MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

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?

I voted for the MSTA, because it is Russian

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.

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 .

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

I vote Koalition...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 . 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.

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   . 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.

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)

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 .

Were these glonass rounds ever procured?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Ive  heard the PzH2000 has the worlds best long range projectile 

The PzH2000 achieves its long range primarily by using Denels M2005 V-LAP projectile, which was designed by Denel in South Africa, and is produced there, where it's also known as the Assegaai (a type of spear). Rheinmetall specifically bought into Denel to access this.

A couple of years ago at the Alkantpan test range in South Africa (2019?), Denel used the G-6-56 to fire the Assegaai to 76km, which is unsurpassed in this calibre bracket. The PzH2000 managed 67km using the Assegaai projectile, albeit with a different charge, as it cannot manage the full capacity G-6-52 charge.

The G-6 has an interesting history, including combat shoots at 38km ranges in Southern Angola 35 years ago. I do know at one stage, I think at the Lomba river, fire was called down over a range of 38km, utilising the battery of 3 G-6 vehicles equipped with 45 calibre-length barrels.
Fire correction was performed by special forces in the observation role with a view of the target. In the flat terrain of Southern Angola, multiple radio relays had to used for these corrections, due to the extreme forward deployment of those special forces teams.

That is a rocket assisted shell. The 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV or 2S19M2 Msta-SM2 have similar range with that kind of ammo.
Allegedly 80km range with an L60 gun.

wilhelm wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Ive  heard the PzH2000 has the worlds best long range projectile 

The PzH2000 achieves its long range primarily by using Denels M2005 V-LAP projectile, which was designed by Denel in South Africa, and is produced there, where it's also known as the Assegaai (a type of spear). Rheinmetall specifically bought into Denel to access this.

A couple of years ago at the Alkantpan test range in South Africa (2019?), Denel used the G-6-56 to fire the Assegaai to 76km, which is unsurpassed in this calibre bracket. The PzH2000 managed 67km using the Assegaai projectile, albeit with a different charge, as it cannot manage the full capacity G-6-52 charge.

The G-6 has an interesting history, including combat shoots at 38km ranges in Southern Angola 35 years ago. I do know at one stage, I think at the Lomba river, fire was called down over a range of 38km, utilising the battery of 3 G-6 vehicles equipped with 45 calibre-length barrels.
Fire correction was performed by special forces in the observation role with a view of the target. In the flat terrain of Southern Angola, multiple radio relays had to used for these corrections, due to the extreme forward deployment of those special forces teams.

Odd to use relays when we have SATCOM.

diabetus wrote:

wilhelm wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Ive  heard the PzH2000 has the worlds best long range projectile 

The PzH2000 achieves its long range primarily by using Denels M2005 V-LAP projectile, which was designed by Denel in South Africa, and is produced there, where it's also known as the Assegaai (a type of spear). Rheinmetall specifically bought into Denel to access this.

A couple of years ago at the Alkantpan test range in South Africa (2019?), Denel used the G-6-56 to fire the Assegaai to 76km, which is unsurpassed in this calibre bracket. The PzH2000 managed 67km using the Assegaai projectile, albeit with a different charge, as it cannot manage the full capacity G-6-52 charge.

The G-6 has an interesting history, including combat shoots at 38km ranges in Southern Angola 35 years ago. I do know at one stage, I think at the Lomba river, fire was called down over a range of 38km, utilising the battery of 3 G-6 vehicles equipped with 45 calibre-length barrels.
Fire correction was performed by special forces in the observation role with a view of the target. In the flat terrain of Southern Angola, multiple radio relays had to used for these corrections, due to the extreme forward deployment of those special forces teams.

Odd to use relays when we have SATCOM.

That was in the 80's during South African border war.

Will the ukrainians have a large advantaged with the longer standard shell range, and much higher fire rate that the PzH2000 offers compared to the Msta, at least as long as they have access to 155mmshells? So far , there are less than 50 koalitsiyas and service and none of them have been used in ukraine. Its seems like the russians are mainly using ancient akatsiyas with shitty range, and a few legacy Mstas.

There seems to be some malkas, but their fire rate is far too low.

limb wrote:Will the ukrainians have a large advantaged with the longer standard shell range, and much higher fire rate that the PzH2000 offers compared to the Msta, at least as long as they have access to 155mmshells? So far , there are less than 50 koalitsiyas and service and none of them have been used in ukraine. Its seems like the russians are mainly using ancient akatsiyas with shitty range, and a few legacy Mstas.

There seems to be some malkas, but their fire rate is far too low.

Since when do the Ukrs have PzH2000s?

They have late Soviet artillery at the best. So those same Msta-Ss, Giantsits, Pions and so on. Plus the M777s delivered now from the US and whatever Czech self-propelled guns and others.

Russia is using mostly Msta's, some upgraded to the SM2 standard which makes it very modern. A lot of Gvozdikas Russia uses have been upgraded to Khostas.
Rest of the stuff Russia operates is mostly Soviet vintage, albeit some upgraded with fire control computers or other things, like the Giantsits and Pions.

An advantage in range is not much help if the enemy has attack helicopters roaming looking for you with supersonic anti armour missiles and rockets.

Russian use of artillery will mostly be for grinding up troops caught out in the open... for which rocket artillery delivers max intensity with max range, while some point targets might be able to be dealt with using tube artillery but the risk of hitting civilians suggests to me use of gun artillery would likely be focused on hitting fortifications and bunkers and trenches etc... ie fixed targets that can't move.

Any artillery battle the Orcs want to play they would lose... even with G6 vehicles... because the Russians should have radar to detect fire and aircraft with air launched weapons able to engage ground targets from extreme standoff ranges.

A Smerch battery loaded up with sensor fused top attack munitions could be put on standby... any enemy artillery unit opens up and a single rocket could be launched to ruin their day pretty quick.

The Pzh 2000 is a 56 ton beast. Do they even have recovery vehicles that can tow 56 tons? What are they going to do when they eventually break down? I doubt a few months (weeks more like) of instruction would be enough to impress even the basics of operation let alone maintenance of such a complex piece of hardware. Why the **** aren't they asking these questions themselves?

lyle6 wrote:The Pzh 2000 is a 56 ton beast. Do they even have recovery vehicles that can tow 56 tons? What are they going to do when they eventually break down? I doubt a few months (weeks more like) of instruction would be enough to impress even the basics of operation let alone maintenance of such a complex piece of hardware. Why the **** aren't they asking these questions themselves?

Wow, this post aged poorly, given that both the pzh2000s and Krabs were successfully transported to the Donbass with 0 problems and are now outranging the msta.

Quite amusing really... as the HATO supplied gear gets more and more sophisticated the Ukraine is now conscripting women to fight the Russians with almost no time for training... they go straight to the front.

With aircraft it is of course very different... most air forces have rather more pilots than they have aircraft so when aircraft are shot down or destroyed on the ground the numbers get even worse to the point where you might have hundreds of pilots for each available aircraft... of course at any given time you might have one or two planes that are flyable but when they take off they are shot down.

Kiev is now asking for F-15s and F-16s, but the US is refusing because in the situation they know how easily they would be shot down and it would embarrassing and expensive... pretty soon I think they are going to realise they are not getting their money back...

I should add that I have read an article that I currently can't find at the moment where Kievs front line troops are making money selling weapons to the Russians and the Donbass troops.... they know if they use it they will be attacked and likely get killed, so as they arrive in theatre they deploy them and then make offers to the enemy to enable the enemy to capture then intact for a fee... that was supposedly how they captures two Caesar 155mm guns from the French intact so quickly...

All sorts of stuff is for sale from M4 rifles with suppressors and scopes and ammo, through NLAWS and Javelins and Stingers... some of it might be scammers of course... even if they have the ordinance they might think they can scam idiots out of money.

From the Ukraine war thread it sounds like the M777s are awful and cheaply made... max range is not everything... remember if HATO were using them in a war against Russia Russia would be destroying their C4IR meaning all that extra range those rounds achieve means nothing if you have no target coordinates... of course these orcs just use existing maps because they are shooting at civilians.

Which reminds me that one tactic to transfer artillery they said was for the Orcs to set up the guns and fire at something unimportant (in military terms) and then run away and when the counter battery fire arrives claim the guns are destroyed... including the ones they sold and could otherwise not account for.

GarryB wrote:Quite amusing really... as the HATO supplied gear gets more and more sophisticated the Ukraine is now conscripting women to fight the Russians with almost no time for training... they go straight to the front.

With aircraft it is of course very different... most air forces have rather more pilots than they have aircraft so when aircraft are shot down or destroyed on the ground the numbers get even worse to the point where you might have hundreds of pilots for each available aircraft... of course at any given time you might have one or two planes that are flyable but when they take off they are shot down.

Kiev is now asking for F-15s and F-16s, but the US is refusing because in the situation they know how easily they would be shot down and it would embarrassing and expensive... pretty soon I think they are going to realise they are not getting their money back...

I should add that I have read an article that I currently can't find at the moment where Kievs front line troops are making money selling weapons to the Russians and the Donbass troops.... they know if they use it they will be attacked and likely get killed, so as they arrive in theatre they deploy them and then make offers to the enemy to enable the enemy to capture then intact for a fee... that was supposedly how they captures two Caesar 155mm guns from the French intact so quickly...

All sorts of stuff is for sale from M4 rifles with suppressors and scopes and ammo, through NLAWS and Javelins and Stingers... some of it might be scammers of course... even if they have the ordinance they might think they can scam idiots out of money.

From the Ukraine war thread it sounds like the M777s are awful and cheaply made... max range is not everything... remember if HATO were using them in a war against Russia Russia would be destroying their C4IR meaning all that extra range those rounds achieve means nothing if you have no target coordinates... of course these orcs just use existing maps because they are shooting at civilians.

Which reminds me that one tactic to transfer artillery they said was for the Orcs to set up the guns and fire at something unimportant (in military terms) and then run away and when the counter battery fire arrives claim the guns are destroyed... including the ones they sold and could otherwise not account for.

You're losing the plot Garry. Starting to sound like a troll more and more. Russia did make a mistake to not hit infrastructure harder. Not all bridges, but some. Make it easier to track weapon shipments.
In any case, your message doesn't have anything to do with what limb said.