Military Review

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

140

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.
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 14 September 2021 09: 39
    +7
    OK! At the same time, they were tested on such large-scale exercises.
    1. Peak
      Peak 14 September 2021 10: 00
      +11
      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

      1. Petro_tut
        Petro_tut 15 September 2021 11: 06
        -1
        the combat module is equipped with an automatic search and recognition system, as well as target tracking

        And drones-kamikaze the same?
    2. max702
      max702 14 September 2021 10: 32
      -8
      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.
      1. JD1979
        JD1979 14 September 2021 10: 57
        .
        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.
        1. max702
          max702 14 September 2021 11: 19
          .
          Well, everything is as always with this and the military-industrial complex of the USSR has always traded ..
        2. Albert1988
          Albert1988 14 September 2021 20: 03
          +12
          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.
          1. JD1979
            JD1979 14 September 2021 22: 30
            .
            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)
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 14 September 2021 23: 59
              +12
              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?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 15 September 2021 18: 10
                +1
                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"
            2. Storog dvornik
              Storog dvornik 15 September 2021 03: 56
              -4
              Citizen do not dishonor shoulder straps ... shame ...
          2. Kibalchish
            Kibalchish 15 September 2021 09: 17
            +1
            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.
            1. Albert1988
              Albert1988 16 September 2021 20: 26
              +1
              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".
      2. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 14 September 2021 11: 42
        +7
        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.
        1. max702
          max702 14 September 2021 12: 34
          -3
          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.
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 13: 23
            +12
            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.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 14 September 2021 14: 28
              +10
              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
            2. lucul
              lucul 14 September 2021 14: 36
              +1
              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?
              1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 14: 42
                +1
                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.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 14 September 2021 14: 45
                  +2
                  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.
                  1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                    Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 14: 55
                    +3
                    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.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 14 September 2021 15: 06
                      -4
                      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.
                      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                        Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 15: 12
                        +3
                        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?
                      2. lucul
                        lucul 14 September 2021 15: 14
                        -6
                        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.
                      3. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                        Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 15: 19
                        +1
                        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.
                      4. Nikolay Sayenko
                        Nikolay Sayenko 15 September 2021 08: 08
                        0
                        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 ...
          2. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 14 September 2021 14: 55
            +7
            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.
            1. lucul
              lucul 14 September 2021 15: 09
              -1
              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.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 14 September 2021 15: 18
                +1
                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"
              2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 15: 21
                +3
                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.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 14 September 2021 15: 38
                  0
                  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?
                2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 16: 08
                  +1
                  Too abstract reasoning to draw conclusions on this basis about the advantages of a front engine.
  2. ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 14 September 2021 15: 12
    +4
    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 ".
    1. lucul
      lucul 14 September 2021 15: 35
      -2
      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.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 14 September 2021 16: 48
        +1
        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.
        1. lucul
          lucul 14 September 2021 16: 59
          -2
          And this is just the main thing.

          Where can I get the new duralumin boxer motor? )))
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 14 September 2021 18: 51
            +3
            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. what sad
            1. lucul
              lucul 14 September 2021 20: 12
              +1
              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.
          2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 18: 58
            +2
            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
    alexmach 14 September 2021 14: 00
    +1
    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.
    1. max702
      max702 14 September 2021 14: 52
      -1
      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.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 14 September 2021 14: 57
        +2
        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?
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 14 September 2021 15: 00
        +1
        "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
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 15: 02
    +3
    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
    Barberry25 15 September 2021 19: 14
    0
    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
    Bad_gr 14 September 2021 10: 35
    +3
    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?
    1. Grits
      Grits 14 September 2021 13: 28
      0
      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.
    2. Victor Likhitsky
      Victor Likhitsky 14 September 2021 15: 06
      -1
      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.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 14 September 2021 16: 58
        +3
        Quote: Viktor Likhitsky
        Will the BMP 1,2 withstand the impact of the LSHO 57?

  • seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 14 September 2021 10: 55
    -3
    Only to whom did they show? Soldiers or generals?
    1. I am not a robot
      I am not a robot 14 September 2021 11: 32
      +3
      to soldiers and generals, even we watched in the video
  • Old tanker
    Old tanker 14 September 2021 11: 29
    -1
    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.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 12: 13
      +1
      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.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 14 September 2021 14: 12
        +2
        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.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 14: 25
          +3
          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.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 14 September 2021 14: 37
            0
            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.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Siberian 66
    Siberian 66 14 September 2021 09: 40
    +11
    So, how many infantry fighting vehicles do we have now with different modules? More than MBT types and upgrades, or not yet?
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 14 September 2021 09: 49
      0
      Cannot select the main weapon. In my opinion, you need a 35-50mm autocannon and 4 pieces of Cornet.
      1. Cananecat
        Cananecat 14 September 2021 10: 44
        +3
        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?
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 49
          +2
          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.
      2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 11: 17
        0
        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.
        1. Old tanker
          Old tanker 14 September 2021 11: 34
          +5
          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.
          1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
            Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 11: 44
            +3
            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.
    2. Flooding
      Flooding 14 September 2021 09: 51
      +9
      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
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 September 2021 09: 59
        +2
        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
        1. Flooding
          Flooding 14 September 2021 10: 02
          +6
          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
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 07
            0
            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.
            1. I am not a robot
              I am not a robot 14 September 2021 10: 14
              +2
              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
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 19
                0
                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.
                1. alexmach
                  alexmach 14 September 2021 14: 48
                  +1
                  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.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 15 September 2021 11: 08
                    -1
                    in our calibers 37mm and 45mm ..... there are also 30mm with a longer case.
          2. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 14 September 2021 10: 12
            +4
            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.
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 19
              -1
              by today's standards, our 30mm and 100mm are already small.
              1. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik 14 September 2021 10: 38
                +2
                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.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 41
                  0
                  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.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 14 September 2021 10: 47
                    +4
                    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.
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 49
                      0
                      And why then ATGMs in the arsenal?
                      1. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 14 September 2021 10: 55
                        +3
                        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.
                      2. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 14 September 2021 11: 01
                        0
                        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.
                2. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 14 September 2021 10: 57
                  +1
                  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.
              2. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 14 September 2021 11: 02
                0
                Air defense derivation is an antiaircraft gun .....
          3. chenia
            chenia 14 September 2021 10: 23
            +1
            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.
          4. Flooding
            Flooding 14 September 2021 11: 54
            0
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            I do not see any advantages over the Bakhcha-U serial module

            essentially converting an infantry fighting vehicle into a light tank
    3. 75 Sergey
      75 Sergey 14 September 2021 10: 29
      0
      Why, than the chassis of the BMP - 3 did not please?
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 14 September 2021 09: 57
    +2
    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.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 14 September 2021 10: 24
      0
      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
    Zaurbek 14 September 2021 09: 47
    +3
    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.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 14 September 2021 09: 55
      0
      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.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 September 2021 09: 56
        +2
        It is also unclear ... on the same module 4e different ammunition ...
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 14 September 2021 10: 14
          +2
          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.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 15
            -1
            If 57 is low ballistics, then why a grenade launcher? 100mm is not enough.
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 14 September 2021 10: 41
              +1
              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?
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 43
                -1
                For BPM 3 -100mm - the main PT caliber ...... 57mm is not such in any version.
                1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 13: 40
                  +1
                  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.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 14 September 2021 13: 45
                    0
                    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
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 14 September 2021 10: 44
              +1
              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 ...
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 14 September 2021 10: 50
                0
                I do not agree ... the question is only a shell.
    2. Peak
      Peak 14 September 2021 11: 18
      +1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      seemingly mini-Cornet.


      "Adult" and "mini" ATGM.

      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 September 2021 11: 24
        0
        A "Head" for guidance only?
  • Rostislav
    Rostislav 14 September 2021 09: 56
    +2
    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".
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 14 September 2021 11: 25
      0
      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
    Alexga 14 September 2021 09: 59
    0
    I think this is a test run of the GDPR. Similarly, the Terminator was shown in 2017 in the first 227 OP.
    1. Nexcom
      Nexcom 14 September 2021 11: 04
      +3
      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.
      1. Grits
        Grits 14 September 2021 13: 37
        +1
        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
        1. Nexcom
          Nexcom 14 September 2021 13: 41
          +1
          nope, 2 x 57 mm submachine guns - that's it. good
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 14 September 2021 14: 44
            +1
            Quote: Nexcom
            nope, 2 x 57 mm submachine guns - that's it. good

            It has already been removed from service.
            1. Nexcom
              Nexcom 15 September 2021 07: 11
              0
              so this is the old version. I mean modern reincarnation with modern sights, electronics and stuff
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 15 September 2021 12: 36
                0
                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
                1. Nexcom
                  Nexcom 15 September 2021 12: 37
                  0
                  so I'm talking about that.
            2. nmaxxen
              nmaxxen 15 September 2021 16: 41
              +3
              Quote: Bad_gr

              Quote: Nexcom
              nope, 2 x 57 mm submachine guns - that's it. good

              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
    APASUS 14 September 2021 10: 08
    +1
    Here is an option for modernization. Then you can mold a kit for controlling the robotic complex and go
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 14 September 2021 10: 27
      -1
      There you have it option for modernization .Then still dazzle the control kit robotic complex and go
      good
      1. Essex62
        Essex62 14 September 2021 11: 09
        +1
        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
    DenVB 14 September 2021 10: 59
    0
    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"?
    1. I am not a robot
      I am not a robot 14 September 2021 11: 17
      +1
      it's still an automatic cannon, unlike the 2a28, plus vertical aiming is better. well, you are unlikely to run away from a grenade
      1. Morglenn
        Morglenn 14 September 2021 18: 09
        -2
        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.
        1. I am not a robot
          I am not a robot 14 September 2021 18: 38
          +1
          this gun has sub-caliber ammunition
    2. Morglenn
      Morglenn 14 September 2021 18: 03
      -2
      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
    Hermit21 14 September 2021 11: 04
    0
    If anything, there was a BMP-3 with the "Epoch"
  • Max PV
    Max PV 14 September 2021 11: 25
    0
    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.

    1. DenVB
      DenVB 14 September 2021 18: 12
      0
      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?
      1. Max PV
        Max PV 14 September 2021 18: 41
        +1
        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.
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 14 September 2021 19: 00
          0
          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.
          1. Max PV
            Max PV 14 September 2021 21: 14
            +1
            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.
            1. DenVB
              DenVB 14 September 2021 21: 31
              0
              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
    demiurg 14 September 2021 12: 36
    +1
    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
    Tramp 14 September 2021 15: 31
    +2
    must be tested on Bendera Ukrainians.
  • sen
    sen 14 September 2021 16: 13
    +3
    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.
    1. Kolin
      Kolin 14 September 2021 19: 27
      0
      The "Epoch" cannon has a barrel length 2 times longer.
  • Alexfly
    Alexfly 14 September 2021 17: 27
    0
    a little short gun .... Don't you think?
    1. Kolin
      Kolin 14 September 2021 19: 25
      +1
      Approximately 40 calibers. Fine. In WWII, an English 57 mm cannon with about the same barrel threw sub-caliber guns quite well.
  • Sergey Aleksandrovich
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 14 September 2021 19: 45
    +1
    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.
    1. Intruder
      Intruder 15 September 2021 09: 04
      +1
      As for the 57-mm grenade launcher, I have only one wish, to execute it in a caseless version as for the Balkan grenade launcher
      40 mm. machine with a linkless feed, with a two-chamber ballistic engine, according to the mortar scheme, as you indicated about the caseless version of the ammunition, plus two types of detonation:
      - programmable to combat air targets and obstacles with low ballistics;
      - contact detonation, for "light" and "simple" ground targets with POFBCH, for work in the city quarter and TBC, for fortified firing points, with all sorts of "self-made dugouts"!
      And with the bottom GG, hmm ... as an option, you can put the consoles of the X-shaped tail on the ammunition, for the version with a smooth barrel, immediately save on the mass of the bottom gas generator and its design, and put more propellant charge on the mass, as an alternative !?
      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 15 September 2021 09: 11
        +2
        I liked the grenade for the "Balkan", but if it has nozzles, then you can position them at an angle and do without rifling and get an even greater firing range.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 15 September 2021 12: 04
          +1
          I liked the grenade for the "Balkan", but if it has nozzles, then you can position them at an angle and do without rifling
          It is possible and necessary, but again, derivation, due to the gyroscopic effect and the Magnus effect, (the phenomenon of derivation during the movement of elongated shells was first described in the works of the Russian military engineer General N.V. Maievsky.)
          Therefore, if you need to more accurately draw out the external ballistics - "cheap and cheerful", you can also use arrow-shaped or trapezoidal stabilizers, you can completely do with folding units with an elementary (spring-driven) introduction into the air stream, after passing the muzzle of the barrel, and a small increase in resistance to air flow levels out , additional mass of propellant charge in the ballistic engine of the ammunition!
  • Fema itkin
    Fema itkin 14 September 2021 21: 37
    0
    Amusing platoon.
  • Intruder
    Intruder 15 September 2021 08: 45
    +2
    a new missile system "Bulat" with guided small-sized missiles designed to destroy lightly armored vehicles and enemy firing points.

    By the way, an interesting complex for light armored combat vehicles, since 2017 they have been "pulling" with the input, and this is exactly what is needed now, in this configuration:

    Bulat missiles are designed to destroy lightly armored (infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, anti-aircraft guns, etc.), unarmored (cars, towed artillery guns and their crews, MLRS launchers, aircraft and helicopters) and enemy firing points.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 15 September 2021 16: 36
    +1
    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
    Basarev 16 September 2021 08: 45
    0
    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.