BMP-3 in Russian Army

The 100mm rifled gun shell is extremely inaccurate and has a very long flight time.

But according to the British it is a rifled weapon which means it must be super accurate.

It does not have to be a laser beam, for use against enemy armour and hard targets they have laser guided missiles and armour piercing 30mm cannon rounds...

Overpressure is fictional.

Of course it is... that is why the HE versions of most Russian and Soviet ATGMs use thermobaric warheads...

Also its confirmed the Russians are producing UBR-8 APFSDS rounds, but it would be really nice to know if russian IFVs have access to it. During the soviet era 30mm APDS rounds were only available to tunguskas and naval CIWS cannons.

WOW... your information is terribly inaccurate.

The 2A42 and 2A72 would be the only cannon that could use APDS and APFSDS rounds in the Russian or Soviet military because they use dual belt feeds for ammunition. If you loaded their CIWS gatling guns or the twin barrel 2A38M cannon of the Tunguska and late model Pantsir then they could ONLY fire APDS or APFSDS rounds in a single belt

With a 2A42 or 2A72 cannon as used on the BMP-2 (42) and BMP-3 and early Pantsir (72) there were separate feeds for AP of any type or HE rounds... two feeds so they could have both loaded and a switch that allowed you to switch between the different rounds.

When loaded with APDS which has a sabot and is a smaller calibre heavy slug of metal that moves faster than the larger calibre API rounds the trajectory is totally different from the HEI so when you select the APDS you get the aiming crosshairs for that rounds trajectory and when you fire a burst at a target at a specific range with that range set then all rounds go to point of aim.

If you had a mixed belt of APDS and HEI on a Tunguska or AK630 there would be no time to change the sights between the different rounds being fired so one type of round would hit the target and the rest of the rounds would miss by miles.

For armoured vehicles using 2A42 and 2A72 cannon you can fire any type of round you like, but for a 30mm cannon like the GSh-301 in their fighter aircraft... or even the 2A42 in an attack helicopter like the Hokum or Havoc then you can't use APDS or APFSDS rounds because the sabots get sucked into the engine intakes and make the helicopters crash, or with guns on a continuous mixed belt they don't go to point of aim and are useless...

Another factor is that the different branches of the Soviet and Russian military had different requirements and standards and so the percussion fired 30x165mm rounds for their AFVs is not compatible with their aircraft or naval weapons... for instance the Air Force uses a special cargo round that explodes in mid air and sends a shower of small fragments at a fixed range for shooting at infantry or soft targets on the ground that 30mm rounds would be over kill for.

These rounds are not the same as the new command detonation airburst rounds, and exploded at between 1,1 and 1.8km from the muzzle.

For rounds fired by aircraft they had models with plastic driving bands... HEI, APT, and CC (cargo carrying) all with similar weights and muzzle velocities so they all hit to the same point of aim when loaded at random on a single belt.

It is funny you say they have APDS and APFSDS rounds for their navy guns because AFAIK they only have HEI and HEIT... the intention being to destroy incoming missiles by setting off their warheads and explosive incendiary rounds are better for that than AP rounds are.

Why didnt they add textolite or any ceramics sandwitched between the aluminum plates?

When it entered service they probably didn't think it needed that?

ERA is easier and cheaper to add when better protection is required.

Weight is important with Amphibious vehicles...

Another important issue with amphibious vehicles is balance... it was the weight of the frontal armour on the BMP-3 that required the location of the engine to be moved to the rear. The BMP and BMP-2 both had front mounted engines, but the BMP-3 had to have a rear mounted engine to offset the weight of the frontal armour and the heavy turret with the heavy armament.

A vehicle that floats rather well can sink very easily if it rolls or a wave hits it at the wrong time... and when they flood with water, they sink like a rock... and the chances of getting out with all your equipment and body armour... even if you get clear of the vehicle the water might be a dozen metres deep or more... no chance to reach the surface.

ALAMO wrote:What the hell do you even talk about?
2A70 is a specialized weapon, constructed to increase firepower against soft targets, originally up to 4km envelope. That was not some random number, but something constructed in the purpose of outranging the Dragon, Tow, Hot and Milan.
With the flight speed of 350m/s for 3UOF19, it does not only outrange all the most popular ATGM systems in the west but outruns them either.
Even low speed/drag 100mm is about 20x more powerful than 30mm HE ammo, and about 25x more powerful than any modern 25mm ammo you can spot on western IFVs.  
It is not designed to defeat armor, another way than with ATGMs. Its ammo package consists of 3UOF17 (19 later on) and Bastion only.  
It is a supportive weapon, and with its rather big drum magazine and up to 12 shots per minute it is a very capable support&supress system.
Now with the Bakcha module, they introduced both fire range increase, almost doubling it, and added a new round 3UOF19-1 with a proximity fuse.
"During Soviet era" 30x165 ammo used to be vastly produced not only in the USSR, but Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. AP-T was popular enough, that even Poland has it, using 30 or so BMP-2s only. Hell, APDS-T round was here either.

Lyle6 claimed that its irrelevant if the 2A72 and 2A42 have APDS or APFSDS rounds because the 100mm HE round is better than them at destroying AFVs. I never doubted its effectiveness against soft or static targets.  

lyle6 wrote:
The BMP-3 has a 100 mm rifled gun. A direct hit with a 100 HE shell would utterly demolish any non-tank based IFV anywhere you can hit it.

ALAMO wrote:Sure he did, because a direct hit with 3UOF19/19 or 9M117 will tear apart any IFV existing.

So a low velocity HE howitzer is just fine for destroying vehicles.     Notice how none of you adressed accuracy issues. Its idiotic that youre pretending that a 360m/s shell is accurate at long ranges(800m+) against AFVs. Against troops and bunkers yes, but not IFVs. You cannot just rely on blast effect. "Bbbbut it has an ATGM" is irrelevant. You and lyle6 are claiming with a straight face that a low velocity unguided HE shell is better than a 30mm autocannon with APFSDS at destroying IFVs. An ATGM is far too valuable to be used on an IFV.


Hell, why doesnt the Russian army simply stop producing APFSDS rounds for any cannon since they can rely on HE and gun launched ATGMs? Why do they even have any high velocity cannon on tanks and IFVs when HE and ATGMs are just so sufficient? 360m/s is absolutely enough, right?

Its ridiculous how  me mentioning a limit of capability of the 2A70 triggers you so much that you started  pretending like its some anti-everything miracle weapon(not counting ATGMs, since they dont need to be fired from the 2A70, and quadpacked kornets are more effective anyway).
It seems like the engineers behind the BMP-2 were idots. They shouldve just put a bigger low velocity cannon on a BMP-1. They did that but it didnt win the competion. I guess the soviet army was full of idiots then, since they wanted an autocannon with anti-armor capabilities.

It really seems like you both have been playing too much war thunder where you shoot 90% at the time at less than 300m, that you dont care about long range accuracy at all, as well as believing HE rounds are very powerful because the game models HE in a retarded way.

And both 2A42 and 2A72 have both AP-T and APDS-T rounds.
There is nothing more to talk about.

But there is. Its important to know if Russian IFVs have access to large amounts of APFSDS shells, since APDS and especially AP-T have insufficient penetration.
the AP-t rounds penetrate in the ballpark of 30-40mm at 1000m at 90 degrees. The APDS can epenrate 30mm at 60 degrees from 1000m. Modern NATO IFVs like the lynx, KF-41, CV90 have far more RHA protection than that. This isnt 1980 where NATO has thin skinned AFVs.  For the 30mm gun to stay relevant, UBR-11 rounds must be produced in large quantities.

The 100mm gun has a small range and the gun need to be elevated toward the sky to fire at max range which sucks when trying to be precise.

You can test it in War Thunder.

The ATGM is decent but costly. I rather have a high velocity gun to fire precisly HE rounds than atgm because HE will be better every time unless you are facing a tank for which HEAT is needed.

The 2A70 is a very effective weapon for antinfantry tasks and it allows ATGMs to be hidden in the hull, but 30mm APFSDS rounds are still needed for destroying everything short of a tank in a cost-effective way.

IMO an autoloaded 85-76mm gun firing at 12-40 rpm would be highly effective on an AFV the size of a T-15. Its big enough for powerful air busting HE rounds, small enough for very rapid fire, capable of firing powerful gun launched top attack ATGMs, and has the capability of firing devastating APFSDS with much larger range than the 57mm or 30mm APFSDS. It would also be compact enough so there would be room for infantry inside the IFV.

Isos wrote:The 100mm gun has a small range and the gun need to be elevated toward the sky to fire at max range which sucks when trying to be precise.

You can test it in War Thunder.

The fire control system automatically imposes the necessary super elevation and lead after you lase the target - you're not eyeballing anything.

Also, what does the game mechanics of a vidya have to do with the FCS of the BMP-3 in reality?

Isos wrote:
The ATGM is decent but costly. I rather have a high velocity gun to fire precisly HE rounds than atgm because HE will be better every time unless you are facing a tank for which HEAT is needed.

Better in what way? The low velocity rifled 100 mm gun is nearly 1/5 the weight of the high velocity smoothbore 100 mm one, a pretty big difference for a vehicle that's hovering at ~ 20 t. If you include all the auxiliary fire control to handle the massively increased recoil the weight and volume requirements balloon even further. Shells with higher velocities also tend to have thicker walls which reduces the amount of people killing fragmentation available (unless you cheat by using pre-formed fragments).

limb wrote:
An ATGM is far too valuable to be used on an IFV.

Nonsense. Even discounting the fact that modern IFVs are about as expensive as tanks, most ATGMs are shot against infantry positions as ad hoc artillery anyway, your value judgement notwithstanding.

limb wrote:
Hell, why doesnt the Russian army simply stop producing APFSDS rounds for any cannon since they can rely on HE and gun launched ATGMs? Why do they even have any high velocity cannon on tanks and IFVs when HE and ATGMs are just so sufficient? 360m/s is absolutely enough, right?

Why don't you stop show boating against strawmen first?

limb wrote:
the AP-t rounds penetrate in the ballpark of 30-40mm at 1000m at 90 degrees. The APDS can epenrate 30mm at 60 degrees from 1000m. Modern NATO IFVs like the lynx, KF-41, CV90 have far more RHA protection than that. This isnt 1980 where NATO has thin skinned AFVs.  For the 30mm gun to stay relevant, UBR-11 rounds must be produced in large quantities.

Or they can just use the ATGMs like normal soldiers.

limb wrote:
IMO an autoloaded 85-76mm gun firing at 12-40 rpm would be highly effective on an AFV the size of a T-15. Its big enough for powerful air busting HE rounds, small enough for very rapid fire, capable of firing powerful gun launched top attack ATGMs, and has the capability of firing devastating APFSDS with much larger range than the 57mm or 30mm APFSDS. It would also be compact enough so there would be room for infantry inside the IFV.

Its not:

There's 70 76 mm rounds in that carousel. The AU-220M carries 80 57 mm rounds all within the self-contained firing module. Unless you can find midgets to for dismounts, there's no way you're fitting a 76 mm gun, accoutrements, and consumables and personnel even within the cavernous T-15 hull.

Lyle6 claimed that its irrelevant if the 2A72 and 2A42 have APDS or APFSDS rounds because the 100mm HE round is better than them at destroying AFVs. I never doubted its effectiveness against soft or static targets.

The BMP-3 has a range of different weapons each suited to engage different targets... the 30mm cannon with armour piercing rounds is intended for engaging hard targets like light armoured vehicles... the current model has a new fire control system and newer ammunition for all the weapons so the 4km range 100mm HE rounds are replaced with 7km range 100mm HE rounds, the missile is upgraded but it is a laser beam riding missile that is cheaper than most tank fired western rounds. The 30mm rounds are upgraded too with the effective range of the HEI rounds increased from 2.5km to 4km with the ballistic computer and auto target tracking system as part of the fire control system.

Sure he did, because a direct hit with 3UOF19/19 or 9M117 will tear apart any IFV existing.

It would certainly damage optics, but considering the 30mm cannon is there and can be immediately fired I would think it would not be the first choice.

Obviously if the target is a Bradley and that Bradley had just fired a TOW at you then lobbing a 100mm round at them would certainly be a useful response... quickly followed by a move behind cover... the 100mm round would sever the wire guiding the TOW and it should be an easy shot to the 4km range of the TOW wire... not to mention it would shatter the optics as well, but the whole point of carrying 8 guided missiles is to engage enemy IFVs... they are not intended for tanks... if a BMP-3 finds itself engaged with a tank... that means pop smoke and run away.

And that would go double for the Bradley because sitting still for 20 seconds guiding a TOW at a target armed with a 125mm gun firing APFSDS rounds at 1.8km/s while on the move is a recipe for a dead US BMP.

And both 2A42 and 2A72 have both AP-T and APDS-T rounds.
There is nothing more to talk about.

If we look at the replacements with the Epoch turret the Kornets are for shooting at tanks or drones, and the Bulat is for enemy IFVs (8 ready to fire... similar to the 8 missiles the BMP-3 carries)... but the Epoch turret also has a 57mm grenade launcher with an APFSDS round too that should deal with most BMPs... and even tanks from the side and rear.

The 100mm gun has a small range and the gun need to be elevated toward the sky to fire at max range which sucks when trying to be precise.

You can test it in War Thunder.

You do appreciate War Thunder is not real in the sense that the BMP-3 has an auto target tracker and laser range finder and ballistics computer that would generate a point of aim which you would place on the target and then fire with reasonable certainty of a direct hit most of the time.

The ATGM is decent but costly. I rather have a high velocity gun to fire precisly HE rounds than atgm because HE will be better every time unless you are facing a tank for which HEAT is needed.

Actually their missiles are rather cheap laser beam riders that are very affordable and hard to stop.

High velocity for HE is a problem... the amount of propellent needed to get HE which is large and bulky (ie not very dense) is enormous which makes the entire round enormous too.

The whole idea behind telescopic cased ammo is that HE you want most of the volume or available space to be bomb because a heavier HE round is a more effective round and the velocity it arrives at is meaningless... a 57mm HE shell arriving at 1,000m/s wont do much to an Abrams, but a 250kg IED that is stationary and the Abrams rolls over it would be devastating. With APFSDS rounds it is length and speed.

Their 57mm grenade round is a perfect example where the HE bomb is most of the case length is HE projectile with a small stub propellent case to deliver it to the target. The APFSDS round has a shell case the full length of the round but the projectile is a very long narrow dart with a sabot at the nose and filled with enormous amounts of propellent that results in a bigger heavier and longer metal dart and more propellent than you could fit in three 30 x 165mm cannon shell cases... meaning it will be much more effective against heavier armour.

You can test it in War Thunder.

That was the original BMP-3... it had the old laser range finder box on the main gun and used the old 4km range 100mm rounds so of course they will be lofted.... and they still seemed to go on target by the way.

The newer ammo is higher pressure and rather more powerful projectiles that have a much larger lethal zone for troops in the open.


When facing any type of armoured vehicle that isn't a light armoured vehicle you use HEAT warheads... and if it is at range and moving then a guided missile is always better than the most accurate gun.

So a low velocity HE howitzer is just fine for destroying vehicles. clown Laughing Notice how none of you adressed accuracy issues. Its idiotic that youre pretending that a 360m/s shell is accurate at long ranges(800m+) against AFVs.

The 100mm gun with HE rounds was never intended for shooting at armoured vehicles, that is why 8 guided missiles are carried and the armour piercing 30mm cannon shells are carried.

An ATGM is far too valuable to be used on an IFV.

The ATGMs are carried specifically for use against IFVs... that is their purpose... the BMP-3 is not intended to go up against enemy tanks.

Hell, why doesnt the Russian army simply stop producing APFSDS rounds for any cannon since they can rely on HE and gun launched ATGMs? Why do they even have any high velocity cannon on tanks and IFVs when HE and ATGMs are just so sufficient? 360m/s is absolutely enough, right?

360m/s is for the old 4km range ammo. The BMP-3 can load a HE round in 3 seconds but can also load a missile in 6 seconds, which means if the enemy target is within 2km it can fire its 30mm cannon, but if the enemy vehicle is more than 5.5km away the only weapon it can use is a HE round, but fortunately the target likely would not have any weapons that could engage the BMP-3 from that range either.

Its ridiculous how me mentioning a limit of capability of the 2A70 triggers you so much that you started pretending like its some anti-everything miracle weapon(not counting ATGMs, since they dont need to be fired from the 2A70, and quadpacked kornets are more effective anyway).

It is actually a very capable and useful and versatile weapon, but as enemy armour on their BMPs are getting to thick for even 30 x165mm APFSDS then they needed to upgrade and using HEAT rounds for their 100mm gun is an option, the solution they seem to be going for is a 57mm grenade launcher able to fire much more powerful APFSDS rounds than could be loaded into a 30mm shell case.

It seems like the engineers behind the BMP-2 were idots. They shouldve just put a bigger low velocity cannon on a BMP-1.

Actually the BMP-2 was used together with BMPs because their different weapons tended to compliment each other.

Some targets a 30mm cannon was best for, but sometimes a heavier HE round was required leading to the BMP remaining in service long after it should have been replaced by the BMP-2. The BMP-3 reflected that HE fire power and auto cannon fire power are different and complimentary.

They did that but it didnt win the competion. I guess the soviet army was full of idiots then, since they wanted an autocannon with anti-armor capabilities.

The 73mm gun of the BMP was required because the AT-3 ATGM couldn't hit targets within 300m so it needed a main gun that could deal with enemy armour including MBTs out to about 800m... for which the 73mm gun was excellent.

When the BMP-2 was being developed the AT-4 and AT-5 missiles had minimum ranges of about 25m so it didn't need a main gun with the ability to defeat heavy armour.

It really seems like you both have been playing too much war thunder where you shoot 90% at the time at less than 300m, that you dont care about long range accuracy at all, as well as believing HE rounds are very powerful because the game models HE in a retarded way.

The fire control systems on these vehicles are not accurately modelled so a shot at extreme ranges would still be very accurate, but obviously at more than 2km range against modern enemy BMPs a missile would be required simply for the penetration that the 30mm rounds would lack at that distance.

Modern NATO IFVs like the lynx, KF-41, CV90 have far more RHA protection than that. This isnt 1980 where NATO has thin skinned AFVs. For the 30mm gun to stay relevant, UBR-11 rounds must be produced in large quantities.

HATO heavy BMPs will be engaged with missiles from a BMP-3 and a BMP-2 and upgraded BMPs. For new generation turrets that would be 57mm grenade launchers with APFSDS rounds and Bulat missiles.

The 2A70 is a very effective weapon for antinfantry tasks and it allows ATGMs to be hidden in the hull, but 30mm APFSDS rounds are still needed for destroying everything short of a tank in a cost-effective way.

True, but when the APFSDS from the 30mm cannon is most effective is within 1.5km, so using the missiles is actually safer.

IMO an autoloaded 85-76mm gun firing at 12-40 rpm would be highly effective on an AFV the size of a T-15.

Such rounds would be enormous so you would get less than 2 minutes worth of firing before needing to reload.

85-76mm is in the middle ground... not as much HE as the 100mm gun but taking up rather more space than a 57mm grenade launcher that has a HE round the size and power of an 85-76mm round.

Its big enough for powerful air busting HE rounds, small enough for very rapid fire, capable of firing powerful gun launched top attack ATGMs, and has the capability of firing devastating APFSDS with much larger range than the 57mm or 30mm APFSDS.

If its rate of fire is high then why would each round need to be powerful?

The 57mm grenade launcher already has an excellent APFSDS round.

It would also be compact enough so there would be room for infantry inside the IFV.

No.... that is the point.... making it powerful and increasing the calibre means it wont be compact at all.

The 73mm gun on the BMP was simply a recoilless rifle with the rear end closed off... it is essentially an SPG-9 but needing less propellent because it is a gun launcher rather than an open tube launcher... it looks like a super RPG-7 rocket.

The 100mm gun of the BMP-3 was specifically designed the 100mm round is almost all projectile with a tiny stub shell... it is an incredibly efficient and effective way of delivering HE to a target.

It is not ideal for destroying enemy armour but lets be clear there are very different types of armour...

There are APCs and light vehicles not intended for anything but stopping small arms fire and artillery fragments... even HMGs will penetrate... this is the sort of vehicle a 100mm HE round is devastating against... unarmoured humvees and Strykers and MRAPs the like.

The heavier BMP type vehicles intended for near front line combat would be safe from HE rounds from most sources though even a direct hit from a 240mm mortar can ruin any day.

The BMP-3 carried missiles and APFSDS rounds to deal with heavier enemy armour that does not include tanks because it would run away from tanks... if it was meant to fight tanks then it would have 8.5km range Kornet missiles instead of 5.5km range Arkan missiles.

Their next gen BMPs will have a 57mm grenade launcher with a bomb that is not as powerful as the 100mm guns bomb, but might have a similar max range of about 6km. The 57mm grenade is enormous and there is an APFSDS version that used the large volume of the HE round for a small calibre rather long APFSDS penetrator dart and lots of propellent to make it go much faster than the 30x165mm case of the 2A42 or 2A72 cannons can manage... and if that fails then it will have four Kornet missiles and 8 Bulat missiles ready to go... especially if the target is moving and at long range.

2A70 of the early models has some 20m of CEP at the maximal 4000m shooting distance,

And the laser range finder and laser beam for the beam riding missile mounted on top of the cannon barrel clearly shows a very early BMP-3 model.

The Ministry of Defense approved the modernization of the B-19 combat vehicle with the Epoch module

The Russian Ministry of Defense has approved a program for the modernization and testing of B-19 infantry fighting vehicles. The BMP platoon was tested in September this year as part of the Zapad-2021 exercise. Based on their results, the defense department decided to continue promising work.

The machine was created on the basis of the time-tested BMP-3. Instead of two twin cannons, the main caliber of the B-19 was the Epoch remote module equipped with a 57-millimeter assault rifle, as well as several types of guided missiles.

Sources in the Ministry of Defense told Izvestia that the B-19 infantry fighting vehicle was recognized as promising based on the results of the Zapad-2021 exercise. A platoon of promising "super-infantry fighting vehicles" took part in the maneuvers, which completed all the assigned tasks. Now it is necessary to eliminate the identified shortcomings, as well as to carry out a partial modernization of the machines, after which the new BMP will continue testing.

According to the work schedule (available to Izvestia), the modernization should be completed at the end of the year. It will require about 26.5 million rubles. In the course of work, the B-19 will be updated communication and control systems, as well as the chassis.

For the first time, the BMP-3 with the Epoch module was discussed at the Army-2017 forum, but then a small plastic model was presented. The combat vehicle embodied in metal was shown later, at Army-2021. In September of this year, the B-19 was spotted during the West-2021 exercise at the Mulino training ground in the Nizhny Novgorod region. According to the scenario, the combat vehicle provided fire support to the defending motorized rifle units. This episode of maneuvers was watched by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

https://iz-ru.translate.goog/1229363/2021-10-01/minoborony-soglasovalo-modernizatciiu-boemashiny-b-19-s-modulem-epokha?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui

Wow... so essentially that means that the 57mm grenade launcher with APFDS rounds will replace the 100mm gun and 30mm cannon respectively and that for moving armoured targets it will use Kornet EM missiles and Bulat missiles.

That means that current BMP-3s will be replaced with B-19s... so that will be very interesting...

The 57mm grenade launcher has been described as having a HE round similar to a 76.2mm gun, so not as powerful as the 100mm gun, but still considerable HE fire power and likely able to carry more rounds. Its APFSDS should allow a much longer and heavier APFSDS penetrator with rather more space for propellant to get it to speeds the 30x165mm cannon shell could achieve.

So better than the 30mm in HE and AP performance and almost as good as 100mm HE potential, but presumably able to carry more rounds than the 100mm gun can carry because of the smaller round size.

GarryB wrote:Wow... so essentially that means that the 57mm grenade launcher with APFDS rounds will replace the 100mm gun and 30mm cannon respectively and that for moving armoured targets it will use Kornet EM missiles and Bulat missiles.

That means that current BMP-3s will be replaced with B-19s... so that will be very interesting...

The 57mm grenade launcher has been described as having a HE round similar to a 76.2mm gun, so not as powerful as the 100mm gun, but still considerable HE fire power and likely able to carry more rounds. Its APFSDS should allow a much longer and heavier APFSDS penetrator with rather more space for propellant to get it to speeds the 30x165mm cannon shell could achieve.

So better than the 30mm in HE and AP performance and almost as good as 100mm HE potential, but presumably able to carry more rounds than the 100mm gun can carry because of the smaller round size.

A grenade launcher firing APFSDS? Are you hearing yourself? By that logic the AGS-30 or NONA should get APFSDS, which is idiotic for obvious reasons.

lyle6 wrote:Why don't you stop show boating against strawmen first?

refer to

The BMP-3 has a 100 mm rifled gun. A direct hit with a 100 HE shell would utterly demolish any non-tank based IFV anywhere you can hit it.

Or they can just use the ATGMs like normal soldiers.

Or they could not waste them, limited ammo and all

Nonsense. Even discounting the fact that modern IFVs are about as expensive as tanks, most ATGMs are shot against infantry positions as ad hoc artillery anyway, your value judgement notwithstanding.

Most ATGMs fired by who? Jihadi inbreds, americans who dont have HE ATGMs, or Russian troops? Also, peer to peer conflict wastes guided ammo faster than it can be produced.

Its not:

There's 70 76 mm rounds in that carousel. The AU-220M carries 80 57 mm rounds all within the self-contained firing module. Unless you can find midgets to for dismounts, there's no way you're fitting a 76 mm gun, accoutrements, and consumables and personnel even within the cavernous T-15 hull.

Wrong:
Zhalo S with 85mm gun with 20-30 rpm

BMT-72 IFV with 125mm gun, with 5 dismounts with a BMP-3 like hatch system.

60mm HVMS in M113 hull with 40-50 rpm

75mm HSTV on the sheridan hull with 50-60 rpm



All hulls carrying 60-125mm guns which are a magnitude smaller and lighter than the T-15's. Apart from the 125mm BMT-72, They easily couldve become IFVs if their hulls were replaced with the armata hull.


Notice that you're omitting that the OTOMATIC is an AA vehicle and it needs so much room for radar and electronics? An automatic cannon without a radar wouldnt require such a massive turret, but thats irrelevant since I explicitly said 12-40 RPM, and automatic rate is 80+rpm.

50+ rounds is enough since with modern FCS very few shots are necessary.  


Also dont you dare diss the OTOMATIC. One of the most perfect non-Russian AFVs ever made. It had absolutely zero design flaws and was ahead of its time.  The derivatsiya copied the concept with a much weaker shell.

That's just the Epoch, then there is the AU-220M series of turrets featuring yet another 57 mm cartridge but necked down and fired from a high pressure gun. Derivatsiya is confirmed to have the variant with the hull ammo stowage, while T-15 is trialing the version without hull protrusion. Compared to the 57 mm on the B-19 it should have a much higher muzzle velocity so greater range for all rounds, flatter trajectory and greater penetration for armor piercing, at the cost of increased volume per round and consequently limited carry of course. Even with the Bulat missiles the Epoch 57 mm seems decidedly inferior -

So why pick the Epoch 57 mm at all?

My guess is they deem the low ballistics and increased ammo capacity of the LSho-57 much useful after all. The flat shooting trajectory is not all sunshine and rainbows - against targets dug in a lot of your rounds would either graze above the target or sink themselves into the dirt. You could use air bursting shells but aside from being a lot more expensive, some rudimentary cover should suffice to shield against the fragmentation, then you're back to square one. On the other hand if you use a weapon with higher arc you could instead lob HE shells on top of enemy trench positions, blasting overhead cover and burying enemy manpower in his hidey hole. Against targets in the open the shells should arrive at an oblique angle so air bursts should be a lot more effective as well.

lyle6 wrote:That's just the Epoch, then there is the AU-220M series of turrets featuring yet another 57 mm cartridge but necked down and fired from a high pressure gun. Derivatsiya is confirmed to have the variant with the hull ammo stowage, while T-15 is trialing the version without hull protrusion. Compared to the 57 mm on the B-19 it should have a much higher muzzle velocity so greater range for all rounds, flatter trajectory and greater penetration for armor piercing, at the cost of increased volume per round and consequently limited carry of course. Even with the Bulat missiles the Epoch 57 mm seems decidedly inferior -  

So why pick the Epoch 57 mm at all?

My guess is they deem the low ballistics and increased ammo capacity of the LSho-57 much useful after all. The flat shooting trajectory is not all sunshine and rainbows - against targets dug in a lot of your rounds would either graze above the target or sink themselves into the dirt. You could use air bursting shells but aside from being a lot more expensive, some rudimentary cover should suffice to shield against the fragmentation, then you're back to square one. On the other hand if you use a weapon with higher arc you could instead lob HE shells on top of enemy trench positions, blasting overhead cover and burying enemy manpower in his hidey hole. Against targets in the open the shells should arrive at an oblique angle so air bursts should be a lot more effective as well.

The LSHO-57's HE rounds are likely far more powerful than the Au220's.

Also weren't there pictures of the APFSDS round for the LSHO-57?

limb wrote:
refer to

You were (over)-generalizing what I've said without context. That being I'm talking about HE against lightly armored targets, note the limiter.

limb wrote:
Or they could not waste them, limited ammo and all

The guided missiles supplement the conventional ammo out at extended ranges where their lack of accuracy would require an inefficient expenditure of rounds just to hit a target - exactly the same set up as the MBTs loadout so there shouldn't be any controversy yet here we are. The Arkan would also do poorly against the front armor of modern MBTs while everywhere else even the 30 mm should suffice. So, if you're not using the guided missiles for their task then what are you saving them for?

limb wrote:
Most ATGMs fired by who? Jihadi inbreds, americans who dont have HE ATGMs, or Russian troops? Also, peer to peer conflict wastes guided ammo faster than it can be produced.

Both sides of the Iron curtain stockpiled enough ATGMs to delete their tank armies several times over - you're saying they couldn't spare enough from those mammoth arsenals to blow through their respective opponents armor fleets that are but a tiny fraction of their cold war incarnations? Nevermind that even third world shitholes with minimal industrial capabilities have managed to setup production lines for ATGMs with minimal assistance.

limb wrote:
Wrong:

You're not making sense. The rate of fire matters not, only the ammunition capacity does. IFVs are firepower support: you're not supporting anything if you've blown your load in 30 seconds of firing, and have to return to base to rearm.

limb wrote:
All hulls carrying 60-125mm guns which are a magnitude smaller and lighter than the T-15's. Apart from the 125mm BMT-72, They easily couldve become IFVs if their hulls were replaced with the armata hull.

They also store that ammo alongside the crew. If you seperate the ammo and flammables from the crew you'd find you don't have much space for ammo at all.

limb wrote:
Notice that you're omitting that the OTOMATIC is an AA vehicle and it needs so much room for radar and electronics? An automatic cannon without a radar wouldnt require such a massive turret, but thats irrelevant since I explicitly said 12-40 RPM, and automatic rate is 80+rpm.

50+ rounds is enough since with modern FCS very few shots are necessary.  

That's pitifully low that you would have to exercise as much fire restraint as the tanks themselves, only theirs have actual weight of fire behind them.

limb wrote:
Also dont you dare diss the OTOMATIC. One of the most perfect non-Russian AFVs ever made. It had absolutely zero design flaws and was ahead of its time.  The derivatsiya copied the concept with a much weaker shell.

That's why nobody bought the thing, not even the Italians. Right. The Derivatsiya is just a revamped S-60, which predates the Otomatic. It even uses some of the old rounds developed for the S-60.[/quote]

The-thing-next-door wrote:
The LSHO-57's HE rounds are likely far more powerful than the Au220's.

Also weren't there pictures of the APFSDS round for the LSHO-57?

It should have thinner walls and as such, larger explosive filling.

ALAMO wrote:Highly doubt any traditional AP round for this low pressure 57mm, as it shoots with about the same speed as 2A70, ie. 300-400 m/s.

I meant armor piercing rounds in general. If someone does want a full bore AP (not that its preferable, since sub caliber projectiles are just so much better) you wouldn't use the oversized projectile for the HE round anyway, so a much smaller projectile, seated on a large charge of propellant, 900 m/s easy.

ALAMO wrote:You can't shot a round with triple speed using the same gun.

Sure you could, it all depends on the amount of propellant charge you are shooting with, and if your gun can handle the increased pressure. This LSho-57 derivative could fire APFSDS ammo with a healthy amount of propellant charge anyway so it shouldn't be an issue.

ALAMO wrote:
That was a story of early 2A70, too.
3UOF11 was a D-10 heritage, utilizing 3OF32 ammo with reduced propellant charge.
The final effect was, that the fragmentation pattern was far from optimal, as it was designed for +/-800m/s velocity.
To visualize that, 3UOF11 covered the 160m2 area with splinters, while it was 250m2 for 3UOF17, 360m2 for 3UOF19, and 600!! m2 for 3UOF19-1, with proximity fuse enabling airburst. The maximal range of indirect fire for the latest is 8000m already, and much-improved accuracy.

The cheat is they used a shell with thinner walls. With thin walls they could fit more explosive filler and the steel would readily break up into smaller chunks, each traveling at a much higher velocity that it can travel further. The catch is you could only get away with this if you're firing with reduced charge, because otherwise the shell would break up in the barrel from the additional stresses.

ALAMO wrote:
And the fragmentation is the core of 2A70, because we must always remember the purpose of this weapon.
The manual of BMP-3 puts the technical rate of fire at 15 shoots per minute, and this rate is needed to blow off the enemy strongpoints, atgms nests, and manpower.

Rate of fire isn't as important against point targets, but the BMP-3 is envisioned to act as its own artillery support so it does pay to fire fast.

Note the bottom of the image. I believe this is the apfsds round for the low pressure 57mm. This thing isnt as low pressure as the 2a70 and I think they have indeed developed an apfsds for it. 5hough I dont know how that would work keeping under certain pressure restraints and how the lengthened case would feed.

Now this is the image of the high pressure 57mm apfsds. Note the difference.

A grenade launcher firing APFSDS? Are you hearing yourself? By that logic the AGS-30 or NONA should get APFSDS, which is idiotic for obvious reasons.

Are you not paying attention?

In the Kurganets/Boomerang thread we looked at the Epoch turret with the 57mm grenade launcher:



And the table you see in front above looks like this:



From left to right on the table shows the two main rounds the 57mm grenade launcher fires... the HE round on the left and the APFSDS round with sabot in the centre and to the right loaded into the case.

Most ATGMs fired by who? Jihadi inbreds, americans who dont have HE ATGMs, or Russian troops? Also, peer to peer conflict wastes guided ammo faster than it can be produced.

Most soldiers will launch ATGMs at targets that present themselves... in the Falklands the British launched Milan at bunkers... in Afghanistan HATO troops launched Javelins at anything and everything.

It is accurate long range artillery for them.

It is combined with brand new multipurpose round WBOF-57. It translates to Wystriel Broniebojnyj Oskoleczno-Fugasny, that is "Armor Piercing Fragmentation Incendiary Round"

No, the APFSDS rounds are developed. An APFRAG would be handy for less hard targets or penetrating barricades, but the primary round will be the HE command detonated round which Mindstorm described... it uses radio command detonation to enable engagements in rain and snow and fog or smoke which would limit a laser based system.

That's just the Epoch, then there is the AU-220M series of turrets featuring yet another 57 mm cartridge but necked down and fired from a high pressure gun.

There is the Dagger turret as well which also uses the 9A91 high velcocity gun, and I believe is used on the 2A38 air defence gun vehicle.

My guess is they deem the low ballistics and increased ammo capacity of the LSho-57 much useful after all.

When it come to HE rounds a slower heavier round is always more effective.

Being also able to deploy a high velocity APFSDS round makes the LSHO-57 the ideal weapon with the most compact ammo for the job.

It should have thinner walls and as such, larger explosive filling.

But also physically the projectile for the 9A91 high velocity 57mm gun is smaller than the projectile for the 9A94 57mm grenade launcher.

Highly doubt any traditional AP round for this low pressure 57mm, as it shoots with about the same speed as 2A70, ie. 300-400 m/s.

Look at photo above showing missiles and ammo for this turret that will be used on Boomerang and Kurganets and Armata and now B19 BMP-3...

These HE rounds and APFSDS rounds can be used against stationary targets but moving enemy armour and drones would require Bulat and Kornet guided rounds for hits.

I meant armor piercing rounds in general. If someone does want a full bore AP (not that its preferable, since sub caliber projectiles are just so much better) you wouldn't use the oversized projectile for the HE round anyway, so a much smaller projectile, seated on a large charge of propellant, 900 m/s easy.

This is the 57mm round:



The width of the round is about 60mm and with my fingers on my screen I measure about 6 and a half widths in length... give or take... so that is about 380mm long... so imagine a telescopic round 60mm in diameter and almost 400mm long... that is an enormous amount of space for a dart penetrator, a sabot, and lots of propellent.... certainly rather more than you could fit in a 30 x 165mm cannon shell.

You can't shot a round with triple speed using the same gun.

Really? Because Russian 5.45mm rifle calibre ammo is about 900m/s for the standard ammo and the subsonic ammo is subsonic... about 290m/s with a heavier projectile...

And the fragmentation is the core of 2A70, because we must always remember the purpose of this weapon.

The 2A70 was only ever intended for HE rounds and missiles... they developed a HEAT round for the 120mm gun/mortars but its range is about 1km only which makes it pretty pointless.

The 57mm LSHO-57 9A94 is simulating the features of a telescopic round... low velocity low pressure HE bomb like a grenade launcher, and higher pressure APFSDS round in the same chamber size and feed tray width.

The manual of BMP-3 puts the technical rate of fire at 15 shoots per minute, and this rate is needed to blow off the enemy strongpoints, atgms nests, and manpower.

Paper speed of 3 seconds per HE round and 6 seconds per missile.

This thing isnt as low pressure as the 2a70 and I think they have indeed developed an apfsds for it. 5hough I dont know how that would work keeping under certain pressure restraints and how the lengthened case would feed.

Thanks for posting.... you beat me to it.

Note the photos above show both images linking the turret with the ammo.

Now this is the image of the high pressure 57mm apfsds. Note the difference.

Indeed... this is the 9A91 gun round and will be used for navy weapons and also air defence ground vehicles like the 2A38.

Its advantages are higher max range (about double... 12km vs 6km) and a case capacity for a guided missile round (closest to the camera in your photo). Putting that round in the LSHO-57 round would mean no room at all for any propellent.

High-velocity ammo is quite destructive to the gun itself, even if you build it without compromises.

That is why you don't just make any old ammo for a gun but design a gun for ammo.

This newly developed round is an answer, but I believe we will see a long barrel 57mm version or Epocha quite soon.

It has just been accepted as the B19 for the BMP-3 vehicles...

Exactly. It is a suppressive weapon system. 15 rpm is extremely impressive, even if it is reduced in real combat to 12, it still gives hell of a punch.

It means relatively quick follow up shots but would never fire 15 shots at any one target.