I know you have a tendency to not do this, but can I please have a source on the 575,000 rounds per month claim?
Russian Gun Artillery Thread
thegopnik- Posts : 1807
Points : 1809
Join date : 2017-09-20
- Post n°626
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
I know you have a tendency to not do this, but can I please have a source on the 575,000 rounds per month claim?
lyle6- Posts : 2546
Points : 2540
Join date : 2020-09-14
Location : Philippines
- Post n°627
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
The hasty and lazy camo looks goofy but it just works.
The Soviets had these guns built ford tough - it would take a direct clean hit to destroy a D-20 or a 2A19. Most counterbattery radars can only barely bracket the area of the shooter; good enough for MLRS, not so much howitzers without UAV fire correction. And unless you already have a drone in the immediate vicinity you're not catching these guns before they have been hidden and their crews below rock solid shelter.
This is why I laugh at people who say towed guns especially the D-20 are obsolete. Like with just a handful of men, a small truck of shells, a Chinese drone, and a WW2 era howitzer in each firing unit you can reliably seed the frontline with enough firepower to give your troops artillery fire support on tap almost everywhere and anytime of day.
That's fucking insane. And they're just the first responders - Russia would have mobile arty, and aviation on standby ready to respond at any further calls for firepower.
And that's how you inflict close to 10-1 K/D on the the 2nd Army and their proxy. Scratch that, Third Army, since NATO is bleeding itself dry to try to keep its proxy in the fight through material and to a slight extent manpower infusions.
GarryB, franco, flamming_python, xeno, JohninMK, zardof, Hole and like this post
franco- Posts : 7035
Points : 7061
Join date : 2010-08-18
- Post n°628
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
I know you have a tendency to not do this, but can I please have a source on the 575,000 rounds per month claim?
Sorry cannot remember where and I read some many different articles, but it was someone reporting that production would soon be or was at 6,900,000 a year.
GarryB likes this post
Regular- Posts : 3894
Points : 3868
Join date : 2013-03-10
Location : Ukrolovestan
- Post n°629
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
lyle6 wrote:
This is why I laugh at people who say towed guns especially the D-20 are obsolete.
Depends who is using them. For Russia - I agree, but not for Ukraine. D-20/D-30 and even gay changers M777 are obsolete due to them always ending up in range of Lancets. And you don’t need gun kill, sometimes it’s enough to nick the ammo, the crew or towing vehicle. When it comes to drones, they are numerous enough to leave little room in modern environment.
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°630
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
It would not take a lot of work and redesign to make this truck look like a normal container truck and have the rear open up and allow the gun to turn and fire at any angle you want.
You could even design it so the top opens sideways and carries extra shells so you are not wasting the extra volume not otherwise being used.
Most importantly they are just at the first steps of decent drones and also decent anti drone weapons so I would not write everything off as obsolete just yet because jammers and anti drone weapons are only going to get better now they have proven to be such a threat.
Ironically the best way to deal with enemy drones would probably be towed 57mm guns with airburst rounds located all round the place on the battlefield performing both anti drone and anti ground target duties...
Air burst command detonated 40mm grenades would also be a valuable solution to the problem where the grenades themselves can have tips and sides designed to direct fragments in the direction of travel in a cone shape so you fire where you think the drone or the troops are going to be and as it gets close you set your round off via radio command.
Such rounds could be used against air and ground targets...
Regular, Hole and Broski like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°631
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
With a towed gun there is still the same number of targets... the prime mover, the ammo, the gun, and the crew, but most of the time they are all separate so you might get one or the other but not all three unless they are moving.
Simple basic camo like that can work if you also have old destroyed guns around the place set up like they are still working... or perhaps worn out barrels with a wheeled carriage.
zardof, Hole and Broski like this post
franco- Posts : 7035
Points : 7061
Join date : 2010-08-18
- Post n°632
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
The projectile theme that stirred up the airwaves performed by Prigozhin and the Wagner company really made a lot of noise. But what to do if Prigogine is a very skilled leader and can not only competently organize the conduct of the war, but do the same on the information front.
However, who can lose to our Ministry of Defense in the information battle? To be honest, I can't think of any candidates. So everything turned out quite naturally: Putin had to “resolve” the conflict, the shells seemed to go.
The question is to whom and how much. And this question is very important. The answer to it is also important, more precisely, the understanding of the strategic perspective. That is, from where the legs generally grow from shell hunger and how dangerous it is in the current situation.
It is clear that the lack of shells is sad, one can recall the numerous memoirs from the Germans during the First and Second World Wars. Our factories are not bombed or shelled, so the situation in Russia is a little better. Again, the question is how much?
"Wagner" and shells
In general, the irregular supply of Wagner detachments became the key to their success. Yes, PMCs already have many advantages over the regular army in the form of equipment (especially communications), training, they have a faster command structure. Sadly, the vast majority of the formations of the Russian army are inferior to the detachments of the Wagner PMC in this regard.
This is well understood in the Ministry of Defense and they prefer "point-blank" not to notice the detachments that do all the hard work near Bakhmut and Soledar. At best, we are talking about some kind of "volunteer assault squads."
The case when the country is bleeding from the nose, but should not know its heroes, no matter what they are.
Therefore, on Frunzenskaya Embankment, they are trying with all their might to “not notice” the successes of Wagner. More precisely, they notice and sometimes very shyly, but appropriate. True, then honest guys in blue berets say that they were not there nearby, but who cares at the top that the airborne troops have honor and conscience, don't they?
And today it is worth recognizing that former prisoners under the leadership of experienced Wagner PMC fighters operate much more efficiently than regular army units. The Wagnerites carry out the tasks assigned to them, the only question is at what cost. We all know perfectly well that the price is sometimes high.
And here lies the answer to the question about the beginning of the scandal between Prigozhin and the Russian Defense Ministry.
The fewer shells the artillerymen have in the war, the greater the losses of the infantry. It has been proven since the First World War. Prigogine was forced to make a fuss in order to be able to keep winning. No matter how his campaign in the networks and the press looks, Prigogine is right, because he did it to save the lives of his fighters, who, when compared with the Russian army, are generally minuscule.
What happened, happened. Another important question is why this happened. If you carefully consider everything that happens in chronological order, then the situation will turn out to be very specific.
At first, the Wagner had more than enough shells. At that time, Surovikin commanded the SVO, the Wagnerites received everything they needed and went forward, fulfilling all the combat missions assigned to them.
I think (and many also support this opinion) that General Surovikin, who spent a lot of time in Syria, was well aware of the capabilities of the PMC fighters. And then he made the right predictions and sent PMC detachments to the forefront of attacks, supplying them with everything he could.
And Surovikin's opportunities were such that other commanders of the Second World War did not dream of.
It all started when Surovikin was moved a little, and the command of the NMD was assigned to Gerasimov. This is where the gradual bringing of PMCs to the norms of supplying the Russian army began. Here, of course, it would be worth considering separately in what mossy years these norms were adopted and approved, but this is very difficult to do.
In general, weapons and ammunition in a war are never at least enough.
So who and how determined these norms, as they say, is an open question. And there is no answer to it. However, it is also clear that sluggish counter-battery fire during positional standing is one thing, and active offensive operations are quite another. "Wagner" led precisely offensive operations, and therefore the reduction in the supply of ammunition for PMCs was like death.
And here a flurry of criticism began, first personally from Prigozhin, and then all possible media resources went into action and appeals from PMC fighters began.
The logic of the Ministry of Defense is clear: if you play on their field and according to their rules, then nothing more. It is clear that when Prigozhin began to protest against the fact that the Ministry of Defense appropriates the merits of his fighters, moreover, openly and without hesitation. This is where the screw tightening began. Either settlements take units of the Ministry of Defense, or Prigozhin's detachments receive the necessary allowances.
And as a result, the name "Wagner" almost completely disappeared from the state and near-state media and bloggers. Some kind of "assault detachments of volunteers" - and nothing more.
How incorrect was the media assault, arranged by Prigogine, is difficult to assess. On the one hand, he nevertheless gave shells to Wagner, on the other hand, he gave rise to many reasons for media battles.
Everyone can draw a conclusion for himself what is the least attractive - to arrange a showdown in the media sphere or to appropriate the merits of others. Moreover, when these merits are paid for with blood.
This is a matter of memory and respect for the dead, and not an opportunity to get new stars on shoulder straps.
Everyone must work to win. And the victory will not belong to Gerasimov or anyone else. It will belong to the fighters on the front line and the entire country that worked for them.
But back to ammunition.
When the showdown between Wagner and the RF Ministry of Defense was just beginning, it became, in principle, clear how the matter would end. The fact that the Wagner was supplied in excess has more than once caused dissatisfaction with the army, since it is clear that with such allowance, the army units could at least show no worse results.
However, opinions are opinions, and for some reason the Wagners succeed in liberating settlements, and all attempts by the army command to portray at least something meaningful end with Ugledar.
It seems to me that the mutual hostility between the top leadership of the Ministry of Defense and Wagner, which has blossomed in Syria, has not gone away.
In fact, the “Wagners” were not removed from allowances, they definitely were not given a “shell hunger” in full, but simply began to be supplied according to army standards, like everyone else. And it immediately became clear that it was becoming problematic to give the same results. The problem with Wagner was not that they were lowered to army standards, but that these standards did not allow them to produce results. An enemy not suppressed by artillery fire is the key to an unsuccessful offensive.
Who generally develops these norms? I spoke with the participants of the "old" campaigns, sorry, but there were never enough shells along the way. The first and second Chechen, Georgian, and even in Syria, the shells were not so hot. Well, in Syria, logistics was the weak link.
Why until now these norms remain at the same level - this I do not understand. How the Ministry of Defense claims and on the basis of what these norms, with which nothing really can be done, and why so far no one has been puzzled by the revision, although it is clear that without this there will be no normal war - questions to which there will be no answers.
But there is an answer to the topic of how soon we should expect the next shell scandals. They will, and not only thanks to the standards of our Ministry of Defense. But more on that below.
In general, I repeat once again that this whole mess will continue to delight us with its growth as long as the system that has been established over the past 10-15 years exists in our army.
Why does Wagner have such indicators? "Corpses filled"? Yeah of course. Let's do without fairy tales, especially considering that Prigozhin was cut off the source of replenishment from the colonies. But let's admit that the success of the actions of PMCs in very specific types of combat is not just that, and it did not fall from the ceiling.
PMCs are not an army. The PMC is completely devoid of a huge and frankly stupid army bureaucracy. And personnel too. Everything is much easier there. The principles of elevation and career growth are very simple - your personal contribution to the common cause. And there is no need to curry favor with the higher authorities, who can wipe their feet on you, because they came from the district itself.
Well, plus, as far as I was able to find out, the "conductors" in Wagner are former career officers who left the army after the start of Serdyukov's reforms. Or who are gone. Established people with experience and a certain view of things.
And these people, in fact, created Wagner. In which there is no place for such sweet and familiar military phenomena as a young and not very sharp-minded person in a command position, who received it solely because dad is in the district or the Ministry of Defense. There is no place for "peacetime careerists" in PMCs. True, it should be noted that their number in the army also dropped sharply. Still dangerous in the army during the war, whatever one may say.
And in PMCs, outright boobies in uniform are not needed. Moreover, there is such a possibility to lead the offensive in the operation you invented. So the experience of the "musicians" is not applicable to the military environment, otherwise it will have to be reformed in the bud. Moreover, to reform on the living and backhand. Like in the bad old days of 1941. Reconsider everything: from the parameters for the selection of officers, to their training, promotion up the career ladder and material content.
And army standards are not for PMCs. Especially if you want real results. And until the artillery switches to precision-guided munitions, and drones will destroy what the art lacks-kamikaze, until the enemy's artillery is destroyed by the very first volleys after detection, until all such tasks are solved by thousands of shells fired over the areas - there will be shell hunger.
But the assault infantry, which, in fact, is the Wagner PMC, shells, mines and missiles will have to be issued without rationing. Despite the general shell hunger. Although it should not be, but here we move on to the most difficult moment.
Where to get ammo?
Here, perhaps, it is worth issuing the postulate that the war is waged not by armies, but by states. That is, in the aggregate, the army and the military-industrial complex behind it. The production of everything necessary for the conduct of hostilities is the main factor influencing success in the conduct of war.
The generals in the headquarters can be as brilliant as they want in the development of plans, the commanders can be experienced, and their personnel are well trained, but without equipment, fuel, weapons, ammunition, it is very doubtful that any army will be able to realize its potential.
“There are a lot of planes here, and the pilots are so self-confident that they hunt lone soldiers like hares. For one German aircraft, there are at least five British and American ones. For one hungry and tired German soldier in the trench - five energetic, fresh soldiers in the enemy's trench. For one loaf of German bread - fifty cans of stew from the enemy. We are not defeated, because as soldiers we are better and more experienced; we were simply crushed and thrown back by the multiple superiority of the enemy . Erich Paul Remarque, World War I soldier turned writer. It is hardly possible to find more suitable lines for illustration.
Today we talk a lot about the supply of tanks to Ukraine, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles and aircraft. We make predictions and reason, but behind all this, for some reason, we do not notice no less important and dangerous events.
The Norwegian-Finnish company Nammo, specializing in the production of ammunition, with subsidiaries in Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Austria, USA and Canada, is going to increase the production of artillery shells by 10 (Ten) times. The company's factories produce a wide range of shells with a caliber of 120 and 155 mm, and besides these, also 20, 25, 27 and 30 mm. Mines and shells for MLRS.
And the question is, for whom?
The Czechoslovak Group holding will double the production of 155-mm shells to 100,000 by 2023. To do this, CSG acquired a 70% stake in the Italian ammunition company Fiocchi Munizioni.
The German company Rheinmetall AG has filed a €1.2 billion bid for Spanish ammunition manufacturer Expal Systems SA, which will allow Rheinmetall to increase production of 120 and 150 mm ammunition by at least 40%.
Do you understand what we are talking about? The fact that a very decent number of quite modern enterprises will work for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Statistics show that in 2022 the United States transferred 1,074,000 155-mm shells to Ukraine, this is a huge amount.
It is not known for certain how many other countries transferred, but there is no doubt about what was transferred. And not only 155-mm, generously shared the "unnecessary" Soviet 122-mm and 152-mm. It is clear that these deliveries are from old stocks, it is doubtful that 122 and 152 mm ammunition is produced in Europe due to lack of demand, but there is data on the production of 155 mm shells. The United States produced about 100,000 shells per year, Europe - about 300,000 pieces.
How many shells are produced in Russia - secret data. On the Web, the statements of “sources” are lingering that there will be no shell shortage, because we produce “many times more” shells than in the United States.
Okay, maybe. I would also like to know how many of these "times". And here it is worth noting that the United States does not wage war, and does not fire 50,000 shells a day.
There were attempts to try to estimate the volume of shell production based on the revenue of specialized enterprises, but this is so approximate that I don’t even want to talk about it, because it’s written on the water with a pitchfork. After all, enterprises (for example, JSC Plastmass Plant or JSC NIMI named after V.V. Bakhirev) produce more than one shells. There is a wider range of products, including civilian ones. On its fire extinguishing systems, the Bakhirev plant makes very decent revenue, very well-known products.
So counting from revenue is not very accurate. Some who have considered the maximum figure of 500,000 shells per year. This is indeed many times higher than in the United States.
Plus, there is such an article as the restoration of ammunition from past periods. This is also quite a normal practice, allowing you to replenish stocks.
On the whole, estimates of the stocks of shells of the Russian army are very approximate. On the Internet, a figure of 15 million shells at the beginning of the NWO was slipping. It is impossible to confirm or refute these figures, but there is data on shells restored after long-term storage.
In 2014-2017, 1.7 million ammunition and missiles of all types were recovered.
2018 - 550,000 missiles and ammunition recovered.
2020 - 300 thousand ammunition and 20 thousand shells for MLRS were restored.
A slight decrease in rates indirectly indicates that the warehouses were full at the time of the NWO. Quite a possible option.
But here it is worth talking about ammunition costs.
“Now I will not name figures, how many shells we spend per day, say. Those are big numbers."
V.V. Putin
But representatives of the Ukrainian partners, more like their commanders, calculated that the artillery of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on average fired from 2 to 7 thousand rounds per day. In February-March-April, Russian troops fired up to 70 thousand rounds per day, in the summer 40-50 thousand rounds, in January-February 2023 5-20 thousand rounds per day. With such an intensity, the consumption of shells definitely goes into the millions, that is, since the beginning of hostilities, the Russian army has fired from 7 to 10 million shots.
Is it possible to use so many shells without pre-made supplies? Of course not. Meanwhile, the Russian army used precisely the tactics of super-concentration of barrels, which has its own side effects. And this is not a lunar landscape, no. This is the need to equip huge ammunition depots, keeping them out of the eyes of the enemy, who has already shown how the Hymars missiles can cope with insufficiently well-hidden ammo depots.
The second side effect is barrel wear. Any artillery system has a limited barrel resource, which averages several thousand rounds. The larger the caliber and weight of the propellant charge, the less resource. And in the NMD, the parties are trying to take their artillery systems away from the front line and therefore use full charges to fire at the maximum range.
It is worth noting that the last serious successes of the Russian army, namely the capture of Popasnaya, Severodonetsk and Lisichansk, became possible precisely thanks to the overactive artillery actions, as a result of which Popasnaya was wiped off the face of the earth and, as the authorities have already said, they will not restore it.
The most burning question arises: will the Russian military-industrial complex be able to withstand the combined efforts of US and European enterprises? Will the Russian factories be able to provide the army in the same way as the factories of Ukraine's allies will provide the artillery of the Armed Forces of Ukraine?
The German magazine Der Spiegel recently published information on the Europeans' plans for Ukraine:
- One billion euros to increase the supply of ammunition, mainly 155 mm.
- Purchase by the European Defense Agency EDA of 155-mm caliber ammunition from third-party manufacturers in order to replenish the stocks of EU countries and ensure the supply of shells to Ukraine in the long term.
- Increasing the production of ammunition in Europe itself (as mentioned above) "taking into account the changing security situation."
That is, almost all of Europe and partly the United States will work for the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
And what will be able to counter this flow of shells with us?
Especially considering the fact that not so long ago our state corporation Rostec bankrupted and sold the Novosibirsk plant Sibselmash for a penny (500 million). Sold to the company Merkas LLC, which is engaged in the construction of residential complexes in the "liberated territories".
Sibselmash produced 12 million shells a year during the war years. By the forces of women and teenagers mostly.
Whether the plants that remained afloat will be able to produce shells is a question to which we will receive an answer in the very near future. In the spring, when the reserve corps and received "gifts" will be used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
But in Russia there will be someone to blame all the failures. On PMC "Wagner", which consume too many shells.
https://topwar-ru.translate.goog/212153-kak-pobedit-bez-snarjadov.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
GarryB, flamming_python, zardof and Broski like this post
Krepost- Posts : 780
Points : 782
Join date : 2021-12-08
- Post n°633
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/20234221721-6Kx0K.html
You can watch the full program of Voennaya Priomka (Military Acceptance) tomorrow:
GarryB, dino00, Hole and lyle6 like this post
George1- Posts : 18497
Points : 19000
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
- Post n°634
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4702642.html
GarryB, lancelot, Broski and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°635
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
Personally I think being such a light vehicle it will be used at combat or near combat ranges... so 3-4km to about 16km or so.
This would mean it does not use as much propellent and also generates less recoil and stress on the vehicle.
The key is the shell weight here and not so much the range, because it will be used to support combat users who are not interested in counter battery fire or attacking targets deep behind enemy lines... they will be focussed on attacking hard targets on the battlefield, so heavy bunkers or reinforced positions and trenches.
This vehicle is essentially a KV-2 except it wont be right on the front line, so it does not benefit from heavy armour.... it would likely sit several kms back from the actual enemy positions and rain shells in.... it might even operate near the air defence vehicles because its targets wont be behind enemy lines, it will be targets on the front line.
This vehicle wont replace the MSTA I don't think... because Coalition will replace that in artillery units.
Having a 152mm gun operating with your armoured forces able to hit targets as they pop up because you are on the same radio net and are not distracted shooting at targets tens of kms away from the battlefield you are operating on means it is like a 120mm mortar... it moves with and operates with the unit to massively increase the fire power of the unit.
I would add that a hybrid ammo version that uses the new guns propellent and ammo but designed for old shells as well would make it more flexible.
A gun usually has fixed propellent options... sometimes a high power propellent charge and a standard one, whereas a howitzer often has a variable bag propellent option where a small propellent charge is used for short range high angle steep angle of attack shooting for trenches and the like... the reduced charge means the round does not go up very high and shortens the flight time and flight path of the round making it more accurate and it reduces recoil and stress and wear on the gun too.
The photos I have seen show a relatively short gun for the calibre so it might have the same range as the old early model D-20 of about 18km or so.
The turret actually looks a lot like a 2S3 turret.
zardof, Broski and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7440
Points : 7530
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°636
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
GarryB and Belisarius like this post
Hole- Posts : 11099
Points : 11077
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
- Post n°637
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
GarryB, franco, Broski and Belisarius like this post
ALAMO- Posts : 7440
Points : 7530
Join date : 2014-11-25
- Post n°638
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
Belisarius likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°639
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
Because it is a spinn off of the 2S1 modernization project that is being carried in Russia for a while. They replace 122mm gun with 120 mm mortar there. Max range of fire is somewhere around 15 km only. 2S34 is the name.
I thought that was just a project to eliminate one calibre from the inventory and also take advantage of the large numbers of 2S1 vehicles in stock.
The 122mm gun has a range of about 15km while the 120mm gun mortar firing shells can reach 13km or so (it reaches about 7km with standard 120mm mortar bombs), so replacing the 122mm guns of the 2S1 with 120mm gun mortar barrels and also withdrawing the D-30 towed 122mm guns they could eliminate the 122mm gun calibre from their inventory, which already has 120mm and 125mm calibre weapons of very similar power and performance.
Of course they already decided the D-30 was useful and stopped getting rid of them, and of course the idea behind the 152mm gun was the projectile is significantly more powerful than the 122mm or 125mm shells and so more targets can be dealt with more effectively with that calibre.
The 2S18 could be a replacement for the old 2S1 (as ALAMO mentioned) in Motorized Rifle Units. Or at least a replacement
for some of the towed artillery pieces in the same units.
Does anyone know if the 2S18 is amphibious like the 2S1 is?
Perhaps the 120mm gun/mortar armed 2S34s will replace the 2S1 vehicles and the 2S18s will replace 2S3Ms in that role... but I get the feeling the MSTA and Coalition will replace the 152mm calibre weapons and the 120mm vehicles replace the 2S1 lighter vehicles and these 2S18s are something new... perhaps a replacement for the 2S9 Nona type vehicles or self propelled mortar types in armoured formations.
With the proper electronics and communications systems added these vehicles will be incredibly powerful on the battlefield...
Wonder if this mortar share the Nona feature, that is compatibility with bith Russiqn and NATO 120 mm mines.
Yes, the 120mm gun/mortar of 2S34 and also Vena can fire 120mm mortar (soviet and western rounds) as well as shells with propellent bags like a howitzer.
Hole and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°640
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
22.05.2023 09:29
High-precision projectile "Krasnopol" adapted for use with drones
Anton Valagin
A variant of the Krasnopol guided munition for use with drones has successfully completed pilot operation.
The development of an adjustable guided munition for use from unmanned aircraft carriers has been completed. Pilot operation of the product was carried out with positive results, the High-Precision Systems holding told TASS.
"Krasnopol" is guided by a laser mark on the target. Correction of the trajectory is performed on the final section of the flight by sliding aerodynamic rudders. The ammunition is available in calibres of 152 and 155 mm and has an aiming range of 20-25 km. There is a version of the projectile with satellite navigation - it can be used to hit stationary targets with known coordinates and does not require their illumination.
The license for the production of" Krasnopoli " was acquired by China, 3000 shells were bought by India.
https://translated.turbopages.org/proxy_u/ru-en.en.3d265f37-646b48ac-70cf09a7-74722d776562/https/rg.ru/2023/05/22/vysokotochnyj-snariad-krasnopol-adaptirovali-dlia-primeneniia-s-dronov.html
So that is interesting. The standard Krasnopol artillery shell is laser homing and comes in 152mm and 155mm calibre versions, which I already knew.
Didn't know they had a GLONASS guided model for hitting fixed coordinate targets... that is interesting.
The modification to use it as a guided weapon for drones is interesting too... if they have stocks of 155mm rounds in laser or satnav guided models it just makes sense to put them on drones and use them... obviously mounting them on drones extends their range potential enormously...
I wonder if they could use the sat nav guided models on aircraft weapon pylons... imagine an Su-25 with three of its wing pylons on each wing carrying tandem triple ejector mounts for these bombs. 6 per pylon on 6 pylons would be 36 bombs that are satellite guided with a payload of 20-22kgs HE frag each.
That would be a total payload of 1.8 tons so not a heavy burden, it would allow multiple targets to be hit with precision guided bombs, and the Gefest & T system would enable precision release in free flight meaning very good accuracy and you still have four weapon pylons free for other equipment like jammer pods or AAMs etc.
You could receive target coordinates in flight to attack or fly to the front line and have ground forces mark targets for laser guided hits... with weapons already in mass production but not in use by Russian forces (who don't use 155mm calibre ammo).
Belisarius likes this post
Mir- Posts : 3763
Points : 3761
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°641
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
GarryB, franco, Hole and Belisarius like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°642
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
I remember in the 1990s the Russians were talking about a new 155mm artillery vehicle for airborne forces which totally didn't make any sense at all to me because of the calibre being a western calibre and of course a 152mm gun on such a light chassis.
Ironically the US went the other way by using a Soviet calibre (152mm) on their Sheridan air portable light tanks, which was a horrible failure.... useless gun, with a unique calibre in their military with a very heavy HE bomb and a useless missile system that looks amazing on paper but has never had a successful recorded kill in the multiple times it has been to combat.
And armour that would be penetrated by 14.5mm HMG.
If they want a direct fire weapon firing HE shells in the 50kg weight range then the 152mm gun makes sense.
When you are engaging targets on the same battlefield that are in your line of sight or within 10-12km of your position located by other vehicles within your unit then you can use a much lighter vehicle if you don't have a big long barrel and a huge propellent charge.
In many ways you could see this vehicle as a 160mm mortar vehicle but with better range, with a direct fire option and the ability to launch guided missiles to targets.
Krasnopol has a range of 22-25km or so, but obviously this gun would probably only launch it to shorter distances... but if the targets are enemy armour then being able to hit targets at 10-12km with 152mm calibre guided rounds then that would be good enough most of the time.
It is a shame the calibre is so far off because a unified 160mm gun/mortar would be interesting... but then they had to create the 120mm shell for the 120mm gun/mortar system too.
Interestingly the 120mm gun/mortar was able to use 120mm guided missile Gran, as well as the 122mm Kitilov guided missile too.
The 152mm gun will be able to fire the Santimetr and the Krasnopol round, but possibly also any 152mm calibre guided round developed for the T-14 when it gets its 152mm smoothbore gun.
Hole- Posts : 11099
Points : 11077
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 48
Location : Scholzistan
- Post n°643
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
As the current conflict shows range isn´t always the most important criteria for artillery.The main drawback was it's very limited range of about 15 km
Those vehicles would be good for "close" fire support for infantry untis (VDV) against trenches
and around urban areas.
GarryB, flamming_python, Mir and Broski like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°644
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
UAV coverage is never 100% and pretty soon they might have drone defence vehicles able to operate with them and support them... something along the lines of a Terminator but instead of supporting tanks against infantry, it could be a tank based vehicle that defends anything from drones with built in Lidar and jammers and weapons with cheap air burst ammo to defeat light air targets linked into the local air defence network passing on target data to all the platforms in the area.
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°645
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
Can Krasnopol adjust its trajectory to hit slow moving targets like Tanks?
This video compares the Krasnopol with the US Excalibur, but really they are not comparable.
The US equivalent of the Krasnopol is the obsolete Copperhead 155mm laser guided missile.
An article above mentions Krasnopol includes a satellite guided model including one to be delivered by unmanned aircraft as a guided bomb.
Note a sat guided Krasnopol could be fired at high velocity to the full range of the gun because there would be no fragile optics for finding laser spots in the terminal phase of flight so a sat guided krasnopol would be much cheaper and much longer ranged than the laser homing models already widely in use, and despite what this video claims would likely be much cheaper than the western Excalibur which is expensive not because of the extra range but because it is American.
New satellite guided fuse systems will make most Russian 152mm and larger calibre shells satellite guided shells very very cost effectively.
That might be getting more money and a much higher priority now the value of artillery has been displayed for all to see.
ALAMO, JohninMK, Hole, PhSt, lyle6, Broski and Belisarius like this post
Robert.V- Posts : 92
Points : 95
Join date : 2010-07-15
- Post n°646
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
Hole wrote:
The 2S18 could be a replacement for the old 2S1 (as ALAMO mentioned) in Motorized Rifle Units. Or at least a replacement
for some of the towed artillery pieces in the same units.
The 2S18 has long ago been cancelled buried and given its rites. The 2А61 howitzer never satisfied the Soviets ground forces with it's range. And besides that the BMP-3 chassis apparently did quite cope with the stress of endured firing of the 2А61 howitzer.
Anyway, I wrote about this all previously here. For the most part.
Robert.V wrote: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.
No, while BMD-3 family for the VDV where planned with 152mm and a replacement for Nona-S.
See the image
The Pat-B, Pat-S and the planned Pat-К arty systems however where meant for the ground forces and so was 2S31 Vena.
But there were problems with Pat-S and overall both Pat-S and Pat-B where deemed insufficient in term of range as the couldn't fire the full charge round of "Akatsiya" and ML-20 (17,4 km vs 15,2 km).. A increased range variant based on 2A61 Pat series was planned for meeting the requirement for the ground forces but that never came to be as the soviet Union fell. With Russia rumored picking up said development in late 2000's for self propelled artillery.
Anyway, as a side note
It's Funny enough, the same really for Nona for the ground forces back in the 70's and 80's.
While []Nona satisfied the VDV. It didn't satisfy the ground forces. Basically the ground forces variant of the 2S9 "Nona-S" based 120 mm "2А51" AKA Nona-1 gun-mortar system. The 2S17 and the 2S17-2 and on the chassis of the BMP-1 / BRM-1K didn't meet the requirement one of them being the range.
There was also the experimental wheeled variant based 120 mm "2А51" gun-mortar called "Otsek" done on the BTR-70 chassis. This lead to 2S23 "Nona-SVK" with a slightly modified 120 mm "2А51" gun-mortar on the BTR-80 chassis. It too never satisfied the ground forces due to not meeting the range the ground forces wanted. But was purchased in small numbers due to low cost and for working out how to use it in battalions for the Soviets.
At the same time, to replace 120-mm towed mortars, they also were busy developing towed systems ballistics wisebased on 120 mm "2А51" gun-mortar . The 2B16 Nona-K and 2B18 Nona-M.
The 2B18 Nona-M. was at first supposed to have been just a mortar. But some sources indicated it was supposed have had capability to be used as a recoilless gun basicly. (Which, I take it perhaps later tacked on as a mission creep.)
However 2B18 Nona-M didn't work out. And later they went back to a clean mortar/just a mortar design. which ended up being 2B23 "Nona-M1"
The 2B16 Nona-K just like the 2S23 "Nona-SVK" was also purchased in small numbers due to low cost and well for working out how to use it in battalions for the Soviets. That and apparently Polacks like it and were considering ordering a bunch until well the wall fell...
Anyway, in the mid-late 80's
To satisfy the ground forces and update VDV. New gun-mortar system was started under Nona-2 theme gun mortar system.
It produced the The LP-77 gun-mortar system Which would have the towed version AKA Nona-2B (LP-79) as a replacement for 2B16 Nona-K.
A replacement for Nona-S known as "Obzhimka" first on the the the chassis of BMD-2 then on the chassis of the light tank Object 934 and again on what would be the BMP-3* and then finally on BMD-3
*The BMP-3 variant for the VDV was so supposed to have had communality with the ground forces variant of the BMP-3 which would be known under designation for the ground forces under 2S31. But in the end they decided that because of the weight to let the VDV variant be based on BMD-3 chassis
However the Nona-2 program never worked out and any chance at salvaging the program died with the Soviet union.
in the end what would become 2S31 for the ground forces (and not VDV despite the believe). Now known as 2S31 "Vena" would still basicly use the 120 mm "2А51"gun AKA Nona-1 gun-mortar system. Just reworked/modified under the gun index 2A80 and 2А80-1 for the 2S34 "Khosta".
2S34 "Khosta" ended up putting the kibosh on 2S31 "Vena" as it was cheaper option. And the BMD-3 Nona-S replacement variant for the VDV basicly became the BMD-4M chassis based 2S42 "Lotos"
to satisfy the range requirement new rocket assisted round is being developed under the name of " Glissada" with a firing range of up to 25 km. Source
https://vpk.name/news/479226_samohodnye_obnovki.html
2S34 "Khosta" will likely be also be able to use this round also as t looks like Lotus is using the 2А80-1 gun-mortar.
GarryB, lyle6 and Mir like this post
GarryB- Posts : 40443
Points : 40943
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°647
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
No, while BMD-3 family for the VDV where planned with 152mm and a replacement for Nona-S.
So essentially they went for a 152mm gun instead of a more logical 160mm mortar calibre to replace the 120mm mortar Nona.
I suppose it would make sense as the 160mm mortar calibre would match the 152mm in bomb weight but would be rather ordinary in terms of range performance... and making a whole new mortar/shell gun/mortar system in 160mm calibre would be a bit of a waste considering the new 152mm guns (and also ammo) being developed for artillery and also for tank armament in smoothbore designs too.
Does anyone have any information on the Krasnopol type guided missiles using GLONASS guidance in terms of extended range, because like the Excalibr they could be fired at full velocity and therefore achieve closer to max flight range.
I thought that video appeared to try to give the impression that Excalibr had a tail mounted unducted fan to allow it to fly under its own power... the tail surfaces seemed to spin faster in flight than the nose mounted control surfaces...
And has anybody heard about those GLONASS fuses for standard large calibre artillery shells with control surfaces to make the rounds guided?
A simple, clever idea that could be used on artillery shells but also on unguided rockets I would think too.
Robert.V- Posts : 92
Points : 95
Join date : 2010-07-15
- Post n°648
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
GarryB wrote:No, while BMD-3 family for the VDV where planned with 152mm and a replacement for Nona-S.
So essentially they went for a 152mm gun instead of a more logical 160mm mortar calibre to replace the 120mm mortar Nona.
No, for BMD-3 family, roadmap planned for a longer range LP-77 gun-mortar system as a Nona replacement.
With addition of 152mm gun.
But that all never came to be.
They kind of hoping to adopt same roadmap for BMD-4 family of vehicles. A new 120mm mortar and a 152mm gun. But the 152mm gun couldn't be handled by the BMD-4 chassis
GarryB, Mir and Broski like this post
Mir- Posts : 3763
Points : 3761
Join date : 2021-06-10
- Post n°649
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
I think they should rather get a replacement for the Grad-V. At least that will give them increased firepower. A modular design with thermobaric rockets and mine laying capabilities would be nice as well.
Robert.V- Posts : 92
Points : 95
Join date : 2010-07-15
- Post n°650
Re: Russian Gun Artillery Thread
Mir wrote:They should forget about an SP 152mm for the VDV unless they want to revert back to the 2A61 towed gun as an air drop option, but it's probably still not worth it.
I think they should rather get a replacement for the Grad-V. At least that will give them increased firepower. A modular design with thermobaric rockets and mine laying capabilities would be nice as well.
Yeah, the 152mm self-propelled arty isn't happening. BMD-4 chassis just can't handle it. Hence why they cancelled the program.
And yeah I agree. A Grad V successor would i think be a good addition to VDV.