2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm

Looking good ...

so much for the T-90 chassis... everyone says it cuz the 6 wheels, but...

just look the damn photo above! same hull shapes, exhaust, and the tracks too, all seems like armata, the rear sponson box, everything. The glacis is almost identical to the armata, as seen on other photos....

If this is a modified T-90, it's modified to the point it's not at all a T-90 anymore.

Someone said about it, but I can't remember where i read it (probably russian topic on MP)... and it seems more realistic.

Why the 6 road wheels? Cause it's better that way for some reasons? Oh, and please note the similar crew capsule on the front of the vehicle, with TC on the right! (right when you're inside it)

I don't buy it's a T-90 hull, there is no reason. It seems to be an armata variant and it uses T-90 wheels, and maybe have some other common parts.

When the first pictures of the chassis appeared online, there was confusion about whether it was Armata or not. It was determined that the chassis was T-90 based, not armata based.

Coalition was developed long before the Armata chassis was complete, so the first test batch was put on a modified T-90 chassis. The current chassis are just a placeholder, a mock armata chassis.

Werewolf wrote:

Literally no one not even Vann7 makes so many discussions to personal debates without a single content else but calling someone a liar trying to ridiculing what someone said while pretending to be some authority like each word is the truth that pours out of his from wisdom glowing ass, while Vann7 brings content and sources to his claims, which TR1 does not do he usually comes with one liners.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would rather trust a statement made by GarryB or SOC or Mindstorm rather than statements made by RT, Sputnik, Fox, BBC etc.

That half baked intellectual that you are trying to defend is only as good or bad as TR1 when it comes to personal attacks.

And plz Werewolf remind me how many times you have called us Americunts?

Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.







Beautiful machines!

maybe something in common with the BMPT... 3-crew members at front but overall the front hull of both is different.

Stealthflanker wrote:So basically that command guided artillery shell is hmm a simpler and cheaper version that American analogue (Not excalibur but similar fuze..where US put GPS inside it, it use canard fin to correct trajectory. That smart "fuze" can be plugged in into standard 155mm shell)


Nonetheless i'd love to hear/read more about the EMP shell.  In my view it could be game changing  I speculate the shell is using Explosive pumped flux compression generator, which power RF source like Super Reltron tube. It would be powered by hmm i wonder a battery or capacitor. The antenna could be a cheap horn for other design.

Russians did quite thorough research on pulsed power topics for such application. As far as i heard state of the art Russian pulsed power technology can produce over gigawatts or terawatts of power in very short pulse. Even i heard EMP RPG round.

Huh...
Russia have laser guided artillery Shell..Krasnopol -M ,capable of hitting moving tanks at speeds up to 36 km/h (22 mph) no one in NATO have anything close to that..in service, the new Gun in COalition should expand it range to near 48km or better. with.. direct hits accuracy. GPS artillery cannot be used to hit anything in motion and good luck trying to hit anything with a GPS jamming environment.. a problem that laser guided artillery do not have.. US-NATO forces are made to combat modern third world nations but not Russian army.

Im interested to know about Russia rocket artillery too .. according to Russian designers
they have expanded their rocket artillery to 200km.. thats really a major gaming changing..
in any modern war.. Coalition should be hitting beyond 50km range with a bigger cannon.
will be nice to see a 185mm version.

185? why, this caliber does not exist

152 / 155mm are good and will remain forever, bigger calibers are too heavy and cumbersome.

http://sh.uploads.ru/5u1JW.jpg


Nice high res pic of the Koalition.

^^^
Nice.

...

Speaking of Krasnopol, here's a couple of nice pics of the Krasnopol (152mm) and Gran (120mm) guided rounds





More pics here: http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/1023315.html

.

GarryB wrote:

Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.

Actually I think the photos you post prove the Coalition has a modified T-90 chassis... the size and angle of the front glasis plate are the same for the 2S35 and the T-90, while the Armata MBT seems rather larger with different front hull angles...

The question is... is this hull standard or temporary?

I suspect for integration into an Armata unit it would benefit from armata components/engines/systems.

185? why, this caliber does not exist

Laser guided shells were developed for all the large standard calibres including 160mm and 240mm (mortar), and 130mm (coastal gun) 180mm towed gun, and 203mm guns.

Same here, I think the Coalition shown for the parade is just a transition. The facts hint at an "Armata" platform for every role with turrets and APS & optronics being the modular part.

MSTA-S

T-90 chassis


Coalizia

T-14 chassis

Werewolf wrote:MSTA-S

T-90 chassis

Coalizia

T-14 chassis

2S35 is on modified T-90 chassis for now.

akd wrote:

Werewolf wrote:MSTA-S

T-90 chassis

Coalizia

T-14 chassis

2S35 is on modified T-90 chassis for now.

Source? Or you getting it from pictures? If so, care to explain as I am clueless.

EDIT: Nevermind, clued on after a second look.

Werewolf wrote:Coalizia

T-14 chassis

*pic*

I though T-14 chassis has 7x7 track, while the pic show 6x6 track

higurashihougi wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Coalizia

T-14 chassis

*pic*

I though T-14 chassis has 7x7 track, while the pic show 6x6 track

Suppossedly a T-90 chassis however it looks more like an Armata but not really like an armata either.

Any doubt regarding new/old chassis for 2S35 can be set aside from these pictures. Commander at the front. The hull is different which we can see from the front section.

Actually I think the photos you post prove the Coalition has a modified T-90 chassis... the size and angle of the front glasis plate are the same for the 2S35 and the T-90, while the Armata MBT seems rather larger with different front hull angles...

No sorry, it isn't. The angle of front glasis is completely different and it is rather bulged and have more volume due to the need to accommodate 3 crew members. Plz compare the pics closely and you might probably agree that it is different. I will try to put forth it through pics.

Front right side view. Compare the angle/edge of front hull. T-90 have these angle/edge at a low level where as T-14 & 2S35 have it higher up, which can also be sensed from the front drive sprocket that are (maybe/may be not) at a higher level than T-90.












Rear right side view. The rear hull resemble that of T-14 Armata with the two integrated/attached APU like twin boxes found on T-90SM and T-72 upgrades. The newer V-92S2F from T-90SM program is probably the engine installed in the hull and the reason for a single exhaust (other than it being a T-90 based hull). Even if its the new standard hull, its a probably a logical decision based on role, performance and cost for the platform.

The track footprint and hull is similar in length to the Armata and longer than that of 2S19 Msta. Checking the videos will make it clear. The 6-wheel arrangement of 2S35 with standard T-90 size wheels will give us an idea of how Armata would have looked like if they had retained with a 6-wheel setup.





Earlier pic during its testing which was posted in this very thread. Larger pic - https://i.imgur.com/vIfgxmA.jpg

The question is... is this hull standard or temporary?

I suspect for integration into an Armata unit it would benefit from armata components/engines/systems.

I think it could be the standard hull. Hope you will agree with my reasoning that I have given in this post. Like the 7-wheels of the Armata MBT which make many to believe the size/footprint of Armata to be in size range of Abrams...likewise, the side profile elements like the fenders and side skirt similar to the 2S19 Msta is whats making people to stick with the view that its just a modified T-90 chassis. Remove that 'old' 2S19 like side profile and put something new similar to Armata, the overall look and feel of this machine wil change. So will the opinion.

Lastly, its said to be a T-90 modified chassis...fine...but how much of a modification to the basic hull will help this hull retain its parentage as a T-90 hull? 6-wheels doesn't by default make it a T-90 hull.

I cant read or understand Russian so don't know what the Russian forum'ers know about it... I arrive at conclusion based on analyzing the pics and videos available and it tells me the hull is vastly different....and I'm rather inclined to believe that it is actually a 'modified' Armata hull because the so called T-90 hull has been so much modified for this 2S35 that it is now much closer to the Armata hull than a T-90 hull.

It clearly lacks another gun above that one:D

Hopefully Coalition-SV-M will have 2 barrel solution

Viktor wrote:It clearly lacks another gun above that one:D

Hopefully Coalition-SV-M will have 2 barrel solution

Coalitzia-SV-M2 will have a 3 barrel Gatling.

Viktor wrote:It clearly lacks another gun above that one:D

Hopefully Coalition-SV-M will have 2 barrel solution

AFAIK two barrel solution did not bring desired increase in firepower , so that`s why it`s dropped by designers.

2S35 Koalitsiya-SV 152mm with a 2S19M2 Msta-S as seen theres a significant increase in barrel lenght on the SV.