Russian Gun Artillery Thread

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.  

You cant use SPGs everywhere, terrain does not allow that. That is why its quite important to have good fairly mobile towed gun on disposal, as i said above if someone asked me id build on Coalition base one L52 howtizer with APU and everything that comes with it and one L39 in M777 class with minimal possible weight.

Everyone basically has truck or APC based artillery command posts, it does not however replace onboard FCS slaved to APU. Its all nice that you get calculations from some external platform but you still have to do everything manually after you get the numbers. Takes time and takes physical work.

Ohh my goodness, military personal has to work? They did not sign up for that!

Seriously you are driving here a very narrow narrative. towed howitzers still exist because they are cheap and very useful. If FCS and semi automated operation would be so crucial then we would only buy mobile artillery pieces but every military and especially china and russia show that having more of such equipment is more usefull than gold plate them and have them in very few numbers.

Kapustnik-B is superior because it can provide old as fuck WW2 artillery like D-1 with precalculated trajectory the correct coordinates to eleminate or decrease the CEP to a very impressive minimum while having just a few FH77 is all fine but what means do they have to provide effectiv targeting for old generation Artillery or do this nordic countries have only a dozen pieces in entire country for the entire country to be protected?

Tired soldier with frozen fingers does not fight, he wants to go somewhere warm and sleep. Patriotism does not replace frostbiten fingers. Less manual labor with winches, hooks, crates etc, the better.

I can write you program that does the same to run on your laptop or Windows phone...you dont really need a vehicle for that. You actually can make it with Excel and some Visual Basic macros...you give way too much credit to it. If it was capable of feeding that data into atm unexisting artillery BMS then sure, since you still have to use field phone or paper... ty but no ty.

If you dont have any real argument can you stop replying to my posts please, calling me "fool" doesnt rly help.

Who is arguing?

You presented your opinion and I responded point by point.

If you would like to discuss it further then by all means do.

If you want to dismiss my opinions as not worth your time then you are free to do so.

Actually making it cost more by investing into its equipment will make it much better, not sure are you trying to say we should to back to ZiS6 coz its cheap. Pull yourself together...

It is called cost benefit analysis... making something more complicated and more expensive to make it more effective in its primary or even secondary role is acceptable as long as the improvement warrants the cost and added complication.

As already mentioned... the Russian weapon has better range and better accuracy... adding assisted loading will increase rate of fire... but if rate of fire was so important then a Grad would be a better tool than a towed gun.

Srsly even Serbian snipers are issued sniper ammunition for M76, that is not even remotely comparable. Even IF they were issued standard ammunition its not such great decrease in performance specially not to frontline snipers which we use in Russia and Serbia.

So snipers will use accurate rounds to hit their targets but artillery units wont use guided shells because they think it is more fun to fire 50 rounds at a target area than one to kill a specific target...

Srsly even Serbian snipers are issued sniper ammunition for M76, that is not even remotely comparable. Even IF they were issued standard ammunition its not such great decrease in performance specially not to frontline snipers which we use in Russia and Serbia.

So it was PLANNED so you can mention it... great... T-15 is planned too and will enter service. Coalition is also planned so I can mention it too... both in its tracked and wheeled versions...

I said like 5 times MSTA-B has longer range with baseline ammunition, stop chanting it seriously, and only reason is its L52, if it didnt have longer range it would be somewhat a humiliation. On other hand FH77 B05 L52 is outperforming MSTA-B in that field too, but lets not even bring it here as its new device.

Of course you can bring it here... just like the towed model of Coalition is a new device and will likely replace MSTA-B...

- maybe coz it reduces response time to target change by.... 10 times?

But the fact that the battery will be firing guided shells suggests the requirement for a full battery salvo on one target might not be so necessary. When each gun gets its own target it can engage more targets faster... and considering it would be shoot and scoot... and of course the fact that the MSTA-B can fire jamming rounds that could be fired at NATO artillery radar positions to negate NATOs ability to find the towed guns in the first place are all factors you ignore.

Against the Muj in Afghanistan they wont know the difference between any of the guns mentioned.

Two main aspects of artillery warfare - mobility and counterbattery performing and evading it. MSTA-B is lacking in both comparared to most of the analogues.

So the two main aspects of artillery don't include actually hitting targets and supporting the units it is attached to... wouldn't that mean the best support artillery is nothing because it can never be defeated by counter battery fire...

So... wait.. making Armata platform/Boomerang/K25 to reply purely on optoelectronics and make it full of LCD displays, radars etc etc is great.... but doing same on towed howtizer is bad and it wont work on -30C? How so? Why wouldnt it work on -30C? You wont place of the shelf Android phone on MSTA-B but some ruggerised device. Do i feel some double standards here?

Systems inside a vehicle are better protected from the elements than something towed behind a truck across dirt roads.

I agree there, MSTA-B is sufficiently adequate for local wars, low intensity conflicts which Russia had previous 2 decades but as you said it is not modern piece suited for large scale war with formidable enemy. Not sure where are people picking this stuff how MSTA-B is "state of the art".

Perhaps the fact that you call it simple yet at the same time it has better range and accuracy than the state of the art western weapons you are so desperate to prove are perfect.

WWI and Space Age was your comparison.

M270 MLRS. M198 is also quite solid and offers cheap solution up to 40 km,

Hahahaha... M270 is a joke... a very expensive joke.

It is based on the Bradley IFV.... which is great for the US as they operate Bradley IFVs, but for the rest of NATO it is just another vehicle platform with new wheels and new tracks and new engine and transmission they need to add to their inventory.

Compared with Uragan the M270 is a 227mm calibre rocket system that has no range advantage, has 4 less tubes per platform, has no accuracy advantage and no obvious mobility advantage over the 220mm calibre Uragan, but it is much more expensive to buy and to operate.

what i am saying, exploit fkn advantage more. Put APU, BC with BMS so you can share data from artillery radar, velocity radar, some small hydraulic crane, burst loader... something.

Have you talked to Vlad about this?

Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with his introduction... specifically the company he works for and some of the products it makes...

Perhaps they have other things to focus on before upgrading something that will be replaced soon, or perhaps there are upgrades that you just don't know anything about.

What I am saying is that it is very stupid to complain about the bad state of things from the outside where you don't actually know the state of things except what you are told.

No type of Guided ammunition will never replace conventional artillery shells, at least not in 2 lifetimes. Sure, new fuses and new types of ammunition will be MSTA compatibile no reason not to, however MSTA as a piece is the target of my criticism not its ammunition range wich is more than fine.

The standard Coalition shell will be guided. The new fuses developed fit rounds of 152mm calibre and larger and include steering fins and a GLONASS guidance module.

they will start out at 1K US per shot and will likely get cheaper and will greatly increase the number of targets each vehicle can engage at one time... each shot a different target...

It is like the Gefest & T upgrade for Su-24s making them almost as accurate with dumb bombs as more modern aircraft are with guided weapons. Of course there will be cases where the specific location of the target is unknown so less accuracy and more volume is needed... but then a Grad would be much better suited...

For hot one on one artillery action You definitely want to have MLRS. Shortest deployement and fastest saturated kaboom delivery on target.

And with 300mm calibre Smerch 120km range to play with...

I can write you program that does the same to run on your laptop or Windows phone...you dont really need a vehicle for that. You actually can make it with Excel and some Visual Basic macros...you give way too much credit to it. If it was capable of feeding that data into atm unexisting artillery BMS then sure, since you still have to use field phone or paper... ty but no ty.

Haha... the Russians are moving to a net centric military force but their towed artillery units will be issued with abacus's for calculations... right.

I find it amusing all the upgrades they are applying to their rocket artillery like Grad and the new Tornado systems that are fully automated and even their MANPADS operators are getting sophisticated battle management systems like Barnaul, but Towed artillery get nothing... you are the one making the claims can you back them up.

I am not saying you are wrong here, but some proof with the whine would be nice.

Militarov wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:Militarov, I see what you are saying. But keep in mind that MSTA-B would not be used in situations where you will need to quickly deploy on emergency request. That doesn't fit the Russian army doctrine. What's more likely is it would be assigned to a assault battalion, If you really need quick reaction artillery, self propelled artillery is a better choice. As far as I know, Anything above 120 mm is not meant for quick set ups as you mentioned. Other than Self propelled artillery. Of course you guys can curse and beat me up because I am not an artillery expert at all But I am familiar with our doctrines. And I do get Militarov pressing needs for modernizations. But old school works too, Artillery calculating posts on APCs can provide firing solutions.  

You cant use SPGs everywhere, terrain does not allow that. That is why its quite important to have good fairly mobile towed gun on disposal, as i said above if someone asked me id build on Coalition base one L52 howtizer with APU and everything that comes with it and one L39 in M777 class with minimal possible weight.

Everyone basically has truck or APC based artillery command posts, it does not however replace onboard FCS slaved to APU. Its all nice that you get calculations from some external platform but you still have to do everything manually after you get the numbers. Takes time and takes physical work.

Actually the cost benefit of using a towed tube is even less interesting. Since instead of one low pressure mass, you have two of them (Tractor and gun carriage). This means that you have the place to manoeuvre the carriage and tractor.

There are areas where tubes are important. Especially aero-transported tubes (like in hilltops etc. lifted by helicopter).

Also given the MSTA-B is 7/8 tons that means that the lighter carrier would set up the total at 20/22 tons (non withstanding ammo and troops). It's not that much better than the BM27. Range is a factor off course, there's no lighter SPG that would have better range (the 2s1 is nowhere near). And the 2s3 has shorter range. So indeed an organic transport solution would be interesting (like the NORA) but like the Nora the weight jumps up to 30+ tons/

For the automatization issue, there will be solutions from Russia and abraod. GPS braces seem the most promising. However, the tactical use of MSTA-B allows for time and effort to be put forth.

To see what Russia is thinking on artillery, it is necessary to look at what is being done and at what is being anoounced. The new 2S25, 2S34 and 2S35 are all self propelled, and also will be the future 2S36 Zauralets recently announced. There is a new light MRLS, the Tornado, and there are new Surface-Surface systems like the SS-26 Iskander. Also man-portable guns of all the types are being done, but we do not see new heavy towed guns over man-portable size being developed or becoming succesful in the last decades in Russia. All these alternatives seem to be taking the place of the heavy towed artillery.

Historically the towed versions of artillery pieces come first, since they are easier to desing and build, but this is not being the case with the new guns. While we have the first self propelled vehicles publicly presented, we have not news about their possible heavy towed twins. It seems to me that are not being developed because Russia need not them. Russia would have stronger alternatives, as mentioned in this thread, for every type of job that the heavy towed artillery has done until now.

Also this would explain a situation where the heavy towed pieces but seems to have not updates and improvements themselves, but can use the modern ammunition that is being designed for their self propelled twins because they would have longer life in service and in the reserve.

It would be very interesting if Franco can do his estimations about the number of heavy towed artillery pieces (over man-portable size) in the Russian Army and the Russian Airborne, as updated as possible. Basically:

2A65B Msta B
2A18M D-30
2B16 Nona K
2A36 Giantsint B
2A29 MT-12 Rapira
2B9 Vasilek

The numbers of the public sources are not in agreement and seems to be changing in some cases.

Also i would like to know if Sprut-B 2A45M Self-propelled towed gun is in service. It could replace older Rapira anti tank guns i guess

George1 wrote:Also i would like to know if Sprut-B 2A45M Self-propelled towed gun is in service. It could replace older Rapira anti tank guns i guess

From what I know the 2A45M Sprut-B was adopted in 1988, but has not been ordered. Checking some sources I find not units in active service or in the reserve.

This was the last heavy towed weapon over man-portable size adopted by the Sovietic/Russian Armed Forces.

Militarov wrote:

Identical attitude.

This picture made me smile, but I would not agree totally with the point.

I do not think think this is the overall attitude of the Russian Armed Forces. It is proved that they work for improving technologically their weapons in every sector. Except on this. Russia is expending on improve its artillery, but its self propelled artillery, not the towed.

The question is to think why, to think about the reason for it. If the heavy towed artillery over man portable size, including the 2A65 Msta-B that you commented, is not being improved, there is a reason for it. If there are not updates or upgrades for the existing models, if there are not new weapons of this type adopted since almost 30 years, and even the last was not ordered, there is a reason for it.

When one person or organization does this? The people or organizations expend not in the things which end is coming fast and they plan or want to replace. As example, you expend not on a car that you are planning to replace. This is what I see here.

Russia needs not to replace all the heavy towed artillery pieces over man-portable size while they are useful, while their life is not finished, but Russia would be able to remove all them from the active service in the short-term. According to the warfare.be numbers, Russia has:

152mm
396 2A65B Msta-B in active service
131 2A36 Giatsint-B in active service
vs
some 2S19 Msta-S in the reserve
500+ 2S5 Giatsint-S in the reserve
1600 2S3 Akatsiya in the reserve
with the new 2S35 Koalitsiya coming.

122mm
564 2A18M D-30 in active service
vs
1400 2S1 Gvozdika (self-propelled twin of the D-30)

120mm
18 2B16 Nona-K
vs
-
with more 2S34 Chosta (upgrade from the available in the reserve 2S1 Gvozdika) and the 2S36 Zauralets-D projected.
(also 120 2S4 Tyulpan of 240mm in the reserve)

100/125mm
456 2A29 MT-12 Rapira
vs
8000 T-72 in the reserve
4500 T-80 in the reserve
with the new 2S25 Sprut-SDM1 coming (I would rename this weapon because it is totally new: 2S37?), and the new T-14 Armata coming.
(The 2A45M Sprut-B of 125mm was projected as successor of the 2A29 MT-12 Rapira of 100mm, but was not ordered, and uses the same ammunition of the current Russian Main Battle Tanks).

The thing is that they would already be using 120mm mortars in current brigades... just like current tanks use 125mm guns in current brigades...

I think the 120mm mortar is a very effective weapon and could be made more so with guided ammo and other improved model rounds to further improve performance... new propellants and longer barrels to improve range etc etc.

I understand that going for a higher calibre makes some sense but the next calibre up from the 120mm in mortar design in Russia means a 160mm mortar and while that is only 40mm larger calibre the bombs are significantly heavier... 120mm bombs are about 16kg, while 160mm bombs are 40kgs plus.

I would think a 120mm gun mortar able to fire shells and mortar rounds and guided missiles of 120mm and 122mm design with longer barrels for better range and better targeting would be potent enough in a brigade structure that already includes 152mm vehicles based on Coalition and rocket artillery vehicles able to carry Smerch, Uragan, and Grad rockets.

For the vehicle families the Armata could easily carry a 160mm mortar or even a 240mm but I think the lighter vehicles would struggle, both in terms of recoil and available rounds due to weight and size.

Personally... and this is just my opinion... I think continuing to use the 120mm mortar for mortar carriers with improvements in performance as mentioned above makes sense... standardises a calibre... and would certainly be potent enough for most tasks.

Where heavier rounds are needed variants of the vehicles with 160mm or 240mm mortars could be developed that are kept in reserve for when they might be needed.

In the short term the 2S range of vehicles can be kept in reserve in terms of the 240mm mortar vehicle and the 203mm heavy artillery vehicle for situations where such fire power is needed. (ie 2S4 and 2S7 kept in reserve with new ammo types developed for them and over time a new "new family" version of them could be developed and either kept in reserve or put in specific units that engage in the sort of fighting where such capability might be considered worth the penalties of the weight and size of the weapons.

Note... some times a 16kg bomb is just not enough and a 120kg HE shell from a 240mm mortar is what you need to get the job done... or a 110kg shell from a 203mm gun is needed. Much of the time such heavy rounds would be counter productive, but in mountains or heavy forest or heavily dug in enemy forces some times you need more punch.

Of course each unit already has excellent fire power including 152mm and 120mm and 125mm and soon 57mm and of course TOS and Rocket artillery etc etc and of course Helicopter and CAS...

Communication and guided shells makes really big rounds much more specialised... you no longer have to level a city to take it.

GarryB wrote:The thing is that they would already be using 120mm mortars in current brigades... just like current tanks use 125mm guns in current brigades...

I think the 120mm mortar is a very effective weapon and could be made more so with guided ammo and other improved model rounds to further improve performance... new propellants and longer barrels to improve range etc etc.

I understand that going for a higher calibre makes some sense but the next calibre up from the 120mm in mortar design in Russia means a 160mm mortar and while that is only 40mm larger calibre the bombs are significantly heavier... 120mm bombs are about 16kg, while 160mm bombs are 40kgs plus.

I would think a 120mm gun mortar able to fire shells and mortar rounds and guided missiles of 120mm and 122mm design with longer barrels for better range and better targeting would be potent enough in a brigade structure that already includes 152mm vehicles based on Coalition and rocket artillery vehicles able to carry Smerch, Uragan, and Grad rockets.

For the vehicle families the Armata could easily carry a 160mm mortar or even a 240mm but I think the lighter vehicles would struggle, both in terms of recoil and available rounds due to weight and size.

Personally... and this is just my opinion... I think continuing to use the 120mm mortar for mortar carriers with improvements in performance as mentioned above makes sense... standardises a calibre... and would certainly be potent enough for most tasks.

Where heavier rounds are needed variants of the vehicles with 160mm or 240mm mortars could be developed that are kept in reserve for when they might be needed.

In the short term the 2S range of vehicles can be kept in reserve in terms of the 240mm mortar vehicle and the 203mm heavy artillery vehicle for situations where such fire power is needed. (ie 2S4 and 2S7 kept in reserve with new ammo types developed for them and over time a new "new family" version of them could be developed and either kept in reserve or put in specific units that engage in the sort of fighting where such capability might be considered worth the penalties of the weight and size of the weapons.

Note... some times a 16kg bomb is just not enough and a 120kg HE shell from a 240mm mortar is what you need to get the job done... or a 110kg shell from a 203mm gun is needed.  Much of the time such heavy rounds would be counter productive, but in mountains or heavy forest or heavily dug in enemy forces some times you need more punch.

Of course each unit already has excellent fire power including 152mm and 120mm and 125mm and soon 57mm and of course TOS and Rocket artillery etc etc and of course Helicopter and CAS...

Communication and guided shells makes really big rounds much more specialised... you no longer have to level a city to take it.

Surely also today, like in the past, the trend is to use bigger calibers that allow to increase the power of the fire. It is possible thanks to the technical improvements that allow to reduce the size of the platforms and to design platforms that absorb better the efforts of the firing process.

About artillery weapons used in mobile platforms, I tend to think that while the bigger calibers will see improvements, and will se its use increased, the smaller calibers would tend to have smaller use. I'm talking about self-propelled vehicles. At same time, the smaller calibers in self propelled vehicles are the biggest calibers in light portable/man-portable weapons.

In the case of Russia, it would mean a trend to increase the use of the 240mm, 203mm and 152mm calibers (today very low in some case), and a trend to decrease the use of the 120mm, 122mm, 125mm and 130mm (today very high in some case).

By standardization reasons I do not expect new calibers, or the recovery of old calibers like the 160mm for mortars, but yes new ammunition (in some case for new roles) for the calibers with a trend to increased use. As example, I expect in the future tank-antitank ammunition of 152mm, I expect in the future ammunition for indirect fire for 152mm and 203mm, and guns to use all them.

At this point the ammunition of 120mm, 122mm and 125mm is far from obsolete for self-propelled vehicles, but I doubt if they will remain long enough to be useful the entire life os service of a new generation of artillery pieces based on the new platforms. We can be talking of new self-propelled vehciles that should be around still in 50-60 years from now. The use of the 125mm and 120mm calibers makes sense to me for the BMD-4M platform, the smallest, with the new 2S25M Sprut-SDM1 and 2S36 Zauralets-D, but for bigger platforms, for me it would make sense to make a 152mm weapon that can combine direct and indirect fire in the mold of the current 120mm gun.

The 125mm has been adopted for the new Armata tanks, but there is a talk about future stronger guns for the tank role on this platform.

Following with the argument, while the 120mm caliber can see its use decreased for self propelled vehicles, can have increasing use as a caliber for portable/man-portable weapons, as the big artillery caliber used today for this role. Here I can see the 82mm mortars being gradually replaced with the time by 120mm mortars that should be lighter than the current 2B12 Sani, and may reach sizes under 100Kg.

I think there wont be a move to super heavy calibres...

The Soviet Army was very effective in WWII with 152mm and 203mm guns, where the 203mm guns were long range heavy fire power weapons and the 152mm guns were used in enormous numbers.

It was like the tens of thousands of T-34s and less than 6,000 Tigers... the lighter cheaper vehicle means more in service and easier mobility etc etc.

120mm mortar rounds are very effective... they were in WWII... even the Germans adopted them after being on the receiving end from Soviet units.

Heavier mortars are simply not really justified... even a guided 120mm mortar round with a shaped charge would penetrate any western tank even today... there is no value in going for a larger calibre as it would reduce ammo capacity and make loading slower.

In terms of main gun calibres I suspect the 100mm and 30mm will no longer be carried by IFVs. The APCs might still carry 30mm guns but 57mm high velocity guns will replace the 30mm guns in IFV use and AA use, while 57mm HE shells and 120mm shells make 100mm rounds redundant.

152mm tank gun calibre rounds wont be used unless there is no other option as they will be heavy and slow to load and wont be carried in large numbers.

The 125mm calibre will be kept as will the 120mm mortar and 152mm artillery rounds, while the 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rockets will continue to be used in longer ranged versions with improved accuracy and extended range in all calibres making up for not increasing the calibre.

I tend to think that something between the 120mm and the 240mm mortar ammunition will be developed. The gap between both is too big, and sometimes the 120mm is not strong enough vs bunkers and fortified positions. This would be basically the justification of some caliber between both, and the most likely option would be the 152mm caliber (and in lower measure, the 203mm caliber).

Also, as happened with smaller calibers before, I tend to think that the defenses of the tanks will be able to make less effective the ammunition of 125mm. And again the 152mm caliber is the most likely option for a new tank-antitank caliber.

In the future I would expect the 152mm becoming the main artillery caliber, with significantly lower use of the 203mm and 240mm calibers, but higher than its current use.

The calibers in the 120-130mm range, can lose their current position as main calibers (taking in to account also the tanks), but will remain in use in self propelled vehicles for long time. At least until the early T-14 Armatas and the BMD-4M based artillery are retired.

At same time the 120mm caliber can become the main caliber for portable/man-portable light artillery carried by the infantry.

These can be changes for a long term projection. The 152mm caliber can become the main caliber in 40 years from now, surely not before. But this is something that must be considered in the design of the new generation of artillery self-propelled vehicles based on the new platforsm of mid and big size, because the designs that can be adopted in the begin of the next decade should be in the Russian armed forces until around 2070.

But there is already the 160mm calibre between the 120mm and 240mm.

I think any deficiency in weight the 120mm might have can be balanced with improved accuracy with guided shells.

Poor accuracy can make even the most powerful shell useless while excellent accuracy makes much less powerful shells effective.

Suffice to say, a 120mm shell with proper fusing and guidance penetrating the roof of a log or sand bag bunker and then exploding can be more effective than a 240mm mortar round landing 10m to the left of said bunker even though there is an enormous difference between a 130kg 240mm HE shell and a 16kg 120mm shell.

They are already withdrawing the 122mm artillery calibre so I suspect the push will be standardisation wherever possible.

I think mountain units traditionally used the 160mm mortar because it was very mobile but also very very potent... its 41kg HE shell would be devastating.

However with the existence of the 240mm and the 120mm I rather think... and this is my own opinion mind you, that guided rounds will make the 120mm calibre more effective and the same guidance systems would make the 240mm system a very heavy but also very very powerful system.

The problem being I doubt most targets would require such a heavy bomb, plus the fact that the 120mm is a gun/mortar with mortar bombs but also 120mm shells and 120mm missiles and adapted 122mm missiles able to be used by the system just make it flexible and useful.

I don't think they will bring back the 160mm mortar... just like I don't think they will rehabilitate the 180mm artillery guns despite their excellent range.

I suspect, as I mentioned above, that they will keep the existing calibres and develop them further, with improved range and accuracy, and rely on improved communications to improve lethality. Heavier calibres could receive development too but I think would be kept in reserve for if or when they might be needed.

Note a 240mm diving top attack anti tank weapon would be devastating to any tank... a 130kg round with a pointed hardened nose would likely not be seriously effected by an APS system interceptor firing shrapnel against it and being a full calibre penetrator it wont be as easily intercepted and snapped like a rod penetrator and coming down vertically there will not be angled plate armour to deflect it either...

APHE would be devastating...

A 240mm shell is actually enormous... the size of a small aircraft delivered bomb... you could make quite an impressive UAV from an object that size...

The 160mm and 180mm calibers seem death to me in the Russian Armed Forces. If bigger standardization would be good in the 120-130mm range of calibers, there is not reason to broke it recovering old calibers that are not used today.

Until now, the big calibers that survived until today in artillery have been 152mm, 203mm and 240mm. I think the three give a quite well balanced scale and I see not reason to broke the current standardization with other calibers. Also the success of the guns that combine direct and indirect fire makes a call to use the same calibers for tank, howitzer and mortar ammunition for the sizes needed in every case.

Also I expect guided ammunition to be designed for all these calibers, also for the 240mm which ammunition is not as cheap to be fired without control, and can include easily these systems.

I agree about a need of more standardization for the range of calibers between 120 and 130mm, but it will take many time, and surely can be coincident with the possible overall decline of their use for self propelled vehicles. The process would take 4 to 6 decades, but by the end, I think the 120mm will be the remaining caliber of this range of calibers thanks to its good future as a caliber of light infantry mortars.

The 160mm and 180mm calibers seem death to me in the Russian Armed Forces. If bigger standardization would be good in the 120-130mm range of calibers, there is not reason to broke it recovering old calibers that are not used today.

It seems they have no problem with old dead calibres... they appear to be reintroducing the 57mm calibre round for anti armour and anti aircraft use...

And to be honest the 160mm mortar is still in reserve for mountain users where its mobility and heavy powerful shell are still considered useful. The 180mm calibre seems totally obsolete, but then the 203mm seems to be disappearing too.

I think the 160mm is a useful middle calibre for mortars... not as heavy as the 240mm but offering a significant weight increase in delivered shell.

I think the 203mm has the same advantages of extra shell weight when needed... and potential for range increases as shown with the 152mm gun could make it a 90-100km range shell... which would be interesting for some targets.


Certainly for the moment I would like to see the new extended range 70km guided shells in 152mm replace the Bereg 130mm coastal gun system, and just in case I would like to see them, together with the navy joint develop a 203mm gun for future use on heavy cruisers and for heavy artillery brigades along with 240mm mortar vehicles.

Also I expect guided ammunition to be designed for all these calibers, also for the 240mm which ammunition is not as cheap to be fired without control, and can include easily these systems.

The guided shell for the 240mm mortar is called Smekchak and is a 134kg round.

There are Santimetr and Krasnopol for the 152mm guns, the Gran is for 120mm mortars and Kitolov is for 122mm guns but can also be fired by 120mm gun/mortars.

I seem to remember a 203mm guided missile but can't remember its name.

The 57mm never has been retired of the Russian Armed Forces. Its use in the land forces declined, but continued in the naval forces.

About the 160mm mortars, the sources agree not. The best updated and reliable sources in my view include not the M-160 mortar in the inventary of the Russian reserve. In recent years it have been a process of total retirement of a good number of old warfare, including many old towed artillery pieces.

About the oldest weapons that are supposedly still in the Russian inventary (this can be one). I tend to think that if we have not see them used by the forces of Novorussia in the war of Ukraine, these weapons are not available for the Russian reserve. Between the oldest weapons over portable/man-portable size, that we see used by the forces of Novorrussia we can doubt about if they are of Russian origin or of Ukranian origin, but I tend to think that the T-64, T-54, T-55, D-20, BS-3 and ZPU have been all of Ukranian origin.

While we have seen 2A29 MT-12 Rapira, 2B16 Nona-K, 2A18M D-30 and 2A65 Msta-B extensively used, we have not seen older towed weapons, except very few D-20, BS-3 and ZPU that all seem captured in Ukraine, from old Ukranian warfare storage centers, from museums or from the frontline.

The 57mm never has been retired of the Russian Armed Forces. Its use in the land forces declined, but continued in the naval forces.

the 57mm gun was largely replaced in the late 1970s with OSA missiles.

It might be on board a few small ships and non combat ships like fleet oilers, but it is not a standard primary armament of the Russian Navy.

[qutoe]About the 160mm mortars, the sources agree not. The best updated and reliable sources in my view include not the M-160 mortar in the inventary of the Russian reserve. In recent years it have been a process of total retirement of a good number of old warfare, including many old towed artillery pieces.[/quote]

AFAIK they are kept in reserve for mountain troops as they are considered very useful in such conditions.

I tend to think that if we have not see them used by the forces of Novorussia in the war of Ukraine, these weapons are not available for the Russian reserve.

Yes, because in the mountains of the Ukraine they would be invaluable weapons of war...

Can you provide some serious technical reason why the 160mm mortars can not be used in the plains (if they would be available), like the 120mm mortars have been used?

Can you provide some serious technical reason why the 160mm mortars can not be used in the plains (if they would be available), like the 120mm mortars have been used?

106mm mortars can be used in open terrain, but as I have said they are specialised heavy weapons that would be too big and heavy for normal uses.

For specific uses like in mountain combat their extra fire power is valuable and makes their extra weight and cost worth the extra mobility issues.

The obvious problem is that as I said the 120mm can be made more accurate and is already in wide service so with minor increases in range there is no need to replace it.

If they wanted more fire power in a given situation the 240mm mortar offers even more power and more range than the 160mm weapon though it is even heavier and more powerful.

They don't need three types of Mortar.

One standard general issue one is fine and efficient, with 160mm mortars in reserve for mountain fighting troops because they find it more useful than the smaller shorter ranged 120mm weapons.

For general troops a reserve of 240mm mortars offers a system they can fall back on if needed when 120mm shells are too light... indeed if 40kg 152mm artillery shells are too light.

About the 57mm caliber, its use in the Russian naval forces not only makes this caliber active, there are reports about how the navy weapons have been used as start point for the new 57mm weapon of the ground forces.

Surely the most obvious problem for the use of the 160mm mortars in Novorussia is that neither the weapon and the ammunition seem available a this point.

There is more evidence in recent and well updated reports of the presence of the 160mm mortasr in the Syrian Armed Forces. Syria has more mountain terrain, but its use in their war has not been reported either. The most likely cause is the lack of ammunition.

There is more evidence in recent and well updated reports of the presence of the 160mm mortasr in the Syrian Armed Forces. Syria has more mountain terrain, but its use in their war has not been reported either. The most likely cause is the lack of ammunition.

You were the one saying 120mm is not adequate for Armata...

I think they will stick with the 120mm for the time being and keep 160mm in reserve for mountain forces and 240mm in reserve for standard use when the 120mm is not enough.

In such a case then it would make sense for them to keep both calibres in low rate production and develop new rounds based on technology developed for smaller calibres.

The 120mm for the armata platform would be redundant with the fact that infantry variants will carry the 2B12 Sani 120mm mortar. Also the armata platform is heavily oversized for the 120mm direct/indirect fire weapon.

I think a new direct/indirect gun of 152mm will be developed, and this is one of the artillery systems that would make sense for the armata platform and would make sense too from the point of bigger standardization.

The 160mm caliber is death. Only sources with deficient updating keep them as part of the Russian inventary at this point.

According to the better updated sources, the Russian reserves of towed artyllery are mostly formed today by 2A65 Msta-B 152mm, 2A36 Giantsint-B 152mm and 2A18 D-30s 122mm. The main mortar in the reserve is the portable 2B11 Sani 120mm. The reserves of all them would be around 4000-4500 pieces. Also it is likely the presence of the 2B9 Vasilek mortar of 82mm in big amounts. But the presence of artillery pieces of the 1940s and 1950s is unlikely at this point.

Some sources, like The Military Balance 2016 keep some of them as present for the Russian reseve. According to this source the Russian reserve would keep still:

?? S-60 57mm
3750 M-30 122mm
1075 D-20 152mm
700 D-1 152mm
650 M-46 130mm
300 M-160 160mm
100 ML-20 152mm
40 B-4M 203mm

Between all them, only the D-20 has been reported to be used by the Armed Forces of Novorrussia. Only the very few units captured to the Ukranian Armed Forces.

I do not think this report is accurate because if it would be true, a significantly bigger presence of the D-20s in the Armed Forces of Novorrussia would have been assured. In fact it would be no-one reason to use everyone of these weapons in Novorrussia, if they would be really available. But it is true that all them would have bee retired in the last decade (or less).

Today other sources better updated like warfare.be report only the presence of:

1213 M-30 122mm
55 M-46 130mm

They updated/removed the data about the presence of the D-20 in the Russian Armed Forces in 2015, and of the rest of the weapons before.

And even the report of warfare.be can be surpased by the real situation because keeping the M-30, and having abundant ammunition of 122mm it would not make sense to use not them. We are talking about weapons from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.

I do not think that these weapons survived to the criteria used for the retirement of the T-64 in the Armed Forces of Russia.

The 120mm for the armata platform would be redundant with the fact that infantry variants will carry the 2B12 Sani 120mm mortar. Also the armata platform is heavily oversized for the 120mm direct/indirect fire weapon.

The man portable 120mm mortar has a range of about 6km, while the 120mm gun/mortar on the Vena and on the Armata mortar carrier has a range of about 13km and can fire 120mm shells as well as 120mm missiles (GRAN) and 122mm Kitolov guided missiles and of course standard and foreign 120mm mortar bombs.

Armata would be an ideal mortar platform with plenty of room for ammo and the ability to also carry other supporting weapons like HMG and grenade launchers etc.

The armata unit will already have 125mm armed tank, 152mm artillery support vehicles, and of course rocket artillery vehicles as well.

I think a new direct/indirect gun of 152mm will be developed, and this is one of the artillery systems that would make sense for the armata platform and would make sense too from the point of bigger standardization.

Do you mean Coalition or the 152mm armed tank model?

Between all them, only the D-20 and the ZU-23-2 have been reported to be used by the Armed Forces of Novorrussia. In the case of the ZU-23-2 it is not totally assured the Ukranian procedence of the units used by Novorrussia, but they can come all perfectly from the captured weapons in Crimea. In the case of the D-20 only the very few units captured to the Ukranian Armed Forces.

Why do you keep referring to the equipment in the Ukraine as if it has any relevance to what Russian forces have or have in reserve?

The Russians have adapted the 2S1 by replacing the 122mm gun with a 120mm gun/mortar... which suggests both that the 122mm gun is being withdrawn from use, but also that the 120mm gun/mortar has a fairly secure future within the Russian army.

I would also suggest they would want remove as many redundant calibres as possible... they don't need 160 and 240mm calibres in mortars so it would make sense to keep the more powerful of the two in reserve as an alternative to the in use 120mm.

In the artillery calibres it would make sense to keep 125mm and 152mm and withdraw the 122 and 130mm with the 203 in reserve for when more power is needed.

The larger calibres with heavier shells enabling special shells to be developed like guided rounds and specialist rounds too... making them more useful.

And even the report of warfare.be can be surpased by the real situation because keeping the M-30, and having abundant ammunition of 122mm it would not make sense to use not them. We are talking about weapons from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s.

We need to keep in mind too that there have been several 122mm artillery rounds using different shells and also different 152mm rounds and 203mm rounds including land based and sea based weapons.

The 100mm calibre from the T-54/55 and the 115mm calibre from the T-62 are obsolete and should be totally withdrawn. The 122mm calibre of the D-30 gun is also being withdrawn too, so the only tank calibres will be the 125mm and the later 152mm.

In terms of artillery the 120mm mortar and 152mm Coalition calibre in service and 240mm and 203mm in reserve in small numbers where heavier shells are needed would be the best solution in my opinion.

For me, it would be a little too much to waste a platform surely a little over 50 tons to put over it a gun very close to a portable/man-portable mortar of between 100 and 200 Kg. I think it would be an oversized platform and I think it would be redundant with the fact that some variants will carry the 2B11 Sani mortar.

I also consider that the armata platform would be good for mortars, or better still for direct/indirect fire weapons in the mold of the used for the 2S36 Zauralets-D, or for the currents 2S9 and 2S23, but for bigger caliber. Surely new direct/indirect weapons for 152mm, 203mm and 240mm would make sense to have a range of direct/indirect weapons without to go directly from the 120mm to the 240mm mortars.

The current 2S35 of 152mm is a weapon for direct fire at long range, very useful for its purpose, and a new tank/antitank weapon of 152mm on the Armata platform to replace in the future the 125mm gun, would be a more agile weapon of shorter range but oriented also to direct fire. The variant with a weapon able to combine direct and indirect fire would be different, It would make 3 good variants for the 152mm caliber.

---

Talking about different calibers, I also think it makes sense bigger standardization, but my point is a little different.

I think the standardization has been more advanzed for bigger calibers, surely thanks to the fact of having lower amouts of ammunition that are likely exhausted.

For the bigger calibers, the 152mm, 203mm and 240mm (around 250) make a good scale/range of calibers that would not change. I think these are calibers which use will be increased in the future. In some decades from now, when the use of the 125mm gun for tanks decline, I would expect the 152mm caliber to become the main caliber. About the 203mm and the 240mm calibers, I think its use will be increased from its current baseline of low use.

For the range of calibers of 120mm to 130mm. I think its use will decline for self propelled platforms in the long term. In the other side, the 120mm has a good future as caliber for man-portable mortars.

I'm not sure if the 122mm will be totally removed from the 2S1. The low rate of replacement (until now around 30 pieces of 2000) makes it unlikely. Surely the retirement of many 2S1 will come before despite this weapon can be active easily 10 to 20 years more. I expect this caliber to be totally retired, but it can take about 2 decades still.

About the 130mm, it would be easy to remove this caliber from the land forces, since it is only used by the A-222, with only a few units, but its use is bigger in the sea based forces. Weapons of 130mm are still being included in the design of modern ships like the Project 22350 (Admiral Gorshkov class). Then its total retirement is unlikely in at least 5 decades. I think with the time they will go to the 152mm.

About the 125mm caliber, we can see the same than for the 130mm caliber. In this case, the Russian ground forces are including still this caliber in the new T-14 and the new 2S25 Sprut-SDM-1. Its presence is assured in at least 5 decades from now. I also think with the time they will go to the 152mm.

About the 120mm, again is being used in new weapons, like the 2S36 Zauralets-D, and in strong updates like the 2S34 (which life of service would not reach as many years as in the case of the 2S36. Again its presence is assured for at least 5 decades on self proplelled vehicles. I think that this caliber will remain far longer still for man-portable mortars.

Also, with the option to combine different ways of firing, and the use of ammunition for different purposes in the same weapon, I think today there are 3 different types of weapons, being successful for calibers over 100mm:

- The guns that want as long range as possible for direct fire. Modern examples: 2S35 152mm.
- The guns that want to combine direct and indirect fire. Modern examples: 2S34 and 2S36.
- The tank/antitank guns, more oriented to agile direct fire. Modern examples: T-14 and 2S25 Sprut-SDM-1.

Taking all it into account, this is what I would expect for the different platforms (over 100mm caliber):

Armata platform:
- TOS BM-2: 300mm, 220mm and 122mm MRLS with bigger modules than the Tornado MRLS.
- 2S??: 240mm that combines direct and indirect (mortar) fire. Successor of the 2S4.
- 2S??: 203mm for long range direct fire. Successor of the 2S7.
- 2S??: 203mm that combines direct and indirect (mortar) fire. New.
- 2S35: 152mm for long range direct fire. Successor of the 2S19.
- T-??: 152mm for agile direct fire, tank/antitank role. Successor of the T-14.
- 2S??: 152mm that combines direct and indirect (mortar) fire. New.
- T-14: 125mm for agile direct fire, tank/antitank role. Successor of the T-90.

Kurganets platform:
- 2S??: 152mm for agile direct fire, antitank role. Successor of the 2S?? 125mm on the Kurganets platform.
- 2S??: 152mm that combines direct and indirect (mortar) fire. Successor of the 2S34.
- 2S??: 125mm for agile direct fire, antitank role. Successor of the BMP-3.

Bumerang platform:
- 2S??: 152mm for agile direct fire, antitank role. Successor of the 2S?? 125mm on the Bumerang platform.
- 2S??: 152mm that combines direct and indirect (mortar) fire. Successor of the 2S23.
- 2S??: 125mm for agile direct fire, antitank role. New.

BMD-4M platform:
- 2S37(?) 2S25 Sprut SDM-1: 125mm for agile direct fire, antitank role. Successor of the 2S25.
- 2S36: 120mm that combines direct and indirect (mortar) fire. Successor of the 2S9.

Note that I included some variants for tank/antitank weapons for a longer timeline as successors of the initial variants of 125mm that can be expected.

Also to note that I would not expect 120mm variants for the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms because I expect infantry variants that carry 2B11 Sani 120mm mortars as portable/man-portable equipment.

---

About the use of some weapons in the Ukranian side. This is not relevant to analyze the presence or not of some weapons in the Russian Armed Forces, but it is very relevant to its presence in the Armed Forces of Novorrussia because the Ukranian Armed Forces have been the main supplier of the Armed Forces of Novorussia. But the use of weapons in the Armed Forces of Novorussia would be relevant to analyze the presence or not of some weapons in the Armed Forces of Russia, because Russia has been also an important weapon supplier for them.

In other words, if we see a weapon used by Novorussia it can come likely from two sources. Ukraine and Russia. In the case of the D-20, its use in the Armed Forces of Novorussia is totally explained by its use in the Ukranian side, since all the weapons of this type have been captured to Ukraine. It means no-one of the D-20 howitzers of Novorussia had its origin in the Russian Armed Forces. It likely means that Russia today has not them available, because if available there is not reason to provide not Novorussia with more of them. This is the point. I think that if it would be available in Russia, we would see more D-20s in the Armed Forces of Novorrussia than those captured to Ukraine.