Russian Gun Artillery Thread

Armata is a vehicle family so I would expect there will be a 120mm mortar equipped version... perhaps with a Kord RWS mount on the turret for drones and threats.

I would guess the old bag ammo would be standard charge stuff and the new much bigger propellent bags are for max pressure max range shots.

They seem to be manually attached together on the Flox and other other platforms, but perhaps they will make a version where the projectile and propellant are simply loaded together without needing to be connected... much like current 125mm tank rounds currently are.

Equally they could take it further with mini propellant packs like the Coalition uses... split the propellant load into the smallest increments so you can lob shells at targets 500m away that are lofted up high and come down almost vertically... which is the best way for effectiveness of shrapnel... right up to x number of bags to achieve max range and speed equivalent to the new propellant charges.

Will be interesting.

Perhaps an Armata Terminator with a 120mm gun and a twin barrel 23mm cannon and a 40mm grenade launcher...

If you are going for a 120mm rifled on an Armata, you may aswell make it capable of high pressure rounds and give it APFSDS in order to deal with light and "medium" vehicles effectively.

If you are going for a 120mm rifled on an Armata, you may aswell make it capable of high pressure rounds and give it APFSDS in order to deal with light and "medium" vehicles effectively.

Not really because the 120mm mortar version of the Armata would be operating in an Armata division so there will be plenty of other vehicles able to take out armoured targets including 125mm smoothbore as well as 57mm guns, not to mention an enormous number of missiles from Kornets and Bulats on the T-15 BMP to a ground based vertically launched LMUR missile that will likely replace their Kornet armed dedicated ATGM vehicle.

I just wonder if 120mm is enough for an Armata division and if perhaps they might dig up the 160mm mortar for a bit more weight.

120mm mortar bombs are in the 16kg weight range while the 160mm mortar bombs are generally 40kgs each, which is quite a step up without being dramatically bigger like the 240mm mortar with its 130kg mortar bombs.

With accuracy and special shells I would think the 120mm remains useful where precision makes up for the lighter shell, but a special Armata 240mm mortar vehicle might be useful in future eventually... even if it is made in small numbers for specific operations.

If you want to modify a round I would say the 100mm round of the BMP-3 would be most interesting and would fill the niche role of the 60mm Israeli light tank gun round that is probably not powerful enough for use against most modern tanks frontally, but for side shots and heavy BMPs it would be able to be carried in larger numbers.

The BMP-3 has rounds in the turret bustle and holds about 40 rounds so with a more conventional tank ammo storage arrangement you could probably carry over 100 rounds if needed. (in a T-14 like arrangement where there were no troops carried as well).

In terms of HE that is a good volume of ammo for supporting troops and might be a good light tank armament for environments where 125mm rounds would be overkill.

Even mounting it on a heavily armoured Armata chassis a higher pressure longer barreled 100mm gun could deliver HE rounds and missiles to targets at 7+km range and also deal with bunkers and light vehicles from MRAPS up to most BMPs that are not actually tank based within 3-4km... and in an urban environment could aim up at the upper levels of buildings with HE rounds too.

Looking at the performance of European special armoured light vehicles the actual protection they seem to offer is a joke so it might be overkill for APFSDS... maybe a half calibre (50-60mm) APHE sabot round that penetrates and explodes inside the target.

I would think the mortar vehicle would be dedicated direct support artillery.

The idea behind a 120mm multi pressure gun is that one vehicle could be used as a howitzer, mortar and lesser tank gun.

The idea behind a 120mm multi pressure gun is that one vehicle could be used as a howitzer, mortar and lesser tank gun.

That would only make sense if it actually replaced your howitzers and mortars and tank guns in operational units... which is silly.

The Armata vehicle with a 120mm mortar is to replace towed 120mm mortars or VENA or Hosta or 2S9 Nona type vehicles and would be used exclusively as a mortar vehicle... just like the troop transport BTR model of the Armata will be armed with a tiny Kord turret and be a troop transport.

If every vehicle type has to do every job then they are all going to be weak in most areas because they wont be dedicated for their role.

40 pcs is a total ammo load, with 22 in a carousel. Some are located in the right front of the hull, while the Bastion missiles are attached to the hull sides.

The front of the hull is filled with people... driver in the centre and bow gunners either side of him.

Are you sure?

The KBP site is not available from New Zealand at the moment but I am pretty sure the Bakhcha-U turret upgrade holds 34 conventional HE rounds and four Arkan missiles in the turret bustle.

22 rounds in the bustle the same as the T-72?

Bakcha-U


Deep inside the BMP-3.
Still from a video, ALAMO posted it.
In the foreground you can see the missiles (3 of them).
In the background is the rack for 100mm grenades.
In the space between turret bustle and hull sides.
A crawl way that connects the forward (driver) compartment with the infantry compartment at the
middle/back of the vehicle.

Yup, I have seen it before...



And from one side you can count 16 x 100mm shells in the autoloader, so saying that 34 rounds are in the autoloader plus 4 missiles that are not in the autoloader because they are a rather different shape from the standard HE round is not that left field.

Lesson from WWII. Most of the time tanks were used for infantry support, not fighting other tanks.
West thinks mostly in the theoretical terms of the Cold War. Tanks fighting tanks and not much else.

From the very beginning BMP-3 could have been used for both direct and indirect fire.

Yes, I know. The HE rounds are low pressure and medium pressure and have to be lobbed at the target.

This allowed a new 3UOF19 round with 3OF70 projectile to reach a 7000m of direct fire range and 5500m of effective range for 9M117M1 Arkan.

Its indirect fire range is 8700m if we stick to official data. It produces almost twice as much fragments, and covers a 350m2 area.

I find that a bit confusing because to me indirect fire is shells fired with the gun elevation above 45 degrees, with direct fire obviously being below 45 degrees.

With something like a rifle the difference is clear because a Mosin rifle with its iron sights go out to 2,000m but even when adjusted to 2,000m or 2km the barrel elevation is probably less than 15 degrees. Firing at greater ranges means increasing elevation and max ballistic range would be reached at a 45 degree barrel angle... but then if you keep going to a higher barrel angle the bullet impact point does not continue to get further and further away... as you get above about 45 degrees the impact point actually starts to get shorter and shorter till the barrel is vertical (90 degrees) and the bullets will start landing around your position.

Any shots taken above 45 degrees are indirect fire.

The BG-15 underbarrel 40mm grenade launcher has two aiming scales on it... one in red and one in white... white is the direct fire scale and red is indirect. With a bit of practise you can load a grenade and set the range scale to hit a target... say at 250m range. You fire that grenade at 250m Red and then flip the sight to 250 white and muzzle load another grenade all the while counting out the seconds... when you get to 12 you fire your second grenade and both grenades should land at about 250m range almost at the same time... the indirect grenade taking 12 seconds longer to get to the target because its high flight profile.

My point is that both scales max out at about 410-450m so direct fire and indirect fire are not different in terms of max range.

The idea behind a 120mm multi pressure gun is that one vehicle could be used as a howitzer, mortar and lesser tank gun.

What you are essentially saying is that the 120mm gun/mortar should be upgraded to replace the 125mm tank gun and the 152mm howitzer.

Having the same gun for all three roles does not make sense... as a mortar the barrel will likely last much longer than a tank gun or a howitzer gun trying reach max velocity for max penetration or max range respectively.

A manual load of Soviet tank ammunition consists 26 HE rounds.
I guess it answers all the questions, right?

And half of the rest are HEAT too...

Lesson from WWII. Most of the time tanks were used for infantry support, not fighting other tanks.
West thinks mostly in the theoretical terms of the Cold War. Tanks fighting tanks and not much else.

In the west they go on about the power of the Panthers 75mm gun or the 17 pounder British gun or the 90mm American gun... but it was guns like the 76.2mm gun in the T-34 and KV-1 that did most of the work... and when it came time to upgun their medium tank they went for the 85mm AA gun, and for their heavy tanks they went for the 122mm gun because it was easier to get into large scale production and because its HE shell was more effective than the better penetrating 100mm gun.

The tank is first and foremost a mobile gun platform to support infantry.

Note if it was all about penetration they would have just made T-34-57s, though they lacked ammo for it... its penetration was very good and it was a small light shell they could carry in large numbers, but its HE shell wasn't amazing. (Note the 57mm in question is not the same as the modern 57mm AA gun round for the S-60 towed 57mm guns.)

Through its YouTube channel, the Russian TV network “Zvezda” showcased the self-propelled mortar 2S40 “Phlox” that was recently integrated into the Russian military. Some units were even dispatched to Ukraine last fall.

2S23

https://vk.com/wall-76992071_260110?ysclid=lu0csb9mxx939182285

thegopnik wrote:https://vk.com/wall-76992071_260110?ysclid=lu0csb9mxx939182285

But will it have a proper warhead or will it be like the american version, completely useless.

Artillery systems numbers:

- The first serial installation 2S35 source: https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/19861309
- Serial production of new barrel artillery systems until 2022 was carried out only at one enterprise - Uraltransmash (Sverdlovsk region), where new self-propelled units 2S19M2 "Msta-SM" were assembled and old units were modernized to the level of 2S19M1.
- After the start of the SMO, the production of self-propelled guns was increased. During the visit of Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to the enterprise on January 30, 2024 , a shipment plan for February 2024 was announced - 18 units. Also in February 2024, it was planned to ship the first production batch (six units) of the new 2S35 Coalition self-propelled guns. A pre-production batch of 2S35 installations underwent military testing in combat conditions as part of the 236th artillery brigade of the 20th combined arms army. The brigade distinguished itself in battles and on March 31, 2023, became a guards brigade. Now serial installations will be used to equip units of new artillery divisions.
- According to a report on the Rogatkin-Live telegram channel at the Motovilikha plants have restored the production of towed artillery guns 2A65 "Msta-B". Source: https://t.me/Rogatkinlive/212.
Although official statements about the launch of production I haven't met. This event is indirectly confirmed by the words of the industrial director of the cluster of conventional weapons, ammunition and special chemicals of the Rostec state corporation Bekhan Ozdoev - If we compare the domestic defense industry at the beginning of 2022 and now, the difference is huge. We have achieved production rates and volumes that only recently seemed unrealistic. Compared to 2022, the production volume of self-propelled artillery has increased 10 times, towed artillery - 14 times. Mortars - 20 times, MLRS - 2 times.



https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4818118.html

I wonder if it would be worth Russia designing something similar to RCH 155 a  8x8 wheeled armoured SP 155mm artillery system based on the Boxer APC. I know Russia has the newly designed 2S43 "Malva" 152-mm SP howitzer, however it's not particularly armoured and no self loading system. I see Malva as something cheap form of wheeled artillery most likely for export market or reserve forces. But Russia could easily design a system similar to the Boxer based RCH 155 but based on a BTR-80 with a 152mm turret and self loading system. The BTR-80 is of similar size to the Boxer, and we have seem heavier turrets been put on BTR before such as a full T-55 turret in a BTR-60 (Cuba).

I don't think it would take much for the Russians to design a turret to house the 152mm gun. They could technically offer an upgrade to export customers to fit a 2S1 122mm turret, or a 2S3 152mm turret onto a BTR-80. Of course a 120mm mortar/gun or 152mm gun could be mounted on a Typhoon-K or Typhoon-U, and the up and coming Bumerang. Although these newer vehicles Typhoon and Bumerang would most likely be more likely sought after by Russia, it would still be worth looking at 152mm turret, for the BTR-80 as Russia quite often upgrades older systems in units that are based in less threatening fronts like in the east of the country while those in the west of the country get the newer equipment. And there's also border guards, russgard, reserve units etc. but more so for export market, Russia has plenty of BTR-80, BTR-70, BTR-60 that it could sell upgraded, but also countries that currently already have these vehicles they could offer such upgrades, even using as mentioned turrets from 2S1, 2S3, or a new redesigned 152mm turret. The bonus of such a vehicle is not just the self loading system but better protection especially for the crew. With FPV drone threat these days having an exposed crew isn't ideal, but having a self loading armoured enclosed platform this would offer more protection but also give the option of adding a cage on the vehicle leaving only the gun exposed Better protection and the system would be cheaper than tracked vehicles to operate and maintain where the terrain doesn't ask for tracked vehicles.

The problem with putting high caliber artillery into a wheeled chassis is that the platform is less stable and has weaker suspension than a tracked chassis. The lighter the chassis and the less wheels to distribute pressure the worse this is.

So they will likely put into it a low pressure gun. Which means range will be impacted. And because of weight issues you won't be able to carry too many rounds inside the vehicle either.

Russia does have modern 120mm mortars on wheeled chassis like the Phlox. So it is not like they have nothing.

There is nothing particularly new about such wheeled howitzers. For example the South African G6 has existed for a long time. It was highly effective when it came out.

I wonder if it would be worth Russia designing something similar to RCH 155 a  8x8 wheeled armoured SP 155mm artillery system based on the Boxer APC. I know Russia has the newly designed 2S43 "Malva" 152-mm SP howitzer, however it's not particularly armoured and no self loading system.

I would say that would be this:



It uses the Coalition turret so gets all the range and reloading advantages of the 2S35 vehicle, including the capacity to operate with the dedicated reloading vehicle, while also taking advantage of the wheeled truck base for mobility on roads.

The only negative would be reduced cross country capacity being a truck rather than a 8 plus big wheeled heavy vehicle like a BTR.

I rather suspect any other vehicle family would not take the Coalition turret very well and would become rather top heavy rather quickly so any cross country mobility would be limited anyway... without training wheels on either side to stop it from rolling.

I see Malva as something cheap form of wheeled artillery most likely for export market or reserve forces. But Russia could easily design a system similar to the Boxer based RCH 155 but based on a BTR-80 with a 152mm turret and self loading system. The BTR-80 is of similar size to the Boxer, and we have seem heavier turrets been put on BTR before such as a full T-55 turret in a BTR-60 (Cuba).

I would say the combination of the original 2S35 first in a T-90 chassis and then in an Armata Chassis, and the vehicle pictured above and the Malva, probably covers all the options needed really. Rather than making an even lighter 2S35 on wheels I would hope they start looking at an Armata based Tulip and an Armata based Malka (203mm).

I don't think it would take much for the Russians to design a turret to house the 152mm gun.

They already have. But for a light wheeled armoured vehicle... which would be a Boomerang based vehicle as Typhoon would likely be too light, I don't really see a lot of advantages over the vehicle in the picture above, and the vehicle above would likely be cheaper to buy and to operate and rather mobile.

That turret carries quite a bit of ready to fire ammo and propellant charges but should also be compatible with the reloading vehicle.

The old vehicles already have plenty of valid uses but I don't think heavy artillery makes sense.

The old 2S1 in 122mm might work, but 2S3 with even the old 152mm guns would be a bit of work for those frames... remember these are light vehicles and structurally I am not sure how well they would stand up to firing 152mm rounds.

They would likely end up like western artillery... good for 100 rounds a day and then they develop a problem...

Now some nice videos:



History of the Tulip and playing with it...

and

Western view of the weapon:

If they want a more armoured 152mm truck mounted system then a modification of the Typhoon with a trailer...

Something like one of these:







But with the rear cabin removed and a flatbed area with the Coalition turret mounted with the stabilisers.

Remember the Coalition turret is unmanned and fully automated so the crew should be able to stay in the armoured cabin section to operate the vehicle.