Why did the Soviets create two self-propelled artillery pieces of the same 152mm caliber and different barrel length in the 1970s (Akatsiya and Giatsint), yet didn't do so with the next generation of 152mm arty in the 1980s (Msta)?
What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Your first two ones were developed 10 years apart, one is based on a 1950s D-20 gun, the other on developed around 1970s as 2A36 directly.
C'on anon, read some stuff.
The 2s3 and 2s5 were considered complementary though, no? Wasn't the 2s19 the replacement for the 2s3?
That's not an answer, stfu retard.
Usually it boils down to where they sit in the table of equipment. I made the guess that one is divisional and the other is crops/army level just based on how they look and wouldn't you look at this:
>The 2S3 was intended for inventory of artillery regiments of Soviet tank and motor rifle divisions.
>The 2S5 was introduced into service in 1978, replacing the 130mm M46 field gun battalions in Soviet artillery brigades at the Army and Front level,
The bigger gun is more expensive, but longer ranged. So you give it to the army level assets. The smaller gun is cheaper and more mobile, you give it to divisional arty units. The calibers being the same is incidental.
>The bigger gun is more expensive, but longer ranged. So you give it to the army level assets. The smaller gun is cheaper and more mobile, you give it to divisional arty units. The calibers being the same is incidental.
Russian howitzer and cannon 152 mm have different rifling depths so 152 mm cannon shells wont fit in a howitzer but howitzer shells will fit in a cannon but wont obturate by themselves.
Which is why I said the nominal caliber being the same is incidental. They aren't gonna be used together, the caliber choices are not linked. One is divisional arty and one is army arty
Correct. It's sad that only a few people are still able to use some logic.
My question is why does Russia have a 122mm spg?
Same reason West has 105mm. Turns out in Ukraine that smaller caliber is useful and not everything needs to be hit with a sledgehammer
Isn't 105mm retained mainly for air transportability rather than its firepower being considered optimal for certain roles? Haven't Western countries retired 105mm SPGs?
Yep, the last ones to retire 105mm SPHs were the bongs and the japs, in the late-90s. 105mm guns now occupy the slot of the old pack howitzer.
Technically 105mm's are still in use though. The Indian army has the Abbott still in service.
They do? I thought they replaced them with that Vajra or whatever.
Yeah the Vajra is the K2 Thunder Indian variant. But as far as I know they still have 80 odd or so in service. I know they're ordering more of their variant of the K2 Thunder, but as far as I am aware the Abbott is a well loved vehicle and pretty cheap.
Maybe when the next 200 K2's arrive they'll ditch em.
>Haven't Western countries retired 105mm SPGs?
>40%~ of army artillery is towed 105mm
nobody told wagner
I believe there are two reasons
1. The lighter weapon allows the vehicle to be made amphibious.
2. A 122mm shell is half the weight of an 152mm shell, and two 122mm shells generally give better fragmentation coverage than a single 152mm shell
The Soviet economy was always very heavily dependent upon military production and as such the MIC had overwhelming influence in all economic decisions. Many pieces of equipment were produced not for strategic or operational needs but simply to keep 40% of the economy going. This was very prevalent in the 60s and 70s and in the 80s they had to finally start to cut back because it turns out that investing nothing into light industry is a terrible idea.
Yet the chassis is the same, made at Uraltransmash, and weren't the D-20 and 2A36 both made at Perm?
And wasn't Uraltransmash also the lead developer for both the 2S3 and the 2S5?
but how were they supposed to conquer and enslave the entire planet if you waste resources on consumer shit?
>the MIC had overwhelming influence in all economic decisions
The USSR wasn't a country with an army , it was an army with a country around it.
They couldn't even pick potatoes without sending soldiers to do it
>They couldn't even pick potatoes without sending soldiers to do it
The USSR had civilian forced labor especially between the late 1920s and 1950s.
It was nowhere near enough though, esp in the later years
thus the sending of soldiers to the agriculture front in the summer/autumn
How come they didn't have specialized vehicles to do this kind of shit?
My 68 yo uncle does 4 acres all by himself.
Ah, you have touched the core problem of communism, lack of motivation to improve and innovate, why they should? The state will tell you what to do, and even if you fail it will provide you, what is more, this is common property so don't even try to go through the whole ordeal of trying to convince everyone you can do better than them.
Ever wondered why soviets only were good at very specific industries? They had real competition there, say, in nukes, conventional military hardware and space technologies, and they were often for shock value more than any practical achievement.
Funny open secret, the Soviet Union lasted that long because they had oil, they sold it to the West to buy west technologies and grain, yeah, even with Ukraine they failed that hard, the weapons used by both sides in the current war were indeed paid by the West in exchange of oil even before Merkel was somebody.
That is the greatest shame about soviet communism, it was basically a worldwide experiment funded by the oil industry.
likely they needed to keep two different design bureaus in business, same reason why they adopted planes made for the same role from both sukhoi and mikoyan, or why they needed a new tank design every 5 years.
Didn't each new cold war Soviet tank model have fundamental reasons for a new design?
T-54/55 - same mobility as T-34 with better armor and armament
T-62 - smoothbore cannon
T-64 - various improvements including composite armor and autoloader
T-72 - cheaper version of T-64
T-80 - gas turbine
T-90 - rebranded T-72BU
Do you have a good example of MiG and Sukhoi redundancy?
Not quite right. Tanks were a high/low mix like the US does with planes. You have a few high cost, high capability platforms for local dominance and a load of low cost, low capability platforms for mass, work rate and ubiquity. Eg F16 (lo) and F15 (hi).
T54/55 (lo) - IS3/4/T10 (hi)
T62 (lo) - T64 (hi)
T72 (lo) - T80 (hi)
T90 (lo) - Black Eagle/T14 (hi, cancelled)
If you look at the role of the low side of the mix, it's infantry support in infantry divisions, while the high side is armoured warfare in armoured and guards divisions (breakthrough etc).
The high/low dichotomy didn’t really exist until the T-64 and T-72. T-62 was mostly used in motor-rifle divisions after the development of the T-64. The T-72 was the true start of the high/low within armoured forces with T-64s/80s being given to category A formations and T-72s/90s being given to category B and C divisions. The T-62 remained in service with mechanized formations however for much longer than it otherwise might.
The T-62 was originally meant as a tank destroyed attached to a normal T-55 unit, but recognized that it might as well be a general MBT.
Also ironic how the "high" T-80U was inferior to the "low" T-72B, apart from fire-control, despite costing three times as much,
The Russians recognized this too, so when they decided to have one universal MBT, they dropped the T-80U FCS into the T-72B and that was the T-90.
T80U is vastly superior to the T72B. Don't know what crack you've got or if you're just ignorant. T80B and T72B are closer in performance
>the frontal armor of the T-72B is a bit thicker than on the T-80U
>superior autoloader mechanism in both reliability and safety, with shell-ejection mechanism
>engine good enough
>better cupola MG mount that the T-80BV's dogshit cupola or the U's WW2-style pintle mount copout
>T-72B's Svir is superior to T-80BV's Kobra, so U adopted it
Only thing T-80U has going for it is Kontakt-5 vs. Kontakt-1, which the T-72B mod. 1989 and the T-90 adopted anyway, and the superior hunter-killer FCS, which also ended up in the T-90.
Now I'll tell you this, the T-80 is pretty much my favorite tank of all time, but the T-72B is just a better starting point, while T-80 is just a T-64 with a turbine.
>>the frontal armor of the T-72B is a bit thicker than on the T-80U
Thicker =/= protection.
Post RHA ratings for kinetic penetrators and HEAT.
>Thicker =/= protection.
It indeed thicker = protection when they use the same protection methods (NERA inserts in a cast turret cavity).
RHA rating for the turret are generally reported as 900mm for heat, 1100mm for darts for both tanks, but the T-72B has a bit better protection for off-angle hits, due to the wider side portion of the frontal armor.
As for hull, the spaced plate design of the T-72B is generally thought to be better than the textolite-RHA sandwich the U inherited from the BV.
>900mm for heat, 1100mm for darts for both tanks,
Composite, NERA with (small)spaced armor don't have more protection against darts than HEAT. The opposite, in fact.
Well my sources say NERA plates at a steep angle will disrupt darts very effectively, then again who knows, when you go above 1000m/s speeds with above 10MJ of energy physics start to look more like magic.
It's not so simple, putting aside the variations of spaced armor (that matters) you're not getting +100% of effectiveness against darts (1980s tech's darts) even from the best angle possible (spaced-composite armor generally is highly anisotropic).
If you're talking about the (small) spaced armor of a T-series then show real data of a +100% effectiveness vs its weight.
>tank destroyed attached to a normal T-55 unit,
Weren't the T-55s blowing up just fine by themselves?
Kek, I meant tank-destroyer, but in the 1960's the T-55's were still keeping up in the competition.
he means destroyer obviously
>The high/low dichotomy didn’t really exist until the T-64 and T-72
It absolutely did. If the USSR vould have afforded to give every tanker an IS2 instead of a T34 or T10 instead of a T55, and could have afforded to keep them supplied then they would have.
The armor is, at worst for the T80, similar and there are many other factors. Reversing speed, neutral steer, ride quality, internal volume, cannon travel, elevation and depression, excess electrical power etc.
The T72 was a dead end and has been terrible in combat. The T80 represented a way out of that dead end, but Russia chose not to take it.
Bruh is IS3 and t10 were heavy tanks
An all heavy tanks army makes no sense even the soviets would not have given every formation heavy tanks if they could
1 - It's good for competition
2 - Every new Soviet tank design improved on the downsides of the previous
>Every new Soviet tank design improved on the downsides of the previous
The Russians ditched most of their T-64s in the early-00s, they only have a handful left, the engine was considered too finicky and different. T-90 can barely be considered an improvement over the T-72. And the only reason T-80 was kept by the Russians was Arctic service, where its turbine works better than the V-12 lump in the T-90.
So the different models can, at best, be considered sidegrades from each other.
Because then they'd have four SPHs instead of just three??
You mean, they'd have four SPH calibers instead of three
Is the ammunition fully compatible between the 2S3 and the 2S5?
>Develop fuckhueg SP gun at same time as 'client' state does the same thing
>So called client state makes a SP gun with twice the range
Sad! Many such cases!
If NK were Warsaw Pact the jealous russochimps probably would have forced them to shut development down.
Putin san must be very upset, peepee probably small like little gun. Have #1 Choson Viagra, fix peepee, so sorry can't fix dwarf gun for dwarf man.
Maybe we sell Monkie Monkey model?
Koksan is 40km with standard ammunition, 2S5 is 28km.
Koksan is 170mm caliber and extremely long barreled though, which potentially comes with some drawbacks. It probably weighs a lot more, and supposedly has a rather anemic rate of fire. The 28 ton Giatsint-S carries 30 shells and 5 crewmen, yet a variant of Koksan supposedly weighs 40 tons despite carrying no shells.
The design was supposedly driven by a critical requirement to have the ability to reach Seoul from north of the DMZ, and design compromises were made to achieve that.
The USSR's "huge" gun is the 2S7, which reaches 37.5km with standard shells, though it fires even bigger 203mm ones.
Any truth to the rumor that the Koksan uses the old 170mm Wehrmacht caliber, after the sovs gifted the norks a kraut gun forge? 170 ain't a Soviet caliber.
Idk however that seems like a likely explanation
No evidence whatsoever, we have examined both versions of it.
Koksan RAP is closer to 90km from the ones we observed being fired in the UAE not to mention Kuwait's cratered oil fields.
The newer versions must have maneuverability issues, the drivers must break out in a cold sweat every time they see a sharp corner.
The DPRK does indeed have a selection of very large and long range MLRS. And yes they do like big guns, image related the lunatics made a triple barreled 370mm recoilless rifle which was probably abandoned due to minor back blast issues.....Wait, which end do we point at the enemy?
>Abrams commander: Don't worry T-62s can't hurt you
>The T-62 they are talking about
>Wait, which end do we point at the enemy?
Is there anyway to extrapolate what the back blast from three 370mm recoilless rifles is like? The only thing equivalent charge to what this damn thing would use that i can think of is a battleship turret.
They were used by Iran so try finding a photo of Iranian crew loading ammo.
Though wouldn't be surprising if they did. Post-war Soviet film cameras borrowed a bunch of standards from nazi Zeiss and Leica cameras, probably took a lot of production equipment as reparations. They took the whole Simson car and motorcycle factory. Pobeda watches look suHispaniciously like 1930's Bauhaus watches. Also a bunch of other shit.
The allies mostly took the scientists and the patents for technology they didn't have. Famously the nazi rocketry, the FG-42 design finding its way into the M60, but also shit like the magnetic tape recorder, which the Allies for a while didn't even know about.
Way back in the day i met a former Iranian officer who was an artillery company commander in the Iran/Iraq war, he was a holdover from the Shah so he left as soon as it was over. He said he saw a few of them in an adjacent unit and saw pictures of a Iraqi T-55 that had been plinked by one, he said the tank was completely obliterated. He described something like a Squash head round that was meant to destroy heavy fortifications.
He said that the biggest problem was that in loose soil it had to be relocated every half dozen shots because the recoil dug a hole in the ground which made it easy to track where they were from the air. If you didn't relocate it after half a dozen shots it made a hole so deep that it buried the tracks and might have to be towed out of the hole. He also said the biggest problem with reloading it was that besides having to adjust the aim the barrel length made it bounce up and down for 30 seconds after it fired.
Neat fact: He said his unit used a mix of 105s and D-30s, they usually set up the D-30s as AT inc ase they got threatened with being over run.
>develops a niche gun with very low barrel life and ROF
>useless to do sustained fire/saturation fire on Seoul.
>ignores MRL with better range, effect on target and lighter
Why are norks like that? do they like big guns that much?
I'd surmise that when Koksan was first built, they had difficulties in economically mass producing sufficiently powerful rocket motors. I think they got equivalently ranged MLRS - the 240mm M1985 - only in the 1980s, and they might even then have had problems with mass production.
Correct. After the famine they clearly worked out the problems though, they are pretty much a 25 million man rocket factory at this point.
From radar tracking we know that their current large MLRS systems equal or even outrange anything the rest of the world has, notably they have stopped making new short ranged ballistic missiles because the line between them and their heavy MLRS has blurred so much that there really isn't much difference.
You are so completely retarded its astounding. Do you have any proof for anything you just said? China and Russia both have 300mm MLRS, and more than just enough to show in a parade.
Look up PHL-16 and stfu
bro i bought the big expensive Oryx book and read what the US military says about the North Korean heavy MLRS the UAE let us test fire along with their Koksans.
The alleged 500km range for the PHL-16 isn't for the MLRS it is for them using it as a TEL to fire a theater ballistic missile which i admit is a pretty good idea to make it modular like that. North Korean heavy MLRS can do 300km, we know because WE ACTUALLY FIRED ONE WHEN THE UAE LET US. PLAY WITH THEIR TOYS
Jeez i guess the only way i would know better than some asshole who bought a book is to be an actual analyst who works in-theater...
China has demonstrated their 300mm MLRS and it went 150km. They have also demonstrated a 370mm rocket with a 300km range. But keep arguing with someone who's job it is to know these things.
How many of the Smerch knockoffs does nK actually have? Was that in your book?
Because they were surprisingly into flowers, anon.
Defense industry was rather competitive.
T-62 was unironically the best tank to base future developments on, it was even designed for future upgrades.