Foreign projects to increase the firing range of 155-mm artillery

Modern guns and howitzers of the caliber 155 mm, which are in service with various countries, are capable of sending shells to a range of at least 20-25 km. At the same time, the development of artillery continues, and one of its tasks is to further increase the firing range. To achieve such goals, various options are proposed for the refinement of guns and ammunition for them. Consider the most interesting projects in this area.

Howitzer M777ER (foreground) and serial M777A2. Photo US Army

Extended guns

Over the past few years, the U.S. Army, represented by Arsenal Picatinny, and BAE Systems have been working on the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) project, which aims to create a promising howitzer with an increased firing range. Work in this direction began with a deep modernization of the M777A2 product, which is in service with the US Army. After such refinement, the gun received the M777ER index.

The main difference between the M777ER howitzer is the new extended barrel. In the basic configuration, its length is 39 calibers, after modernization - 55. The long barrel allows you to more fully use the energy of the powder gases, but at the same time increases the load on the implement units. M777ER had to develop an improved shutter, a new muzzle brake and reinforced recoil devices.

Despite the improvements, the gun remains compatible with NATO's standard 155 mm shots. At the same time, the use of ammunition with variable charges Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS). In the future, M777ER may receive new shells with various capabilities. To work with shots, an advanced loading mechanism is intended.

The carriage of the base howitzer remains unchanged. An advanced fire control system is mounted on it, capable of generating data for firing at increased distances.

The M777ER prototype was put to the test in the spring of 2016. At the beginning of the 2017, a full-fledged prototype was sent to the test site. In the fall of 2018, testers talked about getting high performance. Using conventional "blanks", the ERCA gun was able to attack the target at a distance of 40 km. The use of an active rocket increased the range to 70 km. For comparison, the maximum firing range of the M777A2 reaches 40 km.

Test shot of self-propelled guns XM1299. Photo US Army

In 2018, a prototype ACS M109A8 / XM1299 was built using ERCA software solutions. Such a self-propelled gun carries a new 155-mm gun with a barrel length of 58 calibers. According to its tactical and technical characteristics, the XM1299 will have to surpass the existing self-propelled guns of the American army.

The M777ER project will be announced next year, after which it is expected to launch mass production of howitzers with an extended barrel. XM1299 self-propelled guns are planned to be delivered in a small series in 2022-24. Thus, by the mid-twenties, the US Army could receive new artillery samples, the characteristics of which are improved only due to improvements in the design.

American shells

In parallel with the guns of the ERCA family, Arsenal Picatinny, together with several other organizations, is developing new artillery ammunition. These samples are so far known under the working designations XM1113 and XM1115. Shells of new types should ensure the growth of the combat qualities of promising guns in all anticipated conditions.

The XM1113 is a high-explosive explosive-explosive ordnance equipped with the Precision Guidance Kit (PGK). The latter is a combined system with satellite navigation, aerodynamic rudders and a fuse. PGK is installed in the regular head shell socket. The projectile is proposed for use with a variable charge XM654.

Components of the new artillery complex, including XM1113 shell. Figure Defense-blog.com

The XM1115 shell is similar to the XM1113, but must have other controls and guidance. Its main difference lies in the ability to solve combat missions in the absence of GPS signals. It uses other navigation methods.

To date, the guided projectile XM1113 managed to go to the test and show high performance. During test firing, he ensured the defeat of the target at a distance of 72 km with acceptable accuracy. The refinement and improvement of XM1113 continues. The XM1115 tests will begin shortly. Over the next few years, it is planned to bring the firing range to 100 km.

Managed "Volcano"

BAE Systems and Leonardo are developing a whole family of artillery shells of various calibers Vulcano, which will include ammunition for guns and howitzers of various types. A universal platform is offered for creating conventional and guided shells with caliber from 76 to 155 mm. The largest examples of the family are intended for ground artillery.

Vulcano in the 155-mm version is made in the form of a sub-caliber ammunition with protruding rudders and stabilizers, the maximum diameter of which is 127 mm. The optimal aerodynamic appearance of the product allows to obtain high flight characteristics without the use of a gas generator or its own engine. An explosive charge and semi-finished striking elements in the form of tungsten rings of a special configuration are placed in the shell of the shell.

Two versions of the 155 mm Volcano projectile are offered. The first is designated as Ballistic Extended Range (BER) and is an unguided munition with a programmable fuse that has several modes of operation. When using standard M777 or M109 guns, the firing range of the Vulcano BER should be up to 40 km. The M777ER will provide a range of over 75 km.

Proposed appearance of the shell BAE / Leonardo Vulcano. Figure BAE Systems / baesystems.com

The second variant of the projectile is called Guided Long Range (GLR). It has inertial and satellite navigation, as well as a set of steering wheels for control. In the future, it is planned to create a semi-active laser homing head, providing guidance on the downward part of the trajectory. A guided GLR released from standard howitzers will be able to fly on 60 km. For guns of the ERCA family, the range will exceed 100 km.

Currently, BAE / Leonardo Vulcano shells are being tested and confirm the declared characteristics. There are some difficulties, but the developers are optimistic. In the foreseeable future, shells of the new family can find application in the armies of the United States and other countries. 155-mm ammunition is intended for land howitzers, 76- and 127-mm products - for ship’s guns.

In-line concept

Norwegian company Nammo participates in international projects of artillery ammunition, and also develops its own ideas. Last year, she first showed a prototype of a promising 155-mm long-range ammunition. Due to a fundamentally new solution, it is planned to obtain a firing range of more than 100 km with a reduced dependence on the capabilities of the gun.

The concept from Nammo provides for equipping a direct-flow air-jet engine with a frontal air intake. Also, the product must receive navigation aids and steering system. In the case with a caliber of 155 mm, it was possible to place control electronics, a warhead and a reserve of solid fuel for flying at a distance of at least 100 km.

Layout promising projectile with ramjet. Photo by Nammo AS / nammo.com

At the time of the first demonstration of the layout, a full-fledged shell was being designed. His tests were planned for 2019-2020. As far as we know, tests have not yet begun. The proposed look looks interesting and promising, but the ammunition needs to be developed and refined. What will be the results of the Nammo project is unknown.

Achievements and plans

Foreign countries, primarily the United States, show great interest in promising land artillery systems with increased firing range. This interest has already led to the launch of a number of promising projects that have managed to produce certain results. Some of the promising products came to the test, while others will go to the landfill in the very near future.

At the moment, within the framework of ERCA, XM1113 / 1115 programs, etc. managed to get a firing range of more than 70 km with sufficient accuracy of hits. Due to the development of existing projects and the introduction of new products, the range of 155-mm systems is supposed to be increased to 90-100 km. This will provide the artillery of the United States and other countries with well-known advantages over a potential enemy.

The views of the foreign military on long-range artillery are curious. Guns and precision shells of this kind are not considered as a means for delivering strikes against area targets. On the contrary, it is proposed to use single shells for the exact destruction of specific objects. This should reduce ammunition consumption and cheapen the blow, as well as reduce collateral damage. How useful this approach will be is unknown, but so far it looks very interesting.

In recent years, a number of organizations from the United States and other countries have found fundamental solutions for the task of increasing the range and accuracy of barrel artillery firing. However, the work does not stop there. In recent projects, it was possible to double the shot range in comparison with serial models, and now designers are striving to triple this parameter. A new breakthrough is planned in artillery.

Comments

[riwas]

Just increasing the length of the barrel will not give a greater effect. A special gunpowder is also needed, the description of which is given in my article published on the Internet on February 14, 2005.
http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren1/anti_t_b.htm

Quote:
"A special gunpowder is used, which gives the same characteristics as an electrothermal weapon. For this, part of the powder or part of the surface of the powder is covered with temporary armor, with a special varnish, which, although it burns, does not give an increase in pressure, does not affect the combustion of the powder and the surface of the channel. This flattens the pressure curve. Something similar to tapered barrels. The energy of the projectile can be doubled. "

Six years later, in the article "Foreign modular propelling charges" of the journal "Foreign Review" N1 for 2011, a description is given of the same type, but already of the American gunpowder HYBRID Gun Propellant, part of the surface of which is also covered with a retarding layer.

A powerful muzzle device is needed to compensate for recoil and flash of a shot (a large volume of powder gases).

[Chaldon48]

Do you have to make the trunks of these guns from molybdenum alloys and use an enhanced cooling system?

[riwas]

No. In fact of the matter. The "hump" of the pressure graph is smoothed out, due to the fact that not all of the gunpowder burns (due to the booking), and after it the pressure does not drop so quickly, since by this time the booking burns out and all the gunpowder begins to burn, that is, the schedule is leveled.

[Chaldon48]

That is, combustion, an increase in temperature and pressure occurs more smoothly. My father is a long-distance artilleryman, went through the entire Second World War from beginning to end, he said that gunpowder, which looked like macoron, sort of long tubes, was used in long-range artillery. Are they using something like that now? I have not delved into the subtleties of this topic for a long time.

[Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich]

In shells, and now, gunpowder is used in a very different form .. on self-propelled guns like pasta now (152mm) in cartridges it is like granules of different colors and sizes in tank, in my opinion also pasta in the expelling charges of BMP shells 1 gunpowder like plates that slowly burn out in air .

[BARKAS]

Guided RS for barrel rtillery is probably the most effective way to increase the range and accuracy of shooting. BUT what is the price of such ammunition, are such expenses justified for the sake of increasing the range by 30 km? It may be better to use for this a traditional MLRS with a new control system.

[Denimax]

Why not for the MLRS to take the rocket on the layout of the Shell. Her data is quite decent: speed 1300 m / s, charge weight 5,5 kg. I think if you let it go along the optimal path, then km. 70 will fly away.

[Chaldon48]

Here the matter is the price of a missile is always more expensive and more difficult to manufacture, if it weren’t for this, the barrel artillery would have been sent for scrap long ago because of the high cost.

[Denimax]

In this case, a missile requires only more material and a powder charge, which is why its dimensions are somewhat larger. But sparing loads on the electronics, and you must admit that the launch tube is much simpler and lighter than a gun with all the consequences.

[Chaldon48]

Yes, but the nozzle of rockets is made of high quality graphite, of which only a few countries own the manufacturing process. For example, I don’t know how it is now, because of sanctions I had to buy it for my solid fuel rockets semi-legally, then the powder charge of the engine uses ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizing agent, which is also a rather difficult substance. By the way, in the Russian Federation and the United States there is one factory for the whole country.

[Chaldon48]

Iran procured semi-legally, the word disappeared at the time of the transfer.

[Kars]

The advantage of barrel artillery is its relative cheapness. Why try to make gold shells.

[Professor]

Quote: Kars

The advantage of barrel artillery is its relative cheapness. Why try to make gold shells.

There has long been no "relative cheapness". The total cost of one missile shot is lower than that of cannon artillery.

[garri-lin]

This is the data on how many shells / missiles are fired? The more shot the statistics are more favorable to the barrel artillery

[Professor]

Quote: garri-lin

This is the data on how many shells / missiles are fired? The more shot the statistics are more favorable to the barrel artillery

This is the data on the use of barrel artillery in the last 3 decades.

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

This is the data on how many shells / missiles are fired? The more shot the statistics are more favorable to the barrel artillery

This is a problem of education.
The low level of training of artillery forces forces to hit all targets as single point targets. And in this case, UAS is really more profitable.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Kars

Why try to make gold shells.

So manufacturers are much more profitable.
And a deeply corrupt American state will always give them money.

And here you should not look for rationalism. Money is more important.

[3danimal]

For greater efficiency. When with the same ammunition, you can hit more targets in a limited amount of time. Which further may no longer be available.
And an active-rocket shell is always cheaper than a rocket comparable in speed, range, and accuracy.

[Lopatov]

Quote: 3danimal

For greater efficiency. When with the same ammunition, you can hit more targets in a limited amount of time. Which further may no longer be available.

Only if absolutely all your goals are at a great distance from each other and should be hit as single. What doesn’t happen in reality.
In other cases, it’s money down the drain

[3danimal]

A distance of 100-500 m will suit you?
Greater accuracy gives greater flexibility. And no one forbids using, when necessary, conventional shells.

[Lopatov]

Quote: 3danimal

A distance of 100-500 m will suit you?

Even in conflicts of low intensity, such a density can only be at the final stage, the stage of "stabilization". When the territory is taken under control and you have to react to small tweaks of small groups.
Sharpening your own aircraft under such conditions is a direct way to feed a foreign army.

Quote: 3danimal

Greater accuracy gives greater flexibility.

Are you sure that our army needs flexibility in exchange for efficiency? Flexibility is a Swiss knife. You want, they drank, you want to wrap screws. And efficiency is a hacksaw with a screwdriver.
And we don’t have that much money to be flexible.

[3danimal]

I’m sure we need a “sniper rifle” and a “machine gun”.

[Lopatov]

Quote: 3danimal

I’m sure we need a “sniper rifle” and a “machine gun”.

Definitely.
But I don’t have confidence that I need a sniper rifle, which can perform machine gun tasks when needed.

[3danimal]

A machine gun is ordinary, good old, HE shells. Loaded them - "machine gun". Charged - "smart" - sniper.

[Lopatov]

Yeah. Replace the "sniper" ones in the SVD with regular ones and voila, you already have a machine gun ...

[Amurets]

In recent years, a number of organizations from the United States and other countries have found fundamental solutions for the task of increasing the range and accuracy of shooting artillery. However, the work does not stop there.

The author, but where is the mention of the GC-45 howitzer gun? In 1975, the head of the Canadian company Space Research Corporation, J. Bull, developed the 155-mm gun howitzer GC45, the first two copies of which were released two years later in Canada. Subsequently, the Belgian company PRB, a well-known ammunition manufacturer, and the Canadian Space Research Corporation jointly organized a company called SRC International, headquartered in Brussels. Later, the company was relocated to Belgium, where the gun was refined. In total, 12 guns were ordered by the Thai army along with a kit for finalizing the standard 155-mm M114 howitzer of American production. The issue was handled by the Austrian company Fest Alpine (today - NORICUM).
In the 90s, licensed production of the GHN-45 / APU under an Austrian license was launched in China and Finland. In China, Norinco produces towed howitzers PLL01 and self-propelled howitzers PLZ-45 for the Chinese army. Based on this howitzer, the company also produces 203,2 mm guns with a barrel length of 45 calibers, firing range of active rockets of the ERFB-BB-HB type up to 50 km In Finland, Vammas produces on its base guns with a long barrel of 39 and 52 calibres, and also offers the use of 122, 130 and 152 mm caliber in this artillery system. Already under a Finnish license in Egypt, the production of a modification of this howitzer with a barrel of 45 caliber length, providing a range of up to 42 km and a rate of fire up to 10 rounds per minute, as well as its modification with a barrel of 52 caliber, began. PLL01 https://prom1.livejournal.com/235095.html

[Amateur]

The main difference between the M777ER howitzer is a new barrel of increased length. In the basic configuration, its length is 39 calibers, after modernization - 55.

Are there really howitzers with a barrel length of 55 calibers?

Howitzer (German: Haubitze, from Czech houfnice originally - a tool for throwing stones) - a relatively short-barrel type (barrel length 22 ÷ 30 calibres)

With a barrel length of less than 40 calibers, the gun is classified as a gun-howitzer (howitzer-gun); with a larger one, like a cannon.

Little lies are very suspicious (Müller, SS Gruppenführer)

[igordok]

O tempora! O mores! (About times! About morals)
I am also surprised at the length of the barrel of modern howitzers. It used to be divided artillery along the length of the barrel into guns, howitzers and mortars. Now measured by the function and method of delivery of ammunition, mounted, rather than a direct shot. .

[Lopatov]

Quote: igordok

Now measured by the function and method of delivery of ammunition, mounted, rather than a direct shot. .

Now they are looking at affordable trajectories.

Although there is clearly a decrease in efficiency.

[U-58]

Since I was associated with artillery only with emblems in buttonholes, I was always interested in learning about accuracy and general "integrity" when shooting at maximum range

[Simargl]

Quote: U-58

I was always interested in learning about the accuracy and general "integrity" when shooting at maximum range

Do you think they will shoot at squares with a bunch of shells? Rather, one correctable bang.
Ordinary shells at such a distance can get into the village. That's why the Paris gun was called: it got to Paris. True, with more than 100 km.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: U-58

Since I was associated with artillery only with emblems in buttonholes, I was always interested in learning about accuracy and general "integrity" when shooting at maximum range

I remembered Bondarev's "Hot Snow":

“Comrade General,” the commander of the artillery spoke up, trying with dignity to know a man who knows his job, to answer Bessonov, “the bridge is always under our fire, but the Germans are rebuilding it. Please look at the crossing. Our fifty-two millimeter firing. And I hope ...

But Bessonov interrupted him:

“If the tanks are advancing, Colonel, then the bridge is completely intact.” I believe what I see. He poked his wand in the direction of the smoke-filled bridge. - The law of dispersion? Low chance of hitting? Why do the Germans have the law of dispersion ....

... “Here comes the thought, Colonel,” he spoke, barely pursing his lips so that they would not be heard nearby, “for some reason the Germans do not interfere with the laws of dispersion rather accurately covering the height.” Don't you think that if the Germans were sitting on this enpe, and our tanks would go down there, they would somehow destroy the bridge? Have you thought about this?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Here comes the thought, Colonel, ”he said, barely pursing his lips so as not to be heard nearby,“ for some reason, the Germans do not interfere with the laws of dispersion rather accurately covering the height. ” Don't you think that if the Germans were sitting on this enpe, and our tanks would go down there, they would somehow destroy the bridge? Have you thought about this?

Anti-Soviet in its purest form.
If you know what it is about ...

[Narak-zempo]

Since when has Hot Snow been anti-Soviet?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Since when has Hot Snow been anti-Soviet?

It is enough to answer the question why "the laws of dispersion do not interfere with the Germans for some reason." Here and poor-quality manufacture of barrels, and their execution, and poor-quality manufacture of shells and charges, and so on, so on, so on.

That is, Bessonov’s words contain harsh and unpleasant criticism of the Soviet Union and the socialist system.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Spade

That is, Bessonov’s words contain harsh and unflattering criticism of the Soviet Union and the socialist system

Which ensured in a short time (in contrast to the autocratic system 28 years earlier) the creation of an industry that almost completely covered the needs of the army in most types of weapons needed for the war with Germany, and even in artillery and rifle division - by 100%. They did without the "shell hunger" and feverish purchases of rifles around the planet. And he provided this industry with a sufficient number of sufficiently qualified personnel, having received at the entrance a peasant country with the most illiterate population in Europe. Yes, the key word here is "sufficient", and sometimes at the very limit. Therefore, there were a lot of jambs. But ask yourself which system would do better?
The question of the quality of artillery and any other equipment ultimately comes down to the quality of people’s work - from the worker at the machine tool to the adoption of management decisions at the very top. And it, this quality, depends on the general level of culture, which is impossible to raise with a jerk. And so they did almost a miracle.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Which ensured in a short time (unlike the autocratic system 28 years before) the creation of industry, which almost completely covered the army’s needs for most types of weapons needed for the war with Germany, and even 100% in artillery and rifle shooting.

The quote you cited denies this.
And in general, everything was not as radiant as they say.

Quote: Narak-zempo

They did without the "shell hunger" and feverish purchases of rifles around the planet.

Not without cost.
In 1941-42, the USSR not only lost most of its ammunition stocks, but also most of the powder factories. Therefore, they bought feverishly "all over the planet". and received under Lend-Lease. And for some things like RDX, they were critically dependent on external supplies until the very end of the war. And this, by the way, is practically all small-caliber artillery.

So it goes. Reality is worse than popular prints.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Spade

The quote you cited denies this

Really? The bridge in the book was under constant bombardment by a 6-inch battery, which, yes, didn’t shoot very well, so the Germans managed to restore it. In some 1916, a 6-inch battery was unheard of luxury at a rate of two shells per gun per day. So there were guns and shells, moreover, of our own production. And at the end of the war they could create densities of 300+ barrels per kilometer.

Quote: Spade

Not without cost.
The USSR in 1941-42 not only lost most of its ammunition stocks, but also most of its powder mills

France, considered the strongest power on the continent, capitulated like that. Does this prove the flaws of capitalism?

Quote: Spade

And for some things like RDX, they were critically dependent on external supplies until the very end of the war

Phenol, toluene and other chemicals needed in the production of explosives in the First World War, because, sitting in huge coal pools and oil reserves, they did not establish a chemical industry. As well as the production of engines (aircraft primarily), machine guns, etc.

Quote: Spade

Therefore, they bought feverishly "all over the planet"

Rifles?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Is it?

Quote: Narak-zempo

Here comes the thought, Colonel, ”he spoke, barely parting his lips so that they would not hear nearby,“ for some reason the Germans dispersion laws do not interfere quite accurately cover the height. N.

Quote: Narak-zempo

France, considered the strongest power on the continent, capitulated like that. Does this prove the flaws of capitalism?

The surrender of France is not something that can deny the fact of ammunition problems during the Great Patriotic War.

Quote: Narak-zempo

Phenol, toluene and other chemicals needed in the production of explosives in the First World War,

And this also does not refute the fact that the purchases and deliveries of Lend-Lease gunpowders, explosives and components for their production were very large.
Evaluate the fact itself - before World War I they simply did not imagine that the expense would be so great. And before the Great Patriotic War they knew. But for some reason, they again stepped on a rake.

[Narak-zempo]

German artillery was qualitatively higher than the Soviet, as was the German army as a whole. Have I denied it somewhere?
And yet, the USSR, fighting about the same alignment of allies and opponents as the Russian Empire, was sufficiently developed to win this war, unlike. And in terms of production, and in terms of organization.
And behind the armies are the economies, the population of the warring countries. The quality of which is determined by the entire previous historical trajectory. The Bolsheviks came to power as a result of the internal collapse of the not-so-advanced country. And less than 20 years after the start of economic recovery, they were forced to fight one of the most industrialized countries in the world, and they won this war.
Now about the rake.
The first five-year plan began 13 years before the war. The fact that it was a failure is not surprising, because in addition to the most acute shortage of everything in the world, and most importantly, personnel, the crisis of 1929 hit. Read more, for example, Alexander Shubin. In the second, it was possible to create a completely self-sufficient production complex on a national scale and equip the army with fully domestic weapons. It is a fact. The third, as you know, did not have time to finish.
The fact that industrialization proceeded primarily in the more developed European part, where there were more favorable prerequisites for it, is quite natural. Although the vulnerability of these enterprises was recognized by management, and work in this direction was carried out. The success of the evacuation of the forty-first is precisely due to the fact that many enterprises moved to sites under construction in the rear of the backups.
Nobody could have imagined the scale of the forty-first catastrophe - again, this is for the quality of personnel. The rank of general will not make the Russian warrant officer of the First World War equal to the German colonel of the First World War, who ended up in the same rank. And with the pre-war growth of the army, even such "ensigns" were not enough. Although, in fairness, only the Germans were able to see the nature of the future war in detail, which was the prerequisite for their initial victories, and no one really could compete with them.
But back to the main thing. From all this, the flaws or, on the contrary, the advantages of socialism (in its Soviet implementation) are derived? And if, in your opinion, shortcomings, moreover fatal, offer your development option. Say, from 01.01.1917/XNUMX/XNUMX.

[3danimal]

Let us not forget the significantly higher expenditure of personnel (4-5 times, according to the latest data) in the Soviet army. This is the price of a lower level of training and equipment quality.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: 3danimal

Let us not forget the significantly higher expenditure of personnel (4-5 times, according to the latest data) in the Soviet army. This is the price of a lower level of training and equipment quality.

Do not deny.
The question is: was it possible to achieve a significantly higher quality of equipment and training of people (from a soldier to a Commander-in-Chief), if after the catastrophe of 1917, to which it was caused by the accumulated internal contradictions, a different, not "Soviet" or "socialist "build?
Yes, and in the First World War with the "expense of personnel" was sad. Precisely because of the artillery, primarily heavy. In which the Germans and Austrians were many times superior to the Russian army.

[3danimal]

I think yes. There could have been a republic that did not set as its goal the “victory of the world revolution”, and did not spend enormous amounts of money on subversive work in non-communist countries.
Dogmatists have built a very inefficient economy. And pledged with Hitler, pursuing the aforementioned goals. And then they arranged a long-term senseless confrontation with developed countries.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: 3danimal

There could be a republic that did not set itself the goal of “victory of the world revolution”

In a vacuum - maybe it could be. But, given the realities of the interwar period, it is doubtful. Look at the map of Europe - almost everywhere there were authoritarian regimes, except, perhaps, Czechoslovakia.
Most of the white leaders were clearly authoritarian, sometimes with dictatorial habits. After all, the Bolsheviks simply dispersed the Constituent Assembly, but then Kolchak killed most of KomUch without trial.

[3danimal]

I'm talking about the costs of expansion due to dogma. About the low efficiency of the economy., Which almost inevitably should have ended in ruin.
In the Stalin years, it was compensated for (low efficiency) by slave labor, until the death of most prisoners. Under Brezhnev - the construction and use of the "pipe". Then oil fell three times, expenses remained high (even more - they entered the arms race with a richer side). But it was no longer possible to return to slave labor and terror.

[Narak-zempo]

I can not argue with you about the Soviet economy, because not an economist, but a biologist by education.
But in my personal conviction, a decent part of the evidence of its inefficiency is propaganda in nature and goes back to perestroika when there was a deliberate defamation of everything connected with the history of the USSR.
I can address you to the only specialist in Soviet economics and planning known to me - Alexei Safronov: https://vk.com/id32200

[3danimal]

Did you find the Union? Mismanagement, deficits due to total state plan. Even in the films of the 70s (“Moscow to tears ..”), it is clear that the Moscow sales department has a very poor assortment.
All because of following dogmas prohibiting private production and trade. Remember: in the 90s, sellers were recruited online with the prerequisite: "without experience in Soviet trade." Without competition, the poor quality of services and goods.

[Narak-zempo]

I did not find the Union consciously.
And, I think, few people here consciously found the Khrushchev Union, not to mention the Stalinist one. And it is incorrect to extrapolate the general collapse of the epoch of the decline of "developed socialism" for the entire period of the existence of the USSR. Although consumer goods have been tight at all times, I agree here.
As for competition, this state is unstable, and ultimately leads to mono- or oligopoly, and then the consumer finds himself in a situation of "eat what they give."
Tell me, where in my open and free market world can I buy myself an advanced push-button smartphone - not an apple tree or a bucket - to replace my Nokia E52?

[3danimal]

You have a third option - Windows Phone)
I’ve been sitting with an apple for a year and a half and all the rules.
Give an example of “eat what they give” in developed countries. There is always a choice of at least 2-3 (usually dozens) options.

[strannik1985]

But the causes of shell hunger are different, and not only with us. The British in 1940-1942 experienced the same problems for the same reasons.

[Lopatov]

Quote: strannik1985

The British in 1940-1942 experienced the same problems for the same reasons.

They had very different reasons.
The main reason was, by and large, the foolishness. "We are the Metropolis, we live on imported goods." As it turned out, even a partial blockade greatly complicates life.

Although, on the other hand, the willingness to fight with only little blood on foreign territory was also foolishness. After all, mobzapsy and production facilities were placed specifically for this concept.

[strannik1985]

Attempts to establish a naval blockade were only later, they lost pre-war stocks of weapons in May-June 1940 during the retreat and evacuation from the continent. Nothing fundamentally different from the SC in 1941 (2/3 of the availability of weapons by 22.06.1941/XNUMX/XNUMX was lost).

You are confusing official propaganda and war preparations. Pay attention to the book by Melia A.A. "Mobilization preparation of the national economy of the USSR". For example, Voroshilov in 1936 proclaimed the aforementioned slogan, and in 1937 approved another plan for the evacuation from areas that could be occupied by the enemy and the next norms of losses for a year of war.

[Lopatov]

Quote: strannik1985

they lost pre-war stocks of weapons in May-June 1940 during the retreat and evacuation from the continent.

I apologize, but they could not lose the ammunition production. And all their problems were connected with a partial blockade.

Quote: strannik1985

You are confusing official propaganda and preparation for war.

In this case, it’s not stupidity, but betrayal. Choose for yourself.

[strannik1985]

I apologize, but they could not lose the ammunition production. And all their problems were connected with a partial blockade.

It's not a blockade, the British pre-war strategy was built on an ally with a strong ground army, France, they lost it for exactly the same reason as the armament of their land army. After June 1940, the question arose not only and not how many supplies of raw materials, but finished weapons, military equipment, etc.

In this case, it’s not stupidity, but betrayal. Choose for yourself.

It doesn’t make sense, otherwise you will have to blame Stalin (for not attacking Germany until June 22) and military figures who moved military science in the USSR, England, France and the USA (because they lagged behind in the organization and use of armored forces )

[storm]

And this industry provided a sufficient number of sufficiently qualified personnel, having received at the entrance a peasant country with the most illiterate population in Europe

Tsarist Russia in 1913 was on the 4th place on the runway and took first place in terms of economic growth in the world!
If not for the 1st world and Bolshevik coup of the 17th, then by 30g Russia should have overtaken Germany and Britain and closely overtaken the United States.

You can also compare how higher education has developed in general and technical in particular, in Russia and Germany. In 1895 there were 38,3 thousand students in Germany, and in 1911 there were 71,5 thousand students. Over 16 years, the number of students has grown by 87%.

According to reports of the Ministry of Education, in Russia in 1897/98, 31,4 thousand students studied, and in 1913/14, 123,5 thousand students - an increase of 16% over 293 years by 4%, almost XNUMX times.

So much for the literate bastard Russia!

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: assault

Tsarist Russia was in 1913th place on the runway in 4

On the runways?

[U-58]

On 01.01.17/XNUMX/XNUMX, the victory over Germany was more than real.
As a result, the Republic of Ingushetia would acquire all of Poland, the Carpathians and Transcarpathia.
But that’s all.
Then there would come an era of tranquility, rest on our laurels.
But the social structure of the country lagged behind the requirements of the time, in stark contrast to the order in Europe.
The Russian peasant still walked in rags and broke his hat in front of the master.
By all standards, the patriarchal capitalism of Russia was losing to the democratic capitalism of Europe.
It required social transformations, democratization, the elimination of total illiteracy, especially in the countryside.
And if not for the three revolutions of 905 and 917, Russia would hardly have become a powerful industrial or at least an agrarian power in 25 years.
Change was ripe and revolution was inevitable.
The Bolsheviks-Communists took the true main vector of development of a liberated society.
Well, the unsuccessful details can no longer be redone ..

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: U-58

On 01.01.17/XNUMX/XNUMX, the victory over Germany was more than real.

Don't you think that all your subsequent text contradicts this line?

[U-58]

Not at all.
By and large, the victory over Germany at that time ALREADY HAPPENED.
True, it was forged by England and France.
The current positional struggle on the Russian-German front was sluggish at the beginning of the 17th year.
In principle, one could stupidly wait for the surrender of the Germans and claim their rights on the territory.
My idea was that a victory over Germany would not have brought Russia any dividends developing it.
By the way, the idea of ​​a possible victory over the Germans is not my own.
Many different alternative historians and military experts wrote about this at different times.

[3danimal]

I recall the “philosophical ship” and, in general, the emigration of a huge number of specialists. Which, in particular, have already developed the industry of their countries of refuge. The same Sikorsky.

[Narak-zempo]

Do you know who exactly was sent on the notorious "philosophical steamer", and what kind of contribution to the industry and technology of foreign countries these figures made?
Read this stuff: https://scepsis.net/library/id_2593.html
Yes, techies and scientists also lost a lot. The same Zvorykin, Sikorsky, Dolivo-Dobrovolsky. But, on the other hand, hundreds of specialists from abroad came to raise the industry, who were forced to do so by the Great Depression. And besides, dozens and hundreds of specialists left, because in RI access to education was limited. Having made education universal, the Bolsheviks paved the way for dozens and hundreds of thousands of future scientific and technological revolution.

[3danimal]

Compare the number of students in the first 30 years of the 20th century by year. Restored only in the 30th

[ty60]

The hands of not qualified people. Including teenage schoolchildren. In no country in the world there is such a motivation against the aggressor. Whoever comes to us with a sword, this sword in .... and put it in!

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: ty60

The hands of not qualified people. Including teenage schoolchildren. In no country in the world there is such a motivation against the aggressor. Whoever comes to us with a sword, this sword in .... and put it in!

To be honest, it's hard to believe that "we can repeat". There are no those people - masses of recent peasants and peasant children, and even their motivation is difficult for us now to imagine. This resource could only be used once. Even if the Great Patriotic War did not happen, industrialization radically changed society. T.N. demographic transition.

[Lopatov]

Quote: U-58

Since I was associated with artillery only with emblems in buttonholes, I was always interested in learning about accuracy and general "integrity" when shooting at maximum range

Precision is shitty.

In general, the problem of firing range for barrel artillery is far-fetched. Tactically, there is no need for such range.

[Mityay65]

Lopatov:
In tactical terms, there is no need for such range

Then maybe it should reduce the range?
Maybe now the range is overabundant in tactical terms?
And it’s worth discussing what advantages this will add to our artillery?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Mityai65

Then maybe it should reduce the range?
Maybe now the range is overabundant in tactical terms?

Definitely. Refusing ARS. Active rockets. At least

Quote: Mityai65

And it’s worth discussing what advantages this will add to our artillery?

Everyone will fulfill their functions. Barreled artillery will not try to portray itself as a faint likeness of long-range MLRS and tactical missiles.
In addition, it is necessary to expand the range of tact. missiles. Otherwise, the Defense Ministry with its "Iskander is our everything" does not contribute to the adequacy in this area. The topic of the ground "Hermes" has completely died out, an analogue of the "Tochka" in terms of range and warhead has not appeared ...

[Mityay65]

Thanks for the qualified answer.

[Lopatov]

You see, what is the ficus-picus here .. The "price" of the range is quite high. And not only in money. This is weight, this is accuracy, this is efficiency. And at the same time, at long ranges, there are simply no targets and fire missions that would require precisely barrel artillery.

That is, it is equivalent to hit it with barrel artillery or MLRS. Or barrel artillery through guided ammunition or tact. rocket. Depends on the size of the target and the accuracy of determining its coordinates.
In turn, use long-range MLRS and tact. missiles for firing at "close" and "medium" targets, which are comfortable for cannon artillery, is inexpedient. So why bother trying to get into someone else's sandbox?

Barrel artillery is needed for complex fire missions. When there is another "dimension" - time. During which the task should be performed. And no MLRS and tact. rockets cannot do this. And it is these functions that need to be optimized, and not go into long distances.

[chenia]

[quote = Shovels] Definitely.

Up to 35 km. I agree with conventional PSUs (the task of the division day is up to 30 km). Range is maneuver by fire.

[quote = Shovels] expand the range of tact. rockets. [/ quote]

It is better to have a separate mixed division Hurricane (2 battalions) in the division. + Tornado (1 battalion), or Tornado, than the missile division

The special warhead is significant there and there, but cluster or monoblock - 4 Smerch shells are preferable to 1 Point-u. Only pull up range

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

Up to 35 km. I agree with conventional PSUs (the task of the division day is up to 30 km). Range is maneuver by fire.

It is the Americans' problem of maneuvering fire. With their "maximum one 155mm battery per battalion." Or even one per brigade.
And in our country, battalions of at least the first echelon can be provided with "personal" 152-mm barrel divisions. Why do we need to repeat after them? They have their own cockroaches. Large artillery

Quote: chenia

It is better to have a separate mixed division Hurricane (2 battalions) in the division. + Tornado (1 battalion), or Tornado, than the missile division

The MLRS is by no means a substitute for tact. rockets. And here again, it is not worth repeating after the Americans, MLRS should not be PU for tact. missiles, reactive divisions should not use high-precision ammunition.

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

It is the Americans' problem of maneuvering fire. With their "maximum one 155mm battery per battalion."

They have a bias towards aviation, but now their batteries are eight-equipment.

Quote: Spade

battalions of at least the first echelon can be provided with "personal" 152-mm barrel battalions.

Well, you naturally know that the term massaging forces and means outlived itself. Well, it’s not possible to covertly hold this event.
Therefore,concentration of forces and means.
And this means you have to use the artillery of neighboring formations concentrating it in the offensive area (which means you need range).
A smaller part of the artillery of the advancing formation and the artillery assigned to them by the RGK will still be able to crawl (relatively stealthily) into the areas of the offensive zone, but remotely from the contact line (again, range is important). And the big one will be advanced during the fire cover of the extension along with the infantry. And then there would be time for art support.

But there’s still such a misfortune. And the enemy (and we, too) will have a fairly wide supply line (forward position) of up to 10 km. where there will be a minimum of forces and means, so that it will be necessary to hit mainly through this zone (again the range).

Therefore, a range of up to 35 km with conventional shells with acceptable dispersion is a necessity.

And the tendency is ON and change of OP. Planned movements further reduce the simultaneous use of artillery.

The solution is the use of nuclear weapons.
And without it, the concentration of artillery is the firing range.

precision munitions should not be used

Primarily. Yes. But in particular will be.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

They have a bias towards aviation, but now their batteries are eight-equipment.

Six-hardware

Well, for a "bias towards aviation" they have too powerful artillery fire control system.

Quote: chenia

Well, you naturally know that the term massing forces and means has become obsolete. Well, it’s not possible to covertly hold this event.

Come on, they’ll detect the infantry rather than the gunners. 8))))

Quote: chenia

But there’s still such a misfortune. And the enemy (and we, too) will have a fairly wide supply line (forward position) of up to 10 km. where there will be a minimum of forces and means, so that it will be necessary to hit mainly through this zone (again the range).

The shorter the range, the higher the accuracy. In addition, modern warning systems for artillery shelling at large firing ranges can not only minimize losses, but completely remove units from under attack. Flight is great ...

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

Six-hardware

About thirty years have passed, they should have already passed (I won’t argue, well, this is an ancient trend).

.

Quote: Spade

Throw it, soon the infantry will be spotted,

The infantry is 60–40 km from the contact line, and is already being advanced at the beginning of artillery preparation (now the term is the period of fire. Cover of extension). So that when they spotted already too late. And in my time I practiced the advance of artillery on the night before the offensive, to pre-prepared OPs (anchoring, engineering equipment of positions) and taking into account all the starting points for firing, well, here it’s clear to make amendments immediately before firing)

.

Quote: Spade

The shorter the range, the higher the accuracy.

And who is arguing? And the straight line is even more accurate, and the consumption is less.
I wrote the maximum range with acceptable dispersion.

Quote: Spade

not just minimize losses, but completely remove units from under attack.

40-50 sec. flight (well, at such a range) - it is still possible to warn, and when it starts to break, it is difficult to get out. And the trend, however, is a high rate of fire, increased power of the centuries and a larger caliber — the time of defeat is reduced. Well, accuracy too- (taking into account all amendments + technology for making a shot and a system).

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

40-50 sec. flight (well, at such a range)

The D-30 shell to the maximum range flies a minute. 35 km is about twice as long.
So get out of the blow will. If on technology. And if on foot, significantly minimize losses

In general, shooting at long ranges is a solid negative. High dispersion, huge errors, the impossibility not only of zeroing in, but also of correction during shooting to kill, the impossibility of "playing" the angle of incidence (for example, to receive ricochets)

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

The D-30 shell to the maximum range flies a minute. 35 km is about twice as long.

In such systems, the n / speed is one third higher up to 1000 m / s, and 152 mm (twice the mass) loses less of it. so that a maximum of just over a minute.

Quote: Spade

Generally long-range shooting is a solid negative

And here you are right. But here is a forced compromise, the fulfillment of the task above all else, the calculation of forces and means (taking into account the nature of the enemy’s defense) does not imply the amount of artillery that will make it possible to covertly prepare for the offensive.
Therefore, everything that has a pipe similar to the trunk of all neighbors will be attracted. And the range here is very necessary
And the excess (planned) artillery will be put forward when it makes no sense to hide the breakthrough section, together (well, maybe some divisions a little earlier), with the infantry moving to the line of attack.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

But here is a forced compromise

There is no "forced compromise" here left wishlist

Quote: chenia

Therefore, everything that has a pipe similar to the trunk of all neighbors will be attracted. And the range here is very necessary

What for? Near-zero efficiency ... a pure scare? At the same time to please the enemy in terms of the possibility of the destruction of our firing units. It's pointless.
Modern automated control systems will allow artillery to move along with the infantry and fire almost on the move. Plus MLRS, which are perfectly capable of providing full-fledged artillery training. On the contrary, they are close to shoot "not a fountain" because of dispersion in range. There is no need to use any of the neighbors' artillery. Especially. that they, too, will not mess around. Including by tying up enemy artillery with counter-battery warfare.

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

Plus MLRS, which are perfectly capable of providing full artillery training.

Early Defense MLRS? On open where did not go.

Quote: Spade

Modern automated control systems will allow artillery to advance with the infantry and fire almost on the move.

First you need to ensure the nomination (cover it), what?
The suppression of weapons capable of hitting our troops at the deployment lines will take away the lion's share of full-time artillery (though the senior commander must find funds there, and not necessarily artillery).
And we must also take the enemy infantry.
Do not remember the number of shells on the GA for the purpose of the aforementioned characteristics (GP-6-8 GA).
Division breakthrough section 2 km .. general front 5 km. our MSD is about 200 artillery barrels.
It will not be enough.
Moreover, it is dispersed along the front (20 km) and in depth. (Otherwise you cannot provide stealth).

Well?

Not if a couple of kilotons (tens), of course.
I'm not talking about the defeat to the full depth, including the operational area (well, there are other means).

You can’t understand again - an ordinary sector of the front, with full-time (well, maybe a slightly higher) artillery density, and suddenly you need to create superiority in this sector.
And How?

Quote: Spade

Including linking counter-battery combat artillery of the enemy.

You look at the front of the division, and if there is an advanced position. even with increased range, they’ll get the hell out of the enemy’s artillery (they can still reach the first position, and that’s at the limit). When distributing artillery by tasks, this is not even considered. These tasks are solved by its own regular artillery and (or) dedicated artillery of the RGK.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

Early Defense MLRS? On open where did not go.

And who's stopping? Warheads allow this

Quote: chenia

And we must also take the enemy infantry.

It will have to be "crushed" when the infantry reaches the enemy's PTS range. And by this time, all the cannon artillery moving out of the depths will already be "in action"

Quote: chenia

You look at the front of the division, and if there is an advanced position. even with increased range, they’ll get the hell out of the enemy’s artillery (they can still reach the first position, and that’s at the limit).

If the enemy is so inadequate that he draws the artillery as deep as possible, then on the contrary, it’s good for us.

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

And who's stopping? Warheads allow this

Dispersion, if the GP on the front was 200, and in the depth of 400 then yes, but it is a bastard, usually rotated in a different way. A headlong infantry will not impress (well, a mild laxative).

Quote: Spade

It will have to be "crushed" when the infantry reaches the enemy's PTS range

They crush it (leading edge) several times during the fire training (several HE), the last OH is already support (our infantry has reached the line of attack).

Quote: Spade

that draws artillery as deep as possible

Well, from 3 km onwards, and that’s all for the first position. And what if military security (which will be necessary)? And if the front line? (What should be).
Well, and how will the neighbors get the enemy artillery in the offensive area?

Lopatov, I do not propose artillery firing for 50 km, with the complication of BP. Although in special cases the system should be capable of this (there must be both correctable and controllable). But 35 km are achievable.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

Dispersion, if the GP on the front was 200, and in the depth of 400 then yes, but it is a bastard, usually rotated in a different way.

The detachable head part easily solves the problem. Well, or the Chinese version, with a drop-down air brake

Quote: chenia

A headlong infantry will not impress (well, a mild laxative).

Thermobaric warheads should impress greatly.

Quote: chenia

I crush it (cutting edge) several times during the fire preparation

It's not obligatory. Firing during artillery support, yes there.
And during the preparation deep in parallel, they are in the trenches or lie on their bottom.

Quote: chenia

Well, from 3 km onwards, and that’s all for the first position.

To hit targets at the maximum depth of battle formation, it is necessary to move the artillery as close to the line of contact.

[storm]

Near-zero efficiency ... a pure scare? At the same time to please the enemy in terms of the possibility of the destruction of our firing units. It's pointless.

A 777 howitzer battery can be delivered to positions by helicopters, including behind enemy lines.
Using several UAVs that provide laser illumination of targets and active-rocket projectiles with laser guidance, such a battery can literally "demolish" all strategic objects (airfields, warehouses, transport hubs, radars, air defense ...) located within a radius of 70 km.
while the effectiveness of the defeat will be almost close to 100%, one shot - one target.

[Lopatov]

Quote: assault

A 777 howitzer battery can be delivered to positions by helicopters, including behind enemy lines.

Can. And after a minute fire attack, the personnel will have to leave the battery.
Because only the guns themselves learned to move by helicopters, without full-time tractors.

Quote: assault

Using several UAVs providing laser illumination of targets and active-reactive projectiles with laser guidance

And who will let them fly. Soon, all kinds of slippers will learn how to effectively counteract them. Hide from them, jam, knock down.

Quote: assault

such a battery can literally "demolish" all strategic objects (airfields, warehouses, transport hubs, radar, air defense ...) located within a radius of 70 km.
while the effectiveness of the defeat will be almost close to 100%, one shot - one target.

It will be destroyed at the flight stage. Well, in the best, most favorable case, already on the fire, after the opening of fire. So it goes.

[garri-lin]

An analogue of the Point, although defective, can be obtained by installing the seeker on long-range missiles of the Smerch. Inexpensive and cheerful. At least remember, work out the concept. But for some reason they don't really think about a full-fledged analogue. And this is incomprehensible. Iskander is worthy of the title of strategic within Europe. We need a cheaper and more massive analogue of the Point. By the way, why are you against giving "high-precision" capabilities to missiles and MLRS?

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

By the way, why are you against giving "high-precision" capabilities to missiles and MLRS?

Features of tactics. The use of the WTO will greatly interfere with the use of firing units for salvo firing.

[garri-lin]

But if the car is outside the MLRS? Purely from a technical point of view? Or will the rocket be weak?

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

But if the car is outside the MLRS? Purely from a technical point of view? Or will the rocket be weak?

And what's the point?
Here, after all, point 2 appears. For the successful use of MLRS, one is necessary, for the application of URS, another is needed. Put equipment on one machine, and for that, and for another, in vain overpay. And a lot.

[garri-lin]

No no. You did not understand. It is OTRK. Without MLRS capabilities. Mauger even with fewer guides. And the rocket is a modernized version of the ordinary. Good head plus range add. The troops really do not have the opportunity on their own to hit a point target at a distance of 100-150 km. And then the spent PU, and a relatively inexpensive and massive missile. Get ersatz but workable.

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

And the rocket is a modernized version of the ordinary.

Unification of the engine and other things is normal.
But it should be other cars and regularly they should be in other units, otherwise nothing.

[storm]

Features of tactics. The use of the WTO will greatly interfere with the use of firing units for salvo firing.

What stupidity .....
Volley fire on areas is a necessary measure, caused by the low accuracy of rockets.
Nobody refuses volley fire using the WTO, only 12-40 rockets will fly not just in the direction of an area of ​​20-40 hectares, but each shell will have a clearly defined target.
After performing a volley, the installation will leave its position in a minute, and the RS will be aimed at the target by satellite, UAV or homing head.

[Lopatov]

Quote: assault

What stupidity .....

If you know absolutely nothing about the methods of combat employment of MLRS, then yes, it may look stupid

Quote: assault

Volley fire on areas is a necessary measure, caused by the low accuracy of rockets.

Here is an example. Pure dilettantism.
Volley firing at areas due to the fact that the targets are

For example, a motorized infantry battalion in the area of ​​concentration.
It’s not possible, of course, to engage in hyperonanism, knocking out every machine and every soldier over high-precision munitions above a field ditch. A very long time, very expensive, will require a lot of time and the distraction of so many officials and intelligence agencies and fire destruction. But it’s so modern and innovative.
And you can solve the problem in one gulp, spending a couple of minutes. But this is certainly "stupid", isn't it?

Quote: assault

Nobody refuses volley fire using the WTO, only 12-40 rockets will fly not just in the direction of an area of ​​20-40 hectares, but each shell will have a clearly defined target.

Yeah, like in the joke about the new Russian. Well, remember "... here you are a bad guy, you can buy the same ties around the corner ten times more expensive"
Indeed, if the effectiveness is the same, why not make the salvo much more expensive? It's so cool, innovative, and, aspirated, "Like Americans" (c)
However, the owners of defense industry enterprises agree entirely with such calculations. Why cheap, if expensive.

Quote: assault

After performing a volley, the installation will leave its position in a minute, and the RS will be aimed at the target by satellite, UAV or homing head.

Are you sure. that with a volley of unguided ammunition, the installation cannot leave the firing?

[Hunghuz]

Always interested in this topic.
Thank you!

[Operator]

A fig shell with an engine gun?

[Lad]

For different reasons. But there are some reasons. For example:
- Acceleration of the projectile in the barrel makes it possible to save on the mass of the engine and fuel.
- Such an engine (which is used there) is not able to accelerate itself. In order for him to gain traction, he must be accelerated to high speed. But it allows you to save on a compressor. The increased pressure necessary for the operation of the engine is achieved by braking the oncoming air flow. Therefore, such an engine is simpler and cheaper.
Well and so on. Each option has its pros and cons.

[Operator]

Why save on hairpins (mass of fuel + engine) when any rocket-propelled rocket engine is several times cheaper than any ramjet?

Moreover, rocket artillery possesses a killing property for barreled artillery: the time of a multiple launch rocket salvo of ammunition is 20 seconds, after which the multiple launch rocket launcher leaves the firing position, and self-propelled guns fire a similar number of shells in a few minutes - just the time for which self-propelled guns just cover missile counterattack according to the radar serif trajectory of the shells.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Lad

Acceleration of the projectile in the barrel makes it possible to save on the mass of the engine and fuel.

Will not work. Do not forget about the load experienced by the projectile when firing. Do not forget about the restrictions on weight and dimensions.
Launching a "projectile with an engine" is profoundly impractical.

[Sergey49]

And one hundred and twenty caliber abandoned for howitzers?

[Lopatov]

If we are talking about the Americans, they did not refuse. From 105 mm.

[bk0010]

Some kind of addiction. I remember the main advantage of the M777 was that it can be dragged by a helicopter (to the limit of a helicopter's capabilities). Further, the barrel is lengthened, the recoil devices strengthen and, accordingly, the mass grows. It turns out that the M777ER is no longer air transportable. Then why the heck is a goat button accordion for such grandmas (M777 was many times more expensive than M198)?
They put it into the shell of the ramjet. What is left for explosives? 40 kg - the engine - fuel - guidance (without it in any way: it hurts far, and the engine doesn’t increase accuracy) - the skeleton, which should allow all this shaky studio to survive the overload during the shot. We would have made a better rocket, which launches like the Arabs of the Jews - only pluses (no need to carry heavy guns, no restrictions on size and weight, no equipment resistance to colossal overloads required), only more fuel is needed and that, I think, not much more if you take into account the mass of gunpowder and liner.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bk0010

Some kind of addiction. I remember the main advantage of the M777 was that it can be dragged by a helicopter (to the limit of a helicopter's capabilities). Further, the barrel is lengthened, the recoil devices strengthen and, accordingly, the mass grows. It turns out that the M777ER is no longer air transportable. Then why the heck is a goat button accordion for such grandmas (M777 was many times more expensive than M198)?

Here it’s still interesting - how does this fit:

The main difference between the M777ER howitzer is the new extended barrel. In the basic configuration, its length is 39 calibers, after modernization - 55. The long barrel allows you to more fully use the energy of the powder gases, but at the same time increases the load on the implement units. M777ER had to develop an improved shutter, a new muzzle brake and reinforced recoil devices.

And this:

The carriage of the base howitzer remains unchanged.

What kind of recoil devices should be used to reduce the load when fired from a 55-caliber barrel to the load from a 39-caliber one? At the same time, do not forget that the "three axes" have practically no margin of safety - the howitzer was initially maximally lightened to ensure airmobility.
Just for example: a conventional towed howitzer of caliber 155 mm with a barrel of 39 calibers weighs 7-9 tons. And with a barrel of 55 calibers - already 11-13 tons.

[bar]

Due to a fundamentally new solution, it is planned to obtain a firing range of more than 100 km with a reduced dependence on the capabilities of the gun.

Why all this garden for crossing a rocket with a gun, if the gun is used mainly as a launcher for this rocket?

[samaravega]

One comment, but important. I ask you to read everyone who got involved in the discussion of this article. Unfortunately, like all the articles of the author (or a group of authors) under the signature "Ryabov Kirill" - there is a lot of text with a complete MISSING of the question. To fire a projectile at 40, 50 or even 150 km is a purely technical problem, which was dealt with even at the level of World War I technology. Anyone, not like an artilleryman, just an infantry soldier will say the PRINCIPAL thing: it's not the main thing to shoot, the main thing is to GET. But with this for long-range and, especially, super long-range ammunition, it is very difficult. We discard the usual shells at once. Let me explain with a simple example: for several decades, both the NATO armies and the Soviet (Russian) army have been armed with so-called active-reactive ammunition ("shells with a bottom gas generator" according to the USSR-Russia classification), which give a significant increase in the firing range without reworking the guns ... Their great range characteristics are given in all reference books and other literature devoted to artillery. But not in ONE conflict after their creation, i.e. the last quarter of the 1th and the beginning of the 20st century they were not used! A reasonable question: why? A simple answer: the usual laws of dispersion (mathematics and geometry of the 21th grade level of the school with the imposition of physics, geography and meteorology, and the imposition goes "minus" artillery, in the direction of increasing miss) lead even the commander of the battery to a simple conclusion: to get these shells on a range close to the limit is possible only in a large city, as the saying goes "to whom God will send." A primitive example: how to find out the direction and speed of the wind from a target located 5 km away? And over 50? Shooting them makes sense only when using SBCh.
Point 2: guided projectiles. Control is possible of two types: homing or guidance (correction) from external sources. Correction from external sources will have to be left "at the front", or for "especially important objects", because it requires the involvement of the people and funds of the central authority. Simpler: to guarantee hitting a target in the depths of the enemy's order, you will have to "deliver" a special forces soldier with means of "highlighting" the target to each such target. It's easy, simple and cheap. Even at a depth of 70 - 100 km, an aviation strike with the use of missile launchers looks preferable. Homing. Any GOS has a certain sector of view, which is limited and requires "delivery" of the GOS to the target area with rather strict limits on the amount of miss. Unlike SD, the projectile does not have a propulsion system, it cannot search for a target for a sufficiently long time, the high speed of the projectile further reduces the time available to search for a target. The seeker may not find a camouflaged target, as well as "leave" for interference (false targets) or be disoriented by EW means. Considering the cost of the seeker, it is preferable to install it on rockets than on shells, as well as use it on targets in depth from the air, having the ability to search for targets and filter out false targets by the carrier. Artillery is deprived of these capabilities by definition. The inertial navigation system does not tolerate the overloads that arise when firing a gun (BR and KR do not collide with such overloads). In addition, the Earth's rotation begins to affect at ranges of 50 km and above. BR corrects it due to astrocorrection (by stars), KR - due to the terrain (TERKOM). Correction due to NAVSTAR (erroneously referred to by the author as GPS - by the name of the simplified "civil" version) or GLONASS is possible only in a war with a technologically very backward enemy - all satellite navigation systems in a limited theater of operations are easily jammed (which he personally encountered in the Caucasus), from - why the General Staff of the SA was "cool" about the NAVSTAR system and did not recommend a similar one for the SA.
How many I read this "Ryabov Kirill" - the level of kindergarten, a lot of "La", no specifics and COMPLETE UNKNOWLEDGE of both the material and the laws of physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc.