T-12/MT-12 and SPG-9 replacement (other future towed systems)

Hi all. With mention of SPG-9 replacement and Russia still using the T-12/MT-12 anti tank gun. What can we expect as a replacement and future roles?

Although anti tank guns in west are largely phased out and look at as obsolete, Syria and other conflicts have shown us in a long drawn conflict that anti tank guns along with other older systems have proven useful. On anti tank guns they have proven useful at taking out stationary vehicles/armour as well as buildings bunkers etc, there cheap ammo, cheap systems, ease of use, and reliability is there key strengths and against armour still pack a punch and capable of taking out older vehicles and modern IFV. of course even within anti tank guns there are different types of systems, for instance the two mentioned above are different in that one is man portable and the other isnt.

As for the replacement for SPG-9 with mention of it been floating around this last year. This has likely been due to the use of SPG-9 use in Syria that has prompted Russia to seek such a newer system. I would imagine the newer system will be lighter, more accurate/better sights and with a variety of new rounds including thermobaric, and with greater likely effective range out to 1.5-2km would be ideal. The current system seems alittle lacking in areas i mentioned on improvement. Of course they could also go down the route of having a recoiless rifle system like carl gustav which has seem wide spread use and proven to be useful, although i think its likely they will focus on a SPG-9 type system as Russia has a large variety of shoulder launched systems which largely cover the range of CG system. So if anyone has any information regarding the new SPG-9 replacement or and ideas please share.


Now onto the T-12/MT-12. according to various sources they put the number of systems in Russian service from 350-500. Now when i was in the forces a many conversations were had on Russian equipment within the area i worked. And many had the opinion that anti tank system of this type was very largely outdated and had no real use since ATGW came along. Now a few people including an USA Major who was there at the time even questioned why Russia still used them as it was believed that they were now being used as artillery systems although there range wasnt great. And with Russia having 1,000's of D-30 in storage why didnt they replace them with D-30? as D-30 still offers limited anti armour capability. Some said it was down to cost to overhaul and train almost 500 systems wasn't worth the cost Vs benefit, and also that the T-12/MT-12 were largely used by conscripts they were unlikely to be deployed in any future conflict and also the training element, some also mentioned another reason that there was an abundance of 100mm ammo sitting around so it made sense to continue to use the system, and course the system also received some simple upgrades to make it a little better.

What ever the real reason what we know was that there still in service in fairly large quantity and that the Sprut-B didnt replace it. In fact the small number of sprut-B in service was likely down to them testing the gun itself and in the role of replacing T-12/MT-12 and the decision wasnt favourable to produce it. And that also could have is reasons. Even though the sprut has much better firepower it lacked the versatility of the T-12/MT-12 in that it cant be used as artillery and that it was much more heavier, T-12 is 2,750kg Vs the sprut at 6,800kg at difference of 4,050kg which is quite a lot and this could impact on means of transport including underslung on a helicopter including ammo also the fact that it was likely much more expensive.

So what could Russia replace the T-12/MT-12 with??????????????

Well this largely comes down to what role they actually want and how much money they want to invest in a replacement, my guess is that they wont want to spend a fortune. So if they intend to replace it with a artillery system then they could easily replace it with D-30 (still having some anti armour ability), or 2S1, 2S3 if they want a self propelled function.So options for artillery could include:
(towed artillery)
D-30
Msta-B
Giantsint-B
(self propelled artillery)
2S1
2S3
(towed mortars)
2S12 sani 120mm mortar
Nona-K system
(self propelled mortar)
2S9 nona
2S23 nona (BTR80)
2S31 (Bmp-3)
2S34 Hosta (2S1/MT-LB)

If they want to have a role of Anti armour/anti tank then theres multiple options. Do they replace with ATGW systems or tanks? options include:
(tank options)
T-72B3
2S25M sprut SDM-1
(ATGW systems)
Konkurs
Metis M2
Kornet
(ATGW self propelled)
Konkurs (BRDM-2)
Shturm-S (MT-LB)
Kornet -D
various other vehicles mounted with Kornet/Konkurs

And then they could choose something a bit different and replace the units with systems such as TOS-1 or BMPT. Or we may find that when Typhoon series and zauralets-D gets an artillery system which believe they are planning on they use these units.

or they could design a new system combining a variety of roles. Which i think would be better and wouldnt cost much. Although i would suggest that some are towed and some self propelled on various platforms. My personal opinion is that if they produced a system similar to the Nona-K. a system that can fire mortars, artillery shells, but with the addition of anti armour rounds and ATGW system, while keeping the system light.

i think they have two options. one they could use the 2A70 100mm gun from the BMP-3 which already has anti armour and ATGW systems but would need mortar and artillery rounds designed for it. And obviously mount it a suitable towed mount. Although i see this as an option i think my second option (below) would be better.

My second option would based around a 120mm calibre system. For numerous being that the 120mm calibre looks likely to be around for a long time, and on future systems. In addition to this they already have a similar system the Nona-K which can fire mortar and artillery rounds. So they could use this as a base model design. Also they already have a variety of rounds for 120mm mortars and 122mm artillery systems such as guided ammo. So this has an advantage over having to redesign a 100mm rounds of the same type (guided) for option one. So all they really need to do really is design a 120mm anti armour rounds, thermobaric rounds, etc. and this shouldnt be too hard they could use similar design as either the 2a70 100mm (bmp-3) gun or 125mm current tank rounds and either make bigger or reduce in size. As for the ATGW they could still use the Bastion round and use the same method they used on using Bastion missiles on the T-62 115mm gun using guiding rings or use a reduced size svir/refleks, or design a new missile although i think the Bastion option with guiding rings would be fine, to save on cost. I also believe they could make the system lighter than MT-12 probably around 1000kg lighter you would looking at having something similar in weight to nona-k (1,200kg). And if they design it on a mount which can then either be put onto a towed mount, or a vehicle chassis such as typhoon, MT-LB, BMP, BMD, BTR, T-55/62/72 etc this would not only give it a universal use for various units but also an attractive option for export to other countries for example if you can have it mounted in a simple turret design it could replace the turret of T-55 improving firepower of existing T-55 for poorer nations and the system would cover various roles Mortar, artillery, Anti armour/anti tank including ATGW system all on the one platform i actually think it would see fairly good export potential success, and the fact you could mount it on various vehicles would also expand export potential. The towed mount could be useful as being air dropped in hard to access areas, and yet again this would allow from one weapon system a multi role system, in hard to reach areas there might not be loads of room to have multiple systems also it means your only delivering one system by air and not multiple systems, you would have to deliver various types of ammo for the system based on what you faced. The system could also have a remote control system allowing the gunner to be some distance away from the system if the situation called for it.

so whats peoples views/opinions etc.

On another similar note which was briefly mentioned between me and GarryB on another thread of having a towed mount which could mount anything a 14.5mm gun, 30mm gun, 57mm gun, AGS, automatic 82mm mortar, strelets, SA-13, multi ATGW (kornet D type system), new rocket pods system, Hermes missile, ZAK-57 Derivatsiya-PVO  57mm AD system and maybe a pantsir type system or Sosna-R system  or a combination of mentioned weapons for the use of hard to reach places or being mounted on various vehicles including export customers vehicles. Although i see these as two separate systems but similar in design and think both would have great export potential.

yet again any thoughts, ideas, opinions would be great. thanks for reading.

2A45. 125mm gun. Same as in the T-72/-80/-90. Was supposed to be the successor for the MT-12 at the end of the 80´s.

This was supposed to be replacement. However its atm outdated concept. For AT combat they have ATGMs, for fire support there is number of options.

Photos by me

Hole wrote:

2A45. 125mm gun. Same as in the T-72/-80/-90. Was supposed to be the successor for the MT-12 at the end of the 80´s.

Yes but as I said my post it didn't in the end for the reasons I mentioned I presume

Militarov wrote:








This was supposed to be replacement. However its atm outdated concept. For AT combat they have ATGMs, for fire support there is number of options.

Photos by me

Nice pics and thank you. But I said it didn't replace it and the MT-12 still in service

It didn´t replace it because of the 90´s.
If the russian army decides to replace the MT-12 with another anti-tank gun the will either use a 125mm towed gun or a version of the 2S25M1.

Hole wrote:It didn´t replace it because of the 90´s.
If the russian army decides to replace the MT-12 with another anti-tank gun the will either use a 125mm towed gun or a version of the 2S25M1.

I personally think towed gun is out of the question today. Most probably they will just fill the niche with self propelled fire support variant of Sprut.

d_taddei2 wrote:
Nice pics and thank you. But I said it didn't replace it and the MT-12 still in service

Its still in service however its used as fire support. Noone expects it anymore to be used aganist tanks. When in numbers some light fire support vehicle reaches service it will be gone.

Russia used guns and ATGM´s side by side for more than 40 (50?) years. It´s a question of philosopy. Like the ZU-23 or the new 2S38 in air defence.

A towed gun is much cheaper then a self-propelled gun or ATGM system. For some roles (static defence or defence of rear services) a towed gun would be enough.

And the MT-12 and the 2A45 can fire guided missiles.

Militarov wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:
Nice pics and thank you. But I said it didn't replace it and the MT-12 still in service

Its still in service however its used as fire support. Noone expects it anymore to be used aganist tanks. When in numbers some light fire support vehicle reaches service it will be gone.

Yes this is what said and that mostly used in artillery role with direct fire role secondary. A bmp-3 or 2s25m is available but no movement on anything. 

As for towed systems a weapon of this type and weight I don't see the need now. But as I mentioned a system which can cover anti armour/ATGW /mortar /artillery I see it as usefull. In mountainous areas or hard to reach areas a self propelled vehicles may not be able to access. Also having a light system opens many transport options underslung from a helicopter or also as I mentioned if designed in a way to allow it to be mounted on a variety of vehicles this would give SP options. Towed artillery is still widely used. Although as I mentioned anti tank guns not used for the initial role intended as syria has shown they were useful and cheap at taking out stationary vehicles buildings and bunkers and more cost effective in this type of conflict hence the talks of new spg 9. Which is a different class of anti armour gun to MT-12. Heavy anti tank guns have been taken over by ATGW systems and Russia still has the use of a fairly cheap systems such as konkurs and metis m1. AT-3 sagger proved useful also in syria due to range but mostly down to cost. When I was in services I read an Intel report on it stating that the price of the missile they expected it to cost 100's of dollars not beyond that their estimate was around $800 per missile standard warhead. The report was usa source not a uk report. That's likely the reasons why many countries still use it and it's in large numbers. I can't remember the figure for the actual system but I know it wasn't expensive 1,000's (not 10,000's) the report claimed it was likely the cheapest ATGW system on the world market. However did slate it on speed and accuracy but further in the report stated due to the cheap cost that hands on training with live missiles could be done cheaply and operators could be able to practice a lot improving there skills so I'd imagine this may help with accuracy. When I was in training our Company was given 8 LAW 94 so that meant only 8 people got to experience live fire. And when in the battalion we got 8-12 per year. I know an ex warrant officer who had never had the chance in 22yrs service to live fire a LAW 94. We were told that the system costs around £3000-4000 once fired the tubes were sent away for deactivation to be used as training aids. We all got the chance to fire the spotting rounds. They had a training version where you could fire five spotting rounds and then switch to HEAT which wasn't HEAT round but a small cartridge which created a large bang. It wasn't the easiest thing to hold and fire lacking grip and the trigger being a plastic lever type sitting horizontal that you pulled down it was spring loaded to flip back up after each round but have to admit after 2-3 rounds you were on target. It was a weird looking round. The whole unit is sealed, so you cant reload spotting rounds etc. And once you switch to HEAT you can't switch back to spotting rifle. The site was basic with a square clear piece of plastic as the optic and cross hair. Very bulky but light. Also another weird thing was if you were lucky enough get to fire the live HEAT round you had to wear a respirator/gas mask because of the gases/debris and pressure of it being fired. A few friends who fired it said it was like your face being sucked through a vacuum cleaner for 1 second. and the gases and debris was harmful for the lungs. But suppose in wartime you just put up with it. I never got the chance to fire live HEAT just spotting rounds. Sorry a bit off topic

Hole wrote:Russia used guns and ATGM´s side by side for more than 40 (50?) years. It´s a question of philosopy. Like the ZU-23 or the new 2S38 in air defence.

A towed gun is much cheaper then a self-propelled gun or ATGM system. For some roles (static defence or defence of rear services) a towed gun would be enough.

And the MT-12 and the 2A45 can fire guided missiles.

Actually towed gun is alot more expencive to buy than an ATGM system. Stays question of ammunition that is obvously on the expencive side with an ATGMs.

MT-12s were deemed as obsolete by Yugoslavian National Army 30 years ago, imagine today. We retired ours more than a decade ago. Main issue is lack of tactical mobility and size.

If i had to choose place where not to be in combat it would be MT-12 crew.

GarryB wrote:SPG-9 was originally an anti armour weapon, but it seems what they want is a direct fire (ie more accurate than a mortar or indirect artillery) weapon with a decent punch.

First thought was actually a towed version of the 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3, but a recoilless rifle would be lighter and more mobile...

Regarding your suggestion about the D-30 replacing the MT-12, the 100mm smoothbore gun is basically a high velocity tank gun, while the D-30 is a 122mm medium pressure artillery piece.

I would suspect the D-30 will be replaced with the new PAT-B in 152mm calibre.

The MT-12 would be better replaced with a 125mm gun like the towed Sprut.

Its virtue is that it is not needed for anything else and is rather powerful against a range of targets.

Towed guns can have any length penetrator or missile you care to load in their tube...

My personal opinion is that if they produced a system similar to the Nona-K. a system that can fire mortars, artillery shells, but with the addition of anti armour rounds and ATGW system, while keeping the system light.

Vena mortar carrier has a 120mm gun/mortar that can fire standard 120mm mortar bombs as well as HE shells and HEAT shells and 122mm missiles like Kitilov as well as the 120mm Gran guided missiles.

Agreed with spg-9  point. 
As for the D-30 point this was used as a possibility if they choose to want a artillery based role. I am lead to believe MT-12 it's now mostly used as artillery and direct fire as secondary. One of my main points is what's likely to replace it. It's very clear sprut hasn't been chosen. As stated packs enough firepower but almost three times the weight less mobilty in regards to transportation and more expensive. Vena isn't a towed mount and as suggested and even by u on another thread the advantages of having a towed mount. What I suggested was about half the weight of MT-12 and 6 times lighter than sprut. And more uses. Vena doesn't seem to been taken up either by Russian forces how many in service? My suggestion was something that can be mounted on a towed mount as well as a variety of vehicles. 

So back to square one lol. Still no sign of what's likely to replace MT-12. It's not sprut and it's not vena lol.

Militarov wrote:

Hole wrote:Russia used guns and ATGM´s side by side for more than 40 (50?) years. It´s a question of philosopy. Like the ZU-23 or the new 2S38 in air defence.

A towed gun is much cheaper then a self-propelled gun or ATGM system. For some roles (static defence or defence of rear services) a towed gun would be enough.

And the MT-12 and the 2A45 can fire guided missiles.

Actually towed gun is alot more expencive to buy than an ATGM system. Stays question of ammunition that is obvously on the expencive side with an ATGMs.

MT-12s were deemed as obsolete by Yugoslavian National Army 30 years ago, imagine today. We retired ours more than a decade ago. Main issue is lack of tactical mobility and size.

If i had to choose place where not to be in combat it would be MT-12 crew.

On cost i am not 100% sure depends on the gun V's type of ATGW, guns of MT-12 and sprut  its likely expensive due being massive amounts of metal while atgw uses more composite materials it's guidance/targeting systems are expensive. Yes  ATGW missiles are more expensive. 

I agree I wouldn't want to be on a battlefield behind the MT-12 or even sprut. Something light and mobile self propelled yes but a light towed mount for air dropping in hard to reach areas. Also quick set up and pack up is a must. Heavy anti armour guns have very limited use such as MT-12 and sprut. A lighter more versatile gun would be better. Leave ATGW system take on tanks

A few articles had stated that artillery was now it's primary role. I think the main question that needs answered is what role does Russia want in replacement of the MT-12. 

D-30 & 2S1 is likely going to be around longer than MT-12 with 122mm ammo being more widespread use. And as u stated 100mm ammo slowly phasing out with T-55 users being the main customers. 

Vena as u say likely won't happen as they wait for the new vehicles but 120mm ammo is highly likely to continue hence a replacement based on nona -k as majority of the work is already done and they won't /need to spend a fortune on a new system for replacement. 

Not sure how accurate a MT-12 would at a speeding car or truck. In terms of the afghan scenario what I suggested as replacement would do the same job but offer more versatility/roles and be at least 50% lighter than MT-12 and smaller and have more transportation options in terms of helicopters. 

Also the potential of export could be a success as either a towed mount or as a mount on various platforms as mentioned. So this is not only an opportunity to replace an aging system but remove a calibre from russian service. As well as giving a better system to troops but to also make money on the export market and to keep customers from going for western systems. You would also offer something unique something west doesn't have. 

Yes the enemy would be aiming at the gun but directly behind the gun is troops I for one wouldn't want to stand behind or rely on protection of the gun when the enemy is firing all kinds of things from tank rounds 30mm rounds rockets etc. The gun might be smaller than a tank but it's still a big gun and a tank has the advantage of armour and be able to move fairly quickly compared to a towed gun of this size. Tanks will go after tanks first because that is more of a threat than the 100mm ammo used by MT-12. Only the missile poses the biggest threat. 

But it's quite interesting that there hasn't been much interest in its replacement and I doubt stocks of ammo have much to do with it as many countries still use T-55 so must still have plenty orders for the ammo in storage.

Sorry my mistake I thought it used same ammo as BS-3 which uses same as T-55. So likely another good reason to phase it out (MT-12).

82mm automatic mortar system would be good and they already have anti armour rounds available for the calibre.  I heard a Mention of it being a tigr-M is good idea. 

2S1 because of sheer number will be around for sometime still useful in my eyes. I agree that the mortar system of vena will likely be placed on various platforms once u have a good mortar barrel theres not much in  the way of improvement other than ammo. 

Having a vena turret on MT-LB would be good idea. 

Although having the number of MT-12 in service vs Russian need for base defence vs IED is far too many. I wonder if any evidence of syrianconflict of large guns like this deployed as such against IEDs. ??

Spg-9 type weapon for HE use in mountainousarea's I agree and if worse comes to it and u have to bug out u haven't left a high tech or expensive weapon behind. Ammo accuracy and range needs improving along with the system being lighter and these three areas I'd imagine is what there looking at for new system.


As for spg-9 I meant now not in the past. And sprut maybe initially designed as replacement it failed to do so how many in Russian service?  And how many MT-12? Clear indication

What is evident from your posts when stand back and look at it is there is quite a few systems some in large quantities some like vena sprut nona-k hosta/costa in very small numbers and as for the MT-12 having an aging unique ammo and gun being pretty big and heavy. on the cheap yes they could keep using these systems but it's clear that Russia plans to refine and slim down its calibre sizes and having a modular systems/turrets for various platforms. The new system would be one system with one calibre 120mm and can be mounted on a towed mount or other platforms older and newer this would pave the way forward to clear ammo calibre of MT-12 and streamline the many systems in service. Russia can still sell off the ammo to export customers and the condition of ammo is also a concern. I don't know how much is in storage or what condition it is in but what we do know is that it is getting smaller each year. 

so these systems as they start to be replaced by newer systems the question remains what will replace MT-12  (it's not sprut we know that) and will it be SP ? 
The one of reasons why it would be good idea to develop a system as we/you mentioned such as a lighter multirole system similar to nona-k a 120mm gun where mortar artillery anti armour/atgw which can be mounted on a towed or SP platform is that testing can be done now ready for the new vehicles but also allow for the system to be exported giving Russian companies and customers the option of using it to upgrade on older platforms where countries can't afford or are looking for such a multirole system and let's face it the new series of vehicles are not going to be available for export anytime soon. and designing such a system can be done quickly by Russian companies majority of the work has been done in terms of rounds and systems


on the subject of export Russia needs to make sure it keeps it's customers and gains new customers especially with all this anti russian crap going on and having new useful systems for customers ensures Russia keeps it's share of defence pie. and let's face it this system won't be expensive so even the nation's with small budgets will be able to buy it's also an attractive solution to many forces. As you turn and older platform into a multi role unit. For example african market many forces have a small pool base of vehicles many of which are soviet era and Africa armed forces tend like wheeled vehicles Russia has an abundance of btr-60/70 as well as being able to produce btr-80 and for tracked bmp-1 in abundance. sell these with the new system or sell systems to upgrade there current vehicles even BRDM-2 and T-55/T-62 could be upgraded with it. This then eliminates the need for separate system a mortar system artillery system anti armour systems when ur funds arm limited you not be armrest to purchase each separate system african forces have armrest hard time keeping current systems going being able to select a few vehicles for upgrade with this system you can effectively reduce the number of platforms to maintain if ur struggling with current budget to keep all systems running. and the anti armour capabilities of the system will be enough for armour threat they face. thus would allow Russia to likely gain new customers and ensures future purchases of Russian ammo. 

The west it seems hell bend on undermining Russia at every turn and Russian arms deals seems to pissed them off. And Russia and China showing growing influence in Africa why shouldn't that include arms deals however small it's still money. And african armed forces are never really going to buy the high end equipment not just down to cost but also needs. and it's not just African market that would make this system attractive but also south/central America and Asian market including ex soviet states. The only threat this new system poses is that it would likely curb potential sales of vena, hosta, 2s23


on our talk of the usefulness of a towed universal mount in which various other systems could be mounted I think one system which would be highly effective in our scenario for mountainous areas would be the new AA 57mm gun on such a mount would give you a decent air defence system but also a good long range direct fire weapon that packs a punch. The enemy could be engaged at very long distances they have a hard time in coping with such firepower and range. 

For me, the cheapest and likely most effective replacement for the (M)T-12 anti-tank weapons of 100mm in active service, would be with 125mm tanks of the Russian reserve. Without costs, even without modernization, they are a big improvement over the (M)T-12 on fire power, on range, on mobility, on protection of the crew and even on standardization in the units. The Russian reserve has units in the reserve of the T-90, T-72 and T-80 in more than enough amounts to keep tanks of a single model in every unit after a potential replacement of the (M)T-12 with tanks of 125mm.

Taking into account that anti-tank and tank weapons of the same caliber share gun in most of the cases, this would be cheapest available option, without cost of development or production. At this point there is not a reserve in Russia of other self-propelled anti-tank weapons of 125mm, and the towed weapons reached not the Russian Armed Forces.

Russia can also replace the rest of its towed artillery in active service with equivalent untis of self-propelled weapons in the reserve:

2A65 Msta-B <-----> 2S19 Msta-S + some 2S5 Giatsint-S
2A36 Giatsint-B <-----> 2S5 Giatsint-S

2B16 Nona-K <-----> 2S23 Nona-SVK
2A18 D-30 <-----> 2S1 Gvozdika

The total removal and replacement of the towed artillery in active service in the Russian Armed Forces can be done without problem and without cost when Russia wants it. The towed weapons only remain in use to accelerate their exhaustion and to keep in better condition the self-propelled artillery.

I agree with GarryB. tanks cost more to run need much more training and are much more heavier. 

As for towed weapons I think covered this on the advantages of having towed weapons being able to deploy quickly to front line including underslung on helicopters and being deployed to remote or hard to reach areas such as mountains. If towed weapons were no longer useful then other countries with big budgets  (usa) would have replaced them by now and other countries wouldn't be producing them. 

@GarryB I agree with having the two mounts one light mount the other for heavier weapons. on the light version when u mentioned high velocity etc the rounds being fired in direct fire role would be mainly for light armour and buildings so something similar in performance as bmp-3 100mm gun although being 120mm could effectively pack a little more punch with added HE. for heavier armour or faster moving you would missile such as bastion.