Apparently Russia has decided that VDV has a need for air droppable 152mm towed howitzers, so they took a 2A88 152mm howitzer from a Koalitsiya-S SPG and put it in a towed configuration for airborne and non tracked surfaces like mountains where it can be towed by a Typhoon MRAP.
Basic 2A88 specs include 70km range and 15 rpm with that classic 5 shells on 1 target arriving at the same time meme like what the Americans and UK are doing. Rounds can include regular shells with Dinamika GPS/GLONASS kit (kinda like a JDAM or their version of Excalibur except only costs $1000+ per kit compared to the $100K of Excalibur), pulse jet UAVs, that anti infantry mine laying missile that's copied from the Uragan rocket and a huge 152mm version of the Sprinter missile that is going to be used by the 125mm T-14. I believe there's also that 152mm nuke.
But I question their sanity. Has there ever been a need for an army to air drop howitzers? 152mm howitzers are good against airports but I don't see the need beyond that.
>Has there ever been a need for an army to air drop howitzers?
As far as I know, not 152-155mm howitzers. Even the majority of lightweight 105mm designs in service are designed around transport by medium lift helicopters or towed by light vehicles rather than being explicitly air-dropped. The only modern air-droppable design that I'm aware of is the British L118/M119 (modified for US service).
It makes some sense as a defensive weapon if Russia foresees the need to deploy artillery into Siberia without access to prepared runways. Still, a 152mm gun has a very large logistics footprint for something air-droppable. It's surprising that Russia would accept the burden of supplying the large volume of ammunition that a 152mm gun would need vs. developing a 122mm (or smaller) weapon for the same task.
Are you sure it isn't a mistranslation of air-transportable rather than air-droppable? Transporting something like this via helicopter makes a lot more sense and as far as I know the 2A65 was never designed to be carried by sling. That alone would be an increase in capability.
As an artillery cannoneer I can tell you almost everything you just posted is bullshit.
Connor Robinson
What's the point of making an air-droppable towed howitzer if the towing vehicle is not air-droppale?
Xavier Scott
Maybe it's easier to make an air-droppable howitzer than an amphibious howitzer?
Alexander Thompson
I was about the ask the same. I assume helicopters could fly in the needed equipment but than again they could also fly in the same type of heavy artillery so what's the point.
Grayson Cooper
Russia is currently developing an MRAP from the Typhoon family for the VDV.
Dunno if that means it's actually air-droppable or not, but probably.
Isaac Green
>Has there ever been a need for an army to air drop howitzers? Uh, yes? How is this even a question? Air droppable equipment is not limited by need, it's limited by capability.
Andrew James
>Numbers Please elaborate then
Elijah Nelson
>is there need for air-droppable MBT? >is there need for air-droppable Panzerhaubitze? >is there need for air-droppable submarine? >is there need for air-droppable IFV?
Yes!
Joshua Reyes
>air-droppable submarine Sounds like something a sino-german team would develop in 1946
Liam Sanders
I bet you're the kind of person that would've developed a nuclear based APS if there's a need to.
Brayden Edwards
You mean Japanese, there's this one where torpedo bombers would do an attack run with a manned torpedo.
Logan Parker
>if there's a need to >implying there isn't
how do you not get this. it's not about needs, it's about being able to do it. If it's possible, it will be done and then it will be used. the US Army didn't think Henry lever action rifles were "needed" or feasible for a long time and see where that ended....
Noah Carter
To teach all the faggots that joined the Paragays that regular infantry is the best unit type since you get logistics.
Joseph Myers
Let’s start
>15RPM in an autoloading system Absolutely not, would burn up the tube extremely fast.
It will likely only have 3-4RPM in a towed configuration, but the gun in OPs pic also looks incapable of being elevated to a high enough angle to make it useful as an artillery piece.
The 70km Range thing is also extremely dubious as even rocket assisted 155mm rounds only go about 30km.
What’s more likely is they required an assault gun, in which case, they’re following a doctrine that’s fucking ancient.
Also, if their guided artillery munition only costs 1k there’s absolutely no way it’s even close to being as capable as Excalibur or PGK kits on western artillery.
This entire post is the rambling of a vatnik high on crack lmao
Justin Hernandez
Its just ruskie fantasy/propaganda like the t50 or t14
Kevin Morales
>The 70km Range thing is also extremely dubious as even rocket assisted 155mm rounds only go about 30km.
agreed
USS Iowa 16-inch guns:
>16 in/50 caliber (406 mm × 20.3 m) Mark 7 >41,622 yards (38.059 km or 20.55 nm) with nominal 660 lb (300 kg) powder charge
Dominic Morgan
Most of the reson russian equipment is cheaper is because their factory workers is payed in vodka and krokodil and their development buros arent black holes.
I still belive its vatnik propaganda tho.
John Ward
Lmao I just read this things wiki
They claim a 20RPM Max ROF.
They’re absolutely on fucking krokodil
Xavier Thompson
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. There are air-droppable IFVs, and if we can air drop SPAGs and MBTs you can bet they'll be added to Airborne at lightspeed.
Andrew Ross
it is just the regular max number surfing from russian propaganda and vatniks >there is this special ammunition that has that range but it aint planed for it or only fielded in low numbers, fuck it its the new max range >the gun could theoretically do this high rpm with an autoloader in a artillery vehicle, so the manual towed version is the getting the same numbers you also see this bullshit regulary in russian armor >turret got 500-900mm RHA protection against the KE at the turret front, so 900m armor protection it is officially
Easton Roberts
>I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I'm not. say they find an alloy that as strong as steel but only weighs 50% which would make abrams tanks light enough to be air-droppable. you bet you ass that's the first thing they'd do. simply because of loggistics if nothing else. remember back how hard it was to get tanks to A-stan...
Christian Evans
>Absolutely not, would burn up the tube extremely fast. Check this video If you check youtube videos of Zvezda, they clearly say they have a cleaning mechanism for that and it's one of the reason why they dropped the 2 barrel mechanism because the single barrel can deliver the same RPM with the self cleaning system.
>The 70km Range thing is also extremely dubious as even rocket assisted 155mm rounds only go about 30km. The 70 km range can be glide munitions, military websites from the west already notes Koalitsiya as capable of 70km. Even America is developing their 70km rangers with different methods.
>Also, if their guided artillery munition only costs 1k there’s absolutely no way it’s even close to being as capable as Excalibur or PGK kits on western artillery. Dinamika is old technology, as said it's like a JDAM kit where it can be installed on existing regular shells.
>MRSI quite dubious claim for a towed artillery >15 rpm If it has any automated loading mechanisms, i'd say 15 rpm is bullshit >70km range Most modern 152/155 artillery are capable of 40-50km with special ammunition. I doubt that Ruskie has developed something that defies physics. >anti infantry mine laying missile copied from the Uragan rocket I don't think that 152mm artillery shell and 220mm heavy artillery rocket have much in common. >152mm nuke. Sure. Why not. >But I question their sanity. Why?. There is never too much artillery.
