Ukrainian artillerymen began using 100-mm Soviet BS-3 field guns at the front

The shortage of ammunition of Western calibers, as well as the failure of artillery systems supplied by Western sponsors, are forcing the command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces to pull Soviet guns and howitzers that have been decommissioned from their arsenals. According to the Ukrainian press, Soviet BS-3 field guns of 100 mm caliber appeared in service with the Ukrainian army.

The artillery units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine received BS-3 guns from the Great Patriotic War; deliveries of these guns to the Soviet army began in 1944 and until the end of the war, only about 400 guns were delivered. This gun was developed to combat German heavy weapons. tanks, but was not widely used due to a number of shortcomings. It was produced until 1951; a total of 3816 BS-3 guns were delivered to the troops.

BS-3 has a declared maximum firing range of up to 20,6 km, rate of fire - up to 8 rounds per minute (practical 4-5), crew of 6 people. Ukrainian media write that the BS-3 first appeared in service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but this is not so. These guns were first seen in service with the Ukrainian army back in 2015 in the Donbass, but were later replaced by Western artillery systems. Now the reverse process has begun.

It is worth noting that the BS-3 is not the first Soviet gun to return to service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces; earlier, 85-mm Soviet D-44 divisional guns were seen near Bakhmut. In September of this year, Ukrainian artillerymen received Soviet 130-mm M-46 cannons of the 1953 model. As it turned out, Finland supplied them to Kyiv.

As has already been stated, the Ukrainian army continues to experience a shortage of artillery, Western supplies of modern howitzers do not cover the needs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, so Soviet guns and howitzers in service with the Ukrainian army will appear at the front more than once.

Comments

[Carlos Hall]

Now the US has to supply Israel and spend money on two fronts at the same time.

[isv000]

Quote from Carlos Sala

Now the US has to supply Israel and spend money on two fronts at the same time.

Now the shitcrats in Washington are washing their money with the help of two fronts - the gray one and the long one.
The Yankees managed the impossible - they crossed x alaal with fat eaters...

[Fitter65]

Quote from Carlos Sala

Now the US has to supply Israel and spend money on two fronts at the same time.

This is not to fight with Japan and supply to the USSR what you don’t need. Studebaker US6, which was not suitable for the US Army, but to support an ally so that its manufacturer does not go down, it will do. Bell P-39 Airacobra didn’t know what to do with it, but here the Russians are talking here is such a plane... and the Bell company came to life... But now something is wrong Javelin is not a saint, and the Stinger is not a shooter of everything, and the “Leopards”, like the grandchildren of the “Tigers” and “Panthers”, burn an order of magnitude better. .. Well and the like...

[DymOk_v_dYmke]

On the Maidan near Ukrov the ballista lit up.
Her turn will come.

[parabyd]

Yeah, from the creators "Ukrainians have superiority in artillery - it is longer-range and more accurate"

[Escariot]

Quote from: parabyd

Yeah, from the creators "Ukrainians have superiority in artillery - it is longer-range and more accurate"

And how does one contradict the other? Western systems are somewhat superior to ours in quality, but quantitatively they cannot compete anywhere near Russia’s old Soviet reserves. And in order to somehow close the shortage in the number of barrels (and shells), you have to use not only what is needed, but what is available. Those. in some places they are not very good at all, and where the enemy has transferred brigades with modern artillery - they have an advantage in range and accuracy.

[Grits]

Quote from Escariot

And in order to somehow close the shortage in the number of barrels (and shells), you have to use not only what is needed, but what is available

I can imagine the nightmare of Khokhlostan’s rear guards regarding the supply of artillery to the LBS. You can jump out of your mind only from the presence of calibers (ours and NATO)
85, 100, 105,120, 122, 130,152, 155, 203.

[alexoff]

There they also use C60 as artillery

[Sebenza]

Aren't we? Good. The main thing is not to forget the ruler.

[gsev]

Quote: Gritsa

You can jump out of your mind only from the presence of calibers (ours and NATO)
85, 100, 105,120, 122, 130,152, 155, 203.

If you have a computer and an uninterrupted connection, then what is the problem of creating a program using Windows that automatically generates requests for replenishment with the necessary ammunition? 100 types of ammunition is about 100 times easier to maintain the assortment of the Chizhik store.

[Mitrich73]

There are not 10 items in Chizhik. In peaceful logistics, vehicles with goods do not explode and the assortment can be replaced with a similar one. In addition to artillery rounds, spare parts for guns are needed. That is why everyone strived for unification in the artillery.

[Egeny]

Alex, well, that's not our problem...
By the way, the rear ones have more intelligence than those at the headquarters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine... and not only.)
and one more thing... Judas, who is Escariot (Escariot), you judge by the packaging
superiority of "Western systems... in quality" over ours?

[Alf]

Quote: gsev

If you have a computer and an uninterrupted connection, then what is the problem with creating a program using Windows that automatically generates requests for replenishment with the necessary ammunition?

The program is good, even wonderful. But here’s the thing: no Windows and no program can replace a truck for delivery.

[Sebenza]

URAL, and the collimator and quickly get rid of it.

[Escariot]

Quote: Gritsa

Quote from Escariot

And in order to somehow close the shortage in the number of barrels (and shells), you have to use not only what is needed, but what is available

I can imagine the nightmare of Khokhlostan’s rear guards regarding the supply of artillery to the LBS. You can jump out of your mind only from the presence of calibers (ours and NATO)
85, 100, 105,120, 122, 130,152, 155, 203.

What's the problem? Logistics as a science has advanced very much since the Second World War. Everyone has tablets and the Internet. Carrying consolidated and incidental cargo is not a problem at all.

[bayard]

Quote: Gritsa

You can jump out of your mind only from the presence of calibers (ours and NATO)
85, 100, 105,120, 122, 130,152, 155, 203.

125 mm. missed a tank shell. So yes - the range is wide.

[stankow]

.Western systems are somewhat superior to ours in quality

In advertising brochures they are amazingly superior in all respects, but we are talking about use on the battlefield, aren’t we? There, booklets and rolling papers are not suitable, the paper is glossy...

[Blackbeard]

a year later in Ukraine, report to Zelensky: “the catapult is ready, my lord!”

[Plate]

I am sure that even against such a background, there will be Ukrainians on the Internet writing that Ukraine has a great future, Russia will be defeated, and all over the world they (Ukrainians) are loved, expected and ready to help them.

[isv000]

Quote: DymOk_v_dYmke

On the Maidan near Ukrov the ballista lit up.
Her turn will come.

In 1941, near Moscow, mortars from the late 19th century were pulled out of storage - the tigers took great hits with them! But that's a completely different story...

[ISSIDOR]

Well, yes! Especially tigers at 41, they probably escaped from the zoo!

[novel66]

Laugh!!! Tigers near Moscow!!! Alles!!!

[Alf]

Quote: novel xnumx

Laugh!!! Tigers near Moscow!!! Alles!!!

These are pre-production samples...So to speak, experimental ones...

[stankow]

baize
...........................................

[nepunamemuk]

Quote: isv000

Quote: DymOk_v_dYmke

On the Maidan near Ukrov the ballista lit up.
Her turn will come.

In 1941, near Moscow, mortars from the late 19th century were pulled out of storage - the tigers took great hits with them! But that's a completely different story...

what tigers in forty-one

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: isv000

In 1941, near Moscow, mortars from the late 19th century were pulled out of storage.

These were not mortars... and not from the end of the 19th century, but from the 1877 model.

[Nikolaevich I]

Well, the 122-mm M-30 howitzer “lit up” in the Northern Military District! I just don’t remember now...which side!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Well, the 122-mm M-30 howitzer “lit up” in the Northern Military District! I just don’t remember now...which side!

EMNIP, it was not a 122 mm M-30, but a slightly newer 152 mm D-1 howitzer. It lit up from our side.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Well, the 122-mm M-30 howitzer “lit up” in the Northern Military District! I just don’t remember now...which side!

EMNIP, it was not a 122 mm M-30, but a slightly newer 152 mm D-1 howitzer. It lit up from our side.

No...I’m in the know about the D-1 howitzer! The “speech” was specifically about the M-30!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

No...I’m in the know about the D-1 howitzer! The “speech” was specifically about the M-30!

You probably mean the message dated 06.02.2023/XNUMX/XNUMX:

A unique artillery gun of the pre-war era was noticed in the zone of the NMD.

As part of the shooting of one of the scenes, a truly rare artillery gun of the 1938 model of the year got into the video footage. We are talking about the M-30 howitzer, which was towed by an army truck to one of the positions for firing at the enemy.

Upon closer examination of the photo, it turned out that this was not an M-30, but a D-1 with a muzzle brake covered with an ersatz cover. The D-1 was given recoil guards: on the D-1, the upper and lower cylinders end at the same level, while on the M-30, the lower cylinder protrudes quite far forward.

In general, it is not difficult to confuse these two guns - the D-1 was obtained by superimposing a barrel based on the M-10 barrel on an M-30 carriage.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: DymOk_v_dYmke

On the Maidan near Ukrov the ballista lit up

In 2014, we managed to see a video where the militia used a mortar that was very similar in appearance to the Kegorn mortar...smooth-bore and muzzle-loading!

[madrobot]

It’s true that there was not a ballista, but a trebuchet, but in this context this is completely unimportant.

[uav80]

Let them immediately put it on a motorcycle league for maneuverability...))))

[lukash66]

So what, good little fluff. HE fires at 20 km. They have about 100 pieces left of the SA in storage. The M30 and ML20 will soon be put into use there, too, probably where they stand. It’s definitely on the monuments.

[South Ukrainian]

Quote from: lukash66

The M30 and ML20 will soon be put into use there, too, probably where they stand. It’s definitely on the monuments.

You are right, in one urban settlement in the south of Ukraine there was a T-55 tank and an armored personnel carrier (BTR-60) on a pedestal, they were removed a year ago and after repairs they were sent to the front. The main thing is that there is ammunition.

[zloybond]

Well, both sides can boast of using weapons that have been removed from service. Whatever shoots and kills will be used whenever possible. Moreover, there is a stock of shells in warehouses that will need to be disposed of. So they use it.
You might think that the explosion of a shell fired from a BS-3 cannon would cause no problems????

[Escariot]

Quote: zloybond

Well, both sides can boast of using weapons that have been removed from service. Whatever shoots and kills will be used whenever possible. Moreover, there is a stock of shells in warehouses that will need to be disposed of. So they use it.
You might think that the explosion of a shell fired from a BS-3 cannon would cause no problems????

The fact is that the enemy does not have enough material to arm the artillerymen with normal standard weapons. On the other hand, it is understandable because the Armed Forces of Ukraine have literally increased by 3-4 times in just half a year and there are simply not so many weapons in army warehouses. Even help from the West is not forthcoming. We have to use outright ersatz.

[Prisoner]

Can you tell me how much the area of ​​cemeteries in Ukraine has increased? ps: your disguise is bad, your ears stick out.

[rotmistr60]

Soviet BS-3 field guns of 100 mm caliber appeared in service with the Ukrainian army.

But he shoots at our people. Of course, it cannot be compared with the 100 mm MT-12 “Rapier”, which is also called “sniper” and which is actively used in the Northern Military District. I watched a video where they hit a Ukrainian Armed Forces support officer with it. We need to get into the dugout - please, we need to suppress the machine gun - please.

[Aviator_]

The BS-3 gun is good, but its production was stopped in 1951 due to bad luck. It’s heavy and can’t be quickly removed from the shooting site.

[lukash66]

Quote: Aviator_

The BS-3 gun is good, but its production was stopped in 1951 due to bad luck. It’s heavy and can’t be quickly removed from the shooting site.

PaK44 interestingly there is still some thread left, to help the trousers. Also such a not frail mastodon.)))

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote: Aviator_

The BS-3 gun is good, but its production was stopped in 1951 due to bad luck. It’s heavy and can’t be quickly removed from the shooting site.

BS-3 Weight in combat position, kg 3650, maximum range 20 km
MT-12 Weight in combat position, kg 3100, maximum range 8,2 km

BS-3 is a little heavier, but significantly longer-range.

[alexoff]

The rapier is a cannon and fires directly, if you raise it at 45 degrees it will also fly far

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

Quote: Aviator_

The BS-3 gun is good, but its production was stopped in 1951 due to bad luck. It’s heavy and can’t be quickly removed from the shooting site.

BS-3 Weight in combat position, kg 3650, maximum range 20 km
MT-12 Weight in combat position, kg 3100, maximum range 8,2 km

BS-3 is a little heavier, but significantly longer-range.

And yet, the BS-3 had shortcomings, for which the artillerymen did not like this gun! It seemed like it “bounced” when shooting, which affected the rate of accurate(!) shooting! The MT-12 does not have these shortcomings...

[Hiller]

I don’t know what to tell you about this, but three years of experience in operating this gun as part of an artillery battery did not reveal any such shortcomings. A wonderful weapon. MT-LB was used as a tug. It was in the Far East. A special bow to battery commander Volodya Mikhailenko, a graduate of LAU. The main resource of the barrel, if memory serves, 700 rounds were fired per barrel. The system is rifled, not smooth-bore like the MT-12 Rapier.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: hiller

The system is rifled, not smooth-bore like the MT-12 Rapier.

I do not argue...

Quote: hiller

three years of experience in operating this weapon as part of an artillery battery did not reveal any such shortcomings. Wonderful weapon

You know better then! I myself served as a signalman in an OTR missile brigade, but once I read an article by an artilleryman dedicated to BS-3... It said approximately (!) the following:When firing, the gun jumped strongly, which made the gunner’s work unsafe and confused the sighting mounts, which, in turn, led to a decrease in the practical rate of aimed fire - a very important quality for a field anti-tank gun. The presence of a powerful muzzle brake with a low height of the line of fire and flat trajectories characteristic of firing at armored targets led to the formation of a significant dust cloud, which unmasked the position and blinded the crew. The mobility of a gun with a mass of more than 3500 kg left much to be desired; transportation by crews on the battlefield was practically impossible.
Therefore, the gun was extremely rarely used as an anti-tank gun... mainly as a hull gun from closed positions...

[nedgen]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Quote: hiller

The system is rifled, not smooth-bore like the MT-12 Rapier.

I do not argue...

Quote: hiller

three years of experience in operating this weapon as part of an artillery battery did not reveal any such shortcomings. Wonderful weapon

You know better then! I myself served as a signalman in an OTR missile brigade, but once I read an article by an artilleryman dedicated to BS-3... It said approximately (!) the following:When firing, the gun jumped strongly, which made the gunner’s work unsafe and confused the sighting mounts, which, in turn, led to a decrease in the practical rate of aimed fire - a very important quality for a field anti-tank gun. The presence of a powerful muzzle brake with a low height of the line of fire and flat trajectories characteristic of firing at armored targets led to the formation of a significant dust cloud, which unmasked the position and blinded the crew. The mobility of a gun with a mass of more than 3500 kg left much to be desired; transportation by crews on the battlefield was practically impossible.
Therefore, the gun was extremely rarely used as an anti-tank gun... mainly as a hull gun from closed positions...

It’s probably been written about pressing down once, but if you look at the video of shooting from a rapier, it also presses down quite quickly, although its barrel is even closer to the ground than that of the BS-3. As for poor maneuverability, yes, that was the case in WWII. Then, after all, there were no MTLBs and there were no good artillery tractors either (they certainly existed, but in rather scanty quantities and were used mainly for towing much heavier artillery systems. Rolling the BS-3 by crew forces is still a task, but this fully applies to the MT- 12. The difference of 550 kg for a crew of 6 people is generally insignificant. So yes, she (BS-3) THEN had poor maneuverability on the battlefield. And of course, the muzzle brake. It really creates a good cloud of dust. Of course, even with the MT-12 it (the dust cloud) forms well, but it is still smaller than with the BS-3. As a long-range weapon, the BS-3 still has an undoubted advantage over the MT-12 and it has a rifled barrel. It has much better accuracy better at long distances than smooth and this is an axiom!!!

[stankow]

The weight of BS-3 is 3650 kg, that of MT-12 is 3100 kg. The difference is insignificant. The tractor won't think twice.

[Tim666]

It’s not clear why you’re laughing here?... There’s never too much artillery, the characteristics of the BS-3, even by modern standards, are not bad; if there are enough shells, it would be stupid not to use it. It won’t be funny for anyone who gets hit by a 100mm HE, and any light armored vehicle will be guaranteed to be destroyed.

[nedgen]

Quote from Tim666

It’s not clear why you’re laughing here?... There’s never too much artillery, the characteristics of the BS-3, even by modern standards, are not bad; if there are enough shells, it would be stupid not to use it. It won’t be funny for anyone who gets hit by a 100mm HE, and any light armored vehicle will be guaranteed to be destroyed.

And any MBT on board will not find it enough!

[Tim666]

Quote: rotmistr60

Soviet BS-3 field guns of 100 mm caliber appeared in service with the Ukrainian army.

But he shoots at our people. Of course, it cannot be compared with the 100 mm MT-12 “Rapier”, which is also called “sniper” and which is actively used in the Northern Military District. I watched a video where they hit a Ukrainian Armed Forces support officer with it. We need to get into the dugout - please, we need to suppress the machine gun - please.

If the BS-3 barrel is not damaged, the accuracy will be no worse. The problem is mobility, but you can’t carry Rapiers in your hands.

[rotmistr60]

I can’t carry rapiers in my hands.

You can’t drag it: the weight of the BS is 3650 kg (more than 3,6 tons), the weight of the MT-12 is 3100 kg (3,1 tons). The difference doesn’t seem to be big, but in combat conditions the extra 0,5 tons plays a role.

[Alf]

Quote: rotmistr60

The difference doesn’t seem to be big, but in combat conditions the extra 0,5 tons plays a role.

The motoliga takes 6,5 tons, 3,1 tons or 3,6 tons on the hook; it doesn’t matter to her.

[isv000]

Quote from Tim666

If the BS-3 barrel is not damaged, the accuracy will be no worse. The problem is mobility, but you can’t carry Rapiers in your hands.

Not the 19th century, they’ll find something to carry it with. Even though they are boars, they still have our mentality... The leopards are standing there doing nothing - they are afraid to ride them...

[Sancho_SP]

So the gun is good, it’s not that much positive news.
To saturate a defense line with such things, you’ll have to spend a week poking around with drones before something thinner than a tank gets through.

[Tim666]

Quote: rotmistr60

I can’t carry rapiers in my hands.

You can’t drag it: the weight of the BS is 3650 kg (more than 3,6 tons), the weight of the MT-12 is 3100 kg (3,1 tons). The difference doesn’t seem to be big, but in combat conditions the extra 0,5 tons plays a role.

The only difference is that a more powerful tractor is needed, let’s say a moto-leg will pull the MT-12 through slightly more mud, but without a tractor both guns are immobile.

[U-58]

As Suvorov’s soldiers used to say, on the other side, even an old woman is a gift from God.
The gun is not modern, but quite combat-ready.
Now it’s not very good against tanks (but also not very useful), but it’s still good for shelling. Especially at medium distances. But maybe “they” don’t have that much ammunition...

[Ivan Mak_2]

In the history of wars over the past 100 years, there is a clear trend towards a decrease in the caliber of guns. Beneficial in terms of production costs, logistics, and the amount of ammunition carried. In combination with modern means of reconnaissance and target designation, provided they are used effectively, a small-caliber gun can become a formidable weapon.
Already in the 2nd World War, 420, 355, 305 and 228 mm calibers, popular in WWII, were an endangered species, and now 203 mm is a rarity. Thanks to the navy, 130mm shells lasted quite a long time, but now in the navy they are being massively replaced by smaller calibers: on modern corvettes and frigates there are mainly 100 and 76mm guns.

[stankow]

In the navy, yes, but in the field and anti-tank artillery, the caliber grew and grew until it stopped at 152 mm

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Ivan Mak_2

In the history of wars over the past 100 years, there is a clear trend towards a decrease in the caliber of guns. Beneficial in terms of production costs, logistics, and the amount of ammunition carried. In combination with modern means of reconnaissance and target designation, provided they are used effectively, a small-caliber gun can become a formidable weapon.
Already in the 2nd World War, 420, 355, 305 and 228 mm calibers, popular in WWII, were an endangered species, and now 203 mm is a rarity. .

The reduction in caliber is due to the speed of front movement and the development of aviation strike capabilities.
In WWII, the front stood in one place for several years; in WWII, the front moved much faster and artillery with a caliber greater than 155-152mm was more likely to be siege and it was used during the siege, today there is a mortar in the Northern Military District "Tulip" 240mm and gun "Peony" - "Malka" 203mm They are also used during a siege (as an example, the storming of Mariupol).
The prevalence of the 155-152mm caliber is associated with the successful creation SAA with guns of this caliber.

Quote: Ivan Mak_2

In the history of wars over the past 100 years, there is a clear trend towards a decrease in caliber
. Thanks to the navy, 130mm shells lasted quite a long time, but now in the navy they are being massively replaced by smaller calibers: on modern corvettes and frigates there are mainly 100 and 76mm guns.

It’s much simpler about the fleet - caliber naval gun directly related to displacement и rank ship - 130mm caliber suitable for ships first rank, such as cruiser.
Corvettes and frigates can be classified as rank 2 no more, and accordingly their caliber of naval guns is smaller.

The classification of ships by rank is a controversial topic, there are different opinions, but in general, a cruiser is always higher in rank than a corvette and frigate.

[Vladlous]

Yes, things are really bad for them if such dilapidated weapons are being prepared for battle.

[Alf]

Quote: Vladlous

Yes, things are really bad for them if such dilapidated weapons are being prepared for battle.

What about OUR TROOPS' use of D-1?

Military correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky, in a video from the Northern Military District, showed D-1 howitzers of the 1943 model, which the Russian Armed Forces are fighting in Ukraine. The weapon was actively used at the end of World War II, and then was mothballed.

A video from the front line is circulating on telegram and Twitter, in which Donetsk militiaman and military correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky (real name Maxim Fomin) demonstrates a howitzer of the 1943 model (D-1). The Russian Armed Forces, according to Vladlen Tatarsky, use both modern quadcopters and weapons from the Second World War on the front line. As the military correspondent said, at the time the D-1 was released, his grandfather was ten years old.

There's a cannon behind me. When it was made, my grandfather was ten years old, for a second. If anyone thought that the war in XXI would be blasters, then they were mistaken. We beat the enemy with what we have. We combine new technologies, quadcopters with our old, Stalinist cannons <...>
In a post on his personal blog on Telegram, Vladlen Tatarsky called the howitzer, produced from 1943 to 1949, “an excellent weapon of Stalinist quality.”

[bubalik]

how about using OUR TROOPS

“Everything here is not as rosy as we would like, and we also have to use not entirely new types of weapons.

[Nikolaevich I]

I don’t know how it is now, but in 2014-2015. BS-3 guns were in service with both the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the LDPR militia...

[D-Master]

You need to survive somehow until the sponsors bring the shells. It's better to shoot with 100 mm than with nothing. The USSR was great and powerful; it is impossible to count how many weapons there are in warehouses.

[Alf]

Quote: D-Master

The USSR was great and powerful; it is impossible to count how many weapons there are in warehouses.

And this is not counting the stolen, sold and self-destructed.

[ZovSailor]

I wouldn’t have believed it: yesterday, as a witness, young volunteers tried to take away cannonballs and mortars. Panoramas of the Battle of Borodino in 1812, joining the action - everything for the front, everything for Victory! (it’s not for nothing that all of Russia remembers Borodino Day); How can you not remember space and a trampoline when Faberge presses you? and that’s Russian - if you want to live, you won’t get too excited.
There are many disadvantages - a tribute to fear, recognition and respect.

[Pavel57]

Rapier, BS-3, this series can be continued with T-54/55.

[Mountain shooter]

Powerful anti-tank gun with a rifled barrel. Heavier than the Rapier, their own shells are not suitable for the T-12. It is dangerous, like any weapon, but the barrel life is not long. 500-700 shots. It won't last long. Apparently, there is a desperate need for shells and artillery. They hope to at least somehow “sit out” the shell hunger of the main calibers that are being sent to Israel.

[Tim666]

Quote: Vladlous

Yes, things are really bad for them if such dilapidated weapons are being prepared for battle.

Dilapidated? Why would this be so? With minimal conservation, these guns will be fully combat-ready in 2123.

[Tim666]

Quote: stankow

In the navy, yes, but in the field and anti-tank artillery, the caliber grew and grew until it stopped at 152 mm

They just came to a universal caliber, but in the navy missiles began to rule the show, ships lost serious armor and the need for large calibers disappeared, especially since there is no point in installing 305 mm on a destroyer or, especially, a frigate, high recoil, low rate of fire and small ammo. It will look menacing but practically useless.

[Enceladus]

I will be glad to hear in the next year that they will be using mallets

[bone1]

Where did they get that - in the museum? - So, you see, they’ll reach three-inch 02s

[matsur]

Quote: isv000

Quote from Carlos Sala

Now the US has to supply Israel and spend money on two fronts at the same time.

Now the shitcrats in Washington are washing their money with the help of two fronts - the gray one and the long one.
The Yankees managed the impossible - they crossed x alaal with fat eaters...

Superficial knowledge distinguishes modern people. Halal for Muslims. Kashrut (kosher hence) among Jews.

[Victor Gubankov]

It all depends on the quantity. A hundred of these guns are much more dangerous than one 777. In 1971, an artillery regiment armed with howitzers of the 1938 model did not surprise anyone. And BM-21 was still secret.

[matsur]

Quote from Escariot

Quote from: parabyd

Yeah, from the creators "Ukrainians have superiority in artillery - it is longer-range and more accurate"

And how does one contradict the other? Western systems are somewhat superior to ours in quality, but quantitatively they cannot compete anywhere near Russia’s old Soviet reserves. And in order to somehow close the shortage in the number of barrels (and shells), you have to use not only what is needed, but what is available. Those. in some places they are not very good at all, and where the enemy has transferred brigades with modern artillery - they have an advantage in range and accuracy.

Are human reserves also huge? Because of these reserves, our generals did not strive to develop high-precision weapons. But women still give birth to soldiers, right? Covered artillery does not always mean the loss of a gun, but, unfortunately, also people. But you can’t stamp them that easily.
Large Reserves are not an advantage, it is an opportunity to stall for time until they make a long-range high point. Pull a carload of conventional shells or a small cart of high-precision shells? What's easier?

[Alexey RA]

The artillery units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine received BS-3 guns from the Great Patriotic War; deliveries of these guns to the Soviet army began in 1944 and until the end of the war, only about 400 guns were delivered. This gun was developed to combat German heavy tanks, but was not widely used due to a number of shortcomings.

Oh, these tales, oh, these storytellers. ©
The BS-3 was developed as a field gun for light artillery regiments (instead of the heavy A-19). The main task in its creation was to give the artillery of mechanized formations a “long arm”, capable of hitting the enemy at ranges of up to 20 km and at the same time not requiring Voroshilov tanks for towing. Simply put, it was necessary that both the “studer” and the Y-12 could pull the cannon with the ammunition and crew over any terrain, keeping up with the mechanized units. This weapon was also used by the infantry, which by the end of the war also acquired mechanized forward groups.
In the battle at Balaton, as part of the 2nd UV, out of 96 BS-3 available at the front, only 16 were in the iptabr, and the remaining 80 were in the corps abr and olabr of the 9th Guards A and the 6th Guards TA. And these 80 guns worked with PDO, being distracted by fighting tanks only if the infantry allowed them to reach the firing positions of the corps artillery regiments.

[VladimirNET]

Quote: isv000

Now the shitcrats in Washington are washing their money on two fronts.

So that they can go bankrupt, damned.

[Dimm588]

Here in the comments someone talked about what unique artillery the Armed Forces have and that Russia is far from such a thing. Now I understand what they were talking about.

[Wayfarer_2]

It is the artillery of the Ukrainian Armed Forces that should be the highest priority target for our UAVs and MLRS, for the army as a whole. No tanks, due to their relatively short range, can match the importance of artillery on the battlefield. If a significant amount of artillery is lost, the Ukrainian Armed Forces simply will not be able to restrain the Russian Armed Forces. We must directly set the task - first of all - the destruction of howitzers, field guns in general, self-propelled guns, MLRS.

[Jonny_Su]

Well, the main thing for them is not a specific type of weapon, but Nettle, timely notification and stable communication. Of course, 100 is better for us than 120-155.