txags92 said:
Given the lower accuracy and effectiveness of the Russian artillery fire, dropping from a 5:1 advantage in rate of fire to 2 or 3 to 1 will make a noticeable difference at the front.
The accuracy of Russian artillery is probably worth some thought. I haven't been on a gun line since we were using M198 howitzers but those are more similar to the Russian guns than the moderns NATO guns that the Ukrainians are using. For those that don't have experience with cannon artillery of 20th century vintage, here are some things to consider.
Good artillery firing battery operations require strong NCO leadership and vigilance in the best peace time training environment. I can't imagine how difficult it is to maintain after months of continuous combat with heavy attrition and conscripted replacements that didn't get solid training before arriving at the front. Russian gun crews have to be worn out from two years of continuous operations with crappy gear and attrition among their best and most experienced leaders. Their people are a significant weakness.
There are several contributing factors to why Russian artillery capability has gone to crap and it's not a problem they can fix for the foreseeable future.
The Russians have lost a lot of guns, and those are being replaced with older guns that already have had a lifetime worth of training ammo fired through them. There is probably barrel erosion far beyond the point where a tube should be replaced. They are not accurate by modern standards, and they haven't been maintained well. These older guns are also shorter barrel, shorter range models from the 1950s that have to be emplaced closer to the enemy to range them.
The bore and chamber are not the only problems with old guns. The fire control instruments probably fail the "Fire Control Alignment Test" frequently. In the US military, the section chief performs FCA each time the gun is emplaced or at least once a day. The tolerance is 1 mil of angle (IIRC). At this point, the Russians are probably happy if their tolerance is within 5 mils. I suspect that the "give a **** factor" among their surviving veterans and newly trained troops is very low. If they know that there are no replacement clinometers (a.k.a. gunner's quadrants) and collimators that are within tolerance, they probably won't bother to speak up because it won't change anything. Besides, the officers don't know if your gun is passing FCA or not when you pull the lanyard, and the Russians don't have a professional NCO corps.
The next thing that is affecting Russian artillery accuracy is that propellant lot management is probably nonexistent. I wouldn't doubt that newly trained Russian artillerists aren't even taught about it. In western militaries, every unit maintains a propellant logbook in which the battery OpsChief records measured velocities of every propellant lot that they fire along with the date, powder temperature and the number of EFCs (Effective Full-Charge) rounds that have been fired through the tube. If you have never seen that lot number before, you assume that is has the standard velocity from the manufacturing spec. As soon as you begin shooting that lot, you measure, record, and average the muzzle velocities with a muzzle velocity chronograph. It isn't unusual to find that a particular ammo lot will shoot plus or minus 2-4m/s from the standard. That lot to lot variance also changes as a propellant lot ages. With 20 (or 50) year old powder bags, they may be seeing muzzle velocity variance of more 2-4 meters per second from the standard. If they aren't doing muzzle velocity management, they will probably have a range probable error of 50-100 meters from where the projectile is supposed to impact. The Russians probably have no idea how many EFCs have been fired through their pieces at this point.
The US military began replacing old granulated powder bags with solid propellant "Uni-Charge" 20 years ago. Solid propellant increments are less susceptible to lot to lot variance from temperature, humidity, and aging. A lot of the Russian ammo (and North Korean ammo) is probably twice as old as the canonneers shooting it.
Good ammo handling procedures also take care not to store powders in direct sunlight and to measure the temperature of the powder contantly and report it to the Fire Direction Center where it is used to adjust the firing solution. NATO standard velocities are based on an ambient temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Colder powder temps have a lower velocity, and hotter powder temps have a higher velocity.
Standard ammo handling practice is for powder bags to be stored in vacuum sealed cannisters to prevent variations in humidity, which also have a significant impact on muzzle velocity. Having seen photos of Russian ammo handling practices, I don't believe they pay much attention to handling their powders in a consistent manner to reduce muzzle velocity variance. Their field ammo dumps seem to be hand stacked crates sitting in the open for days or weeks at a time exposed to the elements.
Accuracy for multiple round missions also depends on a good section chief that "takes up displacement" in the elevation and deflection hand wheels on the gun after checking his aiming point on the collimator before firing each round. This is especially important on the first rounds in a new firing position because the dirt behind the spades hasn't yet been packed tightly from the recoil. If the ground is sandy, there may be significant displacement every time the gun is fired.
All of these factors are leadership problems for the Russians that aren't getting any easier.
