Caesar gun is a nightmare, say Russian gunners

Whatever may be said, Western armies have not experienced, since the Korean War, real high-intensity, long-term engagements. As such, the Gulf War of 1991, often put forward to justify arbitrations made by the West in terms of armies, equipment and doctrines, was too short, and too specific, to draw real conclusions from it. conclusions.

In this context, the war in Ukraine, since February 2022, is an opportunity, for these same Western armies, to confront their equipment, as well as, in a certain way, their doctrines, with reality. This was an opportunity to revisit certain certainties, particularly concerning the supposed relative effectiveness of Western equipment over more rustic Russian equipment.

This war also showed the decisive role of artillery in this type of conflict. In this area, the new European systems, equipped with a 52 caliber tube and more advanced sighting systems, have shown their great effectiveness, compared to Russian equipment, but also less efficient American or British equipment.

The Caesar Cannon truck mounted, of French design, particularly shines in this conflict. A time considered too light and insufficiently protected, compared to the Swedish Archer, or less mobile on difficult terrain, than the German Pzh2000, the latter has shown, on several occasions, the full effectiveness of its concept.

However, if the Ukrainians have sometimes sent contradictory messages about this system, a recent online interview, on Telegram, with Russian gunners, shows that it is, today, the most feared system, and the one that hurt them the most.

Sometimes contradictory messages concerning the Caesar cannon coming from Ukraine

Today, the Ukrainian armies field around fifty Caesars, including 19 in the 8×8 version supplied by Denmark, and 32 in the 6×6 version by France. These are due to receive, in 2024, 78 new Caesar 6×6, financed jointly by Paris, Copenhagen and Kyiv.

However, messages regarding the Caesar's combat effectiveness from Ukrainian armies have occasionally been contradictory. Few months ago, a Ukrainian artilleryman explained to French journalists, that the American M777 towed gun was more effective, because it could be more easily concealed, and in this way resist drone attacks, and because it was too complex to use and maintain.

These declarations had also led the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to publish a statement to contradict Colonel Yan Iatsychen, commander of the 56th motorized infantry brigade, and express his full satisfaction with CAESAR. The facts, however, did not prove him right, in particular by comparing the losses between the two systems.

A few days ago, Alexander Zavitnevych, Chairman of the Committee on National Security, Defense and Intelligence of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada, had praised Caesar, in particular in the hands of the artillerymen of the 55th artillery brigade, then in charge of protecting the Zaporozhye theater.

However, he clarified that they were encountering difficulties regarding maintenance in operational condition (MCO), a difficulty on which KNDS-France and the Ukrainian authorities are actively working. At the same time, he indicated that the mobility of the French cannon was undermined during periods of heavy rain, in spring and autumn.

The testimony of a Russian artillery on the evolution of Ukrainian artillery

On these subjects, the interview with Russian artillerymen, conducted by fellow milbloggers, provides a complementary and very enlightening vision on the perception concerning the effectiveness of Ukrainian artillery, but also that of the French Caesar.

75% of this article remains to read,
Subscribe to access it!

The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from 6,90 €.

Newsletter subscription