Military Review

Naval News proposes to return to coastal artillery

49

The use of a variety of fire weapons to engage targets in all environments. US Army graphics


On November 4, an article by Peter Ong appeared in the online edition of Naval News "Analysis: 155mm Wheeled Mobile Howitzers Could Become Anti-Ship Artillery" ("Analysis: 155mm wheeled self-propelled guns can be anti-ship artillery"). As the name implies, the topic of the publication was the possibility of returning self-propelled artillery to coastal defense. It is noted that this concept is not new, but modern technologies and products will dramatically increase the potential of coastal artillery.

Missile issues and artillery advantages


It is noted that most of the developed countries use mobile coastal missile systems to protect the coast from enemy ships. They allow you to keep the enemy at distances of hundreds of miles from the coast and provide a high probability of hitting the designated target. At the same time, the ammunition load of the launcher is usually limited, after which reloading is required with the participation of a transport-combat vehicle - also carrying a small number of missiles.

Such coastal defense is capable of holding back or hitting a limited number of ships, but a large assault force will simply overload it. The missile systems will spend their ammunition, after which the coast will be left without protection, and the enemy will successfully land or deliver a missile strike.


ACS Brutus. Photo AM General

Modern self-propelled artillery is distinguished by its high rate of fire, automatic preparation for firing, significant ammunition load and high mobility. In addition, modern fire control and ammunition allow you to get a high percentage of hits on moving targets.

These qualities and capabilities attract the attention of the armies, and in the future may interest the coastal troops. The relatively large ammunition load, made up of guided missiles, allows the effective use of self-propelled guns against ships or landing craft.

New technologies


Modern self-propelled artillery combines a range of advanced technologies to ensure high efficiency. In addition, it allows completely new tasks to be solved. In this context, Naval News recalls the September trials in the United States, when the M109A6 self-propelled gun, using an HVP projectile, shot down an unmanned target-simulator of a cruise missile.

Thus, an ACS with modern guided ammunition, using external target designation from various sources, is capable of striking stationary and mobile ground and surface targets and even fighting some air targets. This artillery potential must be used in the concept of a "multi-domain operation". ACS should be one of the means of fire and ensure the solution of those combat missions in which it is able to show the best results.


ACS Archer on a Volvo chassis. Photo Wikimedia Commons

It is noted that the USMC and the marines of other countries have long abandoned self-propelled artillery in caliber up to 155 mm. Instead, towed systems are used with the ability to transport by air. However, modern technologies and products may interest the ILC, which will lead to the restoration of self-propelled units.

Army request


P. Ong recalls that in June 2020, the US ground forces published a "request for proposals" for a promising 155-mm self-propelled howitzer on a wheeled chassis. It should become a more mobile addition to the existing tracked self-propelled guns of the M109 family and give the army new opportunities. There are several existing designs that meet the army's requirements in general, but Naval News is considering only two of them.

The first is the Brutus ACS from AM General. This project provides for the open installation of an M776 howitzer with an improved gun carriage on an FMTV vehicle. The carriage is equipped with original anti-recoil devices, which provide a shot when rolling, which reduces the recoil impulse. There are modern fire controls.

The Brutus has a mass of 14,8 tons, is serviced by a crew of 5 and can fire at a rate of up to 5 rounds per minute. (steady rate of fire - 2 shots / min.) The maximum firing range of an active-rocket projectile is 30 km. Ammunition is transported by a separate truck and transferred to the ACS right during firing.


"Archer" on MAN chassis. Photo BAE Systems

The Brutus product is currently undergoing testing and has already attracted the attention of the US ILC. At the same time, orders for production for the American army have not yet been received, but the developer company is optimistic.

At the beginning of next year, tests of the Archer ACS from BAE Systems will begin at the American proving ground. This is a wheeled combat vehicle on a chassis of the required type (the original version was built on the Volvo A30D platform) with an original automated combat module. A 155-mm gun with a 52 clb barrel is used; it is possible to use another barrel group.

The Archer combat module is equipped with a built-in 21-shot magazine and an automatic loader. The rate of fire reaches 8-9 rds / min. Shooting by the MRSI method is possible. Range with an active rocket projectile - up to 50 km; declared the possibility of increasing the range by using promising projectiles or even by replacing the gun.

Defense prospects


Both samples under consideration show sufficiently high characteristics and have the potential for modernization. Due to their high mobility and available fire characteristics, they can find application not only in the army, but also in the marines, which in the United States is responsible for coastal defense.


Self-propelled gun mount from the A-222 "Bereg" complex. Photo Wikimedia Commons

Naval News indicates that the simultaneous deployment of coastal missile systems and self-propelled artillery installations will create an effective echeloned defense system. In this case, howitzers will use relatively cheap projectiles against surface and air targets within a radius of tens of kilometers, and anti-ship missiles will provide defense at long ranges.

An important factor in this context is the mobility of the self-propelled guns and its ability to quickly switch to a combat or traveling position. Due to this, it will be possible to carry out a maneuver taking into account the changing situation, increasing the effectiveness of artillery.

All this shows that in the construction of coastal and anti-amphibious defense it is now necessary to use not only anti-ship missiles. Self-propelled artillery is also capable of having its say - and moving between positions, quickly throwing high-precision shells at the enemy.

A good example


An article in Naval News raises an interesting question and even suggests possible solutions. At the same time, giving examples, the online edition forgot the most obvious and striking example. The Russian Navy's coastal forces have been in service for several decades with a specialized artillery complex A-222 “Bereg”, designed to combat ships and amphibious assault vehicles. It clearly shows exactly how a modern coastal SPG should look like.

Naval News proposes to return to coastal artillery
The principles of combat operation of the "Bereg" complex. Figure Armor.kiev.ua

A-222 includes a self-propelled central post with a radar for target detection and control over the results of firing, 4-6 self-propelled artillery guns with automated 130-mm guns and duty support vehicles. "Coast" independently finds surface targets at ranges of up to 30 km, generates data for firing and attacks objects at a distance of 23 km. The rate of fire of one combat vehicle is up to 12 rds / min. The ammunition load includes several types of high-explosive and anti-aircraft shells. The standardized four-axle chassis allows for quick entry and exit.

Complex "Coast" is capable of hitting surface targets at speeds up to 100 knots, air and coastal objects with known and unknown coordinates in advance. He can act independently or according to external target designation.

The A-222 artillery system demonstrates the fundamental possibility of creating a highly effective coastal defense weapon, even using technologies from previous years. Using modern developments and larger caliber guns, in theory, an even more formidable weapon... Moreover, it is not necessary to create a complete complex from scratch; it is quite possible to improve the actual means of reconnaissance and control in order to integrate the finished ACS into the contours of coastal defense.

Thus, practice has long confirmed the correctness of the conclusions of the author of Naval News. Indeed, both howitzers and missiles are needed to fully protect the coast - and the efficiency of the multi-component echeloned defense has been confirmed in practice. However, it is unclear whether the US command will heed such advice and whether self-propelled coastal artillery will be returned to service.
Author:
49 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Free wind
    Free wind 9 November 2020 06: 38 New
    +2
    Towed artillery today is an easy target for unmanned aerial vehicles.
    1. Whatislove
      Whatislove 9 November 2020 06: 53 New
      +2
      The drone is not a Wunderwaven. The towed art is usually covered by air defense, but in the case of RF and electronic warfare.
    2. TechPriest
      TechPriest 9 November 2020 07: 13 New
      -1
      Not only for them - there is not even a light anti-fragmentation protection there, any cover is deadly, it is not even necessary to hit the target precisely.
    3. faiver
      faiver 9 November 2020 10: 00 New
      +7
      How does towed artillery differ from self-propelled artillery for a drone? Nothing ...
  2. Doccor18
    Doccor18 9 November 2020 07: 10 New
    +4
    A-222 includes a self-propelled central post with radar for target detection and control over the results of firing, 4-6 self-propelled artillery guns with automated 130-mm guns ..

    It would be 152 mm. caliber "pereobut" ... Range in 23 km. not enough. The enemy's naval artillery has the same firing range. Coastal artillery complexes should hit the surface enemy at ranges of 40-50 km.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 9 November 2020 07: 27 New
      +5
      130mm at that time shot farther than 152mm howitzers and consumed 130mm shells for the Navy. You need a "long" 152mm gun. And the corr shell. Perhaps already with AGSN. For the ship, this is already justified.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 9 November 2020 11: 58 New
        +3
        Quote: Zaurbek
        130mm at that time shot farther than 152mm howitzers

        At the time of the development of "Berega" there was already "Msta" in development. So the firing range of the 152 mm AU was higher than that of the 130 mm.
        Quote: Zaurbek
        and consumed 130mm shells for the Navy

        But this became the main argument of the Navy in favor of 130-mm - the unification of shells.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 9 November 2020 11: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Doccor18
      The enemy's naval artillery has the same firing range.

      Coastal artillery has some advantage in stealth: it is still easier to camouflage it than a ship at sea. If it still turns out to organize a covert movement of the battery after every several volleys, the ship will be completely unhappy.

      Quote: Doccor18
      Coastal artillery complexes should hit the surface enemy at ranges of 40-50 km.

      Perhaps the matter here also rests on target designation issues. At 20-30 km, the complex can independently detect targets for itself, but 40-50 km is already beyond the horizon, you will need a gunner in the sky or somewhere else.
    3. venik
      venik 9 November 2020 15: 37 New
      +3
      Quote: Doccor18
      It would be 152 mm. caliber "pereobut" ... Range in 23 km. not enough.

      =======
      You can "change shoes" .... Especially since "Bereg" was created on the basis of "Msta-S". If necessary? In fact, the "Coast" was created to cover the "dead zone" of the DBK. And he was created as a ONE WHOLE! To increase the caliber and range - a new radar is needed, and questions will arise with precision. very accurate! Literally every projectile "puts" exactly on the target. Moreover, it works effectively not only for coastal and sea (including high-speed, maneuverable and small targets), but also for air targets! So, if a crowd of landing craft rush to the shore: high-speed landing boats, aircrafts, amphibians - then the "Coast" in this case is exactly what the "doctor ordered"! Well, the missilemen will deal with the enemy ships!
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 9 November 2020 19: 27 New
        0
        Both MST and the coalition shoot very accurately ... the radar does not need to be changed ... more precisely, it is necessary, like all the OMS. AFAR + BTsVM + data exchange system
      2. Grits
        Grits 11 November 2020 06: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: venik
        "Bereg" was created on the basis of "Msta-S". If necessary? In fact, the "Coast" was created to cover the "dead zone" of the DBK. And he was created as a ONE WHOLE!

        But how many such complexes do we have? It seems to be only one such - on the Black Sea coast. And no more and a new release seems to be not even planned. It's a pity. Saturating the coastline with such a tool would be cheap and cheerful.
        1. venik
          venik 11 November 2020 10: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Gritsa
          But how many such complexes do we have? It seems to be only one such - on the Black Sea coast. And no more and a new release seems to be not even planned. It's a pity. Saturating the coastline with such a tool would be cheap and cheerful.

          =========
          Here I am the logic of the Defense Ministry (in general) and the leadership of the Navy (in particular), I also cannot understand, Alexander! It seems that BO is formed according to some kind of "residual" principle - "haphazardly"! But the DBK alone cannot solve this problem - the "Balls" and "Bastions" alone are clearly not enough to create an EFFECTIVE, ESCHELONED coastal defense. And we have too many places where the "Coast" is simply necessary! And not only in the Baltic or Crimea, but also in the Pacific Ocean (especially in the Southern Kuriles)! Alas! request hi
          1. Grits
            Grits 12 November 2020 09: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: venik
            And we have too many places where the "Coast" is simply necessary! And not only in the Baltic or the Crimea, but also in the Pacific Ocean (especially in the South Kuriles)! Alas!

            If at least one such complex rolled along the roads along the coast of my native Primorye, it would have been more calm.
  3. KCA
    KCA 9 November 2020 07: 33 New
    0
    Have you looked at "Shore" and decided to repeat it? Well it's 30 years behind us
  4. tlauicol
    tlauicol 9 November 2020 08: 45 New
    +5
    the best defense for them is the lack of amphibious capabilities
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 9 November 2020 11: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      the best defense for them is the lack of amphibious capabilities

      I don’t think it’s a matter of "us": hardly anyone seriously believes in the possibility of the Russian Federation to land amphibious assault forces on the American coast. But to drive the brave Chinese marines away from some disputed islands in the APR is quite.
    2. shinobi
      shinobi 9 November 2020 11: 19 New
      -1
      Why all of a sudden? We have quite enough amphibious capabilities. The question is already for you, against whom to land, on whose shore? All geopolitical interests of Russia are on the continent of Eurasia. Venice, Cuba, this is such a trifle.
  5. sergo1914
    sergo1914 9 November 2020 08: 53 New
    -4
    The people in charge of the Gibraltar defense system are scratching their heads in puzzlement.
  6. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 9 November 2020 09: 03 New
    -3
    Quote: TechPriest
    Not only for them - there is not even a light anti-fragmentation protection there, any cover is deadly, it is not even necessary to hit the target precisely.


    Quote: Doccor18
    It would be 152 mm. caliber "pereobut" ... Range in 23 km. not enough. The enemy's naval artillery has the same firing range. Coastal artillery complexes should hit the surface enemy at ranges of 40-50 km.


    So the requirements:
    - firing range 40 - 50 km;
    - the presence of armor protection;
    - significant ammunition.
    And for some reason, coastal defense batteries with naval turret guns of battleships come to mind. As long as I remember. near Vladivostok, something like that still survived, though in the form of a museum. A similar firing point can be covered by means of electronic warfare and air defense, in addition, guns covered with powerful turret armor plates are invulnerable to drones and most weapons - ask Oleg Kaptsov, he will confirm !!!
    In the underground casemates you can keep as many shells, water, provisions ...
    1. faiver
      faiver 9 November 2020 10: 03 New
      +3
      stationary point of defense is destroyed a priori ...
      1. Grits
        Grits 11 November 2020 06: 24 New
        0
        Quote: faiver
        stationary point of defense is destroyed a priori ...

        Than? If an air defense system is installed next to the same Voroshilov battery on Russky Island in Vladivostok, then who will destroy this battery? Attack aircraft will not fly up to Vladivostok anyway. Even "Pantsir" will be able to safely land "Tomahawks" from bourgeois destroyers. And it is precisely this battery that will not allow ships to reach the range of artillery from the enemy's ships.
        1. faiver
          faiver 11 November 2020 07: 16 New
          0
          the problem of destroying any target is determined by the necessary outfit of forces ...
    2. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 9 November 2020 10: 14 New
      +3
      Tower armor plates - they need drives for turning or opening the supply of ammunition, underground casemates need electrification, ventilation, maintenance, etc. - all this will be very expensive, and it is destroyed without any problems by an anti-bunker bomb, which is a penny in comparison with these structures.
      1. Grits
        Grits 11 November 2020 06: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        and is destroyed without any problems with an anti-bunker bomb, which is worth a penny in comparison with these structures.

        To do this, the bomber needs to fly over the battery in order to drop that same anti-bunker bomb. And who will allow him there?
    3. Alex777
      Alex777 9 November 2020 12: 49 New
      0
      And for some reason, coastal defense batteries with naval turret guns of battleships come to mind.

      On the Russky Island, the Voroshilov battery of 2 towers was closed.
      And in Sevastopol, battery No. 30 is active. Disguised as a museum.
      1. Runway
        Runway 9 November 2020 14: 38 New
        +1
        You speak out. The first tower is a museum, the second is a "conservation". There is no move to the lost.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 9 November 2020 14: 50 New
          0
          You speak out. The first tower is a museum, the second is a "conservation". There is no move to the lost.

          Are you talking about Russian? I'll just be glad.
          There were all sorts of publications that ruined.
          On July 30, 1997, the Voroshilov battery was converted into the 3rd branch of the Pacific Fleet's military history museum.
          The former commander of the battery and its lifelong supervisor G. Shabot was appointed director of the museum. The underground premises were preserved in their original form and opened to visitors. All ammunition - and this is 2500 armor-piercing, semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive shells - was disposed of. The gunpowder was burned, and the iron ingots were sunk into the sea.

          Well if not so.
          1. Runway
            Runway 9 November 2020 15: 13 New
            +2
            The other batteries on the Island are amba. To Voroshilovskaya they caught up with armored shells, such as a branch of the "Patriot", but to put in order the forts, occupied by "grateful descendants" hands did not reach (fastened the plates "museum-fortress" and the scribe to the kittens).
            When Voroshilovskaya fired, in our battalion the window panes were covered with paper crosses (from my childhood memories - M. Ivantsova).
  7. Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 9 November 2020 09: 37 New
    0
    The complex is not bad, but I don't see a single conflict where it could be implemented. Compared to a ship, the complex is not very mobile, for missile systems due to the range it is not so important, and for the effectiveness of art complexes, they need to saturate the coastline very tightly with very doubtful efficiency.
    Particularly pleased:
    In this case, howitzers will use relatively cheap shells against surface and air targets within a radius of tens of kilometers.

    Howitzer air defense for tens of kilometers - well, this is frankly a fantasy overkill.
    1. faiver
      faiver 9 November 2020 10: 06 New
      0
      Howitzer air defense for tens of kilometers - well, this is frankly a fantasy overkill.
      - projectiles with artificial intelligence that can float in the air for hours lol
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 9 November 2020 11: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Sergey_G_M
      Howitzer air defense for tens of kilometers - well, this is frankly a fantasy overkill.

      Why? Shipborne artillery of 76-130 mm caliber is capable of working against air targets; what prevents you from repeating this experience on land? As an additional air defense echelon when repelling a massive raid, the Kyrgyz Republic has a right to life.
      1. Sergey_G_M
        Sergey_G_M 9 November 2020 11: 57 New
        +1
        The naval artillery has a rate of fire, strong guidance drives, plus the sea is "flat", and these installations are more auxiliary as air defense. It is not effective to use a large caliber for low-flying KR with a bend in the relief, and if you create an unearthly installation with the required targeting speeds and rate of fire, the installation size and price will immediately increase, and in terms of efficiency it will be worse than a shell or torus, but in terms of KR it will be less effective than an ancient awl.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 9 November 2020 12: 14 New
          +3
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          On low-flying KR with relief bending

          We are talking about the coastal complex, which can start shooting missiles as long as they fly over the sea (still not bending around anything).

          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          Ship artillery has a rate of fire

          And coastal artillery has numbers. A whole battery will work, and then there are questions to the LMS.

          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          strong targeting drives

          These are important when working on maneuvering targets. But, say, "Tomahawks" and "Calibers" over the sea are going with proletarian directness and quite moderate speed. If it is possible to detect a volley in advance and turn the howitzers in the right direction, it will be quite possible to drop a number of missiles.

          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          yes, and these installations as air defense are more auxiliary

          Coastal howitzers are also unlikely to become the basis of air defense. Just a way to further thin out the rocket flock that rushes by. It is clear that the main work will still be done by specialized air defense systems.
          1. Sergey_G_M
            Sergey_G_M 9 November 2020 12: 37 New
            +1
            We are talking about the coastal complex, which can start shooting missiles as long as they fly over the sea (still not bending around anything).

            Putting artillery right on the shore so that the cannon has a direct shot towards the horizon is very, very at least strange.
            But, say, "Tomahawks" and "Caliber" over the sea go with proletarian directness and quite moderate speed.

            Take, for example, a projectile speed of 800 m / s, KR 220 m / s. when firing at 8 km, we get the calculated lead point 2,2 km from the current position of the KR, it should not even be a proletarian straight line, but an armored train on rails to hit with such a lead. From here, the affected area drops to 4-5 kilometers, the angular velocities of the target increase, the art of installations for cover needs more or ineffective and off we go and why pay extra for it?
            And all this is reduced to nothing by adjusting the software in the Kyrgyz Republic, so that it makes a couple of imposing maneuvers in front of the zone of possible battery.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 9 November 2020 12: 53 New
              +1
              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              Putting artillery right on the shore so that the cannon has a direct shot towards the horizon is very, very at least strange.

              Well, not directly ashore, but overlooking the sea, I guess.

              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              From here, the affected area drops to 4-5 kilometers, the angular velocities of the target increase, the art of installations for cover needs more

              I'm not saying that everything is simple. I proceed from considerations that naval artillery has somehow mastered this trick, which means, in theory, coastal artillery can also (compensating for the low rate of fire with a large number of barrels).

              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              and why pay extra for it?

              As long as our probable friends pay for this, I have nothing against it at all)) And so, of course, you need to carry out field tests, evaluate the real performance, based on it, figure out the economic feasibility and draw the final conclusion: is it worth it or not. Let them have fun)
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 9 November 2020 14: 50 New
                0
                The ship's artillery covers essentially its own position. And shoots towards the enemy's ammunition. By creating a barrier into which that ammunition must fly. If it doesn’t fly in, then it’s also good. Means will miss
            2. ZEMCH
              ZEMCH 10 November 2020 03: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: Sergey_G_M
              Take, for example, a projectile speed of 800 m / s, KR 220 m / s. when firing at 8 km, we get the calculated lead point 2,2 km from the current position of the CD, it should not even be a proletarian straight line, but an armored train on rails in order to hit with such a lead. From here, the affected area drops to 4-5 kilometers, the angular velocities of the target grow, the art of installations for cover needs more or ineffectively and off we go, and why pay extra for this?
              And all this is reduced to nothing by adjusting the software in the Kyrgyz Republic, so that it makes a couple of imposing maneuvers in front of the zone of possible battery.

              The coast also worked on targets of subsonic missile launchers (several and different directions at once), the surface target also represented a low-flying air target. All targets were destroyed. They worked both under normal conditions and with jamming. Beats very accurately! wink
  8. swnvaleria
    swnvaleria 9 November 2020 12: 07 New
    +1
    the first picture shows a map of the Crimea, between Simferopol and the village. Nikolaevka such solar power stations
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 9 November 2020 13: 01 New
      0
      Directly use the map of Crimea? Insolent ...
  9. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 9 November 2020 12: 12 New
    0
    Quote: faiver
    stationary point of defense is destroyed a priori ...


    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    Tower armor plates - they need drives for turning or opening the supply of ammunition, underground casemates need electrification, ventilation, maintenance, etc. - all this will be very expensive, and it is destroyed without any problems by an anti-bunker bomb, which is a penny in comparison with these structures.


    Dear friends, do I understand correctly that according to your logic "Object 100" is a stationary object, the coastal defense missile battery in Crimea is not worth a damn! "Fixed point of defense", that is, "destroyed a priori ..."besides, restoration and maintenance of the said object is expensive ...
    As a result - is the decision to restore and maintain the "Object 100" sabotage?
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 9 November 2020 12: 53 New
      +2
      No, it's more about the cost-effectiveness parameter.
      Those. making an expensive coastal armored artillery installation that will enter the battle when the ships, and therefore most likely the aviation is already at your coast, is not profitable (in fact, it is clear that it will not have time to enter the battle at all), but to restore a stationary rocket battery operating at 200+ km is profitable - she will have time to shoot, and maybe more than once.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 9 November 2020 14: 53 New
        0
        Yes, in fact, the use of that battery is slightly more than zero. A salvo of 4 missiles and a long reload time. Stability is low. But the enemy will have to spend money on her defeat. And this is the main advantage.
    2. Alex777
      Alex777 9 November 2020 12: 58 New
      +1
      Are you comparing an artillery turret and a missile system with a range of 500 km?
  10. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 9 November 2020 12: 59 New
    +1
    If the air is controlled, then no landing force will come close to the coast. But if the attacking side controls it, then no missiles and guns will help. Although mobile, even stationary. They will knock them out with aviation and drones and land calmly.
  11. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 9 November 2020 13: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Alex777
    Are you comparing an artillery turret and a missile system with a range of 500 km?


    No, I'm rather trying to compare two stationary firing points. It is believed that in both cases the "weak point" is precisely their stationarity ...
    We must not forget that such an object will most likely be "gouged" by cruise missiles, the launchers (carriers) of which will be beyond both 40-50 km and 500 km.
    As a result, the question of the survival of a stationary firing point will depend on air defense and electronic warfare systems, and the stationary object itself will be a potential suicide bomber.
    However, I in no way claim to be the ultimate truth ...
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 9 November 2020 15: 22 New
      0
      It all depends on the enemy.
      the Americans with full volleys of three or four Tikondegogs can oversaturate the air defense and walk all over the Crimea (hello to this battery, and to airfields, warehouses, units, power plants), but they will not do this.
      Those who stayed are the Turks, this battery can work against them.
  12. Azimuth
    Azimuth 9 November 2020 15: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Zaurbek
    130mm at that time shot farther than 152mm howitzers

    At the time of the development of "Berega" there was already "Msta" in development. So the firing range of the 152 mm AU was higher than that of the 130 mm.
    Quote: Zaurbek
    and consumed 130mm shells for the Navy

    But this became the main argument of the Navy in favor of 130-mm - the unification of shells.

    Its advantage lies in unification. The rest is a wonderful complex, it is a pity that it did not receive its development and more advanced modernizations.

    He has enough range and power for his tasks with interest, you just have to refresh your memory and look at the law of the sea, and transfer 12 miles to km (22,2 who did not realize). It will be able to use modern ammunition, will receive modern means of detecting targets, including passive ones, and there will be no price for it, it will last another 25 years.
  13. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 9 November 2020 16: 17 New
    0
    Duc, the old strategists are dead, and
    new ones make # retro-innovations and for them they "saw" loot :) It's the same as with smartphones, for example. Or with satellite communication :)
    1. agond
      agond 9 November 2020 17: 41 New
      -1
      The coast cannot be considered a successful development, it is a very large machine with a 13 m long hull, 3.9 m high and a weight of 44 tons, plus escort vehicles for close ones (which the Coast cannot do without) and the very idea of ​​firing a large cannon from a car, to put it mildly it is not good, it will be good if the weapon is carried on a transport vehicle, and before firing it is unloaded to the ground, it is smaller dimensions easier to hide means higher survivability, higher reliability (if the transport vehicle breaks down, it can be changed) significantly less weight or with the same weight more caliber, and all this is much cheaper.