Russian Gun Artillery Thread

Oldest safe stuff first, but proximity fuses are not a new invention and have a long history for the Soviet military...

Currently Russians have so many different artillery systems from Soviet era. And ammo stockpiles for these systems is mind boggling. I am thinking if it's rational to upgrade at least a part of them.
There are some light upgrades for some systems already. But isn't it a good idea to have such upgrades for every system down there?

This list does not include other older systems currently in reserve.
1) 122 mm 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled and D-30 towed howitzers. Both are still used by RAF and there are also great numbers left in reserve. The former has received M1 modernization which improves FCS and provides new shells (the range is still the same, so I'm not sure about details). The latter was upgraded for the last time in 1978.
2) 152.4mm 2S19 Msta-S, 2A65 Msta-B and 2S3 Akatsya howitzers. While Msta-S received quite impressive SM1 (for already built vehicles) and SM2 (new vehicles) modernizations, 2S3's latest upgrade dates from 2006 and provides new FCS only. Msta-B does not have any upgrades at all.
3) Both 152.4mm self-propelled 2S5 Giatsint-S and towed 2A36 Giatsint-B guns do not have any upgrades at all.

Almost all of these systems had at least one experimental modification which could improve their effectiveness by quite a lot.
Why do you think Russian MoD scrapped them?

BliTTzZ wrote:Currently Russians have so many different artillery systems from Soviet era. And ammo stockpiles for these system is mind boggling. I am thinking if it's rational to upgrade at least part of them.
There are some light upgrades for some systems. But isn't it a good idea to have them for every one down there?
...
Almost all of these systems had at least one experimental modification which could improve their effectiveness by quite a lot.
Why do you think Russian MoD scrapped them?

That is just typical Russian arms industry. They propose a godawful amount of upgrade programs which quite often do not get funded. You see this in all sorts of army programs. I lost track on the amount of proposed BMP-2 upgrades for example.

A lot of these programs were indeed funded. As for why they were not funded more. Do not forget we have been waiting for Koalitsiya for like a decade. It is supposed to be a vast improvement over Msta. As with other army programs it is delayed. A lot of armies have put emphasis on robotic artillery platforms and tried to unify calibers around 150mm or similar. The Russian Army, I guess, went through a similar phase. But you still saw several of these upgraded systems enter actual service. It is just that the Ukraine operation is way larger than anything else that was under consideration which might be an operation more on the scale of the Syrian one.

You can easily upgrade their perfs by adding a digital tablette that connects it to the other plateforms like drones or scoot teams.

But must already be the case.

Almost all of these systems had at least one experimental modification which could improve their effectiveness by quite a lot.
Why do you think Russian MoD scrapped them?

There are lots of variables and you mentioned some of them... for a while they were talking about replacing all of the 2S1 x 122mm guns and D-30 towed 122mm guns with 120mm gun/mortars just to get rid of that extra calibre. Having 122mm and 120mm and 125mm and also 115mm calibre seems a bit of a waste considering they are all very similar in terms of HE power on the receiving end.

The 120mm was not quite the equal of the 122mm calibre in terms of range but was pretty close and could also use 120mm mortar bombs and laser homing missiles like  Gran, and also Kitilov guided rounds designed for 122mm guns as well.

The plan was that the enormous number of 2S1 vehicles in 122mm would be upgraded to Hosta 2S34 or something with a 120mm gun/mortar which reduced HE firing range by about 3km from 15km to about 12km, while the D-30s were going to be scrapped completely, resulting in the elimination of an entire calibre from the inventory.

But then Syria happened and the 2S1 and the D-30 proved to be very useful and very capable... upgrades meant they didn't need to be lined up to fire and they proved to be very useful despite not having enormous range... except for counter battery fire that often does not matter.

I would hope experience in Ukraine will make them realise how effective artillery is even in this day and age... and getting a look at new western systems should be rather interesting too.

Hopefully they will realise how useful it is on land and at sea... an upgrade to the Atlant class with a 250km range 203mm gun with guided shells could have resulted in the Moskva using its radar for scanning for threats but also being able to shell shore based enemy positions including rocket and artillery as well as any anti ship missile positions too...

That is just typical Russian arms industry. They propose a godawful amount of upgrade programs which quite often do not get funded. You see this in all sorts of army programs. I lost track on the amount of proposed BMP-2 upgrades for example.

That is just healthy competition... lots of different companies wanting work and wanting to improve Russias arsenal.

Do not forget we have been waiting for Koalitsiya for like a decade. It is supposed to be a vast improvement over Msta.

Standard shells to 70km with guided shells as standard sounds pretty good... new extra long range HE shells to 180km for the future look even better on land and at sea.

New propellent, new technologies, new materials...

Last but not least, you have a brand new production running for both 2S19M2 and 2S35.

Not just that but also the new truck mounted 2S vehicle and the 2S35 version with the 2S35 turret on a truck chassis...

lancelot wrote:That is just typical Russian arms industry. They propose a godawful amount of upgrade programs which quite often do not get funded. You see this in all sorts of army programs. I lost track on the amount of proposed BMP-2 upgrades for example.

And I personally think this is a great idea to have that many upgrade programs. This is a great opportunity for Russian MoD to choose the one that is best for their liking. I just really wish modernization and repair rates were a bit higher and for more artillery systems. That is why Russian MoD also announced that 2 new factories will be built exclusively for repairs and modernizations. Great news!

lancelot wrote: A lot of these programs were indeed funded. As for why they were not funded more. Do not forget we have been waiting for Koalitsiya for like a decade. It is supposed to be a vast improvement over Msta. As with other army programs it is delayed. A lot of armies have put emphasis on robotic artillery platforms and tried to unify calibers around 150mm or similar. The Russian Army, I guess, went through a similar phase. But you still saw several of these upgraded systems enter actual service. It is just that the Ukraine operation is way larger than anything else that was under consideration which might be an operation more on the scale of the Syrian one.

And it is really great. I don't think these programs cost much. It also creates competition between Russian manufacturers to offer the best option for domestic or foreign customers.
I've seen modernized 2S3s, 2S19s and others. Just thinking if all remaning systems could have received upgrades as well. Something that will improve their FCS at least.

ALAMO wrote:And how one should in detail answer to this kind of "question" that has a second bottom already?
Well my "innocent question asking" friend, you are wrong all way long.

I have been reading this forum for years and posted some messages from time to time, but nothing serious. Now I'm eager to discuss some things with foreigners who think about Russia like I do. Who fully support Russia and her actions.
It is quite a rare thing to find these days among foreigners. From my personal experience at least. I hope with this explanation I have cleared your doubts and suspicions.

ALAMO wrote:They are rebuilding 2S1 brand new, with 120mm mortar replacing 122mm gun - a program is going.

2S34 Khosta is a self-propelled mortar that has different role compared to basic 2S1 howitzer, including supporting units on a batallion level. Khosta is a good compromise since it has components from 2S31 Vena and some other things from newer self-propelled mortars like Floks or Drok. Back in 2016 there were already a couple of dozens 2S34s.

ALAMO wrote:2S5 is in a constant upgrade cycle.

2S5 Giatsint-S gun does not have any serial modernizations. I know only about 2S5M and 2S5M1 which were experimental.
Giatsint-B has Dilemma 2A36M modernization program. I have made a mistake in my previous claim...

ALAMO wrote:2S3 and 2S3M are being turned to 2S3M1 and M2.

To be more accurate all 2S3, 2S3M and 2S3M1 are being modernized to SM2 standarts.

ALAMO wrote:2S19 is in constant upgrade cycle, 2S19M2

2S19M1 is a modernization for already built vehicles and SM2s are new vehicles built from scratch.

ALAMO wrote:2S7 is in 2S7M Malyaka modernization cycle, stored units are gradually taken out of a storage bases and refurbish.

That's good, but 2S7M Malka is a Soviet modernization from 1986. It's a good modernization but don't you think it still needs some improvement with current standarts?

Also 2S4 Tiulpan could get an upgrade.

GarryB wrote:There are lots of variables and you mentioned some of them... for a while they were talking about replacing all of the 2S1 x 122mm guns and D-30 towed 122mm guns with 120mm gun/mortars just to get rid of that extra calibre. Having 122mm and 120mm and 125mm and also 115mm calibre seems a bit of a waste considering they are all very similar in terms of HE power on the receiving end.

The 120mm was not quite the equal of the 122mm calibre in terms of range but was pretty close and could also use 120mm mortar bombs and laser homing missiles like  Gran, and also Kitilov guided rounds designed for 122mm guns as well.

The plan was that the enormous number of 2S1 vehicles in 122mm would be upgraded to Hosta 2S34 or something with a 120mm gun/mortar which reduced HE firing range by about 3km from 15km to about 12km, while the D-30s were going to be scrapped completely, resulting in the elimination of an entire calibre from the inventory.

But then Syria happened and the 2S1 and the D-30 proved to be very useful and very capable... upgrades meant they didn't need to be lined up to fire and they proved to be very useful despite not having enormous range... except for counter battery fire that often does not matter.

I would hope experience in Ukraine will make them realise how effective artillery is even in this day and age... and getting a look at new western systems should be rather interesting too.

Yes, having a lot of calibers is not good for logistics. However having so many 122mm howitzers in reserve will still prove useful some day. D-30 could get a modern modification.

I have found interesting information that Soviets in the late 80-ies designed 2 new 152.4mm systems to replace 122mm Gvozdika and D-30.
These are Pat-B (towed) and Pat-S (self-propelled) howitzers.
While weapon range is the same, shells are more powerful and also it simplifies logistics.

It would have been like this:
1) various mortars of 82mm and 120mm caliber with range up to 15 km for batallions;
2) 152.4mm Pat-B and Pat-S with range up to 20 km for regiments;
3) 152.4mm Msta-B and Msta-S with range up to 30 km for divisions;
4) 152.4mm Giatsint-B and Giatsint-C with range up to 40 km for corps;
5) 240mm Tiulpan Mortar and 203mm Pion SPG Headquarters of the Supreme High Command.

Kamaz based vehicle is wheeled version of 2S35 Koalitsya and second one is 2S43 Malva, which uses the same gun as Msta-S. I suppose Malva is here to replace towed Msta-Bs. And I wondered why you need Malva when it's better to use the same Coalition system but on wheeled chassis? I think used Msta-B howitzers are removed from their chassie and will be used in new Malvas with mobile BAZ wheeled chassie. So it's a cheap and cost efficient way to make your artillery forces more mobile until wheeled and tracked Coalition arrives in greater numbers.

What about American M1156 PGK for artillery shells? While on paper it looks good, but then why there are so few produced (less than 100.000 I guess)? Russians developed something similar (Dinamika module from MKB Kompas) but the project was abandoned.

The same question is about advanced artillery shells with ramjet engine. Norwegian-American project promises more than 150 km range with decent precision and price. Before similar previous projects from the US failed miserably due to very high cost and unreliability. Do you know something about it?

Yes, having a lot of calibers is not good for logistics. However having so many 122mm howitzers in reserve will still prove useful some day. D-30 could get a modern modification.

In terms of calibre they have lots of other options in a similar range... as I mentioned.... 115mm and 120mm and 125mm and even 130mm, but I think in terms of artillery there is still room for 122mm artillery.

It has been found to be rather useful and has the potential to be more mobile than heavier 152mm guns and offer good rate of fire and decent effects on target.

They have a lot of vehicles and lots of spare parts to keep them operating for decades (which was part of the reason they were converting some to 120mm gun/mortar simply because they have so many available for use).

Being very mobile a shortage of 3km could be made up by simply moving position and firing at a target from slightly closer.

I would expect they have a lot of ammo in storage too which would be useful.

Their best upgrade is for Coalition and the smart guidance system/fuse they developed that can be fitted to new and old ammo in the 152mm and larger calibre range of ammo. It gives a 10m CEP performance for rounds already produced in enormous numbers.

Modifications for smaller calibres could be in development too.

I have found interesting information that Soviets in the late 80-ies designed 2 new 152.4mm systems to replace 122mm Gvozdika and D-30.
These are Pat-B (towed) and Pat-S (self-propelled) howitzers.
While weapon range is the same, shells are more powerful and also it simplifies logistics.

Were those the new vehicles they were developing for the VDV that never went anywhere... they had similar range to 122mm calibre guns but the 152mm calibre meant a 152mm sized shell with a bigger bang.

Unifying the 152mm projectiles with the larger existing guns and just using a different propellent load would be interesting.... many people think range is everything but a good howitzer is actually often more effective than a gun.

For those not clear a gun is a high velocity weapon optimised for range and often used for counter battery fire... being long range it often has a fixed propellent charge which means often at different ranges the shells come in at shallow angles so the sides of the shell means much of the fragments go up into the air or into the ground. A gun often does not have a great range of elevation and depression so sometimes some targets you simply can't hit if they are behind cover or in a city with tall buildings around it.

A howitzer is not optimised for long range and normally has a variable charge propellent system where reduced propellent is used to fire at closer targets where the shells can be lofted up into the air to come down nearly vertically on the target with obviously much better fragmentation patterns. Howitzers tend to fire heavier HE rounds that are more effective and can be used in a wider range of firing angles.

The Coalition seems to be a gun/howitzer because it seems to have a very long barrel of a gun but variable charge loads of a howitzer.

The same question is about advanced artillery shells with ramjet engine. Norwegian-American project promises more than 150 km range with decent precision and price. Before similar previous projects from the US failed miserably due to very high cost and unreliability. Do you know something about it?

High cost and unreliability... sounds like the Shillaghlah (spelling), or that new naval gun they were developing for their Zumwalt destroyers.

They are working on 170-180km range 152mm rounds for Army and Navy Coalitions, would like to see some work on upgraded 203mm calibre weapons, but otherwise everything looks pretty good.

I would say C4IRSTAR is more important for artillery than actual range, with mobility and being able to find and engage targets being more useful than balls out range.

Upgrades and improvements to guns and ammo in new models is useful and the new technology can trickle into already produced equipment through upgrades, but I think so far their artillery seems to be doing rather well and experience from this conflict will likely make it even better.

There is not a lot of information on the subject, we see stuff at arms shows but actual purchases and implemented upgrades etc is not always made public or shared widely.

In older threads we learn that the M777 us just amazing and Russia is a backward third world country because its equivalent is useless and heavy... well it seems that real world use shows the M777 is a bit flimsy, and there are a few photos of the Russia equivalent being used too.

GarryB wrote:In terms of calibre they have lots of other options in a similar range... as I mentioned.... 115mm and 120mm and 125mm and even 130mm, but I think in terms of artillery there is still room for 122mm artillery.

It has been found to be rather useful and has the potential to be more mobile than heavier 152mm guns and offer good rate of fire and decent effects on target.

They have a lot of vehicles and lots of spare parts to keep them operating for decades (which was part of the reason they were converting some to 120mm gun/mortar simply because they have so many available for use).

Being very mobile a shortage of 3km could be made up by simply moving position and firing at a target from slightly closer.

2S34 is a good upgrade no doubt. Similar to 2S31 Vena but much cheaper.
What do you mean by "more mobile"? Heavier 152.4mm guns move the same 60km/h as Gvozdika/Khosta. If you meant railroad logistics, then yes. Also it can swim, but I find this quality very doubtful in modern warfare now.
I'm not sure why Russian MoD asks to design new vehicles with this ability.

GarryB wrote:I would expect they have a lot of ammo in storage too which would be useful.

Their best upgrade is for Coalition and the smart guidance system/fuse they developed that can be fitted to new and old ammo in the 152mm and larger calibre range of ammo. It gives a 10m CEP performance for rounds already produced in enormous numbers.

Modifications for smaller calibres could be in development too.

That sounds similar to US M1156 PGK and Russian "Dinamika" module for already existing shells. The former reached serial production, but so far not too many modifications has been made. The latter's development has been abandoned... I wonder why. Would have been nice to have such an upgrade for millions of older shells lying in stocks.

GarryB wrote:Were those the new vehicles they were developing for the VDV that never went anywhere... they had similar range to 122mm calibre guns but the 152mm calibre meant a 152mm sized shell with a bigger bang.

Unifying the 152mm projectiles with the larger existing guns and just using a different propellent load would be interesting.... many people think range is everything but a good howitzer is actually often more effective than a gun.

Never thought these replacements are actually for VDV. But their weight makes sense.

GarryB wrote:For those not clear a gun is a high velocity weapon optimised for range and often used for counter battery fire... being long range it often has a fixed propellent charge which means often at different ranges the shells come in at shallow angles so the sides of the shell means much of the fragments go up into the air or into the ground. A gun often does not have a great range of elevation and depression so sometimes some targets you simply can't hit if they are behind cover or in a city with tall buildings around it.

A howitzer is not optimised for long range and normally has a variable charge propellent system where reduced propellent is used to fire at closer targets where the shells can be lofted up into the air to come down nearly vertically on the target with obviously much better fragmentation patterns. Howitzers tend to fire heavier HE rounds that are more effective and can be used in a wider range of firing angles.

The Coalition seems to be a gun/howitzer because it seems to have a very long barrel of a gun but variable charge loads of a howitzer.

Exactly. But such guns as Giatsint-S and B can also fire like howitzers. Compared to Akatsya and Msta offer greater range. I think all systems starting from Gvozdika and Akatsya are hybrids. Just some of them are closer to howitzer and some to gun.
Can you please explain what affects firing range of artillery? The only parameter I know is barrel length.

GarryB wrote:High cost and unreliability... sounds like the Shillaghlah (spelling), or that new naval gun they were developing for their Zumwalt destroyers.

They are working on 170-180km range 152mm rounds for Army and Navy Coalitions, would like to see some work on upgraded 203mm calibre weapons, but otherwise everything looks pretty good.

You mean also new shells for upgraded 203mm gun 2S7M Malka?

GarryB wrote:I would say C4IRSTAR is more important for artillery than actual range, with mobility and being able to find and engage targets being more useful than balls out range.

Upgrades and improvements to guns and ammo in new models is useful and the new technology can trickle into already produced equipment through upgrades, but I think so far their artillery seems to be doing rather well and experience from this conflict will likely make it even better.

There is not a lot of information on the subject, we see stuff at arms shows but actual purchases and implemented upgrades etc is not always made public or shared widely.

Yes, it seems that artillery still plays a big role in intense conflicts with capable opponent. In the beginning Russians have encountered some problems with counter-battery fire, but now they improved and adapted and Ukr artillery does not live long enough.
Would have been nice to see more steps in this direction. Current ESU TZ system, for example, is being tested and implented on a wide scale in the Armed Forces.

GarryB wrote:In older threads we learn that the M777 us just amazing and Russia is a backward third world country because its equivalent is useless and heavy... well it seems that real world use shows the M777 is a bit flimsy, and there are a few photos of the Russia equivalent being used too.

M777 is a good system, no doubt about it. But for example Giatsint has slightly better range overall (including guided shells). Msta-B has slightly shorter range. I don't think these differencies are that important and game changing. The main advantage of M777 over older Russian towed guns is weight: 4.2 (M777) vs 7 (Msta-B) and 9.8 (Giatsint-B) tons. But does it matter that much in a conflict when your enemy is a neighboring country? I doubt lighter weight will improve logistics that much.

Hi Guys,

I have got a question about 76-мм mountain gun model 1958 (aka M-99 or 2A2 or GP), is there a specific designation for the ammo boxes affixed on the shield and how are transported the stacked boxes (SPTA ?) visible on the ground, are they part of the gun when spades are folded ?
TYA

What do you mean by "more mobile"? Heavier 152.4mm guns move the same 60km/h as Gvozdika/Khosta. If you meant railroad logistics, then yes. Also it can swim, but I find this quality very doubtful in modern warfare now.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there I was giving arguments for keeping 122mm guns... the D-30 is light and mobile and easy to set up and take down, while the 2S1 is a 16 ton vehicle, which is almost half the weight of the 2S3 at 28 tons.

That will effect the sort of ground they can cross and bridges they can move over... it also effects the amount of fuel they burn to move around.

With guided shells the smaller calibre loses a bit of range, but is all round lighter and cheaper to buy and to operate.

(for more clarity... if the shells are guided then lighter shells can still be very effective and even more efficient against things like moving targets with laser guided rounds using drone support.)

Also it can swim, but I find this quality very doubtful in modern warfare now.
I'm not sure why Russian MoD asks to design new vehicles with this ability.

Lots of rivers and swamps and lakes around the place, but at a very basic level an amphibious vehicle will not disappear into mud or snow that is deep enough.

Having to stop to set up bridges or preparing to set up bridges can slow an advance and create bottle necks the enemy can exploit... if all your vehicles are amphibious like a Boomerang or Kurganets division you should be able to just cross areas of water assuming suitable places to enter and exit the water are found.

That sounds similar to US M1156 PGK and Russian "Dinamika" module for already existing shells. The former reached serial production, but so far not too many modifications has been made. The latter's development has been abandoned... I wonder why. Would have been nice to have such an upgrade for millions of older shells lying in stocks.

Well they haven't named the smart fuse they developed for artillery that fits the standard fuse pocket of larger calibre artillery (152mm and larger) that includes an electronic fuse but also control fins and a GLONASS system to manouver the round to the point of aim. If the MKB Kompas fuse was abandoned then you have to ask was this a rival to that system or is there another system that proved better or more practical?

In one of the artillery threads on this forum it mentions a news article about the fuse which does not mention its name or the company making it, but seemed to suggest it was working and either in production or nearing production, and that its cost was a fraction of what the west was spending on their artillery guidance systems.

Never thought these replacements are actually for VDV. But their weight makes sense.

I seem to remember it being based on a BMD upgrade and that it was intended as a replacement for the 120mm Nona but with a much more powerful projectile.

Can you please explain what affects firing range of artillery? The only parameter I know is barrel length.

With howitzers and mortars there is the variable charge element where you can add extra propellent to extend firing range for standard rounds, but obviously different low drag projectiles can also be used to improve flight range as well as things like sub calibre rounds and base bleed, where there is a slow burning propellent in the base of the projectile that sort of leaks gas at a relatively slow rate to fill the void behind the round to effectively reduce drag. Of course there is also rocket assisted rounds that use rocket energy/propulsion to extend flight range also by eliminating drag but also adding extra thrust.

Fired down a barrel the projectile is accelerated to a specific speed, but once it has left the barrel it is primarily drag that effects the flight range of the round... the higher the drag the faster it slows down and therefore the shorter its range.

Drag is highest at supersonic speed but decreases at subsonic speeds, many supersonic rifle bullets might leave a rifle barrel at three times the speed of sound, but are subsonic by the time they are 800-1,000m from the barrel... especially the short stubby very light projectiles.

At supersonic speed drag is about the nose and the tail, but at subsonic speed it is all about the tail... flat based rifle bullets have much shorter flight ranges than boat tail bullets for instance... heavier but smaller calibre projectiles retain speed better than lighter and larger calibre ones.

New improvements in range can also be gained with smarter propellants that reach high pressures faster to maximise the acceleration of the projectiles in the available barrel length.

Modern tank barrels are smoothbore rather than rifled because HEAT and APFSDS rounds don't like being spun... spinning a HEAT round reduces its penetration with centripetal forces trying to spread out the plasma beam instead of concentrating it for better penetration, and APFSDS darts cannot be spun fast enough to stabilise them like hand thrown darts and arrows, so in both cases fins are used for stabilisation.

Higher shell velocity (and therefore flight range) is considered more important for the main anti tank rounds than minor increases in accuracy you get from rifling... HE Frag and HESH rounds benefit from spin stabilisation, but when your primary rounds are APFSDS and HEAT then smoothbores are lighter and cheaper and easier to clean and give a high muzzle velocity for a particular round than a rifled barrel of the same length, or you can have a shorter smoothbore barrel with the same velocity compared with a rifled barrel.

You mean also new shells for upgraded 203mm gun 2S7M Malka?

Yes, they were reportedly working together on 152mm guns and shells, and I would think joint work on improved 203mm guns would be valuable too.

Currently their coastal guns use 130mm shells and 152mm guns would be a significant improvement, but I would think 203mm guns would be even better for coastal guns and also Cruisers for naval gun support roles. 152mm guns would also be very good especially if they could be fitted with guidance kits... the best way to deal with a swarm would be to be able to fire HE Frag shells into the swarm at maybe 60 rounds per minute or better with airburst shells.

It would also be very difficult for a smaller enemy ship to deal with... dozens of incoming 50kg rounds with some level of guidance at 60-80 rounds per minute... a good way to overwhelm an air defence system because a destroyer or cruiser could carry more 152mm or 203mm shells than enemy ships could carry SAMs that could stop them.

Yes, it seems that artillery still plays a big role in intense conflicts with capable opponent. In the beginning Russians have encountered some problems with counter-battery fire, but now they improved and adapted and Ukr artillery does not live long enough.

Ukraine and Syria have been very useful Polygons.

The main advantage of M777 over older Russian towed guns is weight: 4.2 (M777) vs 7 (Msta-B) and 9.8 (Giatsint-B) tons. But does it matter that much in a conflict when your enemy is a neighboring country? I doubt lighter weight will improve logistics that much.

But weight is not so critical as reliability and of course set up time and take down time which is very very important... whether you are the big boy or the little boy... set up and fire and then get out of there means the difference between staying alive or not.

I have got a question about 76-мм mountain gun model 1958 (aka M-99 or 2A2 or GP), is there a specific designation for the ammo boxes affixed on the shield and how are transported the stacked boxes (SPTA ?) visible on the ground, are they part of the gun when spades are folded ?

Interesting... it looks like the spade legs fold to attach that cradle with the ammo boxes.

I would expect the vehicle that tows the gun hooks up to the cradle and drags both the gun and some ready to use ammo... when the gun arrives in position the wheels from the ammo cradle should allow the gun to be manhandled into position with its wheels making it easier to manouver.

When it is in position separate the cradle with the ammo and move it to the ammo trench next to the gun position and while some crew open up the ammo boxes and attach fuses and set them the rest of the gun crew fold out the spade legs and dig them in and install the sight and zero it ready for ammo to be delivered to the gun from the ammo cradle position while more ammo boxes would be delivered from the trucks that operate with the gun and stacked near the ammo cradle to be fused for firing.

From Vitalys wonderful site ( https://www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military/Technical-Museum-in-Tolyatti-Part-2/i-X7QJb62 )



The gun in the background appears to have a seat and a steering wheel on the ammo cradle attached to the gun...

GarryB wrote:

I have got a question about 76-мм mountain gun model 1958 (aka M-99 or 2A2 or GP), is there a specific designation for the ammo boxes affixed on the shield and how are transported the stacked boxes (SPTA ?) visible on the ground, are they part of the gun when spades are folded ?

Interesting... it looks like the spade legs fold to attach that cradle with the ammo boxes.

I would expect the vehicle that tows the gun hooks up to the cradle and drags both the gun and some ready to use ammo... when the gun arrives in position the wheels from the ammo cradle should allow the gun to be manhandled into position with its wheels making it easier to manouver.

When it is in position separate the cradle with the ammo and move it to the ammo trench next to the gun position and while some crew open up the ammo boxes and attach fuses and set them the rest of the gun crew fold out the spade legs and dig them in and install the sight and zero it ready for ammo to be delivered to the gun from the ammo cradle position while more ammo boxes would be delivered from the trucks that operate with the gun and stacked near the ammo cradle to be fused for firing.

From Vitalys wonderful site ( https://www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military/Technical-Museum-in-Tolyatti-Part-2/i-X7QJb62 )



The gun in the background appears to have a seat and a steering wheel on the ammo cradle attached to the gun...

I don't think that limber fits with the GP gun, spoke wooden wheels looks closer to the 76mm model 1909 gun (76-мм горная пушка образца 1909 года)

Sorry... was trying to highlight that some guns would have been modified so where originally they might have been horse driven which means an ammo cradle attached to the gun so when it is unhitched it can be moved into a firing position some distance away from where you keep the horses or even move the gun short distances around the battlefield, later on its smaller calibre and progress in gun design means it becomes the light gun deployed because of its better mobility compared to heavier calibre larger guns.

Some guns even had small motors added to their legs so they can be driven around short distances on the battlefield without needing to bring up horses or trucks or prime movers.

GarryB wrote:Sorry... was trying to highlight that some guns would have been modified so where originally they might have been horse driven which means an ammo cradle attached to the gun so when it is unhitched it can be moved into a firing position some distance away from where you keep the horses or even move the gun short distances around the battlefield, later on its smaller calibre and progress in gun design means it becomes the light gun deployed because of its better mobility compared to heavier calibre larger guns.

Some guns even had small motors added to their legs so they can be driven around short distances on the battlefield without needing to bring up horses or trucks or prime movers.

You are right many guns have seen their tires, suspension changed (the reliable 122-мм M-30 for example) to "stay on track" and adapt faster towing means.

Artillery systems "Penicillin" were used in the battles in Ukraine, 10.15.2022.

The latest Russian artillery reconnaissance systems "Penicillin" have confirmed their effectiveness in battles in Ukraine, including as part of the fight against NATO artillery supplied to Ukrainian troops , an informed source told RIA Novosti.

“Several 1B76 Penicillin artillery reconnaissance systems have been tested in combat conditions in Ukraine. The complexes have demonstrated high efficiency in the framework of counter-battery combat with the artillery of the Ukrainian troops, including with the Ukrainian military artillery systems used by NATO countries,”  the agency’s interlocutor said.

"Penicillin" is intended for reconnaissance of firing positions of cannon and rocket artillery, as well as anti-aircraft and tactical missiles. The complex captures acoustic and thermal waves from shots and explosions and provides the operator with the exact coordinates of the location of the enemy gun for manual and automatic drawing on an electronic map. At the same time, the time for obtaining the coordinates of a single target firing is no more than five seconds. The difference between Penicillin and the American AN / TPQ-36 counter-battery radar used by the Ukrainian troops is that it does not use radio waves, so it cannot be detected by radio technical means and suppress electronic warfare systems. "Penicillin" was developed by Roselectronics» by the research institute Vektor. The complex works effectively at any time of the day at temperatures from minus 40 to plus 50 degrees Celsius. The system is installed on the Kamaz chassis, its reconnaissance optoelectronic module is mounted on a lifting mast.

https://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/148601/

GarryB wrote:

Were those the new vehicles they were developing for the VDV that never went anywhere... they had similar range to 122mm calibre guns but the 152mm calibre meant a 152mm sized shell with a bigger bang.

No,  while BMD-3 family for the VDV where planned with 152mm and a replacement for Nona-S.

See the image






The Pat-B,   Pat-S and the planned Pat-К arty systems however where meant  for the ground forces and so was 2S31 Vena.

But there were problems with Pat-S and overall both Pat-S and Pat-B where deemed insufficient in term of range as the couldn't fire the full charge round of "Akatsiya"  and  ML-20 (17,4 km vs 15,2 km)..    A increased range variant based on 2A61 Pat series was planned for meeting the requirement for the ground forces but that never came to be as the soviet Union fell.  With Russia rumored picking up said development  in  late 2000's for self propelled artillery.

Anyway, as a side note

It's Funny enough, the same  really for Nona for the ground forces back in the 70's and 80's.  

While []Nona satisfied the VDV.   It didn't satisfy the ground forces.  Basically the ground forces variant of the  2S9 "Nona-S" based 120 mm "2А51" AKA Nona-1 gun-mortar system. The 2S17 and the 2S17-2 and on the chassis of the BMP-1 / BRM-1K  didn't meet the requirement one of them being the range.


There was also the experimental  wheeled variant   based 120 mm "2А51" gun-mortar  called "Otsek"  done on the BTR-70 chassis.   This lead to 2S23 "Nona-SVK" with a slightly modified 120 mm "2А51" gun-mortar on the BTR-80 chassis.   It too never satisfied the ground forces due to not meeting the range the ground forces wanted.   But was purchased  in small numbers due to low cost and for working out how to use it in battalions for the Soviets.


At the same time, to replace 120-mm towed mortars, they also were busy  developing towed systems ballistics wisebased on 120 mm "2А51" gun-mortar . The  2B16 Nona-K  and 2B18 Nona-M.  

The 2B18 Nona-M. was at first supposed to have been just a mortar.  But some sources indicated it was supposed have had capability to be used as a recoilless gun basicly.  (Which, I take it perhaps later tacked on as a mission creep.)


However 2B18 Nona-M didn't work out.  And later they went back to a clean mortar/just a mortar design. which ended up being 2B23 "Nona-M1"



The 2B16 Nona-K just like the 2S23 "Nona-SVK" was also purchased in small numbers due to low cost and well for working out how to use it in battalions for the Soviets. That and apparently Polacks like it and were considering ordering a bunch until well the wall fell...


Anyway, in the mid-late 80's

To satisfy the ground forces and update VDV.   New gun-mortar system was started under  Nona-2 theme gun mortar system.

It produced the The LP-77 gun-mortar system   Which would have the towed version AKA Nona-2B (LP-79) as a replacement for  2B16 Nona-K.  


A replacement for Nona-S known as "Obzhimka" first on the the the chassis of BMD-2 then on the chassis of the light tank Object 934 and again on what would be the  BMP-3* and then finally on BMD-3  

*The BMP-3 variant for the VDV  was so supposed to have had communality with the ground forces variant of the BMP-3 which would be known under designation  for the ground forces under 2S31.   But in the end they decided that  because of the weight to let the VDV variant be based on BMD-3 chassis


However the Nona-2 program never worked out and  any chance at salvaging the program died with the Soviet union.


in the end what would become 2S31 for the ground forces (and not VDV despite the believe).  Now known as 2S31 "Vena" would still basicly use the 120 mm "2А51"gun AKA Nona-1 gun-mortar system. Just  reworked/modified under the gun index 2A80 and  2А80-1 for the  2S34 "Khosta".  

2S34 "Khosta" ended up putting the kibosh on 2S31 "Vena" as it was cheaper option. And the BMD-3 Nona-S replacement variant for the VDV basicly became the BMD-4M chassis  based 2S42 "Lotos"

to satisfy the range requirement new  rocket assisted round is being developed under  the name of " Glissada" with a firing range of up to 25 km.  Source

https://vpk.name/news/479226_samohodnye_obnovki.html



2S34 "Khosta" will likely be also be able to use this round also as t looks like Lotus is using the 2А80-1 gun-mortar.

No, while BMD-3 family for the VDV where planned with 152mm and a replacement for Nona-S.

I knew the 152mm vehicles were BMD based, I didn't think they were brand new vehicles, but thanks for the images and history other details you posted... very interesting.

Why doesn't a guided round for the 2S7 exist?

limb wrote:Why doesn't a guided round for the 2S7 exist?

Work was proposed/underway in fact for a guided round

Source

https://vz.ru/news/2020/11/27/1072664.html

https://rg.ru/2020/11/27/malka-poluchit-upravliaemye-boepripasy.html


Why not earlier ?  Simply put the system 2S7 was first deemed for retirement. Actually the system was deemed for retirement multiple times.  But every time escaped the guillotine because someone in the MoD deemed it of value.

Robert.V wrote:

limb wrote:Why doesn't a guided round for the 2S7 exist?

Work was proposed/underway in fact for a guided round

Source

https://vz.ru/news/2020/11/27/1072664.html

https://rg.ru/2020/11/27/malka-poluchit-upravliaemye-boepripasy.html


Why not earlier ?  Simply put the system 2S7 was first deemed for retirement. Actually the system was deemed for retirement multiple times.  But every time escaped the guillotine because someone in the MoD deemed it of value.

Why did they consider retiring a 1980s  long range heavy counterbattery cannon but keep 1950s tier obsolete junk like akatsiya and gvozdika still in service?

Lets hope those rounds are in service already

limb wrote:

Why did they consider retiring a 1980s  long range heavy counterbattery cannon but keep 1950s tier obsolete junk like akatsiya and gvozdika still in service?

Lets hope those rounds are in service already

Because  it's a niche. That was deemed archaic and  not needed due MLRS, BM's,  guided  missiles and on the horizon longer range 152 mm arty.    It's stayed due  upgrade potential and the explosive payload not to mention ability to sustain  with easy 50 rounds an hour  and fairly cheap footprint and cost of rounds.

Akatsiya and Gvozdika where planned to be replaced  but the SU fell.   And Russian for  a decade plus couldn't afford the R&D or replacement of them.



Gvozdika has been and is  being converted into 2S34 "Khosta"     And  Akatsiya was underway being replaced by 2S19 "Msta-S but that got interrupted by dissolution of the Soviet Union as said above.  

By the time  Russia could afford more  2S19 "Msta-S" ...it got morally obsolete.  And the  new modification/deep modernization of the 2S19 under the name 2S33 "Msta-SM" which was already started during the twilight of Soviet Union got dropped for  2S35 "Coalition-SV" program.   Which in hindsight was a dumb move.


Hence why Akatsiya is still around.      

On a side note.    

There was a potent Akatsiya  modernization under the index 2S3M3 which would have allowed it to fire most(but not all)  rounds at the same distances as 2S19 "Msta-S".

But that too was not considered due to expectations of  2S35 "Coalition-SV" being around the corner.

Those articles didn't say 203mm guided shells did not exist before...

The upgraded 2S7M Malka self-propelled gun, one of the most powerful weapons of its class in the world, will receive a new generation of ammunition in the future, including guided ones, said Bekhan Ozdoev, industrial director of the Rostec arms complex.

This one says new ammo is being developed... I really hope they mean super long range guided rounds like those developed for Coalition... first 70km range and then 180km ranged with perhaps reduced calibre guided shells... they could share the costs with the Navy who would benefit from having long range 203mm shells for naval gun support roles... and also coastal gun battery defence against enemy naval forces.

and

One of the most powerful self - propelled artillery guns in the world - 2S7M "Malka" - will receive a new generation of ammunition in the future, including guided ones.

Which basically says the same thing.

The Tulip has a guided round in the 240mm calibre and I was sure I read on one of the Military technology magazines that the old S-23 180mm gun had guided shells for it too and that they unfied the design the same way they unified the design for the tank gun barrel launched missiles fired by the BMP-3 (100mm rifled) T-54/55 (100mm rifled but different), the MT-12 (100mm Smoothbore) and the T-62s 115mm smoothbore... all the same missile but fitted to different propellent stubs and modified to fit the different calibres of barrel and slip over the rifling or down the smoothbore barrel.

Why did they consider retiring a 1980s long range heavy counterbattery cannon but keep 1950s tier obsolete junk like akatsiya and gvozdika still in service?

Actually the 2S1 and 2S3 are highly mobile and very versatile and are very useful vehicles... and with modern upgrades they would be very difficult to deal with.

The Pion fires a much bigger heavier round that is no cheaper and lighter and portable like the 152mm and 122mm lighter vehicles.

They have the 2S5 for long range delivery of nukes of chem warheads, but they actually retired the S-23 in 180mm calibre that was a very impressive counter battery fire weapon.

There was a potent Akatsiya modernization under the index 2S3M3 which would have allowed it to fire most(but not all) rounds at the same distances as 2S19 "Msta-S".

But that too was not considered due to expectations of 2S35 "Coalition-SV" being around the corner.

That happens a lot... another example would be the MiG-25... it got the PD upgrade because the P model was compromised, but they didn't do an extensive M type upgrade because they knew the MiG-31 was on the way.

The MiG-25 only ever had the 11 ton thrust engines... they didn't even try to fit it with the newer 15 ton thrust engines of the MiG-31, but then more engine power does not always translate to higher speed or altitude and might just burn fuel faster...

They have a mess of different artillery types but in comparison to the pre WWII Soviet Navy they are very organised.

They have retired a lot of calibres like the 160mm mortars and 180mm guns and are now focussing on 120mm mortars and 152mm artillery pieces and 125mm tank guns.

Older artillery pieces that are no longer in production can be used up simply by firing in combat till all the spare barrels are used up and then scrap the rest and don't make any more... just make more of the newest types to fill the ammo depots.

With upgrades all the vehicles become more independent and mobile to the point where the command and control system looks at where the vehicles are located and sends firing information based on the targets needing to be engaged so the vehicle commander just needs to press pusk to fire and can then drive away... no more needing to line up hundreds of guns wheel hub to wheel hub to hit a target.