New Russian howitzer Coalition SV, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 21-6-2011 @ 01:04 AM by ZIVONIC

YouTube Link

Holy bejesus! Someone has been playing too much Command and Conquer. I have no idea when this video was released, but I've never seen it and I've been following Russian military developments very closely. I wish I could find the full video of the trial, but this is all I've been able to locate.

Clearly the Coalition SV has changed since the first model, the new turret and ammunition bustle is massive compared to the older MSTA setup the early prototype had.

This is a larger system than anything produced in the west, I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but I bet it can put rounds down range faster than any competitor

Can someone give us some insight into this system, NLOS, or any other rival design? I'm not an artillery expert.

edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: embed

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:10 AM by theRhenn

perhaps if we could see it

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:10 AM by ZIVONIC

reply to post by theRhenn

there you go

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:14 AM by 7thcavtrooper

what happens on wet terrain or desert?The route isn't always "Class A" that is a rather generous gift to your enemy because you bogged down your hull for a mobility kill.

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:18 AM by ZIVONIC

reply to post by 7thcavtrooper

Any guess on the weight? It cannot be any worst on rough terrain as an M1A1.

edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: typo

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:23 AM by Nspekta

I think this is the same machine... Specs! 16 rounds per minute!

And: It can also launch two precision-guided rounds, that will hit two different targets simultaneously.

www.military-today.com...

edit on 6/21/2011 by Nspekta because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:34 AM by ZIVONIC

reply to post by Nspekta

That's the older prototype, I've never seen the one in the video before. I thought all they did was build the one using the MSTA-S hull and turret, which is the one you posted. I thought they determined it was to expensive and scrapped it a decade ago.

Guess I was wrong.

This is from the article you posted... I'm amazed, is this a production version?

"Demonstrator of the Koalitsija-SV uses a modified Msta-S chassis, however production self-propelled howitzer will have a new tracked chassis. Production vehicles will be also fitted with larger turret."

edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:53 AM by John_Brown

This thing is absurd. I don't know what battlefield anyone's going to need a heavy, slow indirect fire system that can't be airlifted anywhere. Looks like it comes from the old Soviet school of precision field artillery; no adjust fire phase, just a four digit grid and "fire for effect, over".

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 01:58 AM by ZIVONIC

reply to post by John_Brown

WWIII maybe?

I'm not sure how this system will be deployed. But frankly, I would not want to be in range of one of them.

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 02:02 AM by spoor

Originally posted by John_Brown
This thing is absurd. I don't know what battlefield anyone's going to need a heavy, slow indirect fire system that can't be airlifted anywhere

I would prefer one of these
www.army-technology.com...

Same range of the gun, but the vehicle can travel at 70kph!

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 02:15 AM by John_Brown

I started my Army career in the self-propelled artillery, and we ended up scrapping our M109's for light caliber, towed pieces that can be sling-loaded under helicopters, but in my two overseas deployments, I never saw action as an artilleryman. We performed "non-standard" missions covering down on things like convoy security, route recon, etc.. This beast of a Russian cannon makes for a good picture, but it seems pretty useless on the modern battlefield. Show me a mobile system that can track multiple incoming rockets or mortars, destroy them in flight, and launch a counter salvo on the back azimuth before the bad guys know what's coming, and I'll buy it.

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 02:29 AM by ZIVONIC

reply to post by John_Brown

I hear you. I still believe this is built for WWIII, not counterinsurgency like what the US is currently doing. Imagine what a few of these could do to an armored column.

The guy on youtube who posted the original video clip says this is built to the serial standard, but it's the only one.

I guess it could go into production tomorrow if the Russian military wants it.

edit on 21/6/11 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 02:49 AM by Pervius

Put it on the deck of some old disposable ship. Making it a Battleship.

When the F-22's come to sink the ship merely drive the Coalition SV off the deck of the ship. Ship gets attacked and sunk....

Next disposable ship sails by and winches the Coalition SV up onto it's deck and continues firing.

Have it fully automated/unmanned. Able to close hatches to seal it up so it will float for months at a time. Any passing ship could merely tow it to shore as well to continue operations.

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 04:37 PM by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I don't see what is impractical about it. It seems like Russia has been deploying self-propelled artillery units all the time in Chechnya, and against Georgia too. Giving one SP-artillery vehicle the firing capability of two seems to save production and maintenance costs for two vehicles, right?

Oh, and just out of curiousity, what is the shell size of this thing (prototype and production)?

edit on 21-6-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-6-2011 @ 05:04 PM by ZIVONIC

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

The only drawback to this design is it might be hard to hide because of the turret size. It is no heavier than an M1A1, and will be able to pass any terrain a T-90 can thanks to a tracked system. The amount of firepower it can put on target will be unrivaled. I just wonder how it handles recoil? Will they shoot alternatively, simultaneously, either-or?

As for the size, I believe this version might be 155's, that is what was hinted at for the production version. The MSTA-S version had dual 152s.

Pages: ^^TOP^^