Russian Gun Artillery Thread

Militarov wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "heavy" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.

This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

Russia has always had towed guns and is unlikely to get rid of them now... they are simple and cheap and still very effective.

There is nothing man portable that is equivalent to a 122mm D-30 Artillery piece.

GarryB wrote:Russia has always had towed guns and is unlikely to get rid of them now... they are simple and cheap and still very effective.

There is nothing man portable that is equivalent to a 122mm D-30 Artillery piece.

Well towed guns are cheap for the armies where the human factor is not important in economic terms. It is cheap while the soldiers of their big crews are unpayed or low payed. Also are cheap while "civil" style unarmoured trucks are used as tractors even in contested areas. In professional and advanced armies with decently payed soldiers and armored vehicles as tractors, the economic balance for the towed arms vs the self-propelled or the man-portable begins to be different.

Russia is a leader wordlwide in self propelled guns. It is one of the few countries that is affording the costs of development, and surely is the alone that is covering the whole range. The European research as example is a lot more inefficient, with many countries developing tanks, apcs and ifvs and almost no-one developing the rest of the range of self propelled guns.

Russia has done the evolution from heavy towed guns to self-propelled or man-portable guns in the areas of surface-air and surface-surface guns. Only some of the biggest towed intercontinental missiles remain in active service and their number is decreasing. There are not reasons to think that the same will not happen in the areas of anti-tank guns, howitzers and mortars. There is a very clear trend there.

It means not that heavy towed artillery is unuseful. The heavy towed guns can remain in the reserve while Russia reach the saturation of their reserves of self propelled guns. As example, the heavy towed guns are being important for Novorussia, but the Russian army is one step more advanced.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "y" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.

This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

When its about artillery Bofors is one of the world leaders no question about it. Basically 90 countries is using Bofors products it says something.

And i am not sure what man portable device could match 52 caliber towed howtizer like FN77B05.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "y" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.

This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

When its about artillery Bofors is one of the world leaders no question about it. Basically 90 countries is using Bofors products it says something.

And i am not sure what man portable device could match 52 caliber towed howtizer like FN77B05.

Not man-portable, but yes self-propelled. Bofors is a good gun maker, one of the bests in Europe. They try to do self-propelled guns, but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour. Their best self propelled guns have been:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandkanon_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System

The fact that Norway, one of the promotors of the Archer project, rejected finally them, means something.

To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote:The 2A65 is the towed version of the MSTA... rather than buying M777 I would prefer to see a towed version of Coalition...

Besides there is always Grad/Tornado...

Towed coalition would be probably 6+ tons, that is not light howtizer by any means. What is goal here is to have 152mm howtizer weighting under 4,5 tons so Mi17 can slung it externally.

Yes but since the Coalition has the longest range of any 152mm gun already, it's towed version can probably sacrifice some barrel length and still manage an impressive range, beating or equalling others of its class. Modern materials and construction can be used, like in the M777, and the 2A61 can be drawn a few lessons from - in terms of what works and what doesn't.
And of course; fully digital control & sighting systems, GLONASS integration, modern ammo, compatibility with laser-guided shells, and all the rest of it.

I think it's very feasible to end up with a versatile, towed, road-balanced 152mm gun, good in both mountains and on open ground, and light enough to be slung by Mi-17s.

It surely is possible to make shorter "caliber" long towed version. Actually why not even two, one as field artillery being 52 and one lighter for mountain etc units with 39 caliber for an example. Bofors just finished developing their "y" towed 155mm howtizer The FH 77B05 L52 after all which means they still have future.

This is open to interpretations. To see other countries developing towed guns over man-portable size can mean them being back of Russia on this.

When its about artillery Bofors is one of the world leaders no question about it. Basically 90 countries is using Bofors products it says something.

And i am not sure what man portable device could match 52 caliber towed howtizer like FN77B05.

Not man-portable, but yes self-propelled. Bofors is a good gun maker, one of the bests in Europe. They try to do self-propelled guns, but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour. Their best self propelled guns have been:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandkanon_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System

The fact that Norway, one of the promotors of the Archer project, rejected finally them, means something.

To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

Archer is overly expencive, that is the reason for rejection, budget cuts made countries to bail out of many other projects not only Archer, had nothing to do with its performance in general.

So... following your logic AK is shit coz its used by some 130 countries? Artillery is not capital asset, its being sold like penauts, you cant put F22 or nuclear attack subs in same bag with field artillery.

No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

If Bofors had market for tracked self propelled howtizer they would make it, but there is no space on the market due to US and German already existing products. If one Poland and Serbia can manage assembling decent SPGs Bofors is capable of far, far more.

When its about "armor", you are forgetting who developed CV90.

Militarov, You are forgetting about lobbyists in NATO and allied countries. They are the ones who drive the sales.
I don't see how FH77B is so superior to MSTA-B? Both are roughly equal.
And CV-90 is nothing to write home about especially when Kurganets is out

Regular wrote:Militarov, You are forgetting about lobbyists in NATO and allied countries. They are the ones who drive the sales.
I don't see how FH77B is so superior to MSTA-B? Both are roughly equal.
And CV-90 is nothing to write home about especially when Kurganets is out

CV90 - 25 years old design and even then it wont be much inferior to Kurganec in terms of armored protection if at all.

Even tho not directly comparable due to design differences, FH77B is simply far better in terms of techologies used.

FH77-B/A and later variants have APU, hydraulically powered assisted loading, 3 times higher sustained rate of fire, higher burst rate of fire during first minute, M982 Excalibur, loading assisting crane, digital balistic computer, bore temperature sensors etc etc...

MSTA-B has abit better range with its base ammunition due to abit longer barrel but oh well.

MSTA-B was a dinosaur at the moment when it appeared, sure base design is good, nothing wrong with mechanical side of it, however in terms of electronics, loading asistance, navigation, aiming devices its ancient.

Militarov wrote:Archer is overly expencive, that is the reason for rejection, budget cuts made countries to bail out of many other projects not only Archer, had nothing to do with its performance in general.

To be expensive even without armour is a design weakness, and many projects fail by this reason.

Militarov wrote:So... following your logic AK is shit coz its used by some 130 countries? Artillery is not capital asset, its being sold like penauts, you cant put F22 or nuclear attack subs in same bag with field artillery.

Better to remember my own words.

eehnie wrote:To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

Where is the Word shit? According to my logic the AK is a good gun but not necessarily a tecnological leader. And this is just what the AK is.

Militarov wrote:No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

If Bofors had market for tracked self propelled howtizer they would make it, but there is no space on the market due to US and German already existing products. If one Poland and Serbia can manage assembling decent SPGs Bofors is capable of far, far more.

It is wrong to use the Msta-B as if it would be the top of the technological level of Russia on artillery. It is necessary to look at the new 2S35 to talk about the technological level of Russia, and also at the most modern Russian ammunition.

Sweden is not a military leader by its own power and keeps not technology like this for exclusive own use. Despite it, neither the Bandkanon1 and the Archer have been exported. If they would be real leaders, the western countries with bigger defense Budget and spending would have been open to these guns like they are to others.

Militarov wrote:When its about "armor", you are forgetting who developed CV90.

Again I want to remember my own words:

eehnie wrote:but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour.

The word modern is important in my comment. the CV-90 is technology of 25 years ago. Maybe you remember the cars, the computers or the tvs of 25 years ago.

Why the CV-90 platform has not been used for the new Archer? I tend to think that has been considered, but ruled out.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:Archer is overly expencive, that is the reason for rejection, budget cuts made countries to bail out of many other projects not only Archer, had nothing to do with its performance in general.

To be expensive even without armour is a design weakness, and many projects fail by this reason.

Militarov wrote:So... following your logic AK is shit coz its used by some 130 countries? Artillery is not capital asset, its being sold like penauts, you cant put F22 or nuclear attack subs in same bag with field artillery.

Better to remember my own words.

eehnie wrote:To sale to many countries means to be a good gun maker but not to be the leader in the sector. Habitually the technologies of the real leaders are reserved for the own country and shared not with other countries.

Where is the Word shit? According to my logic the AK is a good gun but not necessarily a tecnological leader. And this is just what the AK is.

Militarov wrote:No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

If Bofors had market for tracked self propelled howtizer they would make it, but there is no space on the market due to US and German already existing products. If one Poland and Serbia can manage assembling decent SPGs Bofors is capable of far, far more.

It is wrong to use the Msta-B as if it would be the top of the technological level of Russia on artillery. It is necessary to look at the new 2S35 to talk about the technological level of Russia, and also at the most modern Russian ammunition.

Sweden is not a military leader by its own power and keeps not technology like this for exclusive own use. Despite it, neither the Bandkanon1 and the Archer have been exported. If they would be real leaders, the western countries with bigger defense Budget and spending would have been open to these guns like they are to others.

Militarov wrote:When its about "armor", you are forgetting who developed CV90.

Again I want to remember my own words:

eehnie wrote:but they can not compete with Russia on it since they have not modern technology on mobile systems and armour.

The word modern is important in my comment. the CV-90 is technology of 25 years ago. Maybe you remember the cars, the computers or the tvs of 25 years ago.

Why the CV-90 platform has not been used for the new Archer? I tend to think that has been considered, but ruled out.

Why would Archer have to be armored? Artillery should not come into contact with enemy at all, reason why Phz2000, MSTA-B and similar designs are "armored" is simply due to platform they use, anyways superstructure does not protect aganist anything but shell splinters and small arms fire, so you cant call them "armored" at all. Only parts of howtizer that really require armor if any is crew compartment, which Archer actually has crew and engine compartment armoured and the cab has fragmentation-proof windows, that is more than enough. Beside that it has Level 2 STANAG 4569 AT mine protection lvl.

Archer was not exported due to reason that you have 4-5x cheaper overhauled PHz-2000 on the market which will fit the needs of most customers. I dont see why would superpower like Croatia buy Archer if they can get used PHz-2000, if someone really wanted truck mounted system they have French Cesar for an example which is again alot chepaer. Then you have countries that are forbidden to buy either of those and then they get Serbian Nora or something Chinese.

Why would i compare 2S35 Koalitsiya which hasnt even entered service with 25 years old systems from the West? Are you trolling me here or you are really serious with this one. MSTA-B is best Russian towed howtizer in service atm, and when i compare FH77B or G5 i have to compare it to MSTA-B coz that is latest Russian built towed field howtizer. On other hand Russia does not have atm system comparable to Archer till truck mounted Koalitsiya enters service, if ever.

You are naturally aware CV90 is still worlds best armored IFV and potentialy best armed one depending on customer? They did not keep CV90 the same for the last 25 years. What did Russians come up with 25 years ago, yea right BTR90 -.-... CV90, K21, Patria AMV and other similar armored platforms saw various updated and evolutions though last 25 years and they will see them probably next 25. World did not froze 25 years ago for Patria, Bofors or anyone.

However it was frozen for Russians almost 15 years due to we all know what, and now they have to pick up their game or they will still use paper and 1:25.000 section to direct artillery fire.

Now you went full bogus militarov.

Russians already have better system than the archer and that is about the total and overall performance and they certainly do not need a different vehicle to outperform it. You look only on one parameter and consider it better, the issues such systems have is they are nowhere near sustainable neither in doctrine and military division structure nor in logistic terms for combat conditions compared to MSTA-S or PzH2000.

CV90 might be well armored but certainly will never be best armed that goes always to russian plattforms and BTR90 is no IFV the russians have BMP-3 older than last 25 years but still the best armed without doubt and still beats CV90 or any other IFV. The protection level of all of them does not exceed any weaponary they are carrying and BMP's carry weapons with more lethal and further range than any other aswell being fully digitalized FCS and equipped with auto-tracking.

Werewolf wrote:Now you went full bogus militarov.

Russians already have better system than the archer and that is about the total and overall performance and they certainly do not need a different vehicle to outperform it. You look only on one parameter and consider it better, the issues such systems have is they are nowhere near sustainable neither in doctrine and military division structure nor in logistic terms for combat conditions compared to MSTA-S or PzH2000.

CV90 might be well armored but certainly will never be best armed that goes always to russian plattforms and BTR90 is no IFV the russians have BMP-3 older than last 25 years but still the best armed without doubt and still beats CV90 or any other IFV. The protection level of all of them does not exceed any weaponary they are carrying and BMP's carry weapons with more lethal and further range than any other aswell being fully digitalized FCS and equipped with auto-tracking.

Fact stays, MSTA-B is based on ancient doctrine, when its about towed pieces Russians are so behind the world that its retarded at least in aspect of electronics used (read none) and materials. How MSTA-B operations differ from M46 field gun? They dont.... its still chart 1:25.000, compass, tables with imput values and calculator...my grandfather served like that in 1953. Mechanically MSTA-B is fine artillery piece, but its painfully outdated in every other way. Both FH and MSTA have own advantages but overall, MSTA is just...crude.

BTR90 was an example of what Russians came up 25 years ago and what load of junk it was compared to what was happening on the West. As i said "depending on customer", you can put on CV90 whatever you are pleased, even BMP3 turret if you wish actually.

You cant say i am not right here, not sure if you are really trying to say how MSTA-S and MSTA-B are better than Archer and FH77, i really hope not coz that is not true, not even by a long shot. Better value for the money? I suppose. Easier for maintenance? I guess. But better? Hell no. If they were better, Coalition would never happen.

Militarov wrote:
Fact stays, MSTA-B is based on ancient doctrine, when its about towed pieces Russians are so behind the world that its retarded at least in aspect of electronics used (read none) and materials. How MSTA-B operations differ from M46 field gun? They dont.... its still chart 1:25.000, compass, tables with imput values and calculator...my grandfather served like that in 1953. Mechanically MSTA-B is fine artillery piece, but its painfully outdated in every other way. Both FH and MSTA have own advantages but overall, MSTA is just...crude.

BTR90 was an example of what Russians came up 25 years ago and what load of junk it was compared to what was happening on the West. As i said "depending on customer", you can put on CV90 whatever you are pleased, even BMP3 turret if you wish actually.

You cant say i am not right here, not sure if you are really trying to say how MSTA-S and MSTA-B are better than Archer and FH77, i really hope not coz that is not true, not even by a long shot. Better value for the money? I suppose. Easier for maintenance? I guess. But better? Hell no. If they were better, Coalition would never happen.

IT seems you have been outrun by russians and your knowledge since they have mobile FCS systems for artillery which are assets to be used for older systems of fieldhowitzers, they have modified MT-12 Rapira with FCS capable of guiding GLATGM's. It is true they do not have it in brought use, but no country has it in brought use while the russians have mobile tracked artillery in very brought use all pretty modern with FCS while many western systems completley lack modern FCS and automatization of the artillery and battery fire.


You are comparing BTR90 which is the best in its field (APC) not (IFV) with actual IFV's that are not even best in their fields. You are comparing literally apples and coconuts.

And no modification of CV90 will ever have better armament than BMP-3 or any similiar russian system. Trying to argue that it could fit any armament is just like trying to argue they could mount all available technologies the very next day while non of those technologies is in active service.

The MSTA-S is far better than the Archer in terms of military which it can not compete with. The Archer is just another system like the Paladin, often refered to but none in active service with no factual deployment and availability with modern ammunition while russians have modern guided ammunition for artillery since quite some time. This is not about fantasy but about real world of technologies being in active service and technologies being nothing else but presented in fancy infographs.

A trucked plattform that could not be used in any established military structure which all of all major militaries obligatory have to be trucked plattforms to accomodate the needs of army aswell fit the logistics chain. A system that is designed in such a manner that can not fit the logistics chain aswell military structure is a failure because it would need customized and specialized logistics and military structure just to make any use of it. It is not superior in range, accuracy, nor logistics, inferior mobility and not even that impressive in speed either despite being a trucked plattform weighting just 30t.

It is no good for any military with needs.

8-9 rounds per minute
70km/h top speed
30ton trucked
30-40km with normal ammunition and only 60km with Excalibur which does not exist but is a total failure so far never come out of X-phase (prototype).
40 rounds total 20 in Autoloader 20 stored.

The fidelity of the FCS is also very questionable to what degree it is capable to be integrated for military needs other than simultan hitting location.

MSTA-S is no worse while being older and still surpassing it.
50 rounds total, semi-autoloader magazine manages to fit 46 rounds.
8-10 rounds per minute 2S19M1 -M2 6-7 rounds per minute if loaded via external ammunition feeding by ground personal of established artillery batteries. It has various ammunition types that outclass any other military in versitility and means of engaging varierity of targets. It is NBC protected, armored more than just 7.62mm which is the least of the crews concerns but high concern of counter artillery which the Archer will not even be identifiable after it recieves remote detonations around it. The tank plattform will provide protection to crew from fragments and close detonations. It has integrated battery management system "Kapustink" to have directed and controlled fire while the Archer lacks integrated system and relies on external feed.

Direct fire capability integrated in FCS that extents far 2km of the Archer and has no deadzone unlike Archer due trucked design. The heavier plattform on tracks also gives it capability in defensive means to drive and shoot towards enemy ground vehicles in direct fire, the Archer could not do that nor could it withstand any incoming projectile bigger than .50 cal. It does not make it a tank or a tank destroyer but having any means of protection is better than being a paper target. The mobility is also superior due to tracked plattform and capability to cross rivers without bridges up to 5m deep and 1km long.

Yes any military would take MSTA-S or PzH2000 over Archer or similiar systems that have no future in real militaries.

It isn't as good nor is the MSTA-S as bad or inferior than the Archer and for military needs it is actually superior, the introduction of new ammunition is only enhancing and assuring russian superiority in artillery systems while western counterparts and their engagement ranges is constantly and almost exclusively given with ranges for RAP ammunition of prototype stage like Excalibur which are failures to say the least.

Coalizya did not happen because of any Archer but because it is a deep modernization of equipment and russians certainly do not need to pay attention to broken countries like Sweden that have nothing to offer to the world stage in technology that russia does not have it already.

I don't see how FH77B is so superior to MSTA-B? Both are roughly equal.

I would go further and say if FH77B is space age and MSTA-B is WWI then the Russians and Soviets are geniuses who wouldn't want a simple system able to perform to space age levels?

CV90 - 25 years old design and even then it wont be much inferior to Kurganec in terms of armored protection if at all.

To make any comparison you would need detailed knowledge of both... what is the armour protection of Kurganets? And I mean actual protection... I am not interested in estimates.

Also what sort of APS system is CV90 fitted with that will stop APFSDS rounds?

Most importantly which entire units will be equipped with CV90 based vehicles... from command, to engineer, to IFV, to MBT toAPC, to artillery, to mine clearing, to ambulance etc etc.

CV90 is not a vehicle family where an entire unit will use same engines and components.

Why would i compare 2S35 Koalitsiya which hasnt even entered service with 25 years old systems from the West?

Archers design started in 1995 which makes it less than 20 years old by my calculations and you talked about Excalibur which didn't enter service until after 2005... which is very amusing that a WWI MSTA can both outrange your super sophisticated space age truck mounted artillery piece and also be vastly more accurate using Krasnopol guided rounds...

The real funny thing is that final development and approval of Archer came in 2008 so it was probably less than 5 years between Archer and Coalition which has been in development for a very long period of time... it was a joint programme with the Russian Navy BTW.

On other hand Russia does not have atm system comparable to Archer till truck mounted Koalitsiya enters service, if ever.

yeah but truck based artillery pieces are really only useful because of their reduced purchasing and operating costs and mobility on roads. In that sense a towed gun has all those advantages and more... especially when they had guided artillery shells for their operational lives... unlike your space age super dooper Archer.

You are naturally aware CV90 is still worlds best armored IFV and potentialy best armed one depending on customer?

Bullshit. the Israeli APCs based on tanks should have far superior protection.

The protection of the CV90 reportedly offers protection from 14.5mm HMG rounds from all directions and 30mm cannon fire from the front... which suggests it is not much better protected than many other much lighter vehicles.

Fact stays, MSTA-B is based on ancient doctrine, when its about towed pieces Russians are so behind the world that its retarded at least in aspect of electronics used (read none) and materials. How MSTA-B operations differ from M46 field gun? They dont.... its still chart 1:25.000, compass, tables with imput values and calculator...my grandfather served like that in 1953. Mechanically MSTA-B is fine artillery piece, but its painfully outdated in every other way. Both FH and MSTA have own advantages but overall, MSTA is just...crude.

Russian use of guided artillery shells predates the west by some time... do I have to talk to you about the in the field differences between Krasnopol and Copperhead?

Perhaps you might like to educate yourself regarding Ratnik and other infantry upgrades... do you think equipping every soldier with night vision and satellite guidance equipment and troop commanders with tablets to manage combat that they will issue paper maps and pencils and a compass to artillery units?

[qutoe]you can put on CV90 whatever you are pleased, even BMP3 turret if you wish actually.[/quote]

Yet no body is... for all its armour it has no ERA and no APS and therefore most light RPGs should penetrate it from any angle... doesn't sound like much to me... it seems only Scandinavian countries are even buying it.

[qutoe]You cant say i am not right here, not sure if you are really trying to say how MSTA-S and MSTA-B are better than Archer and FH77, i really hope not coz that is not true, not even by a long shot. Better value for the money? I suppose. Easier for maintenance? I guess. But better? Hell no. If they were better, Coalition would never happen.[/quote]

Cheaper, easier to maintain, similar mobility, longer range, more accurate ammo with guided shells that are 50 times cheaper... why would anyone prefer a space age white elephant?

First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor". We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

And what sort of APS is BMP3 being fielded with atm? None. Stop bringing up things that are NOT in service at all...

And how many Krasnoplos are there in units? Probably none. If you cared to read my posts you would find line where i said one of the rare MSTA advantages is its range with base line ammunition meanwhile losing in rate of fire, burst, sustained rate of fire and..basically everything else. And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time, i dont even know from where you are all picking Archer vs MSTA-S here. Stop twitching my words and placing in my mouth stuff i did not say just coz they suit your needs.

Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

I listed all reasons above already. No APU, no balistic computer, no loading assistance, lower rate of fire, lower sustained rate of fire, lower burst fire, no diagnostics... nothing, its just naked artillery piece. And again for 253234th time, i am talking about FH77 variants and MSTA-B. Stop bringing Archer, MSTA-S, Excalibur and Coalition to whole story.

Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

Militarov wrote:First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor". We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

Yes the K-25 is far superior to any other IFV in protection i would even claim to some regards even similiar protected against specific threats like Namer APC (shaped charges). The ERA/LERA and MERA type panels will certainly give it good protection against most type of shaped charges, large calibre cannon AP/APDS/APFSDS ammunition aswell and on top of that having Afghanit to protect it from APFSDS. The Afghanit certainly will not intercept it with leaving it without any energy however if it breaks it in half which long rods are prone to and starts yawing it will most probably stop it before it can penetrate the entire tank with the crew inside.

The other funny part is that you claim K25 has no place being evaludated here because it is not in service but it was you who started comparing CV90 how it is no worse than K25 while it is beyound doubt far inferior and already inferior to current IFV's in many things and yes even protection like 2S23 ERA used for light vehicles. CV90 does not offer such protection.

Militarov wrote:
And what sort of APS is BMP3 being fielded with atm? None. Stop bringing up things that are NOT in service at all...

Current BMD-4M have Arena installed at least that is what was reported. The 2S23 ERA is installed on all BMP-3 and BMD4 if used for operations which already withstand 30mm of 30x165mm API rounds from all around due to the ERA configuration of being LERA with composite backplate.

Militarov wrote:
And how many Krasnoplos are there in units? Probably none. If you cared to read my posts you would find line where i said one of the rare MSTA advantages is its range with base line ammunition meanwhile losing in rate of fire, burst, sustained rate of fire and..basically everything else. And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time, i dont even know from where you are all picking Archer vs MSTA-S here. Stop twitching my words and placing in my mouth stuff i did not say just coz they suit your needs.

Krasnapol has been in service for long time and looking at the far to accurate fire in Donbas of artillery there are good chances that it was used already in war especially looking at the T-64 tanks being deadcenter hit and vaporized. The MSTA-S is certainly not inferior in rate of fire it is actually superior since the 2S19M1/2 can fire from 8 to 10 rounds with internal carried and feeded ammunition for the semi autoloader.

The sustained rate of fire is at least double of the Archer since it carries almost all of its rounds in its autoloader magazine while archer holds only 20 rounds, who runs out first of the autoloader those rate of fire will drop massively and we already know who will drop out first.

The FH77 and MSTA-B have exact same rate of fire and sustainability of the rate of fire no different and both are manually loaded all breaks down to crew and to nothing else, maybe you shouldn't push something that isn't true. The rate of fire of both is 6-8 within one minute while the crew necessary to operate FH77 is up to 14 people and MSTA-B is 11.

Militarov wrote:
Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

It is in service and the number of Krasnapols in service exceeds any other round of western vassal pact. Guided rounds are like any other guided ammunition never in large numbers available that is a cost issue and even the mighty FIAT money printing corrupt US can not afford to have many rounds. The guidance and seeker of the Krasnapol is certainly not the best thing since it is SALH and takes a painter to mark the target but it isn't easy to develope a NLOS artillery round to acquire a target automatically it will always need someone to paint the target. AWACS, ELINT based aircrafts are far more costly to be used to give the round coordinates of a target which could also be a dummy while a infantry personal with a laser designator can come much closer and much less cost intensive to the target while AWACS or UAV's or anything flying could be restricted to to requests due to cost issue for isolated targets a Krasnapol painter is certainly more likely to be used despite its limitations.

Militarov wrote:
RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

So were mines but unlike CV90 the BMP-3 or even BMD-4 can be protected from 30x165mm API rounds aswell RPG's that is called technology which western countries do not have they either buy NII Stali patents like ARAT ERA for Abrams or they rely on own technologies which haven't been in brought use besides a ME country Israel because they at least haven't a totally narrow doctrine of how to protect crew and tanks while western countries love to say they have high priority to protect crew but on technological level we see that they are far inferior in that regard so far no technology developed to do exact same advertizement.

Militarov wrote:
I listed all reasons above already. No APU, no balistic computer, no loading assistance, lower rate of fire, lower sustained rate of fire, lower burst fire, no diagnostics... nothing, its just naked artillery piece. And again for 253234th time, i am talking about FH77 variants and MSTA-B. Stop bringing Archer, MSTA-S, Excalibur and Coalition to whole story.

Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

What you have listed i already have replied to which you ignored, russia has this kind of technology and has already modified MT-12 with FCS, GLATGM's aswell artillery battery management system which are linked to light version of Kapustnik, such systems have been in use already that they did not have it on MSTA-B is a different issue related to costs while no other country besides russia has such a doctrine and military structure so focused on artillery coverage and technology. The Swedish, the americans the entire NATO have nothing on russia in ground forces or artillery. Having a few FH77 with computers but not having a single based and established mobile tracked artillery piece that can cover such a broad spectrum from offensive and defensive means shows who is behind who.

You can not deny the last part the entire NATO are absolutley harmless when it comes to artillery overall capability despite having over 28 countries vs a single country and they still can't beat that little single "isolated" country in anything that is of army and ground forces technology. They do not have enough tanks or quality of tanks to repel or even defend themselfs against russian infantry which are all equipped from RPG to ATGM's of various types, they are equipped with mobile SHORAD and SAM's that can protect their ground forces from CAS planes while western countries almost entirely do not have the technology nor military structure to provide advancing ground forces any sort of Anti Aircraft capability that would give them any chance of fullfilling their duty. The russians could effectively deploy long range SAM's to win every skirmish without any interference of NATO airforces while providing some good protection in advancing formations from airforces. NATO can not it is just one single country in NATO that has anywhere near fidelity and focus on ground forces and it is already among the most inferior countries (USA) they do not have even half the doctrine or technology to drive or have dreams of success of such a ground forces campaign. They are navy military through and through and lack anything where they can not deploy their navy. No air superiority means no ground forces and little Serbia which you know very well has already shown the overall performance of a far inferior and outnumbered country with absolutley zero help what NATO is worth.

I understand your points that FH77 is in some regard superior which is only based on FCS and on nothing else, everything else it is inferior or on par however a single towed artillery piece will not change anything in the total technology gap russia has created behind every other country. Not a single western country besides germany has anything to offer even to compete with MSTA-S.

Militarov wrote:MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1.

What is this a joke ?  

Even taking aside the big cost difference -in money, materials and construction/operational maintence time- between the two systems (a parameter almost sufficient by itself to establish a very huge engineering conception and design roundness advantage in 2A65 favour......KISS anyone ?) we have that :


1) One of the two towed artillery has almost half the mass of the other (with the obvious implications that this element bring in terms of strategical and tactical mobility performances and ,from this, in the force concentration and volume of fire overmatch over the competitor system ).

2) The lighter system, between the two, boast a significant range advantage both with the basis and with the assisted standard ammunition.

3) The lighter system, between the two, show a far greater selection of munition types and the main ones boast also a greater area of assured suppression of enemy soft targets.
 
4) The transition from fire position to march is lower for the first of those two artillery systems.

Definitely i wouldn't never find myself in an Army armed with FH-77B tasked to go in a full scale war against a peer enemy employing the same resources in 2A65........

Very often (in particular in western military products) terribly costly vectronic suit - having the effect to render abishmal the cardinal cost-efficiency parameter - are added to very badly conceived and engineered piece of equiment only in order to rectify constitutive design deficiency.
That, if any, is a clear sign of technical incompetence or backwardness not the contrary  

Mindstorm wrote:

Militarov wrote:MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1.

What is this a joke ?  

Even taking aside the big cost difference -in money, materials and construction/operational maintence time- between the two systems (a parameter almost sufficient by itself to establish a very huge engineering conception and design roundness advantage in 2A65 favour......KISS anyone ?) we have that :


1) One of the two towed artillery has almost half the mass of the other (with the obvious implications that this element bring in terms of strategical and tactical mobility performances and ,from this, in the force concentration and volume of fire overmatch over the competitor system ).

2) The lighter system, between the two, boast a significant range advantage both with the basis and with the assisted standard ammunition.

3) The lighter system, between the two, show a far greater selection of munition types and the main ones boast also a greater area of assured suppression of enemy soft targets.
 
4) The transition from fire position to march is lower for the first of those two artillery systems.

Definitely i wouldn't never find myself in an Army armed with FH-77B tasked to go in a full scale war against a peer enemy employing the same resources in 2A65........

Very often (in particular in western military products) terribly costly vectronic suit - having the effect to render abishmal the cardinal cost-efficiency parameter - are added to very badly conceived and engineered piece of equiment only in order to rectify constitutive design deficiency.
That, if any, is a clear sign of technical incompetence or backwardness not the contrary  

Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.

MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...

Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....

First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

If you are going to call equipment made by the country that started the space age WWI crap then expect me to call you on it... don't take that personally... I don't care who said such things my response would be the same without documented evidence to prove it... which you have not provided yet.

BTW Glonass and Krasnopol were not available in WWI.

Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor".

You are the one making claims about protection levels without any knowledge of NERA or APS or Nakidka or other systems that might be standard on the IFV version of Kurganets.

And why do you think Kurganets needs to have the best IFV armour in the universe? I know for a fact it does not because that is the purpose of the Armata based IFV.

We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

You made the claim that a crappy western gun mounted on the back of a truck is 100 years more advanced than anything the Russians have despite the standard Russian gun having cheap affordable guided shells that can be fired to greater ranges at a slightly slower rate.

I call it crappy because it does not exceed the performance of a towed weapon and likely costs rather more for lower accuracy performance.

And how many Krasnoplos are there in units?

You are the expert here making all the claims... how many units don't have them?

France is a major user, as is India. Are you suggesting the Russians have spent a small fortune on UAVs and not on purchasing their own already developed guided artillery shells?

Even considering the Coalition will use guided shells as standard?

And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time,

Same point applies... MSTA has had guided shells for much longer period and they are much cheaper.

Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

They have a range of options to mark targets including UAVs, aircraft and ground forces.

RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

RPGs are more widely deployed on the battlefield than 30mm cannons... and you were the one claiming the CV90s armour was significant... in which case the armata IFV would kick its arse... that is what they would use where the threat level was high.

Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

The IFV version of Armata is an IFV...

Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.

Hold on... you are saying it is obsolete because it is not heavy enough?

WTF does a towed gun need an APU for?

So if the FH77 is space age because it has an APU then the old 203 gun the Soviets used in WWII that had caterpillar tracks for short range mobility must have been the starship enterprise...

MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...

Yes, of course... Russian artillery is still in WWI... I guess you don't credit the Russian military spending and upgrades in C4IR over the last half decade for anything... it is obviously for nothing they are spending money on UAVs, but not the tube and rocket artillery that would use the information gained by those recon resources.

If a Russian unit needed a high mobility high rate of fire light artillery unit... Grad.

Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....

Yeah... missing a target with 6 shells makes all the difference... those stupid Russians must just pace out the firing location, lick a finger (to get the wind direction) and fire off their allotment of shells and then go back to barracks and drink vodka... job done.

Thanks for your contribution... despite your claim to extensive knowledge I have really learned nothing of value from your posts on this thread.

Perhaps in future if you can tell us how wonderful the FN77 is without having to claim it makes the Russian equivalent junk I might listen to what you say. Or I might not.

You clearly have not brought any useful information about current practises in Russian artillery units that might be useful or interesting and don't know enough about current technology and equipment in Russian units to make coherent comparisons... if you want to educate us as to how wonderful the FN77 is, move it to a relevant thread.

If you don't know how widely used Krasnopol is within Russian units then don't make claims based on ignorant assumptions.

The Indians and French seemed to like them.

The rule of thumb of IFV design is to protect the front of the vehicle from the main IFV gun of the enemy or near projected future weapon. The sides are generally protected from HMG fire only and often from a specific distance.

The main gun is designed to penetrate the frontal armour of the enemy IFV equivalent at reasonable ranges... ie 2km or so.

With this in mind the design specs of Kurganets-25 would be at least to stop 35mm cannon rounds and likely 40mm rounds too over the frontal arc.

The 57mm gun will be to defeat 40 ton European IFVs...

The Kurganets is at least 7 tons heavier than the BMP-3 so I am not going to say such a level of protection is not possible with all the likely equipment they will be carrying including Shtora and other EO dazzling systems and smoke launching systems, Standard APS, NERA, replacements for Nakidka, etc etc all working to protect the vehicle... not to mention TOR batteries and Pantsir batteries protecting them from airborne munitions and aircraft threats... yes... I would say Kurganets-25 IFV model is better protected from enemy fire than any model CV90.

...not that it is in any way relevant to this thread.

I agree with the posts moved to this threat. My first comment was related to the return of some 2S4 and 2S7 to actiive service, but is well here too. Only one comment gets in the other threat, and surely would be better here too.

About the discussion, I do not think that the Msta-B is a good measure of the current technological level of Russia. A comparation of the 2S35 vs the Archer (both very recent) would be a better measure of the technological level of Russia and Bofors today to see who leads the sector really.

I can garantee you that the Kurganetz is safe from 30x165mm API all around while it is using LERA+composite tiles. If someone has still missed it here again a video of BMP-2 which has a relative weak side armor got upgrade with 2S23 LERA tiles that have a backplate of an alloy that stops 30x165mm API at less than 100 meters. The Kurganetz is already far better protected while having an improved variant of LERA of thicker content and more effective to stop threats from heavy auto cannons to RPG's or ATGM's we only need to know how effective it is against Tandem.


Jump to 04:15 to see a BMP-2 firing ZUBR-8 rounds against another BMP with LERA tiles of 2S23 that stops 30mm armor piercing incendiary ammunition without detonating the LERA tile while protecting the weak side armor from penetration.


I think i already made a little post that Archer is nothing against MSTA-S it barely manages to stay on par and is totally worthless for militaries since trucked versions are always inferior in accuracy and useless for military structure which require always a tracked vehicle to accomplish operational mobility with combined armed forces which wheeled based vehicles can not offer. Despite your claim the MSTA-S is still superior in sustaining its rate of fire not just by a single round more but also by a semi automatic loader compared with an automatic loader which loads one round less and have only 20 rounds capacity in the autoloader compared with 46 rounds of MSTA-S so far only PzH2000 has anything on MSTA-S despite MSTA-S being the first of its kind and the oldest it got modified quite often.

flamming_python wrote:

Militarov wrote:No offense here but saying how Bofors lacks "technology" of any sort is....no, just no. Russians lagged so much behind Krupp and Bofors in artillery last 35 years that it was retarded, MSTA-B compared to FH77B looks like something from WW1. I am not saying MSTA is bad, just MSTA is simple, crude artillery piece, while FH77 looks like spaceship compared to it. USSR was keeping sort of edge in good old times with its 130mm M46s which were outclassing most almost everything fielded on the West in numbers, however in 70s it changed when FH77, M198, G5 and similar pieces came into service. Later stuff like 155 GH52 and truck mounted half automated modernisations of towed pieces totally outclassed it.

lolwut

Msta-B is still pretty state-of-the-art, and especially impressive back in the late 80s.

Lagging behind Krupp and Bofors?

MSTA-B "state of the art". No.

GarryB wrote:

First dont you use that "Bullshit" and "Educate yourself" lines on me and start reading my posts for a change, my bio too. I am not Mustafa. My father worked on production and maintenance of artillery pieces i had from whom to pick stuff.

If you are going to call equipment made by the country that started the space age WWI crap then expect me to call you on it... don't take that personally... I don't care who said such things my response would be the same without documented evidence to prove it... which you have not provided yet.

BTW Glonass and Krasnopol were not available in WWI.

Are you trying to claim that Kurganec will be overly superior to CV90 in armor protection? All round AP protection aganist 30mm with applicable armor? So you are saying K25 is actually a tank? I stand behind what i said "with 25 year lag it will be little or not better protected than CV90 in terms of armor".

You are the one making claims about protection levels without any knowledge of NERA or APS or Nakidka or other systems that might be standard on the IFV version of Kurganets.

And why do you think Kurganets needs to have the best IFV armour in the universe? I know for a fact it does not because that is the purpose of the Armata based IFV.

We are not talking here about platforms and their variants, for all i care K25 can fly and launch cruise missiles, its not in service, hense it does not have right to be in calculations here whatsoever. My point was when this guy said how "they cant make armor" to show example where they produce armor, and not any kind of armor.

You made the claim that a crappy western gun mounted on the back of a truck is 100 years more advanced than anything the Russians have despite the standard Russian gun having cheap affordable guided shells that can be fired to greater ranges at a slightly slower rate.

I call it crappy because it does not exceed the performance of a towed weapon and likely costs rather more for lower accuracy performance.

And how many Krasnoplos are there in units?

You are the expert here making all the claims... how many units don't have them?

France is a major user, as is India. Are you suggesting the Russians have spent a small fortune on UAVs and not on purchasing their own already developed guided artillery shells?

Even considering the Coalition will use guided shells as standard?

And i was comparing FH77 with MSTA-B whole time,

Same point applies... MSTA has had guided shells for much longer period and they are much cheaper.

Again we are coming to big question, how many Krasopols Russia has in storage? Very few if any. All that Krasnopol story is nice and great till the point where you have to get to your target on 5000m in LOS to mark it, otherwise its useless, and it greatly reduces its combat value.

They have a range of options to mark targets including UAVs, aircraft and ground forces.

RPGs are made to destroy tanks, are you trying to say that 50% lighter vehicles should survive it? Such vehicles always were and will be easy prey for RPGs and ATGMs unless they hit slat armor.

RPGs are more widely deployed on the battlefield than 30mm cannons... and you were the one claiming the CV90s armour was significant... in which case the armata IFV would kick its arse... that is what they would use where the threat level was high.

Also, Namer is not IFV but heavy APC, many vehicles have better armor than CV90 but they are not IFVs.

The IFV version of Armata is an IFV...

Reason why FH77 is alot heavier is the fact it has APU, related equipment, and loading aid equipment and bunch of other equipment that does not exist on MSTA, ofc its going to be heavier and that is reason why MSTA-B is horribly outdated design.

Hold on... you are saying it is obsolete because it is not heavy enough?

WTF does a towed gun need an APU for?

So if the FH77 is space age because it has an APU then the old 203 gun the Soviets used in WWII that had caterpillar tracks for short range mobility must have been the starship enterprise...

MSTA-B on other hand is just an artillery piece as any other, with 0 tactical mobility unless towed, horribly complicated in terms of operating and target switching, for the love of God you still need to place navigation pegs in front and behind it...

Yes, of course... Russian artillery is still in WWI... I guess you don't credit the Russian military spending and upgrades in C4IR over the last half decade for anything... it is obviously for nothing they are spending money on UAVs, but not the tube and rocket artillery that would use the information gained by those recon resources.

If a Russian unit needed a high mobility high rate of fire light artillery unit... Grad.

Thing is that FN77 will deploy, fire 6 shells and move away while MSTA-B crew is trying to take firing position. Not sure is any of you aware how long it takes to set firing position for conventional artillery....

Yeah... missing a target with 6 shells makes all the difference... those stupid Russians must just pace out the firing location, lick a finger (to get the wind direction) and fire off their allotment of shells and then go back to barracks and drink vodka... job done.

Thanks for your contribution... despite your claim to extensive knowledge I have really learned nothing of value from your posts on this thread.

Perhaps in future if you can tell us how wonderful the FN77 is without having to claim it makes the Russian equivalent junk I might listen to what you say. Or I might not.

You clearly have not brought any useful information about current practises in Russian artillery units that might be useful or interesting and don't know enough about current technology and equipment in Russian units to make coherent comparisons... if you want to educate us as to how wonderful the FN77 is, move it to a relevant thread.

If you don't know how widely used Krasnopol is within Russian units then don't make claims based on ignorant assumptions.

The Indians and French seemed to like them.

So, how many times you saw Krasnopol in units? Ever? I have never seen it except 2 of them fired on artillery exercise in 2013. And here we are talking about MSTA-B as a piece not its ammunition, MSTA-B as a platform is a problem not its ammunition.

APU? Why do they need APU? For balistic computer, for hydraulic pump, for tactical mobility when on firing position, for loading assistance equipment.... APU is the reason why its so much easier to use in field compared to MSTA, no manual winching around, no need for spinal cord manual labor... naturally all the "conventional" systems exist as a backup. Only real disadvantage of APU is IR spectrum signature, that is reason why Yugoslavians did not put APU on their original towed M84 Nora, which proved as good during 1999. war, however when its about Russia which should be able to actually protect its ground assets from air strikes it does not matter much really.

When its about weight, we are here talking about L52 howtizer, so weight does not really matter since it wont be lifted by helicopters anyways, for that Ru lacks nice L39 howtizer as we mentioned already above.

And i am really sorry but MSTA-B is based on early 70s technology... only really modern features on it from pure engineering aspects are hydraulic counter-recoil "rails" and a emulsion/oil (not rly sure which probably pure oil) cooled recoil brake but those exist for quite some time, still they were very nicely thought out on MSTA. Other than that its extremly and way to simple artillery piece. Biggest issue is apsolute lack of any automation, 0, well except spring breech but its not real automation. It takes 10 minutes to set up position for howtizers like MSTA-B or M84, M46 and similar if you do everything by the book, and that is one of the main issues here, meanwhlie with FH77 if terrain is not too bad you can be ready in minute or so.

I mean seriously even Yugo M84B2 howtizer had pneumatic loading assistance with compressed Nitrogen i belive, lacked naturally APU and other modern features but that was in plans post 1991. which never happened.

T15 is IFV which is...not..in...service. Can we please limit ourself to stuff that actually exist in numbers higher than 25. At this point we have only APCs based on tank chasis, in future sure we will have IFVs, possibly not only from Russia. But that is not what we talked here about at all. I used CV90 ans an example of armored vehicle being produced by above mentioned countries.