2S4 Tyulpan and 2S7 Pion

I would disagree on ur comment that it's over kill in Syria to use such weapons. These are unique weapons and u wouldn't use it on a small machine nest or a shed, most of the fighting in Syria is in built up areas and both weapons are ideal for (as I originally mentioned) taken out enemy in the ruined buildings hiding terror scumbags where 152/122mm might not be powerful enough.

This is there country and they have to rebuild afterwards and I suspect they wont win any friends by destroying entire city blocks just because a terrorist happens to be firing at them from one room in a building... in Kosovo such tactics were used by the KLA to draw the Serbs into firing on and killing the locals while trying to deal with them to get the support of locals.

While I agree that most of the civilians with the terrorists these days are likely family or at least sympathisers, I don't think 110kg HE shells will work better than 40kg shells would in most cases except for distributing the contents of rooms over much wider areas.

Another point u said that Syria wouldn't use such weapons as it wouldn't win hearts and minds, although Syria does use the tulpan and their home grown Goliath rocket system which isn't very accurate and very destructive. Hence I said guided rounds less chance of missing target and hitting unintended targets.

Guidance is only effective if you have good intel on who the bad guys are and where precisely they are located... their adoption of Flute 80mm rockets for direct fire weapons suggests to me they are not too worried about collateral damage.

I don't see why Russia wouldn't give Syria them it would be cheaper than using aircraft dropped guided missiles, and Syria is already using smerch and tochka the latter is very serious threat to Turkish forces. And 2S7 could be operated by Russian crew great way for Russian crews to gain real time experience or if Syrian crews they would only be allowed to use with Russia say so I'd imagine they do so when using tochka as Russia is supplying the rockets.

I just suspect the range and fire power of the 2S7 exceeds their capacity to use it effectively... targets that need 110kg HE rounds could probably already be engaged using Smerch anyway...

We might find the upgraded 2S7 will make debut in Syria for testing. And of course it's a bit of a morale boost for SAA and demoralizing for the enemy

I would think the Russians would find it useful to test against a variety of targets... together with drones to monitor and assess the performance, but 203mm guns are specialist weapons that are more work than 152mm weapons...

What I am saying is that the Russians keep the 203mm guns and 240mm mortars in reserve for situations that would benefit from the features such weapons provide, but for general use the 152mm guns and 120mm mortars get the job done fine with no fuss and no problems...

APUs are not really related... in tanks running the main engine even just in idle uses a lot of fuel per hour, but in many cases if you shut down the engine you can't run the night vision optics or gun stabilisation system... and most importantly the heater or air conditioning system. APUs mean you can have a tiny gas turbine engine generating power to have all the systems running as well as pre heating the engine so it will start up straight away if you need to move but burning a tiny fraction of the fuel the main engine burns. It was a critical part of the design of the T-80 tank whose main gas turbine engine burns a lot of fuel even just in idle and of course when in arctic conditions the APU is a huge advantage even over a T-72 or T-90 because the small gas turbine APU uses less fuel than their diesel engines too so it keeps the vehicle warm and ready to go, without burning as much fuel as even a normal tank engine would burn.

It is the same for APUs in aircraft... it means you don't need a truck or other power supply to run aircraft systems on the ground for testing etc and it also means you don't need ground vehicles to start engines etc.

AFAIK the Ford is still not operating aircraft because of problems with the EMALS... they are obviously working hard on correcting that, but I have not heard of it being fixed yet... until then their 15 billion dollar boat is a helicopter carrier...

EMALS are an excellent idea and certainly the way forward... Russia would be stupid to use steam when EMALS could be developed instead. Both require investment and development and new technology but one is already obsolete...

The huge advantage with EMALS is smart sensing... to launch an aircraft you have to set the pressure in the steam version, and the setting is calculated based on the aircraft type, the weapons it is carrying and its fuel weight as well... too high a setting and the nose gear gets ripped off and the plane stays on deck but is now a bitch to move... you have to jack up the front end and roll it out of the way. Too low a setting and the plane does not get to a speed where it can fly when it gets to the edge of the deck and it drops off the end into the water.

EMALS can sense a problem during the takeoff stroke and increase or decrease the acceleration so the aircraft gets airborne anyway...

An interesting technology and the ability to create and store and rout power where it is needed will also become useful... for ships and subs, land vehicles and aircraft... The potential to shift enormous amounts of electrical power around a tank means you can power your camouflage system and then divert to gun and then after you fire power up the shields or propulsion to get out of there fast.

Powered armour has already been developed where an outer sheet of conductive metal and an inner sheet of conductive metal with insulators between has an enormous electrical charge pumped through it... a penetrator like an APFSDS round or the plasma beam of a HEAT warhead completes the circuit and the enormous voltage burst obliterates the penetrator undermining its integrity and its ability to penetrate... basically vapourising the penetrator.

GarryB wrote:A rail gun relies on muzzle velocity primarily for its power so the first rail guns they use might be 45mm or 57mm weapons. A rail gun is a weapon that uses EM to accelerate objects to enormous speeds but there is no reason why it can't also be used to accelerate heavier objects to lower speeds too, so HE rounds should be perfectly practical too.

And that is exactly why you would need a secondary cannon. Just look at the sherman variants in WWII they needed to keep the 75mm gun in service because the 76mm high velocity gun's HE shells were inadequate while the Soviets could simply give every newly produced T-34 an 85mm gun.

As far as using HE shells in a railgun goes yes you could do it but I would be concerned about the integrity of the insolation around the explosive, if that were to be ruptured the explosive charge could be set off by the electrical charge of the rails.

GarryB wrote:

I would disagree on ur comment that it's over kill in Syria to use such weapons. These are unique weapons and u wouldn't use it on a small machine nest or a shed, most of the fighting in Syria is in built up areas and both weapons are ideal for (as I originally mentioned) taken out enemy in the ruined buildings hiding terror scumbags where 152/122mm might not be powerful enough.

This is there country and they have to rebuild afterwards and I suspect they wont win any friends by destroying entire city blocks just because a terrorist happens to be firing at them from one room in a building... in Kosovo such tactics were used by the KLA to draw the Serbs into firing on and killing the locals while trying to deal with them to get the support of locals.

While I agree that most of the civilians with the terrorists these days are likely family or at least sympathisers, I don't think 110kg HE shells will work better than 40kg shells would in most cases except for distributing the contents of rooms over much wider areas.

Another point u said that Syria wouldn't use such weapons as it wouldn't win hearts and minds, although Syria does use the tulpan and their home grown Goliath rocket system which isn't very accurate and very destructive. Hence I said guided rounds less chance of missing target and hitting unintended targets.

Guidance is only effective if you have good intel on who the bad guys are and where precisely they are located... their adoption of Flute 80mm rockets for direct fire weapons suggests to me they are not too worried about collateral damage.

I don't see why Russia wouldn't give Syria them it would be cheaper than using aircraft dropped guided missiles, and Syria is already using smerch and tochka the latter is very serious threat to Turkish forces. And 2S7 could be operated by Russian crew great way for Russian crews to gain real time experience or if Syrian crews they would only be allowed to use with Russia say so I'd imagine they do so when using tochka as Russia is supplying the rockets.

I just suspect the range and fire power of the 2S7 exceeds their capacity to use it effectively... targets that need 110kg HE rounds could probably already be engaged using Smerch anyway...

We might find the upgraded 2S7 will make debut in Syria for testing. And of course it's a bit of a morale boost for SAA and demoralizing for the enemy

I would think the Russians would find it useful to test against a variety of targets... together with drones to monitor and assess the performance, but 203mm guns are specialist weapons that are more work than 152mm weapons...

What I am saying is that the Russians keep the 203mm guns and 240mm mortars in reserve for situations that would benefit from the features such weapons provide, but for general use the 152mm guns and 120mm mortars get the job done fine with no fuss and no problems...

You obviously haven't seen the state of the urban areas they are fighting in. There was even an article stating that majority of buildings in fighting zones would need to be completely demolished. And as stated they clearly not bothered by such or they wouldn't be using Goliath rocket system at least 2S7 with guided shells would hit the target u want while Goliath rocket is a guessing game.

Russia has tested a few systems in Syria and with tulpan and Pion being a niche and being designed for such warfare then I think it perfect for them to test it's not everyday Russia gets to test weapons on a battlefield.

A 110kg she'll can achieve much more penetration into a building than a 40kg so no a 40kg cant achieve such destruction. And I I highly doubt a smerch would either, in fact smerch has no penetrator rocket capable of what pion can achieve with concrete piercing rounds and if they ever did then there would be no reason to keep pion.

And as u stated that 203mm and 240mm are specialist weapons then all the more reason for Russia to take the opportunity to test in combat. They may also find out the advantages and disadvantages of using such weapons in combat and what new methods and processes make good practice and with Ukraine using them. In Donbass in urban warfare it might better understanding how also best to combat against such weapons to pass tactics onto Donbass fighters.

120mm and 152mm will be used mostly but there comes a time or situation when they just won't cut it and something heavier is needed and it very evident Russia thinks so too hence keeping them in service and upgrades, and maybe Syria was the inspiration for such upgrades showing the importance of such heavy weapons in siege or urban warfare. I'd say Russia should test in Syria learn from it and make adjustments as and when needed. Every system tested and used in Syria is an advertisement for Russian equipment and more the better. Am not saying people are going to rush out and buy pion or tulpan but some countries may buy them in a very small number or if they already have ask Russia to do upgrades or buy guided shells from them it's also an advertisement for the capabilities of Russia and what it has at its fingertips and u know ur enemy or potential enemies are watching. It's not everyday Russia gets a chance to test such and if anything can help speed up the effort and demoralising the enemy. In my eyes this whole thing is a complete win win in every aspect for Russia and Syria with the enemy and international enemy at a lose lose situation

And that is exactly why you would need a secondary cannon.

The problem is that the first rail gun tanks are going to be full of stuff to make the rail gun work and wont have room to stock HE shells.

Effectively such vehicles would be pure tank destroyers, but then the velocity of their projectiles and the potential for scramjet boosted rounds on flat open terrain they could be shooting targets 8-10km away anyway...

Just look at the sherman variants in WWII they needed to keep the 75mm gun in service because the 76mm high velocity gun's HE shells were inadequate while the Soviets could simply give every newly produced T-34 an 85mm gun.

The Soviets had the same dilemma... the 57mm gun used in the ZIS-3 was fitted to a few hundred T-34s, but in 1941 there wasn't anything the Germans had that the old first model 76.2mm gun couldn't defeat... they ended up needing a longer barrel model... F-34 or F-35 model gun or something, but they chose it over the much higher penetration 57mm gun because the 76.2mm gun held penetration over greater distances but mainly because it had a much better HE round (better than either Sherman 76mm) yet the penetration at the time was good enough for any German tank they might face at the time. Later that latter factor changed and they had been experimenting with a larger turret with an 85mm gun in the KV, which they fitted to the T-34 to make the T-34-85, and the heavy tank eventually got a 122mm gun.

As far as using HE shells in a railgun goes yes you could do it but I would be concerned about the integrity of the insolation around the explosive, if that were to be ruptured the explosive charge could be set off by the electrical charge of the rails.

No it would not. It might set it on fire, but it would not detonate... and I would think the HE content in a rail gun projectile would be tiny because of the small calibre and mainly serve as a spreading charge with the velocity of the fragments doing the damage... sort of like an AHEAD round or a Claymore mine.

You obviously haven't seen the state of the urban areas they are fighting in. There was even an article stating that majority of buildings in fighting zones would need to be completely demolished. And as stated they clearly not bothered by such or they wouldn't be using Goliath rocket system at least 2S7 with guided shells would hit the target u want while Goliath rocket is a guessing game.

Not what I meant. You would have to clear any area of mines and munitions before any rebuilding could take place but if you try to get rid of the terrorists by rolling barrage then you are going to start hitting those schools and churches and hospitals... now I don't care what western media say, I stopped listening or caring... they are the kids who cried wolf... but for the actual schools and churches and hospitals then levelling buildings with a few shells becomes a questionable tactic.

I understand that certain structures need more than standard rounds... there will be bunkers and rock structures that need heavy concrete piercing rounds to reach and in some places in the mountains the steep trajectory of a gun/mortar make certain targets reachable that otherwise would not be, but most of the time it is overkill and wasteful. Those heavy rounds are not the same as standard rounds... you can't transport as many and you can't fire as many per hour... When you carry a case with a single 152mm projectile between two people that is about 20-23kgs weight for each person... with 203 rounds that is 55kgs per person, and for 240mm rounds that is 65kgs per person... that makes a real difference in terms of rate of fire and volume of fire, but there are also issues of mobility.

I am not saying they can't have them, but you need a good reason to give them to them... how much 180mm ammo does Russia have... perhaps instead of giving them 203mm weapons and ammo, they could hand over any remaining 180mm rounds including guided rounds to Syria so they can keep using something they are familiar with...

Russia has tested a few systems in Syria and with tulpan and Pion being a niche and being designed for such warfare then I think it perfect for them to test it's not everyday Russia gets to test weapons on a battlefield.

I am sure they will take some to test, but whether they hand any over to the Syrians is another question.

Traditionally Tulip and other heavy mortars have been used in mountains and against heavy fortifications, but their trajectory make them very efficient killers of unprotected soldiers out in the open. Being exArmy I don't need to explain to you about the fragmentation walls of shells and how the near vertical position of a mortar bomb when it explodes gives much more even and effective fragmentation patterns than a round from a gun coming in at a shallow angle.

A 110kg she'll can achieve much more penetration into a building than a 40kg so no a 40kg cant achieve such destruction. And I I highly doubt a smerch would either, in fact smerch has no penetrator rocket capable of what pion can achieve with concrete piercing rounds and if they ever did then there would be no reason to keep pion.

How many heavy steel reinforced concrete buildings are there in this particular region of Syria?

I know in some places in Germany during WWII the heavy structure of the buildings meant they stopped using 76.2mm and 122mm artillery and brought up 152mm and 203mm guns, but that was not a regular thing. It was more the Germans with the fetish for ridiculous heavy guns... and all the costs and problems that go with them.

120mm and 152mm will be used mostly but there comes a time or situation when they just won't cut it and something heavier is needed and it very evident Russia thinks so too hence keeping them in service and upgrades, and maybe Syria was the inspiration for such upgrades showing the importance of such heavy weapons in siege or urban warfare.

I agree, but I think the solution of transferring such weapons to Syria sounds like a lot of effort, for something that could be solved with air delivered weapons instead.

They have a range of very good 152mm shells and are developing a new range of very very long range projectiles that might be able to replace airpower in the role of chasing down small mobile targets. I suspect to get a range of 170km the new 152mm shells are sub calibre light weight low drag shells... possibly with some propulsion too... such small shells perhaps with a 10-15kg HE payload would be ideal for taking out mobile vehicle targets as shown in the Syrian conflict (ie shown to be present and shown to be targeted).

I agree the Russian should test 203mm and 240mm calibre guns and ammo in Syria, but I think Syria would benefit more with other donations... helmets and flak jackets and other equipment... as I mentioned any 180mm calibre rounds or weapons they might have in storage.

I'd say Russia should test in Syria learn from it and make adjustments as and when needed. Every system tested and used in Syria is an advertisement for Russian equipment and more the better. Am not saying people are going to rush out and buy pion or tulpan but some countries may buy them in a very small number or if they already have ask Russia to do upgrades or buy guided shells from them it's also an advertisement for the capabilities of Russia and what it has at its fingertips and u know ur enemy or potential enemies are watching. It's not everyday Russia gets a chance to test such and if anything can help speed up the effort and demoralising the enemy. In my eyes this whole thing is a complete win win in every aspect for Russia and Syria with the enemy and international enemy at a lose lose situation

I don't disagree, but I think the market for 203mm and 240mm weapons is tiny and never going to get very large... 152mm and 120mm already do 95% of what is needed and for that extra 5 percent most countries would use an aircraft like the Su-24 or Su-34 or Su-25... The Russians have adapted their helicopters to deliver unguided bombs too so even a Hind or a Havoc could hit the targets using 250kg or 500kg bombs... I just see the 203mm and 240mm as something you keep because there might be situations where they are the ideal tool for the job, but I don't think the job would come up all the time, or very much at all... certainly not enough to warrant introducing a new weapon type in to the inventory.

A rocket motor attached to the rear end of an aerial bomb could be another option if range is not an issue but the strength of the target is...

I am not saying Russia should not test them in Syria, I just don't think the Syrians need these (203mm guns) and would be better off with support and extra ammo for the Tulips and other weapons they already use.

Of course I could be wrong... that does happen...

Such small impact explosions... I wonder if they are practise shells?

What about overpressure?

Should send a few for testing in Syria, would be nice to see a few terror rats blown to bits hiding in there buildings. A nice guided concrete piercing round would do great

Rather than heavy concrete piercing rounds, I would like to see extended range guided rounds that can be used at much greater ranges... 100+km against moving targets.

Perhaps coordinated with a drone at medium altitude with a laser target marker or some such thing so you could launch a small medium to high flying drone deep into enemy territory and load up a shell with the gun pointed in the general direction to wait for the drone to find targets and give aiming information and then loiter while the round transits the distance and then mark the target as the round approaches and impacts.

A subcalibre round based on a long range round developed for Coalition could perhaps be used to reduce development costs where the long barrel and extra propellent charge get the round to very high velocities for extending the range perhaps, or if the shell is a ramjet or scramjet powered round the increase in calibre could allow for more fuel to be carried to extend range.

GarryB wrote:Rather than heavy concrete piercing rounds, I would like to see extended range guided rounds that can be used at much greater ranges... 100+km against moving targets.

Perhaps coordinated with a drone at medium altitude with a laser target marker or some such thing so you could launch a small medium to high flying drone deep into enemy territory and load up a shell with the gun pointed in the general direction to wait for the drone to find targets and give aiming information and then loiter while the round transits the distance and then mark the target as the round approaches and impacts.

A subcalibre round based on a long range round developed for Coalition could perhaps be used to reduce development costs where the long barrel and extra propellent charge get the round to very high velocities for extending the range perhaps, or if the shell is a ramjet or scramjet powered round the increase in calibre could allow for more fuel to be carried to extend range.

Hey am all up for testing as many shells as u want on the terror scumbags. I think a nice white phosphorus shell of this calibre dropped into area of enemy concentration would be nice let them burn most will die of their injuries in the coming weeks.

Last year they turned top-attack anti-tank landmine into gliding projectile.

In 203-mm calibre. Because why the hell not.



https://twitter.com/gunner_schmulke/status/1480599797472051209

That´s why NATO is doomed.

Just noticed this:

As Rostec reported last year, new-generation shells are being developed for Malka.

That is awesome... from post 114 in this thread...

The video of putting the propellent tube in to the 240mm mortar bomb and then wrapping the booster propellent around the rear in bags is interesting... notice all the machines to move that round from where it is stored internally to when it is fitted with propellent and the fuse is fitted and it is rammed into the tube... it is all automated because that damn thing is 130kgs and not something even two people could man handle around the place easily.

Equally the video further up of the 110kg 203mm round for the Pion heavy gun... they roll the round to the gun on a small carriage and then place it into a robotic arm that then lifts the round and manouvers it round and rams it into the chamber.

Last year they turned top-attack anti-tank landmine into gliding projectile.

In 203-mm calibre. Because why the hell not.

Only if that was written in 1997... that is a SPBE submunition... it has been used in their tube and rocket artillery for quite some time... the first version entered service in the 1980s, but in 1996 they introduced an improved model with an IR sensor.

It is essentially a HE charge with a flat plate on it facing downwards hung under a parachute that is like the wing of a sycamore seed... you know those seeds with a single wing that spin rapidly as they fall through the air. This munition has a self forging fragment warhead pointing downwards and also a MMW radar sensor pointed at the same thing the warhead is pointed at. When released from a highish altitude it spins and as it spins it looks for metal targets... it obviously spins in a circle but as it comes down on its parachute the circle gets smaller and smaller so if it is released from say 200m the circle it is scanning might be 200m across and as it comes down the circle gets smaller and smaller and if it spots a metal target like a tank it fires its payload at the top of the target.

The first one only had a MMW radar sensor so often targets would get hit multiple times so in 1996 they upgraded it with an IR sensor that could detect if the target was on fire or not... if it was already burning it kept falling looking for another target.

If there were no tanks under it as it fell it flipped over on the ground and pointed its MMW radar sensor upwards and any armoured vehicle driving over it got a self forging fragment warhead attack to the belly.

Without air defences artillery is an easy target. Seen during Karabakh and iraqi wars...

With digital upgrades the gun vehicles no longer have to even operate close to each other and can launch attacks from where ever their current position might be with the network managing firing times and gun angles and propellent loads to ensure the rounds all arrive at the same time on target... each vehicle can then move on to a safer place... RWS machine guns with 12.7mm HMGs might become very useful against small suicide drones...

In the current conflict in Ukraine - what is the difference in the role between the 2s7 and the BM-30 ?
Bring out the 2s7 because its cheaper for sustained fire over the BM-30 at hitting HQ and troop concentrations in the rear?