Tuesday, September 13, 2011

New video about Russian artillery: 'Plant № 9'


  1. Why hasn't Russia attempted to develop 155mm versions of its howitzers for the export market?

    I'm sure you're aware of the Indian artillery fiasco: having blacklisted most artillery manufacturers around the world, our incompetent defence ministry is desperately looking for more contenders. A Russian 155mm gun based on the Tatra and T-72/T-90 chassis would be quite welcome.

  2. It's done, but still the new customers (Venezuela) preferred 152 mm Msta. May be because it's on service in Ru Army

  3. I would think that Venezuela sees no advantage to using NATO standard ammo, because its main sources of weapons are China and Russia so it would make more sense for them to buy Russian and Chinese compatible ammo.

    My previous post on this didn't work, but I closed the tab so this time it should work.

    Igor, do you know of future plans for Russian 152mm weapons, there were rumours of a joint Army/Navy program to develop new 152mm ammo and guns with greatly extended range and accuracy for destroyers and larger vessels for the Navy and for standard artillery units in the Army based on Coalition with auto loading twin guns similar to what the navy would use.
    I have read recently that the Russian Army is interested in a French artillery system because its deployment time from the march is 30 seconds.

    Please tell me this is just rumour and the opinion of one Army official.

  4. GarryB,
    Russian General stuff Makarov's last statement - is interpreted as a request from MIC to improve the deployment characteristics of the Russian artillery systems. No import plans were declared and they are hardly probable.

    The most problem for artillery manufacturers in Russia is the conservative Army position asking for full compatibility of 152 mm guns with old ammo. It's a reason why they cannot just to make the 47 cal 152 mm Msta barrel longer. On the 52 cal 155 mm export variant the problem was solved from the start, its barrel is longer and the range is just as the western competitors have.

  5. Well surely now that they are going for an all up to date Armed force and getting rid of old stocks of obsolete ammo they can change that policy...
    Glad to hear MSTA is safe... I like it.

  6. Makarov's negative note was about deployment time but according to the manufacturer of Msta, it's very short too: 3 min on march for whole regiment http://www.uraltransmash.com/rus/specprodukciya/msta-s_152mm_asuno_2s19m1/ and Makarov said 15 min for an unnamed artillery system, so it could be not meant Msta.

  7. Also Makarov was very inaccurate when brought the specs of Nexter's Caesar range: he said about 80 (sic!) km, while its only 42 km for current rounds http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/resize/180709_Tablica-700x394.JPG

    The prospective round Impact Mk 1 with 60 km range is planned for ser prod from 2015, and Mk 2 with 70 km even after that. Till then the Russian MIC will offer some advanced rounds too I'm sure. Also Msta is better than Caesar in rate of the fire: 8 /min (10- after modernization) against 6 for Nexter's Caesar.

  8. Rate of fire is more important than setup time.

    The firepower of tube artillery is effected by range and rate of fire.

    Bug out time is very important too but a low rate of fire means the time between impacts allows the enemy to take cover before taking too much damage and it also means staying on station firing longer which makes you vulnerable to counter attack.

    Say you fire for 3 minutes and then move, that means 18 modernised MSTAs can fire 540 shells on target and then move... at 43kgs per shell that is 23.2 tons of shells in 3 minutes... sound pretty effective to me... if you need more HE faster then there is always Uragan/Grad/Smerch/Tornado rocket artillery.