The new Russian dual self-propelled gun-howitzer!!!

after all those years of "red alert", the russian scientists finally decide to go "dual" for their tanks.

behold, the all new russian dual self-propelled gun-howitzer!!!
any idea on how good this new toy is?

img403.imageshack.us...
img443.imageshack.us...
img443.imageshack.us...
img443.imageshack.us...
img443.imageshack.us...

[edit on 1/9/2007 by warset]

mod edit: turned images into links to correct page width

[edit on 9-1-2007 by UK Wizard]

That is quite possibly the sexiest piece of artillery I've ever layed eyes on.

While it looks sharp, anyone here know Ruskie? I'm curious how it holds up statistically against other modern platforms.

A few observations:

1. That thingis MASSIVE. I mean HUGE. The pictures try to hids how long those barrels are. It must be a pain in the pooper to move by air, rail, etc. Perhaps the Barrels are removable for transport. The longer barrel means more mass working against that of the projectile(newtons 3rd law) for more accuracy. The long barrel also means higher muzzle velocity.

2. The most obvious feature, dual barrels. Obviously a twice as fast firing rate. Always a plus.

3. It looks like it might be an auto-loader. If so that means a MUCH faster firing rate along with sith something called "variable angle timed impacts". When arty fires it can take up to a minute or longer to reach its target after its fired. With a fast firing rate you can lob your first shot wayyyy up high, your second at a shallower angle, 3rd even shallower, up to 5 or more rounds(in this case 10 due to dual barrel) can be fired by the same gun and impact at the same time for a devastating attack.

4. It appears there is only one operator. Less crew members means less men dead when its hit. Big plus. You have to assume a peice of equipment this important would have a support vehicle, so the operator isn't "alone on the battlefield".

I think its only downside would be fuel requirements,size and weight.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Tiloke]

i am highly suspicious of this thing

1 - how does this " auto loader reload " at anything other than 0 degrees elevation

come to mention it , is there ANY room in tha turret for the ammo handling ?

if you have to return to zerpo after every shot - you will loose any benefit of two barrels


2 IMHO the size , complexity and weight of it would outweigh any poisible benefits of having two barrels

what if a track breaks - or the fire control diies , what if you are hit by a enemy missile ? 2 tubes are now imobile / inoperative or destroyed instead of one

modern artillery doctrine is light , fast , mobile and dispersed this puts two eggs in one basket

to be sure i would have to see a better blue print and an english text of how the auto loader alegedly works

but i am not impressed so far

PS - if i was mamking a twin barrel artiller peice - i wouls at leasy have them side by side - and independant elevation - like a naval twin turret has

a. The auto-reloader applies the shell to the barrel, the barrel locks, it is now ready to fire again. [Presuming. I don't know, though is simple-enough in theory.]

b. Size is apparently deceptive, given that it's an enormous machine, made to look small. Further, we do not know what sort of ammunition is to be used. They might be cutting down round-size to minimize recoil. [A large implication for most dual-barrel concepts.]

c. Not sure how size, weight mean much about the barrels. Yes, perhaps it moves slow, though let us recall it is a support piece, meant to be well outside the field of operations. [In modern combat.]

If any track breaks, or any one-man-operator vehichle is killed, or any rocket destroy sensitive, vital components, any machine goes down. This applies to all mobile-armour.

Auto-reloaders have been around for several years, please find your own link. [Not to be rude, I simply don't have the time.]

Side-by-side is problematic with the recoil, it tends to stress the frame beyond what stress the components can handle. By placing them vertically, there is still issue of stress, though only on the components between them -- All shock will be diffused through the center of the armour, and be defused nearly like any other tank or artillery piece.

Twice the weight on the trunnions. Twice the recoil load (by ROF if not combined barrel cluster mass) on the compensators. Twice the ordnance weight overall as a fraction of useful vehicle mass in ammunition, ground pressure, power:weight and armor. Half the magazine capacity for each tube = fewer specialist rounds. If the rounds are dual fed to each breach from the sides, that's double the autoloader weight. Questionable increases in firing rates if the piece truly fires on one recoil slide as autoloading will NOT be Gast-like.

In General:

1. Missile Systems including guided rockets as well as dedicated munitions like the SPIKE-ER, Polyphem, FOG-MPM and Netfires will ALL outrange tubed artillery, given only that the target value is $ufficient to expend homing guidance upon. And/or you have a UAV or ground targeting source to update target position during round TOF.

2. Where tubes make out well is in shortrange engagements where precision fires are a function of precision lay (i.e. less than 10nm) and the need to lay on high density fires is offset by VT airburst and hard target structural penetration fuzing options, particularly in FIBUA conditions where you want to shape lethality and avoid excessive fragmentation over distances outside a given proximity bubble. At which point a soft-recoil 105mm on a medium truck or remote-fired power trace is infinitely more practical.

CONCLUSION:
Typical 'only from a Russian' Tzar Pushkan mentality. If they were refighting the Great War or had some serious expectation for not being able to exploit MRL/NCW, it _still_ wouldn't be justified on the basis of mobility, sustainable fires or probable caliber/munition effects on the firing compartment and tube reliabilities.

Modern War either needs more range and after-fire loiter to handle truly dangerous targets 'one vs. one' as counterbattery. Or greater ability to get to a primitive fight without complex deployment factors stress on the logistics.

Are you sure it's not P-Shopped?


KPl.

Originally posted by ch1466

im sure this is not a PSed pic lol, cuz i've seen this self-propelled gun-howitzer in the background of another news photograph a few weeks ago that was talking about other russian military stuff. back then some one had point out the two-tube thing in the background of the photograph; now we've just found out that it's russia's new toy.

actually i don't really see the point for having to guns lining up vertically, unless there is a really good reason for doing so.
or maybe there is?

[edit on 1/9/2007 by warset]

hmm just pics? why are there no links or anything that will explain how this machine works? can anyone translate what is written? you know I dont mean to be rude but this is typical russian strategy. take a good look at the US NLOS cannon, you have a good layout on how it will be implemented and how it operates, here you have zip. I will remain skeptical.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by ape]

This thing looks better than most things i have seen in computer games!

From what I ave read from other forums about this is, that it is photoshopped. It is basically apicture of a 152mm 2S19 MSTA-S with another barrel added. Also somon pointed out that the sppec diagrams don't match the hape of the picture anyway.
Seems like it is someones wet dream. lol.

Hey all

Being a gunner myself i can definitly appreciate that this self-propelled gun/s makes the as90 and m109 look like a toy. however i can see a conceptual point to it.

For an extremly undermanned army *cough*british*cough* this thing could keep the number of guns in a battery up while decreasing the the number of operators required to run the weapon system.

But the russian army being the size it is (rather large) this principle wouldnt realy apply. To me it just looks like the ruskies engineering department flexing its wings.

Though the piece in question does look awsome!!!!!

wassup everyone, I have tried to translate the Russian in your blueprint a little bit, note I am not an expert on mechanics so I couldn't translate everything, also some words were unfamiliar, even appeared wrongly written,,

here is my edit to the blueprint:



I have seen this artillery system before, and it does in fact look like it was built on the chasis of the 3s19, but the barrel looks different, seems like a twice the power version of the average self propelled artillery.

Doesn't seem like it was photoshopped, and I too have seen it in several places, unfortunatley I don't even know what its called so I can't google it to find more on it.

Could it fire dual NUKE shells? twice the nuke in one shot.

whoa.. sweeeeet

lol funny how noones really sure whether this thing even exists, yet people are already at each others throats trying to prove/disprove its effectiveness

what we need is some sort of article or info on it, we know nothing so far, just some pics, if only someone could get a link to some info on it then we could find out something about it.

well thats an odd design, one of many the russians have produced over the years, the design looks interesting and might even be effective. There is only one major flaw if it ever breaks down that one poor soldier will have a lot of back breaking work to do!

Heres a better link

www.militaryphotos.net...


In that link, it also linked to this video
nnovgorod.rfn.ru...

Apparently called the coalition

Awsome! apocalypse tank!


They look pretty useful on the battlefield.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by wildcat]

Looks pretty cool.

Also looks like an expensive sluggish maintence hog with very little transport ability.

Looks like they went the hitler way. Really cool and powerfull but very unpracticle.