2S19 MSTA-S 152mm

zg18 wrote:Army received 108 modernized Msta 2S19M2 , with 93 previously delivered , that makes up 201 piece in service



http://ria.ru/forces/20141010/1027750188.html

these are new pieces or modernized 2S19??

Likely upgraded with new stuff being developed for Koalition...

"MSTA-S" Shooting

MSTA-S against Paladin

Production and modernization of 152-mm self-propelled guns to "Uraltransmash"

alexeyvvo в Из закупок Уралтрансмаша wrote:
152-mm self-propelled howitzer 2S19 "MSTA-S"

Apparently in 2014 have been deposited at least 36 units 2S19M1 and 24 2S19M2.

On the basis of the schedule of procurement "Uraltransmash" for this year, we can assume that the company intends to transfer the Russian Armed Forces 18 ACS 2S19M1 and 36 - 2S19M2.

So we have 60 modernized Msta-S in 2014 and 54 for this year planned

Cucumber Khan wrote:

Regular wrote:And yet there still americans talking shit about their artillery being superior when they are outsiders when it comes to it

Well, I think a lot of that is because of the highly sophisticated guided munitions that the US deploys. That's definitely something the Russian Military have to start investing in, rather than the fire-a-lot-of-shells-in-the-general-direction-of-the-enemy-and-hope-that-one-will-hit tactic.

Where do you think americans have the idea for self-correcting artillery rounds from? From russian MSTA-S, their work of Paladin is based on MSTA-S which they acquired sneaky via proxy customer Morocco.

Russia had modern self-correcting artillery rounds in the last century, the US came up with them just recently due to russian work and still they can not field a modern Artillery into service. Russia was the first country to develop a modern artillery with smart ammunition and digitalisation of the firing plattform in 1988 with several modifications over the past 30 years.

The time the US fields a new modern Artillery to its army units, germany will already develope a successor for Pzh2000.

Most US 155mm shells are dumb shells. They were developing a smart guided shell called gladiator or something like that, but it cost $50,000 per shot making it a fairly expensive round.
The Russian equivalent costs 50 times less and is much ore affordable... and is an electronic fuse and guidance and controls system attached to the standard nose fuse position of a standard shell...

Cucumber Khan wrote:

Regular wrote:And yet there still americans talking shit about their artillery being superior when they are outsiders when it comes to it

Well, I think a lot of that is because of the highly sophisticated guided munitions that the US deploys. That's definitely something the Russian Military have to start investing in

Let me add to the posts above (which also answer your question) with a few extra things to think about.

The highly sophisticated guided muntions that the US deploys - it deploys in low-intensity Talib warfare where it can afford expensive, high-tech ammo - simply because it's just not depleted that fast.
Add to the fact that the Talibs, Iraqi insurgents, etc... never really travelled around or fought in large groups or formations, as well as usually on foot - making them tough targets for artillery as they can duck and find cover as soon as the first shell hits.
This adds up to having to expend a large quantity of ammunition - just to destroy a few lightly-armed insurgents.
Then you have the factor of collatoral damage too; with insurgents usually popping up among civilians and civilian infastructure.

Together this all makes guided munitions pretty neccessary for those conflicts.

Rest assured though that in a full-on intense conventional confrontation with anyone serious, all those fancy shells would run out within a day, and the only realistic or economical option would be dumb munitions. This is the reality.
For anyone with a mind to fight a conventional war - dumb shells have always been a far wiser option with guided shells only available in small quantities, to be used in conjunction with SF operations and so on. This has pretty much been the Russian approach, not-coincidently.

Up until recently Russia has had only had the Soviet-developed laser-guided mortar and howitzer shells (which France and others bought and which were among the first of their class in the world; having been developed in the mid 80s); which were expensive, designed to work in conjunction with artillery observers, and reserved for specific tasks; for example smashing armour columns with precision hits on their top armour as was done to those Ukrainian armour columns were taken out last summer or so rumour has it.

It is only recently that Russia has started investing in GLONASS guided shells; given that its GLONASS constellation has only reached full operation within the last 2-3 years. Russia has been busy upgrading its artillery with GLONASS integration/targetting, and have probably been buying up these shells for many of these systems too. Such shells can be set with GLONASS coordinates, and will gently guide themselves to that location while in flight.
However while they are guided, and accurate - they are not really 'precision guided' in the sense of what you are talking about - as they are not capable of being guided to a target (other than an immobile one with a precisely known position) nor do they have any sensors for determining targets and homing in on them. They simply guide themselves more precisely to a coordinate than dumb shells do and land in a much tighter group.

rather than the fire-a-lot-of-shells-in-the-general-direction-of-the-enemy-and-hope-that-one-will-hit tactic.

When there are a good amount of targets within the artillery system's CEP at that range - there's a good chance that a lot of those shells will hit something; and guided munitions in that case become a little superflous and wouldn't really add anything that a good old artillery barrage with conventional ammo wouldn't accomplish.

The 'tactic' is to cover a square (or circular rather) area in explosions within a minimal amount of time, destroying anything there that dares to cling to life. Why would guided munitions be any better for accomplishing that then dumb munitions?

Why USA never bothered developping its self propelled artillery like russia?

Funny... I remember in the 1980s there were plenty of western experts wondering why the Soviets had so many towed artillery pieces and so few self propelled weapons... the common conclusions were that it was cheaper and they didn't care about the safety of their artillerymen.

The reality was most likely that it wasn't a large priority as they had rocket artillery on trucks already that was very mobile.

I think that can largely be mitigated by creating a gun launched UAV with laser targeting equipment.

Indeed the Smerch has the E90 rocket launched UAV, but artillery units have long been the main forces in the Soviet and Russian military who have been interested in UAVs... with the Bumblebee being the most widely used UAV in the Russian military for some time... now of course eclipsed by more capable systems....