Friday27 December 2024
vsedelo.com

What were the modernization options for the 152mm self-propelled howitzer 2S3 "Akatsiya," and what were the outcomes of these efforts?

A notable example illustrating the significant qualitative gap between Soviet-standard artillery and NATO-standard artillery has been accumulated.
Какие варианты модернизации 152-мм САУ 2С3 "Акация" рассматривались и к каким результатам это привело?

In one of our publications, we discussed how the USSR compared the self-propelled howitzers M109 and 2S3M "Akatsiya," and the conclusions they reached. It was quite an interesting story about how Soviet officials insisted that the "Akatsiya" was significantly better than its Western counterparts, without taking any steps to rectify the situation.

Now, as a continuation of this story, we want to share another fact – it turns out that even during Soviet times, there were several modernization options for the 2S3 "Akatsiya" self-propelled howitzer aimed at improving the system's performance, but none of them were implemented.

Here, we will rely on materials from the btvt_2019 resource, which presents the following picture. Specifically, in 1975, the developer of the "Akatsiya" self-propelled howitzer, OKB-3, received a proposal to consider the possibility of modernizing this artillery system by increasing the barrel length and boosting the firing rate to 5-6 rounds per minute.

As it turned out, the 2S3 "Akatsiya" essentially had no weight reserves for modernization, as extending the barrel by 2 meters would increase the weight of the artillery system by over 27.5 tons, which in turn would decrease the reliability of the chassis.

In theory, there was an option to extend the existing chassis since there was no new platform for the 2S3 "Akatsiya." However, it ultimately turned out that the implementation of this modernization option could take as long as 7-8 years, making the project itself impractical.

In 1977, the question of possible modernization of the "Akatsiya" self-propelled howitzer was revisited, and two potential "upgrade" options were developed:

  • the option under index 303M2, which involved using the D-358 gun, changing the turret, and modernizing the base chassis; the firing range with the standard OF-540 shell was expected to reach 22 kilometers, and the rate of fire was to increase to six rounds per minute;
  • the option under index 303M3, which proposed increasing the barrel length by 1760 millimeters with minimal modifications to the combat compartment and shifting the turret closer to the rear; the firing range with the OF-540 shell was expected to increase to 19.1 kilometers.

However, none of these options were pursued, as it essentially required creating a new self-propelled howitzer, which seemed impractical given that work was already underway on the advanced self-propelled artillery system "Msta-S."

Another attempt to modernize the 2S3 "Akatsiya" occurred in 1985 when "TsNII "Burevestnik"" considered three possible upgrade options for this artillery system:

  • the first option involved extending the barrel by 1760 mm, which would increase the firing range of the 3OF25 shell to 18.9 kilometers and the 3OF45 shell to 20.1 kilometers, requiring no significant structural modifications;
  • the second option was to use a new shell "Vyemka" without any further modifications; the firing range with the new ammunition was expected to be 19.6 kilometers;
  • the third option involved removing the muzzle brake and extending the barrel by 2 meters; however, this significantly increased the recoil force, necessitating reinforcements that were equivalent to creating a new self-propelled howitzer.

Yet, in this case, none of these options were realized either.

From Defense Express, we emphasize that the example described above is particularly indicative of how the qualitative gap between Soviet-standard artillery and NATO-standard artillery accumulated.