In Russia, they are testing a new version of the Coalition-SV howitzer

The new version of the Coalition-SV self-propelled howitzer is tested on a different type of chassis. Its developer is the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik", which is part of the Uralvagonzavod concern of the Rostec state corporation.

This was reported to the Zvezda channel by the head of the department of Burevestnik JSC Vasily Nabatov.

Now, along with the Coalition-SV self-propelled howitzer, its wheeled version has also appeared. Now they are testing her small series. They are carried out at a training ground in the Nizhny Novgorod region.

Howitzer "Coalition-SV" has a gun caliber of 152 mm. As a chassis for new equipment use the KamAZ-6550 car.

The caterpillar version of this self-propelled howitzer entered the army only this year. But for the first time this technique was demonstrated at the Victory Parade in 2015.

According to Vasily Nabatov, wheeled Coalition-CB2 has several advantages over caterpillar equipment. It is more mobile and able to travel on ordinary public roads. In addition, a self-propelled howitzer based on the KamAZ car has a greater resource than the tracked version.

Highly appreciated the new technology commander in chief of the Ground Forces of the Russian Federation Oleg Salyukov. He believes that in its combat characteristics it is significantly superior to other domestic and foreign counterparts.

Comments

[Carnifexx]

mmm ... howitzer on a wheeled chassis

[Olgovich]

Quote: Carnifexx

mmm ... howitzer on a wheeled chassis

in the Coalition on a caterpillar chassis, the crew (mechanic, commander, gunner) is in the control compartment in an armored corps.

Here the driver is open to everyone, I wonder where the commander and gunner are

[Carnifexx]

Yes, and on wheels it’s faster and cheaper, you can quickly change position and have less chance of getting a return fire - the same land mines that the tracked platform can’t stand with a direct hit

[Alekseev]

Quote: Carnifexx

Yes, and on wheels faster and cheaper, you can change position faster

That is unlikely...
For you, apparently never changing your position being, as they used to say, "under the banners" of the Armed Forces, a simple question: why does heavy armored vehicles use tracked chassis everywhere?
Yes, because the conditions of complete off-road, i.e. in the field it is the tracked vehicle that will "change position" much faster. Although not cheaper, it is more passable and better protected.
But if you already use a wheeled platform for armament, then not a truck, albeit with increased cross-country ability, but a special wheeled chassis like BAZ or MZKT. As already done in the coast of artillery in the complex Coast. It has its own specifics, it requires rapid advance to the coast along the roads to a pre-prepared firing position, the use of a wheeled chassis is justified.

[Interlocutor]

This option is likely to be exported primarily.

[Vlad.by]

You forget about exporting to Africa and Asia. These guys are fighting along the roads and the gun on the truck is the best choice.
And for us in peacetime, the cargo option is far from superfluous.
So, let there be enough Coalitions, good and different

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Carnifexx

Yes, and on wheels faster and cheaper, you can change position faster

And to collapse on one side, as the armor does on the Kamaz chassis.
The chassis from the BAZ would be where to place.

[loki565]

There is alignment like any crane, if the crane does not turn over then this pepelats will not turn over. And so some depend on the drove and the tank manages to turn over.

[Ros 56]

Well, if gouging in the cabin, nothing will save him. Admire:

[Private-K]

Why immediately "dolt"? Recklessness? Yes. Just young guys wanting Speed ​​and having technology that can give Speed.

[Voyager]

Quote: Private-K

Just young guys who want Speed ​​and the availability of technology that can give Speed.

Though young, though not, one must think with one's head before doing something. Dashing can only be justified in an emergency.

[Ros 56]

Speed ​​is needed when catching fleas and when fleeing a lover’s husband, but you must handle the equipment, it’s not a crowbar.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Bad_gr

There is alignment like any crane, if the crane does not turn over then this pepelats will not turn over.

It is, of course. But how long does it take to prepare the crane for work? In order to push and lower the outriggers, and then collapse them, you need TIME, and for self-propelled guns this time is very limited. You need to have time to shoot back and shed until you have covered the position.

[loki565]

ARCHER takes 30 seconds to do this, during which time he makes a geo-referencing and aiming. It can also leave a firing point before its first shell reaches its target.

[venik]

Quote: Piramidon

It takes TIME to push and lower the outriggers, and then collapse them

==========
HOW MUCH? Minute, 30 seconds ???
And now - think THAT is faster and HOW big the boundary is:
- remove the outriggers while laying the implement in the stowed position (on a wheeled chassis)?
- put the gun in the stowed position (on the tracked chassis)?
- bring to the stowed position and attach the towed gun to the tractor?
Let me tell you: in the first two cases - the difference is SMALL (from the word ABSOLUTELY)!

[Jager]

Outriggers on some Japanese cranes extend and center automatically.

[Bobrick]

Yeah, about as fast as a truck crane and about as reliable.

Outrigger installation time is no less than the deployment time of a conventional towed gun.
While you check the density of the soil, assess the slope of the surface, install the supports, level the machine so that it does not collapse when fired, while in winter everything will be even worse.

The complex itself has a mass of about 28 tons (by analogy with the R-431AM), which, as it were, the weight of a loaded truck, on the roads, even the presence of 4 driving axles does not save at all.
Off-road speed is lower than that of a tracked chassis.

So what are the advantages, in addition to price and speed on public roads, or is it originally designed for a theater that does not quite correspond to the European part of Russia?

[Piramidon]

Quote: Olgovich

I wonder where the commander and gunner are located

But will there be no place in the tower for them?

[Andrey Ostroushko]

So the tower is not inhabited. This is the Coalition.

[Piramidon]

Quote: Andrey Ostroushko

So the tower is not inhabited. This is the Coalition.

I am not an artilleryman or a tanker, but simply asked "for general development" but the miners did not miss their chance.

[mark1]

Quote: Olgovich

I wonder where the commander and gunner are located

They follow each one in his own "Chevrolet" like the right guys.

[loki565]

Here the driver is open to everything

And the cabin is armored

[maykl8]

"Coalition-SV2" will go into service with separate artillery brigades. The distance from the front edge of the area of ​​the firing positions of these brigades is 8-10 km. At this distance, maneuverability is really more important than armor.

[Clone]

Quote: maykl8

from the front edge of the firing positions of these brigades - 8-10 km. At such a distance, maneuverability is really more important than armor.

"Coalition-SV" - the Russian 152-mm interspecific artillery complex ... army artillery with a maximum firing range of up to 80 km, maximum ammunition load up to 70 rounds ...
With the indicated firing range, the presence of this system at a distance of 8-10 km from the front edge? But regimental and divisional artillery should be brought to direct fire? I’m generally silent about the battalion unit ... they’ll probably bury it right away as needed.

[maykl8]

Battalion artillery - 500-1000m
PAG - regiment artillery group - 4-6 km
DAG - divisional artillery group - 6-8 km
AAG - Army Artillery Group - 8-10 km
If the army develops, there will be such a cramped situation that the shell will have nowhere to fall

PS. And about the range, do not flatter yourself. The greater the range, the higher the dispersion, and therefore the consumption of shells on the target. The railroad will have to be fired. Calculations will fall down and anyway the necessary expenditure on the Goal cannot be laid out.

[svp67]

Quote: Carnifexx

mmm ... howitzer on a wheeled chassis

Well, to be precise, the howitzer gun. And what is surprising then? In many armies of the world they are already in service.

Quote: Carnifexx

the same landmines that the tracked platform can’t stand with a direct hit

It seems to me that with a direct hit of a land mine from the wheeled version, little will be left at all ...

[Carnifexx]

I was not surprised.
Yes, with a direct hit of a landmine in a wheeled howitzer, it will be destroyed like a tracked one, and if you can’t see the difference, then why ...

[svp67]

Quote: Carnifexx

Yes, with a direct hit of a landmine in a wheeled howitzer, it will be destroyed like a tracked one, and if you can’t see the difference, then why ...

For the price of two tracked, you can build three wheeled. But at the price of operation, one self-propelled somewhere three or four wheeled

[Carnifexx]

Homer and I are about the same

[bk0010]

Quote: svp67

For the price of two tracked, you can build three wheeled.

Sorry, are you sure? The coalition is very expensive, it is unlikely that the use of the chassis from the T-90 can fundamentally affect its cost.

[svp67]

Quote: bk0010

The coalition is very expensive, it is unlikely that the use of the chassis from the T-90 can fundamentally affect its cost.

Maybe, how else can ... the price of a tracked armored base chassis is much more expensive than a wheeled

[loki565]

The coalition is very expensive, it is unlikely that the use of the chassis from the T-90 can fundamentally affect its cost.

The 8X8 Kakmaz chassis costs 6 Lyamas, and the T90 tank costs 120 Lyamas, even if you take one chassis it will cost 50 Lyamas, plus expensive operation.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: loki565

The coalition is very expensive, it is unlikely that the use of the chassis from the T-90 can fundamentally affect its cost.

The 8X8 Kakmaz chassis costs 6 Lyamas, and the T90 tank costs 120 Lyamas, even if you take one chassis it will cost 50 Lyamas, plus expensive operation.

How, at times, I am bothered by such comparisons of various "experts" that are sofa, television, and official. Well, damn you, you also went to school, you went through the same ordinary fractions, the same teacher hammered you "lead to a common denominator", why are you idiots in adult life comparing the cost do not lead it to a common denominator then?

[loki565]

Well, since you yourself were in school, you can probably calculate that there’s a calculator for the farmer, you don’t really worry much))) Moreover, the numbers are not accurate, they only show that the wheeled chassis is several times cheaper than the crawler.

[ProkletyiPirat]

A baton is also cheaper than a machine gun, but if all machine gunners are asked to switch to batons because it is cheaper, they will not understand you.
Yes, even if you compare wheels and tracks, compare the adequate level of performance characteristics for cross-country ability and combat resistance to damage, for example, the chassis of a wheeled and tracked armored personnel carrier, otherwise they thought of comparing a semi-civilian highway truck and a caterpillar tank.
In general, for long-range self-propelled guns, the best chassis is a wheeled chassis, but not because it is "cheaper", but because there the maximum maximum length of the chassis relative to the width is greater, thanks to which you can have a large maximum maximum length of the gun barrel.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: loki565

and the T90 tank costs 120 lyam

Most of which falls on the filling (electronics, optics). Almost all the expensive filling in the tower, so the chassis is much cheaper than 50 lyamov.

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

Therefore, the chassis is much cheaper than 50 lyamov.

And still it’s more expensive, twice a wheeled

[Bad_gr]

I wonder why ours do not make self-propelled guns in a layout like DONAR (Germany)?

The turret with the cannon is shifted back, which means the cannon during the march will crawl out of size less. A cabin with excellent visibility for the driver, which is never superfluous. Yes, and they seem to be sitting there comfortably.

[Peter is not the first]

We have other design delights taking into account the climate: ACS "Magnolia"

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

I wonder why ours do not make self-propelled guns in a layout like DONAR (Germany)?

Moreover, we have a good tracked chassis, but apparently its manufacturer at UVZ is not honored ...

But that’s why the wheeled chassis doesn’t have room for transportation calculation in the cab, this is a big question

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

But that’s why the wheeled chassis doesn’t have room for transportation calculation in the cab, this is a big question

It only now dawned that such a cabin could be enough. After all, the crew of the caterpillar Coalition of 3 people: the driver, gunner, commander. At the wheel: driver, gunner, commander. There are just 3 seats in the cockpit (unlikely). And the front control equipment, as in the tracked version.

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

It only now dawned that such a cabin could be enough.

Okay. This system has a "trunk" behind the turret for loading from the ground, as I understand it, behind the cockpit, they arranged a place for additional transportable ammunition, outside the turret. Compare the appearance of what was "tested", there is a tower in the middle of the platform, with what went to the troops, there is a tower on the edge of the platform, the "trunk" just fits well when the tower is in a combat position. And who will overload it?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

This system has a "trunk" behind the turret for loading from the ground,

Apparently, when only three people, work only with a machine gun (in the conveyor 50 shots)

Quote: svp67

Compare the appearance of what was "tested", there is a tower in the middle of the platform, with what went to the troops, there is a tower on the edge of the platform,

I did not find the pictures with a difference. In the pictures that I came across, the shoulder strap of the tower is slightly offset from the first rear axle to the cab. Here on the schematic, too.

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

I did not find pictures with a difference

It seems you are right, the shoulder strap of the tower is perfectly visible in the figure.

I did not expect that the tower had such a huge aft niche, but although this is understandable, the huge and heavy barrel must be balanced with something ....

And honestly, I don’t know which of the BAZs the "local contingent" was going to install it on, but for me the only candidate for this role is BAZ-69096

And almost perfect, especially seeing what kind of load during movement goes to the rear axles of KamAZ
And there are excellent candidates for supply, maintenance and support vehicles BAZ-69092-021

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

And honestly, I don’t know on which BAZ the “local contingent” was going to install it.

Baz produces cars with a lifting capacity of 14 to 40 tons. You can choose which one is more suitable. Independent suspension, widely spaced wheels, relatively low platform

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

the only candidate for this role is BAZ-69096

I agree. The car, although long, but the turret with a gun, in my opinion, is the same length.
Kamaz, which was chosen under the Coalition, has a payload of 20 tons, so it’s the same in my pictures. The BAZ-69096 has 29,5 tons, the reserve of carrying capacity will allow you to move more relaxed.

[krillon]

And what has changed since the Second World War? You can see how many were on the track, how many on wheels. Do you think then did not understand the issue? And the alleged theater of operations determines the base on which the weapons are located. Here, somehow, the pictures were laid out from Syria, that we, the Americans, having moved a little to the side of the road, got stuck in armored cars. And it is in the desert.

[svp67]

Quote: Krillon

And what has changed since the Second World War?

Much...

[krillon]

Did flying saucers open antigravity? Everything is as before, wheels or tracks. And already the armor, engine power, etc. are secondary. There is a photo here when in Syria airplanes struck next to a Turkish convoy with armored vehicles. The poor fellow is standing with split tires, take it with your bare hands.

[svp67]

Quote: Krillon

Did flying saucers open antigravity?

Both this and that, plus nuclear power was mastered, new means of armed struggle appeared ...

Quote: Krillon

There is a photo here when in Syria airplanes struck next to a Turkish convoy with armored vehicles. The poor fellow is standing with split tires, take it with your bare hands.

Did you beat a lot of horses, camels and other draft animals? During WWII, they transported a significant part of the artillery.

[Technical engineer]

And with indirect? Caterpillar splinters withstand. But this one. There are two tokens. Cheap. Type budget save. (how does this affect the army clearly). Plus world fashion. But they have more roads, and somewhere like Africa and firmer soil)

[venik]

Quote: Carnifexx

mmm ... howitzer on a wheeled chassis

============
Surprising?
Then take a look:
1. "Dana" - 152-mm (Czechoslovakia, 1980 (was in service and in the USSR - in the Western World War)):

2. "CAESAR" 155-mm (France, 2002):

3 mm / 155 (Japan, 52)

4. "EVA" 155-mm (Czech Republic-Slovakia, 2018)

5. "T5-52" 155 mm (South Africa):

6. "NORA-B52K1" (Serbia, 2010):

7. T-155 "Yavuz" (Turkey, 2017):

8. "Brutus" 155-mm (USA, 2019)

9. "Archer" 155mm (Sweden 2019)

10. NORINCO SH11 155 mm (China):

11. PLC-181 155 mm (China):

12. "Bogdana" 155-mm (Ukraine, 2019)

So what surprises you, Karl? A sau on a wheeled chassis is now not made "only by the lazy" - and on ANY chassis: from armored vehicles to banal trucks!
Personally, one thing surprises me: but WHY haven't we been doing this for so long?

[Bar1]

Kamaz has already taken up his own business. Where is platform O in spite of the MZKT? No, and never will be. So it’s better not to.

[Break through]

Not bad. Wait and see.

[tanki-tanki]

Already the picture shows that the howitzer is powerful.

[seregatara1969]

There are more roads, you can get to the right place on wheels much faster or get out of there.

[Fierce73]

Again KAMAZ. Stepping on the same rake as the developers of "Pantsir". After all, it is clear that the car is narrow, unstable, high. There is also a BAZ chassis. Perfect fit.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Fierce73

There is also a BAZ chassis. Perfectly suited.

These are competitors.
Therefore, let it be better for the military to suffer with the car overturning on its side, not to give a penny to the side of Rostec.

[KVU-NSVD]

Quote: Spade

These are competitors.
, not a penny to the side of "Rostec" will not give.
Reply

It's okay to want to make money. Specify specific requirements for technology - the business of the customer, i.e.

[Lopatov]

Quote: KVU-NSVD

Specify specific technology requirements

... no one.
"Scientific companies" will obviously not be able to cope with this.

[alexmach]

"Scientific companies" will obviously not be able to cope with this.

And they were not created for this by the way. For this, there is a certain GRAU.

[Lopatov]

Quote: alexmach

For this, there is a certain GRAU.

GRAU is not a scientific organization

[alexmach]

GRAU is not a scientific organization

Not clear thesis. This in no way prevents them from using scientific methods in their work ... theoretically. Well, as I understand it, the formation of requirements is still to them.

And scientific companies are still made in order to use the necessary "human resource" with maximum benefit.

[Lopatov]

Quote: alexmach

Not clear thesis.

Requirements for technology should be put forward by specialized research institutes. Which began to destroy even under Gorbachev, and finally destroyed under Medvedev-Serdyukov.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

These are competitors.
Therefore, let it be better for the military to suffer with the car overturning on its side, not to give a penny to the side of Rostec.

Nonsense should not be carried.

The BAZ chassis is larger in size and probably this imposes a restriction on the transportation of SAO by aviation.

Here is an example of the ZRPK Shell; look at how much longer it is -

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Nonsense should not be carried.

And where did you manage to find her there?
Almaz-Antey is now part of Rostec?
Or does BAZ no longer belong to Almaz-Antey?

While I'm not talking nonsense at all

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

And where did you manage to find her there?

But what is this? -

Therefore, let it be better for the military to suffer with the car overturning on its side, not to give a penny to the side of Rostec.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

But what is this? -

It?
Reinforced concrete fact.

At first, the Kazakh MLRS were capsized on such a chassis.

Then - "Shell", and more than once

But Rostec continues to experiment with the military.

And if you say that it's not about money, this will be the same "nonsense".

[loki565]

The bad driver turned the equipment upside down and no more. Do you need to throw a photo of inverted tanks and howitzers? Even armored personnel carriers manage to flip out of the blue, and his center of gravity will be lower than that of the BAZ

[Lopatov]

Quote: loki565

Bad driver flipped equipment

In the army, all drivers are "bad" by default
So either the car should be just for that, or let good drivers prepare for their money.

[venik]

Quote: loki565

Even armored personnel carriers manage to flip out of the blue, and his center of gravity will be lower than that of the BAZ

=========
Happens! He himself once had a chance to take part in turning the BTR-70 from "head to feet." That was still a job! Mekhvod - a stoerosovaya cudgel, managed to fade away somewhere and until the very evening "did not show his nose" (all of them were looking for!) Oh, then the fighters and "discharged" him, according to the "most can not"!
So that "if you want" you can definitely turn EVERYTHING!
Although it is thought that the wheeled ACS will still use the KamAZ-6560M "Tornado":

There is an armored cabin, and it seems that it will be a little more stable!

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Is Kamaz to blame here too?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Is Kamaz to blame here too?

I do not know about the latter, but the rest is falling from the "cart". What is absolutely irrelevant to the topic

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

I do not know about the latter, but the rest is falling from the "cart". What's the topic

Is it possible to drop equipment from a cart?

They carry her on a cart for a reason, but because it is tracked.

It is necessary to be more careful with the equipment, with a fool and a tank you can turn it on a level place.

The shell on the Kamaz chassis in IL-76 is included and transported by them, and only Ruslan should be transported on the chassis of the BAZ, and we have not so many of them and so far no new ones are expected.

I suspect that the chassis and everything else is that of the Shell, that the self-propelled guns were made for specific requirements, and this determines the choice of the chassis, and not money for Rostec.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Is it possible to drop equipment from a cart?

And how. And drop it regularly.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

You need to be more careful with the technique

Yeah. And you don’t need to take her to war. Where are not the best drivers and the need for active maneuvering.
Better to stand nicely in park boxes. With shoe polish wheels.

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

not money for Rostec.

It is them.
Because KamAZ is our own for Rostec, but all sorts of BAZs are not

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

You do not understand the essence, in nothing.

Due to the fact that the equipment is tracked, it has to be carried on tractors and it is dropped and turned over, even tanks and without transportation on tractors -



And the reason for this is poor crew training or neglect of safety requirements.

And the chassis for combat platforms is chosen based on their required characteristics specified in the terms of reference !!!

Il-76 can transport vehicles on a chassis to KamAZ, and only An-124 Ruslan on a BAZ chassis. Realize the difference?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Il-76 can transport vehicles on a chassis to KamAZ, and only An-124 Ruslan on a BAZ chassis. Realize the difference?

I don’t realize. For the statement is unfounded.

[loki565]

Yes, most likely it doesn’t fit into the IL76, and the shells are mainly thrown by them.

[DenZ]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The BAZ chassis is larger in size and probably this imposes a restriction on the transportation of SAO by aviation.

Are there any requirements for transporting the Coalition on a wheeled chassis by aviation? And this should be at the expense of sustainability?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Are there any requirements for transporting the Coalition on a wheeled chassis by aviation? And this should be at the expense of sustainability?

Probably there is, at least it would be very cool, as it would greatly increase the mobility of artillery.

And about the fact that the cars overturn, it’s not the fault of the chassis here, but the poor preparation of the drivers. Military equipment may not be perfect in all respects; it is always a compromise on a number of characteristics.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

And about the fact that the cars overturn, it’s not the fault of the chassis here, but the poor preparation of the drivers.

The fact that people do not want to ride monocycles is not the fault of the "chassis", but the poor training of people.
So what do you prefer, a year of training on a unicycle, or just get on a bike?

[timokhin-aa]

There is still a moment. The maximum load on the rear bogie for this chassis by KAMAZ is defined as 23 tons.
At the same time, an empty chassis with a bare frame, the load on the truck is 5,3 tons.
Accordingly, under the ACS add-on there remains 17,7
Further we consider
The tower is about 12 tons, BK about 2 tons, already 14.
It turns out that on the most powerful subframe, carrying the shoulder strap of the tower, and withstanding recoil when fired, only 3 tons remain on outriggers with hydraulics.
This is absolutely unrealistic, and it’s not for nothing that KAMAZ has already tried to do so

Bridges with short axles and twin wheels on 24-inch career rubber - load-bearing ceiling. That is, even just dual 12.00R20s do not fit, do not hold weight.

I understand that KAMAZ could underestimate the lifting capacity of the chassis, and it often does so, but never by more than 25%, that is, with respect to open data in this chassis, 4,4 tons of carrying capacity may be "unaccounted for". Judging by the photo on the gable, this is clearly not enough.

Well, the rollover will be even worse than that of the Shell. KAMAZ is like a cancerous tumor, it climbs everywhere.

[venik]

Quote: timokhin-aa

KAMAZ is like a cancerous tumor, it climbs everywhere.

=========
Well, you can't argue with that (KamAZ - it is "a plug for every barrel")! But with the rest - you can:

Quote: timokhin-aa

The maximum load on the rear bogie for this chassis by KAMAZ is defined as 23 tons.
At the same time, an empty chassis with a bare frame, the load on the truck is 5,3 tons.

------------
Here is the question: In general, the KamAZ-53958 Tornado chassis allows you to mount equipment (payload) up to 25,4 tons.
The tower of the Msta-S self-propelled guns weighs - empty - 13.5 tons, with a full ammunition load - 15.7 tons. The mass of the ACS "Coalition-SV" is 6 tons heavier than the "Msta-S". If we assume that all 6 tons - this is exclusively due to the heavier tower (and this is not the case!) - then 21,7 tons will come out. Those. to outriggers, etc. - 3.7 tons remain - COMPLETELY enough! And if we also take the amendment for the heavier chassis of the "Coalition" - and in general - almost 4.5 - 5 tons !!! It should be borne in mind that the bulk of the recoil when fired is taken by the outriggers!

[timokhin-aa]

Actually, this is KAMAZ 6560

Those. to outriggers, etc. - remains 3.7 tons - COMPLETELY enough!

This is the mass of 18 cubic tanks made of steel 3 mm.
This is slightly smaller than the tipper body of 16 cubic meters of steel, board 4mm bottom 6 mm with a subframe.

Frame with shoulder straps and outriggers 5-6 tons minimum.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: timokhin-aa

KAMAZ is like a cancerous tumor, it climbs everywhere.

Yeah, but at the same time, KAMAZ managed to make the car better and faster in terms of armored vehicles (typhoons) than the "brilliant" creators of GAZ / VPK who have been sitting on the legacy of the BTR-60 for many years.
As for the chassis for the Shell and artillery systems, here claims should not be presented to the factory, which is working successfully and defending its interests (even at the expense of others), but to the Moscow Region.

Otherwise, it’s hard to argue with you.

[timokhin-aa]

I do not argue about Typhoons, just why jump over your head? Well, they obviously do not take out heavy weapons, why climb? This is for the time being, for the time being.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

Well, they obviously do not take out heavy weapons, why climb?

Money.

[timokhin-aa]

Just one day they may ask.
21 research institutes had to hack this craft. Sooner or later, this thread will be pulled. And behind it, and the rest - behind KAMAZ there is a lot of everything that the average user VO does not even imagine.
It will be necessary after Putin to throw Chemezov or cut off his connections (for example, if he resigns after Putin) and hello, they will recall both the Coalition and the Shell.

[Lopatov]

Quote: timokhin-aa

and shell

This is generally a strange option. They say there are artillery stabilizers. What looks like a total mockery.

Quote: timokhin-aa

It will be necessary after Putin to throw off Chemezov or cut off his connections (for example, if he resigns after Putin) and hello, they will recall

One of Putin’s main problems is the inability or unwillingness to clean up his environment. They in most cases substitute it.

[Sergej1972]

But is the Bryansk Automobile Plant not included in Rostec?

[venik]

Quote: Sergej1972

But is the Bryansk Automobile Plant not included in Rostec?

=======
No! It is part of the Almaz-Antey concern!

[cost]

After all, it is clear that the car is narrow, unstable, high.

Why unstable? It goes pretty well on the road, does not tip over. And there’s no problem shooting
In general, see video

[Kotofeich]

The video shows how much it sags on the rear axles.

[MMX]

Quote: Kotofeich

The video shows how much it sags on the rear axles.

Yes, noticeably strong. Obviously, the KAMAZ chassis does not pull from the word at all.
It seems that these are export options. I hope that such a varinat will not enter the troops. It has been proven a thousand times that tracked vehicles are more mobile than wheeled vehicles (in our conditions, for sure).

[Vadim237]

This platform needed to add one more axis.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Rich

And there’s no problem shooting

In the video, the gun shoots strictly backwards, but what if the tower is deployed across the machine? For the goose, this is not a problem.

[venik]

Quote: Bad_gr

In the video, the gun shoots strictly backwards, but what if the tower is deployed across the machine?

======
Outriggers are installed there:

[Bad_gr]

Quote: venik

Outriggers are installed there:

[venik]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: venik

Outriggers are installed there:

=========
That's just this photo I unsuccessfully searched for yesterday! Had to be content with the pattern found!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Fierce73

There is also a BAZ chassis. Perfectly suited.

BAZ now has a different task - it needs to make its own chassis for all Almaz-Anteevsky products (to replace the same MZKT vehicles).

[knn54]

Alas, additional emphasis is needed due to the instability of the wheels to lateral loads when firing.
Well, from regular tire punctures you can’t get anywhere.

[alexmach]

and there are 4 of them. And they need all wheeled howitzers.

[knn54]

I didn’t speak specifically about the Coalition, but about wheeled ones in general.
In Turkish 155 mm, for example, for firing at the rear of the unit, two stops with hydraulic actuators recline. The deployment time before opening fire is 1 minute, and the coagulation time is 2 minutes.
PS 2S35 howitzer is designed for arming artillery brigades of army subordination of ground forces.

[Albert1988]

Quote: knn54

Alas, additional emphasis is needed due to the instability of the wheels to lateral loads when firing.

Not a single wheeled howitzer has yet gotten rid of additional stops ...

Quote: knn54

Well, from regular tire punctures you can’t get anywhere.

There are special tires for this, and not those on which civilian trucks run ...

[alexmach]

Sau in any case does not shoot on the move and will lower the supports before firing.

[lwxx]

I am more interested in how the load difference along the axes was solved. The video shows that even a small off-road causes the front end to hang, the "shell" is much lighter. BAZ, it seems to me, is a more balanced car.

[Grits]

Quote: Fierce73

Again KAMAZ. Stepping on the same rake as the developers of "Pantsir". After all, it is clear that the car is narrow, unstable, high. There is also a BAZ chassis. Perfect fit

Technically, BAZ is much preferable. But KAMAZ has more money and therefore lobbyists are cooler.

[loki565]

Stability like any crane, here a lot depends on the driver, if he wants to turn it over on a tank chassis.

[venik]

Quote: Fierce73

There is also a BAZ chassis. Perfectly suited.

==========
And BAZ and KamAZ are in different "teams":
BAZ is Almaz-Antey;
KamAZ - Rostec .......
It can be seen that they will not agree ....

[Vladimir_2U]

I am now completely serious, that’s what prevents me from working out this beauty for ship-based ?!

[Lopatov]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I am now completely serious, that’s what prevents me from working out this beauty for ship-based ?!

Rate of fire is low. The fleet needs unitary loading. And this in fact will be a completely different weapon.

[Vladimir_2U]

152 mm in fact a nuclear weapon, well, the power of 152 mm makes 130 mm. Without recalling guided or homing missiles. And how a 130-air defense weapon is redundant, but how simply a weapon is insufficient.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, the power of 152 mm makes 130 mm.

Controversial.
Do not forget about the rate of fire.

[Vladimir_2U]

That and it is that the coalition’s advantages include the highest (even secret) rate of fire, for 152 mm by itself, well, loading there is not corpuscular, albeit not sleeve, EMNIP.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

That and that, that the highest (as much as secret) rate of fire are attributed to the Coalition's advantages

For a land gun, it is great. After all, they shoot mainly in the division. Rarely a battery and very rarely a fire platoon.

But at sea, such rate of fire is not enough. But it is possible to place a fairly large-sized unitary supply system.

[bk0010]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

152 mm in fact a nuclear weapon

Forget about nuclear shells, they are not. Everyone got rid as soon as the number of carriers became sane.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Without recalling guided or homing missiles.

In the west, dohren of guided projectiles in 127 mm.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And how a 130-air defense weapon is redundant, but how simply a weapon is insufficient.

Why is it suddenly redundant and why is it insufficient? Just because of the appearance of any drones, anti-aircraft artillery becomes relevant again. In the fleet, artillery guns are universal. At the end of the Second World War, the Americans made universal 155-mm guns, it turned out badly (the mass exceeded the mass of the 155-mm gun and 155-mm anti-aircraft guns at the same time, and the light cruiser turned out to have a displacement of 18000 tons, more than heavy). So it’s not easy.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bk0010

Forget about nuclear shells, they aren’t

And it can never be? So for no reason, how many treaties have the United States withdrew? Do you catch the connection?

Quote: bk0010

In the west, dohren of guided projectiles in 127 mm

Exactly that in the west. Give examples of such shells to 130 mm? And to 152 mm there are already available as well as extra long-range fights, so also unification as an argument for.

Quote: bk0010

Why is it suddenly redundant and why is it insufficient? Just because of the appearance of any drones, anti-aircraft artillery becomes relevant again.

Small-caliber ZAK has not been canceled, certainly not me. ))) 30 mm, 57 mm, 76 mm, 100 mm is not enough for you to fight against drones, unless of course it's some kind of "Global Hawk". ))) But for coastal targets, 130 mm are short-range (relatively) and not powerful enough (comparable to 122 mm), and in the case of developing adjustable and long-range targets, the power on the target will decrease even further.

Quote: bk0010

In the fleet, artillery guns are universal

And what does the "Coalition" dislike in this regard? The elevation angle is considerable (70 degrees, but this is not accurate), the vertical guidance speed and rate of fire allow conducting a "fire raid" with several shells, which means they are already quite sufficient, the "low" speed of horizontal guidance was mentioned, but without specific numbers. So what prevents from strengthening the GN drives during the revision? Well, I did not mention the main consideration for the "Coalition" - its mass. Even with a chassis, why the hell is it on a ship, the mass is 48 tons, while a turret compartment is not required! For comparison, the mass of the AK-192 is 25 tons without ammo but with a turret compartment.

[bk0010]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And it can never be? So for no reason, how many treaties have the United States withdrew? Do you catch the connection?

There is nothing to do with the treaty, just for the sake of one kiloton of a 155-mm shell, too much plutonium is required. The same amount can be smelled much stronger.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Exactly that in the west. Give examples of such shells to 130 mm? And to 152 mm there are already available as well as extra long-range fights, so also unification as an argument for.

Unification is good. Just completely unify does not work: in the Navy unitary. And the land men are unlikely to share with the sailors: they themselves are few.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Small-caliber ZAK has not been canceled, just not me. ))) 30 mm, 57 mm, 76 mm, 100 mm is not enough for you to fight drones?

Small-caliber ZAK against drones are ineffective: the target is small, it’s hard to hit, and the high-explosive impact and fragmentation field of small-caliber ZAK are small. So 30 and 57 mm are definitely not enough.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Quote: bk0010

In the fleet, artillery guns are universal

And what does the "Coalition" dislike in this regard? The elevation angle is considerable (70 degrees, but this is not accurate), the vertical guidance speed and rate of fire allow conducting a "fire raid" with several shells, which means they are already quite sufficient, the "low" speed of horizontal guidance was mentioned, but without specific numbers. So what prevents from strengthening the GN drives during the revision? Well, I did not mention the main consideration for the "Coalition" - its mass. Even with a chassis, why the hell is it on a ship, the mass is 48 tons, while a turret compartment is not required! For comparison, the mass of the AK-192 is 25 tons without ammo but with a turret compartment.

70 degrees is good, but elevation alone is not enough. The coalition will not go, anyway it will be necessary to make a new weapon, even on its basis. Remember that the Coalition is a howitzer and the Navy needs guns. By the way, I myself am in favor of returning 6 "to the Navy, it's just really difficult.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bk0010

There is nothing to do with the treaty, just for the sake of one kiloton of a 155-mm shell, too much plutonium is required. The same amount can be smelled much stronger.

??? The same (at least some) quantity must be delivered to the target somehow. 130 mm is basically not possible.

Quote: bk0010

Unification is good. Just completely unify does not work: in the Navy unitary. And the land men are unlikely to share with the sailors: they themselves are few.

And which 152 mm unitaries are now in the fleet? About share, this is some kind of nonsense, shells for the fleet and the army in different countries will do, or what? And the number of guns for the fleet would not be an order of magnitude smaller than for the army, it simply cries out the need for unification with the landmen.

Quote: bk0010

So 30 and 57 mm are definitely not enough.

It seems you think that the drone in terms of stability is steeper than RCC, this is far from the case.

Quote: bk0010

Do not forget that the Coalition is a howitzer, and the fleet needs guns

Howitzer-cannon, not just a howitzer or a cannon, I rarely use this phrase, but "learn the materiel"!

Quote: bk0010

By the way, I myself am in favor of returning 6 "to the Navy, it's just really difficult.

It’s just that the Coalition will greatly simplify it, KVM by itself.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Spade

The fleet needs unitary loading.

The fleet wants a universal weapon. A 152 mm can not or can badly in air defense.
EMNIP, during the previous approach to the shell, even in Soviet times, the 152-mm naval AU lost the AK-130 for this reason.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Alexey RA

during the previous approach to the projectile, back in Soviet times, the 152-mm naval AU lost the AK-130 for this reason.

Because the "freshest" 152mm unitar was:

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Spade

Because the freshest 152mm unitary was

6 "Kane performed for coastal defense?

[Lopatov]

Ага.
And I won’t mention it anymore ....

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Spade

Ага.
And I won’t mention it anymore ....

And there were only three types of serial domestic naval 6 "under smokeless powder: 152/45 Kane, 152/50 Obukhovskaya-Amurskaya" and 152/57 (B-38).
About 152/50 on navweaps they write that she had Semi-fixed loading: the shot is stored separately, going to the unitary before loading.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexey RA

The fleet wants a universal gun

I understand that the navy is all in tradition, but who needs versatility in the style of the 40s? Or elevation angle of 70 degrees. or how much does the Coalition have there, not enough to fire at low-flying anti-ship missiles? But I repeat, 152 mm can because 130 mm can’t simply due to the smaller size and weight of the projectile, and it’s not even about the coast.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Or elevation angle of 70 degrees. or how much does the Coalition have there, not enough to fire at low-flying anti-ship missiles?

If everything depended only on the guidance angles, then the F-22, army howitzers and 203-mm guns of British SRT would be excellent anti-aircraft guns.
EMNIP, in the 152-mm naval command and control system from the point of view of air defense did not arrange the rate of fire and angular guidance speeds.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I understand that the navy is all in tradition, but who needs versatility in the style of the 40s?

You will be surprised, but almost everyone. On the rotting West all 5 "shipborne AUs are universal.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexey RA

In the decaying West, all 5 "ship AUs are universal

So I write traditions. )))

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

Rate of fire is low.

Not only.

Quote: Spade

The fleet needs unitary loading.

They are trying to install universal artillery systems on ships that can work both on sea and land targets, and on air

Quote: Spade

And this in fact will be a completely different weapon.

And so it will turn out.

[Lopatov]

Quote: svp67

They try to install universal artillery systems on ships

"Smartkamp" from "Rheinmetall"

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

"Smartkamp" from "Rheinmetall"

There is such a thing, but so far this is a rare exception and not the fact that it will become the rule. All the same, the fleet imposes many additional requirements. In addition to unitary ammunition, this is the presence of an arms stabilizer, as well as other materials in the manufacture.

[Starshina]

Maybe it's time to move on to smart ammunition. One shot - one hit !!! In this case, the rate of fire will not be decisive ...

[svp67]

Quote: Starshina

.One shot - one hit !!! In this case, the rate of fire will not be decisive ...

While it is too expensive, although this area needs to be developed in priority order

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Starshina

Maybe it's time to move on to smart ammunition. One shot - one hit !!!

OTO Melara 76 mm and guided projectile DART - for solving air defense tasks.
Or a VULCANO shell in 127 mm and 76 mm calibers for long-range operation in two versions:
- with the correction of the trajectory (ANN and GPS) to work on a fixed target with known coordinates;
- with the correction of the trajectory (ANN and GPS) and homing in the final section for working on moving targets.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Starshina

One shot - one hit !!! In this case, the rate of fire will not be decisive ...

And if you need to shoot at positions where the enemy dug in? and which has its own battery for answering.

[illi]

For the fleet and 130 in modern realities is redundant. For close air defense and weaving is not bad. For shooting at small surface-mounted 130 is also redundant. Knead the coast with modern expensive frigates, also a so-so venture.

[svp67]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I am now completely serious, that’s what prevents me from working out this beauty for ship-based ?!

For the fleet, it can only be used as a coastal system.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: svp67

For the fleet, it can only be used as a coastal system.

If the naval ones again do not mess up and decide that only naval calibers can be in coastal artillery, so as not to produce a variety of calibers.
However, this argument has now become a little irrelevant - now the fleets have their own army corps with all calibers of land detectors, up to 203 mm.

[svp67]

Quote: Alexey RA

If the naval ones again do not mess up and decide that only naval calibers can be in coastal artillery

In this case, I think they will not be bothered, as they still have

[Starshina]

Russian naval artillery systems are long outdated. Yes, and range and accuracy leaves much to be desired ... Where are the shells with active-reactive acceleration where is the homing?

[MMX]

Quote: Starshina

Russian naval artillery systems are long outdated. Yes, and range and accuracy leaves much to be desired ... Where are the shells with active-reactive acceleration where is the homing?

Like all shipbuilding, alas ..

[venik]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

I am now completely serious, that’s what prevents me from working out this beauty for ship-based ?!

========
So it was already developed - "Coalition-F" was called:

But she was not interested in the fleet ......
Perhaps the rate of fire is low (15 rounds per minute), but rather the impossibility of firing at air targets ..... And the fleet needs "generalists".

[Bersaglieri]

Reasonable. And the export niche is good.

[Bersaglieri]

Again, stupid people minus ... Well, what is that, eh? Into quarantine the invasion of "shkolota" on the resource? :)

[moreman78]

And where is this miracle to apply? We, unlike amers, have NO STRIKER brigade without tracked vehicles!
Take for example our Omsbr on the BTR-80/82 and look at its equipment. Even in it it is full of heavy tracked vehicles - this is a tank battalion, in the engineer-sapper battalion - the same tracked vehicles are enough, the air defense equipment (Torahs, Tunguski and Strel-10) - on tracked chassis, and in other divisions it’s full of goosenecks (like motolig).
So the question is, why do we need this wheeled self-propelled gun?

[Lopatov]

Quote: moreman78

We, unlike amers, have NO STRIKER brigade without tracked vehicles!

We, unlike the Americans, the barrel artillery not only at the brigade level.

[bk0010]

Quote: Spade

We, unlike the Americans, have barrel artillery

And she has MTLB

[Slon1978]

ACS Coalition is the artillery of the reserve level of the General Staff, it is supposed to form separate formations from it.

[svp67]

Quote: Slon1978

ACS Coalition is the artillery of the reserve level of the General Staff, it is supposed to form separate formations from it.

No ... it's an army, maximum front-line level

[zadorin1974]

Wheeled self-propelled guns have long been in demand in the Russian Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Moreman. The war in Ossetia and Syria showed that the so-called BTGs are now mainly used. Towed guns often with a modern dynamics of clashes either do not have time to deploy or do not have time to escape from the response (the civil war in Donbas is another confirmation). Well, and purely technically, the average mileage of the gusli before the replacement (full)) is 7000 km. The wheel equipment will not even ask for a change of oil))) Spare parts in any store (without order) That's the only thing that upset KAMAZ, although the build quality Ural lately even worse.

[V.I.P.]

Already better than towed artillery))

[Starshina]

For export..

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

According to Vasily Nabatov, wheeled Coalition-CB2 has several advantages over caterpillar equipment. It is more mobile and able to travel on ordinary public roads. In addition, a self-propelled howitzer based on the KamAZ car has a greater resource than the tracked version.

This is all true, but why shouldn’t the Kamaz chassis be equipped with bulletproof and anti-fragmentation protection, in order to increase the crew’s survival rate and give the opportunity to change position in case of shelling.

The very first mine or shell that exploded next to it will immediately destroy both the SAO and the crew, in whole or in part.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

but why the Kamaz chassis should not be done with bulletproof and anti-splinter protection,

And then he will survive?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

That’s all true, but why shouldn’t the Kamaz chassis be equipped with bulletproof and anti-splinter protection,

??
The cabin is exactly armored

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

The cabin is exactly armored

In which place?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

The cabin is exactly armored

In which place?

Glass

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
The cabin is exactly armored


In which place?

Glass

It just seemed to you.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
- The cabin is exactly armored
- In which place?
- Glasses.

“It just seemed to you.”

[Fierce73]

Because KAMAZ is at its full capacity under this installation. If you apply a more load-lifting and power-armed chassis of the BAZ, then you can think about booking!

[alexmach]

This is all true, but why should not the Kamaz chassis be equipped with bulletproof and anti-shatter protection?

And where does it follow that there is no armored cabin then?

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

Judging by the appearance, the armor does not smell there.

[Vidock]

There is armor. And the windshield and side windows. Watch the loopholes.

[Ratmir_Ryazan]

There is armor.

Exactly, there really seems to be something, I saw a loophole on the side window.

[timokhin-aa]

He can’t withstand the cannon in terms of loads, where is the armor ...

[Albert1988]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

This is all true, but why shouldn’t the Kamaz chassis be equipped with bulletproof and anti-fragmentation protection, in order to increase the crew’s survival rate and give the opportunity to change position in case of shelling.

It depends on the role of such a machine — if it ran in, shot back, and ran away, then serious booking will only be a minus — it will reduce mobility.

[Grits]

Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

This is all true, but why shouldn’t the Kamaz chassis be equipped with bulletproof and anti-fragmentation protection, in order to increase the crew’s survival rate and give the opportunity to change position in case of shelling.

KAMAZ barely drags the installation itself. If he also hangs armor, then he will leave the ground or will not budge. And put on another chassis (the BAZ is the most) - for nothing!

[Zaurbek]

An incomprehensible design ... there is a tower AZ there are .... there are no armored cabs.

[neri73-r]

Quote: Zaurbek

An incomprehensible design ... there is a tower AZ there are .... there are no armored cabs.

Tests

[rocket757]

Certain advantages, disadvantages, have any chassis.
A question of priorities or a reasonable balance, when choosing one or the other, or maybe both of these .... boom to see how it will be.

[Scharnhorst]

Purely commercial project. It will definitely not be adopted for service. Mind games of "alternative giftedness" ... I just liked this phrase today.

[KCA]

130mm "Shore" was accepted, but 152mm absolutely not?

[The leader of the Redskins]

I read the comments ...
Business analysis, attempts to consider the rational grain ...
In practice, no one doubts the need for this tool.
Whether it was a year ago, when articles about the creation and testing of the "Bogdan" self-propelled guns at the "neighbors" flashed! I rewound it specially to remind:

[Zaurbek]

I understand the Ukrainian concept ... like Cezart155mm French production. This gun is similar to German howitzers, but their base is either an 8x8 Boxer or an all-terrain vehicle with an armored cab or the Swedish version based on career equipment.

[Nastia makarova]

bogdan this is .. old

[Nastia makarova]

I forgot at the troll who just registered to ask what to write !!!!

[Lopatov]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

Whether it was a year ago, when articles about the creation and testing of the "Bogdan" self-propelled guns at the "neighbors" flashed!

This machine is basically different.
The Ukrainian "super-weapon" should be compared with the Syrian 130-mm cannon on a car.

Here is a car that is a generation ahead of "Bogdana". With classmates like "Archer", "AGM", "Eva"

[igorspb]

Wheels - as an option for export performance. Not everyone can or want to exploit the tracks.

[Brancodd]

Ek would probably be already in the troops. And more ...

[Zomanus]

Good down will work. It works from the rear, so it is unlikely to be hit. She had a pair of air defense cover in the form of a shell and generally norms.

[Pavel57]

Maybe to replace the BEACH will do.

[V.I.P.]

At the coast, at least an adequate chassis)))

[Grits]

Quote: V.I.P.

At the coast, at least an adequate chassis

"Beach" is generally a complex. With attached target designation, control, life support vehicles, etc.

[V.I.P.]

I'm talking about a tool)) ....

[Piramidon]

It is interesting to know if the tower rotates on it? And if so, will it not turn over if you deploy the barrel and shoot at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the installation? Who is in the know, enlighten.

[U-58]

So there, know jacks for stop

[Piramidon]

Quote: U-58

So there, know jacks for stop

If "jacks" (outriggers will be correct), then this is additional time for deployment-folding. IMHO

[7,62h54]

If put on the chassis, then they plan to export

[prodi]

apparently, it’s necessary to do something like this, with the central warhead with a high center of gravity actively turning up on the move

[Starshina]

Normal retractable paws need to be made like Japanese Mikado cranes ...

[prodi]

paws are not a problem, it is obvious that the 150mm self-propelled guns with ammunition are too heavy for an "off-road" 4-axle wheel chassis even on the move

[Piramidon]

Quote: Starshina

Normal retractable paws need to be made like Japanese Mikado cranes ...

"Tsigel-tsigel ..." The crane does not need to quickly expand its "legs" to shoot, quickly fold and slide out of position.
I had to work with Kato cranes.

[donavi49]

In fact, this is not there, not here. Now, even the Chinese have refused such a concept (tower installation on a wheeled chassis). They make either normal tracked self-propelled guns or cheap wheels.

By the way, the Chinese with SH15 hit this well. Just recently presented available for export and have already sold a bunch. Mostly in Pakistan (Norinco signed a contract for the supply of the Pakistani army of 236 155-mm self-propelled guns SH-15) and East Africa (8-10 vehicles each), but it seems that even Algeria bought (or a pre-contract at the final stage) 30 units in addition to Caesars .

[V.I.P.]

10 countries do this and offer for sale.
Atmos

Archer

Caesar

G6

Nora [center][/ cent

[V.I.P.]

Rhino

Yavus

PLL 09

Boxer RCH

EVA

Who can what systems, he does

[Bad_gr]

Almost all wheeled self-propelled guns on chassis from cars are just guns, which is not at all the same as "gun + automatic loader + ammo rack with a bunch of shots." Here we are among very few who have eliminated this. The chassis, as has been said here more than once, does not match at all.

[Adimius38]

all the chassis in the photo are of high security and we stupidly stuck on a regular army KAMAZ, when there is already a ready KAMAZ platform of high security. for example KamAZ-53958

[jeka424]

Is the wheelbase resource less than the tracked one?

[Vidock]

More than multiple.

[Vadim237]

A tracked chassis is an order of magnitude more expensive than a wheeled one; it is heavier and more difficult to maintain.

[Adimius38]

To be honest, such an installation is only for ideal conditions, when no one is threatening you, that is, to fire at some sort of barmalei who have nothing more than an AK assault rifle. here it was correctly noticed that security is worse and this system will lose on a net in conditions of complete impassability.

[faterdom]

We even know where such a machine is appropriate to test. Of course in Syria.

[U-58]

I looked at this new Coalition and the thought came that it was an export option.
Exactly for Syria and Field Marshal Hawtor.

[Vadim237]

Rather, to replace part D 30 Hyacinths Mast B and Acacia in our army. It's time to move on to a single artillery system.

[bk0010]

Quote: Vadim237

It's time to move on to a single artillery system.

Recently, they wrote here that a coalition like 3 Msta is worth it - we will remain without pants.

[Vadim237]

Not much was written here.

[spectr]

I do not know its characteristics, but I suspect that, unlike the tracked version, it can be transported by plane.

[K-50]

It seems to me that armor protection will be unnecessary. Enough protection against precipitation, plus air conditioning in the fighting compartment, unless they make it uninhabited. With modern automation of processes, there is no need for this, especially since the loading of shells and charges is automated.

[zwlad]

Shaitan mobile
Imagine how everything bounces when fired

[75 Sergey]

On the chassis of the BZKT it would be more interesting, it is a pity the KZKT was ditched.

[Dmitry V.]

Many commentators rightly mention that a howitzer on a wheeled chassis is inferior to a tracked one in moving off-road - this is true.
However, we must not forget that the overwhelming majority of cases are transported by wheeled vehicles, tankers are exclusively on a wheeled chassis, and once the tracked vehicles are forced to replenish their fuel supplies from wheeled ATZs, they are forced to leave the area of ​​operations, to the replenishment areas of BC and fuel supply - i.e. remains tied to a network of paved roads (exotic cases of refueling and BC, helicopter supplies, we do not take into consideration - these are exceptional mass methods).

In most cases, the maneuver on the roads is sufficient to compensate for the shortcomings of the chassis through the radius of artillery.
Paved roads in the European part allow maneuvering artillery on a wheeled chassis efficiently - except for some difficult off-road and seasonal mud roads.
So it’s a very relevant development.

[Nehist]

And where are BTZ-3 delhi? Have you really abandoned the production of tankers based on BMP?

[Dmitry V.]

Quote: Nehist

And where are BTZ-3 delhi? Not really abandoned the production of tankers based on BMP

Developed passed the test and that's all.
Oil workers don’t take it - expensive, the military don’t take it - I don’t know why.
Apparently safer to withdraw vehicles from the battlefield for refueling and supply.
And BTZ-3 transported only 3 tons of fuel.
For comparison, ATZ-9 delivers 9 cubic meters of fuel in Urash or KAMAZ - about 10 tons are delivered.
That is, from ATZ-9 to the fueling area, BTZ must make more than three walkers in order to transfer the fuel supply.
In my opinion, the topic has safely fallen from lack of funding.

[ric]

The designer of this miracle must be given a medal on his neck, for this know-how. The experience of using the Shell with such cabins has not yet taught anything to the unfortunate saw cutters of Russia

[agond]

I completely agree with the opinion that to shoot from a long-barreled gun with a caliber of 152 ai from the Kamaz chassis, even if a four-axle thing is possible, but very hacking, is the same as firing a bullet from a bicycle trunk, it’s worse only if you put a mortar in the gazelle’s body and to fumble. It’s just that the designers of the whole world were carried away by this fashion and race created, by analogy with caterpillar, wheel mounts, although there is no analogy, caterpillar equipment has much more possibilities in this regard and you can achieve them on wheels only if you put a gun in the body of a mining truck. From an engineering point of view, it would be more correct to carry a gun in the back of a truck, and to shoot it down to the ground using hydraulic means,

[bk316]

From an engineering point of view, it would be more correct to carry a gun in the back of a truck, and to shoot it down to the ground using hydraulic means,

And the truck leaves - Here it is a gloomy genius.
Look at such things there - they are called outriggers. So he does not shoot "from the wheels".
I’ll reveal a terrible secret that it doesn’t shoot from caterpillars either - there’s a fig file called the opener Google something .... "hyacinth opener"

[agond]

Quote: bk316

So he does not shoot "from the wheels".

You attributed to me the words "from the wheels" which are not in my text, I say "shoot from the Kamaz chassis" which is equipped with what you call outriggers and put me a minus, and the opener is not an obligatory accessory of tracked artillery, for example, in the Coalition -SV it is invisible ... and then, yes, you can strengthen the frame of the truck and equip it with outriggers, add an opener, mount a tower with a cannon on top and shoot, but as an engineer I declare that it is much easier to create a removable tower on a plate and shoot from it from the ground without bothering to strengthen the structure of the truck. and, in general, a truck must carry loads.If a truck with a working gun above breaks down, it will not go anywhere, and if the gun is removed, it can be rearranged to another truck.

[bk316]

The fact is that everything that I wrote and did, fixed in the figure, will now remain FOREVER

Have you ever designed an instrument as an engineer? Even if not self-propelled but towed.
You can do without a coulter if you put the tower on a 30 ton tracked tractor. You can even 30 tons of stove. Only then will KAMAZ not use this weapon anywhere.

It’s no coincidence that I wrote about the gloomy genius. There are dozens of guns with a layout like the coalition-sv2 in the world. They are in service. And show where your circuit is used?
Seriously speaking, the tower is superfluous, you need to put the gun directly on the frame, but this is probably difficult due to unification with the tracked version of the system.

[agond]

Quote: bk316

Have you ever designed an instrument as an engineer?

No, I didn’t design it, and in general the topic is not about guns, but about how to install them on a car, while the idea has repeatedly been expressed that the chassis of the four-axle KamAZ for a 152 mm gun is weak, and it would be nice to use Baz since it will be more durable, you can to get to Bells, which will definitely pull, but all this can be avoided if you don’t set out to shoot from the car’s chassis. And the fact that no one in the world makes gun mounts removable is a minus to customers and designers, because if you limit yourself only to transporting a removable gun, you can greatly expand the fleet of vehicles used and optionally use four-axle cars, by the way they all have a rather long frame that will always lose in shorter strength.