2S43 "Malva" 152-mm SP howitzer

With a towed gun you roll up to a position and unhitch the gun and dig it into its position and then you arrive with a dozen other trucks with crew and ammo and you pile the ammo about 20m away from the gun and you start preparing the rounds with their fuses etc and start feeding them to the gun so the gun can start firing.

A drone might hit the gun and damage it or they might try and hit the ammo, or they might hit the truck.

The truck can be replaced with a different truck as long as it can handle the weight of the gun, the gun can be repaired and ammo replaced.

The gun crew are spread out all over the place and it would be hard for one drone to kill them all.

Compare that with an artillery vehicle like a M109 where an anti armour suicide drone can hit the vehicle on the move or in firing position or anywhere in between and the ammo and fuel and crew are all packed into that tin most drones will be able to penetrate and when the ammo goes up the gun and ammo and fuel are all destroyed and the question is how many crew escape... bit hatches so most of the time they probably do.

The point is that a vehicle like Malva would not cost a lot more than a towed gun when you include the cost of the truck with the gun.

It can drive up to position but it can also use sophisticated electronics and laying equipment etc so it can pull up almost anywhere and drop its recoil spades and orient the gun ready to be loaded and fired.

Towed guns are getting more electronic too but being part of a truck mounted system you can have autorammers and other support features attached to the vehicle.

Right now it might have the MSTA gun on it so it shares the same ammo used in the battlefield by other friendly artillery units, while further down the track you could mount a different gun if you wanted... perhaps even a different calibre like some customers might want the old 180mm calibre long range guns.

Being able to drop ground supports, fire and then move... perhaps an ammo vehicle pulls up alongside and provides a few shells that are fired rapidly and then both vehicles drive away.

Less crew, less man handling, less digging the gun in to prepare it for firing, more stable platform faster in and out of battery... perhaps even a remote weapon station with a weapon on the cab roof that might be used to look out for drones or enemy troops.

Wheeled vehicles are not just cheaper to buy but vastly cheaper to operate... if you drive a MSTA 1,000km you would probably need a full check and perhaps a light overhaul of the running gear... a Malva could probably drive ten times further and be just fine.

You certainly don't want your entire arsenal of artillery to be on wheels but having a lot of them is affordable in terms of price and operational costs and crew numbers and the targets wont know the difference.

Actually, I think they do the contrary: they previously gather ammo in an hidden place, dig a place for the outside loading crew to burrow in and after take the artillery piece there and begin fire.
And this also with the self propelled piece as they have arrangements for be loaded directly from the outside.
Snoot and scoop tactics were delivered to deal with counter battery fire being directed by dedicated radars, so that such a tactics favored Self Propelled Arty.
Putting the artillery directly above the truck to fire was seen as a clever move to allow such tactics also to wheeled units , so it's not a surprise such pieces were developed at large by European countries, so to complement their own "Euroblindo" all-wheeled brigades.
Now, would Russian ground forces develop similar all K- equipped brigades or autonomous regiments?

The reduced cost and faster in an out of operation times would suit Russia better because they have always had a lot more artillery in their armed units than the west.

In the west when they adopted M270s they often called it a grid square remover and replaced existing M109 artillery with rockets.

The Soviets always recognised that rockets and guns are different and have strengths and weaknesses and that having a lot of both was actually a useful thing.

If you are going to put electronics and electric drives on a towed gun it makes sense to attach it to the back of a vehicle like they already did with Tulip and 2S5.

2S43 makes even more sense because it is wheeled and should be faster on roads and firm ground and much much cheaper and quieter to operate.

If the 2S43 had Coalitions gun then there would be no need for this:

With that full Coalition turret it will be heavier than the 2S43, but it will also have the range and rate of fire of the Coalition and the low cost operation and mobility of a truck.

GarryB wrote:The reduced cost and faster in an out of operation times would suit Russia better because they have always had a lot more artillery in their armed units than the west.

In the west when they adopted M270s they often called it a grid square remover and replaced existing M109 artillery with rockets.

The Soviets always recognised that rockets and guns are different and have strengths and weaknesses and that having a lot of both was actually a useful thing.

If you are going to put electronics and electric drives on a towed gun it makes sense to attach it to the back of a vehicle like they already did with Tulip and 2S5.

2S43 makes even more sense because it is wheeled and should be faster on roads and firm ground and much much cheaper and quieter to operate.

If the 2S43 had Coalitions gun then there would be no need for this:

With that full Coalition turret it will be heavier than the 2S43, but it will also have the range and rate of fire of the Coalition and the low cost operation and mobility of a truck.

I was obliged to cut a little short the previous post, so allow me to write the second leg of it.
Push for self propelled artillery also for lighter brigades was in the idea that such an arrangement was the sole response to the threat of counter-battery radars trough the tactic of shoot and scoop BUT current conflict in Ukraine show how such a manner of moving the artilleries as soon as they have fired is a sure way to get spotted by tactical UAV and be hit by loitering ammunition.
A.t.c. the towed artillery seem to be less vulnerable to such new menace as they can be more safely hidden and even if targeted also a direct hit would likely not lead to the destruction of the whole complex. Soviet style artillery were moved both by tracked (MT-LB) than wheeled platforms and  
even the "portee" self propelled artillery was present for heavy and long range pieces but mounted on tracked vehicles (Tyulpan, Peon/Malka, Hyatsint).
IMHO the most longed ranged the piece is, the more a wheeled platform is the way to go, while a piece like the Flox made me quite dubious.
I have the idea that such wheeled pieces was designed under the impression of Serdjukov's reform, where there would have been practically nothing over the brigade level, so they put on the MSTA piece and not the Hyatsint or the Koalitsja instead.
A.t.c. there have not been any try to develop a towed version of the 2A80 and very little efforts to develop any auxiliary propulsion system for towed guns that worked instead quite well on FH-70 and G-5.
Portee mounting on the MT-LB seems to work well for weapons like the Vasilek and S-60 also, that engage in direct fire, so maybe some creative ideas in all those alternative directions would be good , almost for battalion and regimental artillery.
Maybe a robotized self deploying towed gun/mortar: after a fire action crew could run away but it will fold back by itself and crawl back in a more protected position without exposing itself to enemy recognition.

Actually I think advances in lasers and these new mini missiles they are working on will probably make operating even suicide drones over Russian force quite risky, and the widespread use of airburst 30mm shells is going to make drones rather vulnerable, especially if they can be included in most BMP and BTR vehicle type.

I they can develop an airburst 40mm grenade I think drones will really struggle because a combination of command detonated 40mm grenades and LIDAR sensors to detect targets with very low IR and RCS signatures that suicide drones might be a flash in the pan for the west.

For Russian forces they will remain more practical because western defences are quite weak.

In such a condition I would think some variant of the BMPT with a LIDAR sensor turret on the roof to give 360 degree scanning and a remote weapon station perhaps attached on a large turret bustle with a few thousand 40mm grenades for the express purpose of engaging enemy drones.

For its primary role one feed system for each gun could carry APHE rounds, while the second feed on one gun could have APFSDS rounds and the other air burst shells for engaging drones... the 30mm cannon would reach much higher than a 40mm grenade launcher would.

For artillery being able to stop and fire and then move on seems to be rather useful, but with a static front line then towed guns that are dug in would still make sense.

Perhaps an invisible nylon netting above to catch hand grenades dropped from directly above and of course any suicide drones wanting to get in touch.

They will be getting all the experience they need in terms of working out what they need and want.

GarryB wrote:Actually I think advances in lasers and these new mini missiles they are working on will probably make operating even suicide drones over Russian force quite risky, and the widespread use of airburst 30mm shells is going to make drones rather vulnerable, especially if they can be included in most BMP and BTR vehicle type.

I they can develop an airburst 40mm grenade I think drones will really struggle because a combination of command detonated 40mm grenades and LIDAR sensors to detect targets with very low IR and RCS signatures that suicide drones might be a flash in the pan for the west.

For Russian forces they will remain more practical because western defences are quite weak.

In such a condition I would think some variant of the BMPT with a LIDAR sensor turret on the roof to give 360 degree scanning and a remote weapon station perhaps attached on a large turret bustle with a few thousand 40mm grenades for the express purpose of engaging enemy drones.

For its primary role one feed system for each gun could carry APHE rounds, while the second feed on one gun could have APFSDS rounds and the other air burst shells for engaging drones... the 30mm cannon would reach much higher than a 40mm grenade launcher would.

For artillery being able to stop and fire and then move on seems to be rather useful, but with a static front line then towed guns that are dug in would still make sense.

Perhaps an invisible nylon netting above to catch hand grenades dropped from directly above and of course any suicide drones wanting to get in touch.

They will be getting all the experience they need in terms of working out what they need and want.

Surely the scale of the actual conflict and the fact that is between peer adversaries has put a lot of previous pre-concepts and doctrines on trial, fact is that developing weapons take time instead, so weapons that are entering in service now are the fruit of precisely such logical fallacies.

Now, russian artillery organization is , by default, distributed on all command levels: you have battalion artillery, regimental, divisional and army artillery, all equipped with specific equipment, while at the contrary western one sport, even in a nation like the USA a way lesser number of systems.
Same happen with Air defence system, organized in a dense layer of overlapping systems.
UAS actually capitalize on two facts: an immense variety of different systems so to even surpass the above mentioned ones and the fact that it doesn't a.t.m. exist a contemporary similarly developed arrays of systems specifically dedicated to their own contrast,
MANPADS as an example are mainly based on IR sensors that work lousy against targets that just emit a measly amount of heat and being slow and small they are all to be considered stealthy .
You can have micro drones at platoon or even at squad level and all the way up to strategic reconnaissance ones (although those and UCAVs are doctrinally less a problem as they could be classified as true planes and treated accordingly by the standard AD structure).

First thing to deal with them is I.M.H.O. not to concentrate to the mean to contrast each one of them but to set up a structure specifically dedicated at their contrast.
Beginning to the lower level possible: as an example, pass to a four squad platoon level adding a command/force protection one that man both them than the systems to counteract them led by a specific figure (a second vice platoon commander or even better a newly created one star sub-praporshik and setting to a similar structure at battalion and regimental level.
With conscription settled at 21 years would be possible to have a disponible levy of persons with a professional expertise to man and manage such a structure leaving the lead of tactical units to officers instead.

so weapons that are entering in service now are the fruit of precisely such logical fallacies.

Weapons designed for one thing can be adapted to other roles... the first BMPs were intended for nuclear wars where the troops remain inside the vehicle and fire through firing ports... later vehicles still had firing ports but were intended to be used very differently.

MANPADS as an example are mainly based on IR sensors that work lousy against targets that just emit a measly amount of heat and being slow and small they are all to be considered stealthy .

The Russians widely deploy ATGMs and have them in large numbers including missiles equipped with HE Frag warheads for use against things like drones like the Kornet and the new Bulat which, with a HE FRAG warhead would be ideal for shooting down drones IMHO.

So it took almost 10 years to procure a eheeled msta B, itself an obsolete gun with much less range than the giatsint, zuzana, PHL09, CAESAR, Archer, etc. On one hand its good that the Russian artillery park is being replenished, on the other, its being replenished with a vehicle that even the Nora B or Žužana shit all over. Let that sink in: Both serbia and slovakia developed and pit into service truck howitzers with much bettrr range and equal RoF compared to the Malva 12 years before the russians did.

The lack of range is pretty easy to explain. It comes with same 47 calibers gun as the Msta-S. Compare that with the 52 calibers gun in Koalitsiya.

For comparison this is the Chinese PCL-181 wheeled artillery.


PCL-181 comes with 52 calibers gun and weighs 25t compared with 32t for the Malva. Which also means it is way more mobile.

I think they could have done a lot better than this. That and lack of upgrades of Msta-S to Msta-SM2 status is really troubling.

The Russians have more Msta-S than NATO has cuck truck howitzers combined.

You're railing on the budget option for nothing.

limb wrote:So it took almost 10 years to procure a eheeled msta B, itself an obsolete gun with much less range than the giatsint, zuzana, PHL09, CAESAR, Archer, etc. On one hand its good that the Russian artillery park is being replenished, on the other, its being replenished with a vehicle that even the Nora B or Žužana shit all over. Let that sink in: Both serbia and slovakia developed and pit into service truck howitzers with much bettrr range and equal RoF compared to the Malva 12 years before the russians did.

Let's say that MSTA-gun is not obsolete at any means for the operational level it's actually deployed ie brigade/division, just for the wheeled SP versions such gun it's not the best option possible (or better said such mounting is better for higher operational ones).
Comparing it with NATO tube artillery, having a single gun for all operational level it's meaningless: deploying Pzh-2000 or Caesar at brigade level it's an overkill and a waste of resources.
Let not the 40km max range deceive you however: they got it using RAP shells with half explosive load.
They have developed a similar shell for MSTA reaching 36km, just Russian SV have not acquired it. Still.

[quote="marcellogo"]

GarryB wrote:

so weapons that are entering in service now are the fruit of precisely such logical fallacies.

Weapons designed for one thing can be adapted to other roles... the first BMPs were intended for nuclear wars where the troops remain inside the vehicle and fire through firing ports... later vehicles still had firing ports but were intended to be used very differently.

MANPADS as an example are mainly based on IR sensors that work lousy against targets that just emit a measly amount of heat and being slow and small they are all to be considered stealthy .

The Russians widely deploy ATGMs and have them in large numbers including missiles equipped with HE Frag warheads for use against things like drones like the Kornet and the new Bulat which, with a HE FRAG warhead would be ideal for shooting down drones IMHO.

Yes, about Bulat it's my idea exactly.
Still I think that a specific structure to deal with such a menace would still be of paramount importance there as UAS will come in all shapes and forms, so that they would need a constant doctrinal attention, not an one time solution for a single category of them in the hand of non specialized troop.

BMP-1 got followed by -2 and -3: probably if they would have introduced something akin to BMP-1AV with a 30mm gun instead of the 73mm gun then they would have spared themselves a lot of fuss.
Still they considered an onboard ATGM capability to be of paramount importance for an IFV so they went, with a lot of inner debate actually, to develop the successive models.

They can always remove the armor. We see in Ukraine precision guided weapons, even with small warhead like Lancet will blow it up any way. And artillery does see small arm fire. Armor is quite useless for them.

marcellogo wrote:

limb wrote:So it took almost 10 years to procure a eheeled msta B, itself an obsolete gun with much less range than the giatsint, zuzana, PHL09, CAESAR, Archer, etc. On one hand its good that the Russian artillery park is being replenished, on the other, its being replenished with a vehicle that even the Nora B or Žužana shit all over. Let that sink in: Both serbia and slovakia developed and pit into service truck howitzers with much bettrr range and equal RoF compared to the Malva 12 years before the russians did.

Let's say that MSTA-gun is not obsolete at any means for the operational level it's actually deployed ie brigade/division, just for the wheeled SP versions such gun it's not the best option possible.
Comparing it with NATO tube artillery, a single gun for all operational level it's meaningless: deploying Pzh-2000 or Caesar at brigade level it's an overkill and a waste of resources.
Let not the 40km max range deceive you, they got it using RAP shells with half explosive load.  

Without RAP shells, the ramge of CAESAR, Žužana,and Nora B are 30km, while malva is just 24.7km, as much as the obsolete piece if shit thats the M109,AS-30 and M777.

lyle6 wrote:The Russians have more Msta-S than NATO has cuck truck howitzers combined.

You're railing on the budget option for nothing.

And yet these "cuck howitzers" massively outrange the "state of the art" malva. Also the serbs, slovaks and chinese developed far superior equivalents. Tell me why the malva is heavier and has shittier ramge than the nora B52 . Seems russia has to buy serbian

limb wrote:

marcellogo wrote:

limb wrote:So it took almost 10 years to procure a eheeled msta B, itself an obsolete gun with much less range than the giatsint, zuzana, PHL09, CAESAR, Archer, etc. On one hand its good that the Russian artillery park is being replenished, on the other, its being replenished with a vehicle that even the Nora B or Žužana shit all over. Let that sink in: Both serbia and slovakia developed and pit into service truck howitzers with much bettrr range and equal RoF compared to the Malva 12 years before the russians did.

Let's say that MSTA-gun is not obsolete at any means for the operational level it's actually deployed ie brigade/division, just for the wheeled SP versions such gun it's not the best option possible.
Comparing it with NATO tube artillery, a single gun for all operational level it's meaningless: deploying Pzh-2000 or Caesar at brigade level it's an overkill and a waste of resources.
Let not the 40km max range deceive you, they got it using RAP shells with half explosive load.  

Without RAP shells, the ramge of CAESAR, Žužana,and Nora B are 30km, while malva is just 24.7km, as much as the obsolete piece if shit thats the M109,AS-30 and M777.

Have you not been informed that they normally use an HE-BB shot reaching 29,4 km without reducing the amount of explosive charge?

RAP shell already exist and offered for export , they are just not interested in it because at such ranges they use Army level artillery units...

Dumb shells are only accurate up until 30 km. Past that and dispersion gets bad enough that you need significantly more rounds to guarantee minimum effects on target. Rocket shells are doubly worse; they have poor accuracy from the jerking start of the rocket motor and weaker charges to start with.

In short, our friend here is eating shit once more and calling it gourmet. No thanks, friendo.

limb wrote:And yet these "cuck howitzers" massively outrange the "state of the art" malva. Also the serbs, slovaks and chinese developed far superior equivalents. Tell me why the malva is heavier and has shittier ramge than the nora B52 . Seems russia has to buy serbian

It's a wheeled Msta. It doesn't make sense to create anything else with some specialized gun or whatever just for this vehicle. Lighten up, Francis

Russia will introduce a wheeled Koalitsiya after the tracked Koalitsiya will be introduced. In the meantime Russia needs to get a wheeled SPG into service.

Max range is only critical for counter battery fire roles... for which I would suggest Smerch 300mm rockets with a range of 150km plus would be much better suited to the job.

As mentioned... on the front line roaming drones looking for artillery operating (firing) that then lead to suicide drones being launched and attacking said targets is the way to deal with modern artillery, but if your air defence shoots down drone and can also deal with suicide drones too then the stress on your artillery is greatly reduced.

Modern artillery using guided shells on targets with known coordinates (GLONASS guided) or against moving targets (SALH) wont need to fire for long periods to get the job done.

For firing against area targets then several vehicles in different locations can fire a few shots and then move with all the shells arriving on target together with a spread to deal with the area target in question.

Meaning range is no longer critical.

Of course they will still have Coalition in both wheeled and tracked versions for extended range use... but they already have the 2S7M for that... 203mm 50km range shells are devastating.

I find it actually quite surprising that Russia and the Soviet Union had no real interest in wheeled mobile gun artillery until very recently. Pat-K being the first attempt as far as I know?

Being the largest country in the world with vast areas to cover these pieces would come in real handy as they are capable rapid deployment - unlike their tracked counterpart. Tracked vehicles have no equal in terms of tactical maneuverability but wheeled is just so much better on a strategic level.

They can practically move from storage directly into a front line position, whilst tracked vehicles needs to be on a train first and then hauled by flatbed to the front line. This can be a critical advantage - which makes Malva a welcome addition - and I hope that we see the wheeled Koalitsiya adopted as well.

According to Sputnik there is also renewed interest in the Pat-S based on a BMP-3 chassis, but I have my doubts about this one as it proved previously to give no real advantage over the 2S3.

Mir wrote:I find it actually quite surprising that Russia and the Soviet Union had no real interest in wheeled mobile gun artillery until very recently. Pat-K being the first attempt as far as I know?

Being the largest country in the world with vast areas to cover these pieces would come in real handy as they are capable rapid deployment - unlike their tracked counterpart. Tracked vehicles have no equal in terms of tactical maneuverability but wheeled is just so much better on a strategic level.

They can practically move from storage directly into a front line position, whilst tracked vehicles needs to be on a train first and then hauled by flatbed to the front line. This can be a critical advantage - which makes Malva a welcome addition - and I hope that we see the wheeled Koalitsiya adopted as well.

According to Sputnik there is also renewed interest in the Pat-S based on a BMP-3 chassis, but I have my doubts about this one as it proved previously to give no real advantage over the 2S3.

It's called hitching a towed artillery piece onto a truck and moving it across however many roads, rapid deployment, front line positions, vast areas you need

Perhaps the Russians only recently decided that the value of such a truck that can stop and shoot itself, without needing to deploy a crew and towed piece to do that - is worth the extra expense and weight and effort.

flamming_python wrote:
It's called hitching a towed artillery piece onto a truck and moving it across however many roads, rapid deployment, front line positions, vast areas you need.

Sure thing BUT the BIG difference here is that the same caliber towed artillery piece takes quite a bit longer to shoot and scoot than one that is already mounted on a truck.

Mir wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
It's called hitching a towed artillery piece onto a truck and moving it across however many roads, rapid deployment, front line positions, vast areas you need.

Sure thing BUT the BIG difference here is that the same caliber towed artillery piece takes quite a bit longer to shoot and scoot than one that is already mounted on a truck.

Now the BIG problem is that the shoot and scoot tactic was actually found to be a magnet for the attention of UAV and that the SP are insead much more difficult to hide than towed gun in woods or even urban ambient.
So no easy way out.
Actually the EAST came to the wheeled SP artillery BEFORE of West with the Dana, after it came the South African G-6.
Wheeled "portees" became a thing in the West after the end of Cold War , so Russia was totally incapacitated at the moment..

And firing an high power gun from a wheeled platform is NOT an easy task at all, like someone there seem me to imply, trust the ones who made Centauro for it...

I suspect they didn't bother with wheeled artillery because of the state of their roads for long periods of the year.

Recently they have been building lots of new road networks and also introducing new wheeled vehicles.

Interestingly the Soviets had BRDM and BRDM-2 like four wheeled light recon and anti tank vehicles as well as BTR series APCs for a very long period while most major western countries poo pooed the idea of a light mobile wheeled troop transport vehicle...

Ironically they said the BTR-60 was rubbish at a time when most western troops walked or were driven in trucks with no armour and no amphibous capability and no armament at all.

The prototypes for the BMP included wheeled as well as tracked and half tracked designs and in terms of fire power there were 30mm cannon armed versions as well as the 73mm gun armed version.

The requirement was to be able to defeat tanks and the ATGM of the time allowed that out to 3km but because it was essentially manually flown in its early models it was quite tricky to get a hit on a target within about 500m, so instead of a 30mm cannon they mounted the 73mm gun which could penetrate the frontal plate on an M60 tank at the time at any range it could hit it.

When the AT-4 and AT-5 missiles were introduced for the BMP-2 they used the 30mm cannon because they could hit tanks at any range with the new missiles, but experience with the 73mm gun made them realise that for some targets the heavier round with extra HE was better than the high velocity 30mm cannon so they didn't replace the BMP1s with BMP2s and when it came to develop a new BMP it had a large calibre gun to deliver HE rounds and also a high velocity 30mm cannon.

The new BMPs will have a 57mm grenade launcher able to fire a HE round with lot of punch and an APFSDS round better than any 30mm calibre round.

I suspect they didn't bother with wheeled artillery because of the state of their roads for long periods of the year.

Recently they have been building lots of new road networks and also introducing new wheeled vehicles.

Interestingly the Soviets had BRDM and BRDM-2 like four wheeled light recon and anti tank vehicles as well as BTR series APCs for a very long period while most major western countries poo pooed the idea of a light mobile wheeled troop transport vehicle...

Ironically they said the BTR-60 was rubbish at a time when most western troops walked or were driven in trucks with no armour and no amphibious capability and no armament at all.

The prototypes for the BMP included wheeled as well as tracked and half tracked designs and in terms of fire power there were 30mm cannon armed versions as well as the 73mm gun armed version.

The requirement was to be able to defeat tanks (in self defence, not as a tank killer) and the ATGM of the time allowed that out to 3km but because it was essentially manually flown in its early models it was quite tricky to get a hit on a target within about 500m, so instead of a 30mm cannon they mounted the 73mm gun which could penetrate the frontal plate on an M60 tank at the time at any range it could hit it.

The 73mm gun on the BMP-1 was simply an SPG-9 recoilless rifle with a closed end and therefore slightly less propellent but it generates recoil when it fires.

When the AT-4 and AT-5 missiles were introduced for the BMP-2 they used the 30mm cannon because they could hit tanks at any range with the new missiles, but experience with the 73mm gun made them realise that for some targets the heavier round with extra HE was better than the high velocity 30mm cannon so they didn't replace the BMP1s with BMP2s and when it came to develop a new BMP it had a large calibre gun to deliver HE rounds and also a high velocity 30mm cannon.

The new BMPs will have a 57mm grenade launcher able to fire a HE round with lot of punch and an APFSDS round better than any 30mm calibre round.

PCL-181 comes with 52 calibers gun and weighs 25t compared with 32t for the Malva. Which also means it is way more mobile.

That is amazing considering a 2S5 is only 28 tons.

According to Army-guide the Malva is 21 tons so based on your logic that the lighter vehicle is better I guess that means the Russian vehicle is more mobile than this Chinese truck...

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product6099.html

In fact to quote a website:

The artillery system is built on the chassis of the BAZ-6910 truck. Its weight is 21 tons, payload is 19.41 tons. The vehicle is equipped with a 470 hp engine that provides a top speed of up to 80 km/h, the maximum range is 1000 km. At the rear of the 2C43 there is a heavy stop that drops down during firing. The significant reduction in weight was achieved by abandoning the turret and armor at the installation site of the gun, allowing the “Malva” to be transported by military transport aircraft like the Il-76.

Form this website:  https://military-wiki.com/2s43-malva-152mm-overwhelm-frances-caesar/

If you look up the BAZ-6910 truck... which is also used to carry S-400 SAM missiles it is able to carry payloads from 13 to 21 tons... this article says Malva is 19.41 tons with the rest of the weight being the truck to 21 tons.

For the Malva to be 32 tons and the truck being the same weight of about two tons that would mean the payload is 30 tons... which means this would be the wrong truck to use for such a payload as it is 9 tons heavier than its max payload capacity.[/quote]