The Russian 2S4 'Tyulpan' Heavy Mortar Vehicle | NUCLEAR MORTAR LAUNCHER ☢️

[@duckman12569]

You vs the mortar she tells you not to worry about

[@SphericalShades]

Probably Zelensky said that

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

1) Put delay fuse and hit underground positions wit shell flying in very steep angle... 2) Mortar shells are a lot cheaper and simpler to produce comparing to standard artillery shells. Oh, and of course - very large bang!

[@AsbestosEnjoyer]

And from what I've understood, due to the lower pressure and lower amount of force imparted on the shell during firing and flight, you can make the shell walls thinner which allows for more explosive in a similar size package to a regular artillery shell, so once again bigger bang

[@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn]

@@AsbestosEnjoyeryes a 120mm mortar has a similar destructive effect to a 155mm artillery piece and because it strikes the ground nearly vertically the fragments spread in 360 degrees rather than out the sides like a howitzer tends to do

[@minhducnguyen9276]

@@AsbestosEnjoyer This also allows mortar shells to be made out of cast iron instead of steel like artillery shells. Cast iron being more brittle than steel creates more fragmentation. This is why most countries don't use mortar bigger than 120mm. Because they are already as powerful as they need to be.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

@@minhducnguyen9276 One more thing: if it was bigger than 120mm it would be humanly impossible to keep it firing, as we see here. A man must take the shell, lift it up and let it slide down the barrel. And repeat. Anything bigger than 120mm and even a guy from strongman competition would struggle. Therefore, either don't make anything bigger than 120mm or make an entire contraption to feed it...

[@usiak13]

this is not regular mortar system. normal mortar system is light artylery system meant to be close range, light and mobile fire support. This is something different. This is meant to be heavy siege weapon, firing at high angles massive payloads. You dont need high rate of fire, if you destroy your target and everything around it with just one shell. And it is simple and rugged system for what it is with cheap ammunition

[@trnogger]

What you describe as "regular/normal" is the modern type of mortar, but historically, mortars were heavy siege weapons.

[@usiak13]

@@trnogger yes, it is modern conception of mortars... it is just what most people imagine, when you say mortar. this one might one call, back to roots :D

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

@@trnoggertrue!

[@jb7483]

Not all mortars are light I think you have a misconception of a mortar. The US Army defines a mortar as a short smooth bore gun for firing shells (technically called bombs) at high angles. It has nothing to do with size.

[@jb7483]

Sorry I'll stick with the military designation and Janes defense over your view.

[@tylerromero]

As a mortarmen i always thought our advantage over traditional artillery was response time and volume of fire. But this probably isnt designed for a doctrine I'm used to. Seems like a great siege weapon

[@muninrob]

Looks like these ones were made to "shoot & scoot" while engaging in "close" counter-battery duels against our 155mm towed/field guns along the Soviet Cold War Eastern front.

[@tylerromero]

@@muninrob they don't seem very scooty though 😂 Atleast not compared to a paladin. For a 240mm I guess they are decently mobile though. I can't believe they had a nuclear mortar capability. 1 round a minute seems like nothing though but I guess a basically 500lb bomb every minute is a lot especially in a battery fire mission.

[@minhducnguyen9276]

They also carry more explosive filler for the same caliber compared to something like a howitzer. The shells don't have to withstand the pressure or rotational force of a rifled barrel which means they can be made thinner which means they can carry more explosives. If a 120mm mortar shell can carry as much explosive as a 152mm howitzer shell then the tylupan with its 240mm shells would be even more destructive even if it can only fire once every minute.

[@muninrob]

@@tylerromero That's a pretty quick teardown & setup when you compare it to other platforms that have to deploy to fire, even today. (Pretty sure it was made as a hard counter for our M102's)

[@tylerromero]

@@minhducnguyen9276 true, look like they go up to 500lb of HE pretty crazy for a mortar. Bad day for a bunker or some trenches

[@robertsmith4681]

I wonder if the recoil messes with local seismographs when it fires lol

[@michaelhowell2326]

Come on, man. Look at the thing. Just moving the ammo for the beast makes the needles rattle.

[@dc-4ever201]

It would make ya fillings rattle 😂.

[@xxxlonewolf49]

You assume there are local ones

[@numbersletters3886]

😂😂😂😂

[@DB5652-v3r]

the comment section is as emasculated as your country bunch of fruits

[@G777GUN]

Way I see it. Its not for shoot and scoot. More like a high angle fortification buster for when a 'safe-ish' perimeter has been established. I wouldnt be surprised if this thing has seen action using incendiary munitions.

[@theflame5919]

Ha, somebody understands war. You are spot on. Was used (and is being used) extensively, precisely this. Also, mine clearing through areal ground burst, over large area.

[@eudiamonia1318]

@@theflame5919he’s right to a degree, but in modern war there is no such thing as even a safe-ish zone. Drones have allowed for recon and precision counter-battery strikes like never before. This mortar system, powerful as it may be, simply does not have the range to compensate for its lack of shoot and scoot speed

[@ПетяПетриков-м3ш]

The 2C4 mortar has incendiary mines called "Saithe" filled with napalm.

[@u_solutions_lv]

Mortar has advantage as it is not spin stabilised and lower velocity, shell can be much thinner and lighter, meaning more HE filler. Field howitzer is 6inches +-, 6-11 kg of filler and about 4 kg in guided munitions. 240mm has 35-45 kg in dumb versiaon and 30-40 in guided. Well worth it

[@ivnislykun]

40kilos in the guided version? Dang, that exactly how much was packed inside those Geran/Shahed drones. It's only a matter of time before they figure out a better engine for those things, then they might be on par with these heavy mortars. Maybe even better.

[@u_solutions_lv]

@@ivnislykun imagine using these mortars as drone launchers. Good payload, relatively mild acceleration, kilometer amd a half apex, or mortar round with extendable wings like on new fabs

[@telurkucing5006]

​@@u_solutions_lvI even wonder why they didnt use smerch one with that especially with lancet. That smerch one had very long range even longer than lancet itself so it will boost longer range and can make lancet as small direct guided cruise missile. And I remember in one of video they had similar drone that can be released from rocket in the middle of flight

[@Salvinorinka]

240 мм снаряд для "Тюльпана" вест 130 килограмм

[@Salvinorinka]

@@telurkucing5006 Мне встречались видео использования РСЗО "Смерч". А про "дрон из ракеты" - этот снаряд называется 9M534

[@Archer89201]

This thing wrecks defensive works and buildings

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

I guess the advantage is that you can call in fire on a building without having to pull back very far yourself.

[@FacitOmniaVoluntas.]

Yeah they were used a lot and very effectively in Ukraine. Became priority targets though and Russia has lost most of them. You rarely see them being used now.

[@Lipi19821]

​@@FacitOmniaVoluntas. I saw very little videos of them beeing destroyed. .

[@FacitOmniaVoluntas.]

@@Lipi19821 I don’t know which Telegrams or other sites you get your footage from, but there were times when they lost up to 10 of these per day. Ukraine targeted them with HIMARS and Excalibur as well as with conventional artillery. I mean there is a reason why you hardly see them being used anymore

[@ATS_i_piss_on_G00gle]

​@@Lipi19821 exactly,they are able to operate well out of the range of drones and Ukraine has no air force to spot them in time.One of those mortar shells will sanitise a house or a small fortification.And they are mobile ,wich makes them hard to hit. I wonder if i can post a comment on this 💩🤡 platform.Perhaps if i praise uk raine it would let me....

[@Lipi19821]

we had NOT seen lots of these destroyed in Ukraine.... So I would argue there is a place for them and they are not all that exposed as it seems

[@jasonstandlea1784]

An almost 9.5" mortar seems like supreme overkill. Considering the US armed forces had 203mm SPG's and those were considered heavy artillery...

[@ditzydoo4378]

naw, supreme over kill was the 914mm little David mortar the US had during the closing days of WWII. The video on KZbin is insane.

[@david7384]

the Russians are all about supreme overkill

[@tylerromero]

@@ditzydoo4378 yeah but the Russians gave this mortar a nuclear round 😂 sometimes size isn't everything

[@selvacin]

Was designed as a siege weapon. During the event of the cold war turning hot, USSR was generally considered by both sides to be the initial aggressor with NATO forces being on the initial defensive. 2S4 and 2S7 were both designed to obliterate heavy fortifications or defensive positions in contested airspace. These types of weapons were brought in when the initial assault failed to push through an area or when it was bogged down to much.

[@ditzydoo4378]

@@tylerromero True, but then someone shows up with a M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System with a W54 warhead. That thing was truly insane since the fireteam was inside the fallout zone for the warhead. 0~o

[@jonathon5411]

It's a siege weapon not a breakthrough weapon

[@андреймарченко-р9ф]

at 13:30 showed the “Daredevil”«Смельчак» mine, which has a semi-active laser guidance head and solid-fuel descent engines, allowing it to accurately hit a target if the mine flies with a deviation of no more than 300 meters.

[@андреймарченко-р9ф]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6mbqqmcp7aDpqcsi=TDQHCY6MYIL7ABC1 240мм!!!

[@treadheadpete4770]

Does the Russian god of war know you turned his shield into a baseplate for this mortar?

[@jetfighter200]

everybody talking from "shot and Scoot" tactic ... i haven´t seen it a yet lot for example from UA M777 crews... they just shooting from an entrenched position...and receiving counter batterie fire

[@MatoVuc]

Honestly, what i've noticed in ukraine is that with less mobile systems or shorter ranges systems, both sides basically move into position then leave the weapons there and keep the crew safe. When it is time to fire, they bring in the crew and the ammo, shoot and then leave the weapon again. It's worse losing the crew than the gun.

[@yarnickgoovaerts]

I’ve seen them use French Cesar howitzers like that. Truly a waste of resources

[@CAP198462]

SEAF artillery found.

[@ulfhedtyrsson]

Holy fucking cheeki-breeki bombablickitube, Bylattman.

[@jonathon5411]

This bad boy can fire nukes

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

Talk about a fish story and you swallow it hook, line and sinker. That´s how gullible you are. 🤡 🤡🤡

[@Humble_Balaclava]

West: It's So Complex. USSR: Da.

[@westerwald3923]

You should check out the 2s1 Nona as well Mat, it is the smaller and lighter cousin of this which is used by airbourne troops of the Russians and USSR.

[@demian_csomic_winters9484]

This tank feels like it needs to be resigned from the ground up but keeping the core concept with the modern method like adding remote control and auto loader system that can be used from within the tank with modular design to all mortar barrel and ammo to be swapped out for different sizes and types giving high versatility, with requirements from deploying the mortar, firing mortar, and packing up and leaving must be completed within 3 minutes with 1 minutes or less as goal.

[@johanmetreus1268]

They could cut the time to fire easily by half just getting the work organised efficiently.

[@tylerromero]

@@johanmetreus1268 I would imagine in a prepared fighting position they can triple if not better the stated RoF idk how the barrels react though

[@PoppinC-l3w]

Russia hasn't innovated squat under Putin. Every weapon system is either several decades-old or they're new weapons that are struggling to produce decent numbers. Early-21st century Russia's MIC has been more pathetic than India's when all factors are taken into account.

[@chkoha6462]

Mat!you are on a roll,it seems??;) Keep them videos coming

[@_Matsimus_]

More to come!

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

​​@@_Matsimus_ The West is often arrogant about how fast artillery ammunition is fired. By they SPG But that won't mean anything if you can't make the required amount of ammunition. Ukraine can only fire 2,000 artillery rounds every day. (All variants from 81 mm mortar to 155 mm cannon)

[@tylerdurden4006]

Lol, Afghanistan is a lot of mountains, high angle short range massive projectiles seem completely practical to me. Russia did not design everything for ukraine. 🤷🤦‍♂️😂

[@Statueshop297]

It didn’t design it for Afghanistan either as this is 1950,60s design. It was made this big as to get a decent sized nuclear round with enough throw weight to get it far enough away.

[@tomarmadiyer2698]

*laughing in mountain*

[@antonwearsakilt5209]

Looks similar to the Davey Crockett, I'd guess it was built in response to what the USA 🇺🇸 had developed. That said, perhaps the Russians have a surplus of ammunition for this platform and are using them up, while they ramp up manufacturing of other ammo, drones etc. Heavy artillery will always have a place on the battlefield regardless of how labor intensive it may be.

[@trnogger]

I think this is more based on the original mortars. Today a mortar is a light support weapon, but historically, mortars were siege weapons that could fire massive projectiles over (or into) city and fortress walls. I could imagine that in mountainous and city environments, a mortar could still hit targets that are covered by surrounding terrain/buildings thanks to the firing angle where older artillery struggled. Of course today, artillery can fire at high angles as well, but historically artillery had much lower angles.

[@jamesmandahl444]

This war has made this piece shine. Quick acting heavy ordinance right on top of some structure. Thing is feared for a reason, similar to tos-1.

[@charlie15627]

They prepare all of the rounds in advance. We don't know what their rate of fire is exactly but we do know they can fire off more than 1 round a minute. They can fulfill A firing order and be gone before return fire becomes a problem, at least from shot tracking systems. The only real danger to them is getting spotted by a drone. If you're hiding in a bunker complex, on the other side, you're F'd.

[@Mack_Dingo]

Perfect, just saw this in HistoryLegends. Thanks Mat

[@garryb374]

This vehicle delivers rounds similar to light aircraft delivered bombs. It tends to dig into the ground as it fires so it is not super accurate with standard rounds but against fortifications it is devastating. Of course for point targets there are guided shells for this baby too, not to mention the nuclear round. Rounds weigh between 130kgs and about 200kg plus. Its range means you can see the impacts near the horizon when firing them. The metal fragments are enormous and do horrific damage to anything close to the point of impact. Against a trench line hidden in trees this weapon can sit for days chipping away at your defences bite by bite.

[@rtzx12570]

Very relevant fot seige warfare which is Ukraine, Syria. Builut up areas, wooded and mountainous, hilly areas where artillery cannot get because of their comparatively low trajectories. Very useful weapons for most modern warfare outside of wargaming schools. Also in mountainous areas mortars are by far the more flexible compared to howizters. Much cheaper and still very mobile for supporting infantry. Depending how the army deplys it however perfect for armoured infantry unit and is easy to be maintained and managed. Also if opcomd the infantry it cannot be taken away from the unit comd.

[@muninrob]

Why a mortar instead of self-propelled artillery? You get more payload in a mortar round than you do with an artillery shell of the same diameter, and the lower pressures should make for less barrel wear. They're also fairly cheap and easy to build as such things go - at least compared to a main battle tank or self propelled gun.

[@thelegendaryklobb2879]

This is self-propelled artillery. It's not a self-propelled howitzer, but mortars are part of artillery together with cannons and howitzers.

[@hnhgnjj6078]

Defense seems to be its main usage. You can’t do close support with a 122mm without using direct fire.

[@chipsmcgee3702]

What's the max elevation on a d30? Killer junior missions are definitely a thing with howitzers. This mortar is definitely for sieges.

[@reginaldlagrone5082]

The Russian 2S4 'Tyulpan makes a lot of sense to me. It's a weapon of war, it does a great job of destroying things. Don't over think this system using Western logic.

[@charlie15627]

They've been getting used in ukraine. They're often used to dismantle fortifications. I've only heard of 1 or 2 of them getting destroyed. They are much cheaper than using repeated artillery barrages, guided missiles or other weapons capable of penetrating into a bunker and destroying it.

[@yahaaa1343]

Big guns never tire.

[@PlanetWalking-qd8gv]

It has perfect sense!- non-other artillery system can do pretty much anything with properly built fortified position. It designed to destroy fortified positions during rapid offensive operations. -1 shot per minute is pretty high rate of fire. That video of attaching bags and fuse-is not how it supposes to operate - it could have 10 prepared rounds in magazine automatically loaded.

[@jasonz7788]

Thanks Matt

[@ph11p3540]

Close range and tactical nukes is an oxymoron. The fact you are dealing with a ground burst nuke means danger close is much larger thanks to precursor shock front and extra local fallout.

[@gore0ru]

Ground explosion? For what?

[@Shelldrakeaus]

I feel like this would be great in a FOB or used as an ambush weapon

[@echomande4395]

I find myself wondering how effective an upgraded variant capable of firing rocket assisted guided rounds would be in terms of range and devastation.

[@gore0ru]

Twice as far. With the same explosion power.

[@Token_Civilian]

Cool system. Not sure how useful given counter battery, drones, etc like you said, but cool either which way. From what I can find, the standard HE rounds are 290 lbs each. Being a mortar, the explosive fraction would be higher vs an artillery shell. Put those two factors together and I have to imagine it's a lot of boom-boom per round, even if there aren't a lot of those rounds going down range.

[@rajaydon1893]

Counter battery is far from guaranteed

[@rogerharacz5790]

All you have to say is it can deliver a nuke,plus it's mobile.Somebody will buy it.

[@Area51UFOGynaecology]

is this the highest caliber weapon currently in service? am discounting stuff like dept charge launchers

[@Wastelandman7000]

"Its too much work" sounds like western thinking. No offense intended. My point is if you look at historical Russian/USSR military doctrine "its too much work" has never stopped them before. Yes, they will probably change over to a lighter mortar....probably with an auto loader. But, it being too much work won't be why they do it, it'll be to get more firepower.

[@gore0ru]

“Too much work” → Prolonged presence of many people in a firing position → Possibility of significant losses from enemy actions. That's right. This is a weapon from another era.

[@stone1er371]

that shell is almost as big as an aerial bomb 💀

[@alexanderstordeur9434]

So this is like that Russian version of the Davy Crockett jeep.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

Pretty much

[@Ravnican127]

I could see this having a place as a second line unit behind/within longer range artillery units. It can effectively hit targets that would otherwise force the longer range weapons into a direct fire role. This buys them time to either pack up and run, or transition to a direct fire role. The other obvious use is, as you said, deterrence. The enemy knows its around, know it can deploy nuclear payloads, and knows it can move very quickly around the battlefield. A certain level of respect and resources are forced into tracking the presence and movements of these units over something like a Grad or TOS.

[@trungbao8452]

"The Death Toll" ❤

[@dairyqueenshake6719]

Now I can't help but wonder what a 240 mm nuclear mortar shell looks like when it detonates 😂I wonder if it would make a small mushroom cloud like the mini-nuke in fallout

[@ljubomirculibrk4097]

Since its a low velocity mortar, it has much more explosives for weight of the shell aka mortar mine. Its near to strenght to 250kg aircraft bomb, thats why it was made, whit beter precision comparing to gravity unguided bombs. Its much more economical for use, at least couple of times cheper.

[@amyjojinkerson-b6o]

one hell of a base plate

[@JayBlanco11C]

A great a example of answering the question of could you make it rather than should you make it

[@acmelka]

How heavy is the ammo? A comparison of explosive power of shell vs say 120mm would have been nice info. Thanks!

[@imrekalman9044]

I think there is a battery of 6 of these in every artillery brigade, part of combined arms armies. Quite rare.

[@heksogen4788]

I dont understand your criticism, the disadvantages you mentioned about preparing sand rings for distance adjustment are also present in manual operated mortars. Of course tulpan is not as automated as modern self reloading 120mm mortars. It would be interesting to see a fully automated 240mm mortar in the future.

[@vishmonster]

Why is this not just an artillery peice? Not to get into semantics but what makes it a mortar?

[@user-uc4vg4rg9e]

the type of ammo used, and the arc at which it fires.

[@aaronnichols8159]

He answered his own confusion in the first paragraph. Why is it there? Shoot at a hole in the ground

[@Daeva23]

Who came up with that intro? Sounded like something Magna Charta might come up with.

[@madzihove]

As a long time subscriber it's weird to hear the way the American accent is creeping in to his speech.

[@Mortablunt]

Canadian.

[@madzihove]

@@Mortablunt For some of us in the world it's all so similar that we can not tell the difference.

[@apathtrampledbydeer8446]

But sir, that's a c-hair over 200 meters sir, that is dangel close for artillery. Encino man- Danger close? Sir danger close is an artillery strike within 600 meters of a friendly position! Encino man proceeds to go ahead still, but gives bogus coordinates. Generation Kill, if you haven't seen it, doooo it!!!

[@0markvari]

Seems like a concept/machine that could be updated for quicker and easier operation, without much trouble. Still lots of potential in the idea I think.

[@Rick8191-tv8pg]

It has really long range and is devastating and shoots fast for such a large caliber.

[@WildBillCox13]

[@leflavius_nl5370]

Having such a wide variety of narrowly specialized vehicles makes it difficult for the receiving party to set up procedures for counterfire solutions , and selecting the proper procedure in the heat of battle. Theoretically. In practice, i dunno. Must be even harder keeping track of all and maintaining all these specialized machines and capabilities when they're on your own side.

[@custardthepipecat6584]

It's a spicy meatball

[@davidtetard5781]

What is the white cloth that they wrap around and tie just above the fins?

[@FlapJacks7]

Propellant

[@RichterBelmont2235]

Essentially a low-tech big stick designed for sieges. But it doesn't matter if it is low-tech or outdated, it still is a big stick.

[@samlambert4770]

Straight out of command and conquer

[@андреймарченко-р9ф]

на канале "Крупнокалиберный Переполох" 1 день назад показали стрельбу из него!

[@андреймарченко-р9ф]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6mbqqmcp7aDpqcsi=TDQHCY6MYIL7ABC1 240мм!!!

[@titter3648]

What is the barrel life of a mortar like that compared to a artillery barrel?

[@captjinxmarine9832]

The Russian version of atomic Annie would be my guess. Back the during my era Russia always had to have the largest.

[@stupidburp]

I suspect that the choice of experimenting with large mortars for nukes might have had something to do with reliability of the entire system. Rockets in mass production had some small but significant failure rates during Soviet times that might have dropped a nuke short of the target and close to the launcher. Large howitzers could potentially impart more shock to the nuke when fired that could damage the electronics of the time. A mortar is suboptimal in some ways but is extremely reliable in firing with only moderate amounts of shock to the munitions.

[@marshalljulie3676]

Well despite your take on this weapon it has proven to be effective on the battlefield for 2 year's straight.

[@wolfdima]

It has laser-guided bombs too. Yes, this system is slow, but hits hard

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

What is the point of this vulnerable to drone piece when the FABs are available on demand?

[@user-uc4vg4rg9e]

can be used in areas that are too hot for air support, risky but good to have options available.

[@Teknokraatti]

A few potential reasons: 1. They are cheaper to use than winged assets and don't get endangered by contested airspace or AA emplacements. They're also less suspectible to airframe maintenance schedule and bad flying weather. Russia has experienced inconsistent sortey rates and noteworthy airframe attrition from both shootdowns and wear from usage. This thing, not being a plane and only requiring a generic truck for most resupply purposes, isn't affected by those challenges. 2. Russia already has a bunch. If there's even a somewhat decent use that's worth enough to not keep them in mothballs, why not? They will not get any more modern by rusting away at storage depots, so why not use them while still potentially relevant. 3. Russia also has stored ammo that can only be used by this system. You have the ammo, you have the weapon, you have targets. Why not use them? 4. Russia has crews trained to it. The same crews could be trained to MSTAs, for example, but it would take time whereas with the existing resources, they can get shooting without the additional delays. I know that it's good fun to laugh at Russia's ineptitude, but I am a bit doubtful that if it was easy, practical and cheap to replace other fire support assets with FABs with similar or greater impact on target and minimal other downsides, they wouldn't have done so already.

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

@@Teknokraatti Fair points, they just seem quite vulnerable given their slow deployment and rate of fire. But yet, it's there and it provides a useful charge that can be dropped quite close to own infantry, ie next building over. I don't know what practical safe distance Russia has for FABs

[@exploatores]

I would say is it fast enough if the enemy got a firelocalisation radar and say a archer battery.

[@GM4ThePeople]

It's fair to opine that the 240mm breech-loaded mortar ought not exist: in the absence of a specific mission set only it can conduct ("siege regicide"?), it would be far more efficient to scale up & support fewer systems. The Russians still maintain a spread of four mortar/gun-mortar calibers: 82mm, 120mm, 160mm & 240mm, & in addition there is the low-velocity 100mm 2A70 gun of the BMP-3 etc. Maybe Russia could get away with only two mortar/gun-mortar calibers: 120mm & a heavy. Would 160mm alone or 240mm alone provide essentially the same capabilities? Could split the difference, & cook up a new 196mm system & family of munitions, but this kind of change is expensive & painful, which is why old & proven systems can often be found in service well past any argument that they still comprise an optimal solution to their original or any current use case. o/

[@wilburnprice9886]

More firepower !!

[@SincerelyYoursAK74]

Heard they just rolled these out in action in the last day or so, so I guess we’ll see if it’s useful.

[@thomasg4324]

*Ukraine has shown why these large mortars ARE valuable.*

[@DNG12900]

I might be misremembering but didn't the US have something like this made during the Cold War?

[@robbypolter6689]

The heaviest grenade weighs 130 kg and can hit a depth of up to 10 meters. A battery consists of 4 launchers, so 4x130 kg grenades are coming your way.

[@demian_csomic_winters9484]

I had an idea you know about the new American (I believe) mortar system what if you added to the back of something like the Abrams tank to be on the lower back hull or the back of the turret where the dead weight was added to compensate for the barrel, not to ment take over mortar or artillery units but ment be tool a tank can use when they need and or want it as they have control of it and if mortar system is made with auto loader and remote controlled from within tank could be interesting

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

Some 70's Swedish ( and I think Israeli) tanks had 60mm mortars on the back of the turret for illumination purposes.

[@demian_csomic_winters9484]

@@mattiasdahlstrom2024 part of me wonder if you combined 40mm grenade launcher machine and mortar, the damage and potential from such weapon If I ever build a tank I probably pull king Crab mech from battle tech as inspiration but in more practical form such as tank or something

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

@@demian_csomic_winters9484 you almost got yourself a BMP-3 there with its 100mm gun-mortar

[@Petrezen1982]

I agree with your points over deploy speed, it should be quicker. Its hard not to see a value of this weapon on modern war with lots of bunkers and entrenchments. It can destroy them and fortified positions allowing infantry to attack without disadventage. It is a lot.

[@Andrew-bs1mi]

They could do three or four rounds a minute with those monstrous shells they're highly effective

[@garynew9637]

Germans had a 300mm mortar mounted on a panzer chassis.

[@starstray4326]

That is not a lot of moving parts. It's a pulley from a drive line running a chain. Also rounds are already pre primed and loaded with bags prior to loading shell on the front line

[@pyro1047]

Fun Fact: ALL 155mm NATO Guns/Howitzers are capable of firing Nuclear Shells, and you get to shoot and scoot out of the blast radius.

[@MatoVuc]

They had a 280mm mortar in ww2 as well, their purpose being atomising fortification and bunkers. The purpose of this one is pretty much the same, being a quasi-FAB designed to level multiple building at the same time. Or half of a Sovyetka multistory building, because those things are overbuilt AF

[@Salvinorinka]

Спасибо за видео. Почему вас так удивило то, что он имеет в своем арсенале ядерные снаряды? У артиллерийской системы "Пион" калибра 203 также есть ядерные снаряды. Более того, даже у, возможно, самой распространенной пушки 2A65 (МСТА-Б) калибра 152 мм есть ядерные боеприпасы. Поищите информацию про "152-мм ядерный снаряд 3бв3". Есть даже ядерный снаряд для пушки Д-20 (Этот снаряд называется РД4-01). Даже на первых этапах разработки танка Т-14 разработчики танка стремились к калибру в 152 мм, и это было, среди многих причин, мотивированно возможностью использовать танком ядерных снарядов. А вообще меня всегда удивлял уровень унификации нашей артиллерии. Советский Союз всегда стремился к максимальной унификации, чтобы было проще как производить технику и боеприпасы, так и упростить логистику и работу снабжению, но с артиллерией все иначе, и я не понимаю почему. Это касается не только ствольной артиллерии, но и РСЗО - огромное количество самых разных систем и самых разных калибров, которые не имеют никакой совместимости друг с другом.

[@alexanderjason434]

an Rocket Propelled Ramjet Mortar Ammo could improved massively the Mortars Range

[@marcbjorg4823]

Firing a nuke at 9,800m doesn't seem like a good idea.... so close.

[@kurniawandwiwibowo3566]

Does it consider mortar if it's breach loaded ?

[@l.h.9747]

That doesnt define if its a mortar or not. The term mortar mostly refers to the angle it fires. If it is used in direct fire its a cannon, if its at a bit of an angle its a howitzer and if it fires in a high arch its a mortar.

[@piijjen]

В 50-е годы был сделан миномёт с калибром около 500 миллиметров. Для ядерных боеприпасов.

[@TheKnaeckebrot]

The way I see this is more like in a succession to the old german mortars (Karl-Gerät, dicke Bertha...) - superheavy mortars, primarily for bunker-busting. If used in this way and in a safe space they are fine, but in the modern threat environment where even light infantry with drones can attack you, not even talking about counter-battery-fire, the 2S2 isnt really fit anymore.

[@tylerromero]

I imagine alot of this round set up would be pre done if this was American. The new double abd single 120 quick firing systems with same time impact and able to fire on the move seem better. Id take 5 120s hotting at once versus maybe the 2 of these youd get from a call

[@MartinLundström-l4v]

There is NOTHING mini about nukes!

[@jesperlykkeberg7438]

There´s nothing nukes about "nukes".

[@Alonewolf-z6o]

Vive Russe and Palestine 🇷🇺🇵🇸✌️👑👑🕌🦅

[@velimirkolundzija4451]

"I think any weapon is good if you have a good offer and that there is no weapon that cannot be modernized. In this conflict, in particular, this weapon was invaluable, first of all, in the defense of the so-called Surovikin's Line, which means that the second line of defense was always loaded with several of these systems, so that if the first front line was breached, the army could safely move to the second line and not think about the fact that the enemy would be able to chase and destroy it, so to speak, during the retreat. It is also important that Russia has large stockpiles of these ammunition and weapons, so it has served very well In the breakthrough of the fortification. And when I saw the missile, it immediately occurred to me that this projectile can also be fitted with a putty, similar to the one on the FAB bombs, except that here the wings would open immediately after it comes out of the barrel, which makes it easier to get out of the barrel.

[@1Alpha1AlhaBeta]

Unit.

[@webkeeper]

Why it is used? Because Russia has ammunition for this system. But with FAB family with UMPK system, this system will be used less and less. Plus, drones were not a problem during development of this system. It should be far enough behind the front, and AA should have being enough to protect it. Thank you for the video!