30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?

Comments

[podgornovea]

Nevertheless, there are projects to create managed weapons in significantly smaller dimensions, for example, a controlled cartridge caliber 12,7 mm. Such projects are being developed both in the United States, under the auspices of the notorious DARPA, and in Russia.

Well, this is already too much (if only with remote detonation :))
Not for nothing that they switched from 7,62 to 5,45 (one of the advantages is a larger ammunition load) - it turned out to be cheaper than increasing the accuracy of 7,62

[AUL]

If you stuff a 12.7 mm bullet with electronics, rudders and drives to them, then it will lose a good half of the mass, and with it all its advantages over 7.62 - range, flatness, power. So is it worth the fence?

[anzar]

So is it worth the fence?

Worth- for snipers. They will not carry guns heavier than .50 caliber, and the entire bullet filling is a deflectable nose and laser sensors at the rear.

[AUL]

Quote: anzar

and the whole bullet filling is a deflectable nose and laser sensors at the back.

Just something?
1. And who will reject this nose? Need some kind of drive. This is weight and volume. And who will manage this deviation? So, the chip. Weight and volume. Power to this chip? Weight and volume.
And here both weight (small) and volume work against the ballistics of a standard configuration. This is not a 125 mm shell, where these factors affect slightly!
2. But - let's say! Now please explain how and where this deviated nose will turn rotating bullet? Or do you offer to shoot a smooth-bore shotgun?

[anzar]

And here both weight (small) and volume work against bullet ballistics

The bullet will be made a little longer. In addition, in conventional ballistics, the excess-damaging effect on soft targets remains much further than accuracy — the ability to get there.

... please explain how and where will this deflected nose turn the rotating bullet?

I don’t know, probably to the same place where the control surfaces turn the projectile at 30-57mm (also rotating by the way)))

[AUL]

Quote: anzar

The bullet will be made a little longer.

So, will a new rifle complex be created for this bullet?

In addition, in conventional ballistics, the excess-damaging effect on soft targets remains much further than accuracy — the ability to get there.

Since we are talking about a large-caliber sniper (antimaterial) weapon, let's not talk about the "destructive effect on soft targets." Ballistics cannot be redundant when it comes to accuracy.

I don’t know, probably to the same place where the control surfaces turn the projectile at 30-57mm (also rotating by the way)))

And what, 30 - 57 mm guided shells already exist?

Quote: merkava-2bet

Either a rotating abturator, as in rifled guns, or a system of angular correction, as on MANPADS Strela-2,3 and Igla with Verba missiles.

Those. Do you offer to shoot a non-rotating bullet? And the angle correction system has nothing to do with it.

Quote: AVM

All Soviet / Russian ATGM rotate. Take into account the position of the body at each time of management.

Have you seen the control unit in ATGM? And you propose to venture a similar one in a 12.7 mm bullet?
PS About Krasnopol, Kitolov, etc. - I am in the know!

[merkava-2bet]

Either a rotating abturator, as in rifled guns, or a system of angular correction, as on MANPADS Strela-2,3 and Igla with Verba missiles.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote from AUL

Now, please explain how and where this rejected nose will turn rotating bullet? Or do you offer to shoot a smooth-bore shotgun?

All Soviet / Russian ATGM rotate. Take into account the position of the body at each time of management.

[alexmach]

Rejected spout?
As far as I remember, it was a question of shifting the center of gravity of a bullet with the help of gyro-like elements, which is exactly in the belts protruding on its surface.

[Bad_gr]

The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2. But why our undertook to banish the BMP-3 - is not clear.
."... In 2019, the delivery of a pilot batch of BMP-3 with the promising combat module "Epoch" is expected ........... "

In my opinion, the Bakhcha-U combat module is ideal: where the power of a 30mm projectile is not enough, it could always be supplemented with a 100mm one. And with the Epoch: somewhere a 57mm projectile will suffice in abundance, but somewhere it will be insufficient.
The guided projectiles in the aircraft cannon kit may justify themselves, but in anti-aircraft systems there is doubt. For the price of a guided projectile, I assume that it is much more expensive than an ordinary projectile. Perhaps it will be more effective to shoot ten ordinary ones towards the target than one controlled one. It is necessary to look at the "cost-effectiveness".

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Bad_gr

The guided projectiles in the aircraft cannon kit may justify themselves, but in anti-aircraft systems there is doubt. For the price of a guided projectile, I assume that it is much more expensive than an ordinary projectile. Perhaps it will be more effective to shoot ten ordinary ones towards the target than one controlled one. It is necessary to look at the "cost-effectiveness".

The problem is that, as practice in Syria shows, they in general do not fall on modern small-sized precision-guided munitions and UAVs, it does not matter if there are ten of them or one hundred, therefore they spend all the missiles and remain without ammunition.

[gaudin]

Quote: AVM

they generally do not fall on modern small-sized precision-guided munitions and UAVs

The problem is not that they do not fall, but in fact they were not developed for this.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: gaudin

Quote: AVM

they generally do not fall on modern small-sized precision-guided munitions and UAVs

The problem is not that they do not fall, but in fact they were not developed for this.

And for what? Well, let's say a shell or a mine, they should not have shot down. But goals such as CD / PKR must necessarily. Medium-sized low-speed UAVs are also in this category. And in fact there are problems when intercepting such targets. The range of use of high-precision weapons by airplanes and helicopters is such that the carriers do not come close to ZPRK, it only remains for them to shoot down ammunition. And there may be many. Therefore, it is necessary to modernize projectiles, to combat high-precision ammunition and UAVs.

[gaudin]

Quote: AVM

But goals such as CR / RCC must be

Specifically, the Shell has a large dispersion of shells in the cannon, so he can shoot down the tomahawk, but he will not be able to shoot down the quadcopter. The quadcopter passes through shells like a small fish through a net. When test firing on the shield, if 2 shells hit the same point, this is considered a bad result.

[self-propelled]

Quote: Bad_gr

The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2

as a nonsense - why not try a caliber in 37mm? and the power of the armor-piercing projectile is higher than 30-mm, and the remote undermining of the OFS for 37-mm is still easier to set up than for the 30-mm, and you can put the aircraft on the helicopter ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: self-propelled

Quote: Bad_gr

The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2

as a nonsense - why not try a caliber in 37mm? and the power of the armor-piercing projectile is higher than 30-mm, and the remote undermining of the OFS for 37-mm is still easier to set up than for the 30-mm, and you can put the aircraft on the helicopter ...

The question here is that 30 mm is very much where it stands. 57 mm also worked out. Under 37, everything must be re-developed, they have not been used for a long time. And if you do something fundamentally new, it is probably better to consider some telescopic ammunition 40 mm, but there are no resources for this, the task is not a priority. And again, will these telescopic munitions give a radical advantage? And it is easy to collect stocks as pioneers.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Bad_gr

The transition from 30mm to 57 mm caliber can justify itself where there is nothing larger than 30mm. For example, BMP-2. But why our undertook to banish the BMP-3 - is not clear.
."... In 2019, the delivery of a pilot batch of BMP-3 with the promising combat module "Epoch" is expected ........... "

In my opinion, the Bakhcha-U combat module is ideal: where the power of a 30mm projectile is not enough, it could always be supplemented with a 100mm one. And with the Epoch: somewhere a 57mm projectile will suffice in abundance, but somewhere it will be insufficient.

The 100 projectile on the BMP-3 has low ballistics, the armor penetration is low, there is no BOPS at all, active defense systems can intercept it - the initial projectile speed is of the order of 350 m / s. For AU-220M with a 57 mm cannon, the initial velocity of the 1000 projectile is m / s.
I think of them (guns 100 mm) refuse gradually.
On the photo that you published, there is no 100 mm at all - the Cornets stand. But the ATGM is also not a panacea, KAZ can work on them and stand almost openly, catch fragments with splinters.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: AVM

Projectile 100 on BMP-3 low ballistics, low armor penetration,

Nobody argues with this. But if from this gun to shoot at the BMP, the armor of which could not be pierced by a 30 mm shell, then the explosion of a 100 mm shell on the armor of this BMP is unlikely to harm less than a 57 mm projectile with high ballistics.

[anzar]

But if a BMP was fired from this weapon, the armor of which could not be pierced by a 30 mm shell, then an explosion of a 100 mm shell ...

The flight time is long, if the BMP is moving, it is difficult to get further than 600-800 meters. 100mm PF is good for group targets (favorite journalists "clusters" of militants / fascists / etc) which are not very observed on modern battlefields)) And 57mm is large enough for effective air. detonation, its BOPS pierces EVERYTHING, and the MBT side too.

[superpodliva2000]

The photo is not 220. LSHO57- low ballistics.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: superpodliva2000

The photo is not 220. LSHO57- low ballistics.

Yep, 57 mm KBP grenade launcher.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: AVM

Quote: superpodliva2000

The photo is not 220. LSHO57- low ballistics.

Yep, 57 mm KBP grenade launcher.

He. Link to the description of the module "Epoch" https://topwar.ru/123372-boevoy-modul-epoha-s-novym-kompleksom-vooruzheniya.html

[alexmach]

Projectile 100 on the BMP-3 low ballistic, armor-piercing low, no BPS at all, active defense systems can intercept it - the initial velocity of the projectile is about 350 m / s.

In the photo that you posted, there is no 100 mm at all - Cornets are

Yeah ... but there is a 57mm gun _Low balistic_

[Vadim237]

Well, probably thanks to this module, they want to remove the ammunition from the habitable zone. A 100 mm gun will not do this.

[alexmach]

But why ours undertook to bunk BMP-3 is not clear.

What would remove 100mm shells from the body?

[Diverter]

well yes. chased, as often happens in the west, and now it has come and we are going back to 7,62.

[Strashila]

As a result, we rely heavily on the development of microelectronics in the country. The dispute itself is not new, back in the prewar years of the last century the replacement of 37 mm by 45 mm in field artillery is an example of this. So we are missing out on a 45 mm caliber. as one of the options, it is certainly not 57 mm, but its penetrative abilities will be enough for most armored vehicles, even in the near future.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: superpodliva2000

Why not 46mm or 43,22mm? 45 is already completely lost.

There is some rationalism in your statement... Indeed, "resumption" of production of 45 mm barrels and ammunition is the same as starting production of a 40 mm or 50 mm "caliber"! Everything must be started from scratch! "Opponents" may mention "old stockpiles of 45 mm shells from the Great Patriotic War..." But that is why they are "old", because "their existence" must come to an end! Everything has its time and at a "certain age" they are not "recommended" for use. NATO is "considering" the possibility (expediency) of developing and adopting a 50 mm caliber (the German development of a 35/50 mm system is known...). In Russian reports, there was also a "slip" of a desire by some companies to start developing guns in a 50 mm caliber... (as well as adjustable artillery shells in the same caliber). So, it is the 50 mm caliber that is being asked for consideration! It is this caliber that will have good export prospects... Attention to dual-caliber artillery mounts is also not excluded: 30/40 mm, 40/50 mm, 50/57 mm (along with the 57 mm caliber...).

[superpodliva2000]

Yes, bicaliber is a very good solution in terms of unification and the possibility of installation on light chassis (smaller caliber). But, as always, there is a "but" - time for the development of new guns with new ballistics, shells (and not imitating the old, grandfather's drawings, but those that meet the requirements of our time are needed), carrying out R&D, series ... and the price of all this.
Against the background of all this, a 57mm installation looks robust, taking into account the development of BPS and ofs with a programmable detonation. According to BPS, there are developments in 30mm caliber, and ofs are now experiencing 125mm.
And as a plan today, there are attempts to install LSHO57 in modules and 82mm in BMP 3.

[Konatantin 1992]

Did you spend 2 missiles on the "drifting balloon"? .... something clearly went wrong)))

[riwas]

Everything needs a measure. The use of a guided 57-shell leaves little space on the warhead.

[svp67]

30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?

Yes, they will live for more than one decade, but the 23-mm seems to be all in reserve ....

An experimental version of the placement of the 30-mm gun 2A42 on the T-80 tank

An interesting attempt to increase the firepower of the "Rage", but I can only imagine it as the commander's cupola and the main tower of the "sausage" when firing. ZPU with such a powerful recoil, for accurate shooting, it is necessary to place as close to the center as possible, otherwise there is no need to talk about any targeted shooting, or like this, as the Slovaks did on their "Modern" ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: svp67

Yes, they will live, yes, not one decade

Is not a fact. The "first bell" should be considered equipping BMPshki with a 100-mm gun even during the Soviet era.

We have big problems with a caliber of 30 mm. First of all, there are problems with ammunition.

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

Is not a fact. The "first bell" should be considered equipping BMPshki with a 100-mm gun even during the Soviet era.

It is acceptable for the Airborne Forces (where the main task of defense is), when the BMD will be mostly without landing. For motorized rifle BMP-57 mm, BTR -45 mm.

But for a tank, as an additional -30 mm is really the best, and also for combat support units (reconnaissance).

Quote: Spade

We have big problems with a caliber of 30 mm.

Creating a remote fuse with electronic installation? It seems they’ve already decided, for a long time after all they were engaged.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

Creating a remote fuse with electronic installation?

He has long been there.
Moreover, its value is greatly exaggerated.
Our main problem in the 30-mm caliber is armor-piercing shells.

Quote: chenia

It is acceptable for the Airborne Forces (where the main task of defense is), when the BMD will be mostly without landing. For motorized rifle BMP-57 mm, BTR -45 mm.

23mm, 30mm, 45mm, 57mm, 100mm, 125mm.... Isn't that too many calibers???

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

30 mm caliber is armor-piercing shells.

So on the same tank. Mainly for the infantry, you can use the AG as well. And for armored (lightly armored), when 125 mm "gift" is a pity, and to drive the helicopters away from the tank unit (naturally, as an additional means).

23 mm, 30 mm, 45 mm, 57 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm .... Are there too many calibers ???

A lot of. Well, this is for different branches of the armed forces or certain specifics, well, for example, 57 mm (high ballistics) for armored personnel carriers is stressful), 45 mm will still stretch.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

So to the tank

And here is the tank ?????
We need a NORMAL 30 mm gun for BMP / BTR / BRM.

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

We need a NORMAL 30 mm gun for BMP / BTR / BRM.

She is already at the limit, as the main infantry weapon is unpromising!

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

She is already at the limit

There is no "limit" there, there is bad ammunition.
Why is the Belgian shell for this gun has twice as much armor penetration? (55 mm against our 27 mm at a distance of one kilometer).
We cannot make a normal projectile and a silly show on the topic "let's increase the caliber" begins. Without catching up with the Belgians in terms of armor penetration, we sharply increase the weight of the gun mount and reduce the ammo being carried ... a smart decision.

[Sahalinets]

Yes, we also have big problems with accuracy.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sahalinets

Yes, we also have big problems with accuracy.

EMNIP, with accuracy in 2A72 with a single installation.
Because initially it was designed for a twin installation 100 + 30, in which the 30-mm barrel has additional support. They removed the support - problems with accuracy began, which they managed to solve only at the cost of reducing the rate of fire:

... for more than a year, designers have worked to ensure an acceptable result: accuracy and accuracy should not be lower than that of 2A42 on the BMP-2. Without fulfilling this condition prescribed in the statement of work, the car was not taken into service. One machine was even made with a third fulcrum: a casing on top of the gun with a ring at the end in which the barrel walks.

But it didn’t help much either. The solution was found after watching ultra-fast shooting shooting. Some time after the shot, the gun barrel takes its initial position, so the rate of fire was adjusted so that the next shot occurred at that moment. Yes, the maximum rate of fire became slightly lower than what is indicated in the tabular values ​​for 2A72, but sufficient to solve the same problems.

© twower

[Corn]

2a72 with accuracy is a disaster, but just 2a42 has problems. Look at any shooting techniques with this gun and what a monstrous expansion cone draw tracer.

[Lopatov]

By the way, this problem is much easier to solve than ammunition.

[Corn]

The question is, is there any point in focusing on armor penetration in small-caliber guns if this niche is already firmly occupied by ATGMs?
BT-30 is quite capable of breaking apart brickwork, punching several concrete panels, riddling some kind of jihadmobile. I think that demanding more is simply unreasonable.
OFZ and a lightweight trunk, which is simply not capable of giving acceptable accuracy, need to be replaced.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Corn

if this niche is already densely occupied by ATGMs?

They did not take her .... Firstly, it took a long time. Secondly, ATGM on BMP / BTR by default is small.
Moreover, some of them will have to be allocated to hit particularly important targets at long range. Moreover, for some of them it will be necessary to use a "doublet start" to overcome the KAZ.

So it turns out that the PTRK niche is a particularly important target, primarily tanks, at long range.
And on "little things" like armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles and other light and medium armored vehicles, as well as buildings and structures, there is no one and nothing to shoot with.

[Corn]

They did not take her ....

taking into account the total extermination that the birds made for the armored vehicles, I would say that they still occupied .... however, there is an exclusively subjective perception of information.

Firstly it's long

the same "attack" has a speed of over 500m / s, which is quite acceptable.

Secondly, ATGM on BMP / BTR by default is not enough

Ptury is on all machines of the "BMP" class without exception. The armored personnel carrier (in his Soviet vision) does not need either an ATGM, let alone a 30mm cannon. ( Exarch BTR82 I do not even want to remember)

Moreover, some of them will have to be allocated to defeat particularly important targets at long range.

Caesar Cesarean. The defeat of critical goals, this is not a task for the support machine. In our time of the universal penetration of automated means of communication and laser target designators, there is no problem giving target designation to aviation, artillerymen, and PTO units.
The same is true for KAZ.
You understand, in the epic heroes of one wicket, whole armies crumble, the reality is more complicated, military operations are a complex web of interactions from various forces. Universality and unification, without prejudice to basic speialization, will help to simplify this interaction to a considerable degree, but relying on them is simply irrational.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Corn

Caesar Cesarean. The defeat of special goals, this is not a task for the support machine. In our time of the universal penetration of automated means of communication and laser target designators, there is no problem giving target designation to aviation, artillerymen, and PTO units.

Exactly. Caesar Cesarean.
Direct fire is needed to hit especially important point targets - artillery is out. Aviation is out because of the time problem. VT shells and mines with LGSN are not dangerous for armored vehicles, even the Poles are developing and producing means of combating them. They won't reach tanks. AT units sit in the rear and wait for big problems from the enemy to die heroically. Didn't forget anyone, I think?
Only BMPs remain

[Corn]

Direct targeting is needed to defeat critical point targets.

Firstly, it has not been needed for many decades.
Secondly, MBT is always at hand.

LGSN for armored vehicles is not terrible, the means of struggle against them are developed and produced even by the Poles

What kind of modern means of struggle are there, except for the curtains (which, it seems, have been recognized as ineffective and have ceased to be installed)?
Modern shells, this is not only lsn, but also jeepies, glonas, isn, and if you really get it right, then there are absolutely no problems adding laser / infrared beam / radio control to the projectile.

Fri units sitting in the rear

they are even at the battalion level, such a rear.

Only BMPs remain

and fight against particularly important goals, this is not their task at all. If it’s completely locked up, the birds have ended, and the allies have thrown one box to the edge of the enemy’s offensive, then it’s much more reasonable to retreat in an organized manner than to die heroically and uselessly.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Corn

Firstly, it has not been needed for many decades.

Always needed, time is not able to cancel probability theory

Quote: Corn

Secondly, MBT is always at hand.

There TOURS are also few in number, moreover, they are less effective than ATGM on BMP.

Quote: Corn

What kind of modern means of struggle are there, except for the curtains (which, it seems, have been recognized as ineffective and have ceased to be installed)?

Understand what a "curtain" is.

Quote: Corn

Modern shells, this is not only lsn, but also jeepies, glonas, isn, and if you really get it right, then there are absolutely no problems adding laser / infrared beam / radio control to the projectile.

These are all words. At the moment, the only tool that can hit a moving armored object is a projectile with LGSN. And it’s easy to defend against it with the help of CEP.

Quote: Corn

they are even at the battalion level, such a rear.

BMP battalions do not have such units. I hope you understand why.

Quote: Corn

and fight against particularly important goals, this is not their task at all

This is precisely their task. Read the charter.

[Corn]

Always needed, time is not able to cancel probability theory

but let’s do it without demagogy, please, I seem to have quite adequately and in detail justified why this is not so

There TOURS are also not numerous, in addition, they are less effective than ATGM on BMP

125mm guided missiles, offshore missiles, bops - all of them with a "particularly important" target will cope better than a 30mm cannon.

Understand what a "curtain" is

Shtora-1 - a complex of electronic-optical active defense (a complex of optical-electronic countermeasures - KOEP) for protection against anti-tank guided missiles with a semi-automatic command guidance system or adjusted artillery ammunition

At the moment, the only tool that can hit a moving armored object is a projectile with LGSN.

... and also guided missiles with infrared / radar / optical seeker or manual control along the laser path or in general via wires. The arsenal is simply huge.

And it’s easy to defend against it with the help of CEP.

those same CEPs, which are not massively present in any army in the world?

BMP battalions do not have such units.

you would have to pull a match ...

Read the charter.

your "read the charter" is especially in contrast to the outstanding knowledge of the structure and role of the ISP (and in general any modern combat units).

fight against especially important goals ... this is precisely their task.

it is in what charter such nonsense can be written?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Corn

But let’s do it without demagoguery

Where did you manage to collect "demagoguery"? Direct aiming is more accurate and faster than shooting with PDO precisely for the reason that Probability Theory describes. "Wet water" is also "demagoguery" in your opinion?

Quote: Corn

Offs, bops - all of them with a "particularly important" purpose will cope better than a 30mm cannon.

Maybe. If the tank, one on a motorized rifle platoon, is not destroyed.

Quote: Corn

... and also guided missiles with infrared / radar / optical seeker or manual control along the laser path or in general via wires. The arsenal is simply huge.

And where are they, dear? Private Pupkin in a duffel bag? Oops, they are in the amount of four pieces on the combat module of the BMP. Chef, it's all gone ...

Quote: Corn

those same CEPs, which are not massively present in any army in the world?

8))))
ALL BMP "Puma" is it massively, or not?
Now figure out what COEP 8 is))))))))))))

Quote: Corn

you would have to pull a match ...

Yes?????
eight)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dear, here's the word, there are no anti-tank platoons in battalions on infantry fighting vehicles since the days of the USSR.
eight))))))))))))))))))))))))))

[Corn]

Direct fire is more accurate and faster than shooting with a PDO precisely because of what the Probability Theory describes.

and also the theory of probability must take into account the attendant risk, which significantly increases when the enemy enters the line of fire, and the rationality of immediate destruction. I think it is much more reasonable to give target designation and wait a bit, than to take risks in vain.

If the tank ... is not destroyed.

I agree, that's why I give priority to artillery support over "direct fire" ... just don't you think it's not a good idea to climb the BMP to the place where the MBT was just destroyed?

Private Pupkin in a duffel bag?

Yes. At the squad-platoon level, it's practically the same as a private's duffel bag.

ALL BMP "Puma" is it massively, or not?

I did not even suspect the existence of the MUSS COEP, prior to your comment, here is my omission. However, even she is unable to fight with

guided missiles with infrared / radar / optical seeker or manual control along the laser path or generally by wire

anti-tank platoons in battalions on infantry fighting vehicles have been missing since the days of the USSR

the full-time structure has never had anything to do with real combat personnel. If the need arises, motorized riflemen, demantics or marines will immediately be strengthened with everything necessary, from a UAV unit and a communications officer, to a technical support unit and the required number of MBT.
I repeat, Caesar's Caesar, the BMP should not even approach "especially dangerous targets", a commander who unnecessarily puts the crew of a combat vehicle at risk, with a high degree of probability, will go to court. (We had precedents).

[Lopatov]

Quote: Corn

and probability theory must take into account the associated risk

Well yes. If a target is struck by direct fire immediately after its detection, safety is higher.

Quote: Corn

I think it's much wiser to give target designation and wait a bit

The loss of pace is completely unreasonable. You can wait for a company instead of a single target. For example, a tank.

Quote: Corn

I agree, that's why I give priority to artillery support over "direct fire"

Never give priority. Neither one nor the other. Different tasks, different goals performed simultaneously.

Quote: Corn

But, don’t you think that climbing onto the BMP to the place where the MBT was just destroyed is not a good idea?

And where to go? The task must be completed. So far, the enemy has not tightened reserves.

Quote: Corn

I did not even suspect the existence of the MUSS COEP, prior to your comment, here is my omission. However, even she is unable to fight with

With all of the above, she knows how to fight. Since it contains UV sensors.

Quote: Corn

the full-time structure has never had anything to do with real combat personnel.

We had two regiments in the garrison, on an infantry fighting vehicle and an armored personnel carrier. Anti-tank platoons were only in battalions on armored personnel carriers. And it is a reality.

Quote: Corn

I repeat, Caesar's Caesar, the BMP should not even approach "especially dangerous targets", a commander who unnecessarily puts the crew of a combat vehicle at risk, with a high degree of probability, will go to court.

Once upon a time in this way the American "Bradleys" massively raped the Iraqis. Shooting their tanks from their ATGMs. The "Abrams" next to them were just covering up the BMPs from a possible "jerk" of Iraqi tanks to the effective range of fire .. And no one was brought to court for this.

[Diverter]

with which artillery is it necessary to direct fire? otherwise they do not know how ?!)))))))

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

There is no "limit"

You are looking at the complex, BMP universal tool (for ordinary motorized rifle).

- By 30-ke will need a larger caliber AG, well, do not shoot the same (offensive) in the trenches in front of the BMP 100-300 m (and then there is someone to work) with a projectile with a minimum of explosives and fragments. . 57 mm composite (3 in one) telescopic low ballistics (up to 2 km), will create a much larger fragmentation field, and in principle as a machine gun. And its high-explosive effect is more significant (in the high ballistics version).
- 57 mm for all easily and medium armored vehicles can work at extreme distances.
- About BC,
first- the task of the company is to take the GP, and further contribute to the immediate mission of the battalion. So, what -And eternal battle.We only need ...., this is not for the MS department. For tasks and expense, in defense there are no problems at all (there will be no landing).
second- now there are 4 infantry fighting vehicles in the platoon (though a platoon of 28-32 people is needed here), then 7-8 people- KO, mech.vod., operator and 4 -5 gunner. a bit more space. more firepower, fewer people, however.
third- volume 121 shell 57 mm -0,5 m3 (in cartridges there will be a bit more).

To 57 mm, in addition to the 7,62 machine gun, there’s no need to sculpt anything (well, a guide and a couple of ATGMs in the zashashnik). individual weapons shooters do not count ..

[garri-lin]

Here I do not agree on ATGMs. Two is not enough. Two even for armored personnel carriers is not enough. Four and preferably six regularly. Cumulative and thermal bar to take on the situation. Still think of a vertical launch of the TPK mounted on the stern.

[chenia]

Quote: garri-lin

Here I do not agree on ATGMs

Well, then a couple, another.

[Lopatov]

Quote: chenia

- By 30-ke will be needed AG

I agree. A high-speed AP needs to be supplemented with something with a more mounted trajectory.

Quote: chenia

- 57 mm for all easily and medium armored vehicles can work at extreme distances.

As far as I know, no. Our 30mm shells still haven't reached the armor penetration of the 57mm Belgian shell.

[chenia]

Quote: Spade

our 57mm has not yet reached.

So this caliber, in this guise (BPS) after ZIS-2 was never developed. It’s just a matter of time.
But the elephant is still thicker.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

As far as I know, no. Our 30mm shells still haven't reached the armor penetration of the 57mm Belgian shell.

Yes, the Belgians have worked. I hope their shell is worth as UAS)
With cartridges / shells and other consumables, for example, with rockets in-in or cheap UAB, we generally always have problems. As if someone believes that you can make a plane for 100 000 000 $, equip it with free-falling 50-ies, and everything will be OK!

[alexmach]

Yes, the Belgians have worked. I hope their shell is worth as UAS)

On the contrary, I would hope that it is cheap and easy to copy and set up production

[CTABEP]

Yes, I was also always interested in why the Oerlikon shells had many times more armor penetration. It seems that tank BOPS have learned to do what prevents normal projectiles from being fired?

[Vadim237]

Probably more durable material - the core and more energy powder.

[garri-lin]

Speed ​​can be compared according to the passport data. This will explain a lot. And about 57 mm there seems to be no modern bop. But the capabilities of the trunk allow you to create. If you attend, it should work out well.

[alexmach]

Yes, I was also always interested in why the Oerlikon shells had many times more armor penetration.

More than what? Steel "blanks"? Well, that's why he is BOPS.

[max702]

What about BOPS BISON 11?

[svp67]

Quote: chenia

She is already at the limit, as the main infantry weapon is unpromising!

And when was it positioned as the main one? The infantry had enough "calibers" even without it, from 5,45 to 152 mm

[chenia]

Quote: svp67

The infantry

Quote: svp67

up to 152 mm

What are you talking about?
So it is possible to attribute POPOLA to the infantry, they say support that the infantryman Vanya would step on the ground as an enemy.
But I’m actually talking about a motorized rifle squad (I guess you could guess).

[svp67]

Quote: Spade

Is not a fact. The "first bell" should be considered equipping BMPshki with a 100-mm gun even during the Soviet era.

Paired with 30 mm

Quote: Spade

First of all, there are problems with ammunition.

Well, there is such a thing, minimalism is clearly not ours ...

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Spade

First of all, problems with ammunition

But is there no way to increase their effectiveness? It seems to be some work in this direction.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Blackgrifon

But is there no way to increase their effectiveness?

There is. As there are already finished samples abroad.
But for some reason our people are not particularly keen to do this, preferring jumping around large calibers .... Maybe a "midlife crisis"? 8)))))))

[VictorZhivilov]

ZPU with such a powerful recoil, for accurate shooting, it is necessary to place as close to the center as possible, otherwise there is no need to talk about any targeted shooting, or like this, as the Slovaks did on their "Modern" ...

In current cases, why bother with a garden ... if you can go along the North Korean path to install MANPADS on a tank. Cheonma 216 is a great illustration of this.

[Bad_gr]

There is another option for the location of the 30mm gun:

[Walking]

In the 60s, guns were also removed from planes, it was believed that since there are rockets, then guns are not needed. but as it came down to it, it turned out to be real fights without guns. How not to step on the same rake a second time.

[Alexey RA]

At present, automatic guns on multifunctional fighters remain rather due to a certain conservatism of the air force.

At the time of the creation of "Phantom" and the MiG-21, they also said so - with exactly the same arguments. And then I had to almost tape the gun to the fuselage.

[anzar]

+++ Very good stats. I especially liked the idea of ​​installing 30mm on MBT. The French used to have 20mm paired with 105 / 120mm

[Nikolaevich I]

The article is full of "stuff"... one gets the feeling that the Author, like Agafya Tikhonovna in Gogol's "Marriage", does not know what she wants... The arguments, both "against" and "for"... both the 30 mm and 57 mm calibers have long been "boring"... they are banal and do not always take into account the latest modern realities of technological progress! The 57 mm caliber is often "reproached" for reducing ammunition, increased recoil... as a result, increased "weight and mass" characteristics. But is it necessary to "shed tears" about the "reduction" of ammunition? Well, you can take more 30 mm shells... and "meet" with targets that would require 10 30 mm shells each to destroy... When will 57-1 (maximum) 3 mm shells be enough... Especially if we talk about the prospects of guided ammunition... It is somewhat simpler and cheaper to make a guided shell in the 57 mm caliber, while maintaining acceptable power! In modern military conflicts, combat operations in the city are "relevant"... often, concrete buildings. Will 30 mm shells be effective in such conditions? Perhaps! But again a situation will arise when at least a dozen shells may be needed to destroy a "machine gun nest"... again the question: how long will the carried supply last...? Partly, the "problem" can be solved by "sniper" shooting, but not always (!)... there is always a possibility of a situation when it is necessary to "fill up" an "apartment"! And with ammunition with a programmable fuse (remote detonation) ... what "space" will be "covered" by a 57-mm projectile... and a 30-mm ...? In which ammunition can more "armor-piercing" striking elements be placed that penetrate bulletproof vests, gun shields, armor of light armored vehicles, helicopters ...? What about the recoil, weight, mass of 57-mm guns ... There is such a concept: "low-impulse guns"! Such guns will be quite acceptable if the troops are equipped with a sufficient number of active-reactive corrected artillery shells! (Modern assumptions indicate that in the future, equipping armies with guided ammunition (their production) will be significantly increased...). The development of low-impulse guns will reduce recoil and "weight and mass" characteristics... I think that the 30 mm caliber, although it will be squeezed out, will not be completely ousted! This caliber has its "pluses" .. (including accumulated ammunition reserves...). It is possible that the 30 mm caliber will continue to be "improved" in bi-caliber systems (30/40 mm, 30/35 mm). It can be assumed that 30 mm installations will be quite effective in the "sniper shooting" mode in the future! Moreover, 30 mm guided shells are "not required" for this .. , but the improvement of the fire control system (FCS) is mandatory: laser rangefinders-sights, ballistic digital computers (with the input of a large number of
data; incl. meteorological ...) associated with the "network-centric system"... To reduce the cost of small-caliber guided ammunition, a method has been proposed for using guided projectiles in a "leader-slave" burst, where the "leader" ammunition is more complex and expensive (by the way, it may not have an explosive charge... "everything" is given over to control...); the "slave" ones are simpler and cheaper...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

There is a lot of "compote" in the article... one gets the feeling that the Author, like Agafya Tikhonovna in Gogol's "Marriage", does not know what she wants...

The author clearly knows what he wants and tried to clearly convey it

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Arguments, both "contra" and "about" ... both the 30 mm and 57 mm caliber have long ago "set the teeth on edge" ... they are banal and do not always take into account the latest modern realities of technical progress!

Just the realities of progress in the article are maximally taken into account based on the information that is available.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

The 57 mm caliber is often "reproached" for the reduction of ammunition, increased recoil... and, as a result, increased "weight and mass" characteristics. But is it necessary to "shed tears" about the "reduction" of ammunition? Well, you can take more 30 mm shells... and "meet" with targets that would require 10 30 mm shells for each... When will 57-1 3 mm shells be enough (maximum)...

Can. And you can meet with 100 targets for which 80 shells in the 57 mm combat pack are not enough. These are all contrived situations. And in the article there are no tears in the reduction of ammunition, just a fact.
The fact that the BMP larger calibers will displace 30 mm, there is little doubt. Maybe not all, as with the money will be. And with us it will most likely be 57 mm.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Especially, if you talk about the prospects of adjusted ammunition ... In the caliber of 57-mm make an adjustable projectile somewhat easier and cheaper, while maintaining acceptable power!

It is, and it is also written about it. But 57 mm on the plane can not be put, and not even on any ship.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

In modern military conflicts, combat operations in the city are "relevant"... often, buildings made of concrete. Will 30-mm shells be effective in such conditions? Possibly! But again a situation will arise when at least a dozen rounds of ammunition may be needed to destroy a "machine-gun nest"... again the question: how long will the carried supply last...? Partly, the "problem" can be solved by "sniper" shooting, but not always (!)... a situation is always likely when it is necessary to "fill up" an "apartment"! And with ammunition with a programmable fuse (remote detonation) ... what "space" will be "covered" by a 57-mm shell... and a 30-mm ... ? Which ammunition can accommodate more "armor-piercing" striking elements that can penetrate body armor, gun shields, armor of light armored vehicles, helicopters...?

Everything is correct 57 mm - wherever you can put it, 30 mm where you can not put 57 mm. If you pay attention, then the first point is the creation of compact combat modules, i.e. Install 30 mm instead of 12,7 where possible. Accordingly, everything that you described compared the capabilities of 57 / 30 mm is proportionally true for 30 / 12,7 mm.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

As for the recoil, weight, mass of 57-mm guns... There is such a concept: "low-impulse guns"! Such guns will be quite acceptable with the equipping of troops in sufficient quantities with active-reactive guided artillery shells! (Modern prerequisites indicate that in the future the equipping of armies with guided ammunition (their production) will be significantly increased...). The development of low-impulse guns will reduce the recoil and "weight and mass" characteristics...

And again we will get a senseless gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm cannon from the Bakhchi, which is just changed to a module with a normal 57 mm tool.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

I think that the 30 mm caliber, although it will be squeezed out, will not be completely ousted! This caliber has its "pluses" (including accumulated ammunition reserves...). It is possible that the 30 mm caliber will continue to be "improved" in bi-caliber systems (30/40 mm, 30/35 mm).

In the tank 125 mm + 30 mm, in my opinion, an excellent bikalibernaya system, plus a machine gun, of course)

Quote: Nikolaevich I

It can be assumed that 30-mm installations will be quite effective in the "sniper shooting" mode in the future! Moreover, 30-mm corrected shells are "not necessary" for this... but an improvement of the fire control system (FCS) is necessary: ​​laser rangefinders-sights, ballistic digital computers (with input of a large amount of data; including meteorological data...), connected with a "network-centric system"...

Yes, but accuracy does not improve, unfortunately. If the spread does not allow to get into a small-sized guided enemy ammunition or a UAV, then there are only guided projectiles.

Quote: Nikolaevich I

To reduce the cost of small-caliber corrected ammunition, a method of using corrected projectiles in a "master-slave" sequence, where the "lead" ammunition is more complex, expensive (by the way, may not have an explosive charge .. "everything" is given to control ...); the "slave" ones are simpler, cheaper ...

Interestingly, I would love to read about it.

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

And again we will get a senseless gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm cannon from the Bakhchi, which is just changed to a module with a normal 57 mm tool.

I would not be so sure ...
Well, no, if by the term "57-mm gun" you mean not one, but two. an automatic cannon of high ballistics and a 57-mm automatic grenade launcher, then yes, the latter can compete with "Sotka" in hitting "flat" targets.
But you are not talking about him, are you?
High-speed problems are gigantic — high dispersion in range. As a result, they are able to normally shoot only at vertical targets.

So what about "stupidity" is very controversial. Soviet developers were somewhat closer to real needs than modern ones, sinning more with a love of brutality.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

And again we will get a senseless gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm cannon from the Bakhchi, which is just changed to a module with a normal 57 mm tool.

I would not be so sure ...
Well, no, if by the term "57-mm gun" you mean not one, but two. an automatic cannon of high ballistics and a 57-mm automatic grenade launcher, then yes, the latter can compete with "Sotka" in hitting "flat" targets. But you're not talking about him, are you?

This was a response to a comment on the reduction of recoil due to the use of guns with a low recoil momentum.

Quote: Spade

High-speed problems are gigantic — high dispersion in range. As a result, they are able to normally shoot only at vertical targets.

So what about "stupidity" is very controversial. Soviet developers were somewhat closer to real needs than modern ones, sinning more with a love of brutality.

Due to what the dispersion in range? Is it possible to somehow compensate for this with modern means - a rigid mast construction, control of trunk bending, etc.?
For AU220M, the firing range of almost 12 km is claimed, while for 30 mm, the maximum is 3-4 km. What then there accuracy and accuracy will be?
And yes, 57 mm put for the sake of penetration of armor BOPS. If there is a low velocity of the projectile, what's the use of BOPS? Then it really is better to leave 100 m.

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

Due to what the dispersion in range?

Due to the trajectory.
The higher the speed and the more flat the trajectory, the easier it is to hammer "vertical targets" and worse "horizontal" ones. And vice versa. The probability of hitting a low-speed HE shell "weave" on a moving tank is near-zero. And only a very "advanced" LMS can fix it

High speed cannons are more difficult. Actually, dancing with tambourines around remote detonation occurs precisely in order to increase the likelihood of hitting "flat" targets. But do not forget that this is a "splinter", not a high-explosive fragmentation. And they learned to protect the trenches from the "splinter" and shrapnel back in the First World War.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Spade

Quote: AVM

Due to what the dispersion in range?

Due to the trajectory.
The higher the speed and the more flat the trajectory, the easier it is to hammer "vertical targets" and worse "horizontal" ones. And vice versa. The probability of hitting a low-speed HE shell "weave" on a moving tank is near-zero. And only a very "advanced" LMS can fix it

High speed cannons are more difficult. Actually, dancing with tambourines around remote detonation occurs precisely in order to increase the likelihood of hitting "flat" targets. But do not forget that this is a "splinter", not a high-explosive fragmentation. And they learned to protect the trenches from the "splinter" and shrapnel back in the First World War.

Understood, stepped. Do you mean that a high-ballistic cannon has a flat trajectory, and you won't be able to throw shells into a trench using a mortar method? Well, in this case, it is easy to add an automatic 30 mm grenade launcher to the turret, or even a mortar, like on the Merkava, only automated, specifically for "flat" targets. AGS generally takes up little space.

[anzar]

..and throwing shells in a mortar way into the trench will not work?

A programmed undermining for what they do?)) Just for this. And in general, it is not clear what kind of "scattering by range" does not give rest to colleagues))

[Alexey RA]

Quote: AVM

But 57 mm on the plane can not be put, and not even on any ship.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: AVM

But 57 mm on the plane can not be put, and not even on any ship.

Yes, but it was the main, and in my opinion the only armament of the aircraft, now nobody will take such volumes under the air cannon, and the electronics will probably fall apart from the recoil.
Developed it and 100 mm aviation ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: AVM

Yes, but accuracy will not improve, unfortunately.

Easy. Modern MSA things are multifaceted 8))) For example, you can control the position of the barrel relative to the calculated throwing line and fire a shot at the right time. By the way, the "ragged" tempo will not allow resonance to happen.
If we discuss the anti-aircraft option, it makes sense to introduce corrections for the time of undermining dist. fuse depending on the initial velocity of the projectile. This will create a denser fragmentation field.
The use of radar measurements of wind parameters can greatly reduce dispersion due to inhomogeneities of the atmosphere

[chenia]

Quote: AVM

And you can meet 100 goals, for which 80 shells in the 57 mm ammunition rack will not be enough. These are all far-fetched situations. And in the article there are no tears to reduce ammunition, just a fact is indicated.

There are no special problems for the BC for 57 mm
First, the company’s task is to take the GP, and further contribute to the immediate mission of the battalion. So, what -And eternal battle.We only need ...., this is not for the MS department. For tasks and expense, in defense there are no problems at all (there will be no landing).

second, now there are 4 infantry fighting vehicles in the platoon (though a platoon of 28-32 people is needed here), then 7-8 people- KO, mech.vod., operator and 4 -5 gunner. a bit more space. more firepower, fewer people, however.
the third volume is 121 shells 57 mm -0,5 m3 (in cartridges there will be a bit more).

And for a simple infantry does not need a 57 mm machine. There's a cassette, and you need a mechanism for accelerated loading. And unlike 30 mm, it is not worth watering with bursts.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: AVM

And again we will get a stupid gun of low ballistics like the 100 mm gun from Bakhchi,

Well, regarding the "stupidity"... It's like in the joke: "I don't like these "whites"! You just don't know how to cook them!"... It is necessary to take into account the "strong" and "weak" qualities of such a weapon and use it correctly! I suppose that in practice this "rule" is not always observed! For a 100-mm low-ballistics weapon, it was necessary to immediately develop "its own" ammunition, taking into account the qualities of the weapon for which they are intended! For example, active-reactive... Of course, it should be possible to use "regular" shells, but in certain cases. Approximately the same can be "projected" onto the 57-mm caliber. "Low-impulse" 57-mm guns should have "their own" ammunition (active-reactive, adjustable...) with the ability to use "regular" ammunition from high-ballistic guns in certain cases... 57-mm low-ballistic guns can then be installed "on both airplanes and boats."... in short, where 57-mm high-ballistic guns cannot be installed...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Caliber 57 mm is often "reproached" for reducing ammunition, for increased recoil ... as a result, for increased "mass" characteristics. Is it necessary to "shed tears" over the "reduction" of ammunition? Well, you can take more 30-mm shells ... and "meet" targets that require 10 30-mm shells for each one to destroy ... When, 57-mm shells will be enough 1-3 (maximum). ..

Ambush is that shoot и to fall - these are different things.
If the 30-mm can afford to have a not very complicated sight and adjust the fire on the "stream" of tracers, then the 57-mm with its limited ammunition can not afford this. And this means that a decent SUAO is needed, and this is mass, volumes, energy consumption and money.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Alexey RA

The ambush is that shooting and hitting are different things.

And I thought that they were shooting to get there! No... I am ready to believe you that there are cases when they shoot not at the target, but in the direction... or "with eyes closed"! But, even in the case of a miss... (and when the "shooter" tries to hit the target, then this miss (KVO) is minimal...), when the probability is higher that the projectile will still "reach" the target (with fragments, for example),... with 30 mm or 57 mm? There is also such a way of adjusting shooting as sighting "barrels-barrels" in various designs...! (Back in the late 70s, a division of 130-mm M-46 guns, leaving for exercises, took with them for "sighting in" the "forty-five"!) This method of sighting in can be "modernized-improved"... and as for "complex, expensive" FCS, well, "everything flows and changes"! As one "philosophical" parable says: first they say: "this is not possible!"... after some time: "there is something in this!".. again, after some time: "We must try!"... and, finally: "How did we live without this before?!" That is, the time will come when "compact, economical, "budget" FCS will be "everywhere"!

[Inj Meh]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Which ammunition can accommodate more "armor-piercing" striking elements that can penetrate body armor, gun shields, armor of light armored vehicles, helicopters...?...

Hence the moral:

First, we look at what ammunition (what range and with what destructive effect) we can produce in commercial quantities and with what accuracy we can deliver them to the target at a given range. (If there is currently no high-precision ammunition in the required caliber in the series, then it is reckless to choose this increased caliber and reduced ammunition for a specific carrier).

Then we calculate the required ammunition on the carrier and the requirements for the frequency of its replenishment for prolonged combat operations.

And then we choose the caliber.

We have the shells and precision of WWII => trains of kilotons of ammunition and kilos of barrels and their early concentration in the right place.

We have high-precision projectiles with the ability to use them at 10 km => mobile self-propelled guns with ammunition trucks.

That is, until there are high-precision and highly effective 40-50 mm ammunition in commercial quantities, 30 mm will not go anywhere (especially since there is still work to be done, such as accuracy and armor penetration, and as far as I know, even armored personnel carriers with 30 mm were actively used in their tactics: jump out from around the corner - fire a burst at the house being stormed and jump back around the corner).

I am more than sure that somewhere this has already been more scientifically substantiated and described.

[Bodipancher]

The following combination is quite logical: Tank 125 mm (tanks, fortified targets) + 30 mm (air targets, lightly armored vehicles, tank-hazardous targets), BMP 57 mm (air targets, fortified points, infantry concentrations, armored targets) + 12.7 (infantry support), APC 30 mm + 7.62 mm.

[Zaurbek]

In my opinion, the more correct approach in the US is with the short 30x113mm B on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and light armored vehicles and 30 mm cartridges: 30×173 mm on the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft and BMP/APC, and for the second option, modern BPS (which are not available in the Russian Federation) are needed.

[bmv04636]

May consider the return of the infernal threshers of the chassis in storage in our bulk

[SHOPPING MALL]

The project is developing:

Raytheon has tested the MAD-FIRES (Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System, or multi-azimuth rapid interception and all-round defense system) system for the Advanced Defense Research Agency (DARPA), the defenseworld.net reports on May 7.

MAD-FIRES interceptor shells are designed to provide self-defense, the system strikes "multiple waves" of anti-ship missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other threats, the company said in a statement on Monday.

If used, this capability will combine the rate of fire of the gun mount with the accuracy of the missile attack, reports Raytheon.

MAD-FIRES interceptor

http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=24595

[fone]

The author made a big mistake by calling 2A72 "a wonderful gun". Therefore, further conclusions are not worth reading, they are wrong.