Russian Gun Artillery Thread

Or a big fellow like that.

The three images I posted were intentionally armoured vehicles (as opposed to the truck used for the truck based coalition which is clearly not armoured... well the cab does not appear to be armoured).

Of course any truck of sufficient size and power could do the job but I suspect such a vehicle will be operating with Boomerang and Typhoon armoured units so sharing their engines and chassis and wheels and transmissions etc would make good sense.

Of course using the Boomerang like that means wasted size and weight... if you used the BTR-82 as the basis for the new coalition then that is a bit of a waste because the cab for this artillery vehicle just need to transport three people to operate the system. You want the cab section to be armoured but the armour on the BTR-82 or indeed a Boomerang protects a volume that can carry almost a dozen soldiers so it would be much heavier than it needed to be.

Essentially making an armoured truck from the engine and transmission and front armour of a Boomerang or Typhoon based vehicle but making it big enough for the job only would prevent the tractor section of the vehicle weighing 25 tons on its own.

Of course using an armoured truck makes even more sense but you want it to use the same parts and equipment as used in Boomerangs and Kurganets and Typhoons so logistics is not effected when the vehicle families become more unified.

I would say a light truck is more likely to be less stable than an armoured APC platform with the added weight acting to help stabilise during firing..

Until they get organised and integrated air defence systems to defeat drones in widespread service I think cages and armoured cabs are going to be the new normal.

The money saved with a cheap light cabin would be wasted if a single rifle shot takes out the crew from the side...

I don't think an armoured cab would impact the performance too much... the main benefit comes from the wheeled design over tracks, which means it will still be cheaper to operate and be very mobile in places with good road networks.

The design of the Coalition system means everything is already in the turret ready to go, there is even an automated reloading vehicle so the crew probably wont even need to leave the armoured cab.

Stabilisers that deploy before firing should enable a lighter vehicle to have the stability of a much heavier vehicle without the problems a lot of extra weight can cause.

And of course lighter vehicles use less fuel and tend to be cheaper too.

As I mentioned earlier. The system you showed earlier the truck chassis is fine but no armour. So when I suggested typhoon both types I think it's a good chassis fit decent armour and should handle the weight no problems. Am pretty sure the Russians will figure it out the Serbs did.

I don't think using an armoured troop transport vehicle as a towing platform without modifications makes sense simply because with a Coalition turret you only need three crew which can remain in the cab during firing and reloading. Having a 25 ton Boomerang to tow a trailer with a Coalition turret is a lot of armour protection for 2-3 people in the tractor vehicle... modify the Boomerang to be a front armoured cab with engine and perhaps room for 2-3 or maybe even 4 or 5 people and then a rear door to get in and out of and then a flatbed rear with the trailer for the Coalition turret and stabilisers might make sense to get commonality wiht Boomerang based vehicles, but I would say it might just be easier to use an armoured truck for the job instead.

A roof mounted RWS on the vehicle turret and the cab turret would be useful.

Maybe a crew of four or five where the extra crew monitor the airspace around the vehicle and man the RWS in case of air or ground threats suddenly appearing while the gunner and commander perform the fire mission.

As U mentioned 203mm gun and 240mm mortar I suspect that due to the upgrades on both Pion and Tulpan that they might have thought of it initially but then decided it be cheaper to just upgrade existing systems although I could be wrong and maybe something in research phase.

Eventually these vehicles are going to need to be replaced with more modern types, but for the moment these weapons are useful but not general use.

Think of them as a sniper rifle... you would not issue all your soldiers with snipers rifles because it does not make sense... most targets would be better engaged with other weapon types... other weapon types that are lighter and more compact and cheaper.

Right now the 120mm mortar still gets the job done and accuracy and automation and new gun/mortar hybrid systems make them mobile and effective against a broad range of battlefield targets.

152mm guns are also getting upgrades and improvements with new more accurate and longer ranged rounds.

Against a lot of targets 120mm and 152mm are overkill, but against some targets they are not enough, which is why heavier weapons have been found to be useful, whether it is their longer range or their heavier payload.

Three 152mm 40kg HE shells do not have the same effect as a single 130kg HE shell... the 152mm rounds spread the damage rather further, but against strong targets the extra weight can make the larger calibre rounds quite a bit more effective.

This has been shown rather clearly with glide bomb kits with rather heavy aerial bombs.

You can chip away at a fortress using 152mm and even 203mm shells, but the effect of 500kgs and 1,500kg and now 3,000 kg bombs the word chip becomes the word smash...

Of course there is still a lot to be said for heavy artillery and its 24/7 all weather day night capacity.

I would think the experience with artillery in this conflict will lead to a new view of upgrade programmes... I would love to see 152mm guns being mounted on new Russian destroyers and for their cruiser updates, while their new cruisers perhaps a 203mm calibre weapon with massively extended range in partnership with the ground forces to create a very long range artillery capacity for precision strike over an enormous area that does not break the bank.

I wonder if they could find a platform for the 160mm mortar?

Well it is interesting because the 160mm mortar fires a 40kg HE bomb which is similar in weight but not range to 152mm shells... of course the main advantages of a mortar are high elevation shots at targets that are not so far away, which means plunging near vertical fire which is good for targets who think they are out of sight behind cover.

Of course Coalition is a howitzer which means variable propellant charges which could be reduced for short range high elevation use if required so it does make it a bit redundant.

Imagine a Coalition turret designed to use a 160mm mortar bomb or a 160mm shell like they developed 120mm shells for the 120mm gun/mortar.

It would no longer be a super long range 80km+ weapon, but for urban combat it could be a 12-15km range system perhaps?

I suspect it would be cheaper and simpler to just fire 152mm rounds with only a few propellant charges per shot.

the Tulpan has obviously a longer set up and pack up time but has a further range I think both systems have their uses.

A Kurganets based Tulip could be designed to have a more modern ammo and reloading system in a Coalition like turret to improve recoil absorption and improve accuracy without digging in to the ground with each shot.

The 160mm round is useful because it can be split into loads and carried up mountains where its powerful bomb and range make it rather potent... shorter ranged weapons might not be able to reach targets you can see in the mountains some distance away.

I suspect it is too close in performance (ie shell weight) to the 152mm to have a chance of being widely used... in many ways the 160mm mortar is a mountain howitzer for mountain operations. A pack howitzer.

Anyway maybe when these newer Russian platforms come into service they will start to look at other variants such as what we all been talking about.

They will be getting a lot of experience with artillery and air delivered ordinance in war against fortified structures.

I suspect one thing they learned is that 122mm is useful... it is lighter and more mobile than vehicle designed for 152mm rounds and probably rather cheaper too but with modern electronics and computing and automated fire control systems and targeting complexes that accuracy can make up for reduced payload against a range of targets.

Of course you can't just introduce hundreds of different calibres for every task... if you are in a tank and you come across an enemy truck you can shower it with HMG fire or coaxial fire or you can blow it to bits with a HE shell... you are not going to call in a custom designed vehicle to deal with the target.

The 203mm gun seems to have been useful just for its range and increased payload, while what the 240mm lacks in range it makes up for in power...

The 240mm is impressive and even when its shells impact near the horizon it looks like a huge bomb going off:

I think the your mention of a towed turret would actually make things more terrible in regards to mobility unless it was on tarmac only but then driving speed would be impacted a lot.

You are right, I don't mean a trailer like a truck trailer, what I mean is that the vehicle is a towing cab and a single chassis with a turret mount and stabilisers fitted to it... not that it is a complete armoured vehicle with a trailer with a coalition turret on the trailer.

I am talking about:



But with a properly armoured cab... perhaps with a roof mount RWS too with anti drone sensors and weapons.

As for 122mm I totally agree I think the 2S1 is a a very handy system.

It is light mobile and relatively cheap and with upgrades and improvements including new ammo it could operate on its own or as part of an armoured force. It could get calls for fire missions and just stop and load and aim and fire and then move on and when the drones watching the target reveal the damage done you can decide if you want to hit it again or move on to the next target.

Obviously coordination would be important, but one vehicle could serve a group of forces on each area of front, but several vehicles all operating independently could share fire missions and coordinate their fire so despite firing from different locations they can time their shots to all arrive on target together.

They are even amphibious...

Having a SP artillery system 122mm that has access to guided shells,

AFAIK they can use both the Kitilov range of guided 122mm shells and also the Gran range of 120mm guided mortar rounds too.

Improvements with the 152mm shells with GLONASS and inertial guidance should enable longer ranged 122mm rounds to be developed too...

Considering the size of the round and the automatic loading systems used on their 125mm tank guns and the automatic targeting and aiming systems for their artillery now I would think a modification of the vehicle or a new design that incorporated an unmanned turret with a two or three man crew in the hull, and perhaps unification of those propellant bags used in the new 152mm guns... obviously the smaller gun will use rather less bags per shot, even for long range shots, but unification of the propellant bags and then you just have projectile storage in the turret ring... the underfloor autoloader on tanks could be expanded to have multiple layers with a rear hull storage bay for more ammo and propellant bags to keep them away from the crew compartment.

Two feed lines for projectiles so you can have two different types ready to fire and a feed line of propellant stubs to launch the shells...

Perhaps making it a 120mm gun/mortar system might be better for ammo commonality, but the lighter ammo (compared with 152mm) would make it a much lighter more mobile and useful platform.