The new BMP B-19 with the "Epoch" module was first shown at the strategic exercises "West-2021"

The newest BMP B-19 infantry fighting vehicles with the Epoch combat module were first used at the Mulino training ground during the drawing of the main scenario of the West-2021 strategic exercises. This was reported by the press service of the Ministry of Defense.

According to the report, BMP B-19 carried out fire support of defending units on the main defensive line. In the episode with the defense, an armored group participated in the platoon of the BMP B-19, entered into battle according to the scenario to increase the firepower of the defending units. Taking into account the complex of weapons installed on this BMP, they quite succeeded.

Reportedly, the Epoch combat module is equipped with a 57-mm automatic cannon, Kornet anti-tank launchers and a new Bulat missile system with small-sized guided missiles designed to destroy lightly armored vehicles and enemy firing points.

In addition, the combat module is equipped with an automatic search and recognition system, as well as target tracking. In this case, the system assesses the danger of a particular object and issues recommendations to the crew on the use of weapons.

BM "Epoch" B-19 was developed in the Tula Instrument Design Bureau. Its development was reported back in 2013. In the initial version, it was equipped with a 30 mm automatic cannon, a 7,62 machine gun and an anti-tank complex. In the future, it was decided to replace the weapons complex, primarily the guns. Instead of the 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon, it was proposed to install an LSHO-57 low ballistics automatic cannon.

Comments

[Alexey-74]

OK! At the same time, they were tested on such large-scale exercises.

[Peak]

Reportedly, the Epoch combat module is equipped with a 57-mm automatic cannon

Installation diagrams (option) of low ballistics weapons in the combat module and its power supply system.

One of the types of ammunition used by a wide range

[Petro_tut]

the combat module is equipped with an automatic search and recognition system, as well as target tracking

And drones-kamikaze the same?

[max702]

What's the point? Why is "Bakhcha-u" worse? "Cornets"? And what prevents the boxes with these from hanging on a standard tower? Is that much cheaper, but somehow it is doubtful. The current developments are a priori more expensive than the earlier ones.

[JD1979]

Well, you won't earn much on a standard tower))) And here you can get funding for development, for testing, for everything, and even if they are not adopted, a lot of people will receive salaries and bonuses for a long time.

[max702]

Well, everything is as always with this and the military-industrial complex of the USSR has always traded ..

[Albert1988]

Quote: JD1979

Well, you won't earn much on a standard tower))) And here you can get funding for development, for testing, for everything, and even if they are not adopted, a lot of people will receive salaries and bonuses for a long time.

You, as they say, "heard the ringing ..." The epoch module has been developed for a long time; Then they decided to use it corny on the BMP-15 to free the internal volume for a larger number of troops, because it does not have a turret basket, and a large continuous space is obtained inside.

[JD1979]

Quote: Albert1988

You, as they say, "heard the ringing ...

Are you sure about that?)))

Quote: Albert1988

The epoch module has been developed for a long time, it is installed on "Kurganets", "Boomerang", T-15 and other promising equipment.

For a long time? Is it put? These promising, so far remained exhibits of exhibitions and participants in parades.

Quote: Albert1988

Then it was decided to use it corny on the BMP-3 to free the internal volume for a larger number of troops, because it does not have a turret basket, and a large continuous space is obtained inside.

As well as a bunch of other uninhabited modules that have remained demos. And the fact that it was demonstrated in the exercises still does not say anything about adoption in service and mass deliveries, tk. demonstrate it already, as you said, for a very long time)

[Albert1988]

Quote: JD1979

Are you sure about that?)))

Absolutely, because the product has been known since 2015, which means it was developed earlier, the installation of a 57mm low ballistics cannon was made in 2019, in the same year there was talk about the possible installation of this module on the BMP-3 for those purposes. which I described above.

Quote: JD1979

For a long time? Is it put?

Namely - since 2015, this module has been installed on all experimental machines of the mentioned series, and only it was left on the light ones (Kurganets, boomerangs), abandoning the lighter ones, on the heavy T-15 the "dagger" with a full 57 mm barrel was considered more preferable ...

Quote: JD1979

These promising, so far remained exhibits of exhibitions and participants in parades.

Oh yes, passing numerous tests at proving grounds is a mere trifle, right? a series of armatures are already completing state tests, for Kurgan and boomerang they are still in their initial stages ... But yes, we will pay attention only to beautiful "pictures". So what about the "ringing"?

Quote: JD1979

As well as a bunch of other uninhabited modules that have remained demos.

Oh, only they were not put on combat vehicles, and if they were, they were not produced in a series of at least two dozen samples.

Quote: JD1979

And the fact that it was demonstrated in the exercises still does not say anything about adoption in service and mass deliveries, tk. demonstrate it already, as you said, for a very long time)

This suggests that the military consider this module the most promising. But it also needs to be fully worked out on different platforms. Or do you think that it is necessary to adopt something early, not tested, and to catch the shoals only later in the service?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: JD1979

As well as a bunch of other uninhabited modules that have remained demos.

GABTU designations for new and modernized types of tracked infantry fighting vehicles and vehicles based on them (according to the web resource otvaga2004.mybb.ru):

B-10 - armored personnel carrier BTR-G "Kurganets-25"
B-11 - Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle
B-12 - armored recovery vehicle "Kurganets-25"
B-14 - BMP "Kurganets-25" with BO "Dagger"
B-15 - BMP "Kurganets-25" with BO "Epoch"
B-16 - BMP on the BMP-2 chassis with BO "Dagger"
B-17 - BMP on the BMP-3 chassis with BO "Dagger"
B-18 - BMP on the BMP-2 chassis with Epoch BO
B-19 - BMP on the BMP-3 chassis with Epoch BO
B-22 - BMP on the BMP-2 chassis with BO "Berezhok"
B-23 - BMP on the BMD-2 chassis with BO "Bereg"

[Storog dvornik]

Citizen do not dishonor shoulder straps ... shame ...

[Kibalchish]

Quote: Albert1988

Then it was decided to use it corny on the BMP-3 to free the internal volume for a larger number of troops, because it does not have a turret basket, and a large continuous space is obtained inside.

And not so long ago I read an article about these combat modules, where it was just written that they are not massively installed even on the 80 BTR due to the large weight and load on the hull (you have to strengthen the hull from the inside), which significantly eats up the internal volume of the car ... I think that on the BMP-3, before the installation of this module, measures were taken to strengthen the hull from the inside, in order to avoid deformations, which could not but affect the internal volume of the vehicle.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Kibalchish

And not so long ago I read an article about these combat modules, where it was just written that they are not massively installed even on the 80 BTR due to the large weight and load on the hull.

Well, we compared the BTR-80 and BMP-3. The armored personnel carrier has its own modules, with a "machine gun". And the BMP calmly withstands the "era", here the "Baikal" - yes, it is heavy - you have to put a stand under it (at the derivation), but still this stand is much smaller than the turret basket of "melon".

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: max702

Why is "Bakhcha-u" worse? "Cornets"?

no, not cornets, there is only one problem with melon and it sounds like this "it cuts down (limits / worsens) the tactical and technical capabilities of armored combat vehicles in the field of transporting and airborne personnel" For example, you can search for holivaro-srachiki in "Airborne Forces" on the topic "BMD-3 \ 4 VS BTR-MD Shell, Which is better to load in the IL-76"if you do not understand the essence, or did not find a detailed description, then you can google and disassemble the holivaro-srachik in detail"Airborne Forces VS DShB as two different approaches to the organization of rapid reaction forces", this little bit is a superset relative to the first one.

[max702]

As for me, instead of a remote module on the roof of the hull in order to give space for the landing, it would be wiser to transfer the MTO to the nose by equipping it with a modern engine of much smaller dimensions than the one that is now, as a result, having received a place and a human exit from the BMP .. But apparently this is daunting for our military-industrial complex.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The problem looks different. It is difficult for a person who has no experience of traveling in the troop compartment of an BMP-1 or 2 to understand the acuteness of the sensations when the body of a car with a front engine is rocking. The layout of the BMP-3 is much more successful than the previous vehicles, largely due to the comfort for the landing party.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: max702

As for me, instead of a remote module on the roof of the hull in order to give space for the landing, it would be wiser to transfer the MTO to the nose by equipping it with a modern engine of much smaller dimensions than the one that is now, as a result, having received a place and a human exit from the BMP .. But apparently this is daunting for our military-industrial complex.

BMP-3 FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PRACTICE

 Show / Hide text

......................
_I want to ask the expert community: which of you drove the BMP-1 (BMP-2) and BMP-3? And not a trial lap in the park or along the leveled path of the director at the training ground, but at least along the old broken tank-training center, along which tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, MTLB and self-propelled guns have been rushing for three or four months already. I will not even ask about driving along the spurs of the Tersk ridge, about the ascents to the "serpentines" of the Kharami pass and the Chuysky tract, about the mud of rice "checks" under Engel-yurt and clay near Novogroznensky and Alleroy. Who fired from the standard weapons and small arms from the airborne squads of these vehicles?

_The answer I foresee one - nobody.

_And I ask this question for this reason: the one who drove the BMP with a front MTO (BMP-1, BMP-2) and BMP-3, knows the difference between them.

_If motorized riflemen prefer to ride on armor, then the open hatches of the BMP-3 troop compartment turn into additional protection.

_Any, even an inexperienced driver-mechanic knows how to "shake" a "penny" and "two" with their nose, how to turn the car so that it does not catch a hole with scatter the balancers along the road or even "catch a dolphin" - dive into a puddle with your head.

_ After moving to the BMP-3, you immediately feel that the centering and balancing on it, thanks to the transfer of the engine to the stern, have dramatically changed for the better, and the use of double torsion bars in the chassis design further improved the vehicle's driving performance.

_Good smoothness of the BMP-3 makes life easier not only for the driver-mechanic, but also for the gunner-operator, who now does not need to look for a pause between jumps and dives, he can fire almost in polygon conditions, even when driving over bumps, pits and bumps. The gunner-operator is not a single stabilizer.

_ Another argument of the BMP-3 opponents is the location of the assault force and the need to fully open the upper aft projection of the vehicle with the landing of the assault force over the engine.

_Well, let's look at this from a practical point of view.

_Firstly, the troopers are located very comfortably for long marches - practically in the center of mass of the BMP, which means that motorized riflemen do not shake, as in the BMP with a front engine, where they are located at the long end of the arm. Let's ask an ordinary motorized rifleman: "What is it like for you, son, to fly in a" landing party "mixed with duffel bags, weapons and neighbors on a march of hundreds of kilometers? In addition, the motorized riflemen quickly realized what benefits could be derived from the footpegs, handles and doors with hatches at the rear of the car. At the very first ostentatious tactical exercise that we conducted for the members of the military council of the district, I was surprised when the soldiers, when overcoming the passage through the mine-explosive obstacles, did not run after the car along the tracked tracks, which were difficult to guess on dry land, but immediately jumped on footpegs, clung to the handles and drove through the aisles behind the stern of the car, hiding behind its armor. The speed of overcoming the minefield turned out to be three times higher than when passing it on foot behind the car, the risk of stumbling and stepping on a mine dropped to almost zero.

_ Secondly, getting out through the engine is no more difficult than through cramped aft doors or a ramp.

Thirdly, in conditions of local conflicts in mountainous and wooded areas, for example, in the Chechen Republic, when motorized riflemen prefer to ride on armor, and not inside a car, the open hatches of the troop compartment turn into an armored board of a kind of armored vehicle open on top.
........................
_However, the main armament of the BMP is, of course, the gun in the turret.

_Now there is a lot of debate about which weapons are more suitable for machines of this class. There is an opinion that it is necessary to stop at 30-40 mm, there is an opinion about the need to strengthen the cannon armament to 57 mm, or even the installation of tank guns. You can argue a lot on this topic, but a variant that combines a powerful 100-mm and rapid-firing 30-mm guns has long been created - this is the Bakhcha combat module.

_100-mm gun 2A70, which is also an ATGM launcher, has high-explosive fragmentation projectiles and anti-tank guided missiles in its ammunition load. The ballistics type switch has a "R-100" position. Few people know that it is designed to carry out an air detonation of a projectile on the approach to the target. This makes it possible to combat enemy manpower located on the opposite slopes of heights, in ravines, behind walls and in trenches, as well as to conduct effective fire on air targets.

_In order to characterize the excellent characteristics of the BMP-3 fire control system, I will again tell you a case from my practice. Once, during night shooting during control exercises, my sergeant was informed from the tower that he had two flights per estimated size (the exercise was firing from a 100-mm gun according to the gun crew, the target was a gun shield and 5 height figures). The latter got angry with the inspector and gave out directly on the air: "I can take out the lift with the third round!" The head of the landfill knew what this meant and cried out: "Don't!" Then, when we went to see the results of the shooting, it turned out: two blanks pierced the shield in the center, and the third hit right under the base of the target, breaking the rack.

_The BMP-3, in parallel with the 100-mm gun, is equipped with a 30-mm 2A72 cannon. She, unlike the more famous 2A42, reloads due to the long stroke of the barrel. This not only reduces gas pollution in the fighting compartment of the vehicle, but also creates a larger dispersion ellipse of projectiles in flight, which makes it possible to fire more efficiently at high-speed low-flying air targets ................... ...

_In conclusion, a brief overview of the armament of the machine, I want to focus on the course PKT machine guns.

_Yes, it is problematic for the driver-mechanic to control the car and to conduct aimed fire from machine guns during the battle, but on other cars this is not possible either. How many times has it happened that the driver sees the target, but the arrows in the chain do not observe it, while the gunner-operator is busy destroying another target, so leave the enemy unfired? Even just a burst in the direction of the target is already target designation, as well as the disruption of aimed fire by the enemy. It's not so easy to calmly aim when two machine guns are firing at you.

_However, two course PCTs are not just a means of psychological influence on the enemy, but primarily a means of destroying him. Driver mechanics should be taught to shoot from course machine guns. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce appropriate exercises into the training program and the shooting course and develop a methodology for teaching such shooting.

_Let's return now to the issue of the BMP-3 layout and try to figure out how much the front engine location affects the level of protection of the crew and the landing force.

_In the BMP-3, in the bow there is a fuel tank with partitions and floats that damp fuel vibrations, the protected walls of which prevent its detonation. This tank, in the event of armor penetration, will take over everything that flew into the front of the car.

_If an engine is placed instead of a fuel tank and the cost of the crew is protected, how much will it prolong the lives of people? The vehicle, which has lost its mobility and power supply to all power supply circuits for devices and weapons control as a result of being hit by the engine, is doomed to live on the battlefield for only a few seconds.

_BMP-3 with a punctured fuel tank, even if one of the crew members is lost, will be able to stand up for itself, get out of the blow, and cover itself and its troops with smoke. It is the increase in the survivability of the BMP, its ability to continue "snapping" to the last allow you to save the lives of people, and not the dubious gain of a few seconds at the cost of the life of the machine .................

https://2009-2020.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/maintheme/2013/0513/113510702/detail.shtml

[lucul]

The problem looks different. It is difficult for a person who has no experience of traveling in the troop compartment of an BMP-1 or 2 to understand the acuteness of the sensations when the body of a car with a front engine is rocking.

Why, then, on the western BMPs there is no hull swing when the engine is in the front position? Another type of suspension?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The question is vague. Maybe they have a buildup, but not so because of the greater mass of cars or less power-to-weight ratio, hp. per unit mass.

[lucul]

Maybe they have a buildup, but it is not so felt because of the greater mass of cars or less power-to-weight ratio, hp.

The question is that they do not have this problem (it is not visually visible), at least the buildup is not discussed anywhere at all, but we have a stumbling block.
And now I want to understand why they do not have buildup, or rather than it is leveled out when the engine is in front.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You probably also learned about the buildup problem on the Internet, and not from experience. It is not a stumbling block, the phenomenon takes place on machines such as BMP-1 and 2, but no more.
The front-mounted engine does not provide any significant advantages to advocate for it with such zeal as for the exit through the swinging rear doors.

[lucul]

The front-mounted engine does not provide any significant advantages to advocate for it with such zeal as for the exit through the swinging rear doors.

Reminded - watch from 1:52.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And there are many known cases when the front position of the engine saved the crew or the car, except for praising the Merkava tanks from the TV screen, with statements about magical protection from the front position of the engine?

[lucul]

And many cases are known

This is psychology - the soldier will instinctively turn to danger with the most protected place (shield), if it is not there, the soldier feels his complete defenselessness.
Hence the ride on the armor, not inside the hull.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The location of the engine is sensed only by one crew member, namely the driver. Others are less interested in the location of the engine.
And riding on armor is not from a feeling of security or defenselessness, but from a better view, which allows you to react in time, if not to a shot from a recoilless gun, then to a shot from an RPG. And considerations of comfort of movement play an important role.

[Nikolay Sayenko]

there was a case, the BMP-1 ran into a powerful land mine. The explosion was so strong that the engine was on the ground, not far away. Inside there was one mechanic-driver, he immediately died. And the other 8 people sitting on top survived. at the front hatch. Someone scattered, lucky those who fell on the arable land ...

[ProkletyiPirat]

they have a buildup, but it is weakened due to
1) less HP. per unit mass
2) a higher troop compartment and seats with a shock absorption system
3) the introduction of speed limits
4) the use of other tactics and strategies of battle eliminating the need for "quick breakthroughs over rough terrain in battle conditions"
These are all ways to compensate for deficiencies, not a solution to the problem.

[lucul]

These are all ways to compensate for deficiencies, not a solution to the problem.

I agree, but in any case, the front location of the engine (transmission) is an additional shield (armor) in the frontal projection of the vehicle.
Psychologically, this can be compared to an infantryman with and without a shield. The shield adds a lot of confidence to the soldier.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: lucul

Psychologically, this can be compared to an infantryman with and without a shield. The shield adds a lot of confidence to the soldier.

Psychologically, this is not an infantryman with a shield, but an infantryman carrying a bag of sand in front of him, and even in the case of the BMP-1 \ 2, this bag is carried on arms outstretched forward.

ps I described my opinion on this issue below in the post from "15:12"

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The likelihood of immobilizing your car increases when you hit a mine, with a front engine, and not protection.
That's what TV does to people, especially stories about the mythical invulnerability of front-engine Merkava tanks.

[lucul]

The likelihood of immobilizing your car increases when you hit a mine, with a front engine, and not protection.

Well, hitting a mine and so and so makes the car incapacitated. Well, they placed the engine in the back - the landing in front, drove over a mine - the landing corpses, and the car waddles back on 2 wheels. Did it help a lot when hitting a mine?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Too abstract reasoning to draw conclusions on this basis about the advantages of a front engine.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: max702

it would be wiser to transfer the MTO to the nose

1) Transferring MTO to the nose is not rationality, they just got away from this, abandoning the BMP-1 \ 2 in favor of the BMP-3, all this came after comparing the operating experience of the BMP and BMD of the first generations.
2) It would be wiser to "develop new nodes for the BBT that would allow changing the layout and solving the problem, rather than throwing negatives from one extreme to another."

And note point two, this is not only engines but also weapons and even banal seats, but all this is a separate topic, I will only say that my opinion is that it would be wiser to develop "new GBTs where engines, propellers, tanks, etc. are removed in the floor and / or in the sides of the BBT ".

[lucul]

it would be wiser to develop "new GBTs where engines, propellers, tanks, etc. are removed to the floor and / or in the sides of the GBT."

Reasonable, an increase in internal volume.

[ProkletyiPirat]

not only, it is also a more uniform weight distribution (the center of mass of the BBT is strictly in the center of the BBT), and greater security (protection of more important nodes by less important ones (nodes in the sides)) and greater maintainability (nodes are smaller and lighter) and lower cost (organizational changes where one new GBT will replace several old ones), and an increase in the number of troops (in some variants of the organization of the battle, more by 2-5 times). And this is just the main thing.

[lucul]

And this is just the main thing.

Where can I get the new duralumin boxer motor? )))

[ProkletyiPirat]

well, firstly, it is not necessarily new, secondly, it is not necessarily a classic opozitnik, and thirdly, how is it "where to get it", in the same place where everything else, as well as everything else, is taken and formed a special group of representatives of the Ministry of Defense, fin. and legal. department, for control and reporting + plus a couple of analysts and managers to collect and update information, she (the group) draws up basic analytical calculations, then selects research institutes and PKB issuing TTZ through a closed competition, if they do not cope, organizes an open competition, if it does not helps to organize grants \ subsidies \ awards \ ... for those who propose new and / or rework the old, which will be useful within the context of the task of the special group.

It's just that in RI / USSR / RF they don't go beyond the first point, and the second and third are most often replaced with copy-paste of other people's ideas, and they often copy-paste through one place, in general, if you look objectively and not biased, then since the time of RI, the authorities have not been able to organize the process of collecting, developing, bringing to mind, integrating and applying innovations.

[lucul]

It's just that in RI / USSR / RF they don't go beyond the first point, and the second and third are most often replaced with copy-paste of other people's ideas, and they often copy-paste through one place, in general, if you look objectively and not biased, then since the time of RI, the authorities have not been able to organize the process of collecting, developing, bringing to mind, integrating and applying innovations

Competently express your thoughts, more activity on specialized sites. Sometimes, thanks to the media, the right people pay attention to the problem, and the process goes much faster than just grumbling at home in the kitchen.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The question is posed incorrectly. What should be done with the management of the Barnaul plant and with the plant itself, so that durable engines for infantry fighting vehicles finally appear and their D6 diesel engine ceases to be the curse of a ship mechanic?
I apologize in advance, as I do not know the current state of affairs.

[alexmach]

Why is "Bakhcha-u" worse? "Cornets"?

Yes, they are the most.
+ too much ammunition for a 100 mm cannon
+ rather useless 30mm cannon.

PS: Although yes, it is somehow strange to put it on the BMP-3. Probably they put it simply because the combat module needs to be run in at least something while Kurganets and Boomerang are not ready yet.

[max702]

Quote: alexmach

rather useless 30mm cannon

Sure? With modern ammunition there is 100-120mm armor penetration and remote detonation is possible. What's wrong with that? "Cornets" no matter what to twist in the boxes, they are just for the fight against the newest BT of the enemy, for old and standard 100mm ATGMs (750mm), a modern land mine pays off, all of it is 3-4 times more effective than the one with which on they took weapons and it was 20 years ago, which at the modern level can only be guessed at ... About the BMP-3 and its location MTO himself wrote here more than once, but the conversation about the need for volumes, that comes out MTO of small size in the nose, and in place of the former MTO volumes for everything useful, and armor to align the weight distribution .. Yes, the car will become heavier, but so what? Won the USA Bradley 43t and do not soar. We want to use the BMP-3 box as much as I understand.

[alexmach]

With modern ammunition there is 100-120mm armor penetration and remote detonation is possible. What's wrong with that?

The lack of these most advanced ammunition.

We want to use the BMP-3 box as much as I understand.

Yes, apparently just like that

here comes the MTO of a small size in the nose, and in place of the former MTO there are volumes for everything useful, and the armor to even out the weight distribution

The armor should still be mostly in the forehead .. And is it a small size MTO?

[alexmach]

"Cornets" no matter what to twist in the boxes, they are just for the fight against the newest BT of the enemy, for old and standard 100mm ATGM is enough (750mm)

Melon is probably not an easy module anyway .. but I will agree on the BMP-3, it looks much more harmonious.

Perhaps, in the new "Epoch", "Bulat" will be brought to readiness faster than Pturs on Bakhche.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

But before they somehow really saved money, let me remind you about the manual turret drive on the BTR-70, 80 and BRDM-2. The primitive tower from the BTR-60 wandered for several decades almost unchanged for new cars.

[Barberry25]

so they will check and compare and decide whether the game is worth the candle, here, on the one hand, you need a LSHO, according to which they promised BOPS with a penetration of 40-60 mm, and on the other hand, Bakhcha with a very mediocre 2a72, which they have not yet been able to force to feed on new armor-piercing shells , although I would have made a knight's move in the place of the Tula and would have suggested instead of the low-ballistic 2a70 cannon to install a medium-ballistic cannon due to the thickening of the barrel walls and the strength of the bolt, which would allow firing along a hinged trajectory, but also to use armor-piercing shells with a penetration rate of 100-150 mm, which is quite enough for any modern infantry fighting vehicle and a tank in the side

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Alexey-74

Good!

What's good about that? Fucked up a good car. Would put this module on the modernized BMP-2 - it would be great, but why touch the BMP-3, where is the armament in order?

[Grits]

Quote: Bad_gr

What's good about that? Fucked up a good car. Would put this module on the modernized BMP-2 - it would be great, but why touch the BMP-3, where is the armament in order?

There is "Kurganets" - so put this module on it. He's there like a glove. And the BMP-3 has a saddle like a cow.

[Victor Likhitsky]

Will the BMP 1,2 withstand the impact of the LSHO 57? They were created, for a much lower recoil of the gun! It is better not to put it larger than 30mm, and the shoulder strap of the tower module is too large. The tower module itself is clearly heavier, the question is whether the suspension will withstand! The BMP 1,2 is weak for such a load, then you will have to forget about accurate shooting. Changing the suspension is not an option. It's easier to make a new BMP.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Viktor Likhitsky

Will the BMP 1,2 withstand the impact of the LSHO 57?

[seregatara1969]

Only to whom did they show? Soldiers or generals?

[I am not a robot]

to soldiers and generals, even we watched in the video

[Old tanker]

OK! At the same time, they were tested on such large-scale exercises.

Why good?
Replaced 100mm low ballistics with a less powerful 57mm gun, also low ballistics. Instead of the exact thirty mini-ATGM.
Isn't it easier to put on the old BMP-3 "Kornet" turret? And the "Epoch" on the BMP-2? This is an increase in the firepower of the old car, not a weakening.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

BMP-2 with the Berezhok module, supplemented with a grenade launcher, and so quite armed machine, especially if a 40-mm grenade launcher with remote ammunition detonation appears. If modernized so radically, then the BMP-1, which is frankly weak for modern conditions 73-mm gun of low ballistics.

[alexmach]

If modernized so radically, then the BMP-1

Stop with your BMP-2 and 1. This module is for Kurganets. In the meantime, Kurganets is not ready, they simply run it in, on what they have - on the machine that is now in production, in addition, as I understand it, both the carrying capacity and dimensions and strength of the hull allow it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I agree, but the module is more likely not ready than Kurganets himself. The chassis is easier to manufacture than such a sophisticated module like the "Epoch" with new ammunition and missiles.

[alexmach]

But in principle, the module is probably the most promising at the moment. Combat modules with 30mm cannons are already an anachronism. There were many questions about "Baikal" with a 57mm high ballistic cannon. So this is likely to be the main module for new infantry fighting vehicles.

[Siberian 66]

So, how many infantry fighting vehicles do we have now with different modules? More than MBT types and upgrades, or not yet?

[Zaurbek]

Cannot select the main weapon. In my opinion, you need a 35-50mm autocannon and 4 pieces of Cornet.

[Cananecat]

Quote: Zaurbek

In my opinion, you need a 35-50mm autocannon and 4 pieces of Cornet.

And you get a Terminator based on BMP ... why?

[Zaurbek]

The Terminator is a highly specialized machine. BMP is massive ... and there are all the trends that such vehicles will crowd out tanks. If you look at the infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers of the main competitors - China, Japan, Turkey., The West ... then their weight is close to 30-40 tons. and guns 35-50mm and ATGMs of the 3rd generation ....... how to hit them and at what distance? Considering that the BMP-3 has already worse booking than them.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If you install a large-caliber gun with high ballistics, then the ammunition load will take up a lot of space and it will not be possible to place it in the volume of an uninhabited module. The ammunition load will take the place intended for the landing, it will no longer be an infantry fighting vehicle, but a vehicle of a different class.

[Old tanker]

The "Derivation-Air Defense" ammunition load in the auger MZ of the uninhabited tower has 148 rounds. Moreover, they are quite suitable from the old S-60. And they are not measured in warehouses. But you no longer use them in tools with low ballistics.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Again, the ammunition load will be due to the volume of the troop compartment. For a high-ballistic gun, shots are two to three times larger. The 57mm high ballistic gun is more suitable for the Terminator BMPT or for the larger Kurganets-type platform.

[Flooding]

the most demanded will remain
57mm is one of those
The era is essentially the most promising BM of all recently developed
it's a pity that while on the BMP-3 chassis

[Zaurbek]

Berezhok ..... practically the same, but cheaper. He is now poked at all BM. It is possible and 57mm (with BOPS and HE with a distant fuse), plus some expensive 3rd generation ATGM for a tank. or 35mm +4 cornet

[Flooding]

30 mm automatic cannon
30mm automatic grenade launcher
7,62 mm machine gun
Kornet ATGM
not at all "practically the same"
but a very good toothy module
perhaps it would look better with AG 40mm

in the Era, the 57mm caliber and the idea of ​​mini-missiles are attractive

[Zaurbek]

This is from poverty. The 35-50mm cannon has both a powerful HE and for some purposes a remote fuse (a grenade launcher is not needed). And a powerful BOPS. And modern infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and MRAPs are no longer affected by our shells for 30mm cannons .... and the Cornet is redundant for them.

[I am not a robot]

Well, I think it is unlikely that someone will shoot cannons at BMPs, they will rather use ATGMs and why a Kornet worth 50000 will be redundant for an BMP worth a couple of million

[Zaurbek]

It depends on what to compare .... with BOPS will be more expensive and there are 4 of them. And to defeat one tank, 2 ATGMs are required. And, if we take Western 35-50mm guns as an example, the defeat of such a target is a couple of shells.

[alexmach]

And, if we take Western 35-50mm guns as an example, the defeat of such a target is a couple of shells

The only problem in Russia is that there is no modern weapon in this callibre. And the spread of 35-50 is very large.

[Zaurbek]

in our calibers 37mm and 45mm ..... there are also 30mm with a longer case.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Flood

The era is attractive caliber 57mm

If there was a normal gun, then yes. But this is in fact a howitzer or grenade launcher with an initial projectile / grenade velocity of 300 m / s. And so I do not see any advantages over the serial module Bakhcha-U. The combination of 30mm and 100mm cannons is optimal.
If you make a new module, then with a 35-50 mm normal autocannon with BOPS and projectiles with controlled detonation.

[Zaurbek]

by today's standards, our 30mm and 100mm are already small.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Zaurbek

by today's standards, our 30mm and 100mm are already small.

I disagree. A 100 mm ATGM will be enough against all targets except MBT, they need normal ATGMs. And the power of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile is orders of magnitude greater than the same 57 mm. 2A72 is enough for infantry and lightly armored vehicles. The main thing is everything in the series.

Another interesting module is AU-220M "Baikal" / Derivation-Air Defense, which is already the ancestor of the normal S-60 cannon. The question of shells, of course.

[Zaurbek]

Why 100mm, if this is not enough for a tank? Then put 120mm .... but that's not much. And the Cornet has 152mm and a bunch of rockets in different designs.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Zaurbek

Why 100mm, if this is not enough for a tank?

And the BMP should not fight with tanks. But to support your infantry, and suppress the enemy's firing points with a 100mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile - just right.

[Zaurbek]

And why then ATGMs in the arsenal?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Zaurbek

And why then ATGMs in the arsenal?

With a favorable set of circumstances, you can knock out the tank. But the BMP is alive until the tank sees it.

[Zaurbek]

This is not so .... The tank is the most dangerous target and the main anti-tank weapons are assigned to it. One unsuccessful shot and a 120mm projectile flies into the BMP. In fact, you need an option or - the main anti-tank gun of the 57mm type with a powerful BOPS, HE and modern HE, plus an expensive ATGM of the 3rd generation of tanks or a 30-40mm autocannon and a cheap ATGM of the Kornet type with different missiles OF, Thermobor, Cumulative ..... for everything targets that are inaccessible to the autocannon.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Zaurbek

Why 100mm, if this is not enough for a tank?

Since when has an infantry fighting vehicle been an anti-tank weapon? Its task is to support the infantry, destroy tank-hazardous, light and medium-armored targets. The 100 mm projectile has a power exceeding 57 mm, and not several times, but orders of magnitude. With BM Bakhcha BMP-3 turns into a "light tank" and closes this niche in our country.

[Zaurbek]

Air defense derivation is an antiaircraft gun .....

[chenia]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

If there was a normal gun, then yes.

Definitely. High ballistics gun with Br. and OF. And you can have a telescopic projectile (three fragmentation grenades in one shot - the first remote detonation, the rest of the shock) of low ballistics. And a semi-automatic weapon.
And then the range of tasks for the module is much wider.

[Flooding]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

I do not see any advantages over the Bakhcha-U serial module

essentially converting an infantry fighting vehicle into a light tank

[75 Sergey]

Why, than the chassis of the BMP - 3 did not please?

[Starover_Z]

Quote: Siberian 66

So, how many infantry fighting vehicles do we have now with different modules? More than MBT types and upgrades, or not yet?

Maybe they want to make a cheap and massive version of "The Terminator"? Although how many tanks of old modifications are there in warehouses. Well, from above it is more visible, although according to the test results you need to ask the participants, but also in comparison.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Starover_Z

Maybe they want to make a cheap and massive version of "The Terminator"?

I also thought about it, but with such weapons and light armor, nothing is said about protection against ATGMs and other misfortunes that could turn the entire arsenal into a heap of iron. But what about the crew? It is a different matter if it is a variant of an unmanned (robotic) project, even if it is similar to the Terminator ...

[Zaurbek]

and the new Bulat missile system with small-sized guided missiles designed to destroy lightly armored vehicles and enemy firing points.

An interesting system, there is not much information about them, but, in appearance, a mini-Cornet.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Zaurbek

An interesting system, there is not much information about them, but, in appearance, a mini-Cornet.

I did not understand its purpose, light equipment and reinforcement of 57 mm will calmly be done, and MBT "Bulat" is too tough.

[Zaurbek]

It is also unclear ... on the same module 4e different ammunition ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Zaurbek

it is not clear ... on one module 4 different ammunition ...

And, everything is clear: the comments above indicate that 57 mm of low ballistics. The installation of 30-100 mm looked more logical in this case.

[Zaurbek]

If 57 is low ballistics, then why a grenade launcher? 100mm is not enough.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Zaurbek

100mm is not enough.

100mm is not enough, but the transition to 57mm of low ballistics (that is, the projectile has no kinetic energy, and as a land mine - no) - just right?

[Zaurbek]

For BPM 3 -100mm - the main PT caliber ...... 57mm is not such in any version.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The fact of the matter is that the anti-tank properties of a 100 mm gun were largely lost with the growth of the armor of the potential enemy's tanks and the appearance of active protection in them. Simultaneous launch of two ATGMs, for confident destruction of the tank, cannot be made through the barrel of the 2A70 gun. And in terms of the volume of explosives delivered, the automatic 57-mm cannon surpasses the 100-mm cannon. In addition, the Epoch module has received an addition in the form of small-sized missiles, designed to compensate for the absence of high-explosive 100-mm shells.

[Zaurbek]

There is no need to extol 57mm ... there are pluses and minuses .... 100mm HE is a thick-walled tank shell ... powerful with powerful fragments with a certain penetration ...... autocannons need shells with a remote fuse. For efficient work. And modern BOPS

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Zaurbek

If 57 is low ballistics, then why a grenade launcher?

In some cases, the power of the 57-mm projectile is excessive, and the number of shells is limited ...

[Zaurbek]

I do not agree ... the question is only a shell.

[Peak]

Quote: Zaurbek

seemingly mini-Cornet.

"Adult" and "mini" ATGM.

[Zaurbek]

A "Head" for guidance only?

[Rostislav]

How many infantry fighting vehicles do we have now with different modules?

So it's a natural process. New weapons are being developed and sent to the troops. For a while, the old and the new coexist. And since the service life of the equipment is significant, then they serve together for a long time.
And since new developments do not stop, often the next novelty manages to take over the service before the veteran goes to storage warehouses. So they get together, if we judge by age, "grandfather", "son" and "grandson".

[Zaurbek]

If there is a choice of a module, then this is normal ... but we could have already chosen. And the modules are still multiplying with whirlwinds and attacks ...

[Alexga]

I think this is a test run of the GDPR. Similarly, the Terminator was shown in 2017 in the first 227 OP.

[Nexcom]

Quote: AlexGa

I think this is a test run of the GDPR. Similarly, the Terminator was shown in 2017 in the first 227 OP.

the terminator would have two 30mm machine guns instead of 57 mm autocannons. There would be a hellish thresher.

[Grits]

Quote: Nexcom

the terminator would have two 30mm machine guns instead of 57 mm autocannons. There would be a hellish thresher.

At least in half - 1 in 30 and 1 in 57

[Nexcom]

nope, 2 x 57 mm submachine guns - that's it.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Nexcom

nope, 2 x 57 mm submachine guns - that's it.

It has already been removed from service.

[Nexcom]

so this is the old version. I mean modern reincarnation with modern sights, electronics and stuff

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Nexcom

so this is the old version.

Agree. But I think they were in a hurry to write it off. As for air defense, it is better not to rely on him, but here are the tasks on the ground that ZU-23 perform in conflict zones and he can handle it

[Nexcom]

so I'm talking about that.

[nmaxxen]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Nexcom

nope, 2 x 57 mm submachine guns - that's it.

It has already been removed from service.

Filmed due to the lack of an adequate MSA in those years.
It's not a problem now

[APASUS]

Here is an option for modernization. Then you can mold a kit for controlling the robotic complex and go

[Ross xnumx]

There you have it option for modernization .Then still dazzle the control kit robotic complex and go

[Essex62]

Better that way. But this is no longer an infantry fighting vehicle. The main purpose, delivery of l / s on the battlefield - by. Immediately I thought where the people could sit on the armor, when there was such a raskoryak on the roof? It's not very comfortable behind the cardboard board.

[DenVB]

Low ballistics cannon? Forty years later, did they return to the BMP-1 with its legendary 2A28 "Thunder", about which they said in Afghanistan "while the grenade flies, the enemy manages to escape"?

[I am not a robot]

it's still an automatic cannon, unlike the 2a28, plus vertical aiming is better. well, you are unlikely to run away from a grenade

[Morglenn]

This is not a cannon, this is an automatic grenade launcher. The LSHO-57 is essentially a tank version of the experienced AGS-57. And hence all the problems that were identified on the BMP-1: disgusting ballistics and range, the lack of armor-piercing shells. Yes, except that the UVN is better.

[I am not a robot]

this gun has sub-caliber ammunition

[Morglenn]

I, too, do not understand this idiocy. Well, she showed the BMP-1 that the low ballistics gun is no good. Forty years later, they again step on the same rake.

[Hermit21]

If anything, there was a BMP-3 with the "Epoch"

[Max PV]

Here everyone drags on from 35-50mm high ballistics cannons, and the fact that they are useless against the entrenched enemy from the word at all is not taken into account, and if the enemy is on the opposite slope of heights, then absolutely. And there is no need to poke a vidosik with tests of American 30 mm remote detonation projectiles, through parody trenches from a ridiculous distance, when this distance is known up to a meter. You try to determine the distance in the field, for 2-3 km, when the parapet is hidden by grass and the mask of the earth, and then you will definitely detonate a remote detonation projectile above such a trench, which will give an error at the break points of 20-30 meters minimum at such a distance. And the plus of the LSHO is that this system makes it possible to attach fire with dispersion at a distance of 1/260 distance for AGS-57, and according to some reports, for LSHO it is already 1/300, the same 20m, but already without a remote fuse, just from a ballistic the computer, despite the fact that the projectile is not inferior in power to the ZIS-3, thanks to the higher filling factor and controlled fragmentation. Well, the BOPSs, the meaning of which is that they have an identical recoil momentum with a low-impulse OFS when fired (the projectile is lighter, but just as many times faster), and at the same time it is quite elongated, which will give penetration not worse than 35mm at least, and If we compare 57mm BOPS to LSHO and American 50mm BOPSs, then our 57mm propellant charge does not seem to surpass the American one.

[DenVB]

Quote: Max PV

You try to determine the distance in the field, 2-3 km, when the parapet is hidden by grass and a mask of earth, and then

and then try to do the same and hit the same trench with hinged fire. What is the difference?

[Max PV]

1) In adjusting the fire. An air gap is much less noticeable than a high-explosive one, and at a distance of more than 2 km you cannot say how much you made a mistake in range, and even whether you made a mistake at all, how the target was hit or not.
2) The value of mounted fire, with a normal control system and adjustment, is that the projectile approaches the surface at an angle, and not on a floor, which makes it possible not to use expensive remote fuses with the same actual accuracy, which means that the price of the ammunition used is lower. In our conditions, the point is also whether they will be trite or not.
3) In the power of the projectile. When firing at an enemy in a trench, especially if he does not stick out half-leaned out, but crouches at the bottom or hides under an overlap (as, for example, in the American fox hole), it is almost impossible to "dig out" it from there with fragments (again, only in an open trench and only in the case of an explosion exactly over the trench, hoping that the fragments will pass by the bulletproof vest and helmets), and only with a high-explosive action can something really be achieved.

[DenVB]

Quote: Max PV

An air gap is much less noticeable than a high-explosive one, and at a distance of more than 2 km you cannot say how much you made a mistake in range, and even whether you made a mistake at all, how the target was hit or not

All the same applies to the "high-explosive" projectile. Which, most likely, is not even in the ammunition load. The most that you can see is the shell explodes to the target or behind the target. To aim in this way and get exactly into a trench in the grass at a distance of 2 kilometers, you will need at least 10 shots, excluding dispersion. And taking into account the dispersion, you will not get exactly into the trench until the ammunition is exhausted.

Quote: Max PV

allows you not to use expensive remote fuses

What makes you think that they are expensive? What could be expensive in mass production? Unpretentious microprocessors now cost less than $ 100 per thousand.

Quote: Max PV

hides under an overlap (as, for example, in the American fox hole), it is almost impossible to "dig out" it from there with fragments

You wanted to pick it out from there with the high-explosive action of a 57 mm projectile? Taking into account the problems with determining the range, with zeroing, taking into account dispersion (both in range and in direction), for this you will need dozens of shells per trench with "overlap".

It seems to me that there is no need to invent bicycles that have no analogues in the world. For manpower located openly or in simple trenches, an air blast is an ideal means of destruction. For those hidden behind light armor or concrete / brick walls - ammunition that can penetrate these obstacles and, preferably, explode after that. That is, a high ballistic projectile. To defeat bunkers and the like, there are howitzers, mortars and aircraft.

[Max PV]

57 mm for LSHO is equipped with about 600 g of explosive A-IX-1 or A-IX-2 (plasticized hexogen or TGA), more powerful than TNT, which in 76mm ZIS-3 shells was 580-760g, depending on the type and material of the hull (cast iron or steel), so in terms of high-explosive action that the one that the other is approximately identical. Yes, I agree, a little too little for destroying a dug-in enemy, but when compared with other small-caliber systems, an order of magnitude more. For example, "full-fledged" shots with HE shells for the ZSU-57-2 or "Derrevatsii" are equipped with only 153g of explosives. And as for a dozen shells just for a trench, then this is the value of trenches, which is usually not thought about. According to the experience of the Great Patriotic War, the rates of ammunition consumption per hectare for the suppression / destruction of field defense are impressive. Too lazy to google, but for 76mm caliber, this is something about 450 shells per hectare, for 82mm mines, about 400, and so on. Even 203-240mm are considered tens.

[DenVB]

Quote: Max PV

Yes, I agree, a little too little to destroy a dug-in enemy, but when compared with other small-caliber systems, it is an order of magnitude more.

So no one sets such tasks for these "other small-caliber systems" - shooting with hinged fire at blocked trenches. If the shelter somehow rises above the ground - then please. But here it is already much easier to hit with a flat fire.

Quote: Max PV

And as for a dozen shells just for a trench, then this is the value of trenches, which is usually not thought about.

A dozen shells are not enough. I wrote - this is only for zeroing without taking into account dispersion. The accuracy of 1/260 is written - this is 2 meters for 8 km only in range. Moreover, this is taken from them very optimistically. The literature provides an episode of tests of the BMP-1, a weapon of similar ballistics:

showed the firing of combat shells from the BMP-1 at the T-55 tank. Shooting was carried out from a distance of 800 meters. The BMP-1 cannon fired 50 shots at the tank. 17 shells hit the target, the rest were blown away by the wind and passed by. After the end of the shooting, the driver of the T-55 tank climbed into the car, started it and drove away.

[demiurg]

Against the infantry LSHO is gorgeous. And BMP / armored personnel carriers will make holes. The whole question is how to shoot down anything-flying-dirty?
To reintroduce the KPVT into service, or 12.7, as an option for the GShG?

[Tramp]

must be tested on Bendera Ukrainians.

[sen]

Instead of the 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon, it was proposed to install an LSHO-57 low ballistics automatic cannon.

Those. automatic grenade launcher. Better, nevertheless, would be a normal gun.

[Kolin]

The "Epoch" cannon has a barrel length 2 times longer.

[Alexfly]

a little short gun .... Don't you think?

[Kolin]

Approximately 40 calibers. Fine. In WWII, an English 57 mm cannon with about the same barrel threw sub-caliber guns quite well.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

As for the 57-mm grenade launcher, I have only one wish, to execute it in a caseless version both for the Balkan grenade launcher and in a smooth-bore version, and give rotation by tilting the bottom gas generator nozzles.

[Fema itkin]

Amusing platoon.

[Barberry25]

Nuuu LSHO is a good thing, but then you need to platoon 2 LSHOs and 1 long 57 mm .. otherwise it makes no sense ..

[Basarev]

So after all LSHO-57 is a vile ersatz, who even thought of putting this surrogate on a combat vehicle? Baikal would be closer to me.