Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

1. Why we need the L.V 57mm gun, while we can have the H.V 57mm gun that can do everything that the L.V can do and much more?

The only thing that the L.V 57mm can maybe do better than the H.V 57mm is the indirect fire.

2. As for the Bulat missiles, I don’t see any reason for it because the H.V 57mm gun and the Kornet missiles can take care of everything in the battlefield. But IMO there is only one reason to have this system, especially if the diameter of those missiles is about 50mm.

In Israel the Trophy APS that mount on the Merkava 4M intercept few times the Kornet missiles that fired from Gaza Strip, and maybe that’s the way of the Russian to trick the APS

3. So, that’s what I’ll do with the Epoch turret: I’ll replace the L.V 57mm gun with the H.V 57mm gun, I’ll keep the Kornet missiles, and I’ll keep the Bulat missiles system too. If there is a need for indirect and the H.V gun can’t deal with that, I’ll add the 82mm 2S41 gun/mortar.

GarryB wrote:

The 57mm grenade launcher can fire heavy slow HE bombs, which have been described as being as effective as 76.2mm HE shells... which means in the 6-7kg HE capacity range of power which is pretty good for that calibre. With a APFSDS round it can also take on armour with standard ammo which makes it a more all round weapon.

The 57mm high velocity gun probably has a HVAPFSDS round with even better penetration because it has a much bigger shell case for a lot more propellent, but the size of the different rounds probably means the 57mm grenade launcher can carry 200-250 rounds while the high velocity 57mm gun with much bigger shell cases probably can only carry 120-150 rounds.
IFVS have a variety of roles so a mix of weapon types makes sense.

The weight of HE round of HV 57mm gun, is 6.7 kg and the projectile is 2.8 kg. It’s a big and heavy round that can cause a lot of damage. So way do we need another gun, another type of ammo, anther type of turret and so on?   I think, we should stay with the AU-220M with Kornet launchers on both side of the turret. This way we will have only one turret, one gun and the same types of ammo. That’s what we doing with the Armata Family and we need to do the same with the BMPs.

As for the amount of rounds, I prefer less ammo but better rounds and double the range. If we need more fire power we can use the Vena 120 mm mortar/gun vehicle from the regiment and leave the 82 mm mortar for the Special Forces.

One more crazy idea of main, and that’s to separate the IFV into two vehicles: One is the Fighting Vehicle (FV). Second is the APC (BTR, Armor truck).  
                                       
The difference between IFV and FV is that the FV will not carry foot soldiers. The reason for this is because the FVs will work with tanks and APCs and will be in the front line of the battle, I don’t want to put 12 soldiers in danger situation, four men it’s enough. The FV will have 4 crewmen, has the AU-220M turret and have more weapons and more ammo than the IFV, the APCs will have HMG, MGs and carry a squad of 10-12 soldiers. This arrangement will have more firepower and more foot soldiers than with the IFVs vehicles.

Actually the 57mm grenade launcher would probably have more ready to fire rounds than either the hv 57mm or 82mm and would also have a much higher rate of fire... and probably better range than the 82mm low velocity mortar... and it can also kill armoured targets like Apache helicopters and MRAPs out to significant distances too with APFSDS rounds..

I don’t know who many ready ammo has the GL unit or the HV unit, but a company in Slovenia shows T-72 upgrade with a new turret with 57mm gun and it has 96 rounds in a carousel magazine, with 120 RPM and range of 12km. As for the AA option, you know how we say “all in one it’s only in printers”. We have the 2S38 that will do much better job than the BMP-3 with 57mm turret.

As for the amount of rounds, I prefer less ammo but better rounds and double the range. If we need more fire power we can use the Vena 120 mm mortar/gun vehicle from the regiment and leave the 82 mm mortar for the Special Forces.

One more crazy idea of main, and that’s to separate the IFV into two vehicles: One is the Fighting Vehicle (FV). Second is the APC (BTR, Armor truck).

The difference between IFV and FV is that the FV will not carry foot soldiers. The reason for this is because the FVs will work with tanks and APCs and will be in the front line of the battle, I don’t want to put 12 soldiers in danger situation, four men it’s enough. The FV will have 4 crewmen, has the AU-220M turret and have more weapons and more ammo than the IFV, the APCs will have HMG, MGs and carry a squad of 10-12 soldiers. This arrangement will have more firepower and more foot soldiers than with the IFVs vehicles.

I don’t know who many ready ammo has the GL unit or the HV unit, but a company in Slovenia shows T-72 upgrade with a new turret with 57mm gun and it has 96 rounds in a carousel magazine, with 120 RPM and range of 12km. As for the AA option, you know how we say “all in one it’s only in printers”. We have the 2S38 that will do much better job than the BMP-3 with 57mm turret.

GarryB wrote:Keep in mind that the old HE round and the old AP round for the 57mm S-60 AA gun had to have the same weight and the same velocity because they were fired together in mixed clips of four rounds per clip.

If they had a super heavy HE round with a muzzle velocity of only 700m/s but with a heavier more powerful HE round, and a high velocity APHE round that was designed to have a muzzle velocity of 1,200 m/s then when you aim at the target and have 2 HE rounds and then two AP rounds loaded if the first two HE heavy slow rounds hit the target on the same aiming setting those two high velocity light armour piercing rounds will fly over top of the target with no chance of hitting.

What you would have to do is decide to use either HE rounds in your clips or AP in your clips and your calculations for range will need to take in to account of what ammo you will be using to fire at that target...
With these new guns they do need the AP to penetrate 30 plus ton NATO vehicles that might have 150,200, 250mm of armour so they need APFSDS rounds to do that, so they need dual feed guns and electronic sights... but that is OK... when you flick the switch to choose APFSDS rounds the sighting system will use its ballistic parameters when generating a fire solution. With modern Russian vehicles I would expect auto tracking so selecting the target and the ammo the system will lase the target and point the gun... the gunner would just need to push the trigger to fire.

GarryB wrote:The S-60 57mm shell case has the advantage of enormous shell case capacity so you can have a full length projectile with control surfaces for a missile guided round, but still have shell capacity for propellent to blow it down the barrel... the 57mm grenade launcher round is a straight cylinder so if it had a missile the full length of the round there would be no room for propellent... so the missile/projectile would need to be shorter to allow space for propellent

The straight cylinder round of the 57mm grenade launcher is much smaller and more compact than the S-60 57mm round so you could probably carry an extra 50% of ammo. More importantly the 57mm grenade launcher HE round is huge... it has been described as having the equivalent power of a 76.2mm gun so 6-7kgs of HE. The fact that it can also use APFSDS rounds means it can also engage armour as well.
I have no idea about the 57mm GL round and it's probably not biffer than the round of the HV 57mm gun.

GarryB wrote:
Remember these vehicles are not operating on their own... they will have tanks with 125mm guns and artillery support with 152mm guns and 120mm mortars as well as rocket artillery and missiles.
The vast majority of targets on the battlefield are not enemy tanks... the vast majority are better dealt with using HE, so most of the time the 57mm grenade launchers will be the best weapon. It is rather likely they will mix the weapons in each force so there will be 57mm AA guns and 57mm grenade launchers together... just like the mix the 30mm cannon armed BTR-80A and the 14.5mm gun armed BTR-80...

They already have that... the BMP(IFV) has the Epoch turret with either the 57mm S-60 gun or the 57mm grenade launcher, while the BTR(APC) has a small turret with a single HMG mounted on it. It is the same for all the vehicle families.

They already have the BMPT concept which is essentially a BMP to provide fire support to tanks to engage enemy IFVS and APCS and enemy troops without carrying any troops of its own... it is essentially a fire power vehicle for use in places where the life span of troops in the open is so close to zero they are not worth having, but you need something to protect armour.

The GL version should be able to carry a lot more rounds than the S-60 based system. From what I have seen the S-60 AA version should have between 120 and 150 rounds ready to fire, though as the rear hull wont be carrying troops it could probably carry more there. As a BMP mount with troops I would expect 120-150 rounds of ammo per vehicle..
AFAIK the AA S-60 has air burst rounds and guided rounds and APFSDS rounds, while the grenade launcher has HE rounds and APFSDS but as I understand no guided round... so the vehicles with the grenade launcher would rely on the Bulet for manouvering targets on the ground and in the air.

This situation with the clips for the S-60 was true in the 50s, in our days the feeding system for the AU-220M turret is much different, in the picture below we can see a carousal magazine that hold 96 rounds.

I can't agree with that. Most of the vehicles in the battlefield are armord car and the best round against them is the APFSDS. on soft vehicls the best will be HE with 1,000 M/S. The GL might have the range but it so slow it might take the GL round 3 time more to hit the target, and in the battelfield you can't stop moving, you stop you will get hit.
So, the best go with APFSDS and HE rounds with smart fuze.

Perfect with the HV gun and maybe the BTR can get the GL, as I don't have info about the GL ammo, I can't be sure about it, for sure The Berezok will be a good fit.

I would prefer the 2S38 with the 57mm HV gun in the turret with ATGM on the side of the turret and RCWS with 23mm GSh-23L.

I don’t know who many ready ammo has the GL unit or the HV unit, but a company in Slovenia shows T-72 upgrade with a new turret with 57mm gun and it has 96 rounds in a carousel magazine, with 120 RPM and range of 12km. As for the AA option, you know how we say “all in one it’s only in printers”. We have the 2S38 that will do much better job than the BMP-3 with 57mm turret.

GarryB wrote:Yes, that is what I was saying... when used as an AA gun the old ammo is fine, but if you want to use it now and you want to use it against ground based armour and soft ground targets that require more penetration and HE capacity then you need to use modern EO sights with ballistic calculators and dual feed mechanisms to ensure the correct type of ammo is loaded for a specific target.

The thing that is important is that the AU-220M turret needed two crew to sit in it, while Kurganets and Boomerang and indeed Armata BMPs can use that space for more ammo.

Most vehicles in Syria are Toyotas... many vehicles in a tank division are trucks or converted APCs and M113 like vehicles... command vehicles, Humvees, artillery and anti tank vehicles... and troops in the open.
The time the round takes to get to a target is irrelevant... do you think they can just jump out of the way? Most of the time they wont even know it is coming.

That image you showed of the S-60 57mm HE round is the old round... with a fire control system and ballistic computer why do you think they will keep the HE round the same size and waste all that propellent making it go at 1,000m/s? With new ammo they could lengthen that HE projectile and increase the HE fill by 20-30%. It will mean they can fit less propellent and the projectile will be heavier so muzzle velocity might drop to 800m/s but with 30% more explosive it is going to be more powerful and more effective.

A grenade launcher is a low velocity weapon but still like a direct fire mortar... and rather more accurate than a mortar because it is essentially direct fire... though with a lofted indirect flight path to the target.

Look at Russian experience... they had the BMP-1 and BMP-2... one with a 73mm gun and the other with a 30mm cannon. They had the 73mm gun because the AT missile used (AT-3) couldn't hit a target within 500m because of the guidance system gathering the missile in flight in that distance. That meant the BMP-1 needed a main gun that could penetrate a US MBT from the front within 500m and the 73mm round could do that against the M60 tank at the time. The BMP-2 had much more advanced ATGMs and could hit targets as close as 25m so the main gun no longer had to penetrate tank armour so they went for the 30mm autocannon. They didn't withdraw the BMP-1 however... they used both the 73mm gun and the 30mm cannon together because the 30mm cannon was useful but sometimes lacked the HE power for some jobs, while the 73mm round had a good HE option later on but lacked the fire power of the 30mm cannon against a variety of targets. A 73mm round would be useless against a helicopter, while the 30mm would be excellent. Against a concrete bunker the 30mm will splatter against it while a HE round from the 73mm might punch a hole in it and send rocks around like shrapnel.
The point is that they complimented each other... for things one was good at the other was not so good and vice versa...
The replacement for the BMP-1 and the BMP-2 was the BMP-3 which had both a 100mm rifled gun with primarily HE rounds... low velocity rounds... and a 30mm cannon.

A 57mm high velocity gun and a 57mm grenade launcher without APFSDS rounds for the latter make a lot of sense because the high velocity gun can do everything the 30mm can do and more out to greater range,

the grenade launcher has the HE power that in the west would require a very expensive missile to do the job. A good HE round is cheap and accurate out to reasonable distances... how often in Afghanistan do you think American soldiers have used million dollar Javelin missiles to hit a MG or sniper position or a light vehicle that an SPG-9 with a HE round could have just as easily dealt with.
It makes sense to give the troops and cheaper alternative.

Carl Gustaf 84mm recoilless launcher

I am thinking the 2S38 is going to be an air defence vehicle which would probably mean it makes more sense to just have a 57mm high velocity gun and extra ammo for it... instead of ATGMs I might add some Pine missiles instead for manouvering targets..

I don’t know who many ready ammo has the GL unit or the HV unit, but a company in Slovenia shows T-72 upgrade with a new turret with 57mm gun and it has 96 rounds in a carousel magazine, with 120 RPM and range of 12km. As for the AA option, you know how we say “all in one it’s only in printers”. We have the 2S38 that will do much better job than the BMP-3 with 57mm turret.
The Kurganets and Boomerang and Armata based BMPs wont need crew so they should be able to carry a lot more than 96 rounds... I seem to remember 120 to 150 being mentioned...

I’m not sure about that. From the picture below we can see an unmanned AU-220M turret mount on a BMP-3.

No, I can’t agree with that, time is very important. When you fight in urban area, and from every window somebody might shot RPG on you, the seconds become very important.

No doubt about that the 57 mm needs new ammo.

I don’t have info on this round, but I will never choose GL as main gun on an armor vehicle. For the BMP-3 I prefer the HV round that can do everything.

That’s all correct and let me add one more thing. Anther advantage of the 30mm was that it has a better elevation than the 73mm gun of the BMP-1, and that was very important in the fight in the mountains of Afghanistan.  

No argue on that, the American didn’t play it right and it cost them dearly, but they learn and bought thousands of Carl Gustaf 84mm and now they can fight from 1 km away and also get guided rocket for that launcher. They all try to get the maximum range of the Carl Gustaf to 2 km.

The new guided round for the Carl Gustaf that Saab and Raytheon have been developing.

You right, it’s an air defense vehicle but it can be converting to F.V with no problem. I’m not familiar with the pine missile so for me Kornet is the answer to defeat heavy armor vehicles.

AJ-47 wrote:1. Why we need the L.V 57mm gun, while we can have the H.V 57mm gun that can do everything that the L.V can do and much more?

Mindstorm wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:1. Why we need the L.V 57mm gun, while we can have the H.V 57mm gun that can do everything that the L.V can do and much more?

Mindstorm wrote:But high ballistic gun do NOT do anything a reduced ballistic gun of the same caliber do and better

AFAIK The high ballistic gun (57mm H.V gun) has better range, it’s more accurate, 3 time faster than the reduced ballistic gun (57mm LV AGL gun), it can hit ATGM crew and more. For me it’s enough to choose it over the AGL-57mm. Even due to fight in close quarter like cities, the 57mm AGL is ok too.

The HE, HE-Frag, HEAT and special purpose ammunitions of reduced ballistic guns offer a way higher filling's percentage in comparison of rounds of the same type for high-ballistic guns of the same caliber; the reason is that the latters must resist in-barrel mechanical sollicitations several times higher than the former and maintain aerodynamics stability for prolonged time of flight while subject to higher G pulls and therefore need significantly wider ammunition's walls.
High ballistic guns moreovers are bigger, heavier and with a more voluminous feeding mechanism, therefore at parity of volume the amount of ammunitions is lower and theirs cost is also higher

So do you recommended to go back to 90 mm gun for our tanks? No, the problem of the manufacturing is not effected the type of weapon we are buying, the only thing that important is which weapon is better to fight with. As for the amount of rounds in the vehicle it’s not important if you can’t do the job.

In substance high-ballistic guns are usually used in vehicles with greater disposable volume and that need to destroy highly mobile enemies, and flying ones particularly, at increased range and with greater accuracy.

 
That’s all correct, and more than that, it’s also good to destroy fortified bunkers, buildings, crews of ATGMs and fighting against any armored car in the open.

Primal role of Курганец БМП in a combined arms operations is to deliver infantry power in a sector and allow that infantry to gain significative advantage on enemy counterparts both in the open ,in defilade and in fortifield positions, therefore it seem obvious that a solution allowing to mount a greater number of higher power ammunitions ,even if with ballistic performances substantially inferior to those of an high ballistic gun, without moreover sacrifice the number of troops on board is absolutely preferable for the specific role covered by Курганец БМП.

First, the BMP role is not to carry foot soldiers that’s the role of the BTR, second the ability to carry foot soldiers in a BMP is a by product of having vehicle that has the space to do it. I wouldn’t put soldiers in tanks or BMPs it’s to risky.  

About the fight against enemy LAVs (lightly armmoured vehicles) you must take into account that the 57 mm APFSDS with increased propellant charge also when shot from the reduced 57 mm ballistic gun will retain an huge range of emplyement and penetration overmatch in comparison with the armor of today and in-development western IFVs;

That will be a big mistake. First, if you fight against LAV that armed with 30mm gun and missiles the AGL vehicle has no chance and even if it will shoot first it will be destroyed before the AGL’s shell will hit the LAV, and if the LAV has APS the slow coming shell will be intercept. Second, I’ll not use APFSDS round against LAV but HE round will be more deadly than the APFSDS.

the comparison with MBT's APFSDS rounds is not well-fitting, in facts MBT's can shot a single round at time and if it miss it must recharge, re-aim and re-shot, medium caliber autocannons need to assure that, at a predetermined range, at least one round on3 , 4 or 5 delivered in burst against that target will hit it and penetrate.

The right MBT and the right crew will not miss and the recharge will be faster than the automatic loader of the T-72 / T-90, and none of the medium projectile will penetrate a MBT.

With 3УБМ21, also when delivered by the reduced ballistic gun, you have a very high probability to hit with at least one or two shots on 5 on a moving enemy IFV from outside its range of effective return fire.......that if said enemy IFV would have in some way survived to the stand-off long range barrage of Корнет ,both on board Эпоха that on the infantry squads and after the barrage of Булат.

I need to understand something, are you looking to fight against USA, or West Europe? You    better look to the south of Russia there is a big country that has border with Russia and have 10 times more people than Russia, that is your enemy not the West and for sure not USA.

If western designers do not come out [/b], within this decade, with something truly innovative and revolutionary theirs mechanized forces will be massively overmatched on the ground by the new families of Federation's vehilces ,above all because theirs defensive capabilities are even more impressive than theirs outstanding offensive performances.

They working on that, but Russia is not there yet, and again the West is not Russia’s enemy.

Hole wrote:
It is the job of a BMP to transport infantry.

I like to see a human that can reload a grenade faster then an autoloader.

Did I miss something? NATO deployed troops on the Russian border, stirs unrest in Russia neighborhood and seeks to overthrow the Russian government.

That's the way the Israeli tanks work and it's not a grenade and it’s faster. They have 4 crewmen.

AJ-47 wrote:AFAIK The high ballistic gun (57mm H.V gun) has better range, it’s more accurate, 3 time faster than the reduced ballistic gun (57mm LV AGL gun), it can hit ATGM crew and more.

AJ-47 wrote:First, if you fight against LAV that armed with 30mm gun and missiles the AGL vehicle has no chance and even if it will shoot first it will be destroyed before the AGL’s shell will hit the LAV

AJ-47 wrote:if the LAV has APS the slow coming shell will be intercept.

Hole wrote:Until now each BMP/AIFV works as taxi for infantry. It brings the soldiers to the frontline, then the guys leave the vehicle and follow the tanks, then the BMP/AIFV follows to support the soldiers and even the tanks against ATGM teams.

What AJ-47 wants is something debated in the 80´s and 90´s, to split the role of the BMP/AIFV into two vehicles, one fire support vehicle (something close to the BMP-T) and a up-armored infantry transporter (like the BTR-T). There were some in Russia supporting the idea but now with the T-15...

Mindstorm wrote:

AJ-47 wrote:AFAIK The high ballistic gun (57mm H.V gun) has better range, it’s more accurate, 3 time faster than the reduced ballistic gun (57mm LV AGL gun), it can hit ATGM crew and more.

High ballistic guns have surely better range and have less dispersion at the same range (that is not always a desiderable factor if you want to obtain ,at example, fire area saturation in automatic mode) in comparison with a reduced ballistic gun, but the average destructive potential of its ammunitions are LOWER than those of such a reduced ballistic gun ,because as explained the explosive's filling percentage of rounds for high velocity ammunitions is lower ; moreover the reduced ballistic gun will have, all things being equals, a greater number of ready to fire ammunitions in a smaller volume.

Therefore the reduced ballistic gun will have way better capability, in comparison with an high ballistic gun to eliminate a typical western ATGM squads, because each of its ammunitions will have a greater destructive potential and it will carry more rounds.

I don’t see how HE 57mm HV has less HE than 57mm LV round. We are not taking about AFPSDS round just a simple HE round.

That’s correct. But it’s not a taxi because it gets firepower to fight with the enemies. Taxi is more for BTRs and M-113s.

You right again and check these pictures.
These pictures are of T-55 that transform to heavy APC, the engine was swing 90 degrees and create a corridor so soldiers can get out from the vehicle trough the rear door.
About the T-15, its heavy armour and APS put it in a different class like the Israeli Namer, the German K-41 and the America Griffin-3, but the last two are in design/prototype stage only.
At the bottom our BTR-T

I don’t see how HE 57mm HV has less HE than 57mm LV round. We are not taking about AFPSDS round just a simple HE round.

GarryB wrote:

That’s correct. But it’s not a taxi because it gets firepower to fight with the enemies. Taxi is more for BTRs and M-113s.

The difference in terms of useage between a BMP and a BTR (for western terms IFV and APC) was that the BMP was supposed to originally drive with the troops and if enemy anti armour capabilities were poor the troops were supposed to stay on board the vehicle and fire from firing ports. This was proven to be largely suicidal in the Middle East and the doctrine changed to the BMP dropping off troops who then moved forward on foot with the BMP sitting back a few hundred metres providing direct fire support for the troops. There was even the idea that a large force of soldiers, say delivered in 10 BMPs could be dropped off and perhaps 4-5 BMPs stay to support the attack while the remaining 5-6 BMPs could then be used as a mobile force that could for instance move around and attack a flank or be used somewhere else where a counter attack was needed.

Either way the situation today is the both the BTR and the BMP drop off troops and then pull back a bit and then provide direct fire support for their troops.... the BTR generally armed with light cannon or HMG and usually with a couple of extra troops, while the BMP had heavier fire power and better armour but slightly less troops.
With the new vehicle families of course they all have the same armour level and similar mobility levels too.

That’s why I don’t like the IFV concept; it doesn’t have enough foot soldiers and doesn’t have enough fire power. The BMP-3 is kind of exception to the rule, it has good firepower but not enough rounds for the 100mm gun. But if we will take out the foot soldiers we can have better firepower.

Except the BTR-T is redundant with the new vehicle families because with the new vehicle families all the vehicles in a force have the same level of protection, so the Armata force has the T-15 which is a T-14 with the engine moved to the front of the vehicle with a full width rear ramp door for quick and easy entry and exit.
The lighter vehicle families all have their engines at the front already so their design lends itself to BTR and BMP roles too, though with NERA and APS doing more of the heavy lifting so to speak.

Can we start by clarifying things here first... the so called large cased high velocity round is a large capacity propellent case so has the potential to have high pressure high velocity round, but the existence of an APFSDS round for the grenade launcher seems to suggest it also has a high pressure high velocity round... it just achieves that performance with a smaller propellent case.

So lets call the ex-AA gun round the High Capacity round or HC, while the new grenade launcher round is the Low Capacity round... both likely operate at relatively high pressure to do what they do and the difference in performance might actually surprise you I suspect.

It can be done no problem, but what will be the velocity of this projectile? that’s the question, the 60mm APFSDS from IMI has 1,600m/s. Is the LC round can do it? I don’t think so.

One advantage of a large propellent case is plenty of room for big projectiles, so a long guided round that reaches right back to the base of the round would still work because the propellent case is much bigger than the calibre of the projectile so around the outside of the projectile but still in the case there is room for propellent to blow the round down the barrel and towards the target...

That’s the way the 40mm telescopic round works, but the round is 40mm and the diameter of the case is 65mm, and no one yet has telescopic round for anything bigger than 40-45mm.

with the low capacity round the entire length of the round is a similar width to the calibre so the projectile needs to be shorter than the entire round to leave space for propellent with the HE round, but for the APFSDS round the actual projectile is tiny and with a sabot holding it in place the rest of the round can be propellent giving it the velocity it needs to be effective.

We don't know how big the HE round for the HC gun is, but being a gun rather than a howitzer or grenade launcher, it will likely be smaller and lighter and moving faster than a grenade in the same calibre. It will have thicker side walls which will improve fragmentation but reduce HE filler capacity... that is just a function of design... guns = velocity, while grenade launchers and Howitzers and Mortars give up velocity for shell weight... which makes them often more effective on target.

That’s why I don’t like the IFV concept; it doesn’t have enough foot soldiers and doesn’t have enough fire power.

The BMP-3 is kind of exception to the rule, it has good firepower but not enough rounds for the 100mm gun.

But if we will take out the foot soldiers we can have better firepower.

It can be done no problem, but what will be the velocity of this projectile? that’s the question, the 60mm APFSDS from IMI has 1,600m/s. Is the LC round can do it? I don’t think so.

That’s the way the 40mm telescopic round works, but the round is 40mm and the diameter of the case is 65mm, and no one yet has telescopic round for anything bigger than 40-45mm.

GarryB wrote:

That’s why I don’t like the IFV concept; it doesn’t have enough foot soldiers and doesn’t have enough fire power.

Their new BMP ie the T-16 will have either a 57mm HC gun or a 57mm LC grenade launcher, plus 12 guided anti-amour missiles... and they seem to carry 10 men per vehicle which seems pretty good to me.

No doubt on that, I guess you meant T-15 which is a higher level of vehicle. But we need to upgrade the current family and that’s the BMP-1/2/3 and the BTR-80/82. There problem is luck of protection, and that’s why I don’t want them to run with foot soldiers in the front line, the soldiers will ride on BTRs behind the BMPs and the tanks.

The BMP-3 is kind of exception to the rule, it has good firepower but not enough rounds for the 100mm gun.

AFAIK the current model has 32 rounds in the autoloader plus another 8 rounds that can be loaded manually to top it up, plus 8 more guided missile rounds that can be loaded when needed. That is 48 rounds with a range of 7km and plenty of HE power... plus the 30mm cannon...

But if we will take out the foot soldiers we can have better firepower.

But for what?
The purpose of the vehicle is to provide mobility for your troops so they can keep up with tanks and when traveling are protected from stray gunfire and fragments.
It is also a comms center for them so if the enemy seems well equipped or well dug in the commander in the vehicle could call in artillery or airstrikes if more fire power is needed.

The reason for taking out the foot soldiers from the BMP-3 is to make them better. why to put 8 foot soldiers in a big risk at the front line, the BMP family is weigh 15-18 tone, it’s mean they don’t have a good passive armor, maybe the front armor get improve but without ERA and APS they will be slotted at the front line. So if we want to help the soldiers the first thing to do is to take them out from the BMP-3 and put them in the BTRs, take them from the first line and save there lives.
These soldiers in the BMPs will not help the fight, they will sit inside the vehicle do nothing, can’t see anything can’t shoot and the fire port are useless, what somebody need to do is to put 1-2 CRWS behind the turret and get 2 soldiers who sit in the front to operate these units. Now you have 5 crewmen that can fight and be helpful.
That’s not the vehicle commander job, for that they have recon platoon and they will give the info to the main commander.

Remember there are also MBTs around the place that can also direct fire soft targets with some serious HE rounds too.
Also there are support platoons with mortars and rocket artillery and anti tank missles and even air defense vehicles too...
I really don't think lack of fire power will be a problem.

Well, Firepower is important factor in the battlefield. In my opinion we need to work with High/Low mixed forces, it’s true for Armor and Infantry.
In the Armor: the High will be the Tanks and the Low will be the BMPs.
In the Infantry: the High will be the BMPs (without foot soldiers) and with 57mm gun and the Low will be the BTRs with soldiers and 14.5 mm gun.
Usually in the first line of attack, we will find the Tanks and the BMPs. The BMPs, with poor protection can’t carry foot soldiers, it’s too dangerous. The BTRs with the foot soldiers and with the support of BMPs will come after the fist wave attack of tanks and BMPs.

It can be done no problem, but what will be the velocity of this projectile? that’s the question, the 60mm APFSDS from IMI has 1,600m/s. Is the LC round can do it? I don’t think so.

Sorry, but how old are you? The 60mm round was originally a joint Israeli/Italian project with the purpose of developing a light AFVs so they could take on and kill old model Soviet T series tanks... T-55 types that are so widely used still.
AFAIK it was supposed to be mounted on an M113 for Israeli use, but in the end the only actual customer was Chile... and they fitted them to Chafees and Super Shermans and they also used them on Pirana wheeled APCs...
Think of it as their attempt at making a light tank able to take on old model enemy tanks and other lighter vehicles of course.
They might resurrect it now with the 57mm caliber weapons, but it is not the same thing really and in terms of rounds carried would actually be worse than the 57mm HC.

You absolutely right about the 60mm gun. But it’s didn’t get into the Israeli army and was never been an idea for light tanks in Israel. The only reason I mention this round is to show that Russia can get APFSDS round for H.C 57mm gun with no big problem, but with few round less in the carousal. As for your question, I’m old enough to know a few things. BTW to make the 60mm round they took the case of 76 mm navel gun and neck it down to 60mm projectile. The Russian can do that with the 76.2mm artillery round.

It doesn't matter what sort of performance they get out of the 57mm LC any country can easily make something with heavier projectiles or higher velocity... the question is... will it penetrate most current NATO AFVs from the side and rear and less than tanks from the front at battlefield distances...
I can't answer that, but unless the Russians are morons I think they will do that.
What I mean to say is that they should be interested if the rounds they are developing are able to do the job rather than having the best gun available.

The new generation of IFV in the west might be in the 40-50 tons range, so I don’t think the 57 LC will penetrate them.

Over its service life they can make lots of changes to improve performance.... like making the barrel longer or improving the power of the propellant or replacing the dart penetrator with something that includes a scram jet motor so the further away the target the more effective the round is..

.
That’s the way the 40mm telescopic round works, but the round is 40mm and the diameter of the case is 65mm, and no one yet has telescopic round for anything bigger than 40-45mm.

It appears the Russians have gone the other way with a grenade launcher grenade obviously with a gun designed to take high pressure rounds... I wonder if they might bring out an increased pressure rifled 100mm gun and do the same with the gun on the BMP-3... the 100mm round has a small stub propellant case but replacing that enormous HE shell with a Sabot and a dart and propellant should achieve useful velocities...

Why bother with100mm rounds they can take 105mm from the shelf. Israel will give it to them for some T-72B with AU-220M turret.

No doubt on that, I guess you meant T-15 which is a higher level of vehicle.

But we need to upgrade the current family and that’s the BMP-1/2/3 and the BTR-80/82.

There problem is luck of protection, and that’s why I don’t want them to run with foot soldiers in the front line, the soldiers will ride on BTRs behind the BMPs and the tanks.

But if we will take out the foot soldiers we can have better firepower.

The reason for taking out the foot soldiers from the BMP-3 is to make them better. why to put 8 foot soldiers in a big risk at the front line,

the BMP family is weigh 15-18 tone, it’s mean they don’t have a good passive armor, maybe the front armor get improve but without ERA and APS they will be slotted at the front line.

So if we want to help the soldiers the first thing to do is to take them out from the BMP-3 and put them in the BTRs, take them from the first line and save there lives.

These soldiers in the BMPs will not help the fight, they will sit inside the vehicle do nothing, can’t see anything can’t shoot and the fire port are useless, what somebody need to do is to put 1-2 CRWS behind the turret and get 2 soldiers who sit in the front to operate these units. Now you have 5 crewmen that can fight and be helpful.

In the Armor: the High will be the Tanks and the Low will be the BMPs.

In the Infantry: the High will be the BMPs (without foot soldiers) and with 57mm gun and the Low will be the BTRs with soldiers and 14.5 mm gun.

Usually in the first line of attack, we will find the Tanks and the BMPs. The BMPs, with poor protection can’t carry foot soldiers, it’s too dangerous. The BTRs with the foot soldiers and with the support of BMPs will come after the fist wave attack of tanks and BMPs.

You absolutely right about the 60mm gun. But it’s didn’t get into the Israeli army and was never been an idea for light tanks in Israel. The only reason I mention this round is to show that Russia can get APFSDS round for H.C 57mm gun with no big problem, but with few round less in the carousal. As for your question, I’m old enough to know a few things. BTW to make the 60mm round they took the case of 76 mm navel gun and neck it down to 60mm projectile. The Russian can do that with the 76.2mm artillery round.

It can be done no problem, but what will be the velocity of this projectile? that’s the question, the 60mm APFSDS from IMI has 1,600m/s. Is the LC round can do it? I don’t think so.

But it’s didn’t get into the Israeli army and was never been an idea for light tanks in Israel.

The only reason I mention this round is to show that Russia can get APFSDS round for H.C 57mm gun with no big problem, but with few round less in the carousal.

As for your question, I’m old enough to know a few things. BTW to make the 60mm round they took the case of 76 mm navel gun and neck it down to 60mm projectile. The Russian can do that with the 76.2mm artillery round.

The new generation of IFV in the west might be in the 40-50 tons range, so I don’t think the 57 LC will penetrate them.

That’s the way the 40mm telescopic round works, but the round is 40mm and the diameter of the case is 65mm, and no one yet has telescopic round for anything bigger than 40-45mm.

Why bother with100mm rounds they can take 105mm from the shelf. Israel will give it to them for some T-72B with AU-220M turret.

There is no doubt that the new families will make a big change in the quality of the Russian Army and if we can manufacture the new family it will be great, but it’s not going to be quick, the new families are not even in Low Rate of Production (LRoP), so it might take long time to have enough vehicles to make a change in the quality of the Army and it will be very expensive too. So we can do only one thing and it’s to upgrade everything that move for the “stop gap” solution, that’s what we are doing with the T-72s, T-80s and T-90s, so way not to do the same with the BMPs/BTRs.