2S4 Tyulpan and 2S7 Pion

MonkeymodelBananaRepublic wrote:From the discussion i can see the clear use and niche role the 2s4 has. Though i am not sure what niche role the 2s7 has - i know it might be clear to others but its not so in my mind.

I mean if it can fire 90-100km .... so can mrls
If it can deliver large shell 203mm so do mrls 220mm and 300mm

Im not clear on what 2s7 niche role is

I have read thay they are being used in large number by ukraine - does anyone have any information on their combat  performance in that conflict so far?

How is the 2s4 and m240 doing in syria?

Replacing 2s7 by 2s35 or 2s19 in your comment, the sense would not change. Under this argument the entire military concept of artillery would be questioned. The answer to your question is in the differences between the mrls systems and the traditional artillery.

The performance of the 2S7 in the war of Ukraine seems positive. The loses of these systems have bee smaller than in other cases.

About the 2S4 M-240 are present in very low amounts in Syria. Surely doing well too.

Surely both experiences are related with the recent increasing of the numbers of 2S4 and 2S7 in active service in Russia.

I expect to see new weapons to replace the 2S4 and the 2S7 based on the armata platform.

In fact I expect 3, 2 of 203mm and one of 240mm:

- 240mm: To replace the 2S4, I would expect a weapon that can combine direct and indirect fire in the mortar style. A weapon in line with the phylosophy of the weapon of 120mm.
- 203mm: A new weapon of 203mm following the same phylosophy.
- 203mm: To replace the 2S7, I would expect a weapon for long range direct fire. As long as possible.

Of course following the current standards on protection of the crew, authomatic internal load,...

I think the increased range and accuracy of 120mm and 152mm rounds will mean they will continue to be developed and will be the normal widely used calibres... this is no huge jump in the dark as the Soviet military settled on 120mm mortars and 152mm and 203mm guns during WWII.

the new weapons are much more accurate, much longer ranged, and still effective, if not more so today.

They might experiment with a 240mm and a 203mm Armata vehicle but I suspect the standard Armata units will start with 125mm tank guns and 120mm gun/mortars and 152mm artillery.

In time perhaps they might eliminate the 125mm calibre and replace it with a 152mm calibre tank gun, but there is currently no hurry as most potential opponents can still be engaged effectively with 125mm rounds... the sooner they start adopting the 152mm gun the sooner NATO goes for a new improved tank design... their 152mm tank gun is pretty much ready but upgrading the 125 is easier and cheaper and leaves a next step available when needed.

I think they will just continue with 2S4 and 2S7 in reserve for those situations when larger calibre weapons are needed and just upgrade the ammo so if a larger calibre Armata is needed it will have ready to use quality ammo.

From the discussion i can see the clear use and niche role the 2s4 has. Though i am not sure what niche role the 2s7 has - i know it might be clear to others but its not so in my mind.

I mean if it can fire 90-100km .... so can mrls
If it can deliver large shell 203mm so do mrls 220mm and 300mm

Im not clear on what 2s7 niche role is

Don't fixate on max range as the only useful number.

For many targets a 40kg projectile is enough to get the job done, but there are occasions when it is not, and two impacts of 40kg shells does not equal the impact of one 80kg projectile.

The Pion fires 110kg projectiles.

The Tulip is even more powerful but over much shorter ranges... the problem with most artillery rounds is that they come from what would be called guns... the need for range means they have rather higher velocity than similar weapons from WWI and WWII. The higher velocity and range means when fired at shorter range they need to be lofted high into the air... which reduces accuracy because they spend a lot of time in flight or they are more direct fired at the target which means half the shell fragments go into the ground and the other half go into the sky.

In comparison a 130kg 240mm mortar bomb that lands near vertically on the target sprays its fragments in a nice even pattern around the point of impact... look at artillery shells and you will notice it is the long sidewalls that contain all the fragments that actually kill people... a near vertical impact means most efficient use of propellant and fragments.

Blast kills only to fairly short ranges but heavy fragments extend that kill range to 10-20 times the blast radius... up to 100m in some cases, but a 152mm shell coming in at an angle wont... most fragments will go into the ground or into the air and it will be blast radius that kills... maybe 10-20m... which is rubbish performance.

Russian heavy artillery brigade will hold unique live-fire exercise in northwest region of Russia

A heavy artillery brigade based in the Tambov Region in central Russia will hold a unique live-firing exercise at the Luzhsky training range in the Leningrad Region in northwest Russia for the first time, the Russian Western Military District’s press office said.


"The servicemen performed a combined march to cover a distance of more than 1,100 kilometers [683 miles]. During the march, they practiced countering a simulated enemy’s commandos, crossing notionally contaminated areas with the use of individual protective gear and loading and unloading military hardware," the press office said. "During the tactical exercise, the crews of 240mm Tyulpan self-propelled mortars will attack the simulated enemy’s key facilities," the press office added.

While accomplishing the mission, the servicemen will stealthily move to their firing positions, conduct reconnaissance with the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle and fire their mortars against targets simulating the enemy’s buried command posts, air defense missile system control centers and unmanned aerial vehicles at a distance of up to 20 kilometers (12 miles). The live-firing exercise will involve about 100 servicemen and up to 30 items of military hardware.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/august_2017_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_heavy_artillery_brigade_live-fire_exercise_81008174.html

---

Nice . I think that having more such units would be great. In conflicts – especially in low intensity ones – heavy artillery pieces like the 2S7 Pion/Malka and the 2S4 Tyulpan would provide air strike-like firepower, albeit at a limited range, but at a fraction of its cost. Guided shells would make them even more effective.

A little bit off-topic   , but I think that a handful of these systems could be supplied to Syria to take out fortified positions of ISIS and rebels.

d_taddei2 wrote:Syrian army already uses Tulpan and 160mm mortar and 180mm gun. But problem is we don't get hear about them being used

I looked it up, and the last reports of its use are from last year.

The talk has been that a battalion of each are being put into operations in each of the 4 Regional Commands but you only hear or see the 2S4 in the news other then the 2S7 from Tambov which was the original and only unit left in the Reformed Army.

These are powerful and very capable weapons, but like anything there are problems.


They are very heavy weapons, though their vehicle mounts negates this to a large degree, the point remains if the vehicle breaks down and you need to move you wont be able to take these weapons with you.

They are better for sieges than mobile warfare and the ammo they use is big and bulky and not that easy to handle and is not as widely available on every front in every area.

Even assuming you have a hard core of enemy forces trapped in a pocket you need to be very sure of your targeting as each shell could flatten more than just a single building... we are talking small aircraft bomb sized rounds for each shot... taking out the enemy one room at a time is not an option with these weapons.

With laser guided rounds however penetrating a building to destroy troops in the basement becomes a very real and very effective option...

In terms of dealing with fortifications from a distance the 203mm calibre weapons will reduce the effectiveness of bunkers and trench lines and fortified positions from a great distance... so in preparation for an attack on an enemy strong point or just to soften an enemy position it would be a very powerful and capable weapon.

In artillery it is the first few rounds that really count because after a minute or so everyone who survived the first rounds has probably found some cover and has become hard as hell to deal with...

SAMARA, Dec 1 - RIA Novosti. In the artillery brigade of the Second All-Arms Army stationed in the Orenburg region, the first construction of the personnel of the new division took place and a solemn transfer to them of the standard equipment, told reporters the interim commander of the Second Combined Arms Army Major General Roman Berdnikov.

"Today, in solemn conditions, we handed in 8 heavy self-propelled mortars 2S4 Tulip to the personnel of the new battalion of the artillery brigade, the appearance of such a division will greatly enhance our combat capabilities," Berdnikov said.

As noted in the Central Military District, the 240-millimeter self-propelled mortar 2S4 "Tulip" is designed to destroy strong field-type structures, command posts, artillery and rocket batteries and other military equipment not available for floor fire. The firing range of an ordinary projectile is up to 10 kilometers, active-reactive - up to 20 kilometers.


NOTE: this is the 4th battalion raised. One per District.

Another way of looking at the issues is to look at the targets.

If you look at some of the videos released on youtube where a UAV is lasing a target, most of the time the target is a light vehicle like a light truck or SUV sized vehicle... a 122mm or 120mm calibre gun is plenty for such a target.... a 152mm gun is overkill but might be needed for the extra range.

A 203mm shell weighing 110kgs is way too much shell, as is the 240mm 130kg round.

In comparison however rocket artillery would only be effective in a volley or a guided missile.... both would be overkill.

Rocket artillery is ideal for use against area targets... a forest where you know there is enemy and you want to shower in fragments but have no precise location for the enemy.

Equally an enemy attack of infantry over open ground or heavy terrain could be pummelled with an unguided rocket barrage.

In comparison if there is a group of buildings you are getting sniper fire and there are no civilians or friendlies nearby... a gun can take the building apart piece by piece.

GarryB wrote:These are powerful and very capable weapons, but like anything there are problems.


They are very heavy weapons, though their vehicle mounts negates this to a large degree, the point remains if the vehicle breaks down and you need to move you wont be able to take these weapons with you.

They are better for sieges than mobile warfare and the ammo they use is big and bulky and not that easy to handle and is not as widely available on every front in every area.

Even assuming you have a hard core of enemy forces trapped in a pocket you need to be very sure of your targeting as each shell could flatten more than just a single building... we are talking small aircraft bomb sized rounds for each shot... taking out the enemy one room at a time is not an option with these weapons.

With laser guided rounds however penetrating a building to destroy troops in the basement becomes a very real and very effective option...

In terms of dealing with fortifications from a distance the 203mm calibre weapons will reduce the effectiveness of bunkers and trench lines and fortified positions from a great distance... so in preparation for an attack on an enemy strong point or just to soften an enemy position it would be a very powerful and capable weapon.

In artillery it is the first few rounds that really count because after a minute or so everyone who survived the first rounds has probably found some cover and has become hard as hell to deal with...

I agree with you that heavy artillery systems are effective in places like Chechnya and Syria but not of mutch use in mechanized warfare however in my opinion Russia should make a new heavy artillery systems but only in limited numbers for use against future western backed insurgent attacks as that seems to be the way the cowards attack countries that have any form of military power.

The ability to continuously rain down large explosive warheads cheaply and without the need for all the infrastructure required for air operations is very helpful when dealing with an insurgent threat.

A 203mm gun could also throw shells out to well over 100km meaning that your artillery can be nice and safe from enemy counter battery fire while they watch helplessly as you bombard their troops.

Correction... a 203mm round probably could be made to be effective beyond 100km range, but unless money is invested then it wont be the cheap option.

Right now they have 70km range 152mm rounds that are relatively accurate... for most targets that should be plenty of performance on its own.

Against a super hardened target a similar round in 203mm that has 2-3 tomes the shell weight might be more effective, and would be a useful round for coastal artillery (ie Bereg replacement) and for a Naval gun for large vessels (Destroyers and Cruisers) or for naval gunfire support for landing vessels.

The issue is that a 203mm gun armed vehicle will carry less ammo and will be more expensive to operate and maintain.... in such a case I think older vehicles can be used in the occasional situations where a heavier round is needed (as shorter range) and at longer range something like Tochka-U or Iskander could be used instead.

Nice video... love how sometimes with some of the shots you can hear the barrels ring like bells after firing... so cool.

After rereading this thread it got me thinking... the new 152mm 70km range shells are accurate because they have GLONASS guided fuses, so for a larger calibre weapon like a 203mm gun or 240mm mortar the use of similar fuses should enable similar accuracy which really isn't dependent on range to the target.

Anyway, what I was thinking was that if you are using these bigger weapons in COIN type ops these weapons have very heavy rounds which restricts their usefulness to being used against heavily fortified or underground targets, but what about making new lighter rounds to extend range?

The 203mm rounds are generally 110kgs which is good for hitting hard targets, but its range of almost 50km is less than what the new 152mm guns achieve.

Perhaps a 10kg payload round redesigned with a ramjet booster and fuel could be used to extend range to enormous distances without needing a barrel length extention... 10kgs would be useless against many targets, but against an individual vehicle it should obliterate most family cars or light trucks in a COIN situation and with a diameter of 8 inches or 203mm it would have excellent HEAT penetration performance if designed correctly... remember penetration for HEAT rounds is related to weight, diameter, and the metal used for the liner... so a practically top attack GLONASS guided ramjet powered round with a 203mm or even 240mm wide warhead you would have a pretty potent top attack round for use against any target on the battlefield... you could set it up so it either detonated as a heat round or as a conventional HE frag round against unarmoured targets.

In fact some sort of optical guidance that used another platform to mark targets would probably make it more versatile and accurate against moving targets... so laser homing perhaps.

The point is that with a much smaller payload and a ramjet motor on board its flight range could be 150-200km depending on how much fuel you put on board.... and with terminal guidance from a UAV or even ground vehicle like a tank marking the problem target you could hit small targets without taking down the entire city block.

Obviously with the 240mm version the range might only be 40-50km but a 240mm diameter HEAT warhead would be very potent... in fact you could mount two and offset each at 20-30 degrees and use the guidance system and perhaps some side thruster rockets to orient the nose of the round so each HEAT warhead directed a jet of plasma at near the front and near the rear of the vehicle... to get the engine and the drivers position or the turret or whatever you wanted...

The key thing about the Tulip is raw power so I probably wouldn't bother with a light HE/HEAT model... it would be easier to make a 5kg warhead 120mm mortar with a ramjet booster to get 20-30km range with a warhead big enough to destroy a light truck with a HMG on the back...

Tulip is better used against strong points, or to land in front of an incoming enemy infantry attack to really clear those sinuses...

Considering its size I wonder if they ever thought of a cluster munition version?

A battery of "Pions" will reinforce the Coastal Defence Artillery Brigade staioned in Kaliningrad. The fire control system of the guns has been upgraded to receive targeting data from different sources (land, air and sea) and are now able to target small point targets including ships...max range: 50km



https://iz.ru/918810/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/batarei-potopleniia-beregovye-voiska-poluchat-sverkhmoshchnuiu-artilleriiu

Well that is interesting... if they think a conventional 203mm gun is good for coastal defence (as opposed to the normal Bereg in 130mm... the biggest common naval calibre still in use in the Ru Navy) then perhaps they are working on new gun calibres...

The 152mm land based Koalition was a joint Army Navy project, but that is not in service on land or at sea yet, and obviously these 203mm guns are available right now so it makes sense to use them.

The upgraded 152mm rounds have better range than the 203mm guns, but with lighter less effective shells.

The modern Soviet Navy never really bothered with heavy guns... they did reintroduce their Sverdlov class ships with 152mm guns to improve their naval gun support capacity for supporting naval landings... this was at a time when the US was bringing Iowa class battleships with 406mm guns into service for the same reasons, so if they did start working on a 203mm gun it would be the biggest calibre they have had in their navy for quite some time and still only half the calibre of the American big guns.

The question is... can they get the accuracy and range and payload performance to make these a viable alternative to rockets or missiles... so they need to be relatively cheap but very accurate and with as much range as possible.

Ironically with excellent accuracy... terminal homing perhaps, the payload weight can actually be rather small... especially if the targets are small like light land vehicles or small vessels.

Of course a variety of rounds is possible including shorter range heavy shells to take on ships or fortified beach defences, up to smaller lighter powered rounds to take on targets in the enemies rear areas like artillery positions or fuel and ammo stores or individual armoured vehicles.

Against poor countries a UAV could be sent out to mark targets with lasers, so you could have a sabot 203mm shell that is only 50mm calibre and launched at enormous velocities with a 10kg HE payload and laser homing terminal guidance to hit targets like toyotas with cannon or missiles on the back, or an ATGM launcher position that because of its low drag and high velocity at launch can hit targets 200-250km away, while a full calibre round with a 100kg HE payload might reach out to 90-100km with terminal homing to allow it to penetrate concrete fortifications on beaches or inland...

The future destoyers will likely have 152mm guns...

As for the Pions in Kaliningrad, their main role seems to be to counter an amphibious landing

That would make sense, but if the 7K ton destroyers have 152mm guns, then what will their 20K Cruisers be armed with?

Their frigates have 130mm guns and Corvettes have a range of weapons from 57mm and 76.2m guns, and 100mm guns...

Modernization of heavy self-propelled artillery systems 2S4 and 2S7M

As the RIA Novosti news agency reported on October 3, 2019, the Uraltransmash company, part of the Uralvagonzavod Scientific Industrial Corporation JSC (UVZ, part of the Rostec state corporation) announced the completion of modernization of the powerful 203 mm self-propelled guns "Malka" and a 240-mm self-propelled mortar 2С4 "Tulip", RIA Novosti was informed in the press service of UVZ.

On the 203-mm “Malka” replaced gearboxes, distribution mechanisms and power supply units. In addition, the equipment was updated: intercom equipment, data reception and processing, radio station, instrumentation system of anti-nuclear protection systems and monitoring devices.

The 2C4 Tulip mortar installed new communication systems that allowed the gun to work in a single tactical link system, as well as modern surveillance devices, an instrument complex, a radio station and weapons.

The first modernized 240-mm self-propelled Tulips have already arrived at the Ground Forces.

2S7M Malka is a modernized version of the 2C7 Peony gun, created in the 1980s and still considered one of the most powerful guns in the world. The installation is designed to defeat enemy targets and objects in the depths of defense behind the front line.

The cannon can fire high-explosive shells and active-reactive ammunition. However, the main advantage of this weapon is the ability to use concrete and chemical shells, as well as special ammunition with a nuclear charge.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3798410.html

They look like Pions... (2S7 203mm guns)...

They are.

I can see the potential of this weapon, especially with guided shells, but is it not incredibly vulnerable to counter battery fire? When you compare it to the AMOS that can put 26 rounds in the air and be on the move when they are arriving at the target.....why bother? Hopefully they can modify the loading mechanism so its much faster to ready, shoot and scoot.