2S38 Derivatsiya-PVO 57-mm SPAAG

Just noticed the big tube down the side of the barrel and the short tube on the other side... I suspect this has a liquid barrel cooling system to allow both a high rate of fire but also a high volume of fire to be sustained.

It can use old ammo as well as the new stuff which is interesting...

The Soviets had experience with 4 round clips with 82mm Vasilek, which makes you wonder if they could implement an autoloader for that as well. Armata BMPT could have a 120mm Howitzer main gun, with a 82mm coaxial, and the captain could have GSh-23L and AGS-30 slaved to the commander sight, and 57mm MLRS attached to the rear of the turret (in place of the of the ammo bustle) capable of holding 160-200 rockets. Yeah, were talking about something that could easily be in Red Alert 2!

The original anti aircraft S-60 57mm gun used a four round clip feed too.

Fitting a 120mm gun/mortar and an 82mm mortar and a 57mm rocket launcher would be a bit redundant.

I would think a 120mm gun/mortar plus a 57mm grenade launcher would be the best compromise in terms of HE fire power and ammo on hand.

The 57mm grenade launcher has rather heavy projectiles as you can see in the drawing above... the rounds are all projectile with a stub propellent case, and from memory they said it had rounds equivalent to 76.2mm shells which means in the 6-7kg HE round weight range, which would make them much smaller and more compact that 120mm shells or mortar bombs so you can carry a lot more for targets that don't require a full power 120mm round but still need HE to get the job done.

A fully auto 82mm mortar with auto feed would be interesting for a light vehicle like a Tigr-2, or a Boomerang based vehicle... perhaps with a HMG or 40mm grenade launcher support weapons for high mobility and high fire power... very hard hitting weapons...

Nice vid.... lots of close up details... thanks for posting.

Mr Fussy mode on:

To clarify, it is neither submerged nor a howitzer... but a good video though with lots of footage of the vehicle and other vehicles too.

Technically it is a gun, it has a fixed propellent charge that has the projectile attached to it in one piece and is a high velocity round.

Howitzers are like a cross between a mortar and a gun, they often have variable charge options for targets at different ranges, with generally a heavy slow projectile.

Mr Fussy mode off...

There is footage of this vehicle (effectively a BMP-3 with a 57mm gun turret fitted) floating on the water and firing without problems... this gun does not seem to generate a lot of recoil which is good.

Near the end of the video it shows a small four wheeled vehicle (I think it is Tigr) with what appears to be an 82mm mortar fitted and it made me think that a better option would be that 57mm grenade launcher. Its HE rounds seem to be huge for its calibre, while the propellent stub is tiny so it is a small compact round with a very heavy payload... it is fully automatic with a belt feed meaning large capacity and potential for remote operation, unlike an 82mm mortar which at 12 rounds per minute is clearly not fully automated.

Standard 82mm mortar bombs generally have about 4kgs of HE per bomb, and from what I have read the 57mm grenade launcher has the equivalent of 6-7kgs per round so it should not be inferior in fire power in terms of weight of shell, and range should be good with a rather long 57mm barrel.

Note rate of fire is not normally important for artillery in the sense of the way it is for a machine gun.

A high rate of fire allows you to launch 3-4 rounds in a burst to all land together around the target and do lots of damage before targets like soldiers can take cover.

Once they have taken cover they are very hard to get... you basically need direct hits to be effective.

So a 3-4 round burst of 57mm grenades that are fired in 1 second can be much more effective than say 12 82mm mortar bombs over the period of a minute...

Will be interesting to see what they come up with.

The Floks 120mm artillery gun is mounted on the Ural-4320 6x6 wheeled armored vehicle. The gun has been developed as part of the ‘Nabrosok’ R&D work. As its main feature, the new self-propelled artillery system carries a combined semi-automatic rifled gun that can fire all types of mortar shells and projectiles. The weapon can be used as a howitzer and a mortar and can be employed for direct fire.

An interesting trend in Russian weapons that the traditional role of the howitzer seems to be getting replaced by a hybrid gun/mortar weapon.

But of course the Coalition uses a variable charge system too, though mainly to optimised ballistic performance.

If you look at an artillery projectile generally the nose contains quite a substantial fuse that sets off the HE charge either above the target, on impact, or after penetration of the target. This means most of the fragmentation effect of the round is located in the side walls of the shell which in terms of area is much greater than the ends as it consists of a long cylinder.

For a high velocity gun fired shell for direct fire use at close range targets the shells tend to hit point first sideways into the target, so much of the fragmented material along the sides of the round go directly up into the air or directly down into the ground with the rest blown out sideways with mostly blast going forward and backward from the explosion.

In comparison a low or medium pressure weapon like a mortar or howitzer using the correct charge is lobbed towards the target.

If you used a gun to do that its high velocity means it would climb to enormous altitudes and then fall back down spending a rather long flight time to the target. During that flight time winds at different altitudes would effect it negatively in terms of accuracy, and of course the obvious problem that the target might move before you round lands.

With a mortar or a howitzer with a reduced powder charge they are lofted up but at much lower velocity so they don't go as high... also they tend to have heavier payloads which also reduces the distance they climb too.

When they hit the target they tend to be coming down nearly vertically which means their fuse hits the ground and the side walls distribute fragments in a nice even and dense pattern around the point of impact... which makes it much more efficient at killing people around the point of aim... especially so with the increased size HE payload.

The Soviets knew in WWII that a 120mm mortar is a powerful and effective weapon and have been using it widely since.

Note the Germans learned the same lesson when coming up against the Soviets on the eastern front and put 120mm mortars in production themselves.

AFAIK the Soviet 120mm mortar was based on a French model but they deployed it far more widely because of its very effective bomb weight without being too cumbersome and heavy.

The 120mm mortar has a 16kg bomb which is quite effective, but the next calibre up is the 160mm mortar with a 41kg bomb which really requires automated loading. Ironically it is the next size above that that has remained in service... the 240mm mortar requires a vehicle and various powered system to aid in loading and firing the weapon. One person can load the 130kg bombs using various manual lifts and mechanisms...

Of course the question remains... if they start widely using the 57mm grenade launcher with a relatively low recoil, good range and powerful projectile I wonder if they will continue to use 82mm mortars on vehicles... I would expect the man portable models will continue because they are actually man portable... I wonder if they will deploy a towed 57mm grenade launcher or a 57mm high velocity gun?

It could be argued that the SPG-9 and similar recoilless rifles were the equivalent of a towed 73mm gun from a BMP-1, but while they had towed 14.5mm guns (ie BTR) they haven't had towed 30mm cannon (BMP-2/3).

TheArmenian wrote: I personally see the Derivatsya 57mm gun more useful against ground targets.
I expect to see this gun on the T-15, the Kurganetz and even on the Boomerang... with the anti-air capability as a secondary role.

They already have their own 57mm being developed. This system is not just a gun but also a FCS which makes it an anti air system.

TheArmenian wrote:As for the Floks...I think it is a flop. It is just too big and too cumbersome. The Nona and Vena were better ideas.

Both Nona & Vena are tracked.  Floks is clearly intended to provide SP heavy support to wheeled forces.

edit: Just realised you're probably referring to the Nona-SVK  on the BTR chassis

I guess for logistical reasons they prefer a truck-mounted heavy support unit for use with truck-style APCs and combat vehicles.

The rationale behind the Derivatsya for air defense against UAVs is the fact that the Pantsir, Tor and other missiles often cost more than the drones themselves. I personally see the Derivatsya 57mm gun more useful against ground targets.

Hey there... you have been quiet for a while... welcome back...

I would agree that the 57mm gun would be effective against ground targets, but so is the 100mm gun on the BMP-3 or the 125mm gun on tanks or a 57mm grenade launcher for that matter... not to mention the 120mm mortar and 152mm artillery resources at your disposal.

In comparison against UAVs we are talking about the choice of 30mm cannon shells, which would have a rather limited effective range, that are also a little small to have both a bursting charge, a useful number of metal fragments... and a fusing system to achieve airbursts.


57mm rounds on the other hand have space for a decent bursting charge... lots of good sized effective fragments and a rear facing fusing system that could be set off with a coded laser beam at the correct distance... which would eliminate the need for an expensive and very accurate timing system for a precise airburst.

Instead just have a laser detector on the base of the shell looking back and when the radar tracking the outgoing round determines it is about to cross paths with the target... flash a coded laser and set off the round... with the sensor in the base you can have front mounted fragments to form a dense cone of fragments towards the target but also good side fragmentation as well...

Wont be super cheap but cheaper and available in larger numbers than missiles... and with the processing on the vehicle you could command detonate the rounds at optimum times like passing a group of enemy drones it could be set off in the best position to damage them all.

I expect to see this gun on the T-15, the Kurganetz and even on the Boomerang... with the anti-air capability as a secondary role.

To be clear in this thread we have talked about two 57mm guns, the actual gun is a high velocity weapon for anti aircraft use, but also the line drawing mechanism of the autoloader for the grenade launcher model.

I rather suspect the high velocity 57mm gun will be the standard IFV turret mounted gun for use in the anti IFV role with APFSDS rounds.

I would also think that they might have mixed groups of vehicles with the high velocity 57mm gun and the medium velocity 57mm grenade launcher... both vehicles will have long range ATGMs (Kornet) and medium range mini ATGMs (Bulat... which seems to be a small scale Kornet for use against lighter vehicles and other targets), I think the 57mm grenade launches ammo will be cheaper and offer larger heavier more effective HE projectiles and will effectively replace the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3, while the high velocity 57mm gun offers the chance to penetrate similar and lighter vehicles (IFV and APCs and other command and other vehicles) at battlefield ranges.

The 57mm grenade launcher armed IFV would rely on Bulat missiles to engage like IFVs... and Kornets for tanks or long range shots at aircraft.

The 57mm high velocity gun can use Bulat for anything and Kornet for tanks and 57mm rounds for enemy IFVs and positions and aircraft at drones.

As for the Floks...I think it is a flop. It is just too big and too cumbersome. The Nona and Vena were better ideas.

I agree... I suspect the biggest feature of Floks is low cost and simplicity... while having the fire power of a 120mm mortar.

They already have their own 57mm being developed. This system is not just a gun but also a FCS which makes it an anti air system.

This system is certainly a dedicated air defence system, so it will be specialised for that role, but I think for IFVs they will use the same high velocity gun in the anti IFV role as NATO IFVs are 30 tons plus these days, and Bulat ATGMs for targets too heavy for the 57mm rounds.

They will likely fit this turret to Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and even Typhoon to provide air support and anti drone capacity to standard units... I would think it would also be good for convoy escort and as an anti landing system (against marines and paratroopers).

I guess for logistical reasons they prefer a truck-mounted heavy support unit for use with truck-style APCs and combat vehicles.

I suspect cheap and simple are the key here... as long as the electronics and comms are up to scratch this should be a potent vehicle... (And I don't know why they wouldn't be up to scratch).

Keep in mind the other factor is the muzzle device on the AA gun, now normally I would think that was just there to allow more accurate follow up shots, but I would also suspect it contains coils to measure actual muzzle velocity and perhaps a fuse setting coil as well...

One of the barrels on the 2A38M twin barrel cannon has two coils to measure muzzle velocity with a shield around the muzzle of the other barrel to prevent its projectile interfering in the measurement, so I would suspect this gun likely uses two coils to measure actual muzzle velocity.

Some weapons use an induction coil to set the rounds fuse as it passes through... sometimes fitted to the muzzle as a last ring, with the velocity measuring coils further back, but possibly it might just use a standard figure for the first few shots and after it has benchmark velocity figures it starts using actual velocities in its calculations to improve accuracy... which would allow reasonable accuracy to start with but improving accuracy as it shoots at targets...

Of course bear in mind that it is quite normal to combine anti tank and anti aircraft guns for the same role, but also just as common to use different guns using different ammo too.

Just like the German 88mm AA gun was used in the anti armour role, the Soviets used their 85mm AA gun as the basis for a tank mounted gun too.

But of course they had both 57mm guns for anti aircraft use and for anti armour use too and they used different shells.

With the Strela-10 and the Shilka you had two separate vehicles with repeated expensive equipment... Strela-10 had a ranging radar to make sure the target was in range before launch, while the Shilka had a search and tracking radar that was relatively expensive for its time... remember the US equivalent Vulcan only has a ranging radar.

Providing both the missile vehicle and the gun vehicle will a search and track radar each would make them both very expensive, so the solution was to combine the missiles and the guns on one vehicle and use one set of expensive sensors to make them effective.

Their capabilities didn't overlap that much so the guns and the missiles complimented each other rather than one making the other redundant.

The point is that these days with an integrated air defence network and modern EO sensors that are getting cheaper and smaller and have better angular accuracy than radar, but with laser rangefinders becoming effective out to extended distances (the ground role laser range finder on the MiG-35 has a range of 30km), you can actually move away from mounting expensive search and track radars on every vehicle and split the guns and missiles component again because as the guns get bigger the number missiles carried will be reduced.

Ironically with the Shilka Strela-10 setup.... the guns reached 2.5km effective range and the missiles reached 5km, but with Tunguska the guns reach 4km and the missiles reach first 8km and then 10km... now the new guns can reach to 12km against ground targets and the missiles reach 10km... a bit of a reversal... but with air burst shells the 57mm guns should be vastly more effective against a range of targets... particularly small light drones... missiles will still perform better against targets manouvering hard, while any munitions or drones can be taken down by gun rounds much faster and more efficiently and cheaper.

Successors for the old ZSU-23/4 and Strela-10 package. I suspect versions based on the BTR-MDM and DT-30.

Agreed, though over time I suspect the VDV might move to the four wheel and six wheel Typhoon platform and of course in the arctic the twin chassis DT-30 vehicles reign supreme simply because they can self recover from falling through the ice into the water.

I would also expect that there will be Armata and Boomerang and Kurganets versions of these gun and missile platforms... though it will of course be possible that instead of SOSNA that they will use the longer ranged Pantsir missiles with 30mm cannon with airburst shells for close range engagement of drones and stand off attack munitions... I would expect several versions of Armata, Boomerang and Kurganets with 57mm guns.... from IFVs with high velocity 57mm guns and also IFVs with 57mm grenade launchers, but also an air defence vehicle with a high velocity 57mm gun and dedicated sensors to engage air targets... but I suspect there might even be a BMPT model with a 57mm gun for ground and air use too. Certainly the 30mm cannon on the BMP-2 and BMP-3 were threats to aircraft and with improved electronics and optics that their Armata and Boomerang and Kurganets replacements will be even more dangerous to air power...

Interesting to note the different gunners sights on the different vehicles with the different 57mm guns.

The 57mm grenade (without muzzle brake) launcher vehicle has a smaller simpler gunner sight with a large port (presumably thermal imaging) with two optical ports below it... one bigger one being probably digital video and the small port perhaps a laser?

With the 57mm high velocity gun (with muzzle brake) the gunners sight is two flat window surfaces with sensor cameras inside that can elevate and depress...

I would suspect the grenade launcher is designed for use out to 4-6km or so, while the high velocity gun would be able to be used to 10-12km or more...

OK now I am just confused... there is video footage of the vehicle above without the muzzle brake firing on a range in Russia here:

https://www.rt.com/russia/480124-russian-armor-turret-test/

The shots are fired at 2km range and appear to be rather accurate... hitting a bit low but very close grouping considering they are fired on the move from 2km distance.

The confusing thing is that the empty shell cases are the same as the S-60 shells of the high velocity gun... I thought this vehicle with no muzzle brake was firing the new 57mm grenade launcher rounds which have stub propellent charges and large projectiles like the 100mm rounds from the 100mm rifled gun on the BMP-3...