Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Mon Apr 13, 2020 9:20 pm

    I looked into the Epoch turret and the Bulat missiles, and I still have few questions.
    The Epoch turret has 3 main weapons system:
    1. Low Velocity 57mm gun.
    2. 4 Kornet missile launchers.
    3. The Bulat missile system.

    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. But this problem can be solved with 82mm gun/mortar that its turret should be mounted on the BMP-3. Below is a picture of the 82mm gun/mortar 2S41on K-4386 Taifun 4×4.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia15
    The 82mm mortar “Drok”

    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.

    The reason for that is to make the Kornet missile to work with the Bulat system in the same way that the RPG-30 works.

    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
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:50 am

    There are two 57mm guns.

    One is based on the old S-60 AA gun ammo and has a large shell case meaning it is a high velocity weapon... 1,000m/s with both APHE and HE Frag.

    That is on purpose because both rounds need to be the same weight and the same velocity so they both go to the same point of aim.

    If you had HE rounds at about 3kgs weight and 1,000m/s and an APFSDS round with a 1kg penetrator at 1,400m/s then you would hit with one round but the other round would miss the target completely because it has a totally different trajectory.

    As an AA gun the armour it was penetrating is not super heavy so it does not need to penetrate 200mm or armour so it didn't need APFSDS rounds at all.

    The new gun was for the PT-76, and was intended for use against ground vehicles and targets so a good AP round was more useful.

    Being a modernised vehicle with electronic sights you could fire one round of HE and then change to AP sights... so for a target at 5km range with HE rounds the gun might be at 30 degrees up to loft the round at the target, but if the next round is an APFSDS round the gun barrel will automatically drop down to maybe 6 or 7 degrees because APFSDS rounds shoot much flatter.... the point is that the fire control system can compensate for the different round with a different trajectory so you just point the crosshairs at the target and the computer will aim the gun barrel.

    The advantage of the 57mm old gun is the shell case is large so there is plenty of room for guided shells or lots of room for propellent for very high velocity rounds to penetrate armour.

    The problem is they take up a lot of space inside the vehicle.

    The 57mm grenade launcher has much smaller much more compact rounds so the ammo will take up less space or you can carry more ammo.

    The standard round is a HE round with a huge HE projectile and a small stub propellent case. The APFSDS round replaces all that HE projectile with propellent for a small thin armour penetrator... all with much more compact ammo.

    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?

    Think of the current situation where we have the BMP-1 with a low velocity 73mm rocket launcher and a high velocity 30mm cannon on the BMP-2, or the BMP-3 with both a low velocity 100mm HE grenade launcher and a high velocity 30mm cannon.

    The HE round of the 30mm gun is adequate but not outstanding... the 100mm HE round is outstanding... and can be used out to 7km.

    The 100mm gun can fire missiles to penetrate armour, but that is not cheap.

    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 old 30mm gun can no longer reliably penetrate enemy IFVs at combat ranges (2,000m) from the front so the 57mm is a natural step.

    A 57mm airburst shells will have more HE and more fragments and be much more effective against small aerial targets. Perhaps up to 7-8Km and out to 9-10km horizontally for air targets with air burst shells...

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

    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...

    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.

    As stated the Bulat is for moving targets that are normally harder targets for anti aircraft guns... a straight and level flying cruise missile is relatively easy to hit because the intercept point is predictable... a free moving target like a vehicle being driven or an aircraft being flown is much harder to predict... instead of firing off enormous amounts of unguided ammo... firing one Bulat gets you the kill quick and easy... of course if the target is a hovering helo that does not see you then firing a couple of 57mm HE shells at its position makes sense as it is cheaper and faster...

    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

    The problem there is that Bulat and Kornet probably move at different speeds and to be effective in defeating an APS system both missiles would need to arrive nearly together. There are four Kornet mounted missiles... I suspect if the target has Trophy and is a MBT then two Kornets would be fired at each target or two Bulats at lighter vehicles.

    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.

    There are two Epoch turrets... one with a grenade launcher (57mm... you call it low velocity but with APFSDS rounds it is high velocity so it is neither low velocity nor low pressure) and one with a 57mm high velocity gun. Both have Bulat and Kornet missiles and both likely a rifle calibre machine gun as well...

    Mortar carriers will not be in the same platoon as the BMPs that will be using Epoch turrets... but they will likely have 120mm mortars anyway.

    Only the very light Typhoon units will have 82mm mortars.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:28 pm

    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.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Sloven10
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 17, 2020 8:54 am

    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...

    It would be impossible, but because it is an AA gun and not expected to kill tanks it doesn't need to penetrate metres of armour so a pretty simple basic APHE round that will punch through the 10-15mm of armour you might get on an aircraft and then explode will be devastating most of the time... most aircraft are fairly fragile anyway.

    It means you can mix the rounds and fire some of each... the HE Frag rounds exploding on impact, while the APHE generally exploding inside the target and doing rather more damage despite a smaller HE charge.

    With these new guns they do need the AP to penetrate 30 plus ton HATO 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.

    Despite using an existing round the freedom of not needing each round to hit the same point of aim means the HE round can have more explosive and be heavier and bigger and take up more case space meaning less propellent. For the anti armour rounds they are either heavy like APHE for moderate target penetration and then detonation for internal effect or APFSDS is a small metal dart in a sabot surrounded by extra propellent to maximise velocity.

    Note for the grenade launcher they take it to the max... the HE round is mostly HE bomb with a tiny propellent stub to lob the round at the target... its speed is not important... its weight of HE will determine its effect on target. In comparison the APFSDS round for the grenade launcher the dart projectile can be tiny with a sabot to hold it, but the rest of the shell space can be extra propellent to give it the velocity it needs to be effective.

    It is the basis of the telescope cartridge cases... which are basic cylinders where the HE rounds fill most of the case for effective HE rounds with minimum propellent, while the armour piercing round projectiles are tiny and the rest of the case is all propellent to maximise velocity... there is no attempt to get the same ballistic trajectory for each round.

    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.

    The upgraded BMP-2 has a 30mm high velocity auto cannon and a 30mm grenade launcher mounted on the rear of the turret... they are the same calibre but offer different capabilities... the 30mm grenade is a low velocity round with a good HE capacity that can be lobbed over cover to hit troops you can see but might be receiving fire from. The front cover might be a low hill that your 30mm cannon can't shoot through or several rows of houses you can't shoot through but with a lower velocity round can shoot over.

    Having a 57mm AA gun and a 57mm grenade launcher is like having a 30mm cannon and a 100mm rifled gun on a BMP-3... but ironically the 57mm grenade launcher has a good HE round and a decent APFSDS round that should do much better than any 30mm APFSDS rounds... even the new ones.

    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.

    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 up the yazhoo...

    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...

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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 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.

    The GL version has much smaller more compact ammo so I would expect 200-250 rounds in the same set up.

    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.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Fri Apr 17, 2020 10:28 pm

    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.

    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. The computer recognizes the type of ammo in the carousal, feed the right round to the gun and adjust the aiming point automatically for that round. In this type of carousal we can mix HE, APHE and APFSDS and just tell the system what type of ammo we need and the computer will do it all.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia16

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia17

    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.

    below is the HE round of the 57mm HV:

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia18

    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...

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia19

    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 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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:28 am


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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, while 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.

    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 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...
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:46 pm

    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.
    Yes I Agree

    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.
    I’m not sure about that. From the picture below we can see an unmanned AU-220M turret mount on a BMP-3.
    “The unmanned artillery gun is a Remotely-Controlled 360-degree traversing combat system. Besides 57mm gun, it is armed with 7.62mm machinegun and control system to detect targets”.  

    https://www.armyrecognition.com/idex_2019_news_official_online_show_daily_partner/idex_2019_rostec_displayed_mockup_of_au-220m_57mm_gun_on_ifv.html

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia20

    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.

    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.

    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.

    No doubt about that the 57 mm needs new ammo. In the picture below we see on the right side the 60mm APFSDS round that has 1,600 m/s. On the left to the 60mm we see the Russian 57mm round. I’m sure that when Russia will make the decision to replace the 30mm gun with 57mm, they will have to get better ammo. But I guess Russia has a lot of HE ammo in there stock and they will like to use it if they can.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Usa_am10
    In the picture from right to left:
    1-60mm APFSDS round. 2-57mm HE round. 3-40mm round. 4-50mm neck down from the 35mm. 5. 35mm round. 6-40mm telescopic round.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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,
    can't agree more

    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.

    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.
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Usa_rp11
    Carl Gustaf 84mm recoilless launcher

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Usa_rp12
    The new guided round for the Carl Gustaf that Saab and Raytheon have been developing.

    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 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..
    .
    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.

    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...
    It’s sound right, the 2S38 carry 148 rounds.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:44 am

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

    Well the first turret... AU-220 was for the PT-76 replacement turret, but that was manned so I presume its design allowed for two seats and hatches for access.

    This new turret is adapted from that old turret, they might not have redesigned the ammo rack from scratch to use the extra spare space normally taken by the two turret crew... perhaps there are other things located there on this turret... I don't know.

    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.

    Well speed comes down to a lot of factors... I would suggest the different in time it takes for the round to reach the target is not the most important part of that calculation.

    Say I am at a window 500m from a tank and I decide to carefully and quietly open the window and poke an RPG-29 out and fire at the tank... now the main reason I am firing at that tank is because the turret and the commanders pano sight are both pointing away from me.

    I fire my rocket and then I get the hell out of there... the tank crew likely wont know they are under attack until the APS goes off and stops the missile... the system telling them my general direction... along with smoke coming out of the room I fired from... odds are by the time they turn the turret around I will have left the building and someone else will be taking a shot from a different direction.

    The point is that no level of muzzle velocity would have changed that situation.

    But lets say sitting either side of that tank were two BMPs... one with a 57mm high velocity gun and one with a 57mm grenade launcher... they were facing me and saw me open the window... the time it takes for me to line up the tank they both have me lined up and they fire a milisecond after I fire, so I have two 57mm rounds coming towards me... one moving at perhaps 600m/s, and the high velocity HE round at 1,000m/s... well the difference in impact times is half a second for the high velocity round and about 1 second for the grenade.

    The main difference is that the high velocity round is about 3kgs of boom, while the slightly delayed grenade is twice that HE payload of boom... either way they scratched my new RPG-29 and I haven't even made all my payments on it yet...   Rolling Eyes

    Are you going to argue that 5.56mm is more effective than 7.62x51mm because it is faster? Is 9x19mm pistol ammo more effective than 45 cal pistol ammo because it is faster? Does that mean 7.62x25mm pistol ammo is better than 9mm?

    No doubt about that the 57 mm needs new ammo.

    Certainly because this 57mm gun is the AA gun... they could easily have gone with the WWII Soviet 57mm anti tank gun which has a bigger case and is more powerful, but not in production or use anywhere and not stocks of old ammo of any type.

    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.

    But don't you understand that a grenade launcher that fires Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot rounds IS a HV weapon and has a kinetic round for penetrating armoured targets...

    On the previous BMP-3 the HV round was the 30mm cannon shell... if you take this vehicle into battle and there are no enemy vehicles the velocity of the high velocity 57mm gun becomes totally useless.

    Modern combat on the western front a 50/50 mix of these two 57mm guns would probably be best, but in Syria or Afghanistan it would make more sense to have a 90/10 split with the majority grenade launchers with more effective HE rounds... keeping the high velocity guns for use against airborne drone targets with air burst ammo....

    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.  

    Absolutely correct, though the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 elevates to the same angle as the 30mm cannon so there was probably no reason at all why the 73mm gun of the original BMP couldn't do that except they didn't think it needed it... being intended for use against tanks within 600m or so.

    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.

    But then I would argue even after realising their mistake... they are going to make the same mistake again because the simple cheap CG is an excellent weapon, but they are going to fuck it up by making the ammo expensive and probably not a lot more effective.

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

    The Russian solution is to upgrade the SPG-9... it is a direct fire weapon so you get better accuracy on target compared with a mortar but without having to go to the expense of guided shells... which they have plenty of if they wanted to use them... but the whole point is cheap and affordable... if you see someone pop up from behind a wall of rocks you don't want to waste an ATGM, but it would be useful to be able to knock that wall down at least or lob something over it and mess up this guy and any mates he might have.

    SPG-9 grenade would smack down that loose rock wall like a rifle bullet wouldn't...

    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.

    Pine is SOSNA-R.... looks like an ATAKA or SHTURM ATGM tube but it is a two stage missile like an SA-19 or Pantsir missile.

    It is a SAM and reaches its 10km range in about 12 seconds... it uses the same laser beam riding guidance that the Kornet does so DIRCMS wont work against it.

    the 2S38 shouldn't have enemy MBTs as problems... it should be dealing with enemy aircraft and drones... and soft ground targets.


    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 55564310

    148 rounds inside the turret seems to be what it can carry, but on a vehicle that is dedicated to air defence a few more rounds could be carried in the rear hull too I would think.

    Also if you are going to have a BMPT type vehicle this sort of gun would have value... perhaps with a twin barrel 23mm cannon as an RWS mount on the rear hull perhaps or with a rear turret mount...
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 976
    Points : 1143
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Apr 22, 2020 1:42 pm


    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?

    But high ballistic gun do NOT do anything a reduced ballistic gun of the same caliber do and better Wink

    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

    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.


    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.

    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; 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.

    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.

    If western designers do not come out, 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.

    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 23, 2020 1:15 pm

    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
    Hole

    Posts : 2986
    Points : 2986
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Hole on Thu Apr 23, 2020 3:43 pm

    It is the job of an BMP to transport infantry.

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

    Did I miss something? NATO deployed troops on the russian border, stirs unrest in russias neighbourhood and seeks to overthrow the russian government.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 23, 2020 8:39 pm

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

    I don't think so, BMP should work like a tank for the infantry. I don't want BMP/IFV to go into a fight with enemy tanks or BMPs carrying 10-12 soldiers. Let the tanks do there job, let the BMPs come behind the tanks and clear the area from infantry and then will come the BTRs with one squad of foot soldiers on each vehicle. I know that it's not the way thing go now but that’s my view.

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

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

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

    No thanks good for that, but to think that USA or West Europe will go to war with Russia is crazy idea.
    [/quote]
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 23, 2020 11:31 pm

    Russia to export latest Bumerang APC and IFV combat vehicles

    Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and the CIS (Community of Independent States associated with Russia) have already displayed their interest in the Bumerang Combat Vehicle, according to Rosoboronexport.

    The Bumerang is available in two versions: K-16 Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) armed with a small unmanned turret featuring a sensor array and a 12.7 mm machine gun, and K-17 IFV fitted with a remotely controlled weapon station armed with a 2A42 30mm automatic cannon and 4 antitank missiles

    https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2020_news_defense_global_security_army_industry/russia_to_sell_latest_bumerang_apc_and_ifv_combat_vehicles_to_foreign_customers.html
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:31 am

    OK AJ-47, what you seem to think is that the high velocity round is better than the lower velocity round.

    Can I repeat.

    The Soviets faced the same dilemma at the start of WWII, where they were arming their medium and heavy tanks.

    Tanks just before these were either armed for infantry support... which is to say a very short barrel 76.2mm gun and a machine gun or two... a lot of their light tanks in the 1930s only had the machine gun.... or they were armed to go up against enemy tanks, which due to the standard armour thicknesess of the time were 37mm guns and 45mm guns and on newer German tanks 50mm guns.

    The problem was the high velocity tank guns were good against armour but not good against soft targets like troops out in the open or in a bunker... a 45mm gun will just punch a hole in something and damage stuff on the way through... they were effective against light tanks because you cram people and ammo and fuel and an engine into a small space so a 45mm shell penetration has a good chance of starting a fire or hitting ammo or fuel and creating a fire.

    If you hit the side of a truck with a 45mm round it will punch a neat hole straight through and unless the round hit the driver or engine or the wheels or something would not actually do a lot of damage.

    In comparison short barrel 76.2mm guns of the time lobbed a heavy shell with lots of HE inside, so it wont penetrate even a light tank, but it will seriously ring their bell and will obliterate a truck or a log bunker or machinegun position etc etc.

    The point is that if the T-34 was a German tank they probably would have fitted it with the 57mm high velocity anti tank gun the Soviets had at the time... which could penetrate a Tiger and a Panther from the front at 500m range... the problem was the HE shell was not very useful against most other targets and from 1941 to about the middle of 1942 you could probably count on one hand the number of times a T-34 came across a Tiger or a Panther tank... but do you know what... if the exact same 76.2mm gun had been used with a longer barrel and an APFSDS projectile and extra propellent in the space where the APHE normally was then they probably could have continued to use it effectively. Tank guns already used different aiming reticules for high velocity armour piercing rounds and low velocity HE rounds because high velocity HE rounds are actually a waste of propellent... there is no benefit at all for a HE round to move faster except a minor increase in range... but tanks never fire at great ranges... their guns only elevate to 20 degrees at the very most so they can fire HE rounds to more than 6-10km depending on the round anyway...

    What I am saying is that HE is more useful than armour penetration and to be honest with 12 anti tank guided missiles of two different types all ready to fire, I would say even without the APFSDS rounds a turret with a 57mm grenade launcher is the best option.

    Having an APFSDS round makes it brilliant... this is amazing... the west thought they were clever with their telescoped ammo concept, well this is just the same but actually more so.... the HE grenade is huge on the HE round with a small propellent stub to loft the bomb to the target. The APFSDS round in comparison replaces the entire HE grenade with propellent plus a sabot to position the penetrator which is a long narrow metal dart of very low drag but high density for optimum penetration of any target.

    If you are a fan of World of Tanks... there are not many tanks with APFSDS ammo I suspect, because APFSDS rounds are not deflected like full calibre rounds are.

    Western armchair experts claim the 17 pounder British gun was the best gun of the war, and its penetration performance was impressive, but there were a couple of problems with it... first of all the gun was bigger than the gun the tank was designed for and it was actually worse than normal... which is a problem, but most important the APFSDS round was terribly inaccurate and couldn't hit a target beyond about 500m so the targets it could penetrate by hitting them the original gun could also penetrate from within 500m too... on paper it was brilliant... in actual use not so much.

    BTW the biggest problem for the Soviets at the start of WWII was lack of anti armour ammo for all units... tank units, towed anti gun units, artillery units... fortunately for them their 76.2mm artillery piece was a high velocity gun and had excellent performance against enemy tanks even with standard rounds... the Germans used as many as they could capture.

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

    The grenade launcher in this case has an autoloader and will be firing grenades at about 200 rounds per minute or faster. Each 57mm grenade is supposed to have the HE power of about 6kgs or 7kgs of HE... because that is how much each HE projectile weighs...

    You say it is pointless to arm the BMPs to fight tanks... so what you are saying is that you are hunting enemy IFVs and APCS and other light vehicles... sorry hunting is the wrong term... you will be delivering and transporting a group of troops and defending them in position from enemy IFVs and APCs and other threats.

    When hunting rabbits you can use a .22lr or you can use a .223 high velocity round... the difference is price and size... a .22lr rifle is small and compact and probably effective out to 80m or so against rabbits... you can fit a box of 50 rounds in the palm of your hand and normally buy the ammo in bricks of 500 rounds (10 boxes of 50 rounds). 223 is a centre fire round and is much larger and much more powerful. You could shoot rabbits out to 150m or more, but the ammo is much more expensive you probably would be carrying about 300-400 rounds at the most when you go rabbit hunting in Central Otago (worst case scenario). With .22lr you could probably take four bricks for 2,000 rounds rather easily in a fraction of the space and the cost of the .223 ammo.

    The point is that the rabbit wont notice the difference... both types of ammo will kill them cleanly with a good shot, and leave a lingering slow painful death if you wing them and they get away.

    The .22lr is a 35-40 grain bullet at about the speed of sound... so about 320m/s, the 223 is a 50-60 grain bullet at about 900m/s... the extra velocity means extra range and you could also shoot people with it if you wanted to, but we are talking about small game targets.

    You are saying the 223 is the best choice, but I am saying the 22lr is a more suitable round... smaller lighter and cheaper... you can carry rather more ammo for the same weight and capacity even though they are the same calibre and their effect on target is close enough to be the same effectively.

    What has swung it more in my opinion is that the surprise... the new .17 high velocity rimfire rounds. Now I will agree these rounds are not as cheap as .22lr, but they effectively replicate the flat shooting range of the .223 but with a fraction of the volume or space they take up in your backpack.

    There would also be .22 wmr magnum rounds for extra range if you wanted it too with a compact round though again not so cheap as 22lr.

    When you are shooting animals you decide on the bullet first. You choose the bullet to kill the target, and then you decide the round best suited to deliver that bullet. You use the smallest cheapest bullet for the kill because anything more is a waste... you might go out shooting rabbits with a 308 once, but shooting rabbits every day for years, you use a .22lr or whatever gets the job done.

    Where you shoot you might not be able to get close so to shoot them at 150m you need a bigger round... but that just means you will not shoot as much or as long...

    What I am trying to say is that a smaller lower recoil gun with the best HE projectile and an anti armour capability is the sort of thing the Soviet Union would have loved at the start of WWII... as would have any country... with a round that will penetrate any Panzer 1,2,3, or 4 means the only effective tank would be the Panther and Tiger and they made less than 10,000 of those through the whole war and used them on both fronts.

    I would suspect an APFSDS round in this 57mm calibre could penetrate 200mm or more armour out to 2km which would mean it would be effective against most standard German or allied tanks to that range.

    Being a 57mm round it would be much smaller and lighter than standard ammo for the T-34... but critically this is an automatic weapon so rather than punching one hole it could punch half a dozen rapidly into any tank or armoured vehicle so its effect would be multiplied...
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2986
    Points : 2986
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Hole on Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:39 am

    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... dunno
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 976
    Points : 1143
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:47 pm


    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.

    It is important to notice that ,at today, western ATGM infantry squads (that lack systems such as Корнет-Д) will be heavily outranged by the 57mm АПГБ not only when equiped with theirs typical anti tank missiles like FGM-148 or Spike MR but also with perspective products such as MMP.


    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


    What is this, a joke ?

    Do you believe that in an open conflict (not a COIN operation) any LAV armed with a 30mm autocannon -that only for precision will not penetrate any spot of the frontal projectjon of a Курганец even at only few meters of distance - will ever come within its effective gun engagement range close to a Курганец without being reduced to an pile of twisted and burning metal several km before first by missiles and ,after, by salvo of 3БМ76 ?

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

    APS usually are set to not activate with salvo of medium caliber rounds ,to prevent the system to be depleted by a single enemy autocannon's burst.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:34 pm

    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.
    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.

    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... dunno
    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

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Israel11
    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Israel12
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:44 pm

    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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:25 pm

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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... 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.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:10 pm

    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.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Franch10

    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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 26, 2020 1:43 am

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

    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 travelling are protected from stray gunfire and fragments.

    It is also a comms centre 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.

    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 defence vehicles too...

    I really don't think lack of fire power will be a problem.

    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... ie pre T-72 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 calibre weapons, but it is not the same thing really and in terms of rounds carried would actually be worse than the 57mm HC.

    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 HATO 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.

    Over its service life they can make lots of changes to improve performance.... like making the barrel longer or improving the power of the propellent or replacing the dart penetrator with something that includes a scramjet 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 propellent case but replacing that enormous HE shell with a Sabot and a dart and propellent should achieve useful velocities...
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Sun Apr 26, 2020 11:32 pm

    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. Wink
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 27, 2020 3:21 am

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

    Yes, I do mean the T-15... the point is that the Russian Army will have different forces with different vehicles for different roles.

    For open high mobility roles on flat open country the most widely used forces will probably be Boomerang and wheeled because they are highly mobile and cheap to buy and operate.

    At 25 tons the Boomerang is 11 tons heavier than the BTR-80 family and much of that is brand new armour including ceramics as well as NERA and APS systems in addition with much better situational awareness and communications.

    The next step up is the Kurganets which will have better protection but would be a similar weight.. both Boomerang and Kurganets are amphibious and well armoured and armed.

    The top step is the Armata vehicle in the 45 ton class with NERA and APS and just really heavy armour for combat against enemies well equipped with RPGs and armour in urban areas or forests or rough country like hedgerows where enemy forces can get close...

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

    They are getting electronic, sensor, communication, and fire power upgrades, but there is no point trying to turn a BTR-80 into a Boomerang because the added armour would mean it needs a new engine and transmission and a new layout and eventually what you are making is a Boomerang.

    Better to work on the new vehicles to get them as good as you can get them and introduce some of the things to the older vehicles like comms and optics and weapons and sensors... the biggest danger to a BTR-80 is an RPG or ATGM... well APS systems and NERA can help with that but the ultimate solution is Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata.

    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.

    In the current forces the IFVs have less protection than the MBTs but more than the APCs. In the new vehicle family forces all vehicles will have a similar level of protection and mobility...

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

    If you take out the foot soldiers you have no foot soldiers to support.

    The weapons on the BMP are to support the foot soldiers, if you want a fire power support vehicle to support a tank attack then what you want is a BMPT which is something different.

    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,

    Because foot soldiers can operate in any terrain and inside buildings and bunkers where vehicles cannot operate. Doctrine already says if it is too lethal for infantry to exit vehicles then instead of BMPs that tanks would operate with BMPTs instead. Totally untested theoretical idea... perhaps they could try it out in Syria maybe but I don't know how relevant they would be against a better equipped enemy.

    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.

    They are not supposed to operate on the front line... they deliver their troops and then move back a bit and as their troops move forward they provide fire support... they are not supposed to go toe to toe with enemy tanks and the infantry should protect them from anti armour weapons and use their own anti armour weapons to stop enemy IFVs and MBTs getting close to their transport...

    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.

    So that would mean they are even less well protected because the BTRs have less armour and less fire power than the BMPs...

    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.

    Don't you realise you have described the first model BMPT? The main difference is that instead of rear mounted gun turrets they had bow mounted weapons...

    [quote]That’s not the vehicle commander job, for that they have recon platoon and they will give the info to the main commander.
    ['quote]

    I would suspect vehicle commanders and platoon commanders will be able to mark targets on their maps and be able to call in some sort of support... from the vehicle or other vehicles in the force or support elements.

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

    ??? You do understand that their new vehicle families will mean the tanks and the BMPs will be the same vehicles with the same armour levels...

    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.

    So you are taking infantry out of the more heavily armoured BMPs and putting them in the lighter BTRs to make them safer?

    Again... in the new vehicle familes the BTR and BMP will be the same vehicle... the only difference will be the turret and armament.

    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.

    Against a HATO force that is well equipped with anti armour weapons the tanks and the BMPTs might attack first, but probably artillery and attack helicopters will soften the targets first. Amusing you think BMPs can't carry troops but BTRs should... right now the BTRs are less well armoured than BMPs... and with the new vehicle types they will have the same level of armour.

    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.

    You are not listening.

    The Russians have made an APFSDS round for their LC 57mm grenade launcher round so you can bet your ass they will have an APFSDS round for their HC 57mm round too. The reason they never had one before is because as I explained it was an anti aircraft round so they never needed to penetrate that much armour before, plus it would have a totally different trajectory to the standard HE and AP rounds which would make it uselessly inaccurate.

    There is nothing magic about 60mm, a 57mm round based on the S-60 round will be good enough... it is a round developed just after WWII to replace the old 37mm AA gun round used during WWII for AA use. The round they developed is the 57 x 348mmSR that was widely used for a while as an AA round in the Soviet Union and China and other countries. They could just as easily have decided to use the rather more powerful 57 x 480mm anti tank 57mm gun used during WWII but they wanted an AA gun and the 57 x 348mm round met their needs and is still used around the place by some countries and there is a lot more ammo available around the place for it for low cost use against soft ground or air targets.

    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.

    Why does it matter? When enemy armour is expected or enemy air power or both then vehicles with the 57mm HC guns will be used in greater numbers because their HC guns will be more useful against aerial targets and heavier armour.

    The LC 57mm gun will be useful against a variety of targets including armoured, but they wont be hunting tanks. An APFSDS round from the HC 57mm gun might exceed the performance of the Israeli 60mm round... who knows... propellent technology and penetrator design has improved since the 1970s.

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

    I suspect the reason it didn't succeed was because the 105mm gun can penetrate such targets and has a much more effective HE round while only taking up a little bit more space...

    The best solution is a light vehicle with a full power gun that can take on any armour it comes across like a Sprut or a Boomerang or Kurganets with a 125mm gun.

    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.

    Is that the problem? Do you think they made an APFSDS round for the grenade launcher but not the BMP HC gun?

    They will have made APFSDS rounds for both... it is the one for the grenade launcher that is the surprise to be honest.

    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.


    This is what I am talking about. The old S-60 was an AA gun so they designed HE Frag and APHE rounds for it that were ballistically identical for reasons we have already discussed. The use of this gun in a BMP type vehicle means they need new ammo types... technology has improved in the late 1940s and the requirements have changed.... you can bet there are all new rounds for the gun including a HE round with a much heavier HE filling which will mean probably lower muzzle velocity... but with modern fire control systems and ballistic computers it does not have to be super high velocity to be effective against air targets... using air burst technology makes it vastly more effective. They will have a new APFSDS round and a guided round with a missile in the shell case and probably a new APHE for use against bunkers and lighter armoured vehicles too...

    Improved plastic driving bands, aerodynamic shapes for projectiles, new lighter materials for projectiles, better explosives, more modern and reliable and effective fuses, and of course new propellents and sabot design should make the new ammo vastly more powerful and useful than the old stuff... and probably much more accurate too.

    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 is OK... it will also be carrying Kornet missiles to penetrate those... its primary job is supporting troops... it has anti armour missiles to destroy armour but it is not an anti tank vehicle... they have tanks and ATGM carriers for that job... and their BMPs now have 8 mini missiles and 4 Kornet missiles plus half the vehicles will probably have high velocity 57 x 348mm calibre guns to take on those IFVs...

    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.

    Well the Russians have applied the idea to a grenade launcher round and seem to have been rather clever about it. The 57mm grenade launcher is probably rather heavy for a grenade launcher with a much higher pressure barrel capacity than most, but the result is clever and versatile.

    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.

    Because they use 100mm round but they don't use 105mm rounds... that is like asking why Israel developed a 60mm round when they could have used the Russian 57mm round instead.

    I doubt Israel would buy a Russian product anyway... the Americans would go crazy and might drop their unconditional support... for a vehicle using a 105mm gun they could probably make themselves.
    avatar
    AJ-47

    Posts : 185
    Points : 188
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:49 pm

    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.

    I would start with the BMP-3 and transform it to a BMPT concept, it’s mean no foot soldiers, I’ll replace the Bakhcha-U turret with the AU-220M turret with 57mm HC gun; I’ll mount 2 ATGM on one side of the turret and 14.5mm HMG on the other side. On top of the turret I’ll mount a RCWS with GSh-23 gun and 7.62 MG. In the picture below we can see this arrangement on top of T-64.

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Russia23
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25338
    Points : 25884
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:30 am

    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.

    The introduction of the vehicle families will certainly not happen over night... we are talking about 26-27 different vehicle types/roles needed, but the huge positive is that the three families will all use those 26-27 different vehicle types too, so for instance the 57mm HC equipped BMP turret will be the same for the four vehicle families.... armata, kurganets, boomerang, and typhoon. I think the Typhoon family will be a light recon like family used in COIN type ops or high mobility ops and might not include all 26-27 different platform types... being a four and six wheel light vehicle family it probably wont have MBT type models or artillery type platforms and might carry lighter air defence options like one vehicle with a 2S38 turret (57mm AA gun) and perhaps the missile vehicle might have Pine or 9M100 missiles instead of Pantsir or TOR.

    The wheeled vehicles will probably be ready first being much cheaper to buy and to operate and to move around... they have made some design changes so serial production might need to wait to ensure the tests go as expected and there are no other problems, but in terms of production the Boomerang and Typhoon should be the quickest and easiest to mass produce.

    [qutoe]I would start with the BMP-3 and transform it to a BMPT concept, it’s mean no foot soldiers, I’ll replace the Bakhcha-U turret with the AU-220M turret with 57mm HC gun; I’ll mount 2 ATGM on one side of the turret and 14.5mm HMG on the other side. On top of the turret I’ll mount a RCWS with GSh-23 gun and 7.62 MG. In the picture below we can see this arrangement on top of T-64.[/quote]

    The core of the BMPT is that it is a tank support vehicle that operates together side by side with tanks so it needs tank level protection to make sense.

    I would also suggest you are not understanding the concept... if this vehicle is going to be operating with tanks then anti armour performance is not that important... being able to take out softer targets becomes more important... why do you think high velocity 57mm rounds would be needed within a group of tanks with much higher velocity 125mm guns? It makes more sense to arm the BMPT with the 57mm LC grenade launcher instead.

    If you want a light vehicle like the Israelis were going for and Chile too, then I would probably modify a T-72 with a high velocity 57mm HC gun in the Armata turret replacing the 125mm gun. On the back of the turret I would mount two 40mm grenade launchers similar to the mounts on the upgraded BMP-2s where they are fixed pointing in the same direction as the main gun but can elevate independently and have their ammo in the rear turret bustle area... 6-700 rounds each weapon.

    I would probably add the twin barrel 23mm gun from the Hind for area targets and soft targets...

    One of the competing designs for the old BMPT competition had side firing machine guns level with the back of the turret with a crew position there to operate them which I quite liked the idea of...

    Sponsored content

    Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2 - Page 27 Empty Re: Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:14 am