First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.
If you are going to call equipment made by the country that started the space age WWI crap then expect me to call you on it... don't take that personally... I don't care who said such things my response would be the same without documented evidence to prove it... which you have not provided yet.
BTW Glonass and Krasnopol were not available in WWI.
Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor".
You are the one making claims about protection levels without any knowledge of NERA or APS or Nakidka or other systems that might be standard on the IFV version of Kurganets.
And why do you think Kurganets needs to have the best IFV armour in the universe? I know for a fact it does not because that is the purpose of the Armata based IFV.
We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.
You made the claim that a crappy western gun mounted on the back of a truck is 100 years more advanced than anything the Russians have despite the standard Russian gun having cheap affordable guided shells that can be fired to greater ranges at a slightly slower rate.
I call it crappy because it does not exceed the performance of a towed weapon and likely costs rather more for lower accuracy performance.
And how many Krasnoplos are there in units?
You are the expert here making all the claims... how many units don't have them?
France is a major user, as is India. Are you suggesting the Russians have spent a small fortune on UAVs and not on purchasing their own already developed guided artillery shells?
Even considering the Coalition will use guided shells as standard?
And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time,
Same point applies... MSTA has had guided shells for much longer period and they are much cheaper.
Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.
They have a range of options to mark targets including UAVs, aircraft and ground forces.
RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.
RPGs are more widely deployed on the battlefield than 30mm cannons... and you were the one claiming the CV90s armour was significant... in which case the armata IFV would kick its arse... that is what they would use where the threat level was high.
Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.
The IFV version of Armata is an IFV...
Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.
Hold on... you are saying it is obsolete because it is not heavy enough?
WTF does a towed gun need an APU for?
So if the FH77 is space age because it has an APU then the old 203 gun the Soviets used in WWII that had caterpillar tracks for short range mobility must have been the starship enterprise...
MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...
Yes, of course... Russian artillery is still in WWI... I guess you don't credit the Russian military spending and upgrades in C4IR over the last half decade for anything... it is obviously for nothing they are spending money on UAVs, but not the tube and rocket artillery that would use the information gained by those recon resources.
If a Russian unit needed a high mobility high rate of fire light artillery unit... Grad.
Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....
Yeah... missing a target with 6 shells makes all the difference... those stupid Russians must just pace out the firing location, lick a finger (to get the wind direction) and fire off their allotment of shells and then go back to barracks and drink vodka... job done.
Thanks for your contribution... despite your claim to extensive knowledge I have really learned nothing of value from your posts on this thread.
Perhaps in future if you can tell us how wonderful the FN77 is without having to claim it makes the Russian equivalent junk I might listen to what you say. Or I might not.
You clearly have not brought any useful information about current practises in Russian artillery units that might be useful or interesting and don't know enough about current technology and equipment in Russian units to make coherent comparisons... if you want to educate us as to how wonderful the FN77 is, move it to a relevant thread.
If you don't know how widely used Krasnopol is within Russian units then don't make claims based on ignorant assumptions.
The Indians and French seemed to like them.