MSTA-S vs PzH 2000 vs Archer

limb wrote:
Wow, this post aged poorly, given that both the pzh2000s and Krabs were successfully transported to the Donbass with 0 problems and are now outranging the msta.

Give it a few weeks, and all that German and Polish trash is going to the garbage bin like just about any Ukrainian artillery piece without having done much aside from harassing civlians.

after a decade archer is in service only in Sweden

caveat emptor wrote:
You're losing the plot Garry. Starting to sound like a troll more and more. Russia did make a mistake to not hit infrastructure harder. Not all bridges, but some. Make it easier to track weapon shipments.
In any case, your message doesn't have anything to do with what limb said.

None of us has complete data that would allow us to draw conclusions. Even I, not being an expert in the field of warfare, can give a couple of reasons that would explain that Russia did not vaporize the entire infrastructure of Ukraine immediately. This is not a Star Wars movie, we don't have a combat orbital station capable of blowing up a planet in 30 seconds.

Starting to sound like a troll more and more.

No. Repeating the truth to counter the lies fromthe west does get repetitive but a lot of people in the west are that dumb that they will go with the lies because they hear them most often...

Russia did make a mistake to not hit infrastructure harder.

Based on what exactly.

How hard did they hit it to start off with and how could they have hit things harder?

We hear about vehicles or equipment getting to the front but for every item they sneak forward they will be moving around enormous volumes of normal stuff that needs to be moved to prevent a real civil catastrophy in the country... there is no point in blowing the shit out of everything and thinking things might turn out better.

You're losing the plot Garry.

Giving me free advice... how about I return the favour...

You complain they didn't do it right without knowing very much of what they actually did and how they did it... there is no right or wrong way to do things in war until they are done... you make your decisions on what to do and how to handle the situation and you apply those solutions and you look at all the results... good and bad... and decide if you need to change tactics... and honestly you always need to change tactics anyway... starting outside a countries borders you have to penetrate deep into enemy territory with a large force... that is what happened over the first few weeks of this conflict but incredibly quickly they got to positions they were happy with and they stopped moving forward... they either got to where they wanted to get to or enemy activity or any number of other factors caused them to slow down the advance and reduce casualties of their own forces and tighten up security and look at mistakes made and problems and work out solutions to stop the bleeding on the Russian side.

Right now they are closing off cauldrons and eliminating the enemy and then moving on to the next villiage or area rinse and repeat...

But you are telling us they should have broken the infrustructure of the country more?

Based on what?

Having Kievs Ukraine unable to send stuff to the front is what sort of advantage exactly?

They are massively out gunned by air power and buy artillery... you want them to march into the jaws of death... not run away because they are out of ammo... or hide amongst the enemy civilian population like hostage taking terrorists.

So my advice to you is stop pretending you know better than the Russian military on how to run this conflict... saying someone should have done something different after incomplete results start coming about what may or may not have happened is useless and makes you look like a whiny dick.

And honestly if I was saying the Serbs should have acted differently and things would be better for them now, I would expect you to call me names too, because if I did say that you can't say definitively that I am wrong, because there is no possible way of proving I would be wrong just as there is no possible way of proving I was right either... there can be no discussion... you could argue what the West did they West wanted to do from the start so nothing Serbia could have done to change the result, but doing things different might have made them look like pussies... which some might say would be better and others might say is worse. You could argue that if the Serbs had done things different the West might have started sucking their dick out of total new respect... but I wouldn't buy that... any more than I would think Russia hitting Ukrainian infrastructure harder would have made things better rather than worse by creating a real rather than the fabricated humanitarian disaster in the country and real panic as more of the population left.

Not all bridges, but some. Make it easier to track weapon shipments.

Would think if it became difficult to track weapon shipments they were free to hit any bridges they pleased...

Also expect they have spies in place passing information too... which is totally unrelated to bridges or roads.

In any case, your message doesn't have anything to do with what limb said.

This thread is about how amazing western artillery vehicles are... it is a dick measuring thread of the type I don't really like, but my comments don't need to relate to what Limb said at all... who said I was commenting on his post ... things changed quite a bit since the last posts on this thread and I was updating my post and referring to several previous posts...

This is not a Star Wars movie, we don't have a combat orbital station capable of blowing up a planet in 30 seconds.

There is so much expert talent on the internet... the irony is that I suspect US presidents essentially hire family and friends and that is how they make decisions and policy... no wonder the west is in the state it is in.

Part of western culture now because people who were actors become experts to tell you about things like your diet or what car to buy or right now Jon Voight thinks Biden should be Impeached... what a world what a world...

Would be interesting to see what they are like compared with the French gun...

Also I suspect some of that long range ammo they bought from South Africa will be improving further their own gun ammo.

The Russians have gotten their 152mm rounds to 70km plus with GLONASS guidance fuses, but we don't know how they managed to achieve that... if the south african rounds depend on some other feature to extend range then perhaps it could also be applied to Russian shells to extend their range even further.

We do know the Russians are working on new HE ammo with a range of 180km with guidance for use against moving targets... presumably on land and at sea which would be rather valuable but their drones are going to need better range and persistence to allow them to harness that improved performance.

Right now the 40km range of their rocket assisted rounds is plenty... any targets needing to be hit further away they have Smerch and Iskander and other options too while control of the air space means aircraft can get to within 10km of the target and use ATGMs which are cheap enough to be used widely.

GarryB wrote:
The Russians have gotten their 152mm rounds to 70km plus with GLONASS guidance fuses, but we don't know how they managed to achieve that... if the south african rounds depend on some other feature to extend range then perhaps it could also be applied to Russian shells to extend their range even further.

They use shells that are more rocket than high explosive. Accuracy is pathetic, and with an anemic warhead its only ever good for harassing troops.

Well that is actually interesting, because the Russians developed a nose mounted fuse for their 152mm and larger ordinance that includes GLONASS and a smart electronic fuse and control fins to steer the round in flight... it reportedly cost about $1K US per fuse which is actually very cheap for a modern fuse, but the control fins and being based on a standard shell pocket means any of their existing and new shells in that calibre and larger can use these fuses to make them guided.... CEP is 10m to max range in any weather day or night... I would suspect a backup laser homing seeker adaptation to allow it to see laser target marking spots to improve accuracy down to 1-2m...

I suspect the new 180km range HE Frag rounds will also be massively reduced payload rounds with long slim projectiles looking more like APFSDS projectiles including using Sabot to reduce inflight drag and extend range.

As long as there is terminal guidance the lack of HE capacity (ie 25kgs instead of 45kgs for instance) it would still be a very useful projectile... and an EO sensor to track moving targets would be easy to fit too.

Belisarius wrote:In Germany, the Bild publication announced that the PzH 2000 self-propelled guns have fallen into the hands of the military of the Russian Armed Forces

https://en.topwar.ru/198527-nemeckoe-izdanie-soobschaet-o-popadanii-sau-pzh-2000-v-ruki-rossijskih-voennyh.html

There is nothing much to learn. It fires rounds like other systems...

You would be surprised what they can learn.

A vehicle system like this is complex and there are hundreds of thousands of problems and issues that need to be solved by the design that could have been solved in dozens of different ways... each solution having an impact on other features and problems and creating new problems or even solving other problems.

A good solution will make the design simpler and lighter and cheaper and solve more than one problem or issue... a bad solution wont fully fix the problem and might even create other problems.

Some solutions could be directly mapped across and used straight away, while others are more fundamental and could not be adapted easily so the best way to use those solutions is a direct copy.

The Soviets didn't copy for fun... there needed to be a very good reason to copy... of course many of the claimed copies were not even copies, while others were forced upon them like the B-29 or the Sidewinder.

Their standard AAM was the AA-1 Alkali and it was complex and expensive relatively speaking... it was a beam riding missile so it had a warhead in the tip of the nose and an antenna in the rear facing backwards directed at the launch aircraft, with what looked like spaghetti and electronics inside for control surfaces and other bits and bobs.... it was a terrible complex mess, but it did work and could be used against bombers effectively enough.

When they captured their first Sidewinder missile the surprise was immense.... the rocket motor was nothing special and they already had better IR sensors in production, but it was the fundamental design of the missile... it was modular and simple and basic... the nose was the IR seeker, with the motors for the nose fins next and then the warhead and then the rocket motor all the way to the rear tail surface.

This was a complete fundamental change in missile design for them but they couldn't modify their existing missile to use the new modular design and it would take a few years to apply the modular design to brand new missiles so the obvious answer to get a missile into service as quickly as possible was to copy the design. Use their own seeker and rocket motor but copy the aerodynamics and layout and the gyro stabilisers... which were tiny compared with the Soviet ones. They also copied the electric servo motors too, but most of the rest was Soviet and they called the new missile R-3 and later models R-13, the west called them AA-2 Atoll.

The point is that for a missile to change the insides too much would require new aerodynamics, but for a gun platform that is not important... I am sure there will be some solutions the Germans and the French came up with that the Russians might apply, and of course many they wont because they don't have that problem...

Their previous guns have had automated ammo racks so they likely have that sorted but you never know with these things.

GarryB wrote:You would be surprised what they can learn.

I suppose a lot, but consider the comment as another angle of opinion.
For a while, western weapon systems are being described in this conflict as some kind of Wunderwaffe, that will bring misery and destruction to the opponent.
That is an official narrative from both the Western sources and Ukro ones.
They clashed Russian/Soviet weapon system with those 'ultimate pieces of weaponry' as a part of a commercial campaign, something to lift the spirit of both the society and fighting forces.
It is like saying: hey look, how formidable is the supply we get if compared to subhuman products they got!
From this perspective, the claim that Russians won't learn much from Ceasar is just a reaction to fighting years and decades of understating Soviet/Russian weaponry.
Same time, we witness the opposite.
It is Soviet legacy weaponry they kept that still keeps them running at any - miserable - level.
It is their own production, rooted deeply into Soviet heritage, that turned out to be outstanding weapon systems - like Stugna and Korsun.
NLAW turned out to be an overhyped piece of junk.
Javelin is not working properly at a whole chain of launching, hitting and destroying.
Bayraktar is just a toy that works if you are going to bomb some cowboys armed with AKMs in the mountains and make a practice turkey shooting target against an opponent with the AD level of the Russian Federation.
M777 is malfunctioning at a crazy rate.
I wouldn't be surprised, that the most valuable addition to the arsenal is the Czechoslovakian Dana, as that is really formidable weapon system built with the real war in mind.
Some people, even here where the average level of knowledge is obviously above the statistic citizen, not mentioning the retards of course, are really surprised how the Ukrs can operate some planes and helos.
Well, they can, because this is how the Soviets have built their weapon - to be robust enough to serve in a brutal conflict, with minimal maintenance. You can start with MiG-29 from a flat field, and a Su-25 can land on a river bottom if needed.

So sure they can learn a lot, maybe some another approach for getting a solution, but that won't be anything fundamental in the technology, metallurgy etc. Just some different concepts to resolve same tasks, that can be applied if found better.

Why haven't the Russians shown a single footage of any Ukrainian SPG getting destroyed this entire war, without the bullshit cut footage which goes to after the explosion, seemingly to hide misses, and obvious fake targets like the Dana?

But if the west knows they are killing these vehicles why would they keep sending them, and more importantly they could study the footage and work out the tactics they are using to kill them... how does Russia benefit from that?

Russia has little reason to show any footage of anything at all... it is not like they can post video and the western audience will suddenly say... hey you know... maybe they aren't the bad guys that our media portrays them to be.

Equally any positive videos like rebuilding and rescuing civilians... even just supplying them with food and protecting them from Orc artillery never gets any air time in western media so why bother showing it.

Doing makes sense because they are human, but expecting the west to show the truth... well we are past such delusions aren't we?

I suppose a lot, but consider the comment as another angle of opinion.
For a while, western weapon systems are being described in this conflict as some kind of Wunderwaffe, that will bring misery and destruction to the opponent.
That is an official narrative from both the Western sources and Ukro ones.

The damage the Russians have already inficted on the Orcs suggests they already know what they are doing and what they have works, but that is not to say there is nothing for them to learn looking what their enemies have.

And not just for their own designs... they might find faults or weaknesses that effect performance or capabilities... even as basic as learning where the onboard ammo is stored and therefore where to hit it with an RPG to take it out easily...