Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5607
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:33 pm

    The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?
    avatar
    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1193
    Points : 1216
    Join date : 2012-10-04
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:10 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?
    if they made the gun external its sure to have more than adequate depression and elevation. prolly cheaper that way too.

    damn, can't wait for Armata BMP, any IFV today and in the foreseeable future would just scratch the paint job of the thing if they fire at it from the front Cool.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:57 pm

    Given the utter lack of new 57mm rounds, especially anti-armor ones....I find that curious.

    The existing 57mm ammo is powerful and few vehicles use it currently.

    Obviously for anti IFV use it needs upgraded ammo and the 57mm rounds had plenty of room for improvement. New materials larger HE capacity and for a modern IFV APFSDS rounds and laser guided HE shells.

    I remember reading the 57mm was chosen because the extra space in the shell allowed laser guided shells to be rather more effective, but the rounds themselves are enormous... they might have reduced the size and made them more telescope like.

    BTW problems making 45mm telescope rounds seems a little suspicious as they made 23mm telescope rounds several decades ago fora special aircraft gun.

    The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?

    the elevation limits of a gun are determined by its positioning within the turret and the turret shape.

    The 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 has 73 degree elevation because it doesn't have an enormous long breach block that has to be elevated and depressed in a shallow turret.

    Tunguska uses external guns to allow good elevation, but a deeper turret like in most artillery vehicles would have the same effect.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-10
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 6:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Given the utter lack of new 57mm rounds, especially anti-armor ones....I find that curious.

    The existing 57mm ammo is powerful and few vehicles use it currently.

    Obviously for anti IFV use it needs upgraded ammo and the 57mm rounds had plenty of room for improvement. New materials larger HE capacity and for a modern IFV APFSDS rounds and laser guided HE shells.

    I remember reading the 57mm was chosen because the extra space in the shell allowed laser guided shells to be rather more effective, but the rounds themselves are enormous... they might have reduced the size and made them more telescope like.

    BTW problems making 45mm telescope rounds seems a little suspicious as they made 23mm telescope rounds several decades ago fora special aircraft gun.

    The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?

    the elevation limits of a gun are determined by its positioning within the turret and the turret shape.

    The 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 has 73 degree elevation because it doesn't have an enormous long breach block that has to be elevated and depressed in a shallow turret.

    Tunguska uses external guns to allow good elevation, but a deeper turret like in most artillery vehicles would have the same effect.

    I agree with garry here, 57mm is a decent round and powerful enough to take out AFV's Russia has had this in service for decades so the production equipment is already there, its just a matter of upgrading the ammo to specific needs rather than starting from scratch with 45mm, would surely be cheaper to upgrade 57mm than to design a new calibre and pay for new production equipment.
    avatar
    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1497
    Points : 1531
    Join date : 2012-04-12
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:54 am

    Well, there's no Soviet 57mm APFSDS round. The AP variant is nothing to scoff at, but it's inefficient for its size compared to modern armor piercing munitions. Even so, if you were to field a BMP using the old AP rounds, it would still be better armed than 99% of all BMPs out there. Fortunately developing a APFSDS round based on the conventional 57mm round wouldn't be much of a challenge.

    About telescopic rounds, they're not without their problems, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the CTA bandwagon.

    To maintain ballistic parity with conventional ammo of the same caliber, the propellant load is notably higher and has to be densely packed around the projectile by a increased factor of almost 1/3 vs conventional rounds. As such, their burn is less efficient and dirtier. They produce higher heat, significantly degrading barrel life and increasing the probability of barrel failure. While the round is easier for mechanized handling, its' larger diameter and heavier compared to rounds of the same caliber and performance. The gap between the round case and the cone of the barrel permits blowby of the propellant gas similar to the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone of a revolver, further decreasing efficiency. On top of that, telescopic rounds are more expensive to manufacturer.

    It's not all candy and roses, you end up trading raw performance, cost, and service life for improved ammo handling.

    From the DOD: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/FY96/96-164.pdf

    IMO it's smarter to stick to upgrading the current 57mm round with better projectiles. Make a long range, hard hitting APFSDS round, and a laser guided HE round with a decently sized warhead. Keep the ballistic performance, and count on the unmanned turrets to increase the spacial efficiency of the vehicle.
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-10
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Feb 01, 2015 12:17 pm

    Zivo wrote:Well, there's no Soviet 57mm APFSDS round. The AP variant is nothing to scoff at, but it's inefficient for its size compared to modern armor piercing munitions. Even so, if you were to field a BMP using the old AP rounds, it would still be better armed than 99% of all BMPs out there. Fortunately developing a APFSDS round based on the conventional 57mm round wouldn't be much of a challenge.

    About telescopic rounds, they're not without their problems, so I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the CTA bandwagon.

    To maintain ballistic parity with conventional ammo of the same caliber, the propellant load is notably higher and has to be densely packed around the projectile by a increased factor of almost 1/3 vs conventional rounds. As such, their burn is less efficient and dirtier. They produce higher heat, significantly degrading barrel life and increasing the probability of barrel failure. While the round is easier for mechanized handling, its' larger diameter and heavier compared to rounds of the same caliber and performance. The gap between the round case and the cone of the barrel permits blowby of the propellant gas similar to the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone of a revolver, further decreasing efficiency. On top of that, telescopic rounds are more expensive to manufacturer.

    It's not all candy and roses, you end up trading raw performance, cost, and service life for improved ammo handling.

    From the DOD: http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/FY96/96-164.pdf

    IMO it's smarter to stick to upgrading the current 57mm round with better projectiles. Make a long range, hard hitting APFSDS round, and a laser guided HE round with a decently sized warhead. Keep the ballistic performance, and count on the unmanned turrets to increase the spacial efficiency of the vehicle.

    I fully back with what you have said, it is smarter to upgrade 57mm and like you said it wouldn't be a challenge, why Russia would even consider anything else I don't know. And once the 57mm has been upgraded there won't be many AFV's that it couldn't take out.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:57 pm

    Well, there's no Soviet 57mm APFSDS round.

    No Soviet one... no... because for the Soviets it was an anti aircraft gun.

    The will certainly be a Russian APFSDS round simply because they are adapting it as an anti IFV weapon.

    The AP variant is nothing to scoff at, but it's inefficient for its size compared to modern armor piercing munitions.

    Again it was an anti aircraft round so adequate for its design role, but not adequate for the role of anti modern IFV round... so to compete with the new 45mm round it would need to have been developed.

    Fortunately developing a APFSDS round based on the conventional 57mm round wouldn't be much of a challenge.

    Would suggest new ammo has already been developed as they seem to have chosen the calibre already.

    IMO it's smarter to stick to upgrading the current 57mm round with better projectiles. Make a long range, hard hitting APFSDS round, and a laser guided HE round with a decently sized warhead. Keep the ballistic performance, and count on the unmanned turrets to increase the spacial efficiency of the vehicle.

    I totally agree and would actually go a step further and add an APHE round for use against light vehicles like MRAPs... instead of punching small holes in targets with APFSDS and HEAT an APHE round would have a much higher kill performance against light troop transports and would be devastating against aircraft. You could give it a sophisticated fuse so it penetrates barriers and explodes inside bunkers and aircraft/vehicles... a devastating round...

    I would also think that the old 57mm shell could offer future growth with necking it out to a 65 or 70mm calibre round with even heavier rounds for the future as the original shell is a bottle neck design...



    Second from the right.... 57 x 347SR.

    I fully back with what you have said, it is smarter to upgrade 57mm and like you said it wouldn't be a challenge, why Russia would even consider anything else I don't know.

    the 45mm was developed over a long period of time... I seem to remember them taking about replacing all 30 x 165mm weapons in the the Navy, Army, and Air Force with the 45mm round.

    The Il-102 competition for the Su-25 reportedly had the option for a belly mounted 45mm or 57mm gun for the anti tank role.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1497
    Points : 1531
    Join date : 2012-04-12
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:39 am

    Would suggest new ammo has already been developed as they seem to have chosen the calibre already.

    Well, they modernized the gun, designated the BM-57 on the ATOM BTR. It could be argued that the 57mm was undergoing planned modernization for at least a few years. All prior to any recent development choices.

    I totally agree and would actually go a step further and add an APHE round for use against light vehicles like MRAPs... instead of punching small holes in targets with APFSDS and HEAT an APHE round would have a much higher kill performance against light troop transports and would be devastating against aircraft. You could give it a sophisticated fuse so it penetrates barriers and explodes inside bunkers and aircraft/vehicles... a devastating round...

    The 57mm system will have a reduced ammo count compared to current BMP's, using smart fused rounds to increase the effectiveness of each shot will be important.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:34 pm

    It could be argued that the 57mm was undergoing planned modernization for at least a few years. All prior to any recent development choices.

    They have been working on the 57mm gun for a while... there is a new turret upgrade for the PT-76 that has a 57mm gun as a replacement

    they had information about laser guided 57mm shells for the gun at this website:

    http://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-centre/articles/articles_2.html

    But as you can see the page no longer exists.

    I found it again in the Russian portion of the updated site in the Press section under articles:

    http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sandbox=0&tl=en&u=http://kbtochmash.ru/press-center/articles/articles_26.html&usg=ALkJrhhGuqGlaUBUgYKQX5jgGrvAMVKL7Q


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 763
    Points : 944
    Join date : 2011-07-19

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:32 am

    The main factor in the possible selection and adoption of a 57 mm round ,as mass produced caliber for AFV's main weapon , is without any doubt its widely increased performance against aerial targets (obviously no IFT would ever boast the 30mm enormous rate of fire , such as those provided by twinned 2A38M autocannon , necessary to assure reliable destruction of different kind of airborne target by part of rounds in the today 30 mm caliber ).

    In substance the main advantage provided by 57 mm ,as main IFV weapon , will be exploited at maximum against aerial targets , as already explained by Oleg Sienko in its interview about ATOM's gun ,


    "Он оснащен скорострельной корабельной артустановкой калибра 57 мм, естественно, адаптированной к сухопутной машине. Пушка отличается высокой скорострельностью и точностью стрельбы на дальности до 16 км. Она может уверенно поражать не только наземные цели, но и воздушные. В ПВО Сухопутных войск сейчас нет артустановок калибра выше 30 мм. Между тем наши расчеты показали, что именно 57 мм пушки должны хорошо работать практически по всем типам беспилотных летательных аппаратов."



    http://www.arms-expo.ru/news/aviasalony_i_vystavki/gendirektor_uralvagonzavoda_oleg_sienko_svoimi_vagonami_my_gordimsya_ne_menshe_chem_tankami/  

    is its high performances against any kind of unmanned aerial vehicles. 


    The combination of :

    1) Higher muzzle velocity.

    2) Much lower exposure to in-flight environmental factors.

    3) Much increased effective engagement range.

    4) Very expanded volume for single round guidance (in particular beam riding )

    5) Much increased space for special payload and fuse (in particular fir HEAD-like warheads)


    render the features offerer by this caliber best exploited just to destroy subsonic UAV and PGM and in particular subsonic cruise missiles and glide bomb weapons way before them get a chance to deliver their submunition payload., retaining or increasing contemporameously also the anti-IFV/helicopter capabilities offered by 30 mm autocannon.

    At today the main problem is cost and initialization of the entire production cycle of the new round, its different guidance and different warhead payload.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:05 pm

    Another advantage would be its use at sea against sea skimming anti ship missiles.. 57mm guns are in service in the Russian Navy so rather than putting the round into production it is in fact upgrading existing ammo production.

    I rather doubt they will go for the 57mm gun replacing all 30mm because an APC would be better with lighter armament to allow more troops to be carried.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    victor1985
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 755
    Points : 800
    Join date : 2015-01-01

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  victor1985 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:40 pm


    I agree with all that, but would add that because Russia has a relatively small population for a large country and its military forces will be relatively small in regard to the area it needs to protect, that mobility, both in terms of strategic mobility... in other words putting a couple of light and/or medium brigades in aircraft and flying them across the country at short notice will be a major requirement, and moving around within the theatre of operations will be very important too... so while these forces will be defensive they will actually also be suitable for world deployment and global domination... Smile (An added perk rather than an initial design consideration.) Smile
    here comes and play the ability to every factory of weapons to create weapons under strict conditions. meaning when you have this kind of problems you try for example to make a tank engine that carry more weight at same fuel consumption. meaning resources like fuel and missiles must be carefully used. means also specific weapons for a teritory like this must be made. for example a surface to surface missile could make the job of 50 tanks whit a lot of infantry troops.and missiles for every distance. every weapon has its improvement points in wich if those improvements are achieved give a big efficiency overall the entire army. means every piece of weapon matter. cause all put toghether give the army.
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9977
    Points : 10467
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Mon May 04, 2015 10:19 am

    Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?
    avatar
    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5607
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Werewolf on Mon May 04, 2015 11:57 am

    George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

    IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

    I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

    kopyo-21
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 63
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2013-08-20
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Mon May 04, 2015 7:17 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

    IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

    I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

    Totally agreed.

    I would expect they replace 2 2A42 guns by 2 Gsh-30K that can adjust the rate of fire either 300-400 rpm or 2000-2,600 rpm. One gun will fire HE rounds to handle soft or arial targets while the other one will fires APFSDS rounds to cope with armored tagets. One more Ags-40 grenade launcher controled by commander will support 30mm HE rounds by lope more powerfull 40mm HE rounds on station targets within 2,500m range.

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 265
    Points : 275
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am



    I really like the idea of using twin barrel 120mm mortar guns on the BMP-T. The addition of a 2A72 cannon mounted on the side of the main gun [just like on the BMP-3] with two 14.5mm auto-cannons mounted on the side of the turret and a 57mm grenade launcher positioned on top of the turret, would make it even more lethal. Twisted Evil
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:57 pm

    The only reason for having a twin barrel is to increase rate of fire and to be honest with a 120mm gun introducing automated loading would do rather more to increase rate of fire than having a second gun.

    I think I have mentioned before that my personal preference for the BMPTs armament would be a 100 or 120mm main gun for HE fire power, plus a coaxial twin barrel 30mm cannon as used on the older model Hind, plus a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher.

    the new model of armata BMPT showed a long barrel 120mm gun plus a 6 barrel 23mm gatling, plus a grenade launcher.... this I approve of because the 120mm gun can fire a wide range of in service guided and unguided rounds from shells to mortar bombs and guided missiles developed for the 120mm mortar and the 122mm guns. The 23mm cannon lacks velocity but has a heavy payload and high rate of fire and small compact ammo. the grenade launcher offers high angle HE capability.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2161
    Points : 2274
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:19 pm

    Wonder are the HE/ATGM reliable and cheap enough to fully replace the traditional howithzer ? Replace the cannon with missile launcher can saved a lot of space for other weapons and equipments.

    Actually I believe future MBT may looks similar to BMPT Terminator, if ATGM become reliable enough to replace "dumb" ammo.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:45 pm

    I would think high pressure guns with kinetic rounds will remain standard for MBT vehicles... the calibre might go down with EM guns but the velocities will greatly increase... the smaller calibre is bad for ATGMs, which will likely be carried separately if carried.

    For every measure there will always be a countermeasure so while Heat wont replace APFSDS the reverse will also be true... APFSDS wont replace HEAT either.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Book.
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 678
    Points : 741
    Join date : 2015-05-07
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Book. on Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:57 pm

    НЭВЗ-Керамика: Новая Россия BMP броня [03.09.2016 15:53:57]
    NEVZ-Ceramics: New Russia BMP composite ceramic armor / absorb radar


    Armor car. BMP no prob
    Anti harm. Anti MMW radar atgm thumbsup
    avatar
    0nillie0
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 45
    Points : 47
    Join date : 2016-05-14
    Age : 30
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Would the 23mm GSh-23V

    Post  0nillie0 on Mon May 23, 2016 11:00 am

    I know it has been touched upon briefly a bunch of pages back, but it was sort of dismissed rather quickly, but i was wondering if somebody would care to elaborate on this subject :  
    Would the 23mm GSh-23V make for a viable weapons platform for a heavy IFV, or even a secondary weapon station on an MBT ? I know that it has been installed on such vehicles as the MT-LB alongside machine guns & automatic grenade launcher, and more recently it made an appearance on the Azerbaijani BRDM-2 upgrade "ZKDM". But is the weapon still in active use mounted on ground platforms in any significant numbers? I tried locating footage of the weapon being fired from a ground platform, but found none. Information about the general performance and capabilities of this weapon also seems to be rare in English.

    Is this weapon even suitable for engaging infantry or soft targets on the ground? Is there a place for it in modern combat? If it is still a viable platform in the modern battlefield, could somebody explain the possible advantages it offers?  

    I personally imagine it would have some suppressing power against infantry, but probably lacks power against armored targets. At any rate there are a lot of cannons in service that are much more effective in dealing with armor. However, could it possibly be used as part an active defense system? For example integrated into the T-14  AESA radar and fire control system. Due to its high rate of fire, and given the right ammunition, it might be useful to engage incoming missiles or slow flying shells in a highly hostile environment with no friendly units operating directly around the vehicle. As a secondary function, it could be used to engage infantry and soft targets by the vehicle commander (if needed).

    I know the weapon has obvious drawbacks, i am just curious about this weapon system in particular, and if it has any future with the upcoming generation of armored vehicles.

    Thanks in advance !
    avatar
    MarshallJukov
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 20
    Points : 20
    Join date : 2015-02-22

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  MarshallJukov on Mon May 23, 2016 1:21 pm

    0nillie0 wrote:Would the 23mm GSh-23V make for a viable weapons platform for a heavy IFV

    Even 30mm caliber does not meet full requirements of today, 23mm is beyond any hope. That is why Russia introduced 57mm.
    Not just it allows to have whole new level of projectile power. It also opens way for many specialized and smart round options.


    or even a secondary weapon station on an MBT ?

    Secondary weapons are in 30mm+. And automatic grenade launchers as we already discusses. Gatling guns are too bulky and ammo hungry, yet 23mm just not enough.

    For example integrated into the T-14  AESA radar and fire control system. Due to its high rate of fire, and given the right ammunition, it might be useful to engage incoming missiles or slow flying shells in a highly hostile environment with no friendly units operating directly around the vehicle.

    You do not need a radar or gatling gun to do that. BMP-3 already can provide this role. Yet new 57mm guns will do it better with smart rounds similar to AHEAD system.

    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 23, 2016 11:00 pm

    But is the weapon still in active use mounted on ground platforms in any significant numbers? I tried locating footage of the weapon being fired from a ground platform, but found none. Information about the general performance and capabilities of this weapon also seems to be rare in English.

    The main user of this weapon is the Hind, which in its latest models has it mounted in a chin turret.

    the critical thing is that it uses much less powerful ammo than the Shilka or ZU-23-2.

    The ammo is not much larger than HMG ammo... 23 x 115mm ammo is comparable in size (ie length and width) to the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round and has a very low muzzle velocity but a heavy projectile for its calibre.

    As such it is excellent for anti personel use with HE shells, but not so effective against armour.

    Rather than replacing the 30mm cannon in the anti armour role (ie IFV), it is more of a replacement for 14.5mm and 12.7mm HMGs ...ie an APC weapon.

    As a secondary weapon for heavier vehicles it would be interesting as the smaller round means rather more ammo could be carried in comparison with a 30mm calibre weapon.

    Is this weapon even suitable for engaging infantry or soft targets on the ground? Is there a place for it in modern combat? If it is still a viable platform in the modern battlefield, could somebody explain the possible advantages it offers?

    Powerful HE round for its calibre, low recoil, compact ammo, allows very high rate of fire in the gatling models of the weapon but the twin barrel guns fitted to aircraft like the Hind should make them rather devastating.

    It is used by the 6 barrel gatling gun of the MiG-31B and also the twin barrel 23mm cannon of the MiG-21 and MiG-23. The MiG-27 and Su-24 have a larger 30mm gatling using the standard 30 x 165mm round.

    (note the Shilka and Zu-23-2 and the Il-2 Shturmovich have a 23 x 152mm round but the 23 x 115 uses the same HE shell but have a much smaller propellent case).

    I know the weapon has obvious drawbacks, i am just curious about this weapon system in particular, and if it has any future with the upcoming generation of armored vehicles.

    When the 14.5mm HMG round becomes obsolete it would be useful to rebore the guns to 23mm calibre and use this round with a much better HE round but less penetration performance.

    I also think a version of the South African anti material rifle NWT-20 or something with 14.5mm and 23mm barrels would be interesting...

    Even 30mm caliber does not meet full requirements of today, 23mm is beyond any hope. That is why Russia introduced 57mm.
    Not just it allows to have whole new level of projectile power. It also opens way for many specialized and smart round options.

    For use against enemy IFVs or heavier vehicles as you point out even 30mm is stretched, the 700m/s muzzle velocity of the 23 x 115mm round just would not cut it against anything but soft targets. Of course in compensation you can carry twice as much ammo than the 30mm and the rate of fire of the 6 barrel gatling fitted to the MiG-31 is like 12,000rpm... the twin barrel model fires 3,000 rpm.

    Secondary weapons are in 30mm+. And automatic grenade launchers as we already discusses. Gatling guns are too bulky and ammo hungry, yet 23mm just not enough.

    Actually Soviet and Russian gatling guns are astounding in their light weight and lack of need for an electric motor to make them work but they burn through even more ammo than western gatlings...

    A 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense with much lower rate of fire but large HE punch.

    A model of the BMPT of the Armata model has been shown and talked about on this forum and the model in question seemed to have a 120mm rifled main gun, with what looked like a 23mm gatling and a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher.

    the 120mm rifled main gun would have to be a gun/mortar, which would be able to fire 120mm mortar rounds as well as 120mm shells and 120mm and 122mm guided missiles.

    The BMPT is not a tank or a troop transport so is off topic on this thread but its purpose is to support tanks where infantry can't operate safely.

    In my opinion, a BMPT is an anti infantry vehicle with tank level armour and the fire power of an anti aircraft gun system and an IFV so that it can basically take on anything short of a tank. remember these vehicles are to support tanks so the tanks can take on enemy tanks and the BMPT is to take on everything else, from aircraft to ATGM teams at short, medium and long range.

    As such it needs long range guided rounds (ie 120mm guided rounds) high velocity rounds with HE punch (120mm HE shells), as well as low velocity high trajectory round with HE punch (57/40mm grenades and 120mm mortar bombs) but also the ability to shower an area with HE... and that would be where the 23mm gatling would come in in my opinion. A 20 round burst would create a cluster of 23mm shells that would leave the gun so rapidly they would land like a shotgun blast around the aim point... any troops or ATGM mounts caught in that would be shredded... the muzzle velocity would mean the rounds would get to the target much faster than grenades that travel much much slower.

    I think the three different types of weapons compliment each other but that is just my opinion.

    I pretty much also think that Armata with IFVs and mortar carriers and anti aircraft guns all mounted on tanks makes the concept of a separate BMPT vehicle a little redundant... but it would be excellent convoy protection vehicle or anti personel vehicle for guard duty or in places where there are no enemy MBTs so all the targets are soft or can be dealt with a 120mm HE shell. (note a 120mm mortar bomb is 16kgs and is rather effective in a range of roles).


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15994
    Points : 16645
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 23, 2016 11:03 pm

    I should add however that a robot land vehicle with a twin barrel 23mm cannon would be interesting... small compact weapon that is light but very powerful because of its rate of fire and reportedly very accurate.

    The ammo is compact so rather more ammo could be carried in comparison to the rather more powerful 30mm cannon. The ammo is only slightly bigger than 14.5mm HMG ammo and while it has a low velocity it packs a powerful HE punch that is rather greater than any HMG.

    I would also be interesting on UCAVs too and is still used in aircraft gun pods and late model hinds.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2161
    Points : 2274
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu May 26, 2016 11:18 pm

    @Garry: the 120mm gun model requires a large turret and that means considerable space and weight. I still prefer the old Terminator configuration with 30mm gun and guided missile for heavy punch.

    Abandonment of traditional huge turret & cannon will save a lot of space and weight for other stuffs to be packed in, but that demands signifcant improvement of guided missiles.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat May 27, 2017 10:24 am