2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

Serial supplies of the "Coalition-SV" to Russian troops will begin until 2020

MOSCOW, May 29. / TASS /. Serial supplies of self-propelled artillery units "Coalition-SV" into Russian troops will begin until 2020, said the head of the Missile Forces and Artillery Lieutenant-General Mikhail Matveevsky.

"An inter-service artillery complex, the Coalition-SV, will enter the troops serially," Matveyevsky said, describing plans for the year 2020.

Self-propelled howitzer 2S35 "Coalition-SV" is designed to destroy command posts, communication centers, artillery and mortar batteries, armored vehicles, including tanks, anti-tank weapons, air defense and anti-missile systems, and the potential enemy's manpower.

On the "Coalition-SV" a cannon with a caliber of 152 millimeters is installed with a firing rate of more than 10 rounds per minute, which is higher than the rate of firing of other artillery systems. Such indicators were achieved thanks to the design of the charging mechanisms of the gun. Also in the set of weapons "Coalition" is a remote-controlled installation with a machine gun "Cord".

The choice of target and guidance of the gun can be carried out using a special automated control system, which is equipped with a complex. For firing from the "Coalition" can be used guided missiles. The flight path is corrected using the GLONASS navigation system. High-explosive projectiles can also be used.


http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4290586

Russia to have new munitions for the Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled artillery in two-three years

The Tecmash Concern of the Rostec State Corporation is implementing a program to create new munition for perspective self-propelled artillery gun Koalitsiya-SV (Coalition-SV), Director General of the company Sergei Rusakov said.


"The munition has several principally new technical solutions. In several years it can become standard for munitions producers abroad," he said. Tecmash First Deputy Director General Vladimir Tikhonov said the portfolio of orders of the company has many assignments which are at a high stage of completion. "We hope in the coming two-three years to receive a principally new class of munitions, including artillery ones," he said.

By 2020 Tecmash has to comply with the requirement of the state armaments program to raise the share of modern armaments in the Russian army to 70 percent.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/russia_new_artillery_munitions_for_koalitsiya-sv_81206172.html

The system of modular charges for the 152-mm self-propelled artillery system "Coalition"

At the last International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation presented, among other things, information about the system of modular propellant charges created as part of the development of a set of main-round shots for the prospective inter-service 152 mm artillery complex "Coalition".


Also in the exposition of the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" a 152-mm shot with a 3G4 concrete shell created within the framework of the same OC "Coalition-BP" was presented. The shot is designed to defeat the field fortification and other defensive structures, infrastructure facilities and the rear. It is used for firing from the 152-mm self-propelled howitzer 2S35 "Coalition-SV".


The composition of the shot:
- projectile 3G4
- bottom fuse
- full variable modular propellant charge 4-З-27
- electric shock tube TV-UED-3 (3KV9)


Description

The shot consists of a 3G4 projectile with a screwed bottom fuse, a full variable modular propellant charge 4-Z-27 and an electric shock tube. Before screwing the fuse, the point is closed by a blank stopper.

Shell 3G4 consists of a body with a floating copper lead band, a ballistic tip, a bursting charge, a screw bottom and a threaded ring.

The shell of the shell is steel, with a solid head. The ballistic tip is fixed to the body by means of a thread. At the bottom of the body is a chambers, in which a discontinuous charge is placed. The rupture charge is closed by a screwed bottom, on top of which the threaded ring is screwed. Between the screw bottom and the body is embedded a lead gasket, designed to protect the explosive charge from the effects of powder gases.

A bottom fuse is screwed into the threaded point of the screwed bottom. Between the flange of the fuse and the screwed bottom is also put a lead gasket.



The 152 mm concrete 3G4 shell project, created within the framework of the OC "Coalition-BP" in the exposition of the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017"

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2825067.html

Out of Sight: Russia's New Self-Propelled Howitzer Leaves the West Behind

The first batch of state-of-the-art Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled guns will be supplied to the Russian Armed Forces beginning in 2020. The system is undergoing field tests now, but it is already clear that it leaves its best Western counterparts far behind, RIA contributor Andrei Kots wrote.

First seen in public during rehearsals for the 2015 Victory Day parade in Moscow the Koalitsiya-SV is built around an auto-loaded 152 mm howitzer capable of firing up to 16 rounds a minute, twice as much as any other modern main battle tank.

Targeting is done via satellite navigation or a laser target indicator.

The Koalitsiya-SV is a highly robotized system, with a high degree of automation. It features a unified command-and-control system that can automatically select the appropriate shell type for a specific task and the amount of charge required.

It has a firing range of 70 kilometers (43 miles), an absolute record no Western self-propelled gun can match. The US M109 Paladin is able to send shells a mere 30 kilometers (18 miles).

Britain’s S90 Braveheart fires 40 kilometers (24 miles) and the French AMX AuF1t has a maximum range of 35 kilometers (21 miles).

The Koalitsiya-SV can simultaneously hit its targets with several shells, each traveling along a different trajectory – something only the German PzH 200 could previously boast of.

All this makes the Koalitsiya-SV akin to a tactical missile system, capable of destroying command posts, air- and missile-defense installations, communication lines and artillery batteries located well behind enemy lines while remaining outside the reach of enemy artillery.

“The introduction of the Koalitsiya-SV is a significant boost to the Russian Ground Forces’ artillery arsenal. Meanwhile, the US Army is expected to operate upgraded versions of the 1960s vintage M109 Paladin self-propelled gun," The National Interest wrote.

The Koalitsiya-SV will serve as a platform for a new, fully robotic howitzer capable of carrying out combat missions on its own.

https://sputniknews.com/russia/201709051057101817-russia-howitzer-new/

I believe the closest European artillery is the new Swedish Archer, which can achieve 60km range, but only using XM982 Excalibur guided rounds. Loud bastards. The last time I heard them firing they were over 5km distant, but the sound was still shaking powder snow off the trees...

Is that range achieved through the use of rocket-assisted projectiles?

If so then it's nothing that analogous systems such as the same Pzh2000 or Paladin can't implement, if their manufacturers so choose.

Rocket-assisted projectiles have always had the failing that they are inevitably less accurate; but provided that rocket-boosters are fitted only to guided shells, this drawback should now be avoidable.

Of course if this is their 'pure' range - then that would be remarkable.

Russian MoD orders trial batch of 10 2S35 Koalitsia-SV SPHs

The Russian Defense Ministry and Burevestnik Research Institute signed a contract for the delivery of a trial batch of ten latest self-propelled artillery guns Koalitsia-SV (Coalition), the ministry said on Sept. 5 on its website.


"Government acceptance tests of Koalitsia-SV artillery gun will be completed in 2019. At present a state contract has been signed with the producer on the delivery of a test batch of ten pieces for operation in the troops," it said.

Serial supplies of the gun are scheduled for 2020.

The 2S35 Koalitsia-SV self-propelled artillery gun is to replace 2S19 cannon Msta-S. It is to be armed with a new separate-loaded 152mm shell. A remote-controlled combat module with 12.7mm machinegun is mounted on top of the gun and smoke dischargers 902B Tucha are on the sides.

The 2S35 gun presented in May 2015 was mounted on T-72/90 undercarriage although the Armata platform is supposed to be used in future. All crew actions are reflected on displays of a single control panel. Pneumatic loading mechanism increased the firing speed of 2S35. Koalitsia-SV can automatically select the type of a shell and fire it.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/september_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_mod_orders_trial_batch_of_10_2s35_koalitsia-sv_sphs.html

---

I think that these 10 vehicles should be on Armata chassis by now.

A trial batch of 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled 152.4 mm howitzers are about to be delivered to the Russian MoD:

http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12145163@egNews

Why does the gun have a bore evacuator if it is a unmanned turret?

Also where is the naval version?

And why did the over under variant have a difforent gun?

Probably easier to make one type of gun with a bore evacuator than to make two.... one with and one without.

Once in full production they might put the gun into existing platforms with manned turrets to improve performance and to standardise ammo stores, in which case the BE will be useful.

Keeping combustion fumes out of the turret would also make it easier to keep clean.

I own a few firearms, and the automatic ones need their parts exposed to hot combustion gas cleaned after you fire them... with no BE the fumes would fill the turret meaning you would need to clean the whole inside of the turret without special internal design the kept the fumes away from the mechanisms.

Filling the unmanned turret with nitrogen would be a cheap and simple way to greatly reduce fire risk.

They have only built Frigates and Corvettes so far so it is rather unlikely we will see the 152mm naval gun until they show destroyers or cruisers.

A gun designed to be mounted next to another gun of the same type would have specific requirements... a gun mounted on its own would have different requirements.

The underlying gun might actually be the same but the external differences might make them look different.

There are rumours that the Nahkimov may receive a Koalitisiya-based 155mm gun as part of her deep upgrade, though no sign of it yet, though the old AK-130 has been removed.

Will be interesting to see if they keep the twin barrel arrangement for the 152mm gun or whether they mount two separate guns side by side or just have one gun.

I understand that the reason the Coalition land based system only has one gun to reduce height and weight of the system.

Obviously two guns require two separate loading systems preferably dual feed so the round to be used can be selected before loading, which means four separate ammo feeding channels for two guns.


On a ship there is no issue with either size or weight, but for a land based armoured vehicle that needs to be transported on trains under bridges and also in aircraft then height and weight issues become important.

Rate of fire is not so important for a ground vehicle as you can just deploy twice as many gun vehicles to achieve a higher rate of fire.

For a ship however it is not so easy to increase the rate of fire...

for a cruiser why not a 152 mm quad mount 4 times the fire rate in only 1 turret. It could also defeat swarms of small boats and drones with 152 mm proximity shells

Something like this minus 2 guns and on a ship.

Because two guns mounted one above each other can be fed ammo from both sides.... that means dual feed... you can load two different types of ammo rapidly for both guns.

With four guns you need a much larger turret to allow dual feed for each gun which really does not help...

From what I have read the Coalition with one gun can fire about 16 rounds per minute, so with two guns we are talking about 25 plus rounds per minute.... considering these are 40kg plus shells that would be plenty for most targets.

With two guns you can carry more ammo too.

You don't need 152mm shells to defeat a speed boat, but considering the range of 70km for the guns and the potential for guided shells you wont need that many shots to deal with each boat.

Enemies are not idiots... if you fit ten 152mm guns able to deal with 100 targets at a time then they will attack with 101 platforms.

Hopefully they will also have 57mm guns replacing their 30mm gatlings...

GarryB wrote:Because two guns mounted one above each other can be fed ammo from both sides.... that means dual feed... you can load two different types of ammo rapidly for both guns.

With four guns you need a much larger turret to allow dual feed for each gun which really does not help...

From what I have read the Coalition with one gun can fire about 16 rounds per minute, so with two guns we are talking about 25 plus rounds per minute.... considering these are 40kg plus shells that would be plenty for most targets.

With two guns you can carry more ammo too.

You don't need 152mm shells to defeat a speed boat, but considering the range of 70km for the guns and the potential for guided shells you wont need that many shots to deal with each boat.

Enemies are not idiots... if you fit ten 152mm guns able to deal with 100 targets at a time then they will attack with 101 platforms.

Hopefully they will also have 57mm guns replacing their 30mm gatlings...

I thought that you could just pick up HE shells for one section of the magazine and AP from another its not a belt fed autocannon like the 2a42 the T-90 does not have 2 feed systems.

And as for 57mm CIWS I am not awere of a 57mm gun that can fire 2000+ rounds/min and guided rounds cost too mutch if they were economicaly viable then artillery would use nothing else I think that a higher velocity 30mm round used in a 2x6 barreld rotary cannon mount along with missiles is more than good enough and maby a 4x6 30mm high velicity with missiles mount if under threat of hypersonic missiles.

The-thing-next-door wrote:for a cruiser why not a 152 mm quad mount 4 times the fire rate in only 1 turret. It could also defeat swarms of small boats and drones with 152 mm proximity shells

Something like this minus 2 guns and on a ship.

I want this for christmas....

The fact of the matter is that, in spite of how good an idea it seems to have a single artillery platform with a million-bazillion guns, after some thought, one begins to realise just impractical it is.

First thing's first. cost. It will cost a small fortune to add more guns and sort out all of the associated engineering problems that come with that concept. And, it is not just money that it will cost. As it was mentioned before, more than one gun means more turret space. Naturally, there is a very physical limit where the weight and relative size of the vehicle becomes to much to work with. Suddenly, logistics will become an issue. Suddenly, loading a monster with 4 guns onto a train will be impossible. Suddenly, traversing the rough, unpaved world will be painfully slow.

Secondly, targeting. With a single platform that has multiple guns, the crew can only target one thing at any one time, where as four separate units could do more.

Thirdly, and this was also mentioned somewhere else, if you have 4 guns on the same platform, that means there needs to be an auto-loader for each one, and the engineering needed to pull that off would be nothing short of divine intervention. If you were to let the crew load the guns then, either the fire rate is limited to how fast Ivan can throw artillery shells into 4 barrels, or the whole endeavour is pointless.

Finally, and this is a bit of a correction to what Garry said, two or more guns on a vehicle means less ammo. So, if endurance counts - which it does - the more vehicles, the merrier.

To sum it up, what was once a good idea in everyone's head, is now another forgotten idea because there are better solutions to the same problem.

I thought that you could just pick up HE shells for one section of the magazine and AP from another its not a belt fed autocannon like the 2a42 the T-90 does not have 2 feed systems.

The distance between the bore of the gun and the ammo magazine in a T-90 is about 1 metre or less.

For a naval gun the shells and their propellant charges have to be hauled up from below deck... perhaps 6 metres or more.

Equally if you load a shell and then a new target appears and you need to change shells to a different type you would have to then take out the shell and  put it back into its magazine position and then draw another shell of the required type... very slow for a gun that fires every 4 seconds.

Most of the time it will be firing standard HE shells with built in Glonass guidance, but occasionally it will be firing munitions with different guidance options or a different shell type completely. In such a situation having one loading channel full of HE Glonass guided shells and the other free to load another type when needed makes it faster and much more efficient.

And as for 57mm CIWS I am not awere of a 57mm gun that can fire 2000+ rounds/min and guided rounds cost too mutch if they were economicaly viable then artillery would use nothing else

The 152mm Coalition uses a standard HE shell with Glonass guidance so its standard round is a cheap guided round already.

The problem for the 30mm is not so much the speed of the target but the small size of some new targets like UAVs.

A 30mm shell case is too small to contain a guidance system so the best solution is air burst ammo with a time fuse so as the rounds are fired a timed fuse is set at the muzzle to make the round explode just before it intercepts the target... this will shower the point of aim with fragments that greatly increase the chances of an intercept.

The new 57mm ammo being developed for the new Russian IFV and SPAAGs uses a guided shell that is big enough to manover to hit targets so instead of firing hundreds of rounds at one target hoping for a hit it can fire one or two rounds and be assured of a hit.

The guided shells do not cost 200 times the standard shells so it works out cheaper... for a ship to protect the vessel from attack they would be cheap if they were gold plated platinum.

I think that a higher velocity 30mm round used in a 2x6 barreld rotary cannon mount along with missiles is more than good enough and maby a 4x6 30mm high velicity with missiles mount if under threat of hypersonic missiles.

Airburst 30mm rounds would be just fine... throwing fragments in the path of the incoming threat is more effective with increased speed so a fast target will be more damaged than a slower one.

Guided 57mm shells have much longer range however and would be more likely to set off the targets warhead and totally destroy it well away from the ship.
It would also be very useful against small fast boats too.

Finally, and this is a bit of a correction to what Garry said, two or more guns on a vehicle means less ammo. So, if endurance counts - which it does - the more vehicles, the merrier.

I was refering to the naval gun having two guns instead of four... less guns means smaller lighter turret with less complication and the lower rate of fire means the ammo can last longer and extra ammo can be carried because each turret gun will weight about 5-10 tons so only having two instead of four should save 10-20 tons.

Very simply more guns is very good only in a few specific situations... shooting at small fast moving targets like aircraft, or to launch a volley attack rapidly so the platform can then move to reload somewhere else.

Hense Shilka has four single barrel guns, and Grad has 40 rocket tubes.

Most of the time however a single gun on more vehicles makes more sense...

1 vehicle with 2 guns is a lot cheaper than 2 vehicle with 1 gun but I was talking about naval aplication in withc you do not have spave for more than 1 turret anymore so more guns on the 1 turret is a good solution and dont try and tell me that 2 normal cruisers is cheaper than 1 with a bigger turret.

as for autoloaders ships will not need APFSDS,HEAT and HE they just need HE so you do not need to change ammo while feeding and even if you did you would not remove the round from the chamber you would fire it and the next one would be the new type.

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:1 vehicle with 2 guns is a lot cheaper than 2 vehicle with 1 gun but I was talking about naval aplication in withc you do not have spave for more than 1 turret anymore so more  guns on the 1 turret is a good solution and dont try and tell me that 2 normal cruisers is cheaper than 1 with a bigger turret.

as for autoloaders ships will not need APFSDS,HEAT and HE they just need HE so you do not need to change ammo while feeding and even if you did you would not remove the round from the chamber you would fire it and the next one would be the new type.

If you mean buying 1 vehicle with 2 turrets instead of 2 with 1 turrets that's strategicaly stupid because if you lose 1 of them you have like 2 vehicles lost.

That's a similar situation with western countries replacing 4 fighter/bombers/interceptors by just 1 multirole fighter. Instead of buying 400 planes of all sort they buy just 100. It's more difficult to sustain big operations like that.

Technology is not so superior to to a numerical advantage specially if the enemy can destroy your costly new generation fighter or vehicles by missile like ATGM or Iskanders on the ground or in ambushes.

That's certainly an argument yes. However as weapons become more sophisticated and expensive and more versatile, it's hard to justify keeping the same numbers of them as for the previous generation of weapons. And not only because they're a lot more expensive; although that's certainly an important factor too.

1 Su-34 can do the job of several Su-24; it only takes one of them to guarantee destruction of the target due to their superior accuracy, weapons selection and survivability.
What's more that Su-34 can fly home, and then be refitted at the airbase with surviellance or EW pods for an entirely different type of mission.. whereas when it comes to Su-24s you can't use the same aircraft; you would need to have available at the airbase a specially-constructed variant of the baseline Su-24, such as an Su-24MR - for such a mission.
Take it back a generation further, and you would have needed an entirely different aircraft altogether.

As the weapon systems become more complicated, the training requirements of the personnel become more intense too. Qualified crewmembers will become more valuable and more expensive, harder to replace and take longer to prepare.

This process seems to be inevitable with the growing sophistication of warfare and military technology.. you can't go back. Equipment becomes more expensive, the salaries of military specialists grow.. and the domestic public becomes less and less enthusiastic about the idea of national military service. 50 years ago you could draft young men for 3 years and that was viewed as quite acceptable; yet these days there's enough outcry about just 1 year of mandatory military service. This reduces the pool of manpower available to the military; forcing them to try and entice people in, again raise salaries for specialists, pilots, drivers, etc... and sustaining large formations becomes even more expensive.
And yet it's still not enough - militaries around the world are engaging in downsizing as a matter of neccessity as well as efficiency.

The public is also less and less tolerant of casualties. National governments are more and more sensitive to said public opinion. Casualties are to be avoided - again this mandates more expensive equipment, better trained personnel, etc... and if it has to be a choice between greater numbers of less sophisticated gear and worse trained soldiers, and lesser numbers of more sophisticated systems with better trained soldiers - then the later option will be seen as preferable; it will incur less casualties in the low-intensity warfare operations that are increasingly becoming the norm for developed, industrialized countries.

When it comes to artillery - I think we'll soon see robotic artillery; sooner then for other combat arms at any rate. It makes sense to have less vehicles; there will be less of a logistical footprint and less numbers of vehicles per battery will make the formation harder to detect while on the move.
If you're worried about survivability - it's better not to think on the individual vehicle level, but on the actual formation level, as in the number of artillery batteries deployed. Deploy 2 batteries instead of just one. If a self-propelled Coalitsiya-SV battery is caught by an ambush or counter-battery fire out in the open then it's hosed, regardless of whether it's made up of 6 vehicles or 12. The key idea is mobility, avoiding such situations.

Isos wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:1 vehicle with 2 guns is a lot cheaper than 2 vehicle with 1 gun but I was talking about naval aplication in withc you do not have spave for more than 1 turret anymore so more  guns on the 1 turret is a good solution and dont try and tell me that 2 normal cruisers is cheaper than 1 with a bigger turret.

as for autoloaders ships will not need APFSDS,HEAT and HE they just need HE so you do not need to change ammo while feeding and even if you did you would not remove the round from the chamber you would fire it and the next one would be the new type.

If you mean buying 1 vehicle with 2 turrets instead of 2 with 1 turrets that's strategicaly stupid because if you lose 1 of them you have like 2 vehicles lost.

That's a similar situation with western countries replacing 4 fighter/bombers/interceptors by just 1 multirole fighter. Instead of buying 400 planes of all sort they buy just 100. It's more difficult to sustain big operations like that.

Technology is not so superior to to a numerical advantage specially if the enemy can destroy your costly new generation fighter or vehicles by missile like ATGM or Iskanders on the ground or in ambushes.

My point is that 1 vehicle with 2 guns gives you the same firepower as 2 vehicles with 1 gun but costs less than 2 vehicles.

I wonder if there will be a 180/203mm variant of the koalitsiya?

Single gun artillery is perfectly acceptable for land warfare but simply will not fit the fire rate requirments for naval aplications you cant simply have more turrets on a ship to solve the problem .

1 vehicle with 2 guns is a lot cheaper than 2 vehicle with 1 gun but I was talking about naval aplication in withc you do not have spave for more than 1 turret anymore so more guns on the 1 turret is a good solution and dont try and tell me that 2 normal cruisers is cheaper than 1 with a bigger turret.

For a naval gun turret space is not a problem, so two or even three guns side by side are actually rather common.

The problem is effect... having two guns increases the rate of fire, but if one 152mm shells are ineffective against a heavy target like a huge fort or bunker then two shells wont be effective either. A ship can sit off a coast and pound a target for days so rate of fire is not normally critical.

the first shells that arrive in an artillery barrage are normally the most effective because after about 30 seconds everyone who was in the open will have found cover or be dead already. That means it is the first few shells that really count the most much of the time.

In that sense Rocket artillery is very effective for this reason.

A vehicle with one gun can carry more ammo by weight than a single vehicle burdened with multiple guns.

Having two guns on the Coalition in the land version made it taller and much heavier and reduced its amount of ready to fire ammo because of the weight of the extra gun, the extra feeding equipment and the extra aiming and stabilisation equipment needed to use the extra gun.

If you need to send a heavy barrage of shells onto an area target then amass lots of vehicles and concentrate your fire that way.

Making all your vehicles big and heavy and unable to transport by air or rail (too high for tunnels) and you limit the usefulness of the weapon... and for what... to increase the rate of fire?

It is an artillery piece with guided shells... you don't need to fire hundreds of rounds... a few well aimed shots and then move.

On a ship things are different... no air transport and no rail transport so a bigger turret with more guns makes sense, but having four barrels just adds complication and weight. Two on the other hand was the original design and makes a lot of sense.

With the above I am referring to 152mm artillery shells.

With anti aircraft guns then a higher rate of fire makes a lot of sense.... for very small calibre guns like 23mm and 30mm cannon. For 57mm guns on land a single barrel gun firing guided shells and AHEAD type shells then a single barrel is lighter and cheaper and just as effective.

For a naval system I could see them going for a twin barrel mount just because there is no reason not to.

The ZSU-23-4 has four barrels to send up large bursts of shells rapidly to fill a piece of airspace rapidly.

The 2A38M 30mm cannon is a twin barrel cannon able to do that rapidly too, but they need to because targets like UAVs are getting smaller so you need to put up more rounds to ensure a hit.

With the new 57mm rounds it is guidance and fusing that allows the rounds to be effective even small bursts of a few rounds only.

The bigger rounds also offer better range and terminal effect on target.

as for autoloaders ships will not need APFSDS,HEAT and HE they just need HE so you do not need to change ammo while feeding and even if you did you would not remove the round from the chamber you would fire it and the next one would be the new type.

Dumb HE shells are cheap and simple and you could carry a huge number, but when the threat is a supersonic anti ship missile coming in at wave top height being able to fire 2-3 shells that have guidance makes everything easier and quicker and cheaper.

SAPHEI would be a useful round, and guided shells would be useful too, as would AHEAD type rounds that detonate in the path of the incoming threat and showers them with shell fragments.

Even a Chaff/Flare round or a jamming round that will attract incoming weapons with a home on jam capability...

The Russians are spoiled for good artillery... they have good tube artillery and good rocket artillery and now their CAS assets like Hokums and Havoc and Frogfeet have become rather capable. The accuracy and responsiveness has increased dramatically... they wont need hour long barrages of the front lines before an attack is launched, and the ability to call in support and to highlight targets for other units to deal with has finally become a reality for the Russian forces.

They have showed in Syria what their special forces and air power can do... add a capable ground force and they are becoming a very formidable force.

They wont need twin guns on their artillery vehicles for that.

I agree that a single barrel is enough for a land system (exept for mortars a quad 120mm aoutomatic mortar vehicle is desperatley needed)


But lets face it what Russia realy needs is a 920mm self propelled howitzer that will realy show thoes nazi scum and thier puny little swere gustav.