The jumping round is used for many years as part of the ammo for the 40mm UGL M-203, but it needs to hit the ground before it jumps up to the air and explode, nasty stuff no doubt. But I’m talking about another type of ammo. This ammo can be programmed, by the gunner before he fires the grenade, to detonate in a specific range from the gun, and above the heads of the enemy soldiers, or inside a home and so on.
The American Army has a new GL in 25mm that called XM25 that works this way.
Yes, I know about that... it is expensive and is only slightly more useful than the much cheaper and simpler Soviet solution that entered service in the early 1980s.
To be effective the US system needs a precise laser range finder... +-5m accuracy is not good enough. It also needs a ballistics computer to calculate the trajectory and an electronic fusing system. The ammo is also expensive as it requires a very high precision timer accurate to within miliseconds to be effective.
Simply standing behind a hedge means you don't know how thick the hedge is and how far back the target is from the hedge so you have to guess so it is not perfect either.
At the end of the day the Soviet/Russian system has many of the benefits without all the costs and complications and have had it in service for about 30 years.
The reality is that in a vehicle mount the laser rangefinder and night vision equipment and ballistic computer can be built into the mount... but to be honest I really don't see the benefit of making each round cost 10 times more than a standard round with less HE to do something they are already doing... it is not like the target has time to take cover in the milisecond it takes between impact and main charge explosion.
I agree with that, but I’d like to have both. It’s always better to get the RPG’S team before the lunch, and not after the launch.
Absolutely, which is why tanks needs systems to detect optics and APS systems.
With their work on DIRCMs and their anti optics ground based laser systems I would expect Armata will be fitted with a tank based optics detection system and DIRCM to defeat optical and IIR guided missiles of all types. It will also likely allow threats like 50 cal sniper rifles being used with powerful scopes to take out vehicle optics or APS systems to be detected and engaged.
This Nakidka stuff will make a lot of problem to some peoples.
The measure/countermeasure cycle will continue... though reports recently talk about Armata having built in stealth shaping features as well as stealth materials.
with progremmed rounds the 30mm will be much better gun.
I have read about a 30mm round with a programmed fuse like AINET, and I would expect something will be developed for the 45/57mm gun they are working on.
Please check this link: http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=67056
The Russians are way ahead of you... the standard HE FRAG shell can be fitted with a new electronic detonator with a new automatic fuse setting system that is fitted on the T-80UK and T-90 as standard. It is called Ainet.
T-80UK and T-90 MBTs are equipped with Ainet system that allows to electronically fuse HE-FRAG rounds to explode at predetermined moment of flight. In order to use the system the gunner must lase the target before loading the round into the breech. The round is passed by the auto-loader through an automatic fuse setter, which sets the fuse to explode at the correct distance; the fused round is then loaded into the gun and is ready to be fired. This system allows to efficiently use HEF rounds against hovering helicopters as well as infantry and light armor in entrenched positions, out to 4 km and more. The effective fragmentation radius and range consistency improve three-fold, while ammunition expenditure for a typical mission decreases two-fold. All HE-FRAG rounds are compatible with this system, provided a new electronic detonator is used instead of the standard V-429E.
There is a new shell design optimised for airburst designed to project fragments forward as well as sideways as opposed to standard HE FRAG rounds that mainly direct their fragments sideways as it is the walls of the shell where the fragmentation material is.
AFAIK the electronic fuse allows impact and delay settings like the standard fuse so it can completely replace the old fuse in operational without degrading performance in any way and improving performance in many instances. (ie troops in trenches or hovering helos etc.
The question is do we need more fire power than what we have now in the armour brigade.
Traditionally the purpose of the BMP armament is self defence against tanks via guided missile, and fire power against a range of other targets. Initially they used the 73mm gun because of the long minimum range of the AT-3 which left a dead zone up to 400m where the BMP couldn't reliably engage heavy armour. The solution was the 73mm gun which at the time could penetrate the frontal armour of an M60 at any range it could hit it... and I am reliably informed by a chap who served on a BMP-1 that it could hit a tank out to about 1,200m in good conditions.
With the BMP-1 they tested all sorts of main weapons including 30mm cannon but the ATGM limitation mandated a larger weapon to defeat tanks.
The BMP-2 got the new AT-5 and AT-4 roof mounted missile that had a minimum range of less than 75m so the heavy gun was no longer necessary so they went with a 30mm cannon.
In practise however they operated the BMP-1 and BMP-2 together and even though they replaced the AT-3 with the AT-4/5 launcher they didn't replace the armament because it was found that with some targets the heavier gun was useful while other targets were better engaged with 30mm.
The result was that the BMP-3 had both an autocannon of 30mm calibre ( a new weapon with a lower rate of fire and longer recoil distance to prevent fumes building up in the crew compartment like they did with the BMP-2s 2A42 in its high rate of fire setting) and a rifled 100mm medium pressure gun.
The requirement to defeat tanks was satisfied by 100mm gun fired missile and the requirement to defeat enemy IFVs was satisfied with the 30mm cannon.
The problem now is that the opposing IFVs have all gained weight and most are more than 30 tons and are only going to get heavier. An increase in calibre might allow a compromise where the new gun packs enough HE power to make the 100mm gun no longer needed, and has enough velocity to make the 30mm calibre weapon unnecessary.
The combination of guided shells and AINET shells will further add to its usefulness, but it will need a nice heavy HE round and a very high velocity APFSDS round too, and in fact a good APHE shell might be useful too as lighter vehicles like APCs will only be damaged with an APFSDS round as it punches a hole through the target but an APHE punches a hole in and then explodes and would be far more lethal against MRAPs and APCs and IFVs from the side or rear.
Of course I don't think the 45/57mm will immediately replace the 30mm and 100mm weapons from service and they might serve together.
The 100mm is a custom designed round with a large projectile and a small stub propellent case, which makes it compact and easy to carry in larger numbers.
The concept of the Armata is unmanned turrets so a BMPT with lots of 100mm shells and 30mm shells and 45/57mm shells should be relatively safe for the crew as they will be separate in the hull protected by firewalls separating them from fuel and ammo.
Is there any info for these guns? I know they are from the WW-2 but we probably get them better by now
The 57mm gun is from the S-60 anti aircraft gun, the 45mm gun is a weapon they have been working on for some time and I believe was intended for the Su-25 at once stage. AFAIK the 45mm gun might be a modern telescoped case design with much more compact ammo design, while the 57mm rounds are huge.
Certainly with laser guided shells the 45/57mm rounds will reach out and get to an ATGM team much faster than a 23mm gun using 23 x 114mm rounds, as the latter are low velocity... something like 700m/s... they get their effectiveness from shell weight and low recoil and high rate of fire.
I would let the mortar platoon to deal with indirect fire, and the Tunguaka to deal with Hello, and for top attack we can use the 120mm mortar round “kitolov”. I think that “all in one” is good only for printers.
If this vehicle is operating with a heavy tank or motor rifle brigade I agree, but in convoy protection roles things are different.
Remember the old tank brigades and motor rifle brigades had BMP-3s with 100mm guns and mortar support, but these new heavy tank and motor rifle brigades the standard IFV will likely not have 100mm guns... they will probably only have 30mm cannon and rifle/hmg/agl calibre RWS, so I think putting these extra weapons on the fire power vehicle of the unit is still justified and will make them more useful when used independently.
More importantly such an armament will make it more useful than a tank in a low intensity conflict so it can be used to support infantry units too.
Certainly the 120mm gun/mortar of the mortar unit is a very similar weapon to the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and with heavier shells and longer range I think at some stage they might ask themselves if they need both.
The 100mm/30mm turret is useful for medium and light vehicles in terms of fire power and weight and recoil.
And BTW I hate combination scanners printers photcopiers etc etc... who needs a setup where you can't use the scanner because you are out of ink...