Why hasn't anyone developed hybrid artillery, a combination between the low cost artillery and electronics, guided artillery with homing or lock in capabilities. Something like an Arduino integration with bombs and some kind of flap or to rockets it's just a marginal additional cost of $10 to an artillery shell that may cost hundreds. Anyone knows the cost of a shell or a rocket? That is the key to a war of attrition. Locking the coordinates to a rocket deploying a barrage and assuring they will hit within a 20m area would lower the cost significantly. Cruise missiles are too expensive there has to be an integration of technology with the past. Motors and ICs are dirt cheap now.
Who said RUssia has bad artillery don't know any history... LOL They bounced back in WW2 with better tanks that demolished Panthers and Tigers... We used their rockets to go in to space for some time.
I was raised that commies = eat babies, so I can understand some people who think that the Russians are still fighting with shovels, they are wrong but I understand why they are wrong.
Napoleon, before his humiliating defeat at the hands of the russians, wrote about his huge surprise to find out the russians not only had more arty than him, but also much better... So yeah, arty is a long tradition for the russians, long before US was even invented...
Video creator mentioned Swedish Russian war but omited to mention that Sweden had invaded 1708 Russsia and lost war. Then again Sweden invaded again 1741 and got defeat again. Only this time Sweden had Western partners like Napoleon had. Russian kept Finland territory that was a part of Sweden. That part was called later on 1922 when Soviet Union had given back Swedish territory that Russian kept as a buffer to prevent any new Swedish future ivadsions. However, British had protested for return land back to Sweden and then was created new country today known as a Finland. That part of shameful Swedish history isn't in any Western democracies schools history books. After creation of new country of Finland Russian had put conditions with threaty that Finland become neutral in perpetuity to Never wage war against Russia. That thst threaty Finland never respected Finland joined Nazis Germany invasion of Russia 1941 then was called USSR/United Socialist Soviet Republic. Now Finland had again jioned US/NATO and have US/NATO bases in Finland Rassian borders. Russian should have kept Swedish territory/Finland forever so as Polish and Lithuanian multiple invasion of Russia. That Russian had forgiven then as a good neighbors. Now those Beck stubbeers have US/NATO bases on Russian borders. That parts of Polish and Lithuanian shameful history isn't in their school history books. Russian should've kept thires lands after Polish and Lithuanian invasion defeats. Now as we see back stubbers countinuing back stubbing over and over again Russia. Because Russian forgiven many devils invasions. Little factual history that isn't in any Western fake democracies school history books.❤️🕊️🌍👌👍
Well, to be honest, it was Russia, Denmark-Norway, and Poland that jointly attacked Sweden and launched the Great Northern War year 1700. Russia made an assault in the east, Poland in the south, and Denmark-Norway in the west. Sweden defended itself successfully in the west and south. While Russia, contrary to your lies, advanced into Sweden, laying siege to Narva. The Swedish "invasion" of Russia was an active defense to try to enforce a peace. It failed in 1709 at Poltava. But it was not Sweden that started the war or invaded Russia first. Russia was the aggressor because Sweden had a very young king, and the alliance of the three aggressor nations thought that it would be a piece of cake. What ensued was a 21 year long war cause Sweden was not as weak as they hoped. The war in 1741 was 20 years after the Great Northern War and Sweden tried to retake the territory Russia conquered in that war. A little like Russia trying to attack Ukraine today and say that Crimea is theirs. If Russia is right today and have a casus belli, then Sweden were right then and had a casus belli.
Успехи в Северной войне Россия одержала самостоятельно, без помощи "союзников". У вас очень странные параллели по Швеции и Украине. При том, что нынешняя Украина это государство не существовавшее раньше и выделившееся из России. У вас слишком болезненное акцентирование внимания на том. что Швеция вторглась, Это не главная суть комментария, которую хотел дать автор ветки.
This presentation missed two important things: 1. The varieties of Russian artillery calibers are actually important. Russia has four different main artillery calibers. 100mm, 122mm, 152mm, 203mm. They all have different purposes. 100mm is meant for direct tactical local fire support, either from a defensive position or for shelling an enemy stronghold from a nearby height. 122mm is the main caliber used for supporting troop, movements, and suppressing enemy. It has a combination of long range, with great ammo capacity, and high rate of fire. This makes it the correct artillery for covering enemy forward positions for maneuver. 152mm is meant for hitting things further behind the enemy line, and also conducting continuous bombardment. It is not use so much tactically as The guns can have less ammunition due to the greater bulk and the range difference, and it was it to get past that front line into back areas as well as destroy structures and bunkers effectively. 203mm is a specialist seige and anti enemy artillery caliber. The cells have very long range and very large explosive loads so it can attack enemy artillery from outside of their response range, while still being safe away from the front line. This caliber is used for important, selective priority missions. Reason all this matters so much is because in the western armies, almost all all artillery is of the same caliber, 155mm and grants a very flat distribution of capabilities and also limits the ability of tailoring artillery to different tasks. Russian artillery is more flexible and has a much broader envelope of possible missions and environments it can work with. 2. It missed the 2S7 Pion, 203mm. This huge cannon exist for the purpose of destroying priority targets, deep behind enemy lines, as well as destroying enemy artillery supplies and anything else they try to keep protected. It is also extremely useful for counter battery fire as it can shoot from too far away to get hit back. Itslow rate of fire means it is only deployed very deliberately for top priority targets.
This is not the right opinion. The 100 mm caliber is not in service with howitzer regiments; these are anti-tank guns MT-12, BMP-3, T-55 tanks, etc. 122mm - regimental and divisional caliber (D-30, self-propelled howitzer 2S1 "Gvozdika"), 152mm - caliber of corps howitzers. This diversity is complemented by mortars of 82...240 mm caliber, the already mentioned MLRS in the Tornado-G and Tornado-S modernization, rocket-propelled hand-held and salvo flamethrowers (RPO Shmel, TOS-1M Solntsek) and grenade launchers (including automatic AGS-17) on the battlefield. 2S7 "Pion", 203mm was created for nuclear tactical weapons, does not shoot very accurately (for artillery systems) and was used only sporadically.
All these incredible ranges of weaponry, yet look at the front lines and both sides are only 5km away from each other, makes you realise why they prefer drones - a much better short range weapon, no???
I used to turn on CNN sometimes before 2022 to laugh about their level of hate to everyone outside US. But nowadays British press has jumped over Nazi articles about subhumans from the East.
The author, in addition to other types of artillery and MLRS, forgot a very important feature - Russian weapons, unlike Western ones, are designed for a long war and a huge number of volleys.
@@tommygun5038 Western weapons are not designed to deal with extended or heavily defended communications. No matter what accuracy you have, if you are not able to make more than a few dozen shots a day without damaging the equipment, you will achieve nothing. For Russian weapons, hundreds of shots per day are the norm.
Most casualties in all big wars since 18 century came from artillery. Artillery means projecting of fire power an army. Of course, when USA made operation in Afghanistan nobody died from artillery in US army but many Afghan rebels died from american artillery
A lot of mercenaries come from the middle east or africa where their enemies didn’t have any artillery guns. Then they get to Ukraine and get destroyed. No so tough when their enemy actually has resources.
@@felixf4378 An Australian merc said the Americans were the first to leave. Its even documented war tourists like CivDiv dipped out as soon as it heated up
@off6848 ukraine is fighting at a disadvantage, and has been since the start. The way they've held on so far is respectable and admirable. But yeah that russian artillery with no counter to it from ukraine is devastating. There's a list of things I could go on about that ukraine would need to turn the tide. but til then do not expect to walk away from the frontline.
And annoyingly as the Westerner has been talking about this for about 12 years now I am seeing my country had made all the wrong weapons decisions yet again. I wrote a published paper about the overspecialization on insurgency warfare, and how it was going to get heart teeth kicked in the next time anything happened with a real enemy. All the real military intellectuals told me I was just a militia cosplayer who didn’t know anything. I also talked about the need for search capacity as well as economy of weapons production. And once again, all the military snobs told me I knew nothing and they were right. Well, guess who’s finally being proven right, it’s me.
@@tommygun5038 что цель России захват территории. Цель сейчас стоит в максимальном уничтожении войск противника при минимальных потерях, для этого достаточно выманивать противника в мясные контрнаступления на укрепленные позиции. Украина должна показывать медийный результат для своих инвесторов и вынуждена ложить своих солдат в максимально неудачных для них условиях. Даже наступательные действия России носят характер вынуждения Украины закрывать дыры в обороне резервами в больших количествах, которые перемалываются артилерией и авиабомбами. Зачем с тяжелыми боями захватывать территории и отгонять противника, когда можно с малыми потерями уничтожить противника и территории ты получишь автоматически. Да дольше, но крайне эффективно
they still have the best artillery and the best ainti-air defence system, while USA put money into bases around the world and aircrafts ships, russia play the defence game in a cheaper but more reliable way. Is all about the economic war and USA is in bankrupt so a potencial war wont last long
Needed to include, but not limited to: TOS 1, 1A, 2, and the replacement of the Smerch, the Tornado S, with it's 120-150km range and guided rockets so not an "area weapon." The rocket systems have thermobaric warheads, not explosives, so they are horrifying, making the US ATACMS look like 90lb weaklings.
Different usage. FAE systems kill soft targets but does less if the enemy is well fortified or sitting in a tank. The FAE uses pressure and heat and are devestating for light infanteri.
None of nobody's business apart from Russia's security, even the NATO doesn't know, and they are suppose to, they will calculate the distance once it gets there, if they can have a chance
If it worked russia would use it to alleviate some of the embarrassment from their military and their equipment the world has watched for over 2 years .. Yeah we are looking like a 6th world company on the battlefield but that would change if we used secret weapons lolol
After this war ends, which I hope is soon enough. The Russian military is gonna have a hell of experience, for war battles in case they get into another conflict. Which I hope it doesn’t.
Kazakhstan in Russian backyard is too much playing with the West and liberal ideologies. It's now almost the same as Ukraine prior to 2014. So I guess, after Ukraine Russia would want to retract Stalin's decision of 1936 moving Kazakh Republic out of Russian Federation and giving it independence (as part of Soviet Union then). Especially, considering it's strategical status, 20 millions population with good birthrates, valuable resources and Russian properties like railroad and Spaceport Baikonur, which now often get hostile actions from Kazakh authorities
I have served in a 120M mortar company. Shoot and scoot. The main problem was the weather. The atmospheric conditions that could affect the trajectory of the shells, but we had all kinds of charts for that.
Russia also has a different artillery doctrine than NATO... I believe the difference was described as "The West use artillery fire to maneuver while the Russians maneuver to fire... Essentially, the West use their artillery as a support weapon to cover their units both during an advance and when they defend... The Russians on the other hand use their units to make it easier for their artillery to hit their targets... The Russian doctrine paid dividends in the SMO in Ukraine where drones and satellites made the Western doctrine near impossible to do (as what happened to the Ukrainian Summer Offensive). The Russians simply modified their doctrine so that instead of large formations, they used platoons and squads instead...
what you saying is like a guerilla tactics in combat, the style of russian are effective, the formation of russian are few plattons yunits and a compose of team, im watching a indefendent news so thats why im wondering why russian forces is less in battlefield👍👍👍
those are only used in special circumstances, Real time fall of shot and targeting feedback from drones has made Artillery extremely effective in this conflict.
The problem is the cost. For example the Storm Shadow (UK), are nice but they are abusively expensive, so Ukraine is practically not using them against the front, i.e. they are mostly a cheap toy.
There is also Gvozdika, a 122mm SPH both sides use. Shorter range compared to Koalitsya, but smaller and much more mobile... Also, Pion 203mm is not mentioned (though in the vid) and heavy mortar Tyulpan 240mm. OK, TOS is designated as flamethrower...
The artillery is impressive but what is more impressive is the ability to target so precisely in real time. ISR linked to precision strike artillery is what will win this. Col Douglas McGregor talks about it being a game changer and the Russians are mastering it.
There's that noun again, "accuracy"?! I've never heard anyone talk about the accuracy of shotguns, because you know what shotguns are for! And whenever I hear talk about the accuracy of multi-barrel rocket launchers, I know that the person talking about it has absolutely no idea what he's talking about...
Artillery is wild 0_o It's hard to get perspective how much damage they do from drone video. The shells don't look THAT big to go so far 0_o What's the blast radius on the shells and rockets? For sure kill radius?
@@thejacal2704 .....Since they used everything including gas.....a lot. But it didn't give either side an advantage. Also Russia quit and overthrew the Czar.
Thanks for letting us know why they elevate gun barrels. Here I thought it was just for looks. I assumed it could point at the ground and when fired would still just magically got to where they wanted regardless of direction. Who would've guessed they actually aim these things. The more you know.....derp.
Artillery is modern era big arrows. It's psychological terror. Just imagine you are in the opposing position, getting bombarded 5-8 hours nonestop. What kind of damage does to soldiers mental well-being. I would never wish to be a Ukrainian soldier
There is in fact two actors missing: the TOS whose range is quite short compensating by its damage and the drones (kamikaze and others). During an attrition engagement where precision is paramount, artillery is indeed king and there the biggest guns with abundant munition will always win - provided logistic can reach the front. Nevertheless as we are recently seeing, Russia is now engaged in a war-like conflict, where the purpose is purely a total annihilation and destruction of the target, precision and surgical strike become irrelevant: there artillery although important become the Prince, while the crown is passed on to the aviation with guided bombs (up now to 3,000) and missiles used to destroy all air defense system. Artillery remains and will remain, nevertheless depending on the operational mode it may become prince.
The range is wild... the city i live in is located at the coast... its only two roads leading here and two bridges... so any attackers could take those out + could just stand at the nearest crossroad and attack us from afar... *its 60 km to there.. takes around 45 min to drive and i guess its only around 40 km in "air range* .. hell... with a 80km artillary an enemy could easily shell my city from the neighbour country lol
Do you realize the Russians don't need to leave Russia to ¨shell¨ wherever you are on the planet? Not only that, they can do it hypersonically and you'd never know you'd been hit. Moral of the story: Do NOT poke the Russian bear!
American weapons are only really effective when Americans are using it bc they are the only country with the type of money it takes to use these types of weapons efficiently and are the only ones with the logistics and personnel to keep them in working fashion! they are super expensive over over-engineered and over complicated and take a long time to make along time to learn and the fact of the matter is the majority of these western weapons haven't been tested against a real army. Russias weapons are fairly inexpensive fast to produce simple to learn simple to maintain reliable in any condition and cost effective and they have it in massive quantities! and that's not to say Russia doesn't have modern hightech weapons bc they do they hands down have one of if not the best most modern EW capabilities in the world not to mention their AD capabilities and when it comes to nucular capabilities its not even a match. Point being America arrogance and under estimating the enemy will be their down fall!
You said nothing about *guided* ammunitions, which *completely change the chances to hit at all ranges.* Mass unguided artillery has one purpose: make noise and destroy cities. But what artillery can actually destroy moving vehicles, and at what cost?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I have an impression from interviews with Russian soldiers, that while western artillery may have shorter range or lower rate of fire, it also is much precisar than Russian artillery. So for example, where Russian howitzer needs ~5 shots to hit the target, western artillery needs 1-2 shots. And that’s important. Is that true?
It's weird the Ukraine boys seem to stay static by the looks of things on TV. Our mantra was "shoot, move, communicate." I still put up camo net in my sleep sometimes, hated that shit.
The mistakes made by the west is not realising russia has massively developed upgraded enhanced and massively improved every aspect of there millatary and we basically sent in our best equipment for them to basically capture study and learn exactly what we should never of allowed why because we underestimated zelenski who instead of listening and allowing his experienced genrals control the war zelenski thought he knew better when in fact this backfired so much those who spoke out simply got sacked. While this was going on russia was then using new artillery which used satalite data to pin point enemys on the ground and sadly we took our eyes away to isreal. In all likelyhood russia is now at least 5 years ahead of us
- As has been demonstrated in the conflict between Russia and NATO (Ukraine), there is really no contest in industrial capacity to produce cannon shells. - Russia has an almost unlimited shell production, due to their traditional WWII era industrial capacity and State-run Armament Factories. They are not in this for profit. - NATO relies on Private Sector businesses that will only produce enough shells to be profitable. Also, NATO member countries rely on Russia and other BRICS nations for raw materials to produce shells. Also, western Arms businesses just don't have any capacity. - The collective West (NATO) can no longer manufacture they way they did in WWII. All their manufacturing capacity, knowledge and skill has long been exported to China and other BRICS nations.
Range has just about quadrupled since WW2. 80km for Koalitsya S heavy thats further than even Missouri class battleship from ww2 which was around 50km. Later Iowa class battleships used similarly rocket propelled shells to reach 60-70km
A critical point for the artillery of the 21st century to work is precision guided munition in this case the russian forces are using Krasnopol accurate laser guided munition that has 95% accuracy on static and 70% on the moving targets.....another critical point in th3 artillery of the russian forces is the IRS intelligence surveillance reconnaissance capability for gathering information about the targets and fire correction provided by Drones ......the transmission of this information is made by critical military data link called the OSNOD A.I assistance this will lower the kill chain time ans be able to respond against live maneuvering by the ukrainian reich forces , this is important in the artillery warfare check it and I will await your video about this
A State owned purpose driven Russian MIC (Military Industrial Complex), its wartime productive surge capacity and thereby battle readiness is always going to have a distinct advantage over their relatively cumbersome privately owned profit driven MICs such as most if not all NATO states. As for the state of Ukraine having to go cap in hand for an assortment of second hand military junk; they have little or no chance of avoiding defeat on any battlefield.
In fact Ukraine is fast approaching parity with Russian artillery systems. Ukraine already has more active tanks than Russia does. As Russian grows weaker, Ukraine gets stronger.
@@-Zardoz- Artillery at its most basic level requires three things: ammunition, cannons and soldiers to fire it. The Russians are quickly depleting their supply of all three. As these items continue to dwindle down, the Russians will increasingly turn to other alternatives, including loitering munitions and cruise missile strikes. However, the Ukrainian forces are establishing a robust network of air-defense systems to handle these weapons, and the Russians are reportedly depleting their inventories of them as well. Since the start of the invasion, very little has gone as planned for the Russian forces. The lack of training and experience, particularly by Russian officers, has led to the overuse of artillery. The Ukrainians have successfully exploited this issue, turning what should be a large Russian strength into one of their largest vulnerabilities.
@@zedeyejoe you are literally making the exact argument why Ukraine is losing. Ukraine is literally sending grey haired elderly men and pregnant women to the front lines. They have been begging everyone for ammunition and supplies and armaments. They lose kilometers and thousands of soldiers every day. You are either a complete tool that is trolling or an utterly delusional soldier wannabe that needs to stop choking on that US rod.
You forgot some important points here, It doesn't get into history (before Barbarossa Sowjet military had the best artillery in the world which was mass produced, for example.) Today there are so many systems. Some very old but modernized with modern ammunitions and then there are many system that enter service now. And what about TOS-Systmes and all the other new stuff oushes into service. No one should ever underestimate Russia. Never. People tend to forget to fast.Russia doesn't even has begun to really use its potential. I am against any war but can also see the russian point of view. This isn't a war about people, It is a war about "power", ressources and money. And never forget: Russia has much Know How. Maybe a little more "low tech" than complicated and expensive western systems, but reliable, easy to mass produce and to maintain. And considering the overall situation they won't send nearly all of their troops to Ukraine. Never underastimate Russia and its people. And don't forget about their abilities to improvise and the "russian soul". Never forget about this.
Very superficial. There are so many more Artillery systems in use in this conflict. At least 5 more on the russian side alone. Not to speak of all the system ukraine military is using. And to few words about ammunition types, upgades, etc. . Also it would be interesting on how artillery finds it targes, the precision of different systems with data sheets, reconaissance (on the ground, with radar-systems or drones), fire modes used, numbers of different artillery systems currently in use, and so on... . I really hoped for a detailled documentation on artillery... . Does anyonce know a good up to date video on that topic? Apart from this: War is bad and I know it. I don't support any war. And I wish ALL good people all the best.
Да все люди хорошие, особенно солдаты. Им бы воспитывать детей и строить дома для них. Англосаксы решили, что смогут жить еще 200 лет грабя ресурсы России. Пока не получается, но поверьте, они и другие народы стравят и кинут в топку войны. Подумайте, почему называют Россию матерью.
Коалиция, точные и дальнобойные ракеты для Торнадо это уже чисто российские разработки. Хоть и сделанные на базе советского опыта. Но и Красная армия выстраивалась на опыте Российской Императорской армии
