Russian artillery in Tskhinvali (photo by Der Spiegel):


#1


#2

I love how these tankers sort of half-heartedly throw some brush around the tracks, as if a long-range sniper or artillery spotter might mistake them for a bush now. haha


#3

Glenn,

That photographer was pretty nippy on the shutter button.

gravelbelly


#4

gravelbelly

I thought that this is a great photo so I posted it to learn more.

What round is this ?

Glenn


#5

a) They’re not tankers. They’re artillerymen. It may look like a tank, but there’s a biiiggg difference.

b) The brush is not as dumb as it may seem. The object is simply to break up the outline of the vehicles to make them harder to spot from the air.


#6

Can you post the URL to the photo? It isn’t an SPG I recognize.


#7

Cyberwombat

spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1265718,00.jpg

I found this photo on the ACIG forun under current conflicts -Georgia, 2003-2008, Thread I
s188567700.online.de/forum/v … &start=195

I just looked at over 60 pictures on spiegel.de/international/
and I havn’t found that photo YET…

Glenn


#8

Another photo and more clues.

Tanknet forum : 63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?sh … 5820&st=20

A Russian mobile artillery unit fires a 152mm shell towards a Georgian position outside the South-Ossetian settlement of Dzhava, August 9, 2008.

Glenn

152mm rounds for artillery systems and 2S19

warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=2454&catid=254

warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1566&catid=240

warfare.ru/?catid=240&linkid=1562


#9

[quote]a) They’re not tankers. They’re artillerymen. It may look like a tank, but there’s a biiiggg difference.

b) The brush is not as dumb as it may seem. The object is simply to break up the outline of the vehicles to make them harder to spot from the air.
[/quote]

Holy anal-specific rebuke Batman!

Obviously they are mobile artillery, and not technically “tanks”, I was just simplifying to make a simple joke about how some guys threw a few branches around a huge armored unit, and the unit is scarcely hidden. The read-between-the-lines aspect of the joke was that if they had just simply tripled up their cover, then they would have accomplished something more substantial like breaking up their silhouette more completely. Also, it would have been more wordy, and less funny if I had said: “Look at how those mobile-artillerymen have half-heartedly… etc…” If the men were trying to hide themselves from air attack, then they shoudl’ve parked allot closer to the surrounding live vegetation, rather then parking in the clearing. Anyway, the unit is question is a 152mm self propelled 2S3 M-1973 Akatsiya. The Russians have about 1,600 of them, of which about 1,000 are battle-worthy, and is second only to the 122mm Gvodzdika self-propelled artillery in their military inventory in terms of numbers. The unit in the photo is most likely the 2S3M1 or 2S3M2 variant since it has the advanced optical sight. You can read all about it here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/2s3.htm and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S3


#10

152mm rounds for artillery systems and 2s19


#11

WOW! Totally awesome picture capturing the projectile in flight. It is really nice seeing some LARGE BORE stuff posted. Super sweet! Great picture of the ammunition too.

Jason


#12

Seeing that picture of the tanks ammunition makes me wonder how far back does separate loaded ammunition go? I guess the musket is separate loading so how far back does separate loading tank or navy ammunition go, WW1? Just curious if anyone knows.

Jason


#13

Sorry…I was a tanker in a previous life. Having worked with several units of cannon-cockers…er…artillerymen, I’m still a little twitchy.


#14

First, you have to define what you’re asking about. Separate-loaded ammunition dates centuries back; fixed-ammunition is the relative newcomer in the field. The Hotchkiss revolving cannon were some of the early users of fixed ammo, and those patents date to the 1870’s.

However, if you are asking about tank ammunition, separate-loaded rounds were really re-introduced with the advent of automatic loading mechanisms. Until then, it was much simpler for a human loader to shove a complete round into the breech. IIRC the Russian T-62 brought this concept back into armor gunnery. However, as the auto-loader had the nasty tendency to shove the gunner’s arm into the breech too, it wasn’t a popular feature.

The problem is one of weight and crew “value”. US Army tank doctrine still has a place for the fourth crewmember, therefore, the loader - whose position is eliminated with an autoloading mechanism - still has value. European armies have to struggle with lower recruitment and lower manpower pools in general; therefore, eliminating any additional person on a tank crew is a bonus.

Then there is the cost of physically moving a tank round from point “A” (the ready rack) to point “B” (the gun breech). When I was a tanker, I loved loading the old-style M737 105mm target practice round. I could whip one of those suckers out of the rack and into the breech in well under 5 seconds. The 65-pound 120mm TP round was a LOT more difficult.

But I digress…

The real answer to your question is, what is old becomes new again. And vice versa.


#15

[quote=“Glenn”]152mm rounds for artillery systems and 2s19

[/quote]

Glenn, sorry but it is the “2S3” the “2S19” has a much larger turret.
The ammo shown in that image is also not correct, only the shorter cases in the image fit the gun and the projectile shown belongs to the long case also and is not for the gun in the “2S3”.


#16

Oh it’s ok, I just think of it in terms like a pistol and a rifle are totally different, but they’re both firearms in the general sense.


#17

WOW CYBER! Thank you very much for that great historical explanation. Much appreciated big time! I had no clue you were an ex tanker, too cool. That would explain the amazing high quality & detailed tank models you build. I have a inert, sectioned 105MM M737 TPDS round that is one of my favs. Now I will always picture you loading it in 5 seconds :-)

EOD, just curious, do you know what the Russian ammo is on the far left of that photo? It looks like a massive projectile with an very pronounced boat-tail base.


#18

DK, then certainly the common part is the one of the artillery.

Tanks are not defined by tracks and turrets but by their armor and weapons. The self propelled artillery here has an armor compareable to an APC, means a simple cal.50 AP would pierce it (if not some nasty 7.62mm).
Nobody would call a bulldozer a tank or?


#19

EOD Then what exactly are these guns and what ammunition do they fire??

I was trying to get a good discussion going on these rounds and the delivery system. It’s more complicated doing research on this stuff than I had first thought…

Glenn


#20

[quote]DK, then certainly the common part is the one of the artillery.

Tanks are not defined by tracks and turrets but by their armor and weapons. The self propelled artillery here has an armor compareable to an APC, means a simple cal.50 AP would pierce it (if not some nasty 7.62mm).
Nobody would call a bulldozer a tank or?[/quote]

Sigghh… I know, I know, this is all just semantics, my point is that I think people understood the joke, it was simplified. It would be like if there were an Orangutan and I pointed at it and said: “Hey, look at that monkey”. Well Orangutans aren’t monkeys, they are orangs, but I think the point would be understood.