in WW2?
soviet artillery had a lot of mass but not a lot of finesse
they had more guns than any other country but each one fired very few shells
it was a result of an oversized heavy industry sector and a weak chemical industry sector that was overrun early in the war by the germans
so they could only coordinate divisional level strikes, hoarding ammo for setpiece battles at the cost of tactical fire missions
It was also a doctrine thing in World War 2, like the Germans the Russians soon grew to use Airpower as their form of heavy artillery because it was easier to move planes than heavy artillery.
The front grew too mobile for heavy siege weaponry
it didnt really have much to do with doctrine, germans and soviets didnt really see airborne artillery as a replacement for big guns
they saw them more as tactical bombers for conducting strike missions
soviets preferred to use lightly armed ground attack fighters rather than bombers, for instance, since it was more of a supporting arm for infantry rather than a devastating attack like heavy artillery
soviets lacked a lot of heavy artillery, other than the 152mm derp gun, because it was cheaper to make smaller caliber guns as the metal could be made of an inferior quality
so the average soviet field gun was a 3-in gun and 122mm gun compared to the 105mm and 155mm howitzers used by the US
The 76/122mm dupolex was basically the result of the Soviets trying to have one artillery/anti-tank/AA multi-purpose gun at the division level, with the 122s later mixed in to make up for the lower firepower in the artillery role after some testing. (This is still pre-war.) This turned out to be rather overambitious idea and they soon reduced it down to just the artillery and AT roles. That's essentially why the 3-inchers are so numerous: They weren't just used by regimental and divisional arty, but also widely by anti-tank units.
And behind that, at the corps level, came the 122mm guns and 152mm howitzers and gun-howitzers. It's another case of the Soviets doing things "one size up" essentially.
Not particularly accurate, but they sure have a lot of it. They need a shitload of ammo to keep it up, which is where blowing up their depots comes in.
Mixed bag, good stats on paper but many range advantages are predicated on RAPs. The main advantage is there is a shitload of it, which made up for poor accuracy. They have gotten more accurate as time has gone on as we've seen from the action in the south. Their counter battery operations are still probably hampered by their stiff and slow to react command structure, and I would say NATO provided counter battery radars are likely superior. Also from the visually confirmed losses in the south I'd say counter battery is a weakness for them, that plus the standard communication/operations issues. It's dangerous and should be respected, especially when drone corrected and it's gonna take a very long time to grind that down.
About a year ago they were still that one part of the Russian Military that was still something to be taken seriously. Nowadays? Not so much. Russia can no longer make proper replacement barrels at the required scale, shell shortages are common, Ukrainian counter-artillery has gotten better and so forth. The intensity of Russian artillery is but a fraction of what it used to be.
it hurts if it hits you.
what if i dodge them?
It's not very good at that, it's not like a western guided round where you have to dodge the laserpointer to not die.
i thought they were gps guided
They can be, but GPS is dependent on satellites and a laser pointer is cheaper.
You have to time your roll exactly so your inv frame dodges the shrapnel, it's not easy.
>if
in WW2?
soviet artillery had a lot of mass but not a lot of finesse
they had more guns than any other country but each one fired very few shells
it was a result of an oversized heavy industry sector and a weak chemical industry sector that was overrun early in the war by the germans
so they could only coordinate divisional level strikes, hoarding ammo for setpiece battles at the cost of tactical fire missions
It was also a doctrine thing in World War 2, like the Germans the Russians soon grew to use Airpower as their form of heavy artillery because it was easier to move planes than heavy artillery.
The front grew too mobile for heavy siege weaponry
it didnt really have much to do with doctrine, germans and soviets didnt really see airborne artillery as a replacement for big guns
they saw them more as tactical bombers for conducting strike missions
soviets preferred to use lightly armed ground attack fighters rather than bombers, for instance, since it was more of a supporting arm for infantry rather than a devastating attack like heavy artillery
soviets lacked a lot of heavy artillery, other than the 152mm derp gun, because it was cheaper to make smaller caliber guns as the metal could be made of an inferior quality
so the average soviet field gun was a 3-in gun and 122mm gun compared to the 105mm and 155mm howitzers used by the US
Yes and no?
The 76/122mm dupolex was basically the result of the Soviets trying to have one artillery/anti-tank/AA multi-purpose gun at the division level, with the 122s later mixed in to make up for the lower firepower in the artillery role after some testing. (This is still pre-war.) This turned out to be rather overambitious idea and they soon reduced it down to just the artillery and AT roles. That's essentially why the 3-inchers are so numerous: They weren't just used by regimental and divisional arty, but also widely by anti-tank units.
And behind that, at the corps level, came the 122mm guns and 152mm howitzers and gun-howitzers. It's another case of the Soviets doing things "one size up" essentially.
Not particularly accurate, but they sure have a lot of it. They need a shitload of ammo to keep it up, which is where blowing up their depots comes in.
It's okay. It's their most effective arm by far this war, but its piss poor accuracy and command/control issues are hamstringing it.
Mixed bag, good stats on paper but many range advantages are predicated on RAPs. The main advantage is there is a shitload of it, which made up for poor accuracy. They have gotten more accurate as time has gone on as we've seen from the action in the south. Their counter battery operations are still probably hampered by their stiff and slow to react command structure, and I would say NATO provided counter battery radars are likely superior. Also from the visually confirmed losses in the south I'd say counter battery is a weakness for them, that plus the standard communication/operations issues. It's dangerous and should be respected, especially when drone corrected and it's gonna take a very long time to grind that down.
I was watching old vids of MSTA-B and it seems like it needs to fire from sites that have already been surveyed with aiming stakes and such.
As effective as their political system
>how effective is russian artillery?
The 2S19M2 Msta-S, + or - 900 meters at 24.7 km
About a year ago they were still that one part of the Russian Military that was still something to be taken seriously. Nowadays? Not so much. Russia can no longer make proper replacement barrels at the required scale, shell shortages are common, Ukrainian counter-artillery has gotten better and so forth. The intensity of Russian artillery is but a fraction of what it used to be.