Step on the German "rake": ground guns for Russian ships

In Russia, the concept of installing ground forces armaments on naval ships appeared. In particular, we are talking about equipping ships with an artillery tower from the new Coalition-SV howitzer

The Russians, therefore, want to repeat the experiment, which previously ended in failure in the German naval navy

- writes the Polish edition of Defense24, assuming the possibility that Russian developers will step on the same "rake."

According to him, "the Russians have always been developing specialized weapons for the Navy." In this regard, naval artillery, both small and large caliber, stood out in a separate branch of military development. Therefore, plans to “borrow” ground systems for the fleet are surprising.

As Defense24 points out, apparently, the seamen were bribed by the accuracy of the fire and the rate of fire of the Coalition-SV (more than 10 rounds per minute). The entire module, in addition, is fully automated and does not require calculation.

In world shipbuilding, attempts have been made to adapt land artillery to the needs of the fleet. As Defense24 notes, the Germans tried to achieve this for the last time. As part of the MONARC (Modular Naval Artillery Concept) program, they intended to equip the ships with a turret with a 155-mm self-propelled howitzer PzH 2000. In December 2012, it even received a Hamburg-type Saxony frigate.

However, according to the Polish publication, it turned out that the ground system is not suitable for a harsh marine environment, and strong returns require the installation of special stabilizers, without which, for example, the widely used 76-mm Melara gun is dispensed with.

The Russians, however, have their own opinion, and will probably begin to prepare for the same experiment.

- writes Defense24, indicating that there is still some experience if we recall the armored boats of project 186 (which were equipped tank guns).

Hamburg frigate with a tower from PzH 2000:

Comments

[Civil]

Didn't the Americans themselves install the Flank on land products?

[Basil50]

Well, believe the Poles, lose yourself. Are there Poles-Balts so powerful minds that the whole world listens to them for any reason? Although the main Polish message - * the Germans did not succeed, therefore there is no solution *
And the fact that work is being done with artillery and scientific research is logical. They worked out liquid projectile throwers and on * electric traction *, maybe they will switch to power plants without a projectile, well, or something else they’ll come up with.
Technology does not stand still.

[Maz]

this is some kind of nonsense. We have a wonderful naval gun mount 130 mm AK-130, in two versions - double-barrel and single-barrel AK-190 one hundred millimeters with a combat range of 23 km and 16 km and a rate of three to two times. Two trunks have 90 rounds per minute, and single-barrels have 45, respectively. The author would you at least google chtoli topic. Write some crap Russian AK-130 cannon can destroy destroyers and swarms of drones. here offhand https://inosmi.ru/military/20180206/241374251.html
a hundred with one barrel shoots 80 rounds per minute, there is also the A-192. Single barrel 130 mm. A-192 "Armat" - Russian universal naval artillery mount caliber 130 mm.

Developed by FSUE Arsenal Design Bureau for arming the new Russian frigates of project 22350. Produced at OJSC Arsenal Machine-Building Plant. It is a universal automatic artillery system of medium caliber, capable of firing at both surface and ground targets, and at air, including anti-ship missiles.

[Senka naughty]

this is some kind of nonsense. We have a wonderful naval gun mount 130 mm AK-130, in two versions - double-barrel and single-barrel AK-190 one hundred millimeters with a combat range of 23 km and 16 km and a rate of three to two times. Two trunks have 90 rounds per minute, and single-barrels have 45, respectively. The author would you at least google chtoli topic. Write some crap Russian AK-130 cannon can destroy destroyers and swarms of drones. here offhand https://inosmi.ru/military/20180206/241374251.html
weaving with one barrel shoots 80 rounds per minute

The author simply fills in the "column", he is not in the house, that in the naval artillery, the chargers go 6-8 meters under the deck, what the coalition calls 70-round ammunition, in the sea (AK-100) up to 500 rounds.

[Alex777]

this is some kind of nonsense.

Do you like emotionally dumping well-known things and writing dubious comments on them?
AK-130 - has not been produced for a long time.
About the A-192 from the sailors there has not been a single good review.
An example of a modern marine gun: Oto Melara 127/64 LW Vulcano.
Read about it.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Maz

We have a wonderful naval gun mount 130 mm AK-130, in two versions - double-barrel and single-barrel AK-190 one hundred millimeters with a range of 23 km and 16 km and a rate of three to two times.

It is possible that the ships want to equip howitzers to support the landing. Theoretically, it’s quite a working option, provided that the howitzer is oversized, and not just shoved onto the ship.

[Aqr009]

... provided that the howitzer is oversized, and not just shoved onto the ship.

The wetted version is spared some of the limitations of the land version.

[Dart2027]

Places there, of course, more.

[doubovitski]

Quote: Maz

this is some kind of nonsense. We have a wonderful naval gun mount 130 mm AK-130, in two versions - double-barrel and single-barrel AK-190 one hundred millimeters with a combat range of 23 km and 16 km and a rate of three to two times. Two trunks have 90 rounds per minute, and single-barrels have 45, respectively. The author would you at least google chtoli topic. Write some crap Russian AK-130 cannon can destroy destroyers and swarms of drones. here offhand https://inosmi.ru/military/20180206/241374251.html
a hundred with one barrel shoots 80 rounds per minute, there is also the A-192. Single barrel 130 mm. A-192 "Armat" - Russian universal naval artillery mount caliber 130 mm.

Developed by FSUE Arsenal Design Bureau for arming the new Russian frigates of project 22350. Produced at OJSC Arsenal Machine-Building Plant. It is a universal automatic artillery system of medium caliber, capable of firing at both surface and ground targets, and at air, including anti-ship missiles.

Are you not lost, dear? Or are you sitting on one stool and don't want to look around? 130 mm caliber and 152. Slightly different, right? And the Krasnopol shells, made specially for this poker. Maybe you dream of opening research and development work on the development of a controlled projectile for a 130 mm naval gun? It is not easier to install an already worked out system, all the more so. that active projectiles the Coalition fires much further.

[svp67]

Even if the "Coalition" suits the sailors, it will still have to be "spoiled" by adjusting it to the peculiarities of operation on ships and whether it will be cheaper, I don’t know

[Kurare]

Quote: svp67

Even if the "Coalition" suits the sailors, it will still have to be "spoiled"

That which will have to spoil - without a doubt. For example, the same Pantsir-M, which was also initially "overwhelmed" by a land-based installation.

There is still a big difference between the PzH-2000 and the Coalition: the Coalition module is not calculated. Those. this is exactly what is required for a modern naval artillery system.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Kurare

That which will have to spoil - without a doubt. For example, the same Pantsir-M, which was also initially "overwhelmed" by a land-based installation.

Rather, it is "Kortik" with new missiles from the ground system and radar.

Because otherwise it is impossible to get it out of this:

[Alex777]

And "Kortik", and "Pantsir", and Pantsir-M - KBP developments.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Alex777

And "Kortik", and "Pantsir", and Pantsir-M - KBP developments.

Well yes. And therefore, it is not surprising that, instead of directly "chilling" the land "Pantsir" - "one to one", the KBP took the artillery unit and the corps from its "Kortik" and supplemented them with the "chilled" missile unit and the REO "Pantsir".

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Kurare

module "Coalitions" - without calculation. Those. this is exactly what is required for a modern naval artillery system.

Dear dddr-uh, sailors know exactly what will come of it. You can borrow the SRC, another choy-thread, but putting the rocker on the deck is the height of absurdity! Remember our ugliness with the Wasp, which the land gave the fleet! Now we can easily cut down the hotts of the dough under the auspices of "standardization-optimization" ... And we will have another Mace! (By the way, I have no questions for Yars).
Regarding the complete automation and the absence of l / s in the tower. This is good as long as the ship has not received combat damage, and you do not need to control the AU from a local post. (The electricity has run out! The kinshchik got sick or something else happened there ...) That's when the mudovy sobbing about "the housekeeper made vodka" begins!
I dare to recall how amy were struck when the Vietnamese TFR, plunging under the barbet nose of the AU AK-176, continued to fire! He had a 4-fold duplication of the system. The last frontier - AB in the turret compartment and a fighter in the tower! This is a war, not a grand entrance to the arena ...
But.

[Frederick]

Greetings, at least I am a little far from the marine theme, but I also consider this venture with the installation of BM from the "Coalition" to put it mildly nonsense. Actually what I wanted to ask, you said this:

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

I dare to recall how amy were struck when the Vietnamese TFR, plunging under the barbet nose of the AU AK-176, continued to fire!

I tried to google it, but I couldn't find anything. If it was not difficult to tell what kind of battle it was and when, it's just really interesting and I would like to fill in my gaps about that war, if I studied a little ground battles, then about sea battles, I heard something and nothing more.

[Kurare]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Remember our deformations with the Wasp, which the land gave the fleet!

There are more than enough negative examples. But, the example with the shelling of the Shell is just a piggy bank for those who are for such evolutions.

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

I dare to recall how amy were struck when the Vietnamese TFR, plunging under the barbet nose of the AU AK-176, continued to fire!

The situation, by the way, has not changed. When the "lights are turned off," you can forget about gun mounts on US Navy ships. This is their concept. On the other hand, not all modern gun mounts are "classically" systematically duplicated in the Russian Navy either.

Now the opinion: the derivation of the "Coalition" instead classic gun mounts can not be set. Then I agree with the author about the German rake. But as support for landing, work on coastal targets is another matter. In addition, starting with a caliber of 152mm, you can use special charges. This may not be significant, but in some cases it is a serious argument.

[doubovitski]

Quote: BoA KAA

Quote: Kurare

module "Coalitions" - without calculation. Those. this is exactly what is required for a modern naval artillery system.

Dear dddr-uh, sailors know exactly what will come of it. You can borrow the SRC, another choy-thread, but putting the rocker on the deck is the height of absurdity! Remember our ugliness with the Wasp, which the land gave the fleet! Now we can easily cut down the hotts of the dough under the auspices of "standardization-optimization" ... And we will have another Mace! (By the way, I have no questions for Yars).
Regarding the complete automation and the absence of l / s in the tower. This is good as long as the ship has not received combat damage, and you do not need to control the AU from a local post. (The electricity has run out! The kinshchik got sick or something else happened there ...) That's when the mudovy sobbing about "the housekeeper made vodka" begins!
I dare to recall how amy were struck when the Vietnamese TFR, plunging under the barbet nose of the AU AK-176, continued to fire! He had a 4-fold duplication of the system. The last frontier - AB in the turret compartment and a fighter in the tower! This is a war, not a grand entrance to the arena ...
But.

That is, the automatic loader, in case of jamming, is removed, and a spare crew runs in its place, taking the place of the glands. Directly during the battle, otherwise how? Don't be smart, dear, with the last line of defense in the form of a fighter shoved into an uninhabited tower. Here, too, as in the proverb- "She died, she died ...."

[Boa kaa]

Quote: doubovitski

the last frontier of defense in the form of a fighter stuck in an uninhabited tower

The fact of the matter is that the AK-176 tower is inhabited! That is the trick.
And about the bias of the loader ....
At you are very excited!
Automation used to fail when the limit switches didn’t work, but as for the automatic loader ... I haven’t heard this for a long time.
But.

[Andrei Nikolaevich]

The late Shipunov would ... he would have "overwhelmed" and "dried up" anything

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

Even if the "Coalition" suits the sailors, it will still have to be "spoiled" by adjusting it to the specifics of operation on ships

Not the fact that this is the case as the Poles presented it. I think the proposal was to unify only guns and ammunition, and the naval version of the coalition is very different from the land

"Coalition-F"

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

and the ship’s version of the coalition is very different from the land

I will not be surprised at anything, since placement on a ship requires a lot of changes in the original version, and first of all, weight reduction

[Lopatov]

Quote: svp67

requires a lot of changes in the original version, and especially weight loss

?
Conversely
A change, yes, a lot is needed.

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

Conversely

And "on the contrary" is that?

[Lopatov]

The "opposite" is that there are no particular restrictions for the naval option.
So the weight will increase. And strong. Redistributing somewhat.

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

The "opposite" is that there are no particular restrictions for the naval option.

Here you are wrong, even as it is ... Although I understand what you want to say, but at the ship, everything above the metacentre should be easier, so as not to pose unnecessary stability problems for the ship. And here you have to re-arrange the entire system, transferring the same ammunition with the main part of the loading mechanism under the deck, reduce the turret’s dimensions as much as possible, replace many steel grades with more resistant to sea water ... in short, plenty of work

[Lopatov]

Quote: svp67

reduce the dimensions of the tower as much as possible

It is relatively small if the BC is removed.

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

It is relatively small if the BC is removed.

What they will do, but agree that the alteration will be big ...

[Alex777]

I will not be surprised at anything, since placement on a ship requires a lot of changes in the original version, and first of all, weight reduction

It's not about weight. AK-130 weighed more than 90 tons. And nothing.
It is fundamentally necessary to decide - to put on the ship a gun that cannot be used for air defense (at least so it is stated) and which can shoot projectiles with SBN or not?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Alex777

which cannot be used for air defense

Very controversial.
The same Germans proved the possibility of using a 155 mm gun not just for air defense, but for C-RAM

Another thing is that maybe 152 are redundant for ships. Even when working along the shore

[Alex777]

This is a basic statement adopted in the Navy - I didn’t come up with it.
Therefore, made the appropriate reservation.
At the same time I read about the shooting of the 68 bis cruisers with the main caliber of anti-ship missiles.
Alas, I failed to find that article again.
But as far as I remember, it was about Kutuzov and it was at the Black Sea Fleet.
And what other weapon can we shoot at 80 km? Not only in the navy?
Moreover, if the barrel is extended and water cooling is done, then the rate of fire will be increased to 20 rds / min and the range will be increased.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Alex777

This is a basic statement adopted in the Navy - I didn’t come up with it.

Aha
This was accepted by those who had previously grazed in the production of ammunition for the fleet.
Hopelessly behind the leaders.
I just don't think that shells capable of shooting down an 81-mm mortar mine in flight "cannot be used for air defense."

Another thing is that at the moment there are no such shells in the 152-mm format - yes. But they just need to be developed.

Here, for example, a projectile with a GGE with a high-precision electronic tube and with the ability to correct the time of detonation in flight.
Can this be used for air defense? Definitely yes
It is necessary to develop one to replace the ancient 3Sh2 with mechanical DTM-75 tube? Definitely yes.

So everything here is much more complicated than it seems at first glance

[Alex777]

So it is.
Once again: I made a reservation about "130 mm - the maximum caliber for air defense" on purpose.
Because with the rate of fire of the "Armata" and with the correct shells, a lot of interesting things can be done.
Personally, I like the idea of ​​152 mm on large ships.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Spade

Here, for example, a projectile with a GGE with a high-precision electronic tube and with the ability to correct the time of detonation in flight.

Colleague! And how much will it cost in wooden? Spit on electronics with and without?
On the Su-34, 22M3, we dragged the guidance systems from "cast iron" to the carrier so that they would not fly into the tube. And you are proposing such an encumbrance for the budget of the RF Ministry of Defense, Donya already closed his eyes!
Therefore, most likely, your second statement is true:

Quote: Spade

everything is much more complicated than it seems at first glance

[Lopatov]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Colleague! And how much will it cost in wooden? Spit on electronics with and without?

On Yandex Market, mechanical stopwatches start at 5990. And DTM-75 is about the same. only more precisely. One divisional salvo and 18 stopwatches fly away towards the enemy ...
Better to "spit electronics"

everything is much more complicated than it seems at first glance

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Alex777

and which can shoot shells with SBN or not?

Do we have them? Or are you still in the fifties of the last century soaring !?

[Alex777]

Do we have them? Or are you still in the fifties of the last century soaring !?

According to official figures, by 2000, Russia had withdrawn from service and dismantled all artillery nuclear munitions.

About the 50s is it out of harm? Yes?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Alex777

About the 50s is it out of harm? Yes?

No, just then there was an idea to bungle such a thing.
Well, as befitting, they lied, but later ...
AHA.

[doubovitski]

Quote: svp67

Even if the "Coalition" suits the sailors, it will still have to be "spoiled" by adjusting it to the peculiarities of operation on ships and whether it will be cheaper, I don’t know

And how is it to numb? Put the coppers to fight, not sleeping, standing on watch? Corrosion protection? There is such a piece of iron, on land that it does not even have time to sit down, the alloy does not want to put up with this disgrace. Each time you make a planer different, strict one piece of wood or another, or do you adapt to what is? Unless to make inscriptions there in rumbas, knots, cable and sea mats, instead of land.

[BAI]

Well, it’s not the first time we have spit on world experience to say that we are ahead of the rest and will cope with the task where everyone sees only hopelessness (like with the SU-47), waste billions, and then quietly curl up. Another cut of money. The land design bureau pulled the blanket over to its side.

[Lopatov]

Quote: BAI

Another cut of money.

In theory, the opposite.
Instead of two new lines of modern ammunition, only one is a clear saving.

[doubovitski]

Quote: BAI

Well, it’s not the first time we have spit on world experience to say that we are ahead of the rest and will cope with the task where everyone sees only hopelessness (like with the SU-47), waste billions, and then quietly curl up. Another cut of money. The land design bureau pulled the blanket over to its side.

Baran looked at the new gate and did not dare to enter. SU-47. What do you understand in aviation and in the design of these pieces of iron? You do not know that before starting work, the research phase first goes on. Deep scientific study of the idea. Mathematics, and not hundreds of specialists are engaged in these matters. Ten, maximum. And, in the case of promising utilities, it continues on a broader front, connecting design bureaus, pilot production. Models, models, purge in pipes. And each stage is closed with a report that is comprehensive and understandable to a narrow circle. A prototype is already half the battle. He flew, received aerodynamic data, not on sheets of paper, but in realities. Made sure. Prematurely. You don’t know why, sit and don’t tweet. The work of the designer is the only one in the world that does not lead only to costs. New knowledge is expensive, and it often happens that they are remembered when new opportunities arise.

[Avior]

Can Kaolitsiya shoot on the go?
How's the stabilization of the guns during pitching?

[Eldorado]

To dampen the Coalition and everything will be buzzing!

[alexmach]

What's the point? If you have a proven marine art systems and missile weapons?

[Eldorado]

The war with Georgia and the skirmishes of the DPRK with the ROK show that large-caliber artillery on ships is still needed.

[alexmach]

War with georgia

That in my opinion does not show this in any way. There, it seems, they managed without a single shot from naval artillery. About Korea do not know.

But please develop an idea, what is the niche for the use of these artillery systems, and how do they outperform existing ones, in particular the AK-192, with its 3 times faster rate of fire?

[D16]

please develop a thought, what is the niche for using these artillery systems, and how do they outperform existing ones, in particular the AK-192, with its 3 times faster rate of fire?

Greater application flexibility. It is provided by a modular propellant charge. It is not always necessary to go full sharash. The power of the ammunition, especially when working on the ground. The compactness of the ammunition, the convenience of loading. No need to roll the unitars to the height of a person. The cost of a shot, due to the lack of a cartridge case. You shouldn't worry too much about the rate of fire. They will make a double-barreled tower, supply the seawater for cooling and everything will be fine. To increase the range, you can use a "sub-caliber" guided 100-130 mm projectile with a six-inch master. In principle, the idea is sound, you just need to build a suitable destroyer .

[Alex777]

Alexander!
Compare the firing range of the A-192M (23 km) and the Coalition (so far up to 80 km).
The coalition, theoretically, can fire shells with UBC.
The rate of fire of the land Coalition is 18 rounds / min., While the sea Coalition will have at least 20 rounds / min. (States made the marine 203 mm automatic Mk-71 with 12 rds / min).
30 rds / min A-192M is not such a big advantage.
The power of shells - everything is clear here. 152 mm steers uniquely.

[alexmach]

Compare the firing range of the A-192M (23 km) and the Coalition (while up to 80 km)

80 km is a good figure, but it is definitely a rocket projectile and definitely "smart" (with some kind of trajectory correction system). Is there such a thing actually available, at least for the land version? And how to adjust the marine? ARLGSN to put in it or what?

[Alex777]

Ships are where the use of smart projectiles comes in handy.
In Rosatom (the developer of a lot for the Coalition), there are smart people.
I am sure that we will have the right shells (ARS, etc.).
By the way, the "flurry of fire", when 6 shells arrive at the target at the same time when the Coalition is firing, was realized thanks to the rate of fire that I indicated. Well, thanks to the variable propellant charge.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: alexmach

About Korea do not know.

Democratic, which are popular, Koreans to the glory of Kim on October 7.10.2014, XNUMX, using fire from their little balls set fire to the UK patrol boat (boat?).
The big victory of the North Korean fleet!

[Glory1974]

all land equipment is "overwhelmed". Starting with communications, ending with air defense systems.
Another question is whether it is possible to do this with the Coalition without serious alteration. "

[Foxmara]

Well, the Germans and Poles did not know. The Germans simply removed the tower from the artillery and stuck it (judging by the photo), and the Poles were also surprised how the Germans didn’t succeed? )))
Joke.

[Santa Fe]

The Germans simply removed the tower from the artillery and stuck it (judging by the photo

This is not a photo, this is just a photoshop

[aleks399]

To your annoyance, this is indeed a photo! and for the attention of the Poles, the Germans did it !!!! and this is true and the recoil was less than that of the 127 mm cannon precisely due to the fact that the installation is ground-based caterpillar and the large recoil overturns its proto - so measures to reduce were taken (the same muzzle brake reduces recoil by 30%) and all this is called a howitzer by inertia - barrel length 50 calibers! bismarck also has 50 calories. stood on the British cruisers. So they did it! and then removed as unnecessary - the tasks of the Germans are simply not the same! anti-submarine! and the idea for supporting the landing is very sensible both in terms of the power of ammunition and in terms of availability (count how many "green" equipment they make and how many naval ones!). note a modern naval 100 -114 mm shell will not even match a tank! because "sediment" anti-aircraft!

[Santa Fe]

To your displeasure, this is really a photo!

The self-propelled gun tower located in the bow of the frigate - the project under the designation MONARC (Modular Naval Artillery Concept) has never been realized

All that is known about this such a grandiose idea is a couple of incomprehensible statements and the only picture

[aleks399]

you are mistaken you just lack of information and "ignorance of the laws does not absolve from responsibility" so I advise you to accept as reality and proceed from this. it is always easier to say "this is not and cannot be" and now try to get it out of what it is! Now speculate about the prospects, especially for our fleet with its tasks on our CLOSED seas, first of all

[Santa Fe]

You have confused thoughts in your head. My comment did not affect the prospects of marine art.

What does the German concept of MONARC have to do with “our closed seas”. Not a single shot was fired, and there are also no results on the operation of the SPG tower at sea

The fact that six-inch artillery can be installed on a ship was known from the XNUMXth century.

[orionvitt]

In any case, they will modernize and adapt to specific conditions. As well as for example adapted ground-based anti-aircraft systems for combat use on ships. It seems the same, but not the same.

[Mountain shooter]

It's worth a try. Caliber 152 mm - cruising caliber. A naval gun of this caliber weighs much more than the Coalition turret ... Perhaps they will try to put corvettes on the RTOs.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Perhaps they will try to put corvettes on MRKs.

No less than EM! And even on modern 1144M / 1164M they will fit.
Other cases simply will not pull it

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

No less than EM! And even on modern 1144M / 1164M they will fit.
Other cases simply will not pull it

A-190 (100 mm marine) has a mass of 15 tons. Not much more than the "Coalition" tower ... It is clear that a stabilizer in two planes will definitely be added. And it will be quite a tool. The barrel is good, with an inner coating, an automatic loader, separate-case loading, a muzzle brake that absorbs up to 70% of the recoil energy ... maybe something worthwhile will turn out.

[My_log_in]

In all universities that I visited, in specialized departments ALL teachers said that a universal product is always worse than a specialized one in most characteristics, and the cost of its "adaptation" to all possible areas and conditions of use is beyond reasonable.

[Alexandra]

What did the teachers say about AMOS and NEMO?

[Yuriy Nikolaev]

Why do you think it's universal? As an example, a 130mm naval gun was installed on the IS-7 tank, but this is not a universal weapon. Another example is the 88mm Akht-Akht anti-aircraft gun. When developing a tank gun based on an anti-aircraft gun, an excellent tank gun was obtained. And this is not a universal artillery system, it is the versatility of ammunition and the adaptation of the artillery system for a specific application. It is one thing to develop a 152mm universal gun for land and naval equipment, as an example - the Divisional 76,2mm "universal" F-22 cannon, and another thing to develop a naval gun on the basis of the "Coalition".

[Momotomba]

Why not get the AK-630 dead? And put on the chassis of the T-90 or Almaty. The beast will turn out
Any alteration of something is more difficult than creating a new one. Let's create a new ship’s gun from scratch under a 152 mm shell with all the bells and whistles required by the fleet. The unification of ammunition will remain, the gun is different.

[Yuriy Nikolaev]

I gave you examples of alterations above when masterpieces really worked, based on Flak 37, developed a new 88-mm PaK 43 gun (anti-tank), a special 88-mm version of Flak 36 with a barrel length of 56 calibers, converted into a tank gun which was given the designation KwK 36 L / 56. So it’s not always alteration more difficult to create a new one.

[Momotomba]

I would agree with you if I knew what exactly they redid

[My_log_in]

"A correctly formulated question contains half the answer." (c) not mine. You yourself answered your own question, because "... developed on the basis of ..." differs from the "universal" as heaven from earth.
Let me cite as an example star-shaped internal combustion engines, originally developed for the fleet, but then suddenly (!!! when the irritation of the fleet could no longer be hidden) began to be used in diesel locomotives (without changes, only by cutting off the "extra" cylinders). They did not take root either there or there: for some they turned out to be weak, unreliable and gluttonous, while for others - too strong, unreliable and voracious.

[Kibl]

And since when did the Poles become such great "experts" in maritime affairs? Please remind me when Poland was a great sea power. Where is the Polish Trafalgar, Syrup, etc., etc.?

.

[Dikson]

The Poles are quite experienced shipbuilders .. They built steamboats not badly ...

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Dikson

The Poles are quite experienced shipbuilders .. They built steamboats not bad

At the German shipyards of Danzing (Gdansk) ...

[Pavel57]

Good idea to fight for the budget.

[Dikson]

In general, a very sensible argument .. Naval artillery is developed according to its own rules and the requirements for it are much tougher than for land products ... Either we have run out of marine designers, or some ears are sticking out of a certain lobby ..

[Phoenix]

This can be a double-barreled (initial) version, modified for the fleet. What the Poles write about is not proof of the bankruptcy of the concept, but idiocy; the tower from the German self-propelled guns was not finalized or even bothered to repaint. A bad example for a Polish article was chosen.

[A1845]

Russians have always been developing specialized weapons for the Navy

before the collapse of the USSR, then optimization began

[Bolo]

And remind me, please, after what partition of Poland or after what naval battle did the fans of hissing consonants become specialists in naval weapons?

[Santa Fe]

sizzling vowel lovers

Is that about you

[Bolo]

I said "consonants"!

[Santa Fe]

Yes, even consonants, it's about whom
All Slavic languages ​​hissing

[Undecim]

The Americans have already gone further. No towers. They just roll it onto the MLRS deck. Shot off - and in the hangar.

[Skay]

He shot back - and into the hangar.

- Type of otvetki left? ...

[Foxmara]

so maybe they ax like that? That's half does not fly

[Hermann]

Not only Americans.

SAM "Tor-M2KM", installed on the frigate "Admiral Grigorovich", during sea trials of the complex in 2016.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Undecim

The Americans have already gone further. No towers. They just roll it onto the MLRS deck. Shot off - and in the hangar.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Spade

This is shallow, Khobotov! ©
Let them learn from the Chinese:

[andrey-ivanov]

and strong recoil requires the installation of special stabilizers, without which, for example, the widely used 76-mm Melara gun is dispensed with.

Yeah. The Poles cannot be denied originality. Compare the 155 mm gun and the 76 mm Oto Melara "pukalku" gun ...

[rusboris]

God will avoid sea battles with the USA, 300 million voters will be sent to hell, partners will not want to. Our fleet will have to guard and support the operations of UDC and BDK. Perhaps the Airborne Forces in the coastal areas. For these purposes, the AK-192 is a weak gun. Cruising, a classic caliber, time-tested since 1885, it is 152 mm. At a distance of 40 km, 4 barrels can deliver within 10 minutes, up to 30 tons of high-explosive shells. Marine Corps will be greatly appreciated. If necessary, 152 mm can be thrown to particularly disloyal Russia, members of the world community two kilotons of nuclear munition. Colleagues I urge you to open your eyes to the modern political world. Where, the nuclear powers behave with each other militarily very restrained. For example, North Korea and the United States. And, here, to influence maritime communications and port cities of non-nuclear countries, urgent need to prepare special squadrons.

[Radomech]

We also put T-34 towers on armored boats and also with failure. The main reason is that the vessel is on the lowest point of the relief and always shoots up when shelling the shore, and when shooting at surface targets it is always direct fire ... well, at most, half straight, which significantly affects the reach.
But what does the howitzer gun have to do with it ?! Yes with ARS or Krasnopol.

[Senka naughty]

And maybe he, all these missile systems, back to the good old battleships.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Senka Mad

And maybe he, all these missile systems, back to the good old battleships.

Shhhh .... otherwise you’ll call Kaptsov to the thread.

[Santa Fe]

Hamburg frigate with a tower from PzH 2000

This is Photoshop

The sentence remained theory

[Lopatov]

Quote: Santa Fe

This is Photoshop

Allegedly not.

Quote: Santa Fe

The sentence remained theory

It is alleged that the tower was actually installed in December 2002 on the frigate "Hamburg" Thus, the possibility of such an installation was proved.
It is alleged that in 2004 the fire control system was tested with the help of the SG, fixed on the helicopter deck of the frigate "Hesse"

It is also difficult to call it "theory". For both forehead and forehead, the Italian 127/64 gun is designed to use the same shells of the Vulcano family that were going to be fired from the "morefied" PzH 2000

[Lopatov]

And by the way, there are too many photoshop to make it Photoshop

https://player.slideplayer.com/33/8234852/#

[Santa Fe]

that the tower was actually installed in December 2002 on the frigate "Hamburg"

Hamburg frigate commissioned in 2004

[Lopatov]

Quote: Santa Fe

Hamburg frigate commissioned in 2004

And?

[Santa Fe]

No practical results could be obtained from this venture. No firing, no sailing

The fact that the ship of 6000 tons allows you to install a tower on it with 155 mi guns was known back in the XNUMXth century

[Lopatov]

Quote: Santa Fe

No practical results could be obtained from this venture. No firing, no sailing

They chose. And they chose a more expensive option.

[Nikolaevich I]

Oh, vanity of vanities! In the past, there were attempts to re-equip the fleet with "land" calibers ... moreover, both in the USSR and in the USA! Both in the USA and in the USSR they tried to install 203-mm and 155/152-mm guns on ships! But, all the same, it did not grow together! Both in the USA and in the USSR! It is no less interesting that both in the US Navy and in the Soviet Navy, 127/130-mm artillery mounts were and remain! So why guess whether or not it is expedient to equip fleets with "land" calibers. can better analyze past experience? What, why and why?

[Revolver]

In the US market for used cars, a car from Arizona ceteris paribus is markedly higher than a car from Florida. And there, and there is no winter, the roads do not salt. But in Florida, the marine climate, in the air there is always a suspension of sea water, mind you, salty. How does this affect the body, the electrics, and much more, I think, no need to explain. And in Arizona, the climate is sharply continental.
This I mean, that quite reliable land equipment can begin to fail even near the sea, and even more so at sea. Put additional seals, galvanizing, painting, but you never know what else will reveal the operation and, accordingly, will pull a bunch of alterations. So another question, which is more expensive, is to adapt land equipment to maritime requirements or to develop from scratch initially taking into account maritime specifics.

[militarist63]

Yeah! Poles, really, great experts in naval artillery !!! This is despite the fact that the Polish Navy, consisting of 6 submarines (5 of which the ancient Norwegian second-hand) and 6 surface ships (3 of which missile boats ..., and 2 frigates -American second-hand 70- x years) have a maximum caliber of artillery weapons of 76,2 mm!

[DK]

What rake are we talking about if now the artillery on the ships is no longer the main weapon. In addition, I am far from thinking that our developers will simply screw the Coalition as it is to the deck. But the recharging systems and the microwave fuse used there may well be used in the Navy.