exist as a backup. Only real disadvantage of APU is IR spectrum signature, that is reason why Yugoslavians did not put APU on their original towed M84 Nora, which proved as good during 1999. war, however when its about Russia which should be able to actually protect its ground assets from air strikes it does not matter much really.

    APUs are not space age, plenty of Anti tank guns had APUs including Sprut... such limited mobility would be important for an anti tank gun but not that important for towed artillery... artillery is hardly an ambush weapon that needs to move the instant after the trap is sprung...

    Other APU issues are cost and weight and unnecessary added complication.

    And i am really sorry but MSTA-B is based on early 70s technology... only really modern features on it from pure engineering aspects are hydraulic counter-recoil "rails" and a emulsion/oil (not rly sure which probably pure oil) cooled recoil brake but those exist for quite some time, still they were very nicely thought out on MSTA.

    Your apology is not necessary... I realise WWI continues to this day in the Balkans, but for the rest of the world the 1970s is not WWI.

    Other than that its extremly and way to simple artillery piece. Biggest issue is apsolute lack of any automation, 0, well except spring breech but its not real automation. It takes 10 minutes to set up position for howtizers like MSTA-B or M84, M46 and similar if you do everything by the book, and that is one of the main issues here, meanwhlie with FH77 if terrain is not too bad you can be ready in minute or so.

    Yes, I hear airport security is no longer bothering with bolt action rifles because they are just so crude and simple and couldn't possibly be used to threaten or kill people in this day and age.

    I find it funny you are trying to portray a weapon system that is simple as also being bad... does it need rails and laser sights and front mounted pistol grips?

    Who cares if it takes a week to set up... you get spotted when you fire and that is when you need to move.... of course considering the MSTA will be operating with the Russian Army and will be operating under its air defence then it can probably take its time to move most of the time.

    I mean seriously even Yugo M84B2 howtizer had pneumatic loading assistance with compressed Nitrogen i belive, lacked naturally APU and other modern features but that was in plans post 1991. which never happened.

    If it never happened then you are not allowed to mention it... Razz Razz


    T15 is IFV which is...not..in...service. Can we please limit ourself to stuff that actually exist in numbers higher than 25. At this point we have only APCs based on tank chasis, in future sure we will have IFVs, possibly not only from Russia. But that is not what we talked here about at all. I used CV90 ans an example of armored vehicle being produced by above mentioned countries.

    This is the Russian Gun Artillery thread the T15 exists and will go into service in the near future... why ignore it?

    CV90 seems to be scandinavian limited vehicle and therefore rather unimportant in military discussions.

    i clearly said in my posts that MSTA-B has advantage with baseline ammunition in range and that its fine piece in terms of mechanical engineering, what did i paint there black and white exacly.

    It is not a sophisticated western weapon so it must be crude and primitive and from WWI... the fact that it shoots further and has a much better range of ammo than the FH70 is unimportant to you.

    I said 5 times already, MSTA-B is good artillery piece from the engineering point of view, however its badly, badly outdated in terms of equipment.

    AK74 is a great rifle, still its going to be replaced in future coz it (among other things) does not have simple rails for electro-optical devices and not that great ergonomy. And its going to be fixed with AK12 or AEK doesnt even matter. Same is with MSTA-B. Its fine from mechanical aspect, but its horrid in "sophisticated" department, come on even famous UK 105mm "light gun" L118 got balistic computer, diagnostics, bore temperature sensors, chamber temperature, position and navigation chip, velocity radar etc... and its supposed to be a toy compared to MSTA-B. I am not sure what are you all trying to say, that MSTA-B is just fine, that it should be kept in this current state next 30 years?

    No. I am claiming you are clearly a fool. The gun doesn't operate on its own in a vaccuum... just because you know of no upgrades to the weapon does not mean that all the troops and equipment and vehicles that operate with it have had no improvements or upgrades.

    Why put an APU on a towed gun and a ballistics computer when such calculations can be made in real time by the recon platforms gathering the data? Are your troops so stupid as to need an electric motor to dial in the elevation and position of the target for them, or could they do that manually without extra cost or complication?

    In minus 30 degrees when that FH77 does not work how space age is it?

    it still wont be slaved to the gun and everything is still manual, and that is part that has to be changed. MSTA-B is not ultra light howtizer it needs partial automation if its to compete.

    Yeah... making it cost more and making it more expensive will make it much better...



    _________________
    “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
    ExBeobachter1987
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2014-11-26
    Age : 29
    Location : Western Eurasia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  ExBeobachter1987 on Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:08 am

    Militarov wrote:Its not like i am saying "Russian artillery sux", i am just saying MSTA-B is not really well suited for modern war anymore. While lack of balistic computer can be partially compensated with hand held BC (http://udcusa.com/training-technical-services/universal-ballistic-computer/ saw this one on Partner military expo) it still wont be slaved to the gun and everything is still manual, and that is part that has to be changed. MSTA-B is not ultra light howtizer it needs partial automation if its to compete.

    "Modern War" is a relative term.
    The MSTA-B is not sufficient against state-of-the-art NATO-artillery.
    None of the opponents who fought the armed forces of the Russian Federation is using state-of-the-art artillery from NATO or allied states, though.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:15 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    So, how many times you saw Krasnopol in units? Ever? I have never seen it except 2 of them fired on artillery exercise in 2013. And here we are talking about MSTA-B as a piece not its ammunition, MSTA-B as a platform is a problem not its ammunition.

    How many units have you seen on exercise... did you see the exercise from start to finish... every shot fired... every target hit or not hit?

    I have never seen it confirmed that Russian soldiers issued with SVD rifles use specialist sniper ammo... for all anyone knows they might just use MG ammo, but I can make some assumptions... like the fact that if you are training troops to fire a gun then firing lots of conventional rounds is a good way to do that. However if the purpose is to kill targets then firing one round that hits is much cheaper than firing a dozen rounds that should effectively deal with the target mathematically.


    APU? Why do they need APU? For balistic computer, for hydraulic pump, for tactical mobility when on firing position, for loading assistance equipment.... APU is the reason why its so much easier to use in field compared to MSTA, no manual winching around, no need for spinal cord manual labor... naturally all the "conventional" systems exist as a backup. Only real disadvantage of APU is IR spectrum signature, that is reason why Yugoslavians did not put APU on their original towed M84 Nora, which proved as good during 1999. war, however when its about Russia which should be able to actually protect its ground assets from air strikes it does not matter much really.

    APUs are not space age, plenty of Anti tank guns had APUs including Sprut... such limited mobility would be important for an anti tank gun but not that important for towed artillery... artillery is hardly an ambush weapon that needs to move the instant after the trap is sprung...

    Other APU issues are cost and weight and unnecessary added complication.

    And i am really sorry but MSTA-B is based on early 70s technology... only really modern features on it from pure engineering aspects are hydraulic counter-recoil "rails" and a emulsion/oil (not rly sure which probably pure oil) cooled recoil brake but those exist for quite some time, still they were very nicely thought out on MSTA.

    Your apology is not necessary... I realise WWI continues to this day in the Balkans, but for the rest of the world the 1970s is not WWI.

    Other than that its extremly and way to simple artillery piece. Biggest issue is apsolute lack of any automation, 0, well except spring breech but its not real automation. It takes 10 minutes to set up position for howtizers like MSTA-B or M84, M46 and similar if you do everything by the book, and that is one of the main issues here, meanwhlie with FH77 if terrain is not too bad you can be ready in minute or so.

    Yes, I hear airport security is no longer bothering with bolt action rifles because they are just so crude and simple and couldn't possibly be used to threaten or kill people in this day and age.

    I find it funny you are trying to portray a weapon system that is simple as also being bad... does it need rails and laser sights and front mounted pistol grips?

    Who cares if it takes a week to set up... you get spotted when you fire and that is when you need to move.... of course considering the MSTA will be operating with the Russian Army and will be operating under its air defence then it can probably take its time to move most of the time.

    I mean seriously even Yugo M84B2 howtizer had pneumatic loading assistance with compressed Nitrogen i belive, lacked naturally APU and other modern features but that was in plans post 1991. which never happened.

    If it never happened then you are not allowed to mention it...   Razz Razz


    T15 is IFV which is...not..in...service. Can we please limit ourself to stuff that actually exist in numbers higher than 25. At this point we have only APCs based on tank chasis, in future sure we will have IFVs, possibly not only from Russia. But that is not what we talked here about at all. I used CV90 ans an example of armored vehicle being produced by above mentioned countries.

    This is the Russian Gun Artillery thread the T15 exists and will go into service in the near future... why ignore it?

    CV90 seems to be scandinavian limited vehicle and therefore rather unimportant in military discussions.

    i clearly said in my posts that MSTA-B has advantage with baseline ammunition in range and that its fine piece in terms of mechanical engineering, what did i paint there black and white exacly.

    It is not a sophisticated western weapon so it must be crude and primitive and from WWI... the fact that it shoots further and has a much better range of ammo than the FH70 is unimportant to you.

    I said 5 times already, MSTA-B is good artillery piece from the engineering point of view, however its badly, badly outdated in terms of equipment.

    AK74 is a great rifle, still its going to be replaced in future coz it (among other things) does not have simple rails for electro-optical devices and not that great ergonomy. And its going to be fixed with AK12 or AEK doesnt even matter. Same is with MSTA-B. Its fine from mechanical aspect, but its horrid in "sophisticated" department, come on even famous UK 105mm "light gun" L118 got balistic computer, diagnostics, bore temperature sensors, chamber temperature, position and navigation chip, velocity radar etc... and its supposed to be a toy compared to MSTA-B. I am not sure what are you all trying to say, that MSTA-B is just fine, that it should be kept in this current state next 30 years?

    No. I am claiming you are clearly a fool. The gun doesn't operate on its own in a vaccuum... just because you know of no upgrades to the weapon does not mean that all the troops and equipment and vehicles that operate with it have had no improvements or upgrades.

    Why put an APU on a towed gun and a ballistics computer when such calculations can be made in real time by the recon platforms gathering the data? Are your troops so stupid as to need an electric motor to dial in the elevation and position of the target for them, or could they do that manually without extra cost or complication?

    In minus 30 degrees when that FH77 does not work how space age is it?

    it still wont be slaved to the gun and everything is still manual, and that is part that has to be changed. MSTA-B is not ultra light howtizer it needs partial automation if its to compete.

    Yeah... making it cost more and making it more expensive will make it much better...


    If you dont have any real argument can you stop replying to my posts please, calling me "fool" doesnt rly help.

    Actually making it cost more by investing into its equipment will make it much better, not sure are you trying to say we should to back to ZiS6 coz its cheap. Pull yourself together...

    Srsly even Serbian snipers are issued sniper ammunition for M76, that is not even remotely comparable. Even IF they were issued standard ammunition its not such great decrease in performance specially not to frontline snipers which we use in Russia and Serbia.

    But i AM allowed to mention it, coz it WAS planned, breakdown of Yugoslavia stopped it, and still doesnt change fact M84B2s have pneumatic loading assistance, on MSTA-B you have your spine. Only APU was sadly never realised, there were ideas of it being applied even to original design but military opted for cheaper/lighter variant, later on B2 they added loading assistance due to fact..well...we know them. APU version was planned for 90s when M46s get completely replaced which never happened.

    I said like 5 times MSTA-B has longer range with baseline ammunition, stop chanting it seriously, and only reason is its L52, if it didnt have longer range it would be somewhat a humiliation. On other hand FH77 B05 L52 is outperforming MSTA-B in that field too, but lets not even bring it here as its new device.

    "Are your troops so stupid as to need an electric motor to dial in the elevation and position of the target for them, or could they do that manually without extra cost or complication?" - maybe coz it reduces response time to target change by.... 10 times? Two main aspects of artillery warfare - mobility and counterbattery performing and evading it. MSTA-B is lacking in both comparared to most of the analogues.

    So... wait.. making Armata platform/Boomerang/K25 to reply purely on optoelectronics and make it full of LCD displays, radars etc etc is great.... but doing same on towed howtizer is bad and it wont work on -30C? How so? Why wouldnt it work on -30C? You wont place of the shelf Android phone on MSTA-B but some ruggerised device. Do i feel some double standards here?

    I am ignoring it due to fact CV90 is 25 years old design. If you see problem there i suggest you to get book from logic or discrete math, i dont have anything else to say on that matter.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:19 pm

    ExBeobachter1987 wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Its not like i am saying "Russian artillery sux", i am just saying MSTA-B is not really well suited for modern war anymore. While lack of balistic computer can be partially compensated with hand held BC (http://udcusa.com/training-technical-services/universal-ballistic-computer/ saw this one on Partner military expo) it still wont be slaved to the gun and everything is still manual, and that is part that has to be changed. MSTA-B is not ultra light howtizer it needs partial automation if its to compete.

    "Modern War" is a relative term.
    The MSTA-B is not sufficient against state-of-the-art NATO-artillery.
    None of the opponents who fought the armed forces of the Russian Federation is using state-of-the-art artillery from NATO or allied states, though.

    I agree there, MSTA-B is sufficiently adequate for local wars, low intensity conflicts which Russia had previous 2 decades but as you said it is not modern piece suited for large scale war with formidable enemy. Not sure where are people picking this stuff how MSTA-B is "state of the art".

    They all say how "artillery is the queen of battle", which i agree, still they defend MSTA-B as adequate "Queen" which i will never agree on.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:47 pm

    MSTA-B is good enough to fight NATO in the same capacity Towed Artillery tubes most NATO countries have.

    It's not exactly a problem of range or precision. It's a problem of detection. Artillery duels in current age shouldn't happen. It should be kill or be killed. However tactically Russians have the blunt force advantage in the sense that they can rely on relative detection and then saturate.

    Never forget, War is a permanent compromise. There's no plan that survives the battle. So having M777 guys brag about 200K USD rounds being popped at will and missing 40% of their targets is no joke. Having Russian artillery guys laughing that they spent 50K USD worth of a salvo on a UA positin and ravaged it, is even less funny. For U crying that is.

    See conflict as is is supposed to happen. I stand by my overall point, most Russian assets are very flexible because they're simple. NATO assets need a pitch perfect SA and coordination to get it done within budget.
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:12 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:I stand by my overall point, most Russian assets are very flexible because they're simple. NATO assets need a pitch perfect SA and coordination to get it done within budget.

    I add most "modern" NATO assets, especially those of EU origin. The late 70s - 90s US-made kit is still pretty solid, see M109A3/A5/A6 and M270 MLRS. M198 is also quite solid and offers cheap solution up to 40 km, there's also gucci munitions for those who can afford it.

    PS. apparently IS operates/-ed a good 50 of M198, Jesus Christ Neutral
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:47 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:MSTA-B is good enough to fight NATO in the same capacity Towed Artillery tubes most NATO countries have.

    It's not exactly a problem of range or precision. It's a problem of detection. Artillery duels in current age shouldn't happen. It should be kill or be killed. However tactically Russians have the blunt force advantage in the sense that they can rely on relative detection and then saturate.

    Never forget, War is a permanent compromise. There's no plan that survives the battle. So having M777 guys brag about 200K USD rounds being popped at will and missing 40% of their targets is no joke. Having Russian artillery guys laughing that they spent 50K USD worth of a salvo on a UA positin and ravaged it, is even less funny. For U crying that is.

    See conflict as is is supposed to happen. I stand by my overall point, most Russian assets are very flexible because they're simple. NATO assets need a pitch perfect SA and coordination to get it done within budget.

    MOST NATO countries, you said it yourself. MSTA-B is fine compared to M198 which i assume we can take as an etalon for NATO towed artillery. However its not match for more sophisticated pieces that are around, some towed some hybrid.

    They however do happen and will happen, war did not go to Space still, Yugoslav wars, War in Iraq, Yemen, Syria they all were quite artillery duel intensive and will be for quite some time. Even in 1999. war artillery was very heavily involved, that is one of the rare occasions where lacking APU was big advantage of M84 Noras, you know why.

    I am not talking about ammunition here, NATO "casual" 155mm ammunition is similary priced as Russian and that is the ammunition that is mainly used, Excalibur and Krasnopol are exotics that we read about. I am just critic of MSTA-B and guys that actually wrote its "state of the art" which it is not, not by a long shot. Its good solid artillery piece and nothing more. Nice advantage of MSTA-B is its L52 tube, but other than that its falling short to analogues, what i am saying, exploit fkn advantage more. Put APU, BC with BMS so you can share data from artillery radar, velocity radar, some small hydraulic crane, burst loader... something.



    Identical attitude.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:52 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:I stand by my overall point, most Russian assets are very flexible because they're simple. NATO assets need a pitch perfect SA and coordination to get it done within budget.

    I add most "modern" NATO assets, especially those of EU origin. The late 70s - 90s US-made kit is still pretty solid, see M109A3/A5/A6 and M270 MLRS. M198 is also quite solid and offers cheap solution up to 40 km, there's also gucci munitions for those who can afford it.

    PS. apparently IS operates/-ed a good 50 of M198, Jesus Christ Neutral

    Tho M198s are mostly going to reserve now with M777s coming into service in bigger numbers at least in the US, others will use it for a while.



    Yeah some 40+ were captured by them in Iraq, questionable how many survived till now. Some reports say they were spotted in Syria too.

    avatar
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:24 pm

    Once again, the issue is detection, not the tube. Also I said good enough, not SOA. It's à 30 year design. What des the trick for the US tubes is their SOP fundamentals. Period.

    If the detection is effective duels shouldn't happen. U crying is testament to that.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5426
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:04 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Once again, the issue is detection, not the tube. Also I said good enough, not SOA. It's à 30 year design. What des the trick for the  US tubes is their SOP fundamentals. Period.

    If the detection is effective duels shouldn't happen. U crying is testament to that.

    Tube is the only real advantage of MSTA actually, yes i took "tube" here literally. While detection is important, noone is questioning that, it will again lead to artillery duels... especially if battlefields are sizeable where Air support is far away, sporadic or challenged by enemy.

    "Artillery duels shouldnt happen", this reminds me now of certain country removing guns from their aircraft back in time claiming how dogfighting is part of history and how it wont happen again.

    My issue with MSTA-B is more from...the crew point of view, not that strategic mojo you guys are trying to discuss here. MSTA-B is physically demanding piece, long march to combat stance changes, no mobility unless towed, all controls are manual... i mean i listed them all above. "Its simple and reliable", sure agreed, now make modernisation package for it that will be simple and reliable...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:48 pm