Twin Gun Self Propelled Howitzer "Coalition-SV"

**Garry** · 18 Apr 07,, 15:18

I read recently about this prototype and it would be interesting to hear about this idea. The prototype WILL NOT be approved for service nor manufactured serially. No cash.... Russia has other priorities (IBCMs, sumbarines, satelites, aircraft.... SAMs) and decided to skip design and manufacturing of the new tanks, APCs, IFVs, artillery..... personnel guns.

Still the idea is pretty interesting!

**Garry** · 18 Apr 07,, 15:19

some more pics

**Garry** · 18 Apr 07,, 15:20

**SRB** · 18 Apr 07,, 16:08

I already open thread about this fearsome weapon.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/lan...a-2x152mm.html
Look very powerfull

But again it is unpractical it is always better two have two SPA than one. Also autoloader is very complicate and biggest problem is price of this weapon.

**Injecteer** · 18 Apr 07,, 16:44

well, it's price is still smaller, than the price for 2 single-barreled SPA

**Maxor** · 18 Apr 07,, 17:39

Yes but a single shell easily takes out twice the firepower this way.....

It'd be useful in barrages and fixed defense locations otherwise the flexibility of having 2 carriages will always be better.

**Garry** · 18 Apr 07,, 18:22

Originally Posted by Maxor

Yes but a single shell easily takes out twice the firepower this way.....

It'd be useful in barrages and fixed defense locations otherwise the flexibility of having 2 carriages will always be better.

Hi Maxor!

with same logic it is always better to have two smaller long-range aircraft than one B-52.... one missile takes out so much!

In my view it is much easier to hid one howitzer than two... moreover if howitzer position is shelled by other howitzer then two barrel version has more chance to win the duel... This is because Coalition SV has 16 shells per minute rate of fire which is unmatched any other howitzer of the same class. Look one shell every 3.5 seconds - Coalition has good chance to outfire any gun which has same range of 30km.

Same with logistics - one howitzer eats less fuel and personel!!!

Originally Posted by SRB

I already open thread about this fearsome weapon.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/lan...a-2x152mm.html
Look very powerfull

But again it is unpractical it is always better two have two SPA than one. Also autoloader is very complicate and biggest problem is price of this weapon.

Hi SRB! Sorry man! I hope moderators would move this thread to yours!!!

MODs! Can you move this thread to the one earlier created by SRB?

**omon** · 18 Apr 07,, 18:26

looks impressive, double firepower, may be chechen war brought that idea,

**BD1** · 18 Apr 07,, 20:10

Well , swedish Bankanon-1 had the same rate of firepower in 60-s , 14rd./45sec. It shot ´´clips´´ , like pistol magazine . Idea was to drive into position , shoot 14rds , relocate, reload . Reload from special truck took 2 min. I saw an awesome video of it on web , but haven´t been able to find it

Bkan 1 A-C

**SRB** · 18 Apr 07,, 22:03

Originally Posted by Garry

Hi Maxor!

with same logic it is always better to have two smaller long-range aircraft than one B-52.... one missile takes out so much!

In my view it is much easier to hid one howitzer than two... moreover if howitzer position is shelled by other howitzer then two barrel version has more chance to win the duel... This is because Coalition SV has 16 shells per minute rate of fire which is unmatched any other howitzer of the same class. Look one shell every 3.5 seconds - Coalition has good chance to outfire any gun which has same range of 30km.

Same with logistics - one howitzer eats less fuel and personel!!!

Hi SRB! Sorry man! I hope moderators would move this thread to yours!!!

MODs! Can you move this thread to the one earlier created by SRB?

No there is no need to transfer this thread. Mod let it stay as " Twin Gun Self Propelled Howitzer "Coalition-SV""
My question is how complicate is autoloader? I think very complicate and very expensive which I personally dont like. USSR autoloaders are easy for repair and cheap(T-72 mechanical), this is one hard repair stuff and very expensive :(

**Garry** · 19 Apr 07,, 08:40

Originally Posted by braindead

Well , swedish Bankanon-1 had the same rate of firepower in 60-s , 14rd./45sec. It shot ´´clips´´ , like pistol magazine . Idea was to drive into position , shoot 14rds , relocate, reload . Reload from special truck took 2 min. I saw an awesome video of it on web , but haven´t been able to find it

Bkan 1 A-C

This is even better idea... why not to use clips? Rarellly a bombardment needs more than 14 rounds.... if a target really needs more then rate of fire is not an essential issue!!! So a clip with 14 rounds is good solution!

**Big K** · 19 Apr 07,, 10:44

hımmm...terrifiying gun...

but looklike Apocalypse Tanks or Mammoth Tanks of Computer Game named Command&Conquer, Red Alert1-2

**Maxor** · 19 Apr 07,, 16:47

There is logic to both sides of the massive firepower in a large package versus the firepower in many small packages. I am fairly certain from looking at it that the barrels cannot be independantly aimed. So you can rapidly fire a salvo, but are not able to engage two targets seperately. You have a larger heavier more complicated system so while it will be less expensive that a pair of single barreled system it is not 1/2 the cost. A pair of equally modern single barreled artillery pieces will be able to have a faster rate of fire if you are going just for single target firing. You will with any reasonable design have better ammo storage with 2 units over one, if you aren't trying for pure massed fire you have a the ability to engage in multiple area's with 2 guns and the better survivability. I won't claim to be an artillery specialist and I can see a place for such a weapon ( obviously and no one would waste the resources to build preproduction testbeds if there wasn't) I don't see huge numbers of dual barreled cannons taking the place of single barreled artillery pieces. It is going to eat a little less fuel but the heavier chassis probably means that is is using at least 2/3rds and probably more like 3/4ths of the fuel the manpower issue is far more significant at 3 men minimum per self propelled howitzer chassis. most of the time the second barrel will be something of a waste however since you can't spred out the two barrels and you aren't continuously fire huge numbers of shells in a time sensitive manner.