2S43 "Malva" 152-mm SP howitzer

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...

Malva also has better ground pressure since it has 8 wheels instead of the 6 of the Chinese vehicle.

marcellogo wrote:
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...

All the Russian towed artillery has to be manhandled and that takes quite a bit of time to deploy and redeploy. A truck mounted gun only needs to lower it's support legs on fairly solid ground to fire - much quicker in and out of the fire position than any towed gun. I really can't see why an SP gun would be harder to conceal than a towed gun - which normally includes a tow truck?

I completely forgot that the Soviets did produce a wheeled SP gun in the 80's - but it was designed for coastal defense.The A-222E Bereg 130mm (AK-130) coastal mobile artillery system. So they were not entirely unfamiliar with such a system



The Dana and the G-6 was developed more or less at the same time. Both were rather unique and proved to be very versatile. The G-6 is a huge vehicle but it was quite nimble and could change positions in less than two minutes. The three guns that were deployed to Angola made very good use of this advantage.



The South African Rooikat armoured car started development a couple of years before the Italian B1 Centauro. The original Rooikat was armed with a copy of the Italian 76mm gun, but it was planned to produce a 105mm version. Only a single prototype was built.

Mir wrote:

marcellogo wrote:
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...

All the Russian towed artillery has to be manhandled and that takes quite a bit of time to deploy and redeploy. A truck mounted gun only needs to lower it's support legs on fairly solid ground to fire - much quicker in and out of the fire position than any towed gun. I really can't see why an SP gun would be harder to conceal than a towed gun - which normally includes a tow truck?

I completely forgot that the Soviets did produce a wheeled SP gun in the 80's - but it was designed for coastal defense.The A-222E Bereg 130mm (AK-130) coastal mobile artillery system. So they were not entirely unfamiliar with such a system



The Dana and the G-6 was developed more or less at the same time. Both were rather unique and proved to be very versatile. The G-6 is a huge vehicle but it was quite nimble and could change positions in less than two minutes. The three guns that were deployed to Angola made very good use of this advantage.



The South African Rooikat armoured car started development a couple of years before the Italian B1 Centauro. The original Rooikat was armed with a copy of the Italian 76mm gun, but it was planned to produce a 105mm version. Only a single prototype was built.

Maximum respect for the ingenious South Africans: other great masters in developing wheeled armored vehicles but they began the development before and deployed it after us i.e. it means that even nations with a great expertise in this fields struggle in such a field, let's figure the others.
You are right , the great push toward putting EVERY artillery piece on a SP platform was to use the "shoot and scoot" tactics to counteract the action of counter-battery radars.
Now, the experience of the current conflict seems to suggest that given the dissemination of UAVs and Loitering munitions the supposed solution in not so clear cut and above all it cannot be the same at all levels and against all the possible countermeasures.
In any case i'm not saying in any way that the solution wound be to come back sic et simpliciter to towed artillery, quite the contrary.
Just than in some cases, to entrench themselves and put some maskings on could be better than move it anyway (and for this the towed variant has a clear advantage)-
Look however that most of actual wheeled SP mount beginning with Caesar itself need the same to be manually loaded as they were towed pieces.

Not sure the operators of these open artillery vehicles will be thanking the designers much in the middle of a Russian winter at minus 20 degrees C.

They called the Su-76 the bitch because it was open top with only a canvas cover for protection from the weather.

The fact that they are introducing it suggests the tests probably went well.


When responding to a post it is not necessary to repeat that entire post... this is especially true when the post you are replying to has a lot of images or replies already included in it.

marcellogo wrote:
Now, the experience of the current conflict seems to suggest that given the  dissemination of UAVs and Loitering munitions the supposed solution in not so clear cut and above all it cannot be the same at all levels and against all the possible countermeasures.

Look however that most of actual wheeled SP mount beginning with Caesar itself need the same to be manually loaded as they were towed pieces.  

Yes you're right UAV's was a real game changer and a huge eye opener for military planners. Most of them are quite difficult to detect under real field conditions, but plenty of effort has already gone into it. You can expect a lot of advances in countering this threat over the short term.

On the other hand this conflict proved to be an artillery war. Everything was used - from small commando type mortars to heavy field guns. From Grad type rockets to ballistic missiles. All proved to be very effective against a variety of targets (including tanks). Artillery remains the "God of War" - in a war where soldiers on the ground are slogging it out.

A small disadvantage to a SP gun in a UAV with IR sensors environment could be its engine's heat signature when its trying to hide.

Ironically the cost of an SPG means IR camouflage like Nakidka for radar and IR shielding would be justified.

Often towed guns can be located because there are trucks parked nearby too which also have engine signatures.

I suspect the solution to defend from drones will include Lidar and systems to blind or shoot down light drones.

Airburst grenades would be my choice because command detonated 40mm grenades would be useful for other targets on the battlefield too...

The volume in a 40mm grenade is quite big for HE and for ballbearings. A command detonation receiver could be used to set the grenade off at a specific location or time or distance and by putting the complex expensive stuff in the launcher instead of the round makes each round affordable enough to use.

A remote weapon station with a Lidar (laser radar) could track the incoming drones no matter what their RCS or IR signature and it could also track the out going round so setting it off at the optimal position should be easy and relatively cheap.

You could mount them on any vehicle you wanted including Tigrs and even Coalition 2S35s.

Their new 40mm grenade launchers can reach 2.5km with HE rounds which is more effective than most HMGs.

It's a wheeled Msta.

Which took 6+ years to iron out, using a gun thats obsolete since the advent of L52 howitzers.

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.

\

Do you have a single source to back that up?

limb wrote:
Which took 6+ years to iron out, using a gun thats obsolete since the advent of L52 howitzers.

Bro your L/52 howitzers are getting speared with Lancets left, right and center. There is no range advantage over the L/47 gun because you're not only fighting MSTA-S or Malvas, you're fighting and dying to the rest of the entire Russian Army as well.

limb wrote:
Do you have a single source to back that up?

1st page on google has 267 m CEP for a dumb 155 mm shell at max range...

Which took 6+ years to iron out, using a gun thats obsolete since the advent of L52 howitzers.

There is nothing at all obsolete about it, and new shells with ramjet or even scramjet propulsion that extend range should be compatible with such guns making them very useful moving forward.

There is no point having guns with ranges over 100km if you can't find targets that far away, they need to upgrade their target detection and tracking ability before extending gun firing range, but they already have the 150km range of Smerch anyway.

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.

I think you are a bit mixed up there... the need to spot artillery when it opens fire means opening fire with artillery is a magnet for the attention of UAVs. Shooting and then moving away from the area you just fired from is the SOLUTION to counter battery tactics including UAVs and battlefield radar and passive artillery detection systems. Firing and then moving is so far the best solution to counter battery fire.... the main other solution practised by a few Ukrainian artillery groups is to not fire at all, or move away from the front line and fire on civilian regions instead of the better protected military targets.

The main problem for vehicles like Malva is that when you fire you are going to attract enemy fire and UAVs trying to hunt you down, so I would say the solution is probably to attach support vehicles that can defeat UAVs and UCAVs and suicide drones. A couple of Tigrs or the larger heavier Typhoons armed with 30mm gun turrets equipped with radar and LIDAR and other air defence sensors and modern thermals and of course air burst 30mm cannon shells. They also have another dedicated vehicle for that sort of role called 2S38 with a 57mm gun, and of course the MTLB based Sosna missile vehicle would also be very good, but in the longer term those new 10kg air defence SAMs designed to shoot down artillery rockets and shells should also be able to deal with drones as well.

Because these artillery vehicles will be operating behind friendly lines the threat would be coming from enemy special forces operating behind Russian lines with suicide drones hunting for such targets as artillery and also conventional air defence vehicles... the way the Russian special forces have been doing taking out Gepards and other types.

I do not need to tell you which one has the most expensive launch vehicle. The MAZ truck or the HIMARS truck. Russia cannot even produce the launch vehicle for Smerch since it is imported from Belarus.

Im wondering whatever happened to the Kamaz project, "Platform O", to replace heavy trucks made from outside Russia with a more advanced and cost effective domestic alternative.

"Platform O" turned out to be too expensive and complex and it was shelved.

@lancelot
As for the Malva artillery, I also think that it is a mistake to use the older gun barrel in what is basically a quite expensive vehicle like the BAZ tractor they use on the Malva. The short range of the gun makes the Malva an easy target not just for more modern enemy artillery but also for other systems like air launched anti-vehicle missiles. For example NATO Brimstone II with 40km range when fired from helicopters.

They had ready  upgraded Msta at the end of the '90s, designated as 2A79, with a lot better range (30+ km with regular HE shells) and improved other parameters. That version got canceled in favor of Koalitsiya which is still not ready almost 25 years later.

lancelot wrote:Russia needs to upgrade the range of the Smerch and the Uragan like they did with the Grad by improving the fuel and casing.

The Uragan as it is has become vulnerable to shorter range rockets and conventional artillery. While the Smerch cannot cover the gap in range of ground based missile systems from 130 km to 500 km that is the range of the much more expensive and rare Iskander system. Compare the 290 km range of the Belarussian Polonez 300mm MLRS with the 130 km range of the 300mm Smerch.

Uragan is their remote mining workhorse while Smerch has plenty enough range to counter-fire anything NATO has. There's no need to complicate things by making overlapping capabilities that are really just a waste of time and money.

lancelot wrote:Given Russian made enhanced versions of Smerch with the level of range of the Polonez the ground forces could vastly enhance the level of fires they can do deep into the enemy's rear and reduce the need to use Iskander. A longer range Uragan would also enable the destruction of opposing modernized conventional artillery while outside its range.

Russia has Gerans for low cost deep strikes and KH-55/Kh-101s/Iskander/Kinzhal for punching through increasingly dense air defenses.

Where are you going to slot the Polonez in?

lancelot wrote:As for the Malva artillery, I also think that it is a mistake to use the older gun barrel in what is basically a quite expensive vehicle like the BaZ tractor they use on the Malva. The short range of the gun makes the Malva an easy target not just for more modern enemy artillery but also for other systems like air launched anti-vehicle missiles. For example NATO Brimstone II with 40km range when fired from helicopters.

And Buk crews would love nothing more than Apaches/Tigers/whatever breaching the nap of the earth to go for high altitude missile launches.

lancelot wrote:The Koalitsiya gun system is really advanced, but because it is so integrated, it is hard to make a manually loaded and operated variant of it. They need to make a lower weight and volume version of that gun. And not just for something like the Malva.

That's why you have the Malva in the first place.

caveat emptor wrote:

@lancelot
As for the Malva artillery, I also think that it is a mistake to use the older gun barrel in what is basically a quite expensive vehicle like the BAZ tractor they use on the Malva. The short range of the gun makes the Malva an easy target not just for more modern enemy artillery but also for other systems like air launched anti-vehicle missiles. For example NATO Brimstone II with 40km range when fired from helicopters.

They had ready  upgraded Msta at the end of the '90s, designated as 2A79, with a lot better range (30+ km with regular HE shells) and improved other parameters. That version got canceled in favor of Koalitsiya which is still not ready almost 25 years later.

Since it has "no analogues in the world" the MoD is waiting for analogues of it to appear in the world. Then they'll put it into service

Im wondering whatever happened to the Kamaz project, "Platform O", to replace heavy trucks made from outside Russia with a more advanced and cost effective domestic alternative.

Its an utter failure, which was thrown into the trashbin of bad engineering designs, and a whole lot of money and time went to the wind.

Like I said, putting a really cheap gun, on a quite expensive chassis does not sound like that much of a good idea to me.

Yes, they couldve put it on the 4 axle Kamaz, which is the same size as the CAESAR truck and much cheaper than the BAZ. I guess BAZ lobbied to have its more expensive solution put into service.

Russia needs to upgrade the range of the Smerch and the Uragan like they did with the Grad by improving the fuel and casing.

If they want to hit targets at greater range than the 150km the Smerch can reach I would suggest rather than weakening their payload to add more fuel to extend range they simply go for a larger calibre rocket and add a new rocket family... perhaps 400mm or something.

The Uragan as it is has become vulnerable to shorter range rockets and conventional artillery.

Hahahahah... because all the super long range western artillery guns the Orcs are using are invincible and never get hit by anything...

There is no level of range performance that would make rocket or tube artillery safe, what they really need is an air defence vehicle that can operate with their artillery forces that will protect them from enemy fire and enemy drone attack.

While the Smerch cannot cover the gap in range of ground based missile systems from 130 km to 500 km that is the range of the much more expensive and rare Iskander system.

What makes 500km a magic number?

Compare the 290 km range of the Belarussian Polonez 300mm MLRS with the 130 km range of the 300mm Smerch.

It is not rocket science... well actually it is... they have chosen range over payload to get extra range.

When the Israelis captured 122mm Grad rockets and then started producing their own versions they reduced the flight range and used a heavier warhead.

Given Russian made enhanced versions of Smerch with the level of range of the Polonez the ground forces could vastly enhance the level of fires they can do deep into the enemy's rear and reduce the need to use Iskander.

You are very much simplifying something that cannot be simplified. Right now you can draw a circle around a Smerch battery with a radius of 150km and all the areas inside enemy territory becomes the locations it can hit enemy targets... well when you do that there are probably already more worthy targets than that vehicle has rockets available to it, but you want to hit targets 500km away?

Why?

Let them come closer.

Instead of trying to turn Smerch into Iskander why not develop a new rocket battery of 400mm rockets that operates with Iskander batteries that can be used against targets 300km away with a decent heavy payload and precision guidance... but then they are already working on Hermes that is supposed to have a powered manouvering payload that evades enemy air defences to hit the target to avoid the problem the Orcs have been having where their rockets are getting shot down.

A longer range Uragan would also enable the destruction of opposing modernized conventional artillery while outside its range.

Makes more sense to use drones in enemy airspace for that... not to mention aircraft.

If the US provides Ukraine with the GMLRS ER variant (150 km range) then Ukraine will be able to match the range of the Smerch as it is. Currently they use GMLRS with 90 km range.

And with Russia jamming GMLRS I don't think they will bother, but if they do then maybe they will just keep shooting them down.

As for the Malva artillery, I also think that it is a mistake to use the older gun barrel in what is basically a quite expensive vehicle like the BAZ tractor they use on the Malva.

Both sides continue to use D-20 and D-30 towed guns but Malva is obsolete?

Right.... it is a fraction of the cost of these western super weapons and numbers matter except if you are western and then one super tank like a Leopard 2 can win the day I hear.

The short range of the gun makes the Malva an easy target not just for more modern enemy artillery but also for other systems like air launched anti-vehicle missiles.

Easy target is determined by where it is and what is defending it.

For example NATO Brimstone II with 40km range when fired from helicopters.

What helicopters?

The Koalitsiya gun system is really advanced, but because it is so integrated, it is hard to make a manually loaded and operated variant of it.

What a strange way of thinking... why do you think a manually loaded and operated version of Coalition is needed?

The purpose of the Coalition will be counter battery fire. Weapons like Malva will be to hit targets on the battlefield that need to be hit, of which there will be an enormous number that don't require 50 plus km range guns.

They need to make a lower weight and volume version of that gun

We have seen a wheeled version of Coalition... no real need for other land based versions... except one to replace the Bereg.

Putting the original gun of the Msta on the Malva was just a cheap cop out. They need to do better than that.

You are missing the point completely. Malva is cheap and could be made in enormous numbers to support ground based operations in attack and in defence leaving the longer ranged guns to take on enemy artillery and targets deeper into enemy territory.

Eventually ramjet and scramjet powered shells will be developed to extend shooting range which in combination with guidance systems will mean point targets can be hit at greater and greater distances without needing super long new super high pressure barrels, so any 152mm gun tube can launch these rounds.

There's no need to complicate things by making overlapping capabilities that are really just a waste of time and money.

Exactly. Rocket design is a compromise... they can make their rockets any range they like within reason, but that amazing rocket from Belarus, which is a copy of a Chinese rocket only has 8 rockets per vehicle and is very western in the fact that it is intended to be fired at an individual target with a single rocket... so it really isn't a  Smerch in the sense of rocket artillery... it is more a FROG replacement... but with a much smaller warhead.

The subsonic cruise missiles lack the low time to target capability of the rocket systems. Geran is even slower.

The US systems you talk about are shot down more often than not and are also jammed which renders them nuisance weapons at best and terrorism weapons against thinly protected civil targets more often than not.

Russia needs a longer reach MLRS.

No. What it needs is an enlarged HERMES replacement even though it is not in service yet on ground vehicles.

Ground based HERMES is lofted by a solid rocket booster similar to those used with the SA-19 and SA-22 SAMs then the free falling missile section uses terminal guidance to find its target and attack it out to 100km. It has been delayed because they want to put an engine in the missile so it can manouver to evade enemy air defences as it attacks its target so it can't be shot down as easily as western weapons are being shot down. It has a payload of only 30kgs, but with precision guidance that is good enough for most targets.

Using a larger solid rocket booster its range could be extended dramatically allowing it to coast a larger portion of its flight range and then power up its propulsion system and accelerate to its target at high speeds and long range and hit point targets with a relatively small cheap missile.

Russia lost way too many TOS-1, Uragan, and Msta systems because of their lack of range.

Most of those would be to suicide drones launched by enemy forces located in Russian lines... those videos of Russian truck drivers getting captured or Russian soldiers getting captured appear to be behind Russian front lines and are mainly logistics soldiers... they have clearly replaced that mission with the mission to launch suicide drones against Russian artillery because it is so potent... which means no level of gun or rocket range would make these vehicles safe...

The TOS had its range improved to solve this and the same needs to happen for the other systems.

Bullshit. The TOS had its range increased so it could be a lighter cheaper vehicle instead of a tank based vehicle. Or are you saying increasing its range to 12km made it safe so Uragan and Smerch should already be safe because they can already fire 12km or more...

Like I said, putting a really cheap gun, on a quite expensive chassis does not sound like that much of a good idea to me.

The gun is the thing that gets replaced every few hundred or 1,000 rounds so making it cheap is a good thing.

With the Chassis having it too cheap is no saving at all. The chassis is about mobility and low operational costs which a wheeled chassis delivers compared with tracked alternatives.

Yes, they couldve put it on the 4 axle Kamaz, which is the same size as the CAESAR truck and much cheaper than the BAZ. I guess BAZ lobbied to have its more expensive solution put into service.

But imagine they got anything right... then you would have to make up shit to complain about... or are you already doing that?

Hole wrote:

This truck would be a much better platform for the Koalitsiya-SV than the Kamaz.

Discussion of long range rockets etc moved to here.

Hole wrote:

I would not want to crank that handle seen through the smaller door.

^^^ what function does it serve?