Russian Gun Artillery Thread

If you wanna hit hard enemy from safe distance you need batter range, you need modern FCS not old scool targeting, you need system taht recons and. PBL can send wia satelite you coordinate withc you will use instant...Russian to not have that yet....

The newest Msta variants, of which Russia already had hundreds in operation even before 2020, have GLONASS antenna, electronic digital maps, advanced FCS "Success-S"...

And they still stuck with L47 gun with range of 27-29 km max with rocket propelant, most of the rounds they use is standard with range of 24km....with L52 gun they have it in small numbers, because most.of the modernizes Mstas is M2 version not SM2 version...

Still is problem, for that gun, small range...they need to go in different direction and produced malka in great numbers but with koalitia guns not MstaS gun...Malka still have small range compair to the nato wheeled arilery...26km.is short for today standards...they need at least 35-40km.range for their arilery if they wanna make hell for ukrainians....

Nah... they are working on very long range shells... up to 180km... which would require subcalibre HE with guidance and possibly ramjet boosting... so if that is the case then a MSTA based gun should be able to reach 80-90km with said round for the counter battery role, but most of their targets wont be anything like that far away.

Shooting at enemy artillery that is trying to engage you is ignoring the drones they will have found and tracked you with... destroying those will make their counter battery fire rather less effective and anyway... lets be honest... suicide drones are rather more effective than artillery most of the time anyway... huge range is easier to achieve too.

Malva has MSTAs gun because it will be cheaper to make and cheaper to actually use in enormous numbers, which will make it effective.

They have a wheeled version of Coalition already and that is another vehicle they will likely operate with Boomerang and Kurganets units...



It actually looks smaller and lighter than Malva to be honest... though with that turret and autoloader I probably isn't.

Malva is essentially a cheap numbers vehicle that can be adopted in large numbers and not have high operational costs even if you use it excessively... the guns will be cheaper to make than Coalitions gun and being a wheeled vehicle its operational costs will be lower than any tracked model.

They want to replace the 2S1 Gvozdikas with the 2S18s, neither has a better range than the other, so it's not a downgrade. Albeit with modern technologies perhaps they can improve the 2S18s performance.

But the BMP-3 chassis is standard and could be replaced later with a Kurganets chassis for tracked operations and perhaps the turret on a Boomerang for a wheeled model for the future.

Of course the 152mm 2S18 will hit much harder than the 122mm 2S1.

The 2S18 also offers a larger calibre, although no doubt less round capacity.

They have ammo vehicles for Coalition... an ammo vehicle for the 2S18 would not be impossible...

Well, it has a better range than 2S1, comparable to 2S3 - but it was considered not enough back then. Or they just have runned out of cash, who knows

They might have thought it lacked range in the 80s and 90s but with experience of conflict in the Ukraine and Syria, perhaps tactics could help or changed their views.

New long range ammo might not go as far as it would if fired from Coalition barrels with Coalition propellent but in standard guns a ramjet powered guided shell is going to extent range too.

The GPS guided version of Krasnopol reaches 43kms... now it is only 20kgs which explains the extra range from a standard MSTA gun barrel but with a guided shell 20kgs would be plenty against point targets that it actually hits.

40kgs to 50kg HE rounds are best for area targets to fill a space with fragments and boom, but against a specific target guidance is more important because even the heaviest warhead that is no where near the target is useless, while a 2kg bomb landing within 1m of a human is probably a kill... and a 5kg HEAT round landing on the roof of an Abrams or Leopard or western artillery vehicle has a good chance of destroying it too.

You don't get something for nothing... these western wonder guns everyone wants to out range are only good for 100 rounds a day or they start to fall apart... that shows the compromises made to get such range, and in this conflict using the wrong ammo means it wont even achieve that anyway.

That's a valid point either - hull production is at a full swing.

Later they can shift to Kurganets or Boomerang...

All things being equal its also more preferable to go for tracked over wheeled. Kind of hard to provide proper fire support if you can't keep pace with the tanks.

Over time they can shift to the new vehicle family chassis which means they can choose tracked (Kurganets) or wheeled (Boomerang) as they prefer.

Tractors actually do rather well in deep mud... despite being wheeled.

Instead the Russians are making a strategic choice to streamline logistics by taking out redundant calibers. And unfortunately the 122 mm is one: for the more common fire missions within 10 km the rifled mortar is more than adequate, and the 122 mm simply lacks the range to compete with the 152 mm in counter-battery missions.

Yes, they have 100mm and 120mm and 122mm and 125mm as well as 152mm.

The Hosta was supposed to replace the 122mm with a 120mm gun/mortar system that can fire 120mm mortar rounds (russian and western) and also 120mm shells developed for NONA with HE and HEAT rounds available... but the D-30 is very mobile and light and handy and rather popular.

If you wanna hit hard enemy from safe distance you need batter range, you need modern FCS not old scool targeting, you need system taht recons and. PBL can send wia satelite you coordinate withc you will use instant...Russian to not have that yet....

The Russians know what they are doing and have all that... and drones as well...

And they still stuck with L47 gun with range of 27-29 km max with rocket propelant, most of the rounds they use is standard with range of 24km....with L52 gun they have it in small numbers, because most.of the modernizes Mstas is M2 version not SM2 version...

Only one role of artillery is counter battery fire... for which 300mm smerch rockets would be much better suited to than gun tube artillery... even the old models from 1990s with 90km range were pretty good for that job...

They would have thousands of guns sitting still doing **** all if they had 200km range 152mm guns because how would they find targets 200km away and organise a shot that arrives in time before the target moves?

Not to mention the cost of 200km range will be that the HE rounds have a 2kg payload and the gun is made of titanium alloys that cost two million dollars a barrel that is good for 20 shots before you have to replace it.

They have developed a system called Hermes.

It is a guided missile with a 30-57kg payload depending on the model... it has a range of 100km in the first model but after experience in Syria and Ukraine they have decided to change the design of a large solid rocket booster that delivers an unpowered payload section that falls on the target with its payload because experience shows such a weapon would be too easy to shoot down. So they have delayed the design and are introducing a propulsion system to the terminal stage so it can manouver to hit moving targets and also evade enemy air defences... I would suggest a single truck with six such missiles on the rear could accompany your artillery vehicles along perhaps with a Tiger or Typhoon with a 30mm cannon equipped gun turret with LIDAR and air burst 30mm cannon shells for engaging enemy drones and perhaps some SOSNA SAMs for drones at greater ranges (up to 20km) and perhaps even a laser and EW jamming system also to deal with drones.

Enemy drones can be engaged by the Typhoon vehicle and enemy artillery can be responded to using the Hermes vehicle... while the artillery vehicles hit enemy positions and targets like they are supposed to.

Trying to make the artillery do everything is silly and wasteful, though and air burst anti drone shell might be useful too at some stage.

The shorter the range of the shells the heavier you can make them and against some targets the heavier the better.

galicije83 wrote:And they still stuck with L47 gun with range of 27-29 km max with rocket propelant, most of the rounds they use is standard with range of 24km....with L52 gun they have it in small numbers, because most.of the modernizes Mstas is M2 version not SM2 version...

The Msta-M1/M2 can hit targets up to 43 km with Krasnopol D. The same applies to the Msta-SM2, which also has a maximum firing range with a standard HE-FRAG projectile of 30 km and 40 km with a rocket-assisted projectile.

https://militaryleak.com/2022/02/02/russian-western-military-district-gets-newest-2s33-msta-sm2-self-propelled-howitzer/?amp=1

Russia received the first 15 SM2 in February 22, with an average of 30 M2 being produced per year, in peacetime, and now with production in 3 shifts it is not difficult to imagine Russia with more than a hundred Msta-SM2 now

And what would have been a range advantage for a gun that cracks after 400 shots?
Maybe anyone can enlighten me?

Well, the pieces of NATO guns fly obviously much wider than russian ones. 
Superior in all aspects. 
That´s what I call full spectrum dominance. 

Someone in the Russian Army believes there is still a place for 122mm and mobile at that.

301 Military
@301military
·
10h
The Russian military will receive the first state-of-the-art 122mm wheeled self-propelled artillery systems called 'Floks' in the coming months, announced the First Deputy Director General of Rostec, Vladimir Artyakov.

[quote="JohninMK"]Someone in the Russian Army believes there is still a place for 122mm and mobile at that.

Wondering, ain't that sort of mortar? Seems, that it fires high angles. (above 45 deg.)

120mm.

The mounted Kord on top of the cabin, as well as the list of targets the system is designed to destroy (inc. enemy mortar squads, AT missile teams, disembarking infantry/equipment, and armored vehicles), suggests to me that they will be used at quite close ranges; not as part of a separate artillery battalion like the Gvozdikas are, but rather as part of an infantry or tank battalion functioning as organic artillery under the command of the battalion commander (in place of the mortar company I presume).
Which would mean quite an upgrade for infantry and tank battalion firepower and ability to react to threats.

It is nothing new. MSTA has a machine gun either.

Someone in the Russian Army believes there is still a place for 122mm and mobile at that.

It can be smaller and lighter and more mobile in the lighter calibre.

The 152mm 2S3 weighs 28 tons and the newer guns are heavier than that, while the 122mm 2S1 is 16 tons and fully amphibious... and the 120mm gun armed Vena is about 19 tons and the 120mm NONA is about 9 tons on a BMD chassis.

Wondering, ain't that sort of mortar? Seems, that it fires high angles. (above 45 deg.)

It is a 120mm gun/mortar, but the 122mm is a howitzer so it can fire high elevation shells too.

According to the video, the Koalision is now in serial production.

Most targets they seem to be hitting just fine.

Interesting news. I wonder if guided shell for Pion will finally be developed.

https://t.me/milinfolive/105990

Let's talk about artillery brigades of great power.

Before the start of full-scale hostilities, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation had one 45th high-capacity artillery brigade as part of the Western Military District, which consisted of two 12-gun battalions of 203-mm self-propelled guns 2S7M "Malka" and two battalions of 12 240-mm mortars 2S4 " Tulip" in each. The work of these units could be seen in various directions of the SMO zone from the very first days.

Now, according to the plans of the Ministry of Defense to form five new high-capacity artillery brigades in each district, information has appeared about the deployment of such 17th artillery brigade in the Leningrad Region.

Against the background of the superiority of 155-mm self-propelled artillery of NATO countries over our 152-mm guns in firing range, such high-powered brigades with their 207-mm guns with a firing range of about 40 km will be called upon to carry out counter-battery combat, with which everyone is now on the front line, to put it mildly, sad. Due to the actual failure in the production of the 152-mm self-propelled guns "Koalitsiya-SV", which has a long barrel and a long range of fire, an alternative option was used with the reactivation of the 203-mm "Pions" and "Malki" in storage.

Now, in fact, the counter-battery fight fell on the shoulders of the 220 and 300-mm MLRS, as well as the Lancet kamikaze drones. However, the number of MLRS in the troops is not unlimited, as is the stock of missiles for them. Also, despite a significant increase in the production of "Lancets", they are still not enough everywhere. And powerful 203-mm shells will be able not only to fight NATO artillery in range, but also to cause significant damage to enemy fortifications during the offensive, which is what the 240-mm Tulip mines will do.

Military Informant

Well they have the guided Tulip round in 240mm calibre, I am honestly surprised they don't have a guided 203mm shell. The GLONASS guided 152mm round can reach 43km because it doesn't have the fragile optics a laser homing round has like Krasnopol etc, I would think a GLONASS guided 203mm round would be fairly straight forward to develop and put into service...

Note the Tulip round is called Smelchak.

Krasnopol is quite complicated to use, starting with its transport/storage box that holds a disassembled round.
One needs to assemble it before use joining two parts with screwed bolts, which takes hell of a time.
A single piece GLONASS aimed unit would be much more reasonable, yet this conflict has proven the high sensitivity of GPS ammunition to signal disruption.
If the case is serious enough that everybody in the west is citing low accuracy of HIMARS and Copperheads, we can figure out the real scale of Russkie jamming.
NATO is not much worse in that, if not even. The same can be repeated with Russian GLONASS-guided ammunition.

Tony
@Cyberspec1
·
Sep 15
The first public appearance of the 120mm SP Gun-Mortar 2S31 Vena the front lines.

ALAMO wrote:Krasnopol is quite complicated to use, starting with its transport/storage box that holds a disassembled round.
One needs to assemble it before use joining two parts with screwed bolts, which takes hell of a time.
A single piece GLONASS aimed unit would be much more reasonable, yet this conflict has proven the high sensitivity of GPS ammunition to signal disruption.
If the case is serious enough that everybody in the west is citing low accuracy of HIMARS and Copperheads, we can figure out the real scale of Russkie jamming.
NATO is not much worse in that, if not even. The same can be repeated with Russian GLONASS-guided ammunition.

Whe you see how effective it is, it is worth spending 1h preparing the round. Not an issue at all.

It is nothing new. MSTA has a machine gun either.

I think FP was talking about the FLOKs vehicle and with a 120mm gun of course it will be hitting targets that are not that far away...

Krasnopol is quite complicated to use, starting with its transport/storage box that holds a disassembled round.
One needs to assemble it before use joining two parts with screwed bolts, which takes hell of a time.

Well they must have massively changed it because I can remember reading a comparison between this round and the US equivalent... the Copperhead, which was a bastard of a round, you had to be very careful to protect the optical port and keep it clean until it was loaded because any hair or fluff and it would fail.

The copperhead needed to be assembled before use and had to be manually loaded and kept on special racks in the vehicle because it was a completely different size to all their other rounds.

They described the Krasnopol as being amazing and can be handled like a standard round that is loaded like a normal round with an optical protection cap that is ejected in flight so the optics stay clean till it is approaching the target area where the cap is ejected and target is found and hit.

You do have to coordinate the shot with the target marking source but most of that is automated and synchronised electronically... being an indirect weapon the gun is still aimed at the target and the laser only operates for about 3 seconds in the last phase of the attack.

A single piece GLONASS aimed unit would be much more reasonable, yet this conflict has proven the high sensitivity of GPS ammunition to signal disruption.

I would expect both forms of guidance make sense because you need a drone to find the target in the first place so it makes sense for that drone to mark the target with a laser during the engagement and that drone can video the attack to determine if it was a success and if a follow up attack is needed. In fact using two drones... one flying high up out of range of ground fire with the laser to mark the target and a smaller lower flying drone to video the attack... it wont be pointing lasers around the place and so should go unnoticed most of the time, unlike the higher flying laser marking drone which might attract the attention of the enemy air defence... which the lower flying drone would hopefully spot.

GLONASS guided weapons are great for fixed targets but not so good against moving targets, so having and using both makes sense.