Military Review

In the United States showed the new 50-mm automatic gun for light armored vehicles

146
The company Northrop Grumman at the exhibition Association of the United States Army (AUSA) introduced a new automatic gun caliber 50-mm for promising armored vehicles. The novelty is called XM913 Bushmaster.


In the United States showed the new 50-mm automatic gun for light armored vehicles


The new development of the XM913 Bushmaster is an 50-mm chain-drive gun that differs from its 25-mm predecessor M242 not only in large caliber, but also in firing range. According to the developers, the new gun is capable of hitting targets at ranges up to 4-km, while the 25-mm M242 fired only at 2 km. In addition, Bushmaster allows you to integrate modern automatic targeting options, improved fire control capabilities and other advanced features into the armored weapons system.

It should be noted that this gun was originally introduced in the first half of April this year, as possible weapon to equip promising models of armored vehicles.

Northrop Grumman claims that the new 50-mm cannon will be equipped with the Griffin III armored fighting vehicle (BBM) from General Dynamics Land Systems, a prototype of which has already been demonstrated with these weapons, the German BBF KF41 Lynx from Rheinmetall and Raytheon, the Swedish CV90 in the BAE version Systems

This gun is officially involved in the US Army's NGCV (Next Generation Combat Vehicle) program, and is intended for installation in larger new-generation armored vehicles. It is possible that the XM913 cannon will be installed on the upgraded M2 Bradley and wheeled infantry fighting vehicle XM1296 Stryker Dragoon ICVD, a variant of the Stryker BBM equipped with a turret installation with the 30-mm XM813 "Bushmaster II" automatic cannon.

Thus, it can be assumed that the US Army and its NATO allies will gradually move away from weapons of light caliber 25 - 30 - mm used on light armored vehicles, replacing it with more powerful weapons of the caliber 50-mm.
Photos used:
https://twitter.com/2805662
146 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Lexus
    Lexus 20 October 2019 14: 37
    +9
    The confrontation between the projectile and the armor on a new round. "Bell", which we should not delay with "Dagger" and "Baikal".
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 20 October 2019 15: 48
      +4
      Well, while ours are trying on a 50-mm cannon, the Americans have also decided to increase the caliber on light armored vehicles. It is necessary to accelerate faster ...
      1. Dzungar
        Dzungar 20 October 2019 16: 34
        +2
        We do not try on. We have already decided to use a 57 mm automatic gun on new models of armored vehicles .... And as I understand it, TBMP T-15 Armata, a medium tracked infantry fighting vehicle Kurganets, and an average wheeled infantry fighting vehicle Boomerang ...
        1. Private-K
          Private-K 20 October 2019 16: 49
          +6
          Do not make up. 57 mm highCobalistic autocannon is only offered by its manufacturer. A test on a small series passes 57 mm lowballistic grenade launcher gun.
          And you can be sure that in the Russian Federation they will not be armed with a cannon under such an old shot / cartridge - he will soon hit 100 years old.
          1. Dzungar
            Dzungar 20 October 2019 16: 55
            -9
            you and Grisha are the most intelligent among us (Like a whisker .. Only you don’t eat a hole ..) You all know and see it all ... And our designers, military and management only sucks something apparently (in your opinion) ... And They don’t do anything and don’t want to do ... And they can’t ... So what ..?
            1. Private-K
              Private-K 20 October 2019 17: 06
              +14
              Instead of giving thanks, you took an offended pose and are trying to insult the person who told you how it really is.
              And to maintain their pants, they began to carry some kind of nonsense about some designers and inventing my opinion about them.
              The 57-mm high-ballistic gun now available to the Russian Federation is the weapon part of the old S-60 - there is no other. And her cartridge / shot is a foreign license 100 years ago, the development (1920s). And he has two terrible flaws: dimensions / shape and sleeve material. No one will accept a shot with a liner made of brass L63 (63% copper) for mass armament being in adequate consciousness.
              1. Dzungar
                Dzungar 20 October 2019 17: 13
                -10
                Why did I call you that ...? You don’t know all this .. You are not the only ones to see all these minuses of the S-60 ... But the decision has been made, and we must assume that it is being implemented, with the exception of these shortcomings of the old system .... Therefore, do not run ahead of the engine and let's take a little wait. This American rushka is also still experimental and is not installed on some latest technology produced in droves
      2. Berkut24
        Berkut24 20 October 2019 17: 42
        +2
        Well, while ours are trying on a 50-mm cannon, the Americans have also decided to increase the caliber on light armored vehicles. It is necessary to accelerate faster ...

        In fairness, I must say that Russia was the first to worry about increasing the caliber on light armor, ceasing to bet on 30mm. and this is the first.
        And secondly, how many times has it been that different NATO countries presented new developments in artillery and everything seemed to be cool. Yes, they just didn’t take them into service. Either the ammunition is too expensive, the mass of the gun is too high, then the recoil is too much and the hodovka can’t stand it, it’s not particularly climbing into the fighting compartment, or the caliber is non-standard.
        Let's wait for the final result. We and "Baikal" have already been developed and tested, and we have ammunition for it, but for now we are marking time. The same Ministry of Defense says that the ammunition is expensive.
      3. Evil Booth
        Evil Booth 23 October 2019 18: 01
        0
        40 years old bmp3 100mm with connection. there is even a BBi BPS. soldier
      4. 3danimal
        3danimal 18 July 2020 02: 58
        -1
        We need to more actively participate in the arms race. What if history does not repeat itself and the United States is the first to go broke this time?
    2. Maz
      Maz 21 October 2019 09: 54
      0
      That is, in this question we have long had a ready answer, and the Americans only realized
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 21 October 2019 20: 36
        0
        and the Americans only realized

        it was planned to equip the US Marine Corps with an 50-mm gun - the project is CLOSED (!)
        and we have 57-mm from the experimental to the series launched (!)
        and howile ....
  2. Kerensky
    Kerensky 20 October 2019 14: 38
    +2
    Well, on a BMP, a high-explosive action is more important. And what is the effect in the caliber of 20-30 mm.?!
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 21 October 2019 20: 43
      +1
      what action in caliber 20-30 mm.?!

      on the BMP-3 along with the 30-mm 2А72 there is also the 100-mm gun 2А70 and it’s just implemented there, what are you asking
      on the "ballistics type" switch there is a P-100 function - it is intended for air blasting of a projectile while approaching a target.
      allows you to fight the enemy’s manpower, located on the opposite slopes of heights, in ravines, behind walls and in trenches, as well as conduct effective fire at air targets.
      1. Yuriy77
        Yuriy77 22 October 2019 10: 59
        0
        And how is the air blasting of a shell implemented? Installing the fuse for instant action or something else?
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 22 October 2019 14: 15
          0
          And how is the air blasting of a shell implemented?

          electronic system for remote fragmentation of fragmentation ammunition
          for example:
          on the T-80 and T-90 tanks under the 125-mm gun is the "Ainet" system, which ensures the undermining of the OFS at a given point of the trajectory
          To use the system, the gunner measures the range to the target with a laser range finder before loading the projectile. In the process of loading the projectile passes through an automatic interval setter, which sets the projectile to detonate when it reaches the specified range; the prepared shell is then retrieved and ready to fire.
          1. Evil Booth
            Evil Booth 23 October 2019 18: 03
            0
            recourse After what do the trophies on the abrams! Nothing! and the cannon from the obt falls off broken through by fragments
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 18 July 2020 03: 01
            -2
            How is the projectile programmed for the T-80 and T-90? There must be a muzzle device on the gun.
            Since what system and on how many tanks?
  3. Lapunevsky
    Lapunevsky 20 October 2019 14: 41
    +1
    Good stuff. If the mass goes to the troops for armored vehicles, then this will be a serious reason in the battle with pikes and shaitan vehicles.
  4. Grigory_45
    Grigory_45 20 October 2019 14: 42
    -5
    Thus, it can be assumed that the US army and its NATO allies will gradually move away from 25-30 mm caliber weapons used in light armored vehicles, replacing them with more powerful weapons
    - The constant increase in the caliber of guns, following the increase in the security of armored vehicles - this has long been a global trend. America also discovered captains evidence

    And only Russia still puts 30-mm AP even on promising armored vehicles.
    1. figwam
      figwam 20 October 2019 15: 03
      +3
      Quote: Gregory_45
      And only Russia still puts 30-mm AP even on promising armored vehicles.

      Your data is out of date.
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 20 October 2019 15: 07
        -5
        Quote: figvam
        Your data is out of date

        In your opinion, is this not a promising armored vehicle?
        1. figwam
          figwam 20 October 2019 15: 16
          +5
          Quote: Gregory_45
          In your opinion, is this not a promising armored vehicle?

          I repeat, your data is out of date
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 20 October 2019 15: 23
            0
            Seryozha, you do not understand the main thing. Our promising technology, combat modules were created for 30-mm AP, because we have nothing else. 2A42 is an excellent gun, but it is already getting old, and they could not create sensible ammunition for it. Have you seen Baikal? Well, how in size? He completely sweeps out the entire "landing". Where are you landing?
            Now we do not have a good compact AP for armored vehicles.
            The gun for Baikal is based on the ancient S-60 anti-aircraft gun

            Sometimes you should not only look at (comics) pictures hi
            1. Sky strike fighter
              Sky strike fighter 20 October 2019 15: 30
              0
              Sometimes you should not only look at (comics) pictures

              Challenges are underway. So here the matter is far from limited to pictures.
              Tests of guided projectiles for the newest Derivation-Air Defense self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery installation are taking place in Russia. This was announced to TASS by Grigory Zakamennykh, the general director of the company - the developer of the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik" (part of the Uralvagonzavod group, is part of Rostec) at the "Army-2018" exhibition.

              "The shells are currently undergoing preliminary tests," he said.

              Zakamennykh clarified that it is about managing the time of the projectile detonation along the entire flight path. "The projectile flies along a ballistic trajectory, it is not corrected, but the explosion time can be set," the CEO explained, adding that it is not planned to create corrected projectiles with a variable trajectory in this caliber (57 mm).

              https://vpk.name/news/225578_v_rossii_nachalis_ispyitaniya_upravlyaemyih_snaryadov_dlya_zenitnoi_samohodki.html
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 20 October 2019 15: 47
                +1
                Quote: Sky Strike fighter
                Tests of guided shells for the newest self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery installation "Derivation-Air Defense" are being held in Russia

                not controlled (adjusted), but with controlled detonation. These are two big differences.

                For the rest. you apparently have no objections
            2. figwam
              figwam 20 October 2019 15: 39
              +1
              Have you seen Baikal? Well, how in size? He completely sweeps out the entire "landing". Where are you landing?

              Especially for Grisha, as can be seen, the gun does not interfere with the landing.

              And the fact that in the United States every time they invent something new is just the point for cutting the budget.
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 20 October 2019 15: 46
                +1
                Quote: figvam
                as can be seen, the gun doesn’t interfere

                where is it visible?

                Serezha, once again: do you see the store in the turret space of the module? And he does not bother anyone? By the way, the Era almost does not go into the inhabited department, except perhaps 50 millimeters in total - but these are mere trifles.

                With spatial thinking like, no problem?
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 20 October 2019 16: 01
                  +3
                  can you see the store in the turret space of the module?

                  By the way, pay attention to the presented 50mm Bushmaster also shells of the "classic lineup". What does it mean? The fact that they are not small, and will require something similar in size in the turret space.
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 20 October 2019 16: 10
                    -2
                    Quote: alexmach
                    By the way, pay attention to the presented 50mm Bushmaster also shells of the "classic lineup"

                    drew. And it seemed strange, because they announced "telescopes"
                    1. dvina71
                      dvina71 20 October 2019 16: 32
                      0
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      And it seemed strange, because they announced "telescopes"

                      You can't make a landmine with a "telescope", only crowbars .. It is not possible ... to shove a landmine into a cartridge case .. And where is the powder charge?
                      1. alexmach
                        alexmach 20 October 2019 19: 34
                        +2
                        A land mine cannot be made with a "telescope"

                        Why is this all of a sudden? the 40 mm Bofors telescopic projectile with controlled detonation.
                      2. Private-K
                        Private-K 21 October 2019 07: 23
                        0
                        wassat The 40-mm and 57-mm bofors have the same old cartridge / shot as our 57-mm bofors, they are actually brothers!

                        What kind of telescopes are there.
                        Now there is only one telescope brought to the series - the 40-mm Franco-British CTWS cannon. The Russian Federation has an experienced 45 mm developed under the BMP Kurganets and the like; but which was abandoned.
                      3. alexmach
                        alexmach 21 October 2019 08: 49
                        0

                        The CT40 cannon and its telescopic ammunition ...
                      4. Private-K
                        Private-K 21 October 2019 08: 51
                        +1
                        CTWS is CT40. It is one such brought to the series.
                      5. alexmach
                        alexmach 21 October 2019 08: 56
                        0
                        Well, then I got confused in the guns. Well, he has a fragmentation shell in a telescopic version ...
                    2. alexmach
                      alexmach 20 October 2019 19: 32
                      +1
                      Himself looked again, confess confused and do not understand anything.
                      In the front photo there are 3 shells,
                      - Subcaliber
                      - probably high-explosive
                      - and some other

                      So the first two have the same diameter as the shell caliber. That is, the amount of propellant is small. Almost a telescope. How they are going to hit targets at a 4 km distance is a mystery to me. But they really will take up less space. But what kind of third shell I don’t understand at all, in appearance it is smaller in caliber than the previous 2.
                      1. Evil Booth
                        Evil Booth 23 October 2019 18: 05
                        0
                        so on ballistic to tmou the massive one flies further) range 7 means parabola 13-16
                2. figwam
                  figwam 20 October 2019 16: 03
                  +1
                  Here is the location in BMP-3
                  1. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 20 October 2019 16: 07
                    +1
                    Quote: figvam
                    Here is the location in BMP-3

                    this is in the BMP-3, which originally had an inhabited compartment. And then minus two of the landing. Now think about what will happen when Baikal is installed on the T-15 or Kurganets B-11? I can’t bring you to this thought. You show photos of these cars
                    1. figwam
                      figwam 20 October 2019 16: 28
                      -1
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      And then minus two of the landing.

                      Judging by the picture of them 8.

                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      Now think about what will happen when Baikal is installed on the T-15

                      The T-15 cannon itself doesn’t interfere, the issue of deploying the ammunition will be carried out as with a 30 mm variant.
                      1. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 20 October 2019 16: 34
                        +2
                        Quote: figvam
                        Judging by the picture of them 8

                        Let's take it together: the operator and the commander were in combat, where should they be transplanted? Necessary. It is possible only to the places of the front paratroopers, which are on the sides of the mechanical drive. Nowhere else to go. Total - minus two of the landing.

                        Quote: figvam
                        The T-15 cannon itself doesn’t interfere, the question is in the deployment of the ammunition

                        finally..))

                        Quote: figvam
                        will carry out

                        There, the grandmother said in two, how much it is possible to increase the dimensions of the module, so that it would not interfere, for example, to open the hatches. 120 rather big cartridges and the conveyor is not a machine-gun belt. Not so simple, Serezhenka. And it is work and work. And do not show pictures ..)
                      2. figwam
                        figwam 20 October 2019 16: 48
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Not so simple, Serezhenka.

                        But for Grishenka everything is simple, only everything can be there, but not here.
                      3. Saxahorse
                        Saxahorse 20 October 2019 20: 22
                        0
                        Quote: figvam
                        But for Grishenka everything is simple, only everything can be there, but not here.

                        Dude. You're wrong. laughing

                        This is not the BMP-3 at all, this is the Dragoon, a completely new machine which, in addition, has not yet been adopted for service (although of course it is an order of magnitude better than the BMP-3).

                        Teach a materiel a little before arguing. wassat
                      4. figwam
                        figwam 20 October 2019 20: 34
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Dude. You're wrong.

                        What I'm wrong, the BMP-3M Dragoon is written in the picture and there are 8 paratroopers and the conversation is about promising models, and not standing in service, you're just not a topic dude.
                      5. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 20 October 2019 21: 10
                        +1
                        Quote: figvam
                        only everything can be there, but not here

                        Serezhenka again did not understand. Or rather, trying to stupidly make money on hype.

                        They work there, but we don’t, trying to get the military involved, don’t understand what. And what do the earrings give out for having no analogues and for the future. Do you understand this now, Serrezhenka?
                      6. figwam
                        figwam 20 October 2019 21: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Do you understand this now, Serrezhenka?
                        Well, of course, Grishenka, a 50 mm rifled barrel is the future that has no analogues in the world, now everyone knows this, because Grishenka so wanted.
                      7. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 16: 16
                        0
                        Quote: figvam
                        it is a future unparalleled

                        Serezhenka again did not understand. And again he is trying to stupidly make money on hype. The point is that abroad, the development of small-caliber-gun systems - ammunition for the re-equipment of light armored vehicles is actively underway. Not only Americans are engaged in this - Germans also make a 50-mm AK, the Swedes and the British - a 40-mm cannon. And only we are content with the old 30-mm 2A42, we still invented an incomprehensible beast called LShO-57, but we pulled out the ancient S-60 from naphthalene. And you pretend (or maybe you don’t do it, out of ignorance) that we have everything super and have nothing to worry about. In our country, people start to get puzzled only when it gets late. National fun. Thanks to people like you

                        You nod to the Americans all the time, and I speak for my own army. On different shores. You are probably closer to the Yankees, since you worry about them
                      8. Evil Booth
                        Evil Booth 23 October 2019 18: 06
                        0
                        all that is difficult for you except for the mentally unskillful
                      9. alexmach
                        alexmach 20 October 2019 19: 39
                        +2
                        The T-15 cannon itself doesn’t interfere, the issue of deploying the ammunition will be carried out as with a 30 mm variant.

                        Khe-khe, and who needs the gun itself without the BK? And where you will bring it out ... it’s corny in volume more than the BK 30mm gun.
                      10. figwam
                        figwam 20 October 2019 20: 24
                        -1
                        Quote: alexmach
                        And where will you bring him out ...

                        The Americans carried 50 mm, and why 57 mm is impossible, in tanks and 120 mm outside.
                      11. alexmach
                        alexmach 20 October 2019 22: 31
                        +3
                        Americans 50 mm carried

                        What did they take out? What car and what shells then?
                        why not 57 mm

                        And look at the shells in the photo, then look at the shells to our 57mm
                      12. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 21 October 2019 00: 10
                        0
                        Quote: alexmach
                        What did they take out? What car and what shells then?

                        just type AU-220 on the Internet, get a picture:

                        Look at this big box behind the cannon - that’s where all the ammunition is, and you don’t have to steal anything from the airborne squad)))
                      13. alexmach
                        alexmach 21 October 2019 08: 54
                        +1
                        Look at this big box behind the guns - that’s where all the ammunition is

                        It cannot be, because it cannot be. Claimed 120 57mm shots in this little box will not fit in any way. and 80 too.
                        I also have a picture for you to understand the dimensions of these shells.
                      14. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 21 October 2019 21: 16
                        0
                        Quote: alexmach
                        It cannot be, because it cannot be.

                        That's right - this cannot be. because it cannot, but already is laughing
                        You take a look at the size of this "small box" - two people like you will easily fit there and there will still be room left, so the shells will normally fit as much as necessary.
                      15. alexmach
                        alexmach 21 October 2019 22: 45
                        0
                        So how many do you think will fit them there and in what packing?
                      16. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 22 October 2019 22: 33
                        0
                        Quote: alexmach
                        So how many do you think will fit them there and in what packing?

                        I will again throw the picture of the image of this module (reliable model) from above:

                        if you consider that they are there in the conveyor machine, then about 100 will fit normally. All the same, the machine will not scribble 120 rounds per minute, as it potentially can.
                        And yes - take a look at the dimensions of the machine compared to the person, then the dimensions of the module compared to the machine, you will immediately realize that everything is very NOT small there ...
                      17. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 16: 25
                        -2
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Look at this big box behind the gun - that’s where all the ammunition is.

                        there is ammunition for the machine gun - a single tape. As well as the equipment of the FCS of the combat module. 57 mm rounds in that part of the combat module that is outside - no.
                      18. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 21 October 2019 21: 22
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        there is ammunition for the machine gun - a single tape.

                        No, you are not careful - the ammunition for the machine gun is located in a box next to the machine gun itself, they are not inside the module ...
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        As well as the equipment of the FCS of the combat module.

                        And she is probably 2 by 2 meters in size! What century do you live in, dear? For a long time there are no tube huge computers! Everything is very compact, taking into account that the brains of the LMS may not be inside the module itself at all, and not to a large extent in the machine body ...
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        57 mm rounds in that part of the combat module that is not on the outside.

                        Hospadia, here is this module on top:

                        Pay attention to its volume! Yes, there you can cram 100 mm shells in commercial quantities. not like 57 mm!
                      19. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 22: 36
                        -2
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        the ammunition for the machine gun is located in a box next to the machine gun itself

                        yeah. the whole tape for 1000 rounds ..))

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Everything is very compact, given that the brains of the LMS may not even be inside the module itself, and not to a large extent in the machine’s body

                        Of course, it is in the case, but to a large extent - just in the module. And there .. not only the LMS, but also the drive, and the systems that provide the module. Including backup batteries. Even with modern electronics, there is no free space there.

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Yes, there you can cram 100 mm shells

                        yeah, yeah ..)) and the transporter for them too))
                      20. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 22 October 2019 22: 30
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        yeah. the whole tape for 1000 rounds ..))

                        And why all shove 1000 into the module? In the box 500, another 500 inside the car body - nakoy get out of the car, open the module. get cartridges from there, then load the machine gun ... It’s easier to take the box in the case immediately and change it from the machine gun ... Turn on the logic ...
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Of course, it is in the case, but to a large extent - just in the module. And there .. not only the LMS, but also the drive, and the systems that provide the module. Including backup batteries. Even with modern electronics, there is no free space there.

                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        yeah, yeah ..)) and the transporter for them too))


                        Consider yourself smarter than engineers? Not you first ...
                      21. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 23 October 2019 20: 00
                        -3
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        And why all shove 1000 into the module? In the box 500

                        where did you see the box with perfect vision?

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Turn on the logic ...


                        That's it - turn it on. The module is therefore made uninhabited, no need to get out of the car and replenish the BC. All ammunition is in the module.

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Consider yourself smarter than engineers?

                        unlike you, I'm an engineer.

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Not you first ...

                        Yes, you are not the first, and, alas, not the last, writing nonsense ...
                      22. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 23 October 2019 22: 47
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        where did you see the box with perfect vision?

                        Firstly - please tell me "you" - we, dear, did not drink at brotherhood ...
                        And secondly, I’m throwing you the T-15 image with the AU-220m module:



                        Please note that the module is small .. different, and the option you presented is made for the BMP-3, where due to the design features there is a limit on the mass of the installed combat module.
                        Here, just in case, a photo of the official model of this module:

                        As you can see, the volume is very, very good, and it will be quite possible to put in it an automated ammunition stack of 57-mm shells with such a good amount of these shells.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        That's it - turn it on. The module is therefore made uninhabited, no need to get out of the car and replenish the BC. All ammunition is in the module.

                        Who told you that? The developers themselves? For automatic modules are made primarily to save the internal space of the machine.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        unlike you, I'm an engineer.

                        In this case, you, as an engineer, can calculate, based on the images, the relative sizes of the module shown in the pictures above with the dimensions of the shells and the conveyor for them - you will immediately realize that the transport from your picture and shells in it will fit in the volume of the T- module fifteen...
                        And you will not accuse others of writing "nonsense" while you yourself can easily check everything hi

                      23. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 24 October 2019 21: 28
                        -3
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        All ammunition in the module.

                        Who told you that? The developers themselves?

                        exactly. I know the Age well, I have some ideas (not from the press) about Baikal

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        For automatic modules are made primarily to save the internal space of the machine

                        that is why the whole BC is in the module. And also because the crew did not protrude from under the armor for reloading, because it is impossible to do this (reload the gun) from inside the car. You have broken logical chains
                      24. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 25 October 2019 22: 10
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        exactly. I know the Age well, I have some ideas (not from the press) about Baikal

                        In this case, you just have to know, "not from the press" that this module has several options for different types of machines ...
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        that is why the whole BC is in the module. And also because the crew did not protrude from under the armor for reloading, because it is impossible to do this (reload the gun) from inside the car. You have broken logical chains

                        Do you know what’s important here? In your words?
                        And this:
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        that is why the whole BC is in the module.

                        You say that, agreeing with the thesis that the module is done for:
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        automatic modules are made primarily to save the internal space of the machine.

                        This means that the automatic module does not have any turret space, everything is shoved into the module itself - both control systems and ammunition ...
                      25. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 26 October 2019 13: 59
                        -1
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        This means that the automatic module has no turret space.

                        that means saying
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        In box 500, another 500 inside the machine
                        - you're not right. The entire BC must be in the module, and if the BC is overall - then the BM simply has turret space - and occupies a certain volume of habitable compartment. Nevertheless, BC - in the mechanized laying of the module.
                        You are trying to distort words and meaning
                      26. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 27 October 2019 15: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        - you're not right. The entire BC must be in the module, and if the BC is overall - then the BM simply has turret space - and occupies a certain volume of habitable compartment. Nevertheless, BC - in the mechanized laying of the module.
                        You are trying to distort words and meaning

                        Then take the trouble to explain what is in the box located next to the machine gun in the photo in the post below)))
                        just in case, I’ll duplicate:

                        What is marked with a question mark?
                        And now a photo of the model of this module, taken from photographs of the "live" sample:

                        Interested in a circle.
                        So the question is - is there a machine gun ammunition in the module? And if so, how, excuse me, is the power of that machine gun provided?
                      27. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 27 October 2019 15: 49
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        The entire BC must be in the module, and if the BC is overall - then the BM simply has turret space - and occupies a certain volume of habitable compartment

                        Then this goes against the assertion that the automatic module should save internal volume.
                        Moreover, there are two options for this module:
                        Time

                        and two

                        Pay attention to how they differ. And I will say - they differ only in the volume of the outer part, and the part in which the gun is located and the instruments do not change at all, and this automatically leads us to think. that something is located in the increased volume, something that needs to be moved outside the enclosure hi
                      28. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 27 October 2019 15: 51
                        0
                        Yes, the first photo is unsuccessful, here:
                      29. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 23 October 2019 22: 50
                        0
                        Py.Sy .: about a box with cartridges for a machine gun:

                        I suggest - to the left of the machine gun wink
                      30. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 16: 30
                        -1
                        Quote: figvam
                        why not 57 mm, in tanks and 120 mm outside

                        Try to imagine the store’s volume for at least 120 pieces of 57-mm rounds. Plus a conveyor (feed system) for them. The dimensions of the module will increase significantly, the top weight of the machine will increase. In addition, the module will have to be well booked - to provide protection at least from damage by large-caliber bullets. This is weight again.
                        Further. The dimensions have grown - there is a danger that the module will block the hatches in the roof of the car. Which again is not great. The tank does not have such a problem, it can have a stern niche even to the rear size.
                        Solid cons

                        Py Sy. What prevented you from thinking about it yourself?
                      31. figwam
                        figwam 21 October 2019 18: 23
                        -1
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Py Sy. What prevented you from thinking about it yourself?

                        Enough space for ammunition, stands high, hatches will remain free
                      32. Albert1988
                        Albert1988 21 October 2019 21: 22
                        0
                        In this version, the ammunition rack is located in a circle under the "rim" of the combat module.
                      33. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 23: 33
                        0
                        Quote: figvam
                        Enough space for ammunition

                        what is your claim based on? on "what did I say so"? have you seen the 57mm round at all?




                        you absolutely do not own materiel.
                      34. figwam
                        figwam 22 October 2019 07: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        Have you seen a 57 mm cartridge at all?

                        I also saw this in Russia - a shell, from this statement alone it’s clear what kind of specialist you are.
                        Quote: Gregory_45
                        you absolutely do not own materiel.

                        I tell you that there is plenty of space for placing shells.
                      35. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 22 October 2019 19: 24
                        -3
                        Quote: figvam
                        I tell you that there is plenty of space for placing shells.

                        those. I'm right - your only argument is "I said so." lol

                        Quote: figvam
                        Saw

                        probably for the first time, and in the presented photos. Otherwise, your amateurism cannot be explained in any other way.

                        Quote: figvam
                        in Russia it is called - a shell

                        catkin, a small-caliber unitary shot around the world is called a CARTRIDGE

                        Quote: figvam
                        this statement alone makes it clear what kind of specialist you are.

                        trying to hurt me, you put yourself in an unsightly light. Learn better materiel than stupidly argue.
                    2. bayard
                      bayard 20 October 2019 22: 25
                      +1
                      Less two of the landing - the normal price of the issue for the increased caliber and combat capabilities. 57 mm. it's not TOGETHER, but TOGETHER. 30 mm for BMP (IBTR) a sufficient caliber to defeat lightly armored and unarmored vehicles, defeat infantry behind an obstacle (wall, parapet). In addition, the BMP-3 except 30 mm. also 100 mm. there is a cannon, but the modernized BMP-2 has ATGMs, from 2 to 4 they have any enemy BMPs and even a tank is being picked.
                      A 57 mm. - for air defense (helicopters, low-flying subsonic aircraft, UAVs), destruction of an enemy infantry fighting vehicle with enhanced armor, targets at long range, infantry defeat behind an obstacle when power or range is 30 mm. guns are not enough.
                      They will act in the same order and complement each other. Armored personnel carriers will deliver the missing troops.
              2. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 20 October 2019 15: 52
                +2
                Quote: figvam
                And the fact that in the United States every time they invent something new is just a cut for the budget

                Naturally, how else could it be))

                Aegis, Shuttle, cellular, Internet, stealth, nuclear submarines, much more, even the ancient Bazooka arr 1942 - were created exclusively for cutting the budget lol
                1. dvina71
                  dvina71 20 October 2019 16: 26
                  -3
                  Quote: Gregory_45
                  Aegis, Shuttle, cellular, Internet, stealth, nuclear submarines, much more, even the ancient Bazooka arr 1942 - were created exclusively for cutting the budget

                  Aegis .. is it nauhau? I didn’t know .. I always thought it was a management system .. of which there are many ..
                  Shuttle ... even more questions .. no .. one .. Still using?
                  Cell ... Why what? For the first time, the Germans used a cellular phone at 42m to communicate with those around Stalingrad. In the USSR, even in a taxi (I’m not talking about fast and efficient cars), there was cellular communication, with only one hundredth - a control room. Yes .. a cellular phone differs from a wokitoka in a two-way channel ... and that’s it ..
                  The Internet .. is very controversial .. It is indisputable that the Americans commercialize everything .. but the first practical network in the USSR in the USSR was created in the 70s. And we use its further development now, buying train tickets .. but it all started then - ACS Express-1 .. 1971
                  Stelsses .. However .. there is a photo of stealth in the sight of the Su-35, but not vice versa .. And they got this technology from the USSR. Bring her as usual to insanity ..
                  The bazooka was useless even against the T-34 .., unlike the German Faust cartridges ..
                  1. Arturov
                    Arturov 20 October 2019 16: 45
                    +4
                    Quote: dvina71
                    The Internet .. is very controversial .. It is indisputable that the Americans commercialize everything .. but the first practical network in the USSR in the USSR was created in the 70s

                    At the end of the 60s, the first national-level network was created with funds from the US Department of Defense Advanced Development Agency (DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Project Agency). By the name of the agency, it was called ARPANET. In the union, something similar appeared only in 80g, and it’s better not to compare what happened.
                    But I understand you, the vile Americans stole everything ... lol
                    1. dvina71
                      dvina71 20 October 2019 17: 02
                      0
                      So nationally?
                      The computer network was named ARPANET and in the framework of the project on December 5, 1969 united the four above mentioned scientific institutions

                      And how much cooler is it than 1974 on the network all the stations of Moscow?
                      1. Arturov
                        Arturov 20 October 2019 18: 26
                        -3
                        Quote: dvina71
                        So nationally?
                        The computer network was named ARPANET and in the framework of the project on December 5, 1969 united the four above mentioned scientific institutions

                        And how much cooler is it than 1974 on the network all the stations of Moscow?

                        Well, yes I don’t argue, having no analogues in the world of an unsurpassed size electronics. Even now superior foreign analogues ... wassat
                      2. Arturov
                        Arturov 20 October 2019 18: 34
                        -1
                        Quote: dvina71
                        So nationally?

                        Well, let's provide evidence that it’s not national and that they were not the first, but in the village of Gadyukino back in 1917 they used and abruptly network. We are waiting for the next having no analogues in the world of fairy tales.
                  2. Grigory_45
                    Grigory_45 20 October 2019 21: 14
                    -2
                    I’m not even going to refute it step by step. Wrong in everything. In each line. Tell me, are you sincerely sure that you are writing, or is it spiteful for manipulating the facts by spite of the hated Yankees?
                    1. dvina71
                      dvina71 20 October 2019 23: 09
                      -3
                      Quote: Gregory_45
                      I will not even refute step by step

                      Because there is nothing. This is a story ... and I have not trampled against it.
                      \ Well, let's on the first point .. ajis .. combat information system ... Is it the only one in the world?
                  3. Good_Anonymous
                    Good_Anonymous 21 October 2019 02: 33
                    0
                    Quote: dvina71
                    Aegis .. is it nauhau? I didn’t know ..


                    At the time of its appearance, it was a very cool "know-how". Now, of course, there are many such systems.

                    Quote: dvina71
                    ? For the first time, the Germans used a cellular phone at 42m to communicate with those around Stalingrad.


                    Seriously?

                    Quote: dvina71
                    cellular from wokitoki differs in a two-way channel ... and that's it ..


                    Cellular from walkie-talkie differs in that not the terminals communicate with each other, but the terminals with the BS. BSs communicate with each other.

                    Quote: dvina71
                    Internet .. very controversial ..


                    Very undeniable. The Internet as an association of heterogeneous networks is precisely an American invention.

                    Quote: dvina71
                    but the first practical network in the USSR in the USSR was created in the 70s, and we use its further development now, buying train tickets .. but it all started then - ACS Express-1 .. 1971


                    The first network to reserve train tickets was put into operation in Japan in 1958. Called MARS-1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARS_(ticket_reservation_system)
                    1. dvina71
                      dvina71 21 October 2019 07: 55
                      -2
                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      At the time of its appearance, it was a very cool "know-how". Now, of course, there are many such systems.

                      Steeper than the tracking and control of aircraft in orbits of the Earth?

                      Quote: Good_Anonymous

                      Seriously?

                      More than .. learn history. And the fundamental difference between cellular and walkie-talkie is not terminal communications, but the presence of dual-channel cellular communications. In the walkie-talkie you either speak or listen. The cellular transmission / reception channel is one. Such communication was used by the Germans in 42m for telephone communication in Berlin and
                      Stalingrad.

                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      Very undeniable. The Internet as an association of heterogeneous networks is precisely an American invention.

                      Now the unification of heterogeneous networks has tightened ...
                      No .. the network (Internet) can be up ... local ... but it's still the Internet. And one of 5 cars in 69m .., but in fact in 70m experimental appeared in the USA, and in 71m experimental in the USSR, to work on the railway.
                      Quote: Good_Anonymous
                      The first network to reserve train tickets

                      At one station.
                      Well ok .. let's go with trump cards ..
                      The proposal to reorganize the management of the USSR economy by creating a nationwide automated system of managing the country's economy on the basis of the EHRCC was contained in a letter from Kitov to the head of the USSR N. S. Khrushchev, which he sent to the Central Committee of the CPSU on January 7, 1959. In this letter, he proposed the creation of a nationwide computer network multi-purpose, designed for planning and managing the economy throughout the country.

                      In the fall of 1959, Kitov sent Khrushchev a second letter in which he proposed a way to significantly reduce state expenditures on the creation of the USSR State Automated System for Economic Management on the basis of the USSVC. This second letter from Kitov contained the even more radical 200-page Red Book project he developed - a project to create an All-Union network of dual-use centers - military and civilian, to manage the country's economy in peacetime and the USSR Armed Forces in the military
                      Academician Viktor Mikhailovich Glushkov (1923-1982), director of the Institute of Cybernetics of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, did not give the original idea to A.I. Kitov. He rethought the project of A. I. Kitov and enlisted in 1962 the support of A. N. Kosygin (who was then deputy chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR) to intensify efforts to create automated control systems (ACS). The country began a large-scale campaign to create various ACS in government departments and enterprises, which captured hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens and continued until the beginning of Perestroika. From the mid-1960s until his death in January 1982, V. M. Glushkov was the actual ideologist of many works on automated control systems. By mid-1964, under his leadership, a group of Soviet scientists, which included A.I. Kitov, had developed a pre-draft project of the EGSVC (Unified State Network of Computer Centers). For five years, Kitov was an associate and deputy V. M. Glushkov on work carried out in the field of automated control systems in nine defense ministries of the USSR.

                      Litter for the multi-buff
                      1. Good_Anonymous
                        Good_Anonymous 21 October 2019 11: 06
                        -1
                        Quote: dvina71
                        At the time of its appearance, it was a very cool "know-how". Now, of course, there are many such systems.

                        Steeper than the tracking and control of aircraft in orbits of the Earth?

                        Steeper than all ship BIUS.

                        Quote: dvina71
                        And the fundamental difference between a cellular and a walkie-talkie is not the connection of terminals, but the presence of two-channel communication in a cellular.


                        For some reason, you are confusing the half-duplex (not two-channel) mode and the cellular network.

                        Quote: dvina71
                        Very undeniable. The Internet as an association of heterogeneous networks is precisely an American invention.

                        Now the unification of heterogeneous networks has tightened ...
                        No.


                        Yes. The meaning of the Internet is precisely in the unification of heterogeneous networks, which is why it is called Internet. The idea itself is purely American.

                        Quote: dvina71
                        The first network to reserve train tickets

                        At one station.


                        By 1964 - at the main stations, by 1968 - at all stations of the country.

                        Quote: dvina71
                        Well ok .. let's go with trump cards ..

                        Kitov’s second letter contained the even more radical 200-page Red Book project he developed - the project of creating the All-Union network of dual-use centers - military and civilian, to manage the country's economy in peacetime and the USSR Armed Forces in the military


                        And ... why did you write about this? This is just a project, not implemented. Entry with trump cards is, for example, "Marshal Ogarkov invented the RUK".
              3. Dzungar
                Dzungar 20 October 2019 16: 39
                -1
                Grisha, we have just the classic all-mascot, with relevant content .....
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 20 October 2019 21: 17
                  -2
                  Does it even occur to you that I really look at things, because I am familiar with the situation from the inside, and try to make people think how to correct it, the situation? And then we do not spit - everything is fine in the Danish kingdom. And on the ground ... you better not listen to what kind of eyes they say about who is broadcasting, that everything is wonderful with us. Just some work and swear, and the second sit in armchairs, and explain that everything is great. You are no one, or rather - urrypatriet, with the corresponding stupid comments.
            3. The comment was deleted.
  5. steelmaker
    steelmaker 20 October 2019 14: 44
    0
    And our gunsmiths are ahead of the curve. 57 mm will be more powerful. Such pros in our government are not enough.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 20 October 2019 15: 03
      +1
      Quote: steel maker
      57 mm will be more powerful

      and also much heavier and more dimensional. And, unlike her, the XM913 gets into existing towers and combat modules. In addition, an EAPS program creates an adjustable (guided) projectile for her. So yes, we are ahead of the rest. Once again ..
      1. dvina71
        dvina71 20 October 2019 16: 34
        0
        Quote: Gregory_45
        and also much heavier and more dimensional.

        Why is that? If the gun is rifled, then our 57mm is their 50mm ..
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 21 October 2019 17: 12
          -2
          Quote: dvina71
          Why is that?

          from that. Take the trouble to find the S-60 drawings and compare. In my drawing - XM913 Bushmaster
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 October 2019 18: 29
      0
      Unfortunately, modern ammunition for the 57 millimeter has not yet been made.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 20 October 2019 20: 39
        -1
        But this is a matter of pure desire. With modern working methods, new ammunition milking C60 for the year can be created and shoot at the landfill. But they don’t want to.
  6. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 20 October 2019 14: 51
    +2
    In the USA they showed .... Duc, and in Russia a 45-mm automatic cannon was created for the Boomerang! Only now the 57-mm "Derivation" "crossed the road"! 40 mm, 45 mm for the "newly developed" telescopic shots ...
  7. besser best
    besser best 20 October 2019 14: 54
    +3
    Especially against our (still Soviet) BMP-3 and BMD-4. Where our hundred square meters "compete" with their 50 mm cannon, back in the 80s they abandoned 57 mm cannons (they were in service with the Airborne Forces), they beat on the tails well, God help them!
  8. Amateur
    Amateur 20 October 2019 14: 56
    -5
    is a 50 mm chain drive gun,

    Have you tried the driveshaft or V-belt drive? And drive from renewable energy sources. fool
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 October 2019 21: 22
      0
      The Americans on all rapid-firing guns have an electric motor and chain drive.
      Recharge using powder gases has several disadvantages.
      The main one is that the recharge mechanism is clogged with soot and requires regular cleaning.
      Poorly regulated rate of fire.
      There is, of course, a significant drawback of the electric drive - the power source.
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 21 October 2019 17: 20
      -2
      Quote: Amateur
      is a 50 mm chain drive gun,

      Have you tried the driveshaft or V-belt drive? And drive from renewable energy sources. fool

      In vain you laugh. The drive from an external engine has its advantages. The gun itself is simpler, does not require a regular gas outlet cleaning, has a smoother ribbon pull, is not afraid of misfires (the defective cartridge will simply drag it further and throw it away), the rate of fire and firing in bursts of any length can be easily adjusted (for 2, 3, 5, 10 shots) . gas vents cannot do all this. In the Union, the gas outlet was widespread, because there were no powerful and compact electric motors, and there was also a condition for the military - the weapon should fire even when there is no power supply
  9. Thrifty
    Thrifty 20 October 2019 15: 06
    -1
    And it came to their attention that we have been shouting for a long time about the site -57 mm guns must be put on BMPs and BETs, there is also a bunch of combat modules with such a gun. ..
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 20 October 2019 15: 08
    0
    They just figured out that "Derivation" on our promising armored vehicles leaves their BMP and even MBT without special protection. However, while they spin up, until they install at least something ... And what kind of ballistics is there?
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 20 October 2019 17: 10
      0
      Derivation is air defense. tongue
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 20 October 2019 17: 30
        0
        Quote: Private-K
        Derivation is air defense

        Is there a different gun there? I won't believe it. They all come from the ZIS-2, which the "Tiger" was punched in the forehead. And S-60 anti-aircraft guns.
        1. Private-K
          Private-K 20 October 2019 18: 34
          0
          This means that the meeting of Derivation-Air Defense with the enemy’s BTT is not planned; and can only take place in the form of force majeure; and that means BTT can sleep in peace.
          Well, in addition, OBPS are unlikely to be part of the Derivation ammunition. For only two types of shells are possible, and both of them will be anti-aircraft, i.e. with small GGE.
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 21 October 2019 17: 25
            -1
            Quote: Private-K
            OBPS are unlikely to be part of the Derivations ammunition

            All ZSU had and have a certain number of armor-piercing shots. For example, in the German Cheetah of 660 shots, 40 - BOPS
            1. Private-K
              Private-K 22 October 2019 07: 27
              0
              Yeah. How do they charge?
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 22 October 2019 19: 28
                -1
                Quote: Private-K
                Yeah. How do they charge?

                have you heard anything about selective nutrition? On the BMP-2/3, for example, the gun can be powered by two different tapes. In one - OFS, in the other - armor-piercing
          2. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 21 October 2019 17: 34
            -1
            Quote: Private-K
            This means that the meeting of Derivation-Air Defense with the enemy’s BTT is not planned.

            such an opportunity is taken into account. Since the machine must act directly in the battle formations of tank and motorized rifle units. Therefore, a meeting with the enemy’s BTT is possible, but the ZSU can stand up for itself - the gun has good ballistics, all you need to do is put in a BC a certain amount of armor-piercing rounds. Remember the story - anti-aircraft guns have always successfully fought with armored vehicles
            1. Private-K
              Private-K 22 October 2019 07: 27
              0
              Look here. You have a cannon with two-tape (or two-store) power - in short - two lines of supply of ammunition. In one ammunition against helicopters and aircraft, in the other - against UAVs and air-to-surface air defense. Yes, they must be different! For greater efficiency. (The different size and weight of the GGE.) (Or, in one thread, unguided shells, and in the other - guided.) That's it. Where do you put the OBPS? Only if you specifically provide for manual loading with single rounds with OBPS. But this, somehow, is problematic given the fact that the combat module is remote and seems to be isolated. What to do?
              In general, you need to do complex automated loading from a single store with a choice of the type of ammunition, and not just dual-stream. What would be the possibility of choosing at least 4 types of ammunition: controlled, two with trajectory programmable detonation, one with OBPS.
  11. Desdecado
    Desdecado 20 October 2019 15: 17
    -1
    The "partners" have money not only for development, but also for implementation, in contrast to our ceremonial specimens, which will end up in the army in not ridiculous quantities in years, and maybe decades ..
    1. Private-K
      Private-K 20 October 2019 17: 13
      0
      Since 1981 (M242 Bushmaster on Bradley) not a single new autocannon has fallen into the US Army.
      None in 36 years, however.
      Although I was going to add or change something 5 times.
      What do you say to that? laughing
      1. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 22 October 2019 19: 34
        -2
        Quote: Private-K
        What do you say to that?

        the fact that there, contrary to the statements of some of those present here, the budget is not being sawn. Either the army did not want to change, or something did not suit her. I bow to the first option, the Bradley gun ensured a confident defeat of the BMP-1/2. With the advent of the three, they were thoughtful, but not very much - BOPS still had a chance. Then the USSR collapsed - the enemy was gone for a while. Now they have reason to deal with this topic.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 20 October 2019 18: 31
      0
      By 2027, they’ll definitely be put into service.
  12. garri-lin
    garri-lin 20 October 2019 15: 34
    +2
    But doesn’t it seem to you that the cannon is of low pulse. And do you need to compare it not with C 60 but with AGS 57? Although she would rather be in the middle between them.
    1. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 20 October 2019 16: 01
      -1
      Quote: garri-lin
      Doesn’t it seem to you that the cannon is low-pulse

      It does not seem. Are you going to shoot like a BOPS from a low ballistic gun?
      As far as is known, ammunition of 50x330 mm - similar to German ones - was created for the gun. Barrel length - about 50 calibers
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 20 October 2019 17: 33
        +2
        Most likely, it will not reach C 60. Frankly, it looks very strange. And I consider the statement that it is replacing the 25 mm forest to be drawn by a zausha. The BOPS queue should give a very strong return. What will extinguish it? Super DTK? Maybe. Although such a muzzle brake looks futuristic.
        1. chenia
          chenia 20 October 2019 20: 24
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          The BOPS queue should give a very strong return.


          To begin with, let’s determine if the system is to detach MSW, then why the hell doesn’t need automation (for combat support units (for example, reconnaissance), where the crew will still leave without landing, but there will also be 30 mm).
          So only the mechanism of accelerated loading. meaning simplification. 121 S-60 rounds are 0,5 m3, not a lot, not a little. Again. without an automatic machine it is easier to place (scatter).
          Naturally, the turret is larger, and should accommodate the commander and operator.
          Next, minus two members of the landing, but plus one BMP in MSV i.e. there will be 4- (3 for MCO + 1 for the gain link and direction), the number of platoon is the same.

          Shots, well here you need to create new ones. Taking into account the ballistics of the S-60 PBS, RP, and the fragmentation compound (three in one) telescopic low ballistics, the last analogue of the AG (if you throw three grenades with one shot, already like an automatic machine). Moreover, for the latter, automation is impossible (there is still an argument not to install the machine).
          Well, something like this.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 20 October 2019 20: 50
            0
            What are you talking about right now? Do you want to say that the presented gun is non-automatic?
            1. chenia
              chenia 20 October 2019 20: 55
              0
              Quote: garri-lin
              What are you talking about right now?


              This, I about what we need. But the Americans do not worry me much, and let them saw in this direction.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 20 October 2019 21: 10
                0
                Baikal is a fully functional module. We need new ammunition.
                1. chenia
                  chenia 20 October 2019 21: 18
                  0
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Baikal is a fully functional module


                  An automatic machine for a robotic complex will come off (well, this is a prospect), in air defense (Derivation), but for MCO fuck is not needed. And for BP, I agree, the question has long been ripe.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 20 October 2019 21: 41
                    0
                    I fundamentally disagree. A machine is preferred. Density of fire is a very important parameter.
                    1. chenia
                      chenia 21 October 2019 10: 07
                      0
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      A machine is preferred.


                      In theory, yes. BUT.
                      The price of the issue.
                      It’s more difficult to strengthen the tower, choose a shell, eat the volume (everything is localized, you can’t spread it on BMP BM) and less reliable.
                      And taking into account the "immediate task" (conditionally) MSO at the front 50 m. Up to 200-300 m in depth, where 3-4 fighters, 1/3 infantry fighting vehicles, 1/9 of the enemy tank, and "further" everything is half as much , then the machine is not particularly needed.
                      Well, I also offered a composite ammunition of low ballistics (three in one). and consider it as a machine queue ..
        2. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 21 October 2019 16: 06
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          The BOPS queue should give a very strong return. What will extinguish it?

          then from the line of S-60 chassis BMP-3 should just fly apart. However, it is lighter than Bradley, carries a gun with a higher ballistics - and therefore with a greater impact. Why doesn’t it bother you, and the American 50 mm at Bradley - well, really?
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 21 October 2019 20: 15
            -1
            And since when did BOPs appear on C 60?
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 20 October 2019 16: 04
      +1
      Doesn’t it seem to you that the cannon is low-pulse

      Yeah .. with a caliber ammunition ...
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 20 October 2019 17: 35
        0
        Watch the video. Shooting that sub-caliber. Queue yes with Bradley.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 20 October 2019 19: 35
          +1
          But he looked again at the photo, there really is a layout of two of the three shells similar to the AGS 57
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 20 October 2019 20: 20
            +1
            The sleeve is short for a large sample of gunpowder.
            1. alexmach
              alexmach 20 October 2019 20: 25
              +1
              I agree ... at the same time, a caliber, yes 4 km .. Some kind of miracles.
              Maybe the mixture is some super-high energy-intensive?
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 20 October 2019 20: 33
                +2
                It could be the same. Although Skorye 4 km is a land mine. BOPSU from a 50 mm barrel at such a distance is difficult to fly. If the sleeve is 330 then the crowbar is about 50 cm long and about a centimeter in diameter. Even uranium will weigh nothing at all. It’s difficult to fly 4 km. Too little specific information. And another third shell in a standard case and with a smaller diameter. ?!? Training milking firing through the insert?
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 20 October 2019 21: 27
                  -1
                  Of course. 4 km - just a land mine. OBPS for 2 km no more.
                  In fact, a cannon for a light tank designed for
                  combat BMP and to support infantry.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 20 October 2019 21: 39
                    +2
                    Well, for the BMP is more suitable. PF of 50 mm is fully functional. There is a place for brains for controlled detonation. The projectile for its caliber is quite small. BC will not be scanty. But what BOPS with such a small sleeve can do is not clear. Milking LT - Hunter is a controversial decision.
                    1. voyaka uh
                      voyaka uh 20 October 2019 21: 57
                      -1
                      OF for 50 mm is not enough. Even 76 mm is small.
                      In OBPS, the core is recessed into the sleeve almost to the bottom.
                      It will penetrate the armor of any BMP, except for heavy ones based on MBT.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 20 October 2019 22: 05
                        +2
                        The sleeve is subtle. There is no room for a lot of MB. Although for the BMP a lot and inappropriately. An infantry fighting ground on 50 mm rough terrain is quite adequate. And if with an air blast, just do it. And with GPO, the dream is so simple.
                      2. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 16: 08
                        -1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        There is no room for a lot of MB

                        New MVs are used, more energy-intensive. This allows you to make telescopic shots.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 21 October 2019 20: 30
                        0
                        More energy-intensive MV. Sounds pretty. How are bolers power-hungry? Faster burning? Over 1000m / this is already an explosion. And they approached this threshold back in the 80s. What's the temperature? Will negatively affect the trunk. The phrase "more energy intensive MV" is nothing more than an advertising slogan.
                        The sleeve is really small. Plus part of the internal volume is Lomik. No matter how super-energy-intensive the new MB is, armor penetration will be average. Although enough for BMP here, I agree with you.
                      4. Grigory_45
                        Grigory_45 21 October 2019 22: 40
                        -1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        it is nothing more than an advertising slogan

                        understand how you want. developing more efficient CFs, more energy-intensive fuels for missiles. Well, all of these are advertising slogans. Heads are fooled, physics and chemistry are stuck ... You know better)



                        Quote: garri-lin
                        No matter how super-energy-intensive the new MB is, armor penetration will be

                        will be at least no worse than the standard BOPS. But in this case - in reduced dimensions. And yes, 120-150 mm armor penetration (which was obtained on the British 40 mm gun) is enough to confidently defeat all existing and promising IFVs, with the exception of heavy
  13. Gennady Fomkin
    Gennady Fomkin 20 October 2019 16: 33
    0
    laughing We stick and set ourselves laughing .
  14. Strashila
    Strashila 20 October 2019 16: 39
    +3
    The Americans could not ignore the events in Syria, ZSU-57-2 showed themselves in full glory.
  15. Izotovp
    Izotovp 20 October 2019 16: 53
    0
    It's time for us to try on a 76-mm machine gun on Boomerang and Armata.
  16. Aqr009
    Aqr009 20 October 2019 19: 14
    0
    The muzzle brake is exotic. An interesting solution.
  17. Klingon
    Klingon 21 October 2019 00: 10
    -1
    Quote: Dzungar
    We do not try on. We have already decided to use a 57 mm automatic gun on new models of armored vehicles .... And as I understand it, TBMP T-15 Armata, a medium tracked infantry fighting vehicle Kurganets, and an average wheeled infantry fighting vehicle Boomerang ...

    also derivation of air defense, already in metal however drinks
  18. Den717
    Den717 21 October 2019 07: 56
    -1
    Thus, it can be assumed that the US Army and its NATO allies will gradually move away from weapons of light caliber 25 - 30 - mm used on light armored vehicles, replacing it with more powerful weapons of the caliber 50-mm.

    In the light of such news, to write in a joyful tone about the arrival of the BTR-82 in the country's Armed Forces or about the Belarusian "Caymans" is at least ridiculous. IMHO ...