Russian Gun Artillery Thread

BliTTzZ wrote:Currently Russians have so many different artillery systems from Soviet era. And ammo stockpiles for these system is mind boggling. I am thinking if it's rational to upgrade at least part of them.
There are some light upgrades for some systems. But isn't it a good idea to have them for every one down there?
...
Almost all of these systems had at least one experimental modification which could improve their effectiveness by quite a lot.
Why do you think Russian MoD scrapped them?

lancelot wrote:That is just typical Russian arms industry. They propose a godawful amount of upgrade programs which quite often do not get funded. You see this in all sorts of army programs. I lost track on the amount of proposed BMP-2 upgrades for example.

lancelot wrote: A lot of these programs were indeed funded. As for why they were not funded more. Do not forget we have been waiting for Koalitsiya for like a decade. It is supposed to be a vast improvement over Msta. As with other army programs it is delayed. A lot of armies have put emphasis on robotic artillery platforms and tried to unify calibers around 150mm or similar. The Russian Army, I guess, went through a similar phase. But you still saw several of these upgraded systems enter actual service. It is just that the Ukraine operation is way larger than anything else that was under consideration which might be an operation more on the scale of the Syrian one.

ALAMO wrote:And how one should in detail answer to this kind of "question" that has a second bottom already?
Well my "innocent question asking" friend, you are wrong all way long.

ALAMO wrote:They are rebuilding 2S1 brand new, with 120mm mortar replacing 122mm gun - a program is going.

ALAMO wrote:2S5 is in a constant upgrade cycle.

ALAMO wrote:2S3 and 2S3M are being turned to 2S3M1 and M2.

ALAMO wrote:2S19 is in constant upgrade cycle, 2S19M2

ALAMO wrote:2S7 is in 2S7M Malyaka modernization cycle, stored units are gradually taken out of a storage bases and refurbish.

GarryB wrote:There are lots of variables and you mentioned some of them... for a while they were talking about replacing all of the 2S1 x 122mm guns and D-30 towed 122mm guns with 120mm gun/mortars just to get rid of that extra calibre. Having 122mm and 120mm and 125mm and also 115mm calibre seems a bit of a waste considering they are all very similar in terms of HE power on the receiving end.

The 120mm was not quite the equal of the 122mm calibre in terms of range but was pretty close and could also use 120mm mortar bombs and laser homing missiles like  Gran, and also Kitilov guided rounds designed for 122mm guns as well.

The plan was that the enormous number of 2S1 vehicles in 122mm would be upgraded to Hosta 2S34 or something with a 120mm gun/mortar which reduced HE firing range by about 3km from 15km to about 12km, while the D-30s were going to be scrapped completely, resulting in the elimination of an entire calibre from the inventory.

But then Syria happened and the 2S1 and the D-30 proved to be very useful and very capable... upgrades meant they didn't need to be lined up to fire and they proved to be very useful despite not having enormous range... except for counter battery fire that often does not matter.

I would hope experience in Ukraine will make them realise how effective artillery is even in this day and age... and getting a look at new western systems should be rather interesting too.

GarryB wrote:In terms of calibre they have lots of other options in a similar range... as I mentioned.... 115mm and 120mm and 125mm and even 130mm, but I think in terms of artillery there is still room for 122mm artillery.

It has been found to be rather useful and has the potential to be more mobile than heavier 152mm guns and offer good rate of fire and decent effects on target.

They have a lot of vehicles and lots of spare parts to keep them operating for decades (which was part of the reason they were converting some to 120mm gun/mortar simply because they have so many available for use).

Being very mobile a shortage of 3km could be made up by simply moving position and firing at a target from slightly closer.

GarryB wrote:I would expect they have a lot of ammo in storage too which would be useful.

Their best upgrade is for Coalition and the smart guidance system/fuse they developed that can be fitted to new and old ammo in the 152mm and larger calibre range of ammo. It gives a 10m CEP performance for rounds already produced in enormous numbers.

Modifications for smaller calibres could be in development too.

GarryB wrote:Were those the new vehicles they were developing for the VDV that never went anywhere... they had similar range to 122mm calibre guns but the 152mm calibre meant a 152mm sized shell with a bigger bang.

Unifying the 152mm projectiles with the larger existing guns and just using a different propellent load would be interesting.... many people think range is everything but a good howitzer is actually often more effective than a gun.

GarryB wrote:For those not clear a gun is a high velocity weapon optimised for range and often used for counter battery fire... being long range it often has a fixed propellent charge which means often at different ranges the shells come in at shallow angles so the sides of the shell means much of the fragments go up into the air or into the ground. A gun often does not have a great range of elevation and depression so sometimes some targets you simply can't hit if they are behind cover or in a city with tall buildings around it.

A howitzer is not optimised for long range and normally has a variable charge propellent system where reduced propellent is used to fire at closer targets where the shells can be lofted up into the air to come down nearly vertically on the target with obviously much better fragmentation patterns. Howitzers tend to fire heavier HE rounds that are more effective and can be used in a wider range of firing angles.

The Coalition seems to be a gun/howitzer because it seems to have a very long barrel of a gun but variable charge loads of a howitzer.

GarryB wrote:High cost and unreliability... sounds like the Shillaghlah (spelling), or that new naval gun they were developing for their Zumwalt destroyers.

They are working on 170-180km range 152mm rounds for Army and Navy Coalitions, would like to see some work on upgraded 203mm calibre weapons, but otherwise everything looks pretty good.

GarryB wrote:I would say C4IRSTAR is more important for artillery than actual range, with mobility and being able to find and engage targets being more useful than balls out range.

Upgrades and improvements to guns and ammo in new models is useful and the new technology can trickle into already produced equipment through upgrades, but I think so far their artillery seems to be doing rather well and experience from this conflict will likely make it even better.

There is not a lot of information on the subject, we see stuff at arms shows but actual purchases and implemented upgrades etc is not always made public or shared widely.

GarryB wrote:In older threads we learn that the M777 us just amazing and Russia is a backward third world country because its equivalent is useless and heavy... well it seems that real world use shows the M777 is a bit flimsy, and there are a few photos of the Russia equivalent being used too.

GarryB wrote:

I have got a question about 76-мм mountain gun model 1958 (aka M-99 or 2A2 or GP), is there a specific designation for the ammo boxes affixed on the shield and how are transported the stacked boxes (SPTA ?) visible on the ground, are they part of the gun when spades are folded ?

Interesting... it looks like the spade legs fold to attach that cradle with the ammo boxes.

I would expect the vehicle that tows the gun hooks up to the cradle and drags both the gun and some ready to use ammo... when the gun arrives in position the wheels from the ammo cradle should allow the gun to be manhandled into position with its wheels making it easier to manouver.

When it is in position separate the cradle with the ammo and move it to the ammo trench next to the gun position and while some crew open up the ammo boxes and attach fuses and set them the rest of the gun crew fold out the spade legs and dig them in and install the sight and zero it ready for ammo to be delivered to the gun from the ammo cradle position while more ammo boxes would be delivered from the trucks that operate with the gun and stacked near the ammo cradle to be fused for firing.

From Vitalys wonderful site ( https://www.vitalykuzmin.net/Military/Technical-Museum-in-Tolyatti-Part-2/i-X7QJb62 )



The gun in the background appears to have a seat and a steering wheel on the ammo cradle attached to the gun...

GarryB wrote:Sorry... was trying to highlight that some guns would have been modified so where originally they might have been horse driven which means an ammo cradle attached to the gun so when it is unhitched it can be moved into a firing position some distance away from where you keep the horses or even move the gun short distances around the battlefield, later on its smaller calibre and progress in gun design means it becomes the light gun deployed because of its better mobility compared to heavier calibre larger guns.

Some guns even had small motors added to their legs so they can be driven around short distances on the battlefield without needing to bring up horses or trucks or prime movers.

GarryB wrote:

Were those the new vehicles they were developing for the VDV that never went anywhere... they had similar range to 122mm calibre guns but the 152mm calibre meant a 152mm sized shell with a bigger bang.

limb wrote:Why doesn't a guided round for the 2S7 exist?

Robert.V wrote:

limb wrote:Why doesn't a guided round for the 2S7 exist?

Work was proposed/underway in fact for a guided round

Source

https://vz.ru/news/2020/11/27/1072664.html

https://rg.ru/2020/11/27/malka-poluchit-upravliaemye-boepripasy.html


Why not earlier ?  Simply put the system 2S7 was first deemed for retirement. Actually the system was deemed for retirement multiple times.  But every time escaped the guillotine because someone in the MoD deemed it of value.

limb wrote:

Why did they consider retiring a 1980s  long range heavy counterbattery cannon but keep 1950s tier obsolete junk like akatsiya and gvozdika still in service?

Lets hope those rounds are in service already