2S4 Tyulpan and 2S7 Pion

AMOS can fire 14 shots and leave the position. And it is a f...ing mortar system with a range of 5km. The 2S4 got a range of 19km, 2S7 can reach 47km.

26 rounds of 203mm ammo or 240mm ammo would be about 2.8 tons of shells, or almost 3.4 tons of mortar bombs... there is no way in the world to get that sort of rate of fire with these sorts of rounds... and even if you could you wouldn't because it would be horrendously wasteful and would run out of ammo all the time...

They are not vulnerable to counter battery fire because their range means nothing could reach them that they can't hit first...

These sorts of weapons would not be great for counter battery fire... it makes rather more sense to use rocket artillery as that will shower large amounts of HE and frags rapidly giving little to no time to escape or take cover or move.

These (Tulip and Pion) weapons are intended to be used for special targets like a heavily dug in enemy HQ or used in mountains or difficult terrain.

Having a 110kg HE frag shell you can land in the centre of a building and have it penetrate down through multiple floors before exploding and collapsing most of the building on itself is something a 203mm gun could do but a smaller lighter gun might not be able to do.

Equally a 130kg HE mortar bomb would be devastating to most structures on a battlefield.

Obviously the calibre and range mean nothing if you don't have sophisticated target finding and identification networks to find targets and provide shooting data for the crews of these vehicles.

Most Russia artillery vehicles seem to be getting upgrades where their location is known by the vehicle and the system so when it receives target coordinates it immediately generates a gun direction and elevation and propellent load with the gunner merely needing to press the fire button to engage the target when commanded to do so by the vehicle commander.

Doing it with a 122mm 2S1M makes such vehicles very very useful on a battlefield and makes supporting local units much more responsive and effective, but having the option to use 50km range 203mm guns and 20km range 240mm mortars as well as 70km and soon to be 180km 152mm guns makes it even more interesting...

These really heavy guns are not intended for shoot and scoot ops... working cranes to manouver shells no one could lift on their own means loading is never going to be fast... there are lots of smaller and lighter vehicles very well suited to shoot and scoot ops, and indeed rocket batteries offer range and the ability to deluge an area with explosive and rapidly move away... no point in trying to make large calibre guns something they are never going to be.

A 240mm EMP round wouldn't really make sense, but a 203mm round would be interesting because of its shell capacity and its range to deliver behind enemy lines or near enemy centres.

Imagine just before an attack you fire a single 203mm round that lands just outside an enemy HQ... most wouldn't even notice it because there would be a thump as it hit but no boom... but all of a sudden all radios and cell phones don't work... even satellite phones the American and British special forces advisors to the terrorists can communication with home base or troops in the field... then the attacks begin with no possibility of warning anyone... Su-34s drop dumb HE bombs on various targets... dumb bombs wont be effected by the jammer shell that is still operating...



BTW those Bulgarian 152mm and 122mm jammer shells were jointly developed with the Russians and they do have them too... (3RB30 shells with SW and USW jamming...)

Russian Army gets one of world’s most powerful self-propelled guns after upgrade

The 2S7M ‘Malka’ upgraded gun has received new running gear and electronics, according to the state hi-tech corporation Rostec

MOSCOW, April 16. /TASS/. The Russian Army has received the first 2S7M ‘Malka’ 203mm self-propelled artillery gun, the press office of the state hi-tech corporation Rostec reported on Thursday.

"Uraltransmash (part of Uralvagonzavod Group within the state hi-tech corporation Rostec) has delivered the first 2S7M ‘Malka’ upgraded self-propelled artillery gun to the Defense Ministry of Russia. The upgraded weapon has received new running gear and electronics, which have significantly enhanced its performance characteristics," the press office said in a statement.

Following the upgrade, the Malka underwent a full cycle of trials, including running and firing tests, which checked the characteristics of its mobility, the chassis, powerplant and transmission durability, and also the reliability of its loading and fire control mechanisms and the strength of the 2A44 gun, Rostec said.

"This is one of the world’s most powerful self-propelled guns designated to strike vital enemy targets and facilities in the tactical depth of defense behind the front line. Now the delivery of upgraded guns has begun for the Defense Ministry. Uraltransmash faces a serious task of implementing the serial upgrade of this weapon under the 2020-2022 defense procurement plan," Uraltransmash CEO Dmitry Semizorov was quoted by the press office as saying.

Rostec announced on April 7 the completion of the work on the first upgraded self-propelled artillery gun. During its upgrade, specialists replaced the gun’s gearboxes, distribution mechanisms and power supply units, renewed surveillance devices, the intercom equipment and the radio station, and also replaced imported components with domestically produced parts. Uraltransmash has already prepared production facilities for the serial upgrade of Malka self-propelled artillery guns.

The Malka is the upgraded version of the 2S7 ‘Pion’ self-propelled gun developed in the 1980s and still considered as one of the most powerful cannons in the world. The self-propelled artillery gun is designated to strike vital enemy targets and facilities in the tactical depth of defense behind the front line.

https://tass.com/defense/1145729

Looking good...

The interesting thing is how the M110 was never modernized by the US. It appears they failed to increase its range to over 23 km
when the Pion could do 35 km. And their efforts to develop a propelled round for it also failed. Basically the gun barrel is inferior
to the Pion substantially in terms of durability and chamber pressure.

The Malka is impressive. It can fire 50 rounds per hour for 3.5 hours. But 50 rounds per hour is not the limit. It can fire 2.5 times
per minute. It has 2.5 times the "movement capacity" which I think means range on a given load of fuel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MTBg5qfGU4

That Russia has modernized the Pion with Malka even though the US dropped the M110 in the middle 1990s implies there is a need
for such guns and the US choice is not driven by obsolescence.

kvs wrote:The interesting thing is how the M110 was never modernized by the US.   It appears they failed to increase its range to over 23 km
when the Pion could do 35 km.   And their efforts to develop a propelled round for it also failed.   Basically the gun barrel is inferior
to the Pion substantially in terms of durability and chamber pressure.

The Malka is impressive.   It can fire 50 rounds per hour for 3.5 hours.   But 50 rounds per hour is not the limit.   It can fire 2.5 times
per minute.   It has 2.5 times the "movement capacity" which I think means range on a given load of fuel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MTBg5qfGU4

That Russia has modernized the Pion with Malka even though the US dropped the M110 in the middle 1990s implies there is a need
for such guns and the US choice is not driven by obsolescence.

I know it's completely impractical, unlikely and unwarranted but....I would love to see a modern replacement 203mm gun based on Koalitsya-SV developments. I know, I know it's not happening. But guys, don't pretend like ya'll wouldn't want to see it either!

Well with the success of the 152mm ammo being developed for the new guns... if the Russian navy adopt the naval 152mm gun for their new destroyers and perhaps even for the upgraded Kirovs (the new 152mm ammo greatly outperforms the previous ship and land based (Bereg) 130mm guns...) so replacing the 130s with 152s on land and at sea on their destroyers.... they might thing it is worth while to develop 203mm guns and ammo for Cruisers and to support landing ship operations...

The 152mm was lead by the land and perhaps will be take to sea, so let the sea lead the 203mm and if it works it could be mostly paid for by the navy so the Army could use a few models as well as a land based Bereg replacement too...

Why stop with 203mm?


Old 305mm howitzer.

So Malka has a new transmission and engine which makes the vehicle both faster and with longer range.

Hole wrote:Why stop with 203mm?


Old 305mm howitzer.

Which gun is that? I am not familiar with it, it looks like one of the members of the same artillery triples as the 180mm S-23 but 305mm seems a bit much for the S-23's caridge.

S-73. Was not put into service.

A MBT hit with a 203mm shell, somewhere in Ukraine. Looks like a meteor impact, completely eviscerated it!

magnumcromagnon wrote:A MBT hit with a 203mm shell, somewhere in Ukraine. Looks like a meteor impact, completely eviscerated it!

How the hell did they get a direct hit?

Anyway this reminds me of an idea I had earlier which was that if tank composite armour got too difficult for APFSDS to penetrate Russia could simply make tanks with 180-203mm guns that would fire either high impact kinetic rounds or very potent HE at the enemy tank and be confident that that enemy tank would not be firing back at them.
Thus there would be no need to fire off round after round into it in order to make sure it was dead.

Railgun cannons are the "solution" to the armour problem. But they require a lot of energy. So tanks will have to have
nuclear power plants.

The T-14 can handle a 152 mm gun. But I doubt it can handle a 203 mm gun. That will require a total redesign of the
Armata platform. Also, the higher the energy of the gun the more scatter of the projectile for a given length of the
barrel. That is why the 203 mm guns are much longer than their smaller counterparts.

I am not sure about rail guns. I think they must have the same scatter problem unless there are stabilization tricks
that can be applied using the EM field.

kvs wrote:Railgun cannons are the "solution" to the armour problem.   But they require a lot of energy.   So tanks will have to have
nuclear power plants.  

The T-14 can handle a 152 mm gun.   But I doubt it can handle a 203 mm gun.   That will require a total redesign of the
Armata platform.   Also, the higher the energy of the gun the more scatter of the projectile for a given length of the
barrel.   That is why the 203 mm guns are much longer than their smaller counterparts.    

I am not sure about rail guns.  I think they must have the same scatter problem unless there are stabilization tricks
that can be applied using the EM field.

The thing is that railguns have a very sort barrel life though Russian arsenals could probably get it up into the 100-200 realm and then there is the issue of them not being well suited to firing explosive rounds so a railgun armed tank would need 2 main guns, 1 railgun and one low pressure high caliber gun.

I always thought 2S7 and tulpan with guided shells and a drone with a laser designator would have been ideal in Syria cheaper than flying aircraft and dropping guided bombs.

The main drawbacks for this is that first of all the Tulip lacks the range to hit targets behind enemy lines and might be vulnerable to counter attack by an enemy with western support. With a range of 13km with standard rounds and perhaps 17km with newer rounds the Tulip is more like a siege gun than long range artillery.

The other factor that is an issue for both weapons is their projectile weight... using a 110kg and a 130kg projectile would be a bit of a waste for most of the targets seen being hit in Syria.

I think the talk of 170km range 152mm shells might be more suited especially if as I suspect the payload is closer to 10kgs than 40 kgs of standard rounds.

Having a huge payload would be a bit of a drawback in Syria when you are fighting for hearts and minds, but good accuracy would make them effective enough.

An equivalent round for the 203mm would be very interesting, and could lead to a situation where a battery of 6 vehicles might be able to cover an enormous area of ground... say 250km range shells for mobile targets like light toyota utes...

I suspect the Russians didn't donate 203mm guns to the Syrians because they didn't want the Syrians to have that sort of reach with such powerful weapons. (ie so as not to upset Israel and Turkey)
Their lack of experience with such weapons would mean they would need full training and they would need to be supplied with all the ammo they would be using and I am sure the Russians would prefer to keep the stored ammo for themselves... just in case.

A MBT hit with a 203mm shell, somewhere in Ukraine. Looks like a meteor impact, completely eviscerated it!

I suspect the hole it appears to be sitting in is actually its dug in position, so while it appears to be pretty devastated I suspect the round landed on top of the turret and penetrated to the ammo which is what blew off the turret and the side of the hull with wheels as well...

How the hell did they get a direct hit?

There are laser guided rounds for the 203mm (and 240mm mortar), but there is also blind luck... a large area of enemy tanks dug in like that when you fire on them your rounds have to land somewhere...

Anyway this reminds me of an idea I had earlier which was that if tank composite armour got too difficult for APFSDS to penetrate Russia could simply make tanks with 180-203mm guns that would fire either high impact kinetic rounds or very potent HE at the enemy tank and be confident that that enemy tank would not be firing back at them.
Thus there would be no need to fire off round after round into it in order to make sure it was dead.

A case for the cure being worse than the disease... a 203mm main gun would mean you would have 3-4 rounds before you needed to go back to base for a reload...

then there is the issue of them not being well suited to firing explosive rounds so a railgun armed tank would need 2 main guns, 1 railgun and one low pressure high caliber gun.

Having multiple guns is to be avoided if possible... a larger slower fragmentable round could be used instead of a HE shell... one that breaks up into a couple of large heavy pieces on impact with the target... that then bounce around the place at high speed would do the trick...

d_taddei2 wrote:

Hole wrote:S-73. Was not put into service.

S-73? Is that the gun in pic 305mm?

Yes.

GarryB wrote: A case for the cure being worse than the disease... a 203mm main gun would mean you would have 3-4 rounds before you needed to go back to base for a reload...  

The thing is that 5 203mm HE shells will be able to kill about as many enemy tanks as the maximum load of APFSDS in any tank currently in use by the Russian army.

However APFSDS is not reliable as if it is stopped by armour it does nothing and still needs to hit vital components of the enemy tank directly (gun, crew, engine ect) while a 203/180mm HE shell will blow any nato tank apart thus rendering any recovery of the "damaged" vehicle futile.
A 203/180mm shell would also not be required to hit a specific part of the enemy tank in order to destroy it and would also be excellent at leveling building thoes damned bushwacking vermin like to hide in with rocket launchers.

Having multiple guns is to be avoided if possible... a larger slower fragmentable round could be used instead of a HE shell... one that breaks up into a couple of large heavy pieces on impact with the target... that then bounce around the place at high speed would do the trick...

How many fragments are you goin to cram into the same amount of space a a railgun dart exactly?
Besides as I mentioned railguns being high velocity weapons have exceptionally short barrel lives, not exactly ideal for a tank tasked with holding a position against the combined hordes of the west.
One would need to stockpile a huge number of barrels in the case of going for a railgun only tank force.

Personally if the Russian army deems it necessary to deploy railguns I would suggest that they re-introduce the tank destroyer and give thier tanks larger cannon capable of firing a wider range of projectiles.

As for the avoidance of multiple gunned systems this is just silly the only time this makes sense is when the single gun that is supposed to perform 2 or more roles can perform them both competently good examples of this would be the new lesser 57mm armament for the new generation AFVs or the 125mm Russian tank guns as both can fire either high velocity APFSDS or lower velocity large caliber HE shells and in the case of the 125mm missiles aswell.
However if a weapon that can effectively perform all required roles is not available it makes more sense to equip a vehicle with 2 seperate specialised weapons such as on the BMP-3 that way you have the streanths of both and the weakness of niether.

The-thing-next-door wrote:
Besides as I mentioned railguns being high velocity weapons have exceptionally short barrel lives, not exactly ideal for a tank tasked with holding a position against the combined hordes of the west.
One would need to stockpile a huge number of barrels in the case of going for a railgun only tank force.

Why would a rail gun have a short barrel life just because it has high velocity. It uses a complete different concept to lauch the round. It does not even have to touch the barrel technically speaking, and can have a discarding sabot that is very soft to avoid barrel damage.I don't think there is any limit or reason why a railgun is not suited to a HE round as well. Technically speaking railguns are launching aircraft of US carriers. To lauch the heavies plane requires about the equivalent energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. So they are also incredibly efficient when it comes to energy requirements. That is one gallon of gas to get a fully loaded 66K lb F18E from 0-130 mph with one gallon of gas. Imagine how much fuel the F-18 would burn on a runway take off!!!

The thing is that 5 203mm HE shells will be able to kill about as many enemy tanks as the maximum load of APFSDS in any tank currently in use by the Russian army.

Russian tanks normally carry a mix of ammo and pretty much the standard mix for T-90 type vehicles is normally 50% HE Frag, 30% HEAT and 20% APFSDS, so with 45 rounds that means about 23 rounds of HE Frag, 13 rounds of HEAT and 9 rounds of APFSDS... but they do that for a reason... APFSDS is useless against most battlefield targets... it is not even particularly effective against light armoured vehicles as it simply punches a neat hole right through... it has to hit fuel or ammo to be effective. HEAT will penetrate armour too but is more likely to start a fire, and it tends to do rather more splash damage inside the target like a bunker or APC.

The majority of targets on the battlefield are actually best engaged with HE rounds.

The obvious problem is that a 203mm HE shell is overkill for most soft targets... a smaller lighter 125mm HE round will still give you the kill against soft targets but you can carry many times more of them.... plus other specialised rounds as well.

A 203mm shell will seriously damage or take out most modern armoured vehicles simply by shattering or even knocking the turret off the turret ring, but the crew have a good chance of surviving in a very heavy vehicle like a tank.

However APFSDS is not reliable as if it is stopped by armour it does nothing and still needs to hit vital components of the enemy tank directly (gun, crew, engine ect) while a 203/180mm HE shell will blow any nato tank apart thus rendering any recovery of the "damaged" vehicle futile.

Such an argument could have been made for the KV-2 from WWII... it was operational in the first years of WWII when a 76.2mm gun was good enough to defeat all German tanks, but it was still not popular... its 152mm gun was very powerful and could disable tanks whose armour it could not penetrate, but the problems associated with the enormous turret needed to carry it, and the short barrel of the weapon meant its ballistic performance compared with similar calibre artillery was poor and the mobility of the vehicle and number of rounds carried made it fairly useless for anything other than what it was designed for... destroying fortifications from a static location...

A 203mm or 180mm gun armed vehicle would be even worse off due to increased recoil and ammo size... everything would need to be fully mechanised because no one could handle the 110kg projectiles inside the turret let alone the propellent charges.

A 203/180mm shell would also not be required to hit a specific part of the enemy tank in order to destroy it and would also be excellent at leveling building thoes damned bushwacking vermin like to hide in with rocket launchers.

The size and weight the vehicle would need to be to carry such a weapon and ammo would make it a sitting duck for anyone with a rocket launcher of any type.

How many fragments are you goin to cram into the same amount of space a a railgun dart exactly?

It would actually be rather easy to do.... just use a 3D printer to build a projectile out of cubes inside a resin matrix completely enveloped by the Sabot. On firing the Sabot is blasted down the barrel and out of the muzzle... when the Sabot petals separate the projectile is exposed to the slipstream... the front tip could be solid but just a cap with everything behind it formed from cubes... on impact the whole mass will shatter into thousands of cubes, but these cubes are made of metal and have mass and hardness and would scatter forward on impact through the target and outward in a fan of fragments made up of small cubes of metal... a muzzle velocity of 2-3km/s means impact at a target 1km away could involve fragments moving at 1-2km/s at best depending on how it is shaped and designed... 1-2km/s fragments would be lethal enough against most soft targets... you can extend the range of the fragments by making the cubes bigger and heavier.

Besides as I mentioned railguns being high velocity weapons have exceptionally short barrel lives, not exactly ideal for a tank tasked with holding a position against the combined hordes of the west.

Modern high pressure tank guns don't last forever either and during the late 70s and 80s when the materials they made the gun barrels out of in the Soviet Union were cheaper and simpler but the rounds fired were very high velocity they had barrel lives of 200-300 APFSDS rounds... not a big deal... the gun barrels are easy and quick to replace no problem. Also with gun barrels that are smoothbore the worn out barrels can still be used to deliver missiles or HE rounds...

One would need to stockpile a huge number of barrels in the case of going for a railgun only tank force.

No problem...

Personally if the Russian army deems it necessary to deploy railguns I would suggest that they re-introduce the tank destroyer and give thier tanks larger cannon capable of firing a wider range of projectiles.

A rail gun relies on muzzle velocity primarily for its power so the first rail guns they use might be 45mm or 57mm weapons. A rail gun is a weapon that uses EM to accelerate objects to enormous speeds but there is no reason why it can't also be used to accelerate heavier objects to lower speeds too, so HE rounds should be perfectly practical too.

Technically speaking railguns are launching aircraft of US carriers.

That is the goal but they are not there yet... but you are right they are much more efficient than other fuel options...

The main problem will be generation and storage of large amounts of electrical energy on the vehicle and the ability to shift that energy around like they do in Star Trek...