Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1023
    Points : 1021
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Isos on Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:23 pm

    I agree, for the moment the inferior but in service 30mm grenades do make sense, But the new 40mm grenades are rather more powerful and have better range... and for these sorts of weapons range is very important as it is very useful to sit 2km away from a target pretty much outside small arms fire range and pummel them with these rounds.

    Max range is rarely the typical range of engagement of any kind of weapon.

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 106
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:35 pm

    Interlinked wrote:There have been so many things over the last decade that they decided wasn't worth the money, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Balkan wasn't installed. Besides, small grenade launchers occupy a rather strange niche for IFVs. They are indirect fire weapons that are much less powerful than mortars and have a rather short range. They don't outrange ATGMs, and small arms stop being useful against a BMP-2 at distances much less than 2 km. There's really not much an AGS-30 can do that the 2A42 can't.

    I'm glad that that BMPT model wasn't taken seriously. It shouldn't be.
    Grenade launchers can do what cannon can not do efectively: in direct firing that are specially used in urban wars to deal with targets behind hardened walls or under trenches.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 102
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Interlinked on Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:27 pm

    kopyo-21 wrote:Grenade launchers can do what cannon can not do efectively: in direct firing that are specially used in urban wars to deal with targets behind hardened walls or under trenches.

    Grenades won't be better than cannon shells for targets in trenches unless a grenade lands directly inside the trench. Air burst rounds are needed for both types of weapons to be effective. Grenades may be useful in urban areas, but it is much better to have the dismounted infantry set up an AGS-30 at an elevated vantage point to provide overwatch.

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 106
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:57 pm

    Interlinked wrote:
    kopyo-21 wrote:Grenade launchers can do what cannon can not do efectively: in direct firing that are specially used in urban wars to deal with targets behind hardened walls or under trenches.

    Grenades won't be better than cannon shells for targets in trenches unless a grenade lands directly inside the trench. Air burst rounds are needed for both types of weapons to be effective. Grenades may be useful in urban areas, but it is much better to have the dismounted infantry set up an AGS-30 at an elevated vantage point to provide overwatch.
    No, the Russiannarmy calculation shows that 2A42 gun needs to fire at least 100 rounds to damage a fixed ATGM under trench and 150 rounds if that target moving. The ineffective 30mm guns in ground attake make BMPT-7 can not protect tanks and that is reason army continues delaying to buy Teminator-2.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1654
    Points : 1654
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Dec 20, 2017 1:42 am

    On an old fire control computer? It isn't just the gun you know.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 102
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Interlinked on Wed Dec 20, 2017 2:13 am

    kopyo-21 wrote:No, the Russiannarmy calculation shows that 2A42 gun needs to fire at least 100 rounds to damage a fixed ATGM under trench and 150 rounds if that target moving. The ineffective 30mm guns in ground attake make BMPT-7 can not protect tanks and that is reason army continues delaying to buy Teminator-2.

    100-150 rounds? I am very interested in seeing these calculations done by the Russian Army, if you don't mind sharing. BTW what kind of moving target would require 150 rounds from a 2A42? Moving targets are typically considered as being out in the open and not in trenches.

    GurKhan posted this table with results from state trials of the BMPT on the average number of rounds needed in combat conditions (firing on the move, day/night and by different crew). At distances of more than 1.5 km, 24 high explosive rounds are needed from the 2A42 to eliminate an ATGM team in a trench, and 29 rounds are needed to eliminate an infantry squad inside a trench. The 2A42 is not ineffective in ground attacks. I'm sure you have noticed that the unmanned "Epoch" turret for the Kurganets and Bumerang and the T-15 all mount a 2A42, and the 2A72 - which fires the same ammunition - is mounted in the BTR-82A, Uran-9, BMP-3, and many others.

    But the real question is: How many rounds from an AGS-17/30 are needed to defeat the same targets? It is irrelevant if 100 rounds or 24 rounds are needed from a 2A42 to defeat an ATGM in a trench. What we need to know is if it takes fewer or more rounds from a 30mm grenade launcher.

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 106
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:58 am

    Here it is @Interlinked

    http://otvaga2004.ru/armiya-i-vpk/armiya-i-vpk-vzglyad/bmpt-s-30-mm/

    The 30mm cannons generally are good but when firing down, its error is high. The tank guns are the same. That is one of reasons you see Israel install the 60mm motar in their tanks and now Russia equips 30mm & 57mm grenage launchers for their IFV.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:20 am

    They don't outrange ATGMs, and small arms stop being useful against a BMP-2 at distances much less than 2 km. There's really not much an AGS-30 can do that the 2A42 can't.

    2A42 ammo is huge and when the target is not armoured its velocity is ineffectual. You could carry 30 odd 30mm grenades in the size space you would fit 5 rounds of 30 x 165mm ammo.


    Max range is rarely the typical range of engagement of any kind of weapon.

    Normally yes, but in Iraq the US used more 40mm grenades than they used 7.62 x 51mm ammo and that was because the open terrain meant they could see enemy troops at great distances but with the grenade launcher spreading fragments around the place they are much more effective even a max range than a bullet... at 2km there was not much the Iraqi troops could do in return.

    Grenades won't be better than cannon shells for targets in trenches unless a grenade lands directly inside the trench. Air burst rounds are needed for both types of weapons to be effective.

    The shell walls create the fragments so the low velocity grenades landing near vertically have a better fragment pattern than high velocity shells.

    Also most targets will be behind frontal cover... not many of them have top cover so plunging fire is often more effective than high velocity direct fire.

    A high rate of fire means lots of fragments very quickly to make up for lack of pinpoint accuracy and relatively small payload per grenade.

    The 100mm gun with a big HE round or this 57mm grenade launcher also with a big HE round would be rather more effective at taking out ATGM teams in trenches or in the open...


    _________________
    “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
    Isos

    Posts : 1023
    Points : 1021
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Isos on Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:33 pm

    Found on Facebook page of Tank chaser.



    Insufficient Armament: BMP-1 vs T-55

    One of the things never really decided for the BMP-1 was the official proper tactical use. In the beginning, the vehicle was – like the BTR class vehicles (BTR – „bronetransporter“ is a Russian word for an APC) – intended only for the infantry transport and support role. In this however, the BMP-1 was even worse than the older BTR’s, as it had no other suitable weapon than a single PKT machinegun – its main weapon, the 2A28 Grom – was only theoretically useful in fighting enemy armored forces.

    The 2A28 Grom is a 73mm smoothbore low-pressure gun, its primary purpose firing HEAT shells at enemy armored targets (HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s). It was not selected as the best weapon for the future Soviet IFV, it was chosen simply because no other gun was available. This unfortunate situation was partially caused by the overseer of the BMP-1 development, GRAU (Main Missile and Artillery Directorate), as opposed to the „usual“ armor development overseer, GBTU (Main Armor Directorate). From the names of these Soviet institutions, their line of thought is not that hard to fathom. GRAU was heavily influenced by Khruschev government’s incompetence and placed their bet on a losing horse: early missiles. When this line of thought turned out to be wrong, they naturally did not want to be the ones to be held responsible and continued to refuse any blame.

    GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds. A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun

    BMP-2 vs T-72

    This particular trial (see - Insufficient Armament BMP-1 vs T-55 ) finally caused a scandal in Soviet ranks and the ministry of defense immediately ordered the vehicle to be modified in order to increase its firepower. As a part of this initiative, it was to be fitted with a dual-axis stabilizer and with the newest generation of anti-tank missiles. What followed however was to be the proof of the fact that strange IFV development process filled with blunders was by no means exclusive to the Americans.

    For one, a serious flaw of this initiative proved to be the demand for a one-man turret. A single crewmember turret was proven to be ineffective many times in history, making the decision to use it once again quite strange. But that was not to be the last issue – two Soviet design bureaus and plants were tasked with cooperating on the BMP vehicle improvement and with building a prototype of the said vehicle – ChTZ (Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant) and KMZ (Kurgan Mashine Construction Plant). In the past, ChTZ did win the BMP-1 design competition, but the contract actually went to KMZ (citing ChTZ’s „lacking production capacities“) creating bitter rivalry amongst the two bureaus. How well that „cooperation“ went is anyone’s guess – nevertheless, both design bureaus were merged into one temporary bureau, called OKB Bosk (OKB means „experimental design bureau“ in Russian).

    At first, ChKZ tried to use the fact favor of GRAU and decided to improve the Grom gun. The result was an experimental vehicle designated Object 768 with a one-man turret and an improved 73mm gun, designation „Zarnitsa“. This weapon used the same ammunition as the Grom, but its barrel was longer, resulting in improved accuracy and range. To silence the cries of Soviet soldiers for a better infantry support weapon, they paired the gun with one 12,7mm NSVT machinegun. Since both guns did not fit the original turret and additional space for the stabilizer mechanism was required as well, ChKZ reworked the turret and increased its size. This turned out to be a problem as well, since the increased weight of the weapons and turret caused the vehicle to lose its amphibious capability. This in turn was „solved“ by making the hull longer and adding the seventh roadwheel while the turret was shifted to the back. This „modification“ did not bother the ChKZ designers at all – after all, they wouldn’t have to actually produce the hull, as it was to be manufactured by their competitor, KMZ.

    In the end, the weight was increased to 13.5 tons and despite the fact the hull was now 83 centimeters longer, only six infantrymen could fit inside this vehicle. This issue in turn caused notable lack of enthusiasm in GBTU (to put it mildly) but despite the objections the Object 768 was finished and ready for trials by the end of 1972. In the end however, the project was significantly delayed by the „competition“ – the KMZ representatives in the OKB were adamant: the vehicle has to be based on the current, existing BMP hull, as the „modifications“ ChKZ proposed would require a complete overhaul of the entire assembly line. And so the „cooperation“ was de-facto over before it even began. The KMZ designers then decided to comply with the army requests and proposed a vehicle equipped with an effective automatic gun, capable of infantry support role (at this point, the 73mm guns were still firing HEAT shells only, HE-Frag would come only two years later) and of fighting enemy soft targets, slower aircraft and – most notably – helicopters, that were becoming very popular with NATO at that point.

    The KMZ BMP-1 successor design came to be under the leadership of B.N.Yakovlev. His proposal, designated Object 675, was to be equipped with a two-man turret and an automatic 30mm cannon paired with a 7,62mm machinegun. In order to knock out enemy armored targets, the vehicle was to be also armed with one 9K111 „Fagot“ anti-tank guided missile launcher (NATO codename: AT-4 Spigot) or with the 9M113 „Konkurs“ (NATO codename: AT-5 Spandrel) system. The guidance system for the missiles was to be – unlike in the improved BMP-1P (Object 765) - located inside the hull so the operator wouldn’t have to be unprotected while controlling the missile.

    The work on the design began in 1972 and the deadline was practically impossible: three months. This was caused again by GRAU stating that it’s more than enough time since technically the entire project is just a „modernization“ and not an entirely new armored vehicle project (which it – in reality – practically was due to the amount of required modifications). The prototype was to be built within a year – and while the preliminary project was indeed ready on time, to actually build the vehicle was another matter entirely.

    Since GRAU was still insisting on their preferred weapon (the 73mm Zarnitsa) and wanted to have nothing to do with the development of a new 30mm cannon in order not to have to admit their own mistake, B.N.Yakovlev was forced to look for help elsewhere, contacting the air force design bureau CKB-14 commanded by A.G.Shipunov and V.P.Gryazev and asking them whether they’d develop the automatic gun for him. In order to keep the deadline for the project, the gun would have to be ready in six months – this deadline was met with very negative reaction, V.P.Gryazev stated that developing a gun that fast was unheard of and with proper testing it would take at least five years. In the end however, Yakovlev managed to convince him since there was an ongoing rivalry between Gryazov and GRAU from the time when GRAU engineers proposed to remove all the guns from the airplanes and use only missiles instead, which was something he as a gun designer did not like for obvious reasons. Needless to say, by turning to Gryazov instead of complying with the use of the Zarnitsa gun, KMZ did not make any new friends in GRAU either.

    In order to design the new gun for the BMP, Gryazov took the GSh-6-30 rotary aircraft cannon that used the powerful 30x165mm round, propelling the 400g projectile to 800 m/s. He basically removed one of the six guns along with the chamber and breech system and used it as a single-barrel weapon. While the solution was viable, GRAU interfered yet again with the development – the gun was fired electrically, but the chief of GRAU technical department, A.A.Grigoriev, insisted on mechanical firing mechanism. The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.

    As a result of this demand the breech had to be redesigned. While at it, GRAU demanded yet another modification of the gun – it had to have variable rate of fire (specifically for the soldiers to be able to fire only at half RPM – 300 instead of 600) „in order to conserve the ammunition“ This request completely ignored the fact that the gun rate of fire was limited by 8 round bursts anyway and the real reason for it was not as much ammo conservation as it was an attempt to bury – or at least delay – the development. Even without the GRAU interference the development was problematic as it was with the mechanical firing mechanism quite unreliable and the gun overheating. GRAU officers frequently joked: „What’s the rate of fire of that gun? 600 rounds per minute, but only once a month“

    Another issue with the gun was its low accuracy. The gun, installed in the BMP turret, was simply incapable of hitting anything. It took three design bureaus and several GBTU experts to finally figure out in the end that the gun was completely fine, the real problem was in the stabilization of the entire turret: the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer. This problem was finally fixed by certain modifications to the stabilizer itself (non-linear stabilizing).

    The final – and most annoying – issue with the gun came from an unexpected source: the ammunition. Simply put, it was creating too much gunpowder residue and the gasses quickly filled the crew compartment. When the vehicle was trialed in front of a GRAU committee, the KZM testers switched the compartment ventilators off in order to try to prevent vehicle power grid fluctuations that could interfere with turret controls. As a result, the soldiers present had to drag them out of the vehicle half-suffocated to death from the fumes and had to take them to a local hospital, much to the cynical amusement of the GRAU officials overseeing the tests. The gun designers proposed to use a mechanism that would use secondary burn of the gunpowder fumes after each shot. The only result of this initiative was that after the mechanism was implemented, backfire blasts were coming from the breech after every shot, covering half of the combat compartment in flames – the testing crews were not amused a single bit.

    New Solutions

    In the end, the situation was so bad that the developers actually considered mounting the gun externally, creating a vehicle called Object 680, which had a very flat turret with the gun mounted on the rear part of the turret roof. The ammunition feed was located inside the turret. This solution had to be scrapped as well, as the turret could not be protected from WMD’s due to the leaky ammunition feed shaft and it was also not possible to run a powerful ventilator, required to keep the fumes from firing the gun from suffocating the crew, as it interfered with the compartment overpressure and the vehicle was no longer gas-protected. In the end, a rather complicated solution was invented, involving the ventilator running only when the gun was firing, but this caused more delays and the development ran well into 1975.

    The gun was by no means the only sore point. With the modifications and the new turret, the vehicle was 1370kg heavier, which caused it to lose the amphibious capability (the Americans ran into the same issues with Bradley, which was – theoretically – capable of swimming). The designers tried to lose some weight by using better steel (that could be thinner, providing the same amount of ballistic protection), different tracks and modified suspension, but the savings of roughly 400 kg were not enough. In the end, the issue was solved by adding floaters filled with foam to the extended side mudguards of the vehicle.

    Trials

    Finally, in October 1975, Object 768 and Object 675 were to be trialed in front of the minister of defense, Marshal A.Grechko at Kubinka (along with another Soviet light tank prototype).

    The ChKZ proposal with its prolonged hull was not considered a good solution by the officers, since the BMP-1 production was expensive and requiring as it was and A.Grechko was not keen on requesting more money for a complete assembly line overhaul for a project that took so long to develop. Furthermore, there were issues with the one-man turret and the suspension.

    Another issue was the armament - GRAU traditionally supported the ChKZ prototype with the 73mm Zarnitsa gun but in the end, the 30mm 2A42 gun was supported by the minister of industry Bachirev and the deputy chief of GABTU, lieutenant-general Ryabov. The result of this discussion was effectively a stalemate. Annoyed by this standoff, Grechko ordered KMZ to build their own prototype with the 73mm gun – this design was named Object 681 and the work and trials took three more years. On the other hand, ChKZ - slowly losing the fight - realized that if they wanted to win, they’d have to design a vehicle equipped with an automatic cannon as well. In the end, they designed a vehicle with the same armament as the KMZ prototype (30mm) combined with their own prolonged hull. This project failed for the same reason the original ChKZ prototype did – low suspension reliability and price.

    In the meanwhile, more discussions took place about the future of the BMP. At one point, there was an idea to actually produce both the 30mm and 73mm versions, which was scrapped due to the issues with logistics. The lines were drawn – GRAU insisted on 73mm, GBTU insisted on 30mm and neither side was ready to back down even a bit.

    After years of pointless bickering, Grechko’s patience ran out and he ordered full set of comparative trials to finally find the answer to the future of the BMP program armament. These tests took place by the end of 1978 at Alabino proving grounds near Moscow and everyone important to the program was there. The vehicle crews were provided by the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division „Tamanskaya“. Participating were the KMZ prototypes with both 30mm and 73mm armament.

    The tests showed once for all that the 30mm gun was more suitable than the 73mm one when it came to accuracy and GRAU was practically defeated, but they had one last trump card to play: the penetration tests. GRAU managed to convince the commander of the army, general Pavlovsky, to perform shooting tests against real targets, hoping that the 73mm Zarnitsa would prove its worth by penetrating enemy armor. With all the other positions and arguments lost, it was all or nothing for GRAU.
    The tests took place against two worn-out T-72 tanks and once and for all have shown the dominance of the 30mm gun. While neither of the guns was able to knock out any of the tanks completely (something the Zarnitsa supporters claimed to be possible), the 30mm gun caused significant external damage by destroying optics, external fuel tanks and one small 30mm shell even jammed one of the turrets. With these results, GRAU was forced to concede defeat. 30mm Object 675 would finally be accepted in service later on as the BMP-2. As a last act of defiance however, GRAU representatives decided that the BMP-2 production would not exceed 10 percent of the total BMP-1 production.
    With these results, in the end, both sides – NATO and the Warsaw Pact - finally got their IFV’s in the early 80’s, reaching the same conclusion through a relatively different (yet bumpy) development process.
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 102
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:19 am

    Isos wrote:Found on Facebook page of Tank chaser.

    Copied word for word from these pages:

    https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/painful-birth-bmp-2-part-1

    https://aw.my.com/us/news/general/painful-birth-bmp-2-part-2

    Textbook case of plagiarism.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:50 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Interlinked

    Posts : 102
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2017-11-07

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Interlinked on Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:31 am

    GarryB wrote:2A42 ammo is huge and when the target is not armoured its velocity is ineffectual. You could carry 30 odd 30mm grenades in the size space you would fit 5 rounds of 30 x 165mm ammo.

    GarryB wrote:
    The shell walls create the fragments so the low velocity grenades landing near vertically have a better fragment pattern than high velocity shells.

    This is only true for standing targets in an open environment, and the first instinct of anyone on the receiving end of any kind of explosive ordnance is to lie low on the ground. If the target is lying prone or inside a trench, it hardly matters whether they are being bombarded with 30mm shells or 30mm grenades. Most of the fragments will be flying over their heads either way. Even large caliber artillery shells with a plunging trajectory are not very lethal against infantry covered in foxholes or in trenches, which was why air bursting fuses were designed in the first place.

    GarryB wrote:
    Also most targets will be behind frontal cover... not many of them have top cover so plunging fire is often more effective than high velocity direct fire.

    Frontal cover like brick or concrete walls, sure, but that's about all. Besides, experience in Syria has shown that infantry hardly operate out in the open in urban areas, even if they are behind some sort of cover. Both sides are well aware of the threat of artillery and mortar fire, so everyone tries to minimize the time they spend outdoors. It's true that anti-tank weapons like ATGMs, RPGs and SPGs are often set up on rooftops, but they are also often set up to fire through apartment and office windows, so having a low velocity grenade launcher is only useful for one scenario and not the other. A serious long-term solution would have to involve programmable fuses. Sticking an AGS-30 to a BMP-2 may be useful in some circumstances, but it's not viable in the long term, and it doesn't have to be, since it's still just a cost effective modernization, after all. Having an extra 300 grenades to play with doesn't hurt, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the AGS-30 on the "Berezhok" turret is not the new norm for Russian IFVs. So far, the only Russian IFV to have an automatic grenade launcher is the BMP-2M.

    GarryB wrote:
    The 100mm gun with a big HE round or this 57mm grenade launcher also with a big HE round would be rather more effective at taking out ATGM teams in trenches or in the open...

    The angle of impact of the 100mm rounds fired from a 2A70 isn't very steep except when it is used for indirect fire, and indirect fire is only for distances of 4 to 6.5 km or more, depending on whether you're firing 3UOF17 or 3UOF19 rounds. Plus, they designed a proximity fuse for the 3UOF19 shell so that it could be used for air bursting. Just some food for thought.


    Last edited by Interlinked on Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:00 am

    Found on Facebook page of Tank chaser.

    What a very warped view that has.

    The vehicles vying for the title of BMP included a range of types including all wheeled, Half tracks, and fully tracked vehicles with a range of weapons including a vehicle armed with a 30mm cannon.

    The choice of the fully tracked vehicle with a 73mm gun was made because the ATGM of the time... the AT-3 has a dead zone of 300-400m where the missile is not under full control so enemy tanks in that area would be safe if facing a BMP armed with a 30mm cannon.

    The 73mm gun was for hitting enemy tanks at less than 400m which it should be able to do... the round itself is very similar to the RPG-7 of the time and therefore would also have been less influenced by the wind a the shorter ranges... I would expect 50 out of 50 misses against a tank sized target at 800m with an RPG -7, so it does not surprise me they didn't have better results with the 73mm gun.

    The BMP-2 had the AT-4 and AT-5 ATGM with a minimum range of about 25-35m so the requirement to be able to deal with tanks at close range was eliminated.

    The two man crew turret was also selected because in what was now called the BMP-1 the commander often shifted the gunner to the hull position behind the driver so he could get a better view of the battlefield in the turret...

    Plus, they designed a proximity fuse for the 3UOF19 shell so that it could be used for air bursting. Just some food for thought.

    They have had airburst grenades for their 40mm underbarrel grenades for 25 years or more... a Balkan round with the same design should be easy...


    _________________
    “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
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 222
    Points : 254
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:56 pm





    I stumbled onto this image a few days ago. It is form back when people were still tyring to imagine what the T-14 Armata would look like.

    The one gun on the side of the turret is clearly the 2a42 while gun that ocupies its place in the lower image seems to be the same one as on the modified BMP-3 model shown above.



    I seems to be an enlarged grenade launcher of 57mm caliber designed as an alternative to 30mm autocannon and I seems to be what th new 57mm grenades are for.



    I personally have doubts that such a weapon would be an effective IFV main gun as vastly superior high velocity 57mm guns that have the added benefit of being effective against light armor are already in existence as is the tooling required to make them but it could be a great secondary weapon for MBTs as shown in the CG image of it mounted on a hypothetical tank turret.



    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2241
    Points : 2406
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Cyberspec on Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:57 am

    Interesting...good pick up

    kopyo-21

    Posts : 106
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:10 am

    Base on the Epoch remotely controlled & above-hull turret, Russia will equip different main guns for different missions. Epoch can be installed not only on T-15 Amatar but also on BMP-3 and BMP-2 hulls.

    Sofar, it is equipped the 2A42 30mm gun and now the Ags-57 57mm generade launcher. Let see if it will/can be equipped the 2A90 57mm gun in near future.

    Up to every mission, they will use the IFVs with suitable weapons (main gun) or combine a group of IFVs with different weapons (main guns) to support each others and deal with different targets.

    Regarding to IFV with new Epoch turret above, besides the 57mm grenade launcher with 3.1kg shell (vs. 2.8kg of S-60/68 or 2A90 57mm gun), it has 8 small guided missile Bulat on the top of turret to deal with light armoured and other soft target. For tanks or heavy armored, it has 4 ATGMs. The BMP-3 version also has 2 12.7mm gun installed in 2 sides of its nose.


    Last edited by kopyo-21 on Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17028
    Points : 17634
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:55 am

    So it seems to me they are going for short range compact guided Anti armour missiles for use against armour, and full sized ATGMs for heavy armour and shifting the purpose of the main gun armament to anti personel and and hard target like bunkers etc.


    Sounds pretty sensible if you can get the mini missiles to penetrate most IFVs, then the rest is just HE rounds which are always more effective in some roles than MG fire.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:51 am