Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15993
    Points : 16644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:29 pm

    Towed artillery is for small mobile units... counter battery roles will be performed by Smerch... a small mobile unit wont have the counter battery detection radars for the job.

    Of course lets burn everything in the museum because it is clearly obsolete... lets burn all books not produced on modern efficient word processors because if it isn't fucking perfect it is a burden and crude and our artillery expert here hates it.

    Krasnopol wont replace standard ammo, they already have a precision guidance kit to fit standard rounds with GLONASS guidance... I am sure the fact that the MSTA can fire D-20 and current ammo that they will also be able to use the new fuses/guidance kits... but lets no allow for the fact that an Iphone and new rounds will make a gun that Moses would have been familiar with better than Europes space age uber gun...


    _________________
    “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
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5607
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:42 pm

    Seriously i am very sick by now by this retardation if it is not done the "western way" then it is incorrect.

    To gold plate a fucking towed artillery piece with unnecessary gimmick that diminishes its entire tactical mobility, logistics and the ability to be used in conventional way in isolated, small or enclosed battlefields makes it a worthless piece of technology that is only good for hollywood movies.

    The russians and even the americans which are far less known for good artillery have external means to direct fire and not gold plate a simple gun like a howitzer with overexpensive, hard to maintain, hard to sustain technology and maintenance.

    The russians have the Kapustnik-B an Ural-43203 and BTR-80 based Artillery/MRLS commanding, coordinating, Observing and directing mobile Fire Control System that can calculate and provide fire solution for several systems at the same time, regardless if propellant or reactive deployed projectiles. Therefore by this means the current and even the WW2 howtizers can be used with high precision and effeciency enlarging and almost closing the gap between human capability and the maximum potential of the plattform what such old cannons could offer, by that minimizing missfire of barrages and the amount of barrages and rounds needed on targets.

    http://armsdata.net/russia/0167.html





    Even though the Kapustnik-B is used in mobile batteries as an automated mobile artillery command post for vehicles like MRLS and mobile Artilleries like Gvozdika,MSTA-S and others it can calculate  and provide firesolutions for non automated external systems such as howitzers, not the main use of it but they are used. The soviet union had a system prior to it called Mashina-M that did a similiar thing on a different scale and without such an automatization. It can command and direct fire of 50 vehicles at once, meaning 50 artillery pieces which are automated to Kapustnik-B can be directed by it and "work" against 25 targets simultanousley.

    The coordinates of target, correction of fire and fire solution of batteries can be provided directly via this plattform to towed fieldhowitzers or secondary over command based vehicles for ground forces like BMP/BTR based that have the necessary equipment which are usually common in artillery regiments. The only thing that is not automated is the towed guns have to be operated by the crew and they just have to get the bearing, elevation and angle correct which the Kapustnik-B can provide and then the other end has a dooms day.


    The americans are also not far off they have a Hummvee based commanding vehicle along a M54 truck based mobile command and FCS point similiar in capabilities to russian Kapustink-B.

    Maybe you would suggest russians to centralize their SAM capabilities instead of decentralizing it and giving it a far higher effeciency?

    Buy 10 FH77 or buy 100 MSTA-B and two Kapustnik-B batteries what is more effecient?

    Gold plating will always result in hollywood papertigers that are in reality useless because they are to expensive, to prone to malfunctions and does not rely on human capability to adopt to situations at all. NO GPS signal or malfunction of APU and they have to load it manually, with addition weight, with additional complication from its design and with additional pain in the ass of a logistics to support a malfunctioned toy that can not be towed without proper function of the system itself.

    That is why i called you a liar, you claim to be a "Fister" while attempting or at least giving the impression that you have no experience to speak of in that field.

    Sure Kapustnik is not existing in every field but USSR has produced over thousand Mashina-M and Signal-M pieces of this system not counting other systems. Russia still has Mashina-M and Signal-M in inventory and the more modern Kapustnik-B should still exist in good numbers since it is in production since 1993 and total of

    http://bastion-karpenko.ru/bm-21m/

    To find out the total numbers of this system or older systems like Singal or Mashina maybe franco could help with that like it seems it is his profession.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3909
    Points : 3940
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:10 pm

    I don't think Militarov's idea was that Western Way = Best Way.

    What I'm saying is that for Theatre Operations, artillery duels should, not, happen. If you need to fire again and again to silence batteries, then there's something pretty fundamentally flawed with your fire missions.

    Also most long range engagements would have anywhere from 20 to 40 seconds delay from Fire to Effect. CBR's would need about 1.30 minutes to be effective in automatic mode. This means that whatever you need to be done by the Msta-B there's little it can do worse than the current M198 or M777 both tubes needs large crews, take time to set up, take time to fire for effect and are used where there's little threat of counterfire.

    From Zero to Zero the M198 is exposed for 18/20 minutes.

    The M777 normally about half that, although fantasy numbers like 2 minutes for each zero are given.

    Everything else isn't exactly a problem. There are already stand alone solutions (like Tube brace GPS which can be used, although those are South Korean). The automatization again is as much a liability as a solution. Net centric militaries will have that Gordian knot in their nodes of command. The flexibility a dumb system provides, is something people are slowely understanding right now. That's why for somethings Russia should train its soldiers to be invetive and fight like there's no Digital Savior.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5373
    Points : 5418
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:00 am

    GarryB wrote:Towed artillery is for small mobile units... counter battery roles will be performed by Smerch... a small mobile unit wont have the counter battery detection radars for the job.

    Of course lets burn everything in the museum because it is clearly obsolete... lets burn all books not produced on modern efficient word processors because if it isn't fucking perfect it is a burden and crude and our artillery expert here hates it.

    Krasnopol wont replace standard ammo, they already have a precision guidance kit to fit standard rounds with GLONASS guidance... I am sure the fact that the MSTA can fire D-20 and current ammo that they will also be able to use the new fuses/guidance kits... but lets no allow for the fact that an Iphone and new rounds will make a gun that Moses would have been familiar with better than Europes space age uber gun...

    Towed L39 tubes are ment for small units as you said, MSTA on other hand should be in its core significantly more valuble asset, issued on divisional lvl. D30 on other hand should be batallion lvl piece, we can compare it to M777 i guess in current roles, and this is reason why i am cheering for new light towed L39 howtizer to replace D30 in future, maybe even something based on Nona as we already discussed that in other thread.

    I never said we should burn MSTAs, however they should either get modernisation package or get replaced in viable time frame with some more modern towed piece, possibly based on Coalition but alot cheaper due to fact you dont have T90 and autoloader.

    No type of Guided ammunition will never replace conventional artillery shells, at least not in 2 lifetimes. Sure, new fuses and new types of ammunition will be MSTA compatibile no reason not to, however MSTA as a piece is the target of my criticism not its ammunition range wich is more than fine.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5373
    Points : 5418
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:17 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:I don't think Militarov's idea was that Western Way = Best Way.

    What I'm saying is that for Theatre Operations, artillery duels should, not, happen. If you need to fire again and again to silence batteries, then there's something pretty fundamentally flawed with your fire missions.

    Also most long range engagements would have anywhere from 20 to 40 seconds delay from Fire to Effect. CBR's would need about 1.30 minutes to be effective in automatic mode. This means that whatever you need to be done by the Msta-B there's little it can do worse than the current M198 or M777 both tubes needs large crews, take time to set up, take time to fire for effect and are used where there's little threat of counterfire.

    From Zero to Zero the M198 is exposed for 18/20 minutes.

    The M777 normally about half that, although fantasy numbers like 2 minutes for each zero are given.

    Everything else isn't exactly a problem. There are already stand alone solutions (like Tube brace GPS which can be used, although those are South Korean). The automatization again is as much a liability as a solution. Net centric militaries will have that Gordian knot in their nodes of command. The flexibility a dumb system provides, is something people are slowely understanding right now. That's why for somethings Russia should train its soldiers to be invetive and fight like there's no Digital Savior.

    Me and "Western ways" do not go well together, you are right on that one.

    Ah, you are talking about artillery duels in terms of oldschool artillery duels where you are trying to "pick them" on the map. That i agree, in most cases when its about "modern" war that is truly history, i was however refering to artillery duels featuring counterbattery in which i would not like to be part of MSTA-B crew, no offense.

    M777 has certain amount of issues itself, but Russians could learn thing or two from it. But yeah, that 90 seconds setup time they often mention is not really possible especially if you take position for the first time at some place, terrain needs preparation, people seem not to understand that. You cant place howtizer literally anywhere no matter how light it is.

    On other hand i generally agree there when comparing MSTA-B with M198, they are in terms of mobility and general operations very similar, still M198 did saw some updates though last 2 decades in terms of electronics. M777 is abit specific piece so its hard to compare it with anything at this point till i see some nice L39 howtizer from Russia. M777 on other hand is also very physically demanding piece same as MSTA-B and M198 but hey, they wanted "ultra-light" howtizer with no loading assistance, APU or anything so they had to pay on that end.

    I agree there, oldschool backup systems should exist, i never said they should be removed, FH77, even latest version still has all manual controls in place.

    M777 is not my favourite "light" L39 howtizer from the market however, that actually would be SLWH Pegasus.

    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5373
    Points : 5418
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:43 am

    Werewolf wrote:Seriously i am very sick by now by this retardation if it is not done the "western way" then it is incorrect.

    To gold plate a fucking towed artillery piece with unnecessary gimmick that diminishes its entire tactical mobility, logistics and the ability to be used in conventional way in isolated, small or enclosed battlefields makes it a worthless piece of technology that is only good for hollywood movies.

    The russians and even the americans which are far less known for good artillery have external means to direct fire and not gold plate a simple gun like a howitzer with overexpensive, hard to maintain, hard to sustain technology and maintenance.

    The russians have the Kapustnik-B an Ural-43203 and BTR-80 based Artillery/MRLS commanding, coordinating, Observing and directing mobile Fire Control System that can calculate and provide fire solution for several systems at the same time, regardless if propellant or reactive deployed projectiles. Therefore by this means the current and even the WW2 howtizers can be used with high precision and effeciency enlarging and almost closing the gap between human capability and the maximum potential of the plattform what such old cannons could offer, by that minimizing missfire of barrages and the amount of barrages and rounds needed on targets.

    http://armsdata.net/russia/0167.html





    Even though the Kapustnik-B is used in mobile batteries as an automated mobile artillery command post for vehicles like MRLS and mobile Artilleries like Gvozdika,MSTA-S and others it can calculate  and provide firesolutions for non automated external systems such as howitzers, not the main use of it but they are used. The soviet union had a system prior to it called Mashina-M that did a similiar thing on a different scale and without such an automatization. It can command and direct fire of 50 vehicles at once, meaning 50 artillery pieces which are automated to Kapustnik-B can be directed by it and "work" against 25 targets simultanousley.

    The coordinates of target, correction of fire and fire solution of batteries can be provided directly via this plattform to towed fieldhowitzers or secondary over command based vehicles for ground forces like BMP/BTR based that have the necessary equipment which are usually common in artillery regiments. The only thing that is not automated is the towed guns have to be operated by the crew and they just have to get the bearing, elevation and angle correct which the Kapustnik-B can provide and then the other end has a dooms day.


    The americans are also not far off they have a Hummvee based commanding vehicle along a M54 truck based mobile command and FCS point similiar in capabilities to russian Kapustink-B.

    Maybe you would suggest russians to centralize their SAM capabilities instead of decentralizing it and giving it a far higher effeciency?

    Buy 10 FH77 or buy 100 MSTA-B and two Kapustnik-B batteries what is more effecient?

    Gold plating will always result in hollywood papertigers that are in reality useless because they are to expensive, to prone to malfunctions and does not rely on human capability to adopt to situations at all. NO GPS signal or malfunction of APU and they have to load it manually, with addition weight, with additional complication from its design and with additional pain in the ass of a logistics to support a malfunctioned toy that can not be towed without proper function of the system itself.

    That is why i called you a liar, you claim to be a "Fister" while attempting or at least giving the impression that you have no experience to speak of in that field.

    Sure Kapustnik is not existing in every field but USSR has produced over thousand Mashina-M and Signal-M pieces of this system not counting other systems. Russia still has Mashina-M and Signal-M in inventory and the more modern Kapustnik-B should still exist in good numbers since it is in production since 1993 and total of

    http://bastion-karpenko.ru/bm-21m/

    To find out the total numbers of this system or older systems like Singal or Mashina maybe franco could help with that like it seems it is his profession.

    I am not really Westerner, nor do i promote "Western way" in any...well...way. I am critic of both sides depending on topic, you should now that by now...

    I did not serve in artillery so it is not my direct "field of expertise" however i spent quite few days on exercises featuring M46 guns, D30 and M84A/B2 howtizers and shared tent with artillery crews (their officers actually coz i was at non comissioned officer school at that point). And i had exams regarding artillery operations as part of tactics, even tho its not my direct field of interest. I am not claiming i am an expert when its about artillery, however some things are more than obvious. My father on other hand worked on more than few Yugoslavian military projects as mechanical engineer and we often discuss topics like this in free time. ž

    While its all nice and dandy having centralised command posts, how does that exacly relate to MSTA-B being outdated? My criticizm of MSTA came with that in mind, i never had anything to say regarding data flow to the crews, i assumed them being in place. Well, what i would like is if MSTAs got digital FCS slaved to BMS on those vehicles that would send data via Andromeda or some other system but that would be way too much to ask. I am critic of platform itself not support and logistic which i assumed to be working good in first place, for the sake of comparing.

    Gold plating and being modern are two very different things. While West truly tends to make some gold plated systems, i do not find FH77 variations to fit that category, sure it is expencive but it has impressive performance too, especially L52 variant. What i find in that category if F35, Paladin howtizer, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), Zumwalt-class destroyer, F22A and couple more. You dont have to make MSTA-B modernisation to cost billions...or its possible replacement which we can assume might be in form of towed Coalistia variant.
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5607
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jan 20, 2016 7:38 pm

    The MH77 ist the definition of gold plated system.

    Why having a stropon FCS is good but a Kapustnik-B, mobile artillery command post is not?

    The Kapustnik-B will make any FCS strapped on to a field howitzer pale in thousand fold. It is not calculating exlcusivley for one syste but for up to 50 artillery pieces of different kinds, calibres, propellant delivered ammunition or reactive rocket delivered suppositories.

    Alot of the features you have listed are gold plating and in war time never and i mean absolutley never ever is anything working like it should, logistics have break downs, based on dozen of factors from enemy involvement, money cuts, weather, production quality in conditions of war or inferior materials are used to "stretch" their production line with limited quality metals, propellants or whatever. You get the point, the problem with such gold plated howitzers will occure and become a huge liability as soon you have no time or resource to maintain the fancy stuff, power the APU because any sort of fuel is required for operate more important machines or for plain survival to make fire and not freeze to death.

    The FCS can only be maintained with special maintenance kids including specific coded computeres that can read and communicate with FCS and they need constant "zeroing" along with the hydraulic system. We saw what happens with war torn armies that have a very pathetic means of maintenance due to long wearing out wars, depleting manpower among them professionals, money, spare parts and time to react to concentrate or re-coordinate troops. We saw what Syrian BMP-2 and tanks are in quite often conditions in where stabilizators can not be properly maintained and the stabilizator constantly drags the turret into a specific direction.

    All that and the fact that this gold plated features on simple weapons as towed howitzers are nothing you would waste money or time on when you have crucial and vital necessities which you need to fund and to keep on working then all those features become dead weight, that wear down your tactical mobility in a significant magnitude (dead weight needs to be towed which slows down vehicles and with that entire batteries or armed formations, dead weight consumes fuel to be towed while having no use of it, it is heavier and slower to field by crew, takes more preperation time without any use of the dead weight. The crew gets demoralized by the malfunctioning and unsupported equipment they are used to operate with and have to rely on standard spotter, radio and map coordination unless they have not decentralized artilery batterie command post to do it for them and just to have a simple job of adjusting the bearing, elevation and angle of the howitzer to hit the designated target)


    Having decentralized means for entire artillery batteries to have a dedicated, far higher professionalized and specialized crew and a dedicated decentralized network that can even link in to D-1 howitzer of WW2 and give them support in their fire is in my eyes a far superior way of how to spend limited money than on just field howitzers that would consume potential and a lot of money that could be invested with more effeciency and with actual and factual significance on combat effeciency.

    I understand very well the benefits of a standardized FCS and all those technologies but that does not make it better in overall war and combat if and that is beyond doubt it falls short in logistics and that is the rubicon point of no return to FCS and they will be less effecient than D-30 howitzers or MSTA-B that are already operating with observers, radio, map, and artillery correction spotters.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 411
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  VladimirSahin on Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:46 am

    Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all pwnd But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.
    avatar
    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2018
    Points : 2023
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Regular on Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:17 pm

    For hot one on one artillery action You definitely want to have MLRS. Shortest deployement and fastest saturated kaboom delivery on target.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5373
    Points : 5418
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:31 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all pwnd But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.  

    You cant use SPGs everywhere, terrain does not allow that. That is why its quite important to have good fairly mobile towed gun on disposal, as i said above if someone asked me id build on Coalition base one L52 howtizer with APU and everything that comes with it and one L39 in M777 class with minimal possible weight.

    Everyone basically has truck or APC based artillery command posts, it does not however replace onboard FCS slaved to APU. Its all nice that you get calculations from some external platform but you still have to do everything manually after you get the numbers. Takes time and takes physical work.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5373
    Points : 5418
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:41 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The MH77 ist the definition of gold plated system.

    Why having a stropon FCS is good but a Kapustnik-B, mobile artillery command post is not?

    The Kapustnik-B will make any FCS strapped on to a field howitzer pale in thousand fold. It is not calculating exlcusivley for one syste  but for up to 50 artillery pieces of different kinds, calibres, propellant delivered ammunition or reactive rocket delivered suppositories.

    Alot of the features you have listed are gold plating and in war time never and i mean absolutley never ever is anything working like it should, logistics have break downs, based on dozen of factors from enemy involvement, money cuts, weather, production quality in conditions of war or inferior materials are used to "stretch" their production line with limited quality metals, propellants or whatever. You get the point, the problem with such gold plated howitzers will occure and become a huge liability as soon you have no time or resource to maintain the fancy stuff, power the APU because any sort of fuel is required for operate more important machines or for plain survival to make fire and not freeze to death.

    The FCS can only be maintained with special maintenance kids including specific coded computeres that can read and communicate with FCS and they need constant "zeroing" along with the hydraulic system. We saw what happens with war torn armies that have a very pathetic means of maintenance due to long wearing out wars, depleting manpower among them professionals, money, spare parts and time to react to concentrate or re-coordinate troops. We saw what Syrian BMP-2 and tanks are in quite often conditions in where stabilizators can not be properly maintained and the stabilizator constantly drags the turret into a specific direction.

    All that and the fact that this gold plated features on simple weapons as towed howitzers are nothing you would waste money or time on when you have crucial and vital necessities which you need to fund and to keep on working then all those features become dead weight, that wear down your tactical mobility in a significant magnitude (dead weight needs to be towed which slows down vehicles and with that entire batteries or armed formations, dead weight consumes fuel to be towed while having no use of it, it is heavier and slower to field by crew, takes more preperation time without any use of the dead weight. The crew gets demoralized by the malfunctioning and unsupported equipment they are used to operate with and have to rely on standard spotter, radio and map coordination unless they have not decentralized artilery batterie command post to do it for them and just to have a simple job of adjusting the bearing, elevation and angle of the howitzer to hit the designated target)


    Having decentralized means for entire artillery batteries to have a dedicated, far higher professionalized and specialized crew and a dedicated decentralized network that can even link in to D-1 howitzer of WW2 and give them support in their fire is in my eyes a far superior way of how to spend limited money than on just field howitzers that would consume potential and a lot of money that could be invested with more effeciency and with actual and factual significance on combat effeciency.

    I understand very well the benefits of a standardized FCS and all those technologies but that does not make it better in overall war and combat if and that is beyond doubt it falls short in logistics and that is the rubicon point of no return to FCS and they will be less effecient than D-30 howitzers or MSTA-B that are already operating with observers, radio, map, and artillery correction spotters.

    Almost every army has artillery command posts on truck, APC or similar platform that can issue data to batallion or divisional lvl doesnt matter, but what when you have 3 howtizers detached somewhere? I really like having onboard FCS and balistic computer, also having APU makes your life alot easier ifs hydro-electric components are slaved to FCS, faster target change, faster response time...faster.

    Having decentralised platform for calculations is fine i am not aganist it as i already said almost every army has them. APUs on howtizers are not always working and they generally speaking use little fuel, and its same fuel used by trucks that normally tow them it shouldnt be any kind of burden for logistics, also APUs are mostly detachable so maintenance is fairly simple. Electronic components used are i belive on FH77 in this case all off the shelf commercial just well protected, i think latest FN77 L52 variant uses Pentium III 500Mhz CPU in fact.
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5607
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:45 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all pwnd But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.  

    You cant use SPGs everywhere, terrain does not allow that. That is why its quite important to have good fairly mobile towed gun on disposal, as i said above if someone asked me id build on Coalition base one L52 howtizer with APU and everything that comes with it and one L39 in M777 class with minimal possible weight.

    Everyone basically has truck or APC based artillery command posts, it does not however replace onboard FCS slaved to APU. Its all nice that you get calculations from some external platform but you still have to do everything manually after you get the numbers. Takes time and takes physical work.


    Ohh my goodness, military personal has to work? They did not sign up for that!

    Seriously you are driving here a very narrow narrative. towed howitzers still exist because they are cheap and very useful. If FCS and semi automated operation would be so crucial then we would only buy mobile artillery pieces but every military and especially china and russia show that having more of such equipment is more usefull than gold plate them and have them in very few numbers.

    Kapustnik-B is superior because it can provide old as fuck WW2 artillery like D-1 with precalculated trajectory the correct coordinates to eleminate or decrease the CEP to a very impressive minimum while having just a few FH77 is all fine but what means do they have to provide effectiv targeting for old generation Artillery or do this nordic countries have only a dozen pieces in entire country for the entire country to be protected?
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5373
    Points : 5418
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:57 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all pwnd But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.  

    You cant use SPGs everywhere, terrain does not allow that. That is why its quite important to have good fairly mobile towed gun on disposal, as i said above if someone asked me id build on Coalition base one L52 howtizer with APU and everything that comes with it and one L39 in M777 class with minimal possible weight.

    Everyone basically has truck or APC based artillery command posts, it does not however replace onboard FCS slaved to APU. Its all nice that you get calculations from some external platform but you still have to do everything manually after you get the numbers. Takes time and takes physical work.


    Ohh my goodness, military personal has to work? They did not sign up for that!

    Seriously you are driving here a very narrow narrative. towed howitzers still exist because they are cheap and very useful. If FCS and semi automated operation would be so crucial then we would only buy mobile artillery pieces but every military and especially china and russia show that having more of such equipment is more usefull than gold plate them and have them in very few numbers.

    Kapustnik-B is superior because it can provide old as fuck WW2 artillery like D-1 with precalculated trajectory the correct coordinates to eleminate or decrease the CEP to a very impressive minimum while having just a few FH77 is all fine but what means do they have to provide effectiv targeting for old generation Artillery or do this nordic countries have only a dozen pieces in entire country for the entire country to be protected?

    Tired soldier with frozen fingers does not fight, he wants to go somewhere warm and sleep. Patriotism does not replace frostbiten fingers. Less manual labor with winches, hooks, crates etc, the better.

    I can write you program that does the same to run on your laptop or Windows phone...you dont really need a vehicle for that. You actually can make it with Excel and some Visual Basic macros...you give way too much credit to it. If it was capable of feeding that data into atm unexisting artillery BMS then sure, since you still have to use field phone or paper... ty but no ty.
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5607
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:45 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Tired soldier with frozen fingers does not fight, he wants to go somewhere warm and sleep. Patriotism does not replace frostbiten fingers. Less manual labor with winches, hooks, crates etc, the better.

    I can write you program that does the same to run on your laptop or Windows phone...you dont really need a vehicle for that. You actually can make it with Excel and some Visual Basic macros...you give way too much credit to it. If it was capable of feeding that data into atm unexisting artillery BMS then sure, since you still have to use field phone or paper... ty but no ty.

    Tired soldiers who have it warm will also want to go somwhere else where it is chilly and sleep and not fight.

    I know what you mean but FH77 is inferior in exactly that, being unsuitable and logistically retarded Kapustnik-B is the solution to go to keep costs low and combat effeciency high of all artillery pieces.

    Yes you need a vehicle for that, because this vehicle is connected to forward observers (ground and even aviation) for artillery correcting fire in real time. It can provide simultanously to different artillery pieces of different calibres and projectiles their trajectory and how to aim their guns to minimize CEP no laptop can do that, a simple laptop lacks that very network centric distribution of information of artillery and feedback of the forward observer, spotter and artillery correctors.

    Gold plated toys never have won anything.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15993
    Points : 16644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:49 am

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

    Who is arguing?

    You presented your opinion and I responded point by point.

    If you would like to discuss it further then by all means do.

    If you want to dismiss my opinions as not worth your time then you are free to do so.

    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...

    It is called cost benefit analysis... making something more complicated and more expensive to make it more effective in its primary or even secondary role is acceptable as long as the improvement warrants the cost and added complication.

    As already mentioned... the Russian weapon has better range and better accuracy... adding assisted loading will increase rate of fire... but if rate of fire was so important then a Grad would be a better tool than a towed gun.


    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.

    So snipers will use accurate rounds to hit their targets but artillery units wont use guided shells because they think it is more fun to fire 50 rounds at a target area than one to kill a specific target...


    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.

    So it was PLANNED so you can mention it... great... T-15 is planned too and will enter service. Coalition is also planned so I can mention it too... both in its tracked and wheeled versions...

    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.

    Of course you can bring it here... just like the towed model of Coalition is a new device and will likely replace MSTA-B...

    - maybe coz it reduces response time to target change by.... 10 times?

    But the fact that the battery will be firing guided shells suggests the requirement for a full battery salvo on one target might not be so necessary. When each gun gets its own target it can engage more targets faster... and considering it would be shoot and scoot... and of course the fact that the MSTA-B can fire jamming rounds that could be fired at NATO artillery radar positions to negate NATOs ability to find the towed guns in the first place are all factors you ignore.

    Against the Muj in Afghanistan they wont know the difference between any of the guns mentioned.

    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 the two main aspects of artillery don't include actually hitting targets and supporting the units it is attached to... wouldn't that mean the best support artillery is nothing because it can never be defeated by counter battery fire...

    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?

    Systems inside a vehicle are better protected from the elements than something towed behind a truck across dirt roads.

    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".

    Perhaps the fact that you call it simple yet at the same time it has better range and accuracy than the state of the art western weapons you are so desperate to prove are perfect.

    WWI and Space Age was your comparison.

    M270 MLRS. M198 is also quite solid and offers cheap solution up to 40 km,

    Hahahaha... M270 is a joke... a very expensive joke.

    It is based on the Bradley IFV.... which is great for the US as they operate Bradley IFVs, but for the rest of NATO it is just another vehicle platform with new wheels and new tracks and new engine and transmission they need to add to their inventory.

    Compared with Uragan the M270 is a 227mm calibre rocket system that has no range advantage, has 4 less tubes per platform, has no accuracy advantage and no obvious mobility advantage over the 220mm calibre Uragan, but it is much more expensive to buy and to operate.

    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.

    Have you talked to Vlad about this?

    Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with his introduction... specifically the company he works for and some of the products it makes...

    Perhaps they have other things to focus on before upgrading something that will be replaced soon, or perhaps there are upgrades that you just don't know anything about.

    What I am saying is that it is very stupid to complain about the bad state of things from the outside where you don't actually know the state of things except what you are told.

    No type of Guided ammunition will never replace conventional artillery shells, at least not in 2 lifetimes. Sure, new fuses and new types of ammunition will be MSTA compatibile no reason not to, however MSTA as a piece is the target of my criticism not its ammunition range wich is more than fine.

    The standard Coalition shell will be guided. The new fuses developed fit rounds of 152mm calibre and larger and include steering fins and a GLONASS guidance module.

    they will start out at 1K US per shot and will likely get cheaper and will greatly increase the number of targets each vehicle can engage at one time... each shot a different target...

    It is like the Gefest & T upgrade for Su-24s making them almost as accurate with dumb bombs as more modern aircraft are with guided weapons. Of course there will be cases where the specific location of the target is unknown so less accuracy and more volume is needed... but then a Grad would be much better suited...

    For hot one on one artillery action You definitely want to have MLRS. Shortest deployement and fastest saturated kaboom delivery on target.

    And with 300mm calibre Smerch 120km range to play with...

    I can write you program that does the same to run on your laptop or Windows phone...you dont really need a vehicle for that. You actually can make it with Excel and some Visual Basic macros...you give way too much credit to it. If it was capable of feeding that data into atm unexisting artillery BMS then sure, since you still have to use field phone or paper... ty but no ty.

    Haha... the Russians are moving to a net centric military force but their towed artillery units will be issued with abacus's for calculations... right.

    I find it amusing all the upgrades they are applying to their rocket artillery like Grad and the new Tornado systems that are fully automated and even their MANPADS operators are getting sophisticated battle management systems like Barnaul, but Towed artillery get nothing... you are the one making the claims can you back them up.

    I am not saying you are wrong here, but some proof with the whine would be nice.


    _________________
    “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
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3909
    Points : 3940
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:08 am

    Militarov wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all pwnd But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.  

    You cant use SPGs everywhere, terrain does not allow that. That is why its quite important to have good fairly mobile towed gun on disposal, as i said above if someone asked me id build on Coalition base one L52 howtizer with APU and everything that comes with it and one L39 in M777 class with minimal possible weight.

    Everyone basically has truck or APC based artillery command posts, it does not however replace onboard FCS slaved to APU. Its all nice that you get calculations from some external platform but you still have to do everything manually after you get the numbers. Takes time and takes physical work.

    Actually the cost benefit of using a towed tube is even less interesting. Since instead of one low pressure mass, you have two of them (Tractor and gun carriage). This means that you have the place to manoeuvre the carriage and tractor.

    There are areas where tubes are important. Especially aero-transported tubes (like in hilltops etc. lifted by helicopter).

    Also given the MSTA-B is 7/8 tons that means that the lighter carrier would set up the total at 20/22 tons (non withstanding ammo and troops). It's not that much better than the BM27. Range is a factor off course, there's no lighter SPG that would have better range (the 2s1 is nowhere near). And the 2s3 has shorter range. So indeed an organic transport solution would be interesting (like the NORA) but like the Nora the weight jumps up to 30+ tons/

    For the automatization issue, there will be solutions from Russia and abraod. GPS braces seem the most promising. However, the tactical use of MSTA-B allows for time and effort to be put forth.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1019
    Points : 1042
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:11 am

    To see what Russia is thinking on artillery, it is necessary to look at what is being done and at what is being anoounced. The new 2S25, 2S34 and 2S35 are all self propelled, and also will be the future 2S36 Zauralets recently announced. There is a new light MRLS, the Tornado, and there are new Surface-Surface systems like the SS-26 Iskander. Also man-portable guns of all the types are being done, but we do not see new heavy towed guns over man-portable size being developed or becoming succesful in the last decades in Russia. All these alternatives seem to be taking the place of the heavy towed artillery.

    Historically the towed versions of artillery pieces come first, since they are easier to desing and build, but this is not being the case with the new guns. While we have the first self propelled vehicles publicly presented, we have not news about their possible heavy towed twins. It seems to me that are not being developed because Russia need not them. Russia would have stronger alternatives, as mentioned in this thread, for every type of job that the heavy towed artillery has done until now.

    Also this would explain a situation where the heavy towed pieces but seems to have not updates and improvements themselves, but can use the modern ammunition that is being designed for their self propelled twins because they would have longer life in service and in the reserve.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1019
    Points : 1042
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:34 am

    It would be very interesting if Franco can do his estimations about the number of heavy towed artillery pieces (over man-portable size) in the Russian Army and the Russian Airborne, as updated as possible. Basically:

    2A65B Msta B
    2A18M D-30
    2B16 Nona K
    2A36 Giantsint B
    2A29 MT-12 Rapira
    2B9 Vasilek

    The numbers of the public sources are not in agreement and seems to be changing in some cases.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu May 12, 2016 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9988
    Points : 10478
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  George1 on Sat Mar 05, 2016 8:47 am

    Also i would like to know if Sprut-B 2A45M Self-propelled towed gun is in service. It could replace older Rapira anti tank guns i guess


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1019
    Points : 1042
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:03 pm

    George1 wrote:Also i would like to know if Sprut-B 2A45M Self-propelled towed gun is in service. It could replace older Rapira anti tank guns i guess

    From what I know the 2A45M Sprut-B was adopted in 1988, but has not been ordered. Checking some sources I find not units in active service or in the reserve.

    This was the last heavy towed weapon over man-portable size adopted by the Sovietic/Russian Armed Forces.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1019
    Points : 1042
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Fri Mar 11, 2016 10:57 am

    Militarov wrote:

    Identical attitude.

    This picture made me smile, but I would not agree totally with the point.

    I do not think think this is the overall attitude of the Russian Armed Forces. It is proved that they work for improving technologically their weapons in every sector. Except on this. Russia is expending on improve its artillery, but its self propelled artillery, not the towed.

    The question is to think why, to think about the reason for it. If the heavy towed artillery over man portable size, including the 2A65 Msta-B that you commented, is not being improved, there is a reason for it. If there are not updates or upgrades for the existing models, if there are not new weapons of this type adopted since almost 30 years, and even the last was not ordered, there is a reason for it.

    When one person or organization does this? The people or organizations expend not in the things which end is coming fast and they plan or want to replace. As example, you expend not on a car that you are planning to replace. This is what I see here.

    Russia needs not to replace all the heavy towed artillery pieces over man-portable size while they are useful, while their life is not finished, but Russia would be able to remove all them from the active service in the short-term. According to the warfare.be numbers, Russia has:

    152mm
    396 2A65B Msta-B in active service
    131 2A36 Giatsint-B in active service
    vs
    some 2S19 Msta-S in the reserve
    500+ 2S5 Giatsint-S in the reserve
    1600 2S3 Akatsiya in the reserve
    with the new 2S35 Koalitsiya coming.

    122mm
    564 2A18M D-30 in active service
    vs
    1400 2S1 Gvozdika (self-propelled twin of the D-30)

    120mm
    18 2B16 Nona-K
    vs
    -
    with more 2S34 Chosta (upgrade from the available in the reserve 2S1 Gvozdika) and the 2S36 Zauralets-D projected.
    (also 120 2S4 Tyulpan of 240mm in the reserve)

    100/125mm
    456 2A29 MT-12 Rapira
    vs
    8000 T-72 in the reserve
    4500 T-80 in the reserve
    with the new 2S25 Sprut-SDM1 coming (I would rename this weapon because it is totally new: 2S37?), and the new T-14 Armata coming.
    (The 2A45M Sprut-B of 125mm was projected as successor of the 2A29 MT-12 Rapira of 100mm, but was not ordered, and uses the same ammunition of the current Russian Main Battle Tanks).
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15993
    Points : 16644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:33 am

    The thing is that they would already be using 120mm mortars in current brigades... just like current tanks use 125mm guns in current brigades...

    I think the 120mm mortar is a very effective weapon and could be made more so with guided ammo and other improved model rounds to further improve performance... new propellants and longer barrels to improve range etc etc.

    I understand that going for a higher calibre makes some sense but the next calibre up from the 120mm in mortar design in Russia means a 160mm mortar and while that is only 40mm larger calibre the bombs are significantly heavier... 120mm bombs are about 16kg, while 160mm bombs are 40kgs plus.

    I would think a 120mm gun mortar able to fire shells and mortar rounds and guided missiles of 120mm and 122mm design with longer barrels for better range and better targeting would be potent enough in a brigade structure that already includes 152mm vehicles based on Coalition and rocket artillery vehicles able to carry Smerch, Uragan, and Grad rockets.

    For the vehicle families the Armata could easily carry a 160mm mortar or even a 240mm but I think the lighter vehicles would struggle, both in terms of recoil and available rounds due to weight and size.

    Personally... and this is just my opinion... I think continuing to use the 120mm mortar for mortar carriers with improvements in performance as mentioned above makes sense... standardises a calibre... and would certainly be potent enough for most tasks.

    Where heavier rounds are needed variants of the vehicles with 160mm or 240mm mortars could be developed that are kept in reserve for when they might be needed.

    In the short term the 2S range of vehicles can be kept in reserve in terms of the 240mm mortar vehicle and the 203mm heavy artillery vehicle for situations where such fire power is needed. (ie 2S4 and 2S7 kept in reserve with new ammo types developed for them and over time a new "new family" version of them could be developed and either kept in reserve or put in specific units that engage in the sort of fighting where such capability might be considered worth the penalties of the weight and size of the weapons.

    Note... some times a 16kg bomb is just not enough and a 120kg HE shell from a 240mm mortar is what you need to get the job done... or a 110kg shell from a 203mm gun is needed. Much of the time such heavy rounds would be counter productive, but in mountains or heavy forest or heavily dug in enemy forces some times you need more punch.

    Of course each unit already has excellent fire power including 152mm and 120mm and 125mm and soon 57mm and of course TOS and Rocket artillery etc etc and of course Helicopter and CAS...

    Communication and guided shells makes really big rounds much more specialised... you no longer have to level a city to take it.


    _________________
    “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 : 1019
    Points : 1042
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:35 am

    GarryB wrote:The thing is that they would already be using 120mm mortars in current brigades... just like current tanks use 125mm guns in current brigades...

    I think the 120mm mortar is a very effective weapon and could be made more so with guided ammo and other improved model rounds to further improve performance... new propellants and longer barrels to improve range etc etc.

    I understand that going for a higher calibre makes some sense but the next calibre up from the 120mm in mortar design in Russia means a 160mm mortar and while that is only 40mm larger calibre the bombs are significantly heavier... 120mm bombs are about 16kg, while 160mm bombs are 40kgs plus.

    I would think a 120mm gun mortar able to fire shells and mortar rounds and guided missiles of 120mm and 122mm design with longer barrels for better range and better targeting would be potent enough in a brigade structure that already includes 152mm vehicles based on Coalition and rocket artillery vehicles able to carry Smerch, Uragan, and Grad rockets.

    For the vehicle families the Armata could easily carry a 160mm mortar or even a 240mm but I think the lighter vehicles would struggle, both in terms of recoil and available rounds due to weight and size.

    Personally... and this is just my opinion... I think continuing to use the 120mm mortar for mortar carriers with improvements in performance as mentioned above makes sense... standardises a calibre... and would certainly be potent enough for most tasks.

    Where heavier rounds are needed variants of the vehicles with 160mm or 240mm mortars could be developed that are kept in reserve for when they might be needed.

    In the short term the 2S range of vehicles can be kept in reserve in terms of the 240mm mortar vehicle and the 203mm heavy artillery vehicle for situations where such fire power is needed. (ie 2S4 and 2S7 kept in reserve with new ammo types developed for them and over time a new "new family" version of them could be developed and either kept in reserve or put in specific units that engage in the sort of fighting where such capability might be considered worth the penalties of the weight and size of the weapons.

    Note... some times a 16kg bomb is just not enough and a 120kg HE shell from a 240mm mortar is what you need to get the job done... or a 110kg shell from a 203mm gun is needed.  Much of the time such heavy rounds would be counter productive, but in mountains or heavy forest or heavily dug in enemy forces some times you need more punch.

    Of course each unit already has excellent fire power including 152mm and 120mm and 125mm and soon 57mm and of course TOS and Rocket artillery etc etc and of course Helicopter and CAS...

    Communication and guided shells makes really big rounds much more specialised... you no longer have to level a city to take it.

    Surely also today, like in the past, the trend is to use bigger calibers that allow to increase the power of the fire. It is possible thanks to the technical improvements that allow to reduce the size of the platforms and to design platforms that absorb better the efforts of the firing process.

    About artillery weapons used in mobile platforms, I tend to think that while the bigger calibers will see improvements, and will se its use increased, the smaller calibers would tend to have smaller use. I'm talking about self-propelled vehicles. At same time, the smaller calibers in self propelled vehicles are the biggest calibers in light portable/man-portable weapons.

    In the case of Russia, it would mean a trend to increase the use of the 240mm, 203mm and 152mm calibers (today very low in some case), and a trend to decrease the use of the 120mm, 122mm, 125mm and 130mm (today very high in some case).

    By standardization reasons I do not expect new calibers, or the recovery of old calibers like the 160mm for mortars, but yes new ammunition (in some case for new roles) for the calibers with a trend to increased use. As example, I expect in the future tank-antitank ammunition of 152mm, I expect in the future ammunition for indirect fire for 152mm and 203mm, and guns to use all them.

    At this point the ammunition of 120mm, 122mm and 125mm is far from obsolete for self-propelled vehicles, but I doubt if they will remain long enough to be useful the entire life os service of a new generation of artillery pieces based on the new platforms. We can be talking of new self-propelled vehciles that should be around still in 50-60 years from now. The use of the 125mm and 120mm calibers makes sense to me for the BMD-4M platform, the smallest, with the new 2S25M Sprut-SDM1 and 2S36 Zauralets-D, but for bigger platforms, for me it would make sense to make a 152mm weapon that can combine direct and indirect fire in the mold of the current 120mm gun.

    The 125mm has been adopted for the new Armata tanks, but there is a talk about future stronger guns for the tank role on this platform.

    Following with the argument, while the 120mm caliber can see its use decreased for self propelled vehicles, can have increasing use as a caliber for portable/man-portable weapons, as the big artillery caliber used today for this role. Here I can see the 82mm mortars being gradually replaced with the time by 120mm mortars that should be lighter than the current 2B12 Sani, and may reach sizes under 100Kg.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15993
    Points : 16644
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:40 am

    I think there wont be a move to super heavy calibres...

    The Soviet Army was very effective in WWII with 152mm and 203mm guns, where the 203mm guns were long range heavy fire power weapons and the 152mm guns were used in enormous numbers.

    It was like the tens of thousands of T-34s and less than 6,000 Tigers... the lighter cheaper vehicle means more in service and easier mobility etc etc.

    120mm mortar rounds are very effective... they were in WWII... even the Germans adopted them after being on the receiving end from Soviet units.

    Heavier mortars are simply not really justified... even a guided 120mm mortar round with a shaped charge would penetrate any western tank even today... there is no value in going for a larger calibre as it would reduce ammo capacity and make loading slower.

    In terms of main gun calibres I suspect the 100mm and 30mm will no longer be carried by IFVs. The APCs might still carry 30mm guns but 57mm high velocity guns will replace the 30mm guns in IFV use and AA use, while 57mm HE shells and 120mm shells make 100mm rounds redundant.

    152mm tank gun calibre rounds wont be used unless there is no other option as they will be heavy and slow to load and wont be carried in large numbers.

    The 125mm calibre will be kept as will the 120mm mortar and 152mm artillery rounds, while the 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rockets will continue to be used in longer ranged versions with improved accuracy and extended range in all calibres making up for not increasing the calibre.



    _________________
    “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 : 1019
    Points : 1042
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  eehnie on Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:18 pm

    I tend to think that something between the 120mm and the 240mm mortar ammunition will be developed. The gap between both is too big, and sometimes the 120mm is not strong enough vs bunkers and fortified positions. This would be basically the justification of some caliber between both, and the most likely option would be the 152mm caliber (and in lower measure, the 203mm caliber).

    Also, as happened with smaller calibers before, I tend to think that the defenses of the tanks will be able to make less effective the ammunition of 125mm. And again the 152mm caliber is the most likely option for a new tank-antitank caliber.

    In the future I would expect the 152mm becoming the main artillery caliber, with significantly lower use of the 203mm and 240mm calibers, but higher than its current use.

    The calibers in the 120-130mm range, can lose their current position as main calibers (taking in to account also the tanks), but will remain in use in self propelled vehicles for long time. At least until the early T-14 Armatas and the BMD-4M based artillery are retired.

    At same time the 120mm caliber can become the main caliber for portable/man-portable light artillery carried by the infantry.

    These can be changes for a long term projection. The 152mm caliber can become the main caliber in 40 years from now, surely not before. But this is something that must be considered in the design of the new generation of artillery self-propelled vehicles based on the new platforsm of mid and big size, because the designs that can be adopted in the begin of the next decade should be in the Russian armed forces until around 2070.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Gun Artillery: Discussion Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 27, 2017 9:58 am