Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Share

    Poll

    Which is better

    [ 8 ]
    53% [53%] 
    [ 6 ]
    40% [40%] 
    [ 1 ]
    7% [7%] 

    Total Votes: 15

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 988
    Points : 1141
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:11 pm

    How do you think the msta fares against 2 of the arguably the world's most excellent SPGs? Ive  heard the PzH2000 has the worlds best long range projectile and is by far the lightest and both with the archer have by far the most accurate, rapid firing and long range howitzers ever built. IMO the archer lags behind due to the unarmored truck chassis that has poor offroad capability compared to a T-72 hull but the PzH200 doesnt have that disadvantage. However since the MSTa has a tank hull I'm assuming it has laminated armor giving it better protection. However the MSTA does have pathetic range of 29 km while the other SPGs easily go  up to 35km without RAPs.

    While I'm confident the coalition-SV will ouperform all of the western artillery systems can the MSTA-S perform on par with them or  is it just another cold war 80s performance relic?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:55 am

    I voted for the MSTA, because it is Russian Razz

    If you were to order it as an export item you could order a 52 calibre barrel in either 152mm or 155mm calibre.

    For those not familiar with the terminology a 52 calibre barrel in this case would make the 152mms designation 152mm L52. Which basically means the calibre of the tube is 152mm, and the length of the barrel is 52 calibres long, so a 152mm L52 gun is 152 x 52 = 7904mm or pretty much 7.9 metres long.

    With guided shells and improved ammo on the way the MSTA has a growth path the PZh2000 simply does not have.

    With a Koalition barrel and ammo as an upgrade then shooting at 70km range targets with GLONASS guided shells would make it a very powerful vehicle.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:50 pm



    However the MSTA does have pathetic range of 29 km while the other SPGs easily go up to 35km without RAPs.


    I have voted for PzH-2000 because your question take into account exclusively actual fire specifications and performances in respect to legacy Msta-S employing Soviet years ammunitions and here PZh-2000 is obviously superior and more modern (its operational introduction happened 10 years later than that of 2S19)


    Naturally we could also take in consideration others fundamental characteristics of any self propelled artillery which would produce a very different overall outcome of a similar comparison, such as : strategic and tactical mobility ,that in a war would allow to achieve the critical force concentration’s overmatch on enemy units (here the significant weight and volume difference between the two SPA would allow 2S19 to be air/trail/ship transported at a far greater rate than PZh-2000 and to move ,at tactical level in the theatre of operation, through areas inaccessible for vehicles like PZh-2000 ) ,fuel requirements (also here the difference is very high and this, in a conflict against a powerful opponent mean a much longer and vulnerable logistical tail and further penalties for strategic and tactical mobility linked to the transportation and mobility of the refuelling vehicles ) cost and easiness of production (also here the difference is big and would produce in the course of a conventional conflict against a powerful opponent an enormous difference in level of production and rate of repair of all damaged vehicles), variety of type of amunitions available(also here we can see how Msta-S can enjoy a distinctive advantage and is capable to execute missions much more sophisticated than mere engagement of enemy forces).


    At this we could add that ,while Pzh-2000 has been improved several times since its introduction (because considered the top end system in the role among NATO's SPAs) and can count on the most up-to-date munitions conceived by German designers, Msta-S's modernization plans -among which "Dilemma" and "Dilemma-2"- has been frozen in those years because was on the horizon the great breakthrough in the sector represented by “Koalition” and unified Armata platforms with characteristics and performances simply overwhelming in respect to previous generation.

    Only to render an idea of what is possible to achieve with modernization of 2S19 with modern gun and ammunitions i can cite only that Msta-M , with a gun barrel extended from 47 to 52 calibers and using modern rounds, is capable to engage targets at 41 km of distance with not rocket-assisted rounds !

    http://vpk.name/news/58544_modernizirovannaya_mstam.html


    Moreover would be possible to employ with it the new ,Kompas Bureau designed, GLONASS guided 152 mm rounds with dual satellite/laser guidance (and a CEP of about 10 m with exclusive satellite guidance and 1-2 m with laser correction !! A true record for precision of artillery shells.
    Those new artillery rounds ,available also for 203 mm artillery, have the same or slightly better degree of precision of the over sea competitor M982 "Excalibur" but cost less than 1/50, because domestic Institutes have found an elegant and highly effective way to mantain the in-flight satellite update link also for fast rotating rounds, while American producers are forced to redesign completely the round with immensely expensive measures necessary to prevent almost completely artillery round's rotations to avoid to lose GPS's signal.


    http://vpk.name/news/59582_rossiiskaya_armiya_poluchit_snaryadyi_so_sputnikovyim_navedeniem.html



    Naturally even with this outstanding modernization potential 2S19 will be very far from level of performances offered by "Koalition" on unified Armata platform ,therefore any cost linked to a similar MSTA-M modernization road appear wasted for Russian MoD .




    indochina
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 45
    Points : 67
    Join date : 2013-02-07

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  indochina on Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:52 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    However the MSTA does have pathetic range of 29 km while the other SPGs easily go up to 35km without RAPs.

    I have voted for PzH-2000 because your question take into account exclusively actual fire specifications and performances in respect to legacy Msta-S employing Soviet years ammunitions and here PZh-2000 is obviously superior and more modern (its operational introduction happened 10 years later than that of 2S19)  


    Naturally we could also take in consideration others fundamental characteristics of any self propelled artillery which would produce a very different overall outcome of a similar comparison, such as : strategic and tactical mobility ,that in a war would allow to achieve the critical force concentration’s overmatch on enemy units (here the significant weight and volume difference between the two SPA would allow 2S19 to be air/trail/ship transported at a far greater rate than PZh-2000 and to move ,at tactical level in the theatre of operation, through areas inaccessible for vehicles like PZh-2000 ) ,fuel requirements (also here the difference is very high and this, in a  conflict against a powerful opponent mean a much longer and vulnerable logistical tail and further penalties for strategic and tactical mobility linked to the transportation and mobility of the refuelling vehicles ) cost and easiness of production (also here the difference is big and would produce in the course of a conventional conflict against a powerful opponent an enormous difference in level of production and rate of repair of all damaged vehicles), variety of type of amunitions available(also here we can see how Msta-S can enjoy a distinctive advantage and is capable to execute missions much more sophisticated than mere engagement of enemy forces).


    At this we could add that ,while Pzh-2000 has been improved several times since its introduction (because considered the top end system in the role among NATO's SPAs)  and can count on the most up-to-date munitions conceived by German designers, Msta-S's modernization plans -among which "Dilemma" and "Dilemma-2"- has been frozen in those years because was on the horizon the great breakthrough in the sector represented by “Koalition” and unified Armata platforms with characteristics and performances simply overwhelming in respect to previous generation.

    Only to render an idea of what is possible to achieve with modernization of 2S19 with modern gun and ammunitions i can cite only that Msta-M , with a gun barrel extended from 47 to 52 calibers and using modern rounds, is capable to engage targets at 41 km of distance with not rocket-assisted rounds !      

    http://vpk.name/news/58544_modernizirovannaya_mstam.html


    Moreover would be possible to employ with it the new ,Kompas Bureau designed, GLONASS guided 152 mm rounds with dual satellite/laser guidance (and a CEP of about 10 m with exclusive satellite guidance and 1-2 m with laser correction !! A true record for precision of artillery shells.
    Those new artillery rounds ,available also for 203 mm artillery, have the same or slightly better degree of precision of the over sea competitor M982 "Excalibur" but cost less than 1/50, because domestic Institutes have found an elegant and highly effective way to mantain the in-flight satellite update link also for fast rotating rounds, while American producers are forced to redesign completely the round with immensely expensive measures necessary to prevent almost completely artillery round's rotations to avoid to lose GPS's signal.

         
    http://vpk.name/news/59582_rossiiskaya_armiya_poluchit_snaryadyi_so_sputnikovyim_navedeniem.html



    Naturally even with this outstanding modernization potential 2S19 will be very far from level of performances offered by "Koalition" on unified Armata platform ,therefore any cost linked to a similar MSTA-M modernization road appear wasted for Russian MoD .



    i agree Smile

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:30 pm

    I vote Koalition...

    Neoprime
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 17
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2013-07-20
    Location : USA

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  Neoprime on Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:16 am

    I say the PZH 2000 longer range and better armor, unless you count some of the new MSTA's with longer range but I don't know much about the armor, the PZH's have extra armor that could be added to it.


    Last edited by Neoprime on Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:02 pm; edited 1 time in total

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:13 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Naturally we could also take in consideration others fundamental characteristics of any self propelled artillery which would produce a very different overall outcome of a similar comparison, such as : strategic and tactical mobility ,that in a war would allow to achieve the critical force concentration’s overmatch on enemy units (here the significant weight and volume difference between the two SPA would allow 2S19 to be air/trail/ship transported at a far greater rate than PZh-2000 and to move ,at tactical level in the theatre of operation, through areas inaccessible for vehicles like PZh-2000 ) ,fuel requirements (also here the difference is very high and this, in a  conflict against a powerful opponent mean a much longer and vulnerable logistical tail and further penalties for strategic and tactical mobility linked to the transportation and mobility of the refuelling vehicles ) cost and easiness of production (also here the difference is big and would produce in the course of a conventional conflict against a powerful opponent an enormous difference in level of production and rate of repair of all damaged vehicles), variety of type of amunitions available(also here we can see how Msta-S can enjoy a distinctive advantage and is capable to execute missions much more sophisticated than mere engagement of enemy forces).

    Yeah, but doesnt that cut both ways wrt Koalition? at 65 t, its significantly bigger, heavier, more expensive, harder to transport though much more capable, kinda like Pzh2000 against msta-s.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:06 am

    I say the PHZ 2000 longer range and better armor, unless you count some of the new MSTA's with longer range but I don't know much about the armor, the PHZ's have extra armor that could be added to it.
    Armour on a self propelled artillery vehicle is a mixed blessing... if it is used correctly then it should never need its armour, but there will always be situations where its armour will be tested.

    Having extra armour is just extra weight for a SPAAG... protection from enemy small arms fire and shell splinters is as much as you need generally.

    The German vehicle is however very impressive.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:07 am

    Yeah, but doesnt that cut both ways wrt Koalition? at 65 t, its significantly bigger, heavier, more expensive, harder to transport though much more capable, kinda like Pzh2000 against msta-s.
    The Armata based Koalition will likely weigh in at 55-60 tons with the extra barrel and loading system removed, but the wheeled lighter system for the medium units should be lighter and more mobile.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  TR1 on Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:47 am

    I am still curious how this wheeled Coalition buisness turns out :/

    Airbornewolf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 338
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-02-05
    Location : netherlands

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  Airbornewolf on Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:52 pm

    i vote PZH2000NL. the one piece of weapon the Netherlands bought recently that actually does what they say it does. it was deployed in 2006 in Afghanistan and after some calibration and field testing it proved to be effective because of its dead-on accuracy and range. from the two bases we had it stationed on we could cover our entire area of operations and beyond. the PZH auto loader is able to give continuous fire on its own as long its magazines have shells to load into the breach. 12 rounds a minute.

    im not sure if any here heard of "the battle of Chora", if you read trough the lines of the wiki (sorry, i know wiki is not often accurate but it does sum up little what happened. ). it was a last stand by Dutch troops to keep control over an area of their responsibility. the dutch commander gave these exact orders "stay and fight". it sounds very dramatic, but take my word for it the radio traffic and the nature of the orders given those days could only be described as dramatic.



    the PZH2000 worked overtime in the assaults by Taliban, and definitely made a huge contribution in the dutch breaking the momentum of the attacks and striking exactly where and when as was needed. and a 155MM howitzer shells landing on top of your head with a rate of 12 a minute is not a fun experience Wink. the PZH performed to all of our expectations and i got no ill opinions on this machine. this thing is battle-tested.



    im not fammiliar tough with the Archer, and the MSTA i only used in war simulations (wargame:airland battle). the MSTA certainly is an effective weapon in the simulation with a good range, fire rate and accuracy. something that if its used against me i certainly going to be pissed off. but when i can have it i just need something valuable to hit with its weapon. the MSTA does seem like another effective piece of weapon engineering by Russia in my opinion.

    Note: i tried to post links of the PZH on youtube doing fast-firing and the wiki-link to the battle. but im not jet authorised it seems. i understand forum policy tough. no worries, but if you want to find out you got to do it yourselves i guess.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:53 pm

    watched pzh2000 video, surprised that its not fully automatic- a loader still has to shove bag charges. Also a lot of wasted space with that mechanism. If this is state of the art, then what do we call the upcoming Koalition  Twisted Evil . upwards of 40 shells with charge ready to fire plus maybe the space beneath the bustle in the hull- align the hull with the turret and you can autoload shells with charge through a hatch from the hull to the bustle.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  runaway on Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:12 am

    The Archer is fully automatic loading, wheeled. A cheap highly mobile and range as good as pz2000. My vote goes for sure for Archer.

    Length: 14.1 metres
    Width: 3.0 metres
    Height: 3.3 metres without the Protector mounted, 3.9 metres with.
    Weight: 30 tonnes
    Speed: 65 km/h
    Range: ~500 km
    Crew: 3-4 (commander, driver, 1-2 operators) but in case of emergencies a driver and a gunner can operate the vehicle.
    Armament: 155-mm/L52 gun howitzer, Kongsberg Protector remote weapon system.
    Rate of fire: 8–9 rounds/min in Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact-mode, which means that several shells are fired in succession with different trajectories so they hit the target simultaneously.
    Weapon range (main gun): 30 km with standard shells, 40 km with base-bleed, 60 km with Excalibur
    Protection level of armour: 7.62 mm armour-piercing rounds, mines up to 6 kg (Level 2 STANAG 4569)
    Emergency driving: all wheels - emergency driving equipment (Hutchinson AMVFI) makes it possible to drive with all wheels punctured; it also provides greater protection if the vehicle hits a blast-pressure mine; the same system is used on the Finnish APC Sisu.

    Pz2000
    Weight Combat: 55.8 t (61.5 short tons)
    Length 11.7 m (38 ft 5 in)
    Width 3.6 m (11 ft 10 in)
    Height 3.1 m (10 ft 2 in)
    Crew 5 (commander, driver, gunner, and two loaders)
    Armor welded steel, 14.5 mm resistant
    additional bomblet protection
    Main
    armament
    Rheinmetall 155 mm L52 Artillery Gun
    (60 rounds)
    3 rounds in 9.0 seconds (Burst)
    10 round/min
    Secondary
    armament
    Rheinmetall MG3 7.62 mm machine gun
    Engine MTU 881 Ka-500
    1,000 PS (986 hp, 736 kW)
    Power/weight 17.92 PS/t
    Suspension torsion bar
    Operational
    range
    420 km (261 mi)
    Speed Road: 67 km/h (41 mph)
    Off-road: 45 km/h (28 mph)

    Msta
    Weight 42 tonnes (92,593 lbs)
    Length 7.15 m (23 ft 5 in)
    Width 3.38 m (11 ft 1 in)
    Height 2.99 m (9 ft 10 in)
    Crew 5
    Elevation -4° to +68°
    Traverse 360°
    Rate of fire 6-8 rounds per minute
    Maximum firing range Base bleed: 29km (18 mi)
    RAP: 36 km (22 mi)
    Armor Classified
    Main
    armament
    152 mm howitzer 2A65
    Secondary
    armament
    12.7 mm NSVT anti-aircraft machine gun
    Engine Diesel V-84A
    840 hp (626.39 kW)
    Power/weight 20 hp/tonne
    Suspension Torsion bar
    Operational
    range
    500 km (311 mi)
    Speed 60 km/h (37 mph)

    Sponsored content

    Re: MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:29 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:29 am