Russian Gun Artillery Thread

In general, biggest problem that Russia have with their artillery is old concept of barrel length stuck in 80s till day. L46 isnt good for modern times and only Msta S have it, as we can see what happens when West gave small amount of their best howitzers...They hitting hard Russians artillery and they withdraw MstaS and rest of artillery deeper in their territory. Becasue of that they cannot hitting ukraninians targets as they do in past deep in ukranie territoryl. This is biggest problem for Russians... As i mention range is biggest problem in this war...Koalitsya is game changer for Russians and modern howitzers but they stuck with low number of her and there is no signs that they star mass production of it.

How did you arrive at the idea that the M777 is some sort of game-changer? The D-20 does the same thing, it's just heavier and with a more primitive fire control system - but if the M777s supplied to the Ukraine are still without their FCS as the early parties were - then they don't even have that advantage. I'm assuming of course that the Ukrainians have been using D-20s; if they weren't then yes, the M777 afforded an upgrade to Ukrainian capabilites but only in the sense of providing a larger-caliber system able to engage at longer ranges to the Ukrainians.

And it's not a small amount of systems either, there have been constant reports of these or those M777s being taken out for months now. More than likely they're simply not publishing the full inventory of arms that they're delivering to the Ukraine. Indeed, why should they?
US troops months ago were talking about how all the HIMARS systems and all their shells were shipped out from their bases to the Ukraine. It's not a small amount of HIMARS that has been sent to the Ukraine either. Or of anything else. We're talking about dozens of billions of USD worth of weaponry, munitions, spare parts and other equipment. The Pentagon knows its Sun Tzu no worse than the Russians - they're not going to give any sort of accurate account of what they're supplying and in what quantities over any given time-frame.

I'm interested as to how you've come to the conclusion that the Ukrainians are out-ranging and outmatching the Russians in artillery, forcing the later to move their artillery back. That sounds highly improbable. Even if the M777 offered such a qualitative improvement - the Russians have several-fold more of everything, much more stable ammunition supplies, and plenty of larger calibre tube and rocket artillery that will outrange any 152mm/155mm system regardless of its sophistication.

French Ceasar Is master class for any Russian artillery...you can wright what ever you want but that is true. We see in Izum direction what happened when this howitzer came to Ukraine and what they did to Russian one and what Russian do with their artillery to protect her...They pull it back much further back.

M777 is not game changer at all, PZ 2000 is, but they have it in small numbers...Also Malka/Pion give headick to VDV on North sector...real one...no Russians took them from reserve..25km isnt same as 35 or even more...

Hell even our Nora B52 will be pain in the ass in this war andwill out rane any ex soviet howitzer easly...and this is one of the best howitzer in world *top 5...And we in ex Yugoslavia move from short barrel and move in late 80s to L52 for our NORA trailed howitzer, NORA B-52 is self propelled with auto loader...

They need range more the 35km even more, because they can hit from safe places enemy, but same cant hit them back. For now they matched...

Ukrainian media publish a list of serious malfunctions with Western weapons

Howitzer M777:
After frequent firing, the barrel does not fully return to its original position, which further disables the gun; after 30 shots, the bolt wedge needs serious maintenance.

SAU M109:
Due to intense shooting, the mirror wedge of the shutter and the sealing rings of the charging chamber completely burn out.

Howitzer FH70:
The tightening mechanism is often broken and the nitrogen pressure in the balancing mechanism of the gun is reduced.

SAU 2000:
The monitors of the Commander Control Unit constantly overheat, the charging system often fails; obturation rings quickly fail.

SPG Krab:
During intensive shooting, the shaft breaks the fuse at the bolt-wedge, the bolts of the bolt-wedge break and bend;

SPG Caesar:
The aiming program calculates incorrectly: the first shot is always undershot by 600m - to nearly one kilometre; guidance blocks fail at random.
https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/21882?single

Western artillery sucks, when they are not shooting civilians in donbass it is because they are either being destroyed by russia or because they are suffering mechanical problems.

French Ceasar Is master class for any Russian artillery...you can wright what ever you want but that is true. We see in Izum direction what happened when this howitzer came to Ukraine and what they did to Russian one and what Russian do with their artillery to protect her...They pull it back much further back.

M777 is not game changer at all, PZ 2000 is, but they have it in small numbers...Also Malka/Pion give headick to VDV on North sector...real one...no Russians took them from reserve..25km isnt same as 35 or even more...

Hell even our Nora B52 will be pain in the ass in this war andwill out rane any ex soviet howitzer easly...and this is one of the best howitzer in world *top 5...And we in ex Yugoslavia move from short barrel and move in late 80s to L52 for our NORA trailed howitzer, NORA B-52 is self propelled with auto loader...

They need range more the 35km even more, because they can hit from safe places enemy, but same cant hit them back. For now they matched...

What did the Ceasar do in the Izyum direction?

Care to fill us in with some sources about these artillery duels?

I am very skeptical in general, just to make my view clear, about any tactical weapons system being any sort of 'game changer' even hypothetically. In practice it just doesn't really happen unless they add an all new capability, like say the advent of the Chariot provided in ancient warfare. Were the Elefants, Tigrs and so on game-changers in Kursk? There are so many variables for the success of failure of military operations, for some slight technical advantages or disadvantages of this or that tank, or gun, or anti-tank missile, or assault rifle - to have much of a bearing on any situation. In Kursk the Germans used their newest heavy tanks as the vanguard and lead ones in the column, to soak up the Soviet AT fire. And they achieved some success with this tactic; yet they still lost the battle, and how many resources did they spend on building these expensive fuel-guzzling heavy armoured vehicles that they could have invested into building other things instead?

The exception might be when you have a weapons system that is capable of hitting strategic targets such as bridges or HQs or whatever, where you simply had no such system before - hence why the HIMARS is probably the only actual 'game-changer', even if only by a little, out of all the wunderwaffes so far claimed by the West and their Ukrainian lackeys. Because it did actually force the Russians to actually change up their deployments, their tactics and so on.
But will the Russians change much in reaction to the introduction of the Ceasar, or the Pzh2000, or the Bushmaster, or whatever else? Well no, they don't pose any different a threat to the SPGs and the armored vehicles and so on that the Ukraine had before.

The main priority with all these wonderous weapons systems is that they are available in adequate numbers, they have parts available and can be repaired as easily as the other systems you have, you have ammo readily available for them, they aren't appreciably more expensive than everything else, and that your troops know how to use them. Fail on one of these things, and any touted 'advantage' over the previous-generation of hardware dissipates and you're left with a worse system in practice, than what you had before.
Other than that, yeah the extra range, the extra armour protection, the more penetrating round is all nice and everything and in certain situations will either contribute to saving the lives of your own personnel, or destroying the enemy's slightly more efficiently.

In the Ukrainians' case, I don't know how the Ceasar compares but they don't have the spare parts and logistics system in place, they'll constantly be suffering from ammo problems, and I'm not sure how well the Ukrainians are trained on them (unless its French NATO personnel manning them). And thus its advantage evaporates and it becomes a liability, and can't be congratulated on any success. Whatever 'success' you may achieve through ambush tactics or creeping up on enemy artillery batteries will be more than nullified by the amount of trucks and men wasted trying to get ammo to the things, or the opportunity costs of using them conventionally in support of advances for the defense, rather than dueling with enemy artillery. Just as an example.

Caesar is no match for Lancet. 

@FP
While you are right that there's no wunderwaffe, some of the systems they got are ahead of currently deployed Russian systems. Lucky thing is that they got them in insufficient numbers.
It also shows that MoD miscalculated in their weapons procurement process with purchase of some expensive super weapons, which were not priority, at the cost of Army which is a main component of military.
One look at the artillery shows that bulk of arty pieces are aged Soviet pieces. Probably, that is the reason ESU TZ is not implemented as it should.

Its honestly hilarious that people here think an artillery cannon having superior range, accuracy, and targeting time is nearly irrelevant.

Why can't people here just admit that D-20s, D-30s and msta-Bs are the vast majority of russian artillery, and that they're inferior to the caesar andf pzh2000? Its like getting insanely butthurt and resorting to insults if someone says the MiG-21bis is inferior in performance to the F-15C or rafale.

@FP
While you are right that there's no wunderwaffe, some of the systems they got are ahead of currently deployed Russian systems. Lucky thing is that they got them in insufficient numbers.
It also shows that MoD miscalculated in their weapons procurement process with purchase of some expensive super weapons, which were not priority, at the cost of Army which is a main component of military.
One look at the artillery shows that bulk of arty pieces are aged Soviet pieces. Probably, that is the reason ESU TZ is not implemented as it should.

That's exactly the point, that they have them in inferior numbers. And a spotty ammo supply for them. And insufficient training on them. And problems with maintaining and field repairing them.
Yet they're supposed to be turning the battle for the Ukrainians? Nonsense!

The only value they have, is that they are replacing the Ukrainian equipment that has been destroyed. That's it. That they're better than nothing.
But any actual technical superiority over what the Ukrainians had in service at the start of the war is nullified by all the factors I've just mentioned! More than nullified, do you understand? Their artillery capability now is worse than it was when the war broke out - when yes they had only the D-30, and the D-20, and Akatsiyas and Pions and Smershes and other Soviet pieces - but they had then in large numbers, with plenty ammo for them at depots around the country, with personnel trained and experienced in their use, with ready spares and personnel qualified in repairing them. That situation was a much better one for them, than what they have now - an intermitent supply of wunderwaffe with better ranges and accuracy but that are impossible to use to anything like their full potential. And I'm not even going into the reliability problems that the Ukrainians have complained about

End of

Its honestly hilarious that people here think an artillery cannon having superior range, accuracy, and targeting time is nearly irrelevant.

Why can't people here just admit that D-20s, D-30s and msta-Bs are the vast majority of russian artillery, and that they're inferior to the caesar and pzh2000?

Russia has received Msta M1 with improved fire control system since 2007 and Msta M2 with new automatic fire control system since 2013.
The Msta M2 has a range of up to 80km(https://armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2020/0603/095058134/detail.shtml), and in the Ukrainian conflict Russian artillery proved accurate enough to hit moving armored vehicles with guided projectiles.
Russia not only has better artillery, it has much more of it, as I doubt very much that the number of Msta M2 is less than the few dozen Caesar and Pzh2000 that Ukraine received.
And the only thing ridiculous here is your insistence on comparing D-20/30 TOWED artillery with Caesar/Pzh2000 SELF-PROPELLED artillery

@FP
You're trying to deflect and obfuscate my point on purpose. Russia started massive re-armament program roughly after Georgian war. Instead of giving Army more money to modernize, as they should have, they decided to spend massive amounts on "macho programs" such as Burevestnik or that glorified nuclear dildo Poseidon.
Even after 2014 when probability for major war with Ukraine became much higher, Army didn't get enough money.
Sozvezdie has been working on ESU TZ since 2001 and system has been only tested and still not widely deployed on battlefield. All arty weapons are still Soviet towed and self-propelled models. Even modernization of those was pretty limited in numbers. You can thank Soviet legacy that arty is in the shape it is today and not much worse.
Since Russian MoD mouths have been full of "there's no foreign analogues" statements and very little has been actually deployed to service.  
Imo, this is not how "second Army in the world" should look like and perform. Luckily, there's no stronger enemy than Ukraine on western borders and nuclear arsenal keeps NATO at bay.

Russia has received Msta M1 with improved fire control system since 2007 and Msta M2 with new automatic fire control system since 2013.
The Msta M2 has a range of up to 80km(https://armstrade.org/includes/periodics/news/2020/0603/095058134/detail.shtml), and in the Ukrainian conflict Russian artillery proved accurate enough to hit moving armored vehicles with guided projectiles.
Russia not only has better artillery, it has much more of it, as I doubt very much that the number of Msta M2 is less than the few dozen Caesar and Pzh2000 that Ukraine received.
And the only thing ridiculous here is your insistence on comparing D-20/30 TOWED artillery with Caesar/Pzh2000 SELF-PROPELLED artillery dunno

80Km range projectile? Which one? whats its designation? Is it guided? Is it even in service? Your so called "proof" doesnt say at all.

Meanwhile for the L46 msta gun,  every single russian soruce says 24.7km unassisted, 29km rocket assisted and 27km for regular krasnpol.

You're trying to deflect and obfuscate my point on purpose. Russia started massive re-armament program roughly after Georgian war. Instead of giving Army more money to modernize, as they should have, they decided to spend massive amounts on "macho programs" such as Burevestnik or that glorified nuclear dildo Poseidon.

EXACTLY. To keep things into perspective, russia had ONLY 106 smerch + 15 tornado S until 2022, while ukraine had 80 olkhas. There are 0 droks or malvas in service. In reality, the 2010-2020 rearmament program did very little for producing new artillery pieces.  But chosta 2S3M2 and Msta-M2 they'll say. Those are small upgrades that are just stopgaps. The majority of gvozdikas and mstas are unupgraded. Necessary ones, but a far cry from the "no analogues in the world" claims. There were 0 highly valuable giatsints upgraded with digital FCS and only a few dozen upgraded 2S7Ms.

Im comparing D-20 and D-30 to caesar and pzh2000 because thats the usual matchup in the war. 99% of  LDPR units have ONLY D30s and D20s. Also the D-30 and D-20 are the guns on the gvozdika and akatsiya, and they represent that majority of russian SPGs.
I to this day haven't found a single justification for not mass producing koalitsiyas, other than "MoD isnt buying it, and MoD is always right"


So much for the "best artillery in the world"

You don't even have the excuse of a modern nuclear arsenal and aerospace defense network.

Thats the thing. It doesnt in this war. global hawks are flying, US satellites send data, boris johnson visited kiev.

All the trillions went to grift! Razz

How does an underwater nuclear dildo help the russians to destroy modern NATO artillery?

Post caveat emptor Today at 2:38 am

@FP
You're trying to deflect and obfuscate my point on purpose.

Because you have no point.
Russkie had enough high-tech gear for any kind of small-scale warfare any single western/nato country is capable of.
They can deliver an artillery battalion with 2S35 guns at any moment to any place on the planet. And make it supplied with fancy, 100km ranged assisted projectiles capable to hit a chicken ass. All 100 of them in a month, just like any others.
But in opposite to them all, they have a huge arsenal of heavy gear of war.
Not pieces or dozens of pieces, but hundreds and thousands.
And an operating industry that can deliver spare parts and new arms round the clock.
You have an issue with absorbing the info provided and make a conclusions&clues out of it.
The UK and France are the two most capable&well armed militaries in Europe.
They run out of ordnance after a WEEK of operation against ... Libya.
That was carried with the hands of insurgents on the ground, not them.
Germany does not have ANY serious war stocks.
The war with Ukraine is the biggest world war since Korean. It involves about a million soldiers and proved to us one thing for sure.
Those are not fancy toys that are winning big wars, but the economy that can sustain planned deliveries of arms.
Russkie has been delivering hundreds pcs of heavy gear yearly for years in a row.
Including 200+ tanks, which is a number higher than the whole NATO can put into operation in a decade.
All the artillery pieces they have fielded now, are in a process of continuous modernization and repair. They have an industry running for that purpose, and can just deliver new barrels, engines etc - something that none NATO countries can do.
Multiple new types of ordnance is being applied, some of which we haven't seen yet.
This is a clear indication that working on that was going for years.
We see new MLRS just doing their job. New ordnance doing it's job.
From this perspective, stating that they underfinanced the army is childish.
So stop whining because it is getting ridiculous.

To support ALAMOs point, even if off-topic:


New PTKM-1R AT mine

@FP
You're trying to deflect and obfuscate my point on purpose.

You're deflecting yourself friend

Russia started massive re-armament program roughly after Georgian war. Instead of giving Army more money to modernize, as they should have,

As they did

they decided to spend massive amounts on "macho programs" such as Burevestnik or that glorified nuclear dildo Poseidon.

If war hasn't broken out between Russia and the US yet, those weapons are doing their job
The other thing those weapons are designed to do, is make the US spend more on countering them then Russia did on developing them. Which we'll see about.

Even after 2014 when probability for major war with Ukraine became much higher, Army didn't get enough money.

I disagree, the scale of the modernization since 2008 has been impressive, and it continued at the same rate after 2014, which was already a good one.
After 2014 the main thing was to get the defense industry and the wider economy more self-reliant and resilient.

Sozvezdie has been working on ESU TZ since 2001 and system has been only tested and still not widely deployed on battlefield. All arty weapons are still Soviet towed and self-propelled models. Even modernization of those was pretty limited in numbers. You can thank Soviet legacy that arty is in the shape it is today and not much worse.

If it was much worse then it would have been procured and modernized more. As it was though, there were more pressing priorities.
Fact of the matter is that the Msta-S and Smerch were both introduced in 1989 if memory doesn't fail. They are still modern enough systems as it is, and with much upgrade potential. The Msta-B towed howitzer is barely any older. While pieces like the Tyulpans and Pions may be older, but barely any other country has an equivalent to them.

And if the Msta-S doesn't exactly match the range and stated accuracy or fire rate of some new fangled Pzh2000.. well so what, exactly? Is that an argument against the T-72B3M as well, that they don't match the newest Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams modifications? They may not, but their cost-benefit ratio is far better and allows Russia to invest there where more of a difference is made by modern equipment vs. 30-year old equipment.

Even modernization of those was pretty limited in numbers.

Russia has more modernized numbers of those pieces than most nations have artillery in general.

How many Krabs do the Poles have or Caesars do the French have? And yes if we combine all of NATOs armies then they have considerably more highly-modern SPGs - but the same goes for fighter jets and so on. Russia has a far smaller economy than NATO's combined one; even considering the massive scale of their defense industry's corruption - they can still out-procure Russia. Russia has a smaller standing army too. It can't respond to everything symmetrically.

Imo, this is not how "second Army in the world" should look like and perform. Luckily, there's no stronger enemy than Ukraine on western borders and nuclear arsenal keeps NATO at bay.

I think Russia did the best job possible. There was a study not long ago which compared Russian BTGs to NATO BTGs, and noted that Russian formations can call on about twice the artillery firepower of their NATO equivalents. And you can thank the Soviet legacy for that, and all the artillery pieces that Russia inherited, that it organized in a smart way to take advantage of in terms of their overall quantity, without having to invest tons into their mass modernization.

We have a lot of Krabs - Poland carried out a quite impressive artillery modernization projects for years. The original order was for 96 pcs, we had about 80 of those delivered but supplied some to the Ukrs. A new contract has been signed a month or two ago, for additional 48 pcs. That is a lot considering European standards, remembering that we still have some Danas and Gvozdikas.

62 Krabs in service, and the French have about the same amount of Ceasars, actually a little less

That's enough for how many batteries?

What are limb and caveat emptor and the other Serbian dude even arguing about here?

Oh, I didn't say that it is enough or a considerable number, but a lot considering the European perspective.
We still have about the same number of Czechoslovakian Dana (111 purchased), and more than 200 2S1, some of those have been delivered to the 404 either.
85 pcs od Dana were modernized with new Topaz FSC, along with 175 pcs of 2S1 - named 2S1T and Dana-T.
I suppose none of those has been supplied to the 404, as they wouldn't make any practical use of it - Topaz is our genuine artillery FC&C system.
So we have more or less 400 pcs of SPGs, which makes us a European superpower in that area.
Plus we are making Krabs at the very moment, which makes us a rare species in NATO.

If war hasn't broken out between Russia and the US yet, those weapons are doing their job
The other thing those weapons are designed to do, is make the US spend more on countering them then Russia did on developing them. Which we'll see about.

See this is obfuscation  and misattribution. Yars, Topol and Bulava prevent US from going to war. The claim that americans were planning to press the red button before the underwater giant dildo appeared is absolutely false. Also the west hasn't spent anything to on figuring out how to stop the poseidon dildo or the burevestnik. They instead spent money on GMLRS.

As they did

well so what, exactly

Allows the ukrainians to often stay out of range of russian artillery, and to perform counterbattery much more safely. Only on this forum will anyone deny having longer ranged, more accurate artillery is irrelevant.

Is that an argument against the T-72B3M as well, that they don't match the newest Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams modifications?

Apples and oranges. Artillery is the king of the battlefield. Tanks aren't.

As it was though, there were more pressing priorities.

For the army, what priority is more pressing than the artillery corps?

Its honestly hilarious that people here think an artillery cannon having superior range, accuracy, and targeting time is nearly irrelevant.

You do understand the further away you fire from the less accurate you are so firing at enormous range requires very high rate of fire to be effective because landing shells in the target area is the best way to compensate for not getting direct hits.

That is why the Russians tend to use rocket artillery for counter battery fire.... even a Grad can hit targets at 40km range...

Why can't people here just admit that D-20s, D-30s and msta-Bs are the vast majority of russian artillery, and that they're inferior to the caesar andf pzh2000? Its like getting insanely butthurt and resorting to insults if someone says the MiG-21bis is inferior in performance to the F-15C or rafale.

I can of course admit that these systems are the majority of systems the Russians are using in this conflict and comparing them to token amounts of the best the west can manage is an interesting comparison... the only problem the Orcs had with Soviet artillery was that it kept getting destroyed, but with these super western weapons they not only keep getting destroyed, but they also seem to be failing a lot in between committing war crimes against civilian targets... not sure why you defend them to be honest.

The Russian military already has the solutions and are introducing them into service... can you say the same for these western systems?

Or is it a case that criticism is not allowed because otherwise someone might question how much these things cost and start asking for better?

Instead of giving Army more money to modernize, as they should have, they decided to spend massive amounts on "macho programs" such as Burevestnik or that glorified nuclear dildo Poseidon.

Your sexualisation of these strategic weapons is disturbing, but these two systems completely undermine the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty and are actually more necessary than any other Russian military programme... it is Russias nukes and its ability to deliver nukes to the west bypassing any perceived defence system that keeps the west at bay... you should be thankful.

And while you are being a dick about it... which ICBM or SLBM doesn't look phallic?

Im comparing D-20 and D-30 to caesar and pzh2000 because thats the usual matchup in the war. 99% of  LDPR units have ONLY D30s and D20s. Also the D-30 and D-20 are the guns on the gvozdika and akatsiya, and they represent that majority of russian SPGs.

But hang on, there is no way those D-20s and D-30s could ever reach any of those Euro super guns so surely they must all be destroyed by now... that is how you say it works... the gun with the biggest range is superior and wins every time... why aren't the Orcs slaughtering the Russians with their totally superior artillery?

I to this day haven't found a single justification for not mass producing koalitsiyas, other than "MoD isnt buying it, and MoD is always right"
So much for the "best artillery in the world"

Funny you say that because the Orcs currently operate 90% of HATOs supply of these uber guns but even in this little conflict they are not enough to be decisive...

How does an underwater nuclear dildo help the russians to destroy modern NATO artillery?

Your little sex aid tells western politicians that they can't attack Russia with a surprise attack to try to take out their nuclear weapons in the hope they destroy enough platforms that their navies Standard SAMs like the SM-6 which is an ABM might protect them from anything that survives the first attack.

What they actually did was join with the Navy to develop 152mm guns with greatly extended ranges for both services... something the US should have done with their new guns for the Zumwalts but that was a total failure... it was supposed to be a cruise missile ranged gun for the price of an artillery shell and instead it became a cruise missile priced shell with a fraction of the range of a cruise missile...

See this is obfuscation and misattribution. Yars, Topol and Bulava prevent US from going to war. The claim that americans were planning to press the red button before the underwater giant dildo appeared is absolutely false. Also the west hasn't spent anything to on figuring out how to stop the poseidon dildo or the burevestnik. They instead spent money on GMLRS.

Poseidon and thunderbird are direct responses to the US withdrawing from the ABM treaty... western officials might assume ship and land based ABM systems might be able to deal with Russian ballistic missiles but no military expert is going to tell them ABM systems stop torpedoes and cruise missiles.

Thunderbird and Poseidon could approach the US from any direction so air defences protecting from every direction and sea based sonar systems listening in every direction would be needed to counter those two systems... Russia already has air defence missiles that shoot down HIMARS rockets and is working on smaller lighter cheaper missiles to mass produce to do a better job.

Hermes is also being developed with a manouvering terminal portion to evade being shot down so it actually better than GMLRS because its terminal seeker would allow it to hit moving targets.

Allows the ukrainians to always stay out of range of russian artillery, and to perform counterbattery much more safely. Only on this forum will anyone deny having longer ranged, more accurate artillery is irrelevant.

The best counter battery system seems to be drones...

Apples and oranges. Artillery is the king of the battlefield. Tanks aren't.

Russian artillery seems to be the king of this battlefield so far... you can bollock on about the extra range and accuracy of the Orc weapons but without the ability to find targets to attack all the range and accuracy means nothing at all.

See this is obfuscation  and misattribution. Yars, Topol and Bulava prevent US from going to war. The claim that americans were planning to press the red button before the underwater giant dildo appeared is absolutely false.

Best to be on the safe side when it comes to NATO-Russian war
Just so there are definitely no stupid ideas being considered.

Also the west hasn't spent anything to on figuring out how to stop the poseidon dildo or the burevestnik. They instead spent money on GMLRS.

NATO spends and wastes an awful lot of money on stupid things
Probably the equivalent of Russia's artillery budget they've spent on toilets for transgender military personnel by now.

I don't doubt that among all of this, they of course spend money on useful things, equipment and stuff they need.
So does Russia. And on balance I think Russia is more efficient at spending its resources and preparing its military for the war its likely to fight.
 

Allows the ukrainians to often stay out of range of russian artillery, and to perform counterbattery much more safely. Only on this forum will anyone deny having longer ranged, more accurate artillery is irrelevant.

But it doesn't, because you're assuming all other things are equal. Which they never are.

Even if the 155mm artillery they have, in some small quantity, out-ranges the 152mm artillery Russia has, in a large quantity - then what of Russia's 203mm artillery, that the Ukraine if it still has in service - has only courtesy of Soviet stocks not NATO help?
What of the Smerch 300mm artillery, or the Uragan 220mm artillery that are also ubiquitious in Russian formations and can be used for many of the sort of fire missions that would be reserved for 152/155mm guns in Ukrainian service?
What of the fact that an equivalent size Russian unit has considerably more artillery at its disposal than an equivalent NATO formation? Does that count for nothing?
What of the many aerial means Russia has for taking out Ukrainian artillery, that for all you know it might have invested in in lieu of modernizing more towed and self-propelled guns?

Apples and oranges. Artillery is the king of the battlefield. Tanks aren't.

Artillery is the kind of the battlefield for Russia and they very much have their adversary outmatched in this conflict, both quantitatively and qualitatively on average. It doesn't matter if the Ukraine has some systems here and there with longer ranges and better precision, conditions permitting, than their direct equivalents in Russian service.

For the army, what priority is more pressing than the artillery corps?

For NATO?
It would be air-power. That's the king of the battlefield for them. They don't have that much artillery. Good technology, in theory, but they haven't procured much of it.
And as for airpower they can't use it in this proxy conflict, as Russia got into the Ukraine first. It's one of the major Russian successes that they managed to enter the war on their terms and bring all their toys to bear.

80Km range projectile? Which one? whats its designation? Is it guided? Is it even in service?

And I'm supposed to have access to classified information about the latest Russian weapons developed?

Meanwhile for the L46 msta gun,

His weapon is called the 2A65...

every single russian soruce says

Not the one I mentioned above...

 But chosta 2S3M2 and Msta-M2 they'll say. Those are small upgrades that are just stopgaps.

Newer Msta variants have the addition of GLONASS antenna, modernization of the engine, addition of electronic digital maps, installation of automated guidance and fire control system "Success-S" which provides an increase in accuracy of complete fire preparation by 20-30%, reduces time opening fire by 4...6 times, increases the probability of hitting the target by 30...40% and the survivability of an artillery unit - by at least 3 times... small upgrades you say

The majority of gvozdikas and mstas are unupgraded

Of the 760 Msta that Russia has, 260 are 2S19 M1 and 210 are 2S19 M2, and that was in 2020 two years later the number of 2S19 M2 is even greater.

only a few dozen upgraded 2S7Ms.

60 2S7Ms is more than a few dozen, certainly more than all the Caesar/Pzh2000 Ukraine has received.

Im comparing D-20 and D-30 to caesar and pzh2000 because thats the usual matchup in the war. 99% of  LDPR units have ONLY D30s and D20s. Also the D-30 and D-20 are the guns on the gvozdika and akatsiya, and they represent that majority of russian SPGs.

Russians have ten times more 2S19 M1/M2 than Ukraine has Caesar/Pzh-2000 and yet you say 99% of the fights are D-20/30 vs Caesar/Pzh-2000?!
And why do you complain about LDPR having only D-20/30?
They are a militia!
The mere fact that they have artillery implies that they punch above their weight.

How does an underwater nuclear dildo help the russians to destroy modern NATO artillery?

What if the conflict escalates and NATO goes to war with Russia?
How will koalitsiya or malva help russia to destroy nato ships?
The only exits to the sea that Russia has are frozen most of the year or surrounded by NATO members. Russia MUST HAVE the ability to blow up anyone's navy and have access to international waters and global trade. That's what Poseidon was created for.

Lancet will take out any hardware on the front in the future.