Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Artillery: A Great Solution For an Obsolete Problem
   Next Article → MURPHY'S LAW: I Got The Iraq Fuel Convoy Blues
July 5, 2007: Russia has developed a unique self-propelled artillery piece. It's a dual barrel (one above the other) 152mm gun. The two guns share an auto-loading system and a fifty round ammo supply on board. In fact, there is no one in the turret, just the ammo and loading machinery for two guns.


With both barrels working, the "Koalitcia-SV" can fire sixteen rounds a minute for short periods. The gun is a variation of the current 2S19M system, and is currently undergoing testing. While a system like this makes sense for current artillery tactics (fire as many shells as possible, in the shortest period of time, so you can move to avoid counter-fire), new GPS guided shells are changing everything. The American Excalibur GPS guided shell just entered service this year in Iraq. American troops using it are amazed at how two Excalibur shells, fired from over 30 kilometers away, go through the same hole in the roof of a large building, and explode inside to kill enemy troops. Without destroying adjacent buildings. Koalitcia-SV appears to be a great solution for an obsolete problem. PHOTO

Next Article → MURPHY'S LAW: I Got The Iraq Fuel Convoy Blues

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
paintballguy    Russian Style Solution   7/5/2007 8:15:14 AM
I don't know if it's an obsolete problem... Maybe both solutions are good depending on the final objectives... If we want to saturate an area, the Russian solution is far better than the American one. At least because no one is speacking about the difference in cost between an excalibur shell and a normal one...
Quote    Reply

trenchsol    one vehicle, two guns   7/5/2007 9:21:33 AM
Russians offer two guns per one vehicle. Sounds like a good solution for tight budget.


Quote    Reply

Sabre       7/5/2007 9:54:38 AM
I thought there was a long discussion about how those pictures of the new, "over under" two barrelled Russian howitzer were photoshop fakes.  Someone even did a good job on a three-barrel pic...
Quote    Reply

doggtag    apparentlt it's not as fake as some made out to believe...   7/5/2007 12:37:33 PM
Here's one of the links from the latest discussion on the Koalitcia over @ Tank-Net :
Heads up, it's in Russian.
So if this thing is a fake, someone's gone thru a lot of trouble to describe, in depth, how the turret internals are laid out.
Next suggestion: if it is a fake, is it then a prop for some upcoming movie they've been working on?
I've been intermittently trying to dig up more about it, finding some speculation here and there that, initially, it was under consideration as a destroyer or cruiser naval gun system, an option to replace single and twin 130mm guns on various ships, but I can't find anything solid saying it is.
The internals of the loading mechanisms and automated magazines suggest it does have potential as a ship mounting, with minimal deck penetration (not as much as other naval turrets that extend 2-3 decks into the ship).
If it is entirely for real, it certainly lets the rest of the world know just how far the Russians have come with turret automation (and also interesting that they obviously kept it under wraps until a full automotive test rig was built and revealed), to the point it is wholly unmanned and the crew sits inside the hull...much like the US originally planned to do with the big gun armed FCS variants.
For all the automation involved, for their sakes let's hope it doesn't end up being a failure-prone maintenance nightmare.
Time will tell.
But if it does work reliably enough, it will be interesting to see if they just stop at a twin 152mm mounting (twin 130mm gun, twin 122 gun howitzer or 120 gun mortar, twin 100 gun launcher, etc)...
Is it then difficult to envision an MBT with twinned over/under 125mm guns?
Quote    Reply

JT       7/6/2007 3:30:35 PM
Kinda reminds me of the Soviet heavy tank from Command & Conquer Red Alert.  The guns on that were side by side instead of over and under.
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       7/6/2007 6:10:42 PM

For a ship gun, thumbs up.  A great way of packing firepower into a small space.

For an existing army system, neither yay or nay.  I suppose it's a fair way of providing firepower, while keeping crewing requirements down.  It does however mean if the vehicle is destroyed, you have in effect lost two guns, as opposed to one.

For a sustained conflict, thumbs down.  What a waste of resources allocating two guns per vehicle.  You would be far better off producing two vehicles.

Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Yimmy   7/6/2007 7:21:11 PM

Disagree.  With two single-barrel vehicles you increase footprint and likelihood that one will be taken out by area weapons thus reducing firepower by a half.  With a single two-barrel system you halve the footprint and the surviving vehicles possess twice the rof with half the casualties tended-to.  Given good logistical support the two-barrel single-platform system can make sense for an owner, apparently the Russians agree else they wouldn't have invested.

Quote    Reply

Yimmy       7/6/2007 8:30:13 PM
VV, you are assuming that the vehicle will survive, whereas you have two lives so to speak, with two vehicles.

And I can't see the Russians adopting this vehicle any more than I can see them adopting the Su37.  Time will tell I guess!

Quote    Reply

french stratege       7/6/2007 9:45:25 PM
A gun by it self is only a small part of a SP vehicule cost including FCS and C3I.
It can make sense to have twice.
And it can still fire smart or GPS guided shell.
But what is the weight of whole systems?
Quote    Reply

Sabre       7/9/2007 1:04:11 PM
Yeah, here's the link:
Personnally, I don't care one way or the other.  An interesting question would be the weight of the additional gun, compared to the weight of the autoloader that allows the PzH2000, AS90, or any other 155mm howitzer to achieve rates of fire around 10 rpm.  (Reliability would be an interesting comparison too - howitzer recoil systems are mature, proven systems, but they do require maintenane.)  High rates of fire are all well and good, but most SP howizters only carry 40 rounds (the Germans got it right, with 60 on the PzH2000).  Yes, yes, most batteries have a whole slew of ammunition carriers behind them, but the supply is still quite limited... I just don't see much utility in having a ROF much above 10 rpm.
Quote    Reply