Russian Gun Artillery Thread

very interesting chart. Do you think by 2100 many militaries will have railgun equipped vehicles and firearms in service?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:very interesting chart. Do you think by 2100 many militaries will have railgun equipped vehicles and firearms in service?

I know I will not live to see 2100 . I believe that we will see a greater use of Directed Energy Weapons 10 years from now and majority of the wars will be fought by machines as we move from "man in the loop" to "man on the loop".

I would predict that by 2020 there will be experimental railguns mounted on ships... likely related to EM catapult technology.

By 2040 I would expect ground artillery and tanks will have them and the odd crew served weapon might have them too.

The main problem I see is getting lots of electrical energy and making it compact and portable enough.

For ships there is plenty of room and plenty of power, while land vehicles would be easier than small arms but would still offer challenges... mainly in the sense that they not only have to actually work, they have to also offer a significant performance increase over conventional propellent weapons which are much more mature technologies.

Sujoy wrote:
I know I will not live to see 2100 . I believe that we will see a greater use of Directed Energy Weapons 10 years from now and majority of the wars will be fought by machines as we move from "man in the loop" to "man on the loop".

Don't forget robots,if they ever did became self- aware we would all be fighting against them for control of Africa and Russia(they need to mine raw stuff to make parts). Also, it won't be nukes that they'd use against us, or any other conventional weapon in the future, only chemical and biological agents( it would be counterproductive to destroy human machines which could be used or repurposed by them)

collegeboy16 wrote:
Don't forget robots,if they ever did became self- aware we would all be fighting against them for control of Africa and Russia(they need to mine raw stuff to make parts). Also, it won't be nukes that they'd use against us, or any other conventional weapon in the future, only chemical and biological agents( it would be counterproductive to destroy human machines which could be used or repurposed by them)

Hmmm ... read this

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Features/newtech/Pages/box012510lord.aspx

I predict that by the next few decades beam weapons that work like microwaves to kill soldiers behind cover and in vehicles . If robotics are incorporated in the battlefield we might see a rise in EMP weaponry(BTW are there any robotic bomb deactivators in service in the russian military?). Vehicles probably wont have much armor because no amount of armor or types of materials will protect against future weaponry. Rich countries would maybe install some space stations with weapons for orbital bombardment or an actual military space ship( no warp drives unfortunately )

GarryB wrote:I would predict that by 2020 there will be experimental railguns mounted on ships... likely related to EM catapult technology.

By 2040 I would expect ground artillery and tanks will have them and the odd crew served weapon might have them too.

The main problem I see is getting lots of electrical energy and making it compact and portable enough.

For ships there is plenty of room and plenty of power, while land vehicles would be easier than small arms but would still offer challenges... mainly in the sense that they not only have to actually work, they have to also offer a significant performance increase over conventional propellent weapons which are much more mature technologies.

Do you think that by the next century we'll see particle beams and laser small arms? What about tanks that hover instead of riding on tracks, cybernetics on soldiers for improving aiming and reactions, cloaking technology(not only radar but also visual ) and last but not least light saber-like plasma weapons designed for melee fights?

Everything you described is more or less against the law of thrift principle.
Hovering tanks...what kind of energy source do you expect to lift 50 tons of metal for hours in the air?
We don't have any kind of energy even for much simpler things like lethal laser weapons and even if we had Helium³ in largh amounts here on earth we still wouldn't waste them for unreliable things like laser weapons.

There are thermo-generating laser weapons pretty impressive in capability but still not as capable as it would be worth wasting millions for destroying one single 10000 USD monkey model tank of a 3rd world, also lasers are pretty useless cover the target with shiny paint and the big amount of energy will just be wasted without doing anything.

A bullet kills still faster than a 3000° Celcius hot laser beam, light speed or not it takes more time to burn through someones head and bullet subsonic or not just rams through.

George1 wrote:Lets have an overall view

ARTILLERY:  
2S19 MSTA-S 152MM - 468   
2S9 NONA / 2S23 NONA-SVK - 278   (Marines and VDV)
2S7M PION - 12    
2S1 GVOZDIKA - 546
2S3 AKATSIA - 859
2S5 GIATSINT - 203  
2S4 TULPAN - 8  

I wonder why there isn't more production of 2S19 Msta units

I think they're saving money for Koalition.

Just like there are lots of 2S1s and 2S3s in service the MSTA will likely remain in service for quite some time to come so making new models does make sense... especially if the new ammo for the Koalition is compatible.

I do know the 2S1s are being modified with 120mm rifled gun/mortars which puts them in a different category and makes them useful mortar carriers, while at the same time allowing another calibre to be withdrawn from front line use (ie 122mm artillery).

AFAIK they are withdrawing the 100mm rifled tank gun calibre with the T-54/55 and the 115mm smoothbore with the T-62, to leave the 125mm smoothbore calibre as the only remaining tank calibre till the new 15xmm calibre is needed.

With regard to artillery calibres in terms of guns and gun howitzers the 122mm seems to be getting dropped in favour of the 120mm rifled gun/mortar calibre. The 73mm BMP-1 calibre IFV gun is likely to be dropped but the question remains regarding the whole 30mm + 100mm vs 57mm calibre and also the 14.5mm and 12.7mm calibre vs the 23mm light calibre.

152mm calibre is assured due to MSTA and coalition, and the replacement of the 122mm with the 120mm suggests the 122mm might be retired.

Within NATO the 105mm seems to be redundant except for very light very mobile mountain guns and I would expect the same with the 122mm Soviet calibre.

the 160mm mortar was a rare piece for mountain units mainly so I suspect the 82mm and 120mm will remain standard calibres... perhaps with 240mm as a backup for special use?

This means in the Army they will be getting rid of at least the 100mm and 115mm tank guns, the 73mm IFV gun and the 122mm artillery gun calibre and all the ammo types they support... though the guided 122mm shells are compatible with 120mm apparently.

If the tyulpan and 203mm guns are so useful then the russian military planners must be really half whitted not to even think of developing a replacement by now...

We need to split the calibres into usage... the 30mm could be replaced as an anti aircraft calibre, but then the 23 x 152mm cannon calibre is still being used too.

Ideally the 23 x 152mm and 30 x 165mm calibre can be replaced in the anti aircraft role by 57mm calibres using a mix of new rounds including guided anti aircraft.

In terms of IFV calibres the 73mm and 30mm were used together in the BMP-1 and BMP-2, but now with upgraded models and of course the BMP-3 the 2A42 30mm cannon is replaced by the 2A72 30mm cannon and the 73mm gun replaced by a medium pressure rifled 100mm gun.

The new main calibre needs to have high penetration to take on 30-35 ton enemy IFVs so a high velocity 57mm gun could be needed to replace the 30mm calibre in the anti armour role, while the 100mm gun could be kept or replaced by the 120mm gun/mortar.

The 120mm rounds are bigger and heavier but also more effective with a much longer range.

120mm mortars are already part of a brigade structure so it is not adding 120mm ammo it is removing 100mm ammo.

The 30mm 30 x 165mm rounds will still be carried by light APCs or they could be replaced by 23 x 115mm weapons.

This means they could go from BTR-80s with 14.5mm HMGs and BTR-80As with 30mm cannon, and BMP-1 with 73mm, BMP-2 with 30mm, and BMP-3 with 30mm and 100mm plus mortars within the unit with 12omm rounds that they currently use... to a light APC with a 23 x 115mm KPV based HMG, an APC with a 30mm cannon for heavier support, while the APC will have either a 57mm gun for anti IFV use or a combined 120mm and perhaps long barrelled 23mm gun or 30mm gun for infantry support.

This sort of shift would remove the 73mm and 100mm guns from the inventory and also the 14.5mm calibre too, though it would introduce the 23 x 115mm calibre.

Against enemy troops the 14.5mm is pretty devastating but individual rounds are generally too powerful. Using 23 x 114mm rounds the HE capacity makes them rather more effective than 14.5mm HE rounds while the increase in calibre should allow APFSDS rounds to be used for impressive penetration performance for such a little round.

If the tyulpan and 203mm guns are so useful then the russian military planners must be really half whitted not to even think of developing a replacement by now...

You are thinking in the wrong terms.

Tulip and Pion are very powerful weapons, but they also have their limitations and problems. They are heavy calibre weapons which means low rate of fire and they are more expensive per vehicle than smaller calibre weapons.

let me just say that 82mm mortars are very useful weapons, but with 4kg bombs and 4-5km range they have their limits. The 120mm mortars need a vehicle to be mobile which makes them more expensive... But it also makes them more mobile... and their 16kg HE bombs are rather more effective than the 4kg 82mm bombs.
Fighting on open flat terrain a howitzer is more mobile (with its vehicle) and a gun has more range, but in places like forests or built up areas or mountains the near vertical fall of the mortar makes them much more useful and a really heavy shell like the 130kg bomb of the Tulip or 110kg shell of the Pion can have more effect than rather more shells from lighter weapons.

Russia doesn't need these heavy weapons in all its artillery units, but for some units they make a lot of sense... and there is no point in replacing them when an upgrade can make them better in their niche role than standard weapons.

some questions..



1)IS Russia have plans to replace 2S7M PION ?

with something bigger and more deadly and or at the very least
same power but with bigger range and better mobilization and rate of fire.


2) and why not many discussing the Koalition artillery , isn't that supposed to be the next thing to replace
2S19 MSTA-S Russia self propelled main artillery ? When Koalition is supposed to enter service?

I have heard of no plans to replace Pion or Tulip and I suspect they will be kept in reserve for some time but eventually withdrawn and not replaced.

the future will likely be with smaller lighter calibres that use precision rather than heavy payload together with extended range to fill the gap left by the heavier weapons.

I suspect in a few situations the heavier weapons might be useful like in mountain warfare, but most of the time it will likely be a bit like comparing the Soviet army with the German army of WWII... the latter had enormous rail guns, but the former just had a lot of moderate calibre weapons... ie 122mm and 152mm guns... it turned out more was more effective.

with something bigger and more deadly and or at the very least
same power but with bigger range and better mobilization and rate of fire.

Up to 90km now and likely 120km in the near future they have Smerch... and up to 400km they have Iskander.

2) and why not many discussing the Koalition artillery , isn't that supposed to be the next thing to replace
2S19 MSTA-S Russia self propelled main artillery ? When Koalition is supposed to enter service?

No new information to discuss...

i think Msta-S isnt so old system to be withdrawn when Koalition enter service. There are other far more obsolete systems to be withdrawn, 2s1, 2s4, 2s7..

Agree, though 2S1 is already being replaced with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar in the form of the 2S34 Hosta. There are so many vehicles and spare parts it should remain operational for some time. The other artillery vehicles were made in much smaller numbers and can be either withdrawn and scrapped or put in reserve.

Thanks book and franco...