First successes: self-propelled gun 2S43 “Malva” in Special Operations

154
First successes: self-propelled gun 2S43 “Malva” in Special Operations
The first high-quality photo of the Malva self-propelled joint stock company in the Special Operation zone. Photo Telegram / BMPD


Last year, the Russian defense industry completed the development and testing of the latest wheeled self-propelled artillery gun, the 2S43 Malva. After this, the self-propelled gun went into mass production, and then equipment of this type ended up in the Special Operations area. During combat operations, self-propelled guns of a new type confirm the calculated parameters, show their characteristic advantages, and also help achieve common goals.



From the training ground to the front


The promising SAO Malva was developed at the end of the last decade at the Burevestnik Central Research Institute, part of the Uralvagonzavod Scientific and Production Corporation (part of the Rostec state corporation). Over the past few years, the prototype equipment has been tested and fine-tuned. In May last year, the UVZ corporation reported the successful completion of these activities. Later, at the forumArmy-2023”, the Ministry of Defense issued it a contract for the production and supply of serial self-propelled guns of a new type.

News the completion of testing and the order for production allowed us to assume that in the near future “Mallows” would appear in the zone of the Special Operation to protect Donbass. Soon the first rumors and unconfirmed data appeared about the deployment of new equipment among the troops and the beginning of its combat use.


2C43 is in position. Still from video from Telegram / "Army Vedler"

In mid-November, on the eve of Artillery Day, the Defense Ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda published an interview with the head of the missile troop and artillery of the ground forces, Lieutenant General Dmitry Klimenko. In particular, the conversation touched upon the issue of new models. The commander said that several new systems, including the SAO "Malva", are undergoing combat testing as part of the Special Operation. Without going into details, General Klimenko indicated that the products confirm their high tactical and technical characteristics.

Unfortunately, at that time everything was limited only to messages from officials and organizations. Any details of the use of new technology, video materials, etc. were not published. In this regard, the situation changed only in 2024.

Self-propelled guns in battle


During the first months of this year, various resources repeatedly mentioned the presence of the self-propelled gun 2S43 in the Special Operation zone. Photographs were also published that allegedly depicted “Mallows,” but the quality of the images did not allow this technique to be clearly recognized. However, news and photos of this kind did not contradict already known information from official sources.


Combat work in the Kharkov direction. Still from a report by E. Poddubny

At the beginning of June, the first relatively high-quality photo of the Malva product in the combat zone was distributed among specialized resources. The photo was taken by an unknown UAV in the Kharkov direction. A wheeled self-propelled gun from one of the artillery units of the Sever group of forces was caught in the frame. She was in a firing position in a combat position, and the crew was preparing to fire.

Literally the next day, the first video was published demonstrating the combat operation of the 2S43. A short video showed the firing of a shot. It was reported that the video was filmed in the Kharkov direction, but no other details were provided.

Also in early June, the famous war correspondent Yevgeny Poddubny published a full-fledged report about the Malva and its crew. The material included interesting footage of the transfer of equipment, preparation for shooting and firing. They also showed a video from a UAV that carried out reconnaissance, target designation and monitoring the results of the shooting. Interviews with members of the SAO crew are also of interest.


Preparing to shoot. Still from a report by E. Poddubny

Self-propelled guns are used to strike various enemy targets, from strongholds to crossings. At the same time, high mobility and speed of reaching a position are demonstrated. Due to the newness of the technology, minor problems arise. However, representatives of the manufacturer are working in the combat zone, ready to take all necessary measures.

At the end of June, the Rostec state corporation announced the transfer of a batch of new self-propelled guns 2S43 to the armed forces. Apparently, this is already a serial equipment, manufactured in accordance with last year’s order. If this is so, then we should expect that the fleet of new self-propelled guns will now constantly be replenished and grow, which will have a positive impact on the potential of military and military forces as a whole.

The combat use of equipment is associated with known risks and threats. In mid-July, photographs of the Malva self-propelled gun from the Sever group, which came under attack from the MLRS or HIMARS MLRS, became publicly available. The enemy used the M30A1 GMLRS missile with ready-made submunitions in the form of tungsten balls.


Operator-gunner at work. Still from a report by E. Poddubny

The missile literally showered the self-propelled gun with damaging elements. They damaged various structural elements of the self-propelled gun, and also entered the armor and glazing. However, the combat vehicle did not receive serious damage. The crew in the armored cabin were also not injured. After minor repairs, Malva could return to service and continue combat work.

Benefits shown


From the available data it follows that the new self-propelled guns 2S43 Malva appeared in the Special Operation zone no later than the summer-autumn of 2023 - almost a year ago. So far, we are probably talking about a limited number of self-propelled guns, but they also contribute to the overall results. In addition, this technique helps to gain the necessary experience and demonstrates your real capabilities and overall potential.

All the main technical features and expected advantages of Malva are well known. Thus, a wheeled multi-axle chassis should provide high mobility and mobility, a unified artillery unit provides fire characteristics no worse than those of other modern domestic systems, and a modern fire control system makes fuller use of the gun’s potential. In addition, measures have been taken to protect key units and combat crews.


SAO 2S43 after shelling by MLRS / HIMARS. Damage is minimal. Photo Telegram / BMPD

In general, the 2S43 product has already demonstrated all the main features and advantages. Thus, the possibility of quickly transferring self-propelled guns along roads with subsequent access to off-road conditions and placement of a firing position “in the field” is confirmed. The ability to quickly move into a traveling position and leave the position is also shown.

The Malva combat vehicle carries a 152 mm 2A64 howitzer. Also, the same weapon with similar controls is used on the 2S19 Msta-S self-propelled gun. This howitzer allows you to hit various targets over a wide range of ranges and uses different types of ammunition. The potential of the 2A64 product has already been shown by older types of self-propelled guns, and the new 2S43 now only confirms already known data.

During the development of Malva, measures were taken to protect the crew and key components. Recently, the armored cabin of one of the self-propelled guns faced a real threat and showed its potential. She successfully dealt with a large number of spherical carbide GGEs and saved the crew. Self-propelled gun armor should also protect against bullets of different calibers and “ordinary” shell fragments.


A design element with a striking ball. Photo Telegram / BMPD

First successes


Thus, over the past few years, a new domestic self-propelled artillery gun on a wheeled chassis has successfully gone all the way from development and testing to military use and combat use. The 2S43 “Malva” products are already participating in the Special Operation and, together with other artillery systems, successfully solve the problem of fire destruction of the enemy.

Even at the development stage, it became known that Malva has a number of characteristic features that will help it perform tasks or give it advantages over other equipment. Available information about the participation of such self-propelled guns in the Special Operation shows the correctness of the decisions made and the receipt of very interesting results. It is obvious that the further production of new self-propelled guns and the continued re-equipment of combat units will have a positive impact on the potential of the missile defense forces as a whole.
154 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    30 July 2024 03: 50
    Any equipment supplied to the troops is good and saves the lives of our soldiers hi
    1. 22+
      30 July 2024 04: 52
      Any equipment supplied to the troops is good and saves the lives of our soldiers hi

      The equipment must first of all correspond to its purpose and surpass the enemy’s models.
      In this case, the concept of mobility is implemented by replacing the good old Soviet 2A64 on a wheeled chassis. Now it is necessary to solve two problems simultaneously:
      1. Target designation.
      2. Increasing the shot range as part of target designation.
      As part of this, I would like to see vehicles close to the Kaolition in the troops.
      Well, somewhere like that, good morning everyone!
      1. 10+
        30 July 2024 05: 09
        2. Increased shot range
        The car is good, but with the range....
        1. +2
          30 July 2024 05: 20
          Well, it’s clear that there was a big hit on the chassis, it was designed right under the longer barrel.
          They will train the artillery unit on the Coalition, and Malva will also have a second version.
          1. +5
            30 July 2024 11: 07
            This is correctly noted; it immediately catches the eye that the MALVA barrel length is not sufficient to compete with the best NATO self-propelled guns, but there is an opportunity to correct this.
            1. +5
              30 July 2024 11: 32
              The easiest way is to try to install a 2S5M "Gyacinth" cannon on the wheels; it seems to already be there and working.
              1. +5
                30 July 2024 15: 09
                In general, it is not clear why it was necessary to put Msta-B on wheels in the presence of 2S5M and 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV
                1. +6
                  30 July 2024 15: 11
                  This weapon was created for the Airborne Forces with the ability to be transported by military transport aircraft.
                  1. +1
                    5 August 2024 00: 13
                    this weapon was created by idle Rostec managers to show their hectic and useless activity after two years of SVO
                    1. 0
                      6 August 2024 10: 21
                      It was developed before the SVO.
        2. +2
          30 July 2024 15: 48
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          The car is good, but with the range....

          Here's my text! Well, this pepelats is good for everyone... but the range suffers catastrophically compared to almost all bourgeois analogues!
        3. +4
          30 July 2024 16: 29
          What about the range? They mostly shoot with conventional, unguided projectiles. At long range and accuracy is appropriate. And with Krasnopol-D shells the range is higher - it is stated that up to 43 km.
        4. +2
          31 July 2024 18: 45
          The car is good, but with the range....

          Why did you decide this? Why cosplay as Americans, we’re not fighting overseas?
          1. +2
            31 July 2024 18: 46
            How did you decide this
            With its performance characteristics
            1. +4
              31 July 2024 18: 47
              With its performance characteristics

              And why don’t you like 43 km of Krasnopol-D?
              1. +2
                1 August 2024 06: 48
                Quote: strannik1985
                Why are you not satisfied with 43 km of Krasnopol-D?

                Who would leak exact figures about a new gun to the press?! But the cartridge case on the breech is indicative. Obviously, the charging chamber is bored out for it, and it is only 16 liters. This means there is no talk of super range. I think this is how the issue of the weapon’s lifespan in terms of firing before wear is resolved (???).
                1. +2
                  1 August 2024 14: 22
                  But the cartridge case on the breech is indicative.

                  What does the sleeve have to do with it? The accelerating block is located there.
                  1. +1
                    1 August 2024 14: 57
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    What does the sleeve have to do with it? The accelerating block is located there.

                    The cartridge case takes into account that the projectile receives its main energy from the powder charge. And our projectile pushes gunpowder in a volume of 16 liters, and the same system, a NATO active-rocket projectile pushes gunpowder in a 23-liter charge. Do you feel the difference? If Krasnopol only needed its accelerator, it would be launched from a guide tube and would be called a rocket.
                    1. +1
                      4 August 2024 08: 46
                      Do you feel the difference?

                      Who cares? Are you going to shoot at long ranges with a regular projectile? For what?
                      1. +1
                        4 August 2024 09: 04
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Are you going to shoot at long ranges with a regular projectile? For what?

                        What difference does it make what kind of projectile will be fired? It is important that a new artillery system has been created with inherently weaker characteristics than modern enemy weapons. What projectile to load will be decided by other people in a specific situation. It is a fact that Caesar, for example, will continue to shoot.
                      2. +1
                        4 August 2024 11: 14
                        What difference does it make what kind of projectile will be fired?

                        Large, at long ranges there is simply no point in firing conventional shells, the cost of destruction is high, and the UAS uses solid propellant rocket engines, hence the question - who and what is not satisfied with Krasnopol-D with a range of 43 km?
                      3. +1
                        4 August 2024 15: 11
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        What is wrong with Krasnopol-D with a range of 43 km?

                        Because Excalibur from the paladin flies 10 km further.
                      4. +1
                        5 August 2024 18: 20
                        Because Excalibur from the paladin flies 10 km further.

                        Why focus on Krasnopol if there are a lot of long-range weapons, starting with the Lancet and ending with the MLRS and TR?
                      5. +2
                        5 August 2024 20: 20
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why focus on Krasnopol

                        Don't go off topic. You yourself proposed a measure of performance characteristics - the firing range of Krasnopol-D. The lancet is a different kind of weapon, you don’t need to hide behind it. We are discussing a new self-propelled gun, inferior to the old enemy guns. And I think there are significant reasons for this, which everyone, especially production workers, are diligently avoiding.
                      6. +1
                        6 August 2024 04: 10
                        The lancet is a different kind of weapon, you don’t need to hide behind it.

                        Which one and why?
                        Any weapon is created for a specific specification, why does the Russian Armed Forces need to fire a 152-mm projectile at a distance of 50-70 km? The Americans have reasons for this, but why should we? That is why the question is - why are you not satisfied with Krasnopol-D with a range of up to 43 km? Because the Americans are longer?
                      7. +1
                        6 August 2024 06: 23
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Because the Americans are longer?

                        It's not just the Americans that are longer. It’s longer for the entire NATO, including the Germans, Franks, Swedes, etc.), and this is our enemy in the dry theater, if you don’t know. And all unmanned aircraft have their own weaknesses, so they cannot become a 100% replacement for artillery. And yes, there is such a sport - to be at the forefront of progress. So we also have reasons to strive to surpass the enemy’s weapons in basic performance characteristics.
                      8. +1
                        6 August 2024 06: 53
                        So we also have reasons to strive to surpass the enemy’s weapons in basic performance characteristics.

                        For what? Approximate price of UAS Krasnopol - D $60, Lancet - $000. The military-industrial complex of our enemy, in this case, is milking the military budgets of their countries. Why do we need this? Even in field artillery there are a lot of things that are worth spending money on, but not on “golden” UAS.
                      9. +1
                        6 August 2024 07: 03
                        Quote: strannik1985
                        Why

                        Then, the lag in the range of a gun is an indicator of the lag in gunpowder, steel, technology, ballistics, etc. It's not about UAS, although there is a lot that needs to be worked on there. The finished product is only an indicator of our capabilities (or lag) in a large number of related industries.
                      10. +1
                        6 August 2024 11: 23
                        Then, the lag in gun range is an indicator of the lag

                        It seems to me that you are confusing the war and the Olympic Games. UAS will always be more expensive due to overloads when firing, attention to the question - why spend more if the same problem can be solved by another means?
                      11. +1
                        6 August 2024 10: 23
                        Excalibur flies using GPS and only at a stationary target; Krasnopol can work dynamically through laser illumination from a UAV. Well, at 50-70 km no one canceled the Lancet.
          2. +1
            3 August 2024 22: 44
            The Americans also have problems with range.
        5. -1
          2 August 2024 07: 29
          Yes. 23 km for counter-battery fire means nothing. Look, they'll take the gun from the Coalition.
        6. 0
          14 August 2024 21: 41
          For range we need modern shells, but that’s still a problem. There will be shells with a range of 50+ km.
      2. 0
        30 July 2024 13: 09
        It is not necessary to directly surpass the enemy’s samples, it is enough not to yield...
        Regarding the machine itself, there are pros and cons - production should be faster and cheaper, the speed should also be higher, but cross-country ability and security are in question...
        In general, this is a budget “Caesar”, and “Caesars”, as is already known from other articles by the author, are “little, useless, ineffective” (joke)
        1. 0
          5 August 2024 00: 08
          I agree, in particular, the Rubin project can be placed on a wheeled, tracked base, and, depending on the theater of military operations, on an air cushion. And when using the “Air Tunnel” tactics, the “Rubin” project will effectively support our special forces from LBS to 20 km. deep into the enemy, which will allow the LBS to move almost a kilometer or more every day.
        2. 0
          20 August 2024 18: 35
          Well, it’s clear that the Urals have a wagon plant riveting tanks, they don’t have enough capacity to make a chassis for the same Msta, sir, that’s why they put mallow into production...
          In principle, it’s not a bad option for artillery units, anything is better than Msta-B.
          For artillery, motorized rifle units, and especially tank units, Msta-s is preferable.
    2. 0
      30 July 2024 11: 24
      Everything was written so beautifully in the article, but not a word about one of the most important criteria for artillery - firing range. And as far as I know, there are problems with this
      1. +1
        4 August 2024 23: 48
        see below, range is not a critical indicator due to the presence of various projectiles.
        1. +1
          4 August 2024 23: 50
          if we talk about the range limit, then within the range of the Coalition.
      2. 0
        20 August 2024 18: 40
        This is not a question about the gun, but about the fact that no one has developed or put modern shells into service.
        And so the same American palladin, who they are not going to refuse, shoots even closer...
        Why? Well, because it’s problematic to hit anything further than 20-25 km with an ordinary projectile...
    3. 0
      2 August 2024 01: 00
      I agree.
      Including:
      The expected scenario for the development of events in the combat contact of our troops with the enemy, which may be close to the real one, can be formulated as an air attack tactic in the form of the enemy using a cloud of UAVs against our positions.
      In this situation, the robotic complex of the Rubin project, capable of covering the defensive or offensive actions of our troops by creating a no-fly zone in destructive space, can serve as an effective tactical countermeasure to a cloud attack by UAVs.
      The capabilities of the robotic complex of the Rubin project are quite wide, which change the tactics of modern combat, in particular, it will be able to create a total “dead” zone of a destructive type for all airborne objects of a technological or biological type for an unlimited time in a local or extended area of ​​airspace.
      In principle, the Rubin project has no restrictions on where to create a dead zone, either at an altitude of 0-200 m above a given area of ​​terrain, or in a given section of airspace with an effective destruction sphere of about 500 m, extending several kilometers at an altitude of up to 10 m .
      The tactics of modern combat using the Rubin project will be the most effective means in the fight against a cloud attack of UAVs by the enemy, and a new approach to conducting combat operations on the line of contact or other cases.
      And other possibilities are unlimited.
      1. ada
        0
        3 August 2024 12: 37
        Quote: german.sa
        ...And other possibilities are unlimited.

        Wow! belay
      2. 0
        7 August 2024 03: 31
        Wow!
        Is this a description of the terms of reference being developed or is there confirmation of your words?
  2. +5
    30 July 2024 05: 30
    Even if the tanks in the Northern Military District are “hung” on all sides with all sorts of nets and other protections, then how to protect this “fool”?
    1. 0
      30 July 2024 10: 45
      By means of an attached armored personnel carrier with shooters armed with shotguns and electronic warfare equipment.
    2. +1
      30 July 2024 15: 30
      Quote: Amateur
      Even if the tanks in the Northern Military District are “hung” on all sides with all sorts of nets and other protections, then how to protect this “fool”?

      This fool is not intended to storm the enemy’s trenches and strongholds. And destroy them from a fairly decent distance.
      1. +1
        31 July 2024 18: 06
        tell this to those who hang MSTU-S with barbecues, otherwise they seem to be fashionable
  3. 25+
    30 July 2024 06: 17
    It seems to me that if we put aside the “advertising” tinsel, then for Malva we have one plus - a new control system. What prevents you from installing an updated control system on MSTA-S?
    One shrapnel shell and MALVA stands immobilized, all suspension is lowered.
    It feels like Malva is being promoted in order to hide the failures with the Coalition.
    Let's openly assume that Russia has lost the competence to produce long-barreled artillery.
    1. +4
      30 July 2024 10: 17
      It feels like Malva is being promoted in order to hide the failures with the Coalition.

      Yes, it looks like there is nothing to boast about with the coalition yet.
    2. +7
      30 July 2024 15: 58
      Quote: Setavr
      It seems to me that if we put aside the “advertising” tinsel, then for Malva we have one plus - a new control system. What prevents you from installing an updated control system on MSTA-S?

      Nothing gets in the way. The problem is different - the release of Msta-S is determined by the release of the tracked base. "Malva" allows us to expand this bottleneck and give the army additional self-propelled guns. Yes, this is not an Msta-S, but it’s certainly better than the towed 2A65.
      1. -2
        30 July 2024 19: 02
        Quote: Alexey RA

        Nothing gets in the way. The problem is different - the release of Msta-S is determined by the release of the tracked base. "Malva" allows us to expand this bottleneck and give the army additional self-propelled guns.

        For such a cannon, this huge multi-wheeled chariot is clearly superfluous. A Kamaz would be suitable for this fluff. So, I wouldn’t rush to “open up this bottleneck”; someone clearly wants money for a cart, which is clearly unnecessary for Msta.
        1. +2
          31 July 2024 10: 16
          Quote: Saxahorse
          For such a cannon, this huge multi-wheeled chariot is clearly superfluous. A Kamaz would be suitable for this fluff.

          The Swedes also thought so when they made their wheeled self-propelled guns based on the commercial 6x6 chassis from Volvo.
          The result is known: the Swedes sold their 6x6 Archers to Ukraine, and they themselves ordered 8x8 Archers on a special army chassis from Nexter.
          1. 0
            31 July 2024 20: 42
            Quote: Alexey RA
            The result is known: the Swedes sold their 6x6 Archers to Ukraine, and they themselves ordered 8x8 Archers on a special army chassis from Nexter.

            Moreover, fused Archers are considered a rather unpleasant and effective artillery system. But for the Swedish military-industrial complex, of course, the more expensive the better.
            1. 0
              1 August 2024 16: 34
              Quote: Saxahorse
              But for the Swedish military-industrial complex, of course, the more expensive the better.

              If everything was determined by money for the Swedish military-industrial complex, then the new Archers would still be assembled on their native Swedish chassis. But instead, the money goes overseas to the French and Germans for imported special chassis.
              1. 0
                1 August 2024 22: 32
                Quote: Alexey RA
                If everything was determined by money for the Swedish military-industrial complex, then the new Archers would still be assembled on their native Swedish chassis.

                And it depends on who lobbied. Europe is full of examples of the year, their own quite decent developments were leaked in favor of guests from more authoritative NATO countries.
    3. 0
      31 July 2024 07: 39
      By and large, this is a replacement for the towed Msta-A. If so, then this is undoubtedly a step forward. And so, all competitors have longer barrels.
    4. 0
      20 August 2024 18: 47
      Malva is being promoted because there is nowhere to produce tank chassis for Msta-s. The order for tanks is such that there is not enough for everything else...
      They are even starting to make buratos based on the T-80, so as not to waste the chassis of the produced T-72 and T-90...
  4. -2
    30 July 2024 07: 32
    And someone shouted in ecstasy that we don’t need wheels, these are all toys again, but we were once taught that harps are everything. But they did it, it works and they are asking for more!
    1. +4
      30 July 2024 11: 56
      But they did it, it works and they are asking for more!

      Who's asking?
    2. -1
      20 August 2024 18: 48
      There are no options, the tracks are all used for tanks... But artillery is needed...
  5. +2
    30 July 2024 08: 15
    Without going into details, General Klimenko indicated that the products confirm high tactical and technical characteristics.


    But this could have been more detailed, since UVZ had to modernize. A year ago
    there was news from the first deputy general director of the Rostec state corporation Vladimir Artyakov in a conversation with RIA Novosti.

    “Currently a modernized version of Malva is being created with an increased firing range. Believe me, we will have something to counter the long-range Western howitzers that are currently being supplied to the Ukrainian Armed Forces,” he assured.


    Since tests showed non-compliance with the declared performance characteristics.
  6. +1
    30 July 2024 08: 34
    . After minor repairs, Malva could return to service and continue combat work.

    I hope it was repaired and installed?
    1. +2
      30 July 2024 10: 56
      If the wheels have already been changed. It looks like they are ordinary civilians and were released when hit by shrapnel.
  7. 16+
    30 July 2024 08: 36
    Blah blah blah... The car confirmed its characteristics - the car confirmed its characteristics, etc. No specific application on the battlefield in comparison with existing self-propelled guns except improved armor protection. Where is the counter-battery fight, where is the work beyond the horizon, etc. There is nothing of this except chatter and retelling of well-known data from the manufacturer.
    1. +1
      30 July 2024 09: 33
      its range is not for a counter-battery with Caesars and Haubitzes, even Bogdan’s range gives it a lot of fluff, then since the last century it has (Barricades may the Almighty send them good luck) lancets cope well and with mallow you can bang fluff on the front end then it’s reliable
      1. +5
        30 July 2024 11: 00
        For the front, a wheeled version of the “Coalition” is very necessary; its range allows it to compete on an equal footing with the best NATO self-propelled guns, and in some cases even defeat them, but the “Malva” is certainly inferior to them in this matter.
        1. 0
          31 July 2024 07: 42
          Yes, with the Coalition, they got smart. And the trunk and the fire control system and the deserted tower. Under the USSR, Hyacinth and Peony (ideological analogues) were installed with an open cabin
      2. 0
        3 August 2024 22: 52
        I won’t reveal a secret if I say that NATO down 155L52 is also from the last century.
  8. +5
    30 July 2024 09: 00
    I don’t quite understand how the unsheltered crew could not have been harmed by such shelling. Unless he was really lucky and he was in the cockpit at the time of arrival. But this is a bit strange.
    1. +1
      30 July 2024 10: 01
      I was sitting in the cockpit.

      PySy: too short and according to the site administration
    2. 0
      30 July 2024 12: 03
      The author conscientiously reprinted the information that the crew was not damaged from a report by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, whose journalists, in turn, made this simple conclusion from the primitive logical chain “the cabin is intended for crew” => “the crew was sitting in the cockpit” => “the cabin was not pierced” => “the crew was not injured.”
      Where the crew actually was and what the consequences of the strike were for them - there is no information in open sources.
      1. +1
        30 July 2024 14: 15
        Well, I also remember that in the message on the BMPD there was not a word about the calculation. And so, the fact that the cabin is armored and withstood is of course a plus. But the calculation during work should have been located outside.
    3. 0
      31 July 2024 18: 49
      I don’t quite understand how the uncovered crew could not have been harmed by such shelling.

      Very simply, the main advantage of the Malva is its methodical nature; by the time the enemy determines the coordinates of the firing gun, he will no longer be there.
      1. 0
        1 August 2024 13: 08
        Cases are different. Somewhere the counter-battery radar will determine the position with the first shot, somewhere you still have to stand and continue to fire.
        1. 0
          1 August 2024 14: 15
          Cases are different.

          Absolutely right. And for this, the self-propelled gun fires no more than a dozen shots from one place, moves 500 meters and again a short fire raid. And so on until the combat mission is completely completed.
  9. +3
    30 July 2024 09: 15
    Quote: Setavr
    Let's openly assume that Russia has lost the competence to produce long-barreled artillery.


    With a fright?
    The fact that ours are not chasing record levels in terms of firing range is quite reasonable. Since these indicators are often obtained at a very high price, they come at the expense of service life and are literally expensive, limiting the possibility of mass production.
    In a protracted conflict, you need equipment that is more durable and more repairable than that of the enemy, suitable for production in large quantities. Even if inferior in some combat indicators. Record performance - good in short-lived small-scale conflicts.
    1. +4
      30 July 2024 10: 14
      Yes, yes, it’s so wonderful when the enemy gets you, but you don’t, you can fight like this for decades.
      1. D16
        +4
        30 July 2024 12: 39
        And it’s even more beautiful when your Orlan sees the enemy’s gun and points the Krasnopol, Lancet, Tornado S and all the way to Iskander at him, depending on the target and distance, but the enemy does not have such an opportunity. lol This is how we should fight for at least decades.
        1. +2
          31 July 2024 07: 46
          The enemy has the opportunity in the form of 155mm with GPS guidance and Himars...
          And the widespread use of counter-battery radars (we are not very good at this). Mass Lancets, saved the counter-battery fight
          1. D16
            +2
            31 July 2024 08: 09
            And the widespread use of counter-battery radars

            The thing is good, but in itself wink . Previously, they were destroyed several times a day, but now they are seen less often. His work itself is a revealing sign. Quickly changing positions after shooting also reduces the effectiveness of their work. It was after the shooting. Before shooting, this radar will not help in any way. But Orlan helps in any situation with leaky enemy air defense.
    2. +8
      30 July 2024 10: 21
      There was an article in which the designer of Soviet artillery systems clearly and clearly explained why our artillery is like this and not different. And that we have no problems making a long-range weapon... Everything further than 15 km from the LBS is a target for aviation, which the USSR had in abundance, and our military understood this. What we see now are isolated launches of glide bombs and shelling of NAR , calling such actions air support can only be a stretch.
      1. +3
        30 July 2024 10: 51
        Everything further than 15 km from the LBS was a target for aviation during the Great Patriotic War, where Il-2s operated in the immediate rear of the enemy. Now MLRS with high-precision missiles and Lancet-type drones should work against such targets.
        1. +3
          30 July 2024 11: 05
          We’ll talk about the IL-2 and its effectiveness as an attack aircraft in a profile article. But I completely agree with you about the MLRS and Lancets. They are necessary, but as an addition to aviation. There is still no replacement for the FAB in terms of effectiveness and psychological impact on the enemy
          1. +1
            30 July 2024 11: 10
            FAB for stationary purposes. Hitting enemy mobile guns requires fast-response weapons such as missiles. Lifting a bomber into the air from a rear airfield to launch a glide bomb at such a target is too time-consuming and costly.
            1. +4
              30 July 2024 11: 23
              FAB is the general name for aerial bombs. In fact, there are a great variety of them, both by purpose and by caliber. KABs, PTABs, concrete-breaking ones. There are reports on the network about the results of using various types and calibers of bombs against different targets, and the results are quite successful. But why we haven’t seen this for three years is not a question for me.
            2. 0
              31 July 2024 14: 59
              Well, if enemy artillery has entered a forest belt, then a factory will fly over it quite well, or even better, some kind of RBK-250.
              1. 0
                31 July 2024 15: 31
                Give examples, then I’ll admit that I was wrong. So far, the video shows the overwhelming majority of strikes with Lancets and missiles, also with Krasnopol, specifically against enemy artillery.
                1. 0
                  31 July 2024 15: 48
                  Of course, there are no such examples; I wrote examples of how aviation could work. But our connection with aviation is slow, there is frankly little aviation, and UMPCs make a hundred units a day, which is only for a few dozen sorties. If someone had completely suppressed enemy air defense in the third year of the war, then aviation could have covered it directly with cast iron from a height of 7 km, the lancets would have gotten nothing.
                  1. 0
                    31 July 2024 15: 54
                    Aviation, in principle, is not for moving targets behind enemy lines, even if the enemy has developed air defense. And the desire to tie her to goals that are inappropriate for her is completely incomprehensible. Again, this is true when it is impossible to use attack aircraft and helicopters.
                    1. 0
                      31 July 2024 16: 24
                      Aviation, in principle, is not for moving targets behind enemy lines
                      Why is this? No worse than others, the plane is many times faster than the lancet, the Krasnopol must still fly somewhere in the nearest radius from the target in order to see the illumination. I saw a video of boats being caught by planes quite successfully; they spent a penny on ammunition for an air cannon. Well, and a couple of tons of kerosene, but no one will talk about that!
                      if it has developed air defense
                      the enemy’s presence of developed air defense in the third year of the war with piecemeal deliveries from overseas is a serious problem for the Aerospace Forces and the General Staff; fighting dill systematically is apparently an overwhelming organizational task for our Russian servants
                      Again, this is true when it is impossible to use attack aircraft and helicopters.
                      I did not differentiate between aviation and attack aircraft and helicopters, both of which could destroy the enemy’s rear
      2. 0
        30 July 2024 11: 36
        It is very doubtful when superior fire range appeared, for the last 20 years while we have been trying to invent a coalition
        Paladin has more range than Msta?
        1. 0
          3 August 2024 23: 09
          Paladin is not the best or newest Western system. After 1991, the Americans launched even more artillery than we did.
      3. 0
        3 August 2024 23: 04
        Our military understood that if the USSR had plenty of aviation, then NATO had even greater abundance. And they prepared in advance to act in conditions of superiority, and in the worst case, air supremacy of the enemy.
  10. +1
    30 July 2024 09: 15
    They damaged various structural elements of the self-propelled gun, and also entered the armor and glazing. Nevertheless, the combat vehicle did not receive serious damage. The crew in the armored cabin were also not injured. After minor repairs, Malva could return to service and continue combat work.

    Do you understand what you wrote?
    on the T-72 they put numerous shields, hang chains (king barbecue) - for protection, but here? - like nothing bad happened...what did you write about?
    where was the crew at that time?
    are the gun elements intact? - they are not protected by anything...
    1. +4
      30 July 2024 11: 41
      T-72 and malva operate at different distances from the forehead. And protection should be at different levels.
    2. -1
      30 July 2024 11: 43
      They were hit by a warhead designed to destroy troops in open areas. And there is a lot more in the article. It seems that you did not read the article, but simply looked at the comments, since your comment is inconsistent in meaning with the content of the article.
      1. 0
        31 July 2024 07: 49
        Balls for a lot of things... this self-propelled gun has a crew running around and loading a gun at the stern. And there are 6 such missiles in a salvo.
  11. +3
    30 July 2024 10: 03
    Northern Administrative District of Moscow.
    SAO - Soviet administrative district of Omsk.
    SAO is a special astrophysical observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN).
    SAO - Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
    SAO - Serbian Autonomous Region.
    SAO is a self-propelled artillery gun.
    SAO is a student archaeological team.
    SAO - Dog breed.
    Question to the author - is he absolutely sure that he did not make a mistake in the abbreviation?? Maybe it's a self-propelled gun?
    1. +2
      30 July 2024 10: 59
      Quote from multicam
      Question to the author - is he absolutely sure that he did not make a mistake in the abbreviation?? Maybe it's a self-propelled gun?
      I'm not the author, but maybe the information from the manufacturer will satisfy you?
    2. +1
      30 July 2024 12: 15
      The full name of the weapon model is determined in the tactical and technical specifications for its development. In the technical specifications for the component part of the design and development project “Sketch”, dedicated to the 2S43 product, it is called a self-propelled artillery gun.
      And this is absolutely correct, because today the specification of the division of artillery weapons into cannons, howitzers and mortars, which has lost its relevance, is united by the general concept of “artillery gun”, and not “artillery installation”.
      An artillery installation is, in the domestic tradition, primarily a variant of the concept assault gun, designed to solve the problems of anti-tank warfare and destruction of long-term structures by direct fire (SU-85, SU-100, SU-122, etc.).
  12. +6
    30 July 2024 10: 09
    By the way, judging by the photo, the Malva has a new barrel. The ejector, which was unnecessary for the turretless self-propelled gun, was removed. And this, as knowledgeable artillerymen say, is a 1,5-2 km increase in range. So Comrade Kirill was mistaken and the barrel of the Malva is not from the Msta-S, but from the Msta-B.
    1. +1
      30 July 2024 12: 18
      And this, as knowledgeable artillerymen say, is a 1,5-2 km increase in range

      Spit in the face of these “knowledgeable gunners”. Or let them explain, therefore the 2A65 without an ejector has exactly the same range as the 2S19 with an ejector (as well as the 2S3 and D-20, 2S1 and D-30, etc.)
    2. 0
      30 July 2024 12: 20
      the barrel of the "Malva" is not from the "Msta-S", but from the "Msta-B"

      The "barrel" of the "Malva" is definitely from the "Msta-S". Any really knowledgeable artilleryman who served on it will confirm this to you. Just by looking at the gun guard. smile
      1. +2
        30 July 2024 12: 48
        So another question arises. Why is the barrel from the last century from Msta and not from the Coalition?
        1. +5
          30 July 2024 12: 57
          It makes sense to master a technically complex system gradually.
          If, for example, you experience a non-obvious failure of the entire system during testing, then it is much easier to look for its cause where at least part of the structure is reliably reliable and certainly does not raise doubts.
          As I understand it, in this concept of a weapon on a wheeled chassis, developers and consumers are primarily interested in the question of how the chassis itself, a completely new component of the product for us, will behave in operation. And here it was really very reasonable to take a well-tested sample with obviously known characteristics and operating features as an artillery piece.
          1. -1
            31 July 2024 15: 02
            It makes sense to master a technically complex system gradually.
            and when the coalition is finally mastered...
        2. +2
          30 July 2024 21: 55
          The Coalition, with the same caliber 152, has a different projectile, different cartridge charges, a different loading system, charge ignition - everything is different. And it is more difficult to fit them constructively into this open new layout; besides, the ammunition for the Coalition is new and not at all numerous. Therefore, in terms of existing and future unification of artillery systems, it is absolutely justified to use the 2A64/65 family and their ammunition.
    3. 0
      30 July 2024 16: 00
      Quote: VohaAhov
      By the way, judging by the photo, the Malva has a new barrel. The ejector, which was unnecessary for the turretless self-propelled gun, was removed.

      That is, they switched to barrels from 2A65? This would be good - there would be no need to take away the guns from Msta-S.
      1. +1
        31 July 2024 23: 40
        I’ll tell you a big secret - shooting from Msta-B and Msta-S is carried out according to the same tables
        1. 0
          1 August 2024 16: 33
          Quote: Semenov197
          I’ll tell you a big secret - shooting from Msta-B and Msta-S is carried out according to the same tables

          And I’m not talking about ballistics, but about iron. 2A64 are needed for tracked self-propelled guns. And a wheeled self-propelled gun with an open gun can easily get by with the barrel of a towed 2A65 from storage somewhere.
          1. +1
            1 August 2024 18: 52
            I agree with you, but partially. I don’t know Malva itself, but judging by the photos and videos of the loading process, the breech of the gun is freshly made and comes as one of the designs of the 2A64/65 series. But the actual barrel, the pipe, yes, you are right, it is quite possible to use many options.
  13. 0
    30 July 2024 10: 49
    All this is, of course, good, but it is also extremely necessary to continue to work on improving and perfecting all types and types of new weapons entering the troops; during direct combat use, various shortcomings, failures, or comments from the personnel servicing these weapons often arise, the main thing is that there was constant close communication between designers, manufacturers and end users, so that all emerging shortcomings and comments were eliminated as a matter of urgency, and modernization and improvement of performance characteristics occurred on an ongoing basis.
  14. -1
    30 July 2024 11: 40
    Malva is a good self-propelled gun. I hope they will do something similar soon, but longer-range and more accurate.
    1. +1
      1 August 2024 09: 47
      What complaints do you have about accuracy? Please provide the values ​​of the average deviations.
      1. -2
        1 August 2024 12: 41
        "average" and why is your keyboard not Orthodox?
        1. 0
          1 August 2024 16: 36
          Quote: Mikhail Nasharashev
          "average" and why is your keyboard not Orthodox?

          An old typewriter "Adler" was bought at the bazaar, which lacked the letter "e" and had to be replaced with the letter "e". Therefore, the very first attitude Ostap sent to the stationery store sounded like this:

          “Let the podatel sego to the courier comrade Panikovsky for the Black Sea department for 150 rubles (one hundred and fifty dollars) of stationery in credit at the expense of the Board of Governors in the city of Arbatove.

          Applications: basic applications ".

          - God sent a fool to the commissioner for hooves! — Ostap was angry. - Nothing can be entrusted. I bought a car with a Turkish accent! So, I'm the head of the department? You are a pig, Shura, after this!
          © Golden Calf.
          1. 0
            6 August 2024 10: 27
            Yes, we remember the classics. My keyboard is almost Orthodox. And write about the topic! wink
  15. -2
    30 July 2024 11: 59
    Any equipment is a consumable that must perform its function, preferably as efficiently and safely as possible for calculation. Price should come last here. What is the use of a cheap and repairable self-propelled gun if it cannot crawl within firing range without the risk of being hit by a counter-battery?
  16. BAI
    0
    30 July 2024 12: 52
    The most important thing is missing - range
    1. +1
      1 August 2024 09: 49
      Range for artillery is the tenth most important parameter. I know what I’m talking about, just like I’m an artilleryman myself.
      1. -1
        1 August 2024 12: 42
        "arty tenth" Ukrainian artilleryman?
        1. -1
          6 August 2024 10: 25
          No, not Ukrainian. And write on the topic, write on the topic wink
  17. 0
    30 July 2024 13: 34
    Not an article, but a classic example of pounding water in a mortar. But you can’t deceive the soul with beer, I mean, Where is the “Coalition”? Where is the “long arm” for our artillery? The gun is 2s43, after all, it’s from the 80s of the last century. And is it worth producing so many different systems in one caliber: "Hyacinth", "Msta B", "Msta S" now also "Malvina", and there is also "Acacia" and the long-suffering "Coalition", which is not even visible on the horizon . 6 systems in 152 mm caliber! Again, no thanks to God.
    1. 0
      30 July 2024 22: 03
      On the contrary, the Malva under consideration is a step towards the unification of existing and future artillery. Hyacinths and Acacias will most likely exhaust their resources during the database, and they are unlikely to reproduce. The 2A64/65 family and systems based on them are the most likely candidate for the future, and when there is a projectile that gives an acceptable dispersion ellipse at increased ranges, there will be a lengthening of the barrel and an increase in range
      1. +3
        1 August 2024 09: 52
        There is no such projectile that, by increasing the “range,” reduced its dispersion. And it won't
        1. +3
          1 August 2024 14: 48
          Definitely, you and I speak the same language and understand that long range means great dispersion. And being corrected is not always a solution. This is not counting the difficulties of reconnaissance, shooting, etc. But here, somehow, many absolutize the maximum firing range as some kind of symbol.
          1. ada
            +1
            3 August 2024 13: 22
            Quote: stankow
            There is no such projectile that, by increasing the “range,” reduced its dispersion. And it won't

            Quote: Semenov197
            But here, somehow, many absolutize the maximum firing range as some kind of symbol.

            No, many of them, in their souls, somewhere there, deeply, understand with an unknown feeling that Comrade. Stankov is a competent artilleryman and he is right, but due to the nature of his gut ... they cannot agree with him without experiencing some discomfort in the area of ​​\u200b\u200b"dosylnikov" wassat
  18. +1
    30 July 2024 13: 45
    Quote: Uncle_Misha
    There was an article in which the designer of Soviet artillery systems clearly and clearly explained why our artillery is like this and not different. And that we have no problems making a long-range weapon.


    We have a very long-range weapon - the Malka. It clearly hits further than 15 km. laughing

    Quote: Uncle_Misha
    What we see now are isolated launches of gliding bombs and shelling by NAR; calling such actions air support can only be a stretch.


    Most people only see what is shown on TV. Launches of such bombs are no longer so rare, and the basis of air support is made up of drones, which are cheaper and more effective.
  19. +2
    30 July 2024 13: 53
    Quote: Bogalex
    An artillery installation is, in the domestic tradition, primarily a variant of the concept of an assault gun, designed to solve the problems of anti-tank warfare and destroy long-term structures using direct fire


    Oh really? Like there were no howitzers (they don’t hit with direct fire) in our army? But what about the ML-20 howitzer-gun and its self-propelled version, created under Joseph Vissarionich?
    1. +1
      2 August 2024 11: 17
      Quote: Illanatol
      But what about the ML-20 howitzer-gun and its self-propelled version, created under Joseph Vissarionich?

      Hehehehe...have you ever wondered why self-propelled guns from the Second World War were given to tankers?
      Initially, all serial self-propelled guns of the USSR were assault guns for direct fire. And SU-122 with SU/ISU-152 too. Moreover, in the states of Sap and Sabr there were no “artillery” units - there was no one even to prepare the data for firing from closed OPs.
      The reason is simple - self-propelled artillery for working with PDO was too heavy for the USSR in the 40s. No, the USSR could build a howitzer on a tank chassis, even in a rotating turret. But the problem is that artillery is not just guns.
      Cannons need shells, a lot of shells (you remember the consumption rates for typical targets with PDO). That is, you need a lot of trucks that keep up with self-propelled guns on the march and walk along the same roads. The assault self-propelled gun is simpler in this regard - in direct fire it takes 3-4 shells to hit the target.
      Next we need reconnaissance and adjustment - we need armored spotter vehicles with optics and communications. And communications in the Red Army... Moreover, tank radios will not help here - uv. M. Svirin wrote that the artillerymen tested them, but the quality of communication did not allow for fire adjustments. Then you need a quick topographic reference and generation of data for shooting.
      In the absence of all this, self-propelled guns alone are no different from towed artillery - because the speed of their deployment and opening of fire will be determined by the auxiliary units and rear, inherited from the towed guns and working according to their standards. The spotters moved forward on foot, the signalmen pulled away the wires, finished off the trucks and lorries with shells...
  20. -1
    30 July 2024 13: 59
    Quote: Serjy
    What is the use of a cheap and repairable self-propelled gun if it cannot crawl within firing range without the risk of being hit by a counter-battery?


    Why bother with this counter-battery fight at all? The tasks of destroying enemy artillery are best solved in other ways: attack aircraft, MLRS, attack drones.
    You just need to have front-line reconnaissance at the proper level, identifying dangerous enemy targets in time. And effectively counteract enemy intelligence.

    Still, they don’t “crawl” on wheels: high mobility combined with a short deployment and collapse time of the installation is a good guarantee of survival.
    And the low cost makes mass production and use possible. Quantity also matters, as this conflict proves.
    1. +1
      30 July 2024 15: 39
      Artillery fires for a reason, it has its own task that must be completed. At the same time, as practice shows, the enemy very quickly returns fire. So, counter-battery warfare is extremely necessary. A slightly different question is what means to carry it out; there may be options.
  21. +2
    30 July 2024 14: 04
    Quote: Dedok
    where was the crew at that time?
    are the gun elements intact? - they are not protected by anything...


    So, after all, the destructive elements are designed to defeat infantry. It was not an armor-piercing shell that hit the gun directly.
    So the damage really could have been minor. Moreover, the point of impact could be several tens of meters away, the balls were already at their end.
    1. 0
      5 August 2024 00: 11
      So where is the crew?
  22. +1
    30 July 2024 14: 07
    Quote: Cartalon
    Yes, yes, it’s so wonderful when the enemy gets you, but you don’t, you can fight like this for decades.


    Against the Papuans.

    But the enemy may have something that hits further than any artillery. It will cover artillery positions with “Smerch” or “Tornado-S” and that’s it... the evening will cease to be languid.
  23. -1
    30 July 2024 17: 40
    Good technology, it would be nice to automate loading.
    1. 0
      4 August 2024 23: 36
      In the robotic project "Rubin", automated loading is precisely implemented, which makes it a multifunctional complex on the ground and in the air. see above.
  24. -1
    30 July 2024 21: 20
    By the way, I haven’t heard anything from the Coalition SV. It wouldn't hurt the troops.
  25. +1
    30 July 2024 22: 16
    One might think that in terms of shooting, this Malva is somehow different from Msta? - although it may be worse - the latter is in every way more stable when shooting
    1. -1
      31 July 2024 01: 27
      Quote: Bone1
      One might think that in terms of shooting, this Malva is somehow different from Msta? - although it may be worse - the latter is in every way more stable when shooting
      "Malva" is a development of towed artillery, and not a replacement for the tracked "Msta-S". It is superior to a towed gun in almost everything: cross-country ability, deployment time for battle and deployment time after completing a mission, high rate of fire, etc.
      1. 0
        5 August 2024 00: 09
        Mallow is greatly inferior in camouflage. Where are you going to hide this armored train? Not a single forest belt can be found for this. And camouflage is very important now
        1. 0
          5 August 2024 00: 13
          Quote from Alorg
          Where are you going to hide this armored train?
          And where is the weapon usually hidden along with the tractor that drags it?
  26. -1
    30 July 2024 22: 55
    Quote from multicam
    Question to the author - is he absolutely sure that he did not make a mistake in the abbreviation?? Maybe it's a self-propelled gun?


    This is not a self-propelled gun, consider it a self-propelled gun at the limit.
  27. +1
    30 July 2024 23: 01
    Quote: Bogalex
    But they did it, it works and they are asking for more!

    Who's asking?


    Troops.
    They need a lot of simple weapons now, and not a few “unparalleled in the world” after the rain on Thursday.
    If you look at analogies, a hundred T-34s are better than 10 Tigers.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. 0
    31 July 2024 08: 36
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    At the same time, as practice shows, the enemy very quickly returns fire. So, counter-battery warfare is extremely necessary. A slightly different question is what means to carry it out; there may be options.


    That's exactly what they are. I don’t think it’s very wise to use artillery against artillery, just like using tanks against tanks. Unless, as a last resort, when there are simply no other options.
    And you need to deliver such blows that the enemy simply no longer has the opportunity to respond. In the Second World War it sometimes worked... and for something like this you just need a massive amount of fire and a combination of weapons.
    Beat him so hard that not even a blade of grass remains in the square.
    We need truly long-range TOCs.
  30. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      31 July 2024 22: 21
      It’s funny, why not a caliber of several tens of meters and an intercontinental range?
  31. 0
    31 July 2024 17: 34
    The base is very large, there will be problems with its camouflage. Very short range. Weak counter-battery ability. Rostec managers did this only to show the visibility of their work
    1. 0
      2 August 2024 11: 18
      Quote from Alorg
      Very short range.

      The same as the Msta - the barrel is the same.
  32. 0
    1 August 2024 21: 20
    I’m embarrassed to ask, but when aiming the gun they will still turn the flywheel handles manually? Or did you come up with something new? Electric motors, gearboxes, drives can be controlled by a simple controller. Manual control, of course, should remain just in case of war, but the automation should work normally. I don’t know, but on TV they always show how our hands are twisted and people peek at the compass. What do modern systems come up with? And one more thing: the way they loaded machine gun magazines manually is how they load them. Well, in the summer it’s okay, but in the winter the hands are hooks, tooth doesn’t fit on tooth, haven’t they really come up with anything?
  33. 0
    2 August 2024 20: 33
    At the end of June, the Rostec state corporation announced the transfer of a batch of new self-propelled guns 2S43 to the armed forces. Apparently, this is already a serial technique


    Is there at least a CAO division in each direction?
    Or is everything in the traditions of the former Moscow Region, only isolated samples - demonstrators for parades and journalists?
  34. 0
    2 August 2024 20: 38
    Manual control, of course, should remain just in case of war, but the automation should work normally.


    Malve is to Archer in terms of automation level as a steam locomotive is to Sapsan...
    It would be nice if they “collectively farmed” something simpler and launched mass production (a regular artillery brigade/regiment per month...), but here even this “semi-finished product” was produced individually...
  35. 0
    3 August 2024 17: 09
    The new Ural chassis of the Tosochka type would fit this gun; the barrel could even be lengthened.
    And this is a huge chassis for the new automatic Coalition.
  36. 0
    7 August 2024 15: 54
    that there is no information at all about the Coalition, it seems that even under SHOIGU they wanted to send the first samples to the front
  37. -1
    7 August 2024 20: 18
    I thought that the human factor was reduced to a minimum, it loads itself, reloads itself, aims itself at the coordinates and arrives and positions itself at the point... otherwise by the time the little men go out, set up, aim, yawn and drink tea, the SVO will already be over. ..