30-mm guns of our armored vehicles: fighting infantry in trenches and ATGM crews

Source: arms-expo.ru

To date, automatic 30-mm guns remain the main weapons domestic combat vehicles of the light class. They are equipped with infantry fighting vehicles, landing vehicles, armored personnel carriers and even armored cars. In general, we can say that these guns have already become a kind of gold standard for high firepower, which can be countered by a wide range of threats on the battlefield.

In this material, based on large-scale "virtual" studies conducted in the USSR, we will consider the effectiveness of 30-mm high-explosive fragmentation shells against enemy manpower and anti-tank systems hidden in trenches.

Source: multimedia.minoborony.rf

Comparison Method

Usually, the data obtained with the help of calculations are treated with distrust, preferring to them the results of full-scale tests at the test site. This is partly true and not without reason: most of the "paper" firing is calculated on the basis of the given areas of destruction. Roughly speaking, a tabular spread of fragments in terms of range, angle of spread and penetration is taken and superimposed on a map with targets. Such an approach, of course, will be very different from reality.

In this study, the targets - infantry squads in trenches and ATGM crews - are taken in the form of three-dimensional models. Their parameters such as dimensions, the level of security in a particular projection, as well as various options for location on the battlefield are taken into account. For each target, up to 200 shell explosions were calculated at different points. Accordingly, for each projectile, in accordance with its speed, fragmentation flow and shielding of some target elements by others, the probability of hit is calculated.

The defeat of an infantry squad means that more than a third of its strength is disabled. The defeat of the anti-tank system is the incapacitation of the complex itself, or the destruction of its calculation of three people.

What do we shoot?

In domestic infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles, as a rule, high-explosive fragmentation shells with a contact fuse are used to combat enemy manpower, so this type of ammunition is taken as the basis. It is also worth noting that shots of increased mass are accepted as opponents to shots of 30-mm cannons without reference to the caliber, according to the characteristics of which one can trace the increase in power due to the increased charge of explosives, lethality of the fragmentation flow, etc. Their list is presented below.

Demonstration of BMP-3 ammunition. On the lid of the box on both sides of the machine-gun belt are shells for a 30-mm cannon. Source: arsenal-info.ru

1. Standard high-explosive fragmentation 30-mm shot weighing 800 grams with an initial flight speed of less than 1 m/s. Technical dispersion: 000 mrad. Burst length: 0,6 shots.

2. A small-caliber shot with a weight increased to 2,5 kg. Initial speed over 1 m/s. Technical dispersion: 000 mrad. Burst length: 1,5 shots.

3. Shot of small caliber weighing 3,6 kg. The initial speed is less than 900 m/s. Technical dispersion: 1,5 mrad. Burst length: 4 shots.

4. Shot of medium caliber weighing 8,5 kg. The initial speed is less than 700 m/s. Technical dispersion: 0,25 mrad. Burst length: 1 shot.

5. Shot of a large caliber weighing 16 kg. The initial speed is not more than 300 m/s. Technical dispersion 0,3 mrad. Burst length: 1 shot.

The mass of ammunition of "virtual" infantry fighting vehicles with all shells and their corresponding guns was taken as unchanged and amounted to 500 kg. Fire on targets was carried out only in motion.

Target engagement capabilities

One of the important parameters characterizing the capabilities of a cannon and shells is the probability of hitting the enemy from the first shot, or from the first burst, if we are talking about an automatic weapon. Here, the 30-mm machine showed very good results, although it lost to a large caliber in one of the aspects.

1 - 30-mm cannon with standard high-explosive fragmentation shells. 2 - small-caliber shots weighing 2,5 kg. 3 - small-caliber shots weighing 3,6 kg. 4 - shots of medium caliber weighing 8,5 kg. 5 - shots of large caliber weighing 16 kg. Source: E. N. Zaitsev, E. N. Rozov et al. “Evaluation of the effectiveness of high-explosive fragmentation shells of infantry fighting vehicles”

The probability of hitting a target of the Tou ATGM type in a trench at a distance of 2 km from a 30-mm automatic gun with standard shells from the first stage turned out to be the highest and amounted to 29%. Weighted projectiles of small and medium caliber showed a probability of 12 to 24%. As for the heaviest shot weighing 16 kg, it turned out to be an outsider, giving only 11% of the probability of hitting a covered ATGM.

The indicators for the same ATGM "Tou", but already outside the trench and at a distance of 3 km, turned out to be somewhat different. The 30mm cannon with standard rounds again came out victorious, giving out a 25% chance of hitting the first round. Heavier shells of small and medium caliber gave from 10 to 16%. The heaviest and largest caliber - 7%.

With the defeat of an infantry squad sheltered in a trench at a distance of 1 km, the situation changed dramatically. The 30-mm automatic cannon with standard shells overcame its weighted small-caliber and medium-caliber opponents with a devastating score: 14% versus 2-4%. But the winner was a large caliber with a 16-kg shot, giving out 23%.

A similar trend continued in the course of determining the number of targets that the machine can hit within one ammunition load. It makes no sense to describe the indicator for each shot option, since everything is quite clearly demonstrated in the figure attached below.

1 - 30-mm cannon with standard high-explosive fragmentation shells. 2 - small-caliber shots weighing 2,5 kg. 3 - small-caliber shots weighing 3,6 kg. 4 - shots of medium caliber weighing 8,5 kg. 5 - shots of large caliber weighing 16 kg. Source: E. N. Zaitsev, E. N. Rozov et al. “Evaluation of the effectiveness of high-explosive fragmentation shells of infantry fighting vehicles”

Conclusion

What can be said based on the data presented?

Firstly, all compared shots, with the exception of the 30mm standard, are still "virtual" or calculated. In fact, small-caliber shots weighing up to 3,6 kg with the indicated ballistic data are more likely to be tabular measures by which one or another projectile can be evaluated. The same goes for medium caliber. In this situation, regular 30-mm guns and shells for them show decent results and, in general, are the golden mean when choosing light weapons for infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, etc.

Secondly, the experiment showed the correctness of the choice of the BMP-3 and BMD-4 weapons complex. Although the 30mm assault rifle is up to the task, infantry hidden in trenches and trenches is a difficult target for obvious reasons. It is important to note here that the large caliber indicated in the experimental conditions is in many ways similar to the shots of a 100-mm low-impulse cannon, so there is every reason to believe that these machines are a kind and very effective symbiosis of two guns that are quite well suited for both covered, and for openly located enemy manpower.

BMP-3 is a symbiosis of 30-mm and 100-mm guns for the most effective destruction of targets. Source: arsenal-info.ru

Thirdly, the data still show that switching to a 57-mm automatic cannon, which has been walking around exhibitions for more than a year, would be highly preferable. Combining the increased power of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile and the possibility of using ammunition with remote detonation and ready-made submunitions, this weapon can significantly enhance the fire capabilities of infantry fighting vehicles and other vehicles of this class.

Information sources:
M. Baryatinsky. "Soviet armored vehicles 1945–1995". Armor collection 2000 No. 03 (30).
E. N. Zaitsev, E. N. Rozov et al. “Evaluation of the effectiveness of high-explosive fragmentation shells of infantry fighting vehicles”, 1988.

Comments

[Mikhail Drabkin]

Thanks to the author for the reasoned, interesting essay and professional approach!

High bar!

[Alekseev]

The need to use the "virtual research" of the old days raises doubts.
After all, the most "natural", and not virtual, use of 30-mm, 100-mm, and 125-mm AFV cannons against infantry in trenches and other shelters, tank crews, etc. is now happening.
In addition to cannons for such destruction, especially poorly protected targets, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and tanks widely use 7, 62 and 12,7 mm machine guns. The power of a 30-mm projectile is, of course, higher, but the bursts of machine guns are longer ...
It is true, which weapons are more effective in hitting certain targets, it is well known and without virtual calculations based on combat experience in the use of this weapon.

[Romario_Argo]

everything is different, now they use high-precision shells and mines
the same mortar 2B11 Sani uses a guided mine KM-8 Edge - 5 kg of RDX
stupidly the UAV illuminates and redirects the laser pointer to the bottom of the trenches
1 calculation puts 15 minutes per minute - straight into the trenches - and there is no fortified area
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFc6SENJy_k
Master class on the destruction of the trenches of the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the 107th Infantry Regiment of the DPR
Kitilov 122 mm also UAS - 5 kg of hexogen in a trench, little (???)
152-mm Krasnopol, A centimeter is generally tin 15 kg of RDX in a trench
1 Msta-S per minute throws 20-6 shells of 8 kg each for 50 km, directly into the trenches
15kg BB x 8 UAC = total 1 Msta throws 120 kg RDX
TNT equivalent \u700d 2 kg - this is more than 500 FAB-215 (2x430 \uXNUMXd XNUMX kg of explosives)

[stankow]

6 rounds per minute guided ?? And straight into the trench?

[Romario_Argo]

watch the video to get started
67 UAS and no fortification
- conventional 120-mm mines would need 300-400

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

But there was also an 82-mm automatic "Cornflower". Having a couple of these, one could literally flood the same positions with 82-mm mines. And there would be cumulative fragmentation mines in the kit, even to break through the fortifications. This I mean that in vain we didn’t put this mortar on a more mobile chassis, it was a very formidable weapon.
In no case do I dispute the effectiveness of guided munitions, the video is simply amazing, I just want to add that there are ways and cheaper.

[Romario_Argo]

under 82 mm mines there is no UAS, only from 120 mm and above

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

But the automatic 82-mm mortar has a high rate of fire and its fire is comparable to the effect of cluster munitions.

[Romario_Argo]

and what will your Cornflower cause to a fighter in a Warrior-KM suit (?)
gap RGD-5 between the legs holds all the fragments
what percentage of mines will go straight into the trench, what expense (?)
KM-8 Edge - need one

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In the presented video, not one mine was used at all, but a dozen and a half. Two Vasilek mortars can each throw approximately 60 82-mm mines in a minute, but it will take more time to prepare ammunition.
And who would argue that guided munitions are better, of course better, especially if they are, and even more so if there are a lot of them.

[Romario_Argo]

on video 67 UAS is just 120 mm - they are, there are a lot of them (!)

[avg]

Quote: stankow

6 rounds per minute guided ?? And straight into the trench?

Near Avdiivka it happened that the cosine reached 9!

[shtatsov]

Is it not expensive to carry out earthworks with such shells? We still have to level the rest of Ukraine!

[Romario_Argo]

oil dollars - it's all evil Putin - to blame
and now our industry has switched to 3 shifts, people have a stable salary
and the army optimized the overspending of BC
and in the rest of Ukraine then there will be no one to equal

[hagen]

Quote: shtatsov

Is it not expensive to carry out earthworks with such shells?

In fact, with simple 152 mm shells, the norm for suppressing entrenched infantry is 150 shells per 1 hectare of the VOP. A platoon strong point in normal measurement is about 6 hectares. So calculate how many simple shots you need, and how much more optimal the use of UAS will be (taking into account the time and wear of the barrel resource).

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There is also an alternative to 152-mm shells. That's the only problem we have with this. They left the 82-mm automatic mortar 2B9 "Vasilek", but did not come to the 57-mm LSHO. Also a good tool for such purposes, almost a cluster munition, so many mines or grenades can be thrown using automatic fire. And yes, there are cluster munitions for the 152-mm caliber, given the abundance of fortifications, a projectile with cumulative striking elements would fit.

[Bobik012]

Romario_Argo

Krasnopol and kitolov stand like a whole infantry fighting vehicle.
Here we are talking about light armored vehicles with direct support guns.

[Romario_Argo]

Our Ministry of Defense, apparently, has nowhere to put money, since they returned to expensive UAS
war is costly
What do you think is expensive (?)
BMP-3 for 85 million rubles
building from scratch: a regional children's hospital in Krasnogorsk or Simferopol, 50 billion rubles each
we all underestimate the VAT requirement Federal Tax Service at least not lower than 3,5% of 20%
so the VAT balance per year gives the budget (16 trillion) 30% - 5 trillion rubles.

[Alekseev]

It's not all different...
Guided munitions are good, but...
PZM and BTM can dig hundreds of kilometers of trenches, arrange tens of thousands of shooting positions, fox holes, etc. in them. And the enemy infantrymen do not sit in one position for hours, they are dispersed, so to speak, you cannot direct them at each Krasnopol or Gran. In an attack, it is necessary to hit a machine gun or PTS of an adversary, often within seconds after detection. This is done by direct fire from BBM cannons and machine guns, and not Grani and Kitolovs with Krasnopoles and Centimeters. They are for more important purposes. Also, our UASs require laser illumination, and there are smoke, dust clouds.
So it all boils down, as usual, to the conclusion: different guns and their ammunition are important, they are needed in different ways.

[Bormanxnumx]

Quote: Romario_Argo

A centimeter is generally tin 15 kg of RDX in a trench

Maybe 10kg?

[Sexton]

The author of the article is 40 years behind, but his thoughts are relevant for this SNO...
Roman, you saw the use of the Malachite complex to illuminate the target for these shells and mines, or at least equipment from its composition. He is not in any photo, not in any video, there is no trace even in the TLG. Everything you listed does not apply. At all ! And there are obvious reasons for this! In the Russian Armed Forces, ancient guided missiles and mines from the USSR. Not a single new or modernized guided projectile was adopted in Russia for service, there are none in the army ...
And "Centimeter" was not adopted, the plant was destroyed by competitors, the general designer died in 2016. Dream on ... What kind of UAV can highlight these shells, stupidly? Name and year of adoption? I'm not asking about quantity. Experiences in Syria and newspaper stories are not accepted!
The Krasnopol-M2 projectile, which fully meets modern requirements and, supposedly, can be guided from an UAV, is just being developed! Maybe we'll see at the Army-2022 forum ...

[alexmach]

What UAV can highlight these shells,

They talked about Orlan-30. Well, it seems that Oion the pacer was also accepted into service.

[Bobik012]

High bar!

Uncontrolled stream of consciousness.
I'm trying to imagine a cannon (automatic!) for a 2.5 kg projectile and a speed of more than 1000 m / s. As well as its installation on light armored vehicles ...
I have vague doubts about this study.

[demiurg]

Not a fair comparison at all.
1. There are no heavily protected targets (dugouts, armored fighting vehicles in caponiers, and the like).
2. There is no comparison of this artillery with the BMPs themselves, not only Russian, but also Western.
3. No comparison was made in terms of the consumption of ammunition to destroy UAVs and helicopters, and most importantly, the distance of destruction was not compared.

Plus, an infantry fighting vehicle with a 30mm high-impulse cannon cannot hit targets at all on the reverse slopes of hills, behind buildings, on the roofs of skyscrapers (hello urban battles).


Well, yes, so that 30mm is guaranteed to win, shooting on the move.

57mm with S-60 ballistics is not an option at all. The gun is excessively powerful + the weight of the chassis (and a limited number of carriers), - the ammunition load. Although flatness can be adjusted by the weight of the charge.

I repeat my couch genius idea:
500 kJ in 57mm. With a barrel length of 50-55 calibers
1. If you use a crowbar, then you can make holes in the silhouette of any modern and promising BTT at any distance (except for tanks). 150-180mm for a couple of kilometers will be.
2. You can reduce the charge by a factor of three by increasing the projectile. We get 3 kg 300m / s, that is, a shot from an 82mm mortar.
3. 40mm sub-caliber weighing about 1 kg and at a speed of 1000 m / s, with a detonation along the laser beam. Reach in height 4-5 km, in range 5-6. 30mm is a cheap controlled detonation and such ranges were never even dreamed of.

[NDR-791]

Quote: demiurg

I repeat my couch genius idea:
500 kJ in 57mm. With a barrel length of 50-55 calibers

What are you, the right word? In our time, for such voluntarism, you can get a "cap" as well. That's how they compare you with Tukhachevsky or Kurchevsky? Well, at least the "funnel" will not be driven at four in the morning according to tradition.

[Thrifty]

Demiurge, caliber 57mm with remote detonation will be ideal for working on kamikaze drones. But, here it is precisely a weapon with high ballistics that is needed, because throwing a projectile is important with a minimum loss of flight speed, because then its effectiveness will be much lower than the permissible minimum for creating a block of fragments capable of at least knocking a drone off course

[demiurg]

S-60 has 1400 kJ energy. Why so many? 99% of this energy is not needed by the squad fire support vehicle. And a projectile weighing 3+ kg is clearly redundant against a drone hanging at 2-3 km.
If we limit ourselves to 500 kJ and 1 kg of projectile weight, then it is possible to hit air targets at a distance of 4-5 km (in the presence of the SLA, initial target designation, and appropriate ammunition). And then the air defense of the brigade / regiment / division should already enter the battle.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The S-60 ballistic gun makes it possible to hit drones, which cannot be done with confidence with a 30-mm caliber. An automatic grenade launcher, especially a 40mm caliber, can easily replace a 30mm cannon, complementing a larger caliber. In addition, an additional grenade launcher allows you to conduct mounted fire.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Here, further clarification is required. For light armored vehicles, a 57-mm high-ballistic caliber (S-60 type) may indeed be redundant if it is not a specialized anti-aircraft Derivation-Air Defense. And if it’s a BMPT or TBMP, then just right, an additional 30-mm cannon can be placed there, and an automatic grenade launcher and more than one. The number of air targets is growing before our eyes, and not all of them are high-speed and high-altitude.

[NDR-791]

Here, further clarification is required.

That's all the answers to the questions ... 57-100mm for their own purposes, BMPT for their own. That's why they didn't put 57+30 on THEM. Put 57mm on BMP and BMD - deprive the car of the ability to transport troops. And the production of the shells themselves ??? What lies in the warehouses in millions, they make equipment for that.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There are two guns for 57 mm. One of low ballistics, such as LShO-57, they are going to put it on an infantry fighting vehicle as part of the Epoch module, the second anti-aircraft in S-60 ballistics, they were going to make a projectile with remote detonation under it.
In both cases, there will be new shells. In the Epoch module, in general, the ammunition load is planned outside the hull, somewhere behind the turret.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

In both cases, there will be new shells.

In both cases there will be new cars. The load on the rollers, weight distribution along with ammunition, the absence or presence of landing, the possibility of landing from the sky ... There are many mutually unresolved issues, unfortunately. But the question is now very serious - the application and modernization based on the results. And the results are not entirely correct - we are practically at war with our own army (training and armament). And the devils look from the side and decide what they lack to completely eat us.
Oh, and yes, if you put a cannon with S-60 ballistics on a BMD, then it will be a one-time device - until the first shot

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It doesn't have to be new cars. The chassis of the BMP-3 is strong enough, the Epoch module and the 57-mm anti-aircraft gun (Derivation-Air Defense) have already been installed on it, but in the latter case, the ammunition load occupied the entire volume and an additional transport-loading vehicle appeared.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

but in the latter case, the ammunition load occupied the entire volume and an additional transport-loading vehicle appeared.

Here I am about it. There was an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but it became a "chariot for a cannon." And the infantry again on foot to attack? (I exaggerate).
So either we insert at least a 30-40mm radio fuse (not Chinese, but our own and en masse) or all this is "talking in favor of the poor"

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And still, the situation is simpler. You can try to attach the old AP100 radio fuse to the same 3-mm shells on the BMP-5 and the effectiveness of mounted fire will increase significantly compared to direct fire from a 30-mm automatic cannon. It can be argued that the gunner-operator has nothing else to do, how to screw the fuses, but still. So there may be options.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

It can be argued that unless the gunner-operator has nothing more to do, how to screw the fuses,

Uh... Excuse me... Why screw them on? They are bolted on at the factory. Starting with 100mm caliber since 1944. In general, our 30mm caliber arose as a continuation of the aviation 23mm for air guns. Only the GRAU knows how many shells were produced. And all why? Because 30mm is what our mass production of aircraft could withstand in terms of loads (it's all about the unification of ammunition) The Bofors 40mm projectile, our strength multiplied by the declared rate of fire of the GSH No. No. of aircraft, once "did not pull". And here it is (40mm), just in a modern version, covers a sheep like a bull and 30mm and 57mm. First in power, second in speed.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If you do not screw it, then you will need to set the mode. Otherwise, for example, when shooting in urban areas, it will explode from a flight near the corner of the nearest building. And this is another freeze.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And this is a different design, a multi-mode fuse.

AR-5, AR-21, AR-27, AR-30, AR-45... There are many different ones. No need to screw on the spot, it is necessary to supply the unit with what is required at this stage of combat work. But this is the "smut" of any army. Specifically in our army? It really is a headache right now.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Perhaps I am breaking through the open door and for the "3UOF19-1" "Cherry-1" there is already a proximity fuse.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Maybe I'm breaking into an open door

Don't break, knock softly. There are not only OF, but also missiles from Kahn and Competition.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And in general, in my opinion, each platoon on the BMP-3 should have a vehicle like the BT-3F. Only to strengthen the armament, put a machine gun with a grenade launcher on the roof, attach a drone, and carry ammunition, troops and crew from damaged vehicles and evacuate the wounded. That's what you need to think about in the first place, and not about revising weapons.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

reinforce weapons, put a machine gun with a grenade launcher on the roof, attach a drone, and carry ammunition, troops and crew from damaged vehicles and evacuate the wounded

This is what I'm afraid of. Universalism is EVIL!!! The saw must cut, the hammer must hammer in the nails, the nail puller must pull them out.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Should drones be brought in? Definitely a must! Where to mount them and who to manage? If boxes are attached to the sides of the BMP-3 for them and entrusted with control to the gunner-operator or commander, then it is unprofitable. Who will shoot then? Just what is needed is an armored transporter, in which the operator can be put and the rails for launching drones on the roof can be attached, boxes for transporting drones can be screwed on. And the platoon commander will be able to observe the situation from this conveyor on the monitor. There, an additional diesel generator set can be installed to charge the drones. You have to look to the future.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

You just need an armored transporter, in which you can put the operator and rails to launch drones

And this is a separate vehicle not participating in direct combat. Which is what I started arguing about. There is no universal gun on the BMP-BMD, nor any other universal weapons !!! These will be completely different machines (according to the results of combat use, they will decide what is needed). I'm afraid of one thing - our clumsy bureaucracy and the practice of tenders, which ruins everything - cheaper in this sense means at the expense of someone's life. Isn't the tender expensive?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

An additional car will also be quite combat. If you put a drone operator there in front of a large monitor, then from there you can not only conduct reconnaissance of the area, but also adjust the fire of the infantry fighting vehicle, for example, mounted fire from 100-mm guns. And in general, the platoon commander can control from an additional armored car, there is more space there, you can instruct personnel, set tasks.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

the platoon commander can control from an additional armored car, there is more space, you can instruct personnel, set tasks.

But the question!!! What do you have to do with the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant? I understood one thing for sure - you have nothing to do with servicing equipment (especially tracked ones) or supplying units (even a single team of builders). And they never even tried, it's sad to talk about what you don't know

[Vadmir]

Universalism is EVIL!!! The saw must cut, the hammer must hammer in the nails, the nail puller must pull them out.

I completely agree with you, but here the question of cost and logistics arises. This is good when, for example, Derivation fights with helicopters and UAVs, Kurganets and Epoch work on infantry, and T-15 or Terminator on light armored vehicles. But what kind of crap will logisticians have with ammunition of different calibers in one unit, and the price of non-universal vehicles is prohibitive. And this is if these machines have a chassis and engines that are unified, but what if they are different?
Yes, an infantry fighting vehicle, combining the functions of fighting infantry, light armored vehicles and helicopters with UAVs at the same time, will not be ideal for any of these purposes, but much cheaper than three vehicles for different purposes.

[lucul]

57mm with S-60 ballistics is not an option at all. The gun is excessively powerful + the weight of the chassis (and a limited number of carriers), - the ammunition load.

There is such a thing, 45-50mm would be more optimal, and in terms of ammunition too. But what we have, we have, there is nothing to choose from - we have too big a hole between 30mm and 57mm.

[Bongo]

Quote: lucul

There is such a thing, 45-50mm would be more optimal, and in terms of ammunition too. But what we have, we have, there is nothing to choose from - we have too big a hole between 30mm and 57mm.

Regarding the 30-mm projectile, I agree with you, but about the 57-mm projectile, absolutely not. Mass production of 57 mm rounds for the S-60 ceased in the 1970s, and most of them have been scrapped. In the past, we had 37 and 45 mm artillery systems. Setting up the production of these calibers is not a problem, at least not more difficult than the mass production of 57-mm shells.

[Bobik012]

too big hole we have between 30mm and 57mm

It seems that 37mm and 45mm are still available in warehouses. But there seems to be something wrong with them. From effective just do not give up. The conditions have changed. Existing targets are more effectively hit in calibers of exactly 30 and 57 mm. 76mm and 14,5mm also stop their life path. Bo goals are missing.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

For 76-mm guns, the number of targets is just increasing, there are more and more drones. And they may well return to anti-aircraft 76-mm self-propelled guns, following the old example of the Italians and the recent example of the Chinese.

[Bobik012]

cannot hit targets on reverse hill slopes

Mortar to help you. In the context of light armored vehicles - Nona / Vienna. Well, ka be, the infantry squad and ATGM Tou from the reverse slope will also not hit anything

[Aag]

Quote: demiurg

Not a fair comparison at all.
1. There are no heavily protected targets (dugouts, armored fighting vehicles in caponiers, and the like).
2. There is no comparison of this artillery with the BMPs themselves, not only Russian, but also Western.
3. No comparison was made in terms of the consumption of ammunition to destroy UAVs and helicopters, and most importantly, the distance of destruction was not compared.

Plus, an infantry fighting vehicle with a 30mm high-impulse cannon cannot hit targets at all on the reverse slopes of hills, behind buildings, on the roofs of skyscrapers (hello urban battles).


Well, yes, so that 30mm is guaranteed to win, shooting on the move.

57mm with S-60 ballistics is not an option at all. The gun is excessively powerful + the weight of the chassis (and a limited number of carriers), - the ammunition load. Although flatness can be adjusted by the weight of the charge.

I repeat my couch genius idea:
500 kJ in 57mm. With a barrel length of 50-55 calibers
1. If you use a crowbar, then you can make holes in the silhouette of any modern and promising BTT at any distance (except for tanks). 150-180mm for a couple of kilometers will be.
2. You can reduce the charge by a factor of three by increasing the projectile. We get 3 kg 300m / s, that is, a shot from an 82mm mortar.
3. 40mm sub-caliber weighing about 1 kg and at a speed of 1000 m / s, with a detonation along the laser beam. Reach in height 4-5 km, in range 5-6. 30mm is a cheap controlled detonation and such ranges were never even dreamed of.

This is more specific, more detailed.
And one more thing, from myself - during full-scale tests, the results, and even more so the conclusions, can be greatly distorted depending on who (instructors, or gunners of combat / what / units), in whose
interests...
Balance must be in everything.

[demiurg]

The more I read, the more biased the study seems. Why was 35-57mm accuracy worsened by almost three times compared to 30mm? This alone is enough for 30mm to be in the favourites.

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: demiurg

The more I read, the more biased the study seems. Why was 35-57mm accuracy worsened by almost three times compared to 30mm?

From what? The study is not at all biased ... See what they write here:

Quote: demiurg

I repeat my couch genius idea:
500 kJ in 57mm. With a barrel length of 50-55 calibers

If you believe the results of research, then accuracy (accuracy and range) depends on the length of the barrel. You will not deny that the SVD hits more accurately than the AK-47. The most important thing is to find a reasonable proportion between barrel length and caliber. Let the ratio of 50-55 calibers be suitable for the optimal barrel length. Then the length of the trunk will be:
- 30 mm = 1,5 m - 1,65 m;
- 35 mm = 1 m - 75 m;
- 57 mm = 2 m - 85 m.
And so on.
There is such a device - a weapon stabilizer - a technical device that stabilizes the aiming of a weapon when moving (moving, rolling) the platform on which this weapon is installed.
No matter how effective this device may be, the error (according to the laws of ballistics and geometry) will be the higher, the longer the barrel length.
In addition, design features do not allow increasing the length of the barrel arbitrarily. Here, the ability of used vehicles to maneuver and overcome rough terrain will play an important role.
I guess, this is how they determined the greater efficiency and suitability of the 30 mm gun.

[lucul]

If you believe the results of research, then accuracy (accuracy and range) depends on the length of the barrel.

As far as I remember, the main indicator is the initial speed of the projectile / bullet. It is he who is responsible for ballistics. And accuracy, not least of all, is determined by the accuracy (identity) of the manufacture of the projectile / bullet, the smaller the spread in the performance characteristics of the projectile / bullet, the higher the accuracy.
This is very clearly visible on the Kalashnikov assault rifle / machine gun - depending on the manufacturer of cartridges (domestic / foreign), its accuracy does not change badly.

[Bongo]

Quote: lucul

As far as I remember, the main indicator is the initial speed of the projectile / bullet. It is he who is responsible for ballistics. And accuracy, not least of all, is determined by the accuracy (identity) of the manufacture of the projectile / bullet, the smaller the spread in the performance characteristics of the projectile / bullet, the higher the accuracy.
This is very clearly visible on the Kalashnikov assault rifle / machine gun - depending on the manufacturer of cartridges (domestic / foreign), its accuracy does not change badly.

With equal values ​​of the caliber and mass of the projectile, the initial velocity determines the range of its flight. In addition to the spread of ammunition parameter values, accuracy is also strongly influenced by the principle of operation of weapon automation. With the same ammunition, a weapon whose barrel remains motionless until the projectile takes off will have much better shooting accuracy.

[begemot20091]

agree. 4500 at the muzzle - an automatic bullet is enough for any tank. a 8000 m / s = and a copper cylinder 8x8 mm

[demiurg]

Barrel length beyond a certain limit does not affect accuracy. A long barrel is needed to disperse the projectile to 800-1000-1200 meters per second.
The stability of the platform, the quality of the bulk ammunition, and the recoil dampening system, and the training of the gunner, have a greater influence on accuracy, especially in bursts.
By the way, maybe that’s why they didn’t increase the caliber of BMP guns in the USSR. To hit a target with 2-3 rounds, you need a good SLA, high-quality ammunition, a well-trained gunner who shoots a lot. None of this was on the BMP2/3 until the 2010s. Berezhki / boomerangs / Bahchi, contract gunners appeared later.
And now the question arose that 5-7 shells for a single target is an unaffordable luxury.
I am an expert from the couch, I just expressed my thought.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The size of the powder charge plays an important role. Not a big connoisseur of ballistics, but it seems to me that with an arbitrary increase in the length of the barrel, both friction and counter air resistance will increase, as well as a decrease in the rigidity of the barrel itself.
And shells sometimes do not need to be sorry. If you know that grenade launchers or an ATGM crew have sat down in the landing, then two dozen 100-mm shells should not be a pity there, especially alternately from two infantry fighting vehicles.

[Konnick]

If you believe the results of research, then accuracy (accuracy and range) depends on the length of the barrel. You will not deny that the SVD hits more accurately than the AK-47.

Everything is relative and this axiom is true when shooting single shots.

And if you watch automatic shooting in slow motion, then the fluctuations of the lightweight barrel of a 30-mm autocannon are very large and the longer the barrel is, the less accuracy of automatic shooting. On the example of small arms, this is very evident when comparing the accuracy of the SVD and RPK-74, for a machine gun, with its thickened and correspondingly more rigid barrel, the accuracy of single weapons at a distance of up to 500 meters is better than that of a sniper rifle. Based on this, the RPK-16 was developed, which allows you to shoot single shots from a closed bolt. The machine gun, standardly equipped with an optical sight, and even with two long and short barrels, has become a universal infantry weapon, it can be used both as a sniper, and when using a short barrel, as a simple machine gun.
And as for the aviation 30-mm automatic gun with its barrel dangling, in Ukraine, during the development of the Bucephalus armored personnel carrier, the gun barrel was reinforced with an additional frame, thereby increasing accuracy by increasing the rigidity of the barrel.

[Bobik012]

the longer the barrel, the less accuracy

A new word in ballistics. "I would sit down for a doctoral dissertation if I were you" (quote)

[Sergey Kuzmin]

here the option is considered only for battles in the fields against infantry manpower. But in reality, more and more you have to face the enemy in street battles and in rugged mountainous and hilly terrain, where mounted fire is in great demand, and not just direct fire ...

[Ros 56]

And you are going to fight only with light armored vehicles with 30 mm. tools? Where did they put everyone else?

[demiurg]

Now the nearest mortar, in the battalion.
And having a low ballistics cannon / mortar / ags on an infantry fighting vehicle, you can start shelling a target in real time.

[Bobik012]

Now the nearest mortar, in the battalion

A grenade launcher in each compartment (or even more than one) In street battles, the range is quite sufficient. And, I believe, a platoon entering the urban area will certainly have a reinforcement in the form of a highly bullied thick cannon

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

This is if you need to throw a grenade out the window, then you have such a grenade launcher in your department. But if intelligence has discovered an enemy tank or armored personnel carrier behind a fence a block away, and which is about to move, then it is better to be able to send him a canopy line of cumulative fragmentation grenades than not to have it. A 40-mm automatic grenade launcher on armored vehicles will not be superfluous, especially in the city.

[Bobik012]

A 40-mm automatic grenade launcher on armored vehicles will not be superfluous, especially in the city

Yes, it is there most of the time. What is the subject of the dispute, I do not understand.
By the way, what are you trying to do with armored vehicles behind the fence with a 40mm grenade? 82mm mine and that practically does not work against armor.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Do not repeat other people's nonsense. The 40-mm grenade launcher is not yet massively available, and even more so the cumulative fragmentation grenades for it. And an 82-mm cumulative-fragmentation mine, if such is available, will not yield to an 85-mm over-caliber shot from an RPG-7 in terms of striking ability. There are no tanks capable of withstanding the hit of a cumulative submunition of a similar caliber on the roof. Moreover, cluster shaped charge submunitions are much weaker than 82-85 mm caliber and are just comparable to 40 mm grenades.

[Bobik012]

You, my friend, in which regiment did you serve? A cumulative projectile in 40mm caliber ?!
From the mortar to get into the tank!? Don't smoke THIS anymore!
On what sofas are you reading all this heresy!?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Not a projectile, but grenades, for three years now the development has been ready.
https://topwar.ru/159567-predstavleny-novye-kumuljativnye-granaty-vko-25-i-gk-94-bolshoj-moschnosti.html
And mortars are automatic 2B9.

[Bobik012]

That's terrible! You can laugh at Duning and Kruger as much as you like, but the effect takes place
Goodbye, young man. Very upset by the level of your incompetence. I really hope there aren't many...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I am glad that I managed to tell you a lot of new and unknown before the village.
You, perhaps, will be one of those far-sighted who believed that since the spirits in Afghanistan had no tanks left, then a cumulative fragmentation mine for the Vasilok was not needed to defeat them. Therefore, we do not have the much-needed ammunition to destroy fortifications and armored vehicles with a canopy.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Oh yes, I completely forgot, you probably don’t even know what drones are and how you can adjust fire with their help.

[Konnick]

where mounted fire is in high demand, and not just direct fire

Especially for infantry in trenches. Research for the sake of research. I wonder how long light armored vehicles will live, standing still and shooting, in the direct line of sight of the ATGM crew ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Well, straight, a connoisseur of tactics ! There are no fools, they make a shot, fire a burst and retreat to cover or to the starting point.

[squid]

comparison is made under the given result. and the types of targets are strange. try to shoot at buildings in urban battles, especially on the upper floors - let's see where your 30 + 100mm will end up. the same for medium armored vehicles, such as BMP in the frontal projection

[Ros 56]

An interesting article, but there are questions.

[Thrifty]

Edward, you write a lot and well about technology, that's great! But !!! You have averaged data, in literally ideal conditions for firing. Didn’t you have to shoot 23mm machine guns at the training ground? When the wind changed dramatically, and out of 10 shots 8 went into milk at a firing distance of 250 meters! Your conclusion is correct, higher kinetics, higher flight speed, higher striking moment for the 57mm caliber, I completely agree . But, and here the same weather conditions change everything in seconds. So, you can choose a certain middle ground in weapons, but the ideal weapon simply does not exist, a lot depends on mother nature ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I will support, from a 30-mm cannon at a distance of 2 km, in my opinion, it is generally impossible to hit not only a small target, but also in polygon conditions the silhouette of armored vehicles, if it hits, it will ricochet from the tank in real conditions.

[fiberboard]

I wonder why 57mm is preferable? It hits further - there is a tank and artillery. Penetrates enemy armored vehicles at a greater distance - there is a PTRUS. It works better on air targets - for this there are air defense systems, MANPADS. It is impossible to combine self-propelled guns, a tank, a ZSU in one BMP. The infantry fighting vehicle exists to deliver fighters to the line of attack, or to support them on the defensive. 57mm caliber is certainly good, BUT less ammunition, rate of fire. Which is better - 500 shells 30mi, or 150 57mm? So make a BMPT with 57mm and that's it. Enter a BMPT company into the staff of the rifle battalion for fire support. Why 57mm and not 45 or 76? 76 even more, further, stronger. And we have a lot of experience with this caliber.

[Thrifty]

Dvp-just this caliber is actually ideal for performing a narrow range of tasks, such as working on enemy lightly armored targets, pillboxes and bunkers, light aircraft, helicopters and kamikaze drones, a kind of golden mean. The range of tasks that this weapon should and can perform does not include work on heavy and heavily armored vehicles, on high-altitude and high-speed targets, there are other means and types of weapons for this. Each weapon has its own niche, and the ability to work on certain objects is included in this niche, or is it not a priority for this caliber ...

[demiurg]

45mm normal OFS cannot be done. 50-57mm minimum, 76mm is clearly excessive.

[moscowp]

Interesting, but not entirely clear:
1. What is the reason that, in accordance with Table 1, with an increase in the number of kilometers, the probability of being hit by a small caliber increases sharply, and by a large one - decreases?
2. How was the research done? This is the most interesting. Through computer simulation? What parameters were used?
3. To complete the picture, there is not enough probability of hitting equipment by an ATGM TOU crew from the same distances in order to draw any conclusions about the full effectiveness.

[demiurg]

Look at what dispersion they screwed on to hypothetical 35-57mm guns. Almost three times more. If desired, they could screw more. Plus shooting on the move with a primitive SLA (1988). Of course, the "watering can" with high accuracy, the simplest correction for tracers, will win.
A vivid example of when studies were customized to the desired result.

In the confrontation between the BMP-ATGM, whoever finds the target first will win.
If the BMP is out on the firing line and knows where to shoot, the BMP will have a head start of 6-7 seconds while the missile flies 2-3km.

[steelmaker]

It's nice to read articles where everything is scientifically justified. Our government would have so scientifically substantiated the country's economy. For 30 years, the country's reforms have never been considered. It is bad that Putin does not have "cooks and taxi drivers" - advisers!

[Konnick]

In this study, the targets - infantry squads in trenches and ATGM crews - are taken in the form of three-dimensional models.

And what CAD was it made in?

[Konnick]

The probability of hitting a target of the Tou ATGM type in a trench at a distance of 2 km for a 30-mm automatic gun with standard shells from the first stage turned out to be the highest and amounted to 29%.

And for the Tou ATGM, the probability of hitting a fixed target such as an infantry fighting vehicle or an armored personnel carrier, at a distance of 2 km from the first launch, was 100%....

Or "researchers" adhere to the principle "and why should we?"
Regular scientists on cutting money.

[Konnick]

For targets such as infantry in trenches at distances of about 2 km, mortars firing from closed positions have been used for more than a century.
And if you use an infantry fighting vehicle or an armored personnel carrier for such a purpose as an infantry squad in a trench, then it is by no means a 30-mm machine gun, since firing from it implies its location in the direct line of sight of the enemy, which entails a quick defeat.
Instead of a 30-mm cannon, it is better and more effective against such a target to use a 30-mm AGS, or even better, a 40-mm Balkan automatic grenade launcher, with which an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle can hit the enemy in trenches without entering visual contact.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Use what is at hand. If, for example, the enemy is seated in a forest plantation within line of sight and reach, there is no need to wait for mortar support. Especially if they are not deployed in advance. Direct fire from a 100-mm cannon directly into the branches of trees will give excellent results. And even a 30mm cannon can deal significant damage, but its fire will not be as effective in forest plantations at long distances. 30-mm guns are capable of blowing trees, and those who are hiding behind them, literally into chips.

[iouris]

Where are the numbers from?
To "hit" the object of action, you must first identify it.

[Boratsagdiev]

57 mm caliber

- there are two of them, one is low impulse, the other is full.
We need a "wunderwaffle" with a larger caliber. 122-155 mm and put not a cannon, but an automatic grenade launcher-mortar (similar to the Swedish one), but add 1-2 30 mm to it in the spark.
It's not bad to put another pair of 12.7 mm on independent control and suspension points.
This will be good not only in the open field, but also in the city to work out well.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The study is somewhat one-sided, or, if you like, outdated.
The appearance of projectiles with remote detonation is not taken into account. At the moment, the 100 mm BMP-3 cannon does not yet have such a projectile, but its appearance is possible. And then the possibility of defeating uncovered infantry increases dramatically, plus the damaging factor of shell shock is added.
Only an unprotected target is considered. For the same heavy enemy infantry fighting vehicles, it is preferable to have a 57 or 100 mm caliber.
The 30 and 40 mm additional grenade launcher is not considered in comparison, in some cases it can replace a small-caliber gun, especially at close range.
Features of weapons carriers are not taken into account. It will be difficult to install a larger gun than a 82-mm cannon on a wheeled BTR-30A or an armored car "Typhoon-VDV", there are no options here.
But for the same BMPT tank support combat vehicle, or a heavy BMP, you can pick up something more impressive.

[garri-lin]

On the BTR 82 and Typhoon, you don’t need to install a high-ballistics gun at all.
40 mm Balkan with a normal range of ammunition.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If you put "Balkan" instead of a cannon, then you still need a heavy machine gun.

[garri-lin]

Kord plus the Balkans.
Although 12,7 is sometimes redundant.
On the DUM, a unified machine gun attachment point is needed. So that it was possible to put what is optimal in the situation. Or 12,7 or 7,62.

[Konnick]

Quote: Bobik012

the longer the barrel, the less accuracy

A new word in ballistics. "I would sit down for a doctoral dissertation if I were you" (quote)

You cut off my phrase, this phrase ended -less accuracy automatic firing

[Nikolaevich I]

Yes ... no doubt, in the "military world" there is a tendency to increase the caliber of artillery weapons of infantry fighting vehicles and, even, MZA! This is influenced by the increase in the armor protection of modern infantry fighting vehicles and the desire of the military to acquire, if not correctable, then at least with programmable detonation shells! In caliber 30 mm, it is technically more difficult and expensive to do this! Therefore, NATO is looking at calibers of 35-40 mm ... and even 50 mm, although less. In Russia, there was talk about the 45 mm caliber; and now they are talking about 57 mm! But increasing the caliber on an infantry fighting vehicle is not an indisputable issue! We are talking about the "calicity" of shells in the ammunition load (AM)! On average, 400 30-mm shells are placed on the BMP (200 ready to fire ...), and in the BMP-2 and all 500 ... NATO military experts say that it is not necessary to reduce the number of ammunition to less than 150 rounds! It turns out that an increase in caliber not only reduces the ammunition load, but also does not always give a real increase in firepower! The magic of marketing calculations and field test results often has nothing to do with harsh reality. The fact is that soldiers do not always fight in strict accordance with the ideas of weapon developers. In the chaos of battle, they often shoot without an accurate determination of the range to the target, in bursts longer than theoretically required to solve the fire problem. Often, shooting is carried out at inaccurately identified targets - just in case, so to speak. As a result, the predicted consumption of ammunition to hit the target in no way corresponds to the real one. And if the total ammunition can be increased by taking a certain amount of "supernumerary" ammunition inside the BMP, then a sharp decrease in the ammunition ready for firing seems to be a serious problem.

Actively advertised projectiles with programmable fuses are also not a panacea. First, they are significantly more expensive than usual. Secondly, due to inevitable errors in the fire control system and the fuse programmer, such projectiles still have to be fired in bursts (at least 3-5 shots each). Thirdly, the effectiveness of their use is determined by the precisely chosen time and height of the explosion above the target. These calculations require the use of an "advanced" fire control system with a laser rangefinder and weather sensors, which does not fundamentally differ from the FCS of modern tanks and is very expensive (its cost can be 30-40% of the cost of an infantry fighting vehicle)
If, when switching to a caliber of 35-40 mm, the requirement of the "mandatory minimum" can still be met, then with a larger caliber (50-57 mm), this is already problematic! When the Americans, while upgrading their Bradley-2 BMP, considered the possibility of increasing the caliber of weapons while maintaining the same turret, it turned out that instead of 300 25-mm shells ready for firing, only 93 50-mm Supershort or 40-mm STAI shells could be placed in the turret . It looked better to install the gun under 40-mm Super 40 shells, which made it possible to place 180 shells. The installation of a 35-mm KDA gun was a little inferior to her. So ... "not everything is carnival for the cat"! Or ... not everything is clear on the issue of increasing the caliber of BMP weapons! It would be foolish to rely entirely on 57 mm in the Russian army! Maybe switching to 45 mm would be more appropriate! Although ... I heard that officials in the RF Ministry of Defense consider equipping the HRV with a 57-mm caliber to be practically solved ...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The reasoning is correct in particular, but in general inaccurate. A larger caliber can be supplemented with a smaller one, as in the BMP-3, or an additional grenade launcher can be installed. And then the problem with the size of the ammunition looks different.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And then the problem with the size of the ammunition looks different.

And "complicate" the logistics? Ammunition for "large caliber", for "smaller" ... and for an additional grenade launcher?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Complication of logistics is a trap for fools. Thought up as a rationale for abandoning the 122-mm caliber, in fact, the transition to a larger 152-mm caliber is associated with the possibility of using cluster munitions and greater efficiency of guided ones.

[demiurg]

In any case, you will have to switch to a larger caliber.
30mm is not enough now to deal with modern infantry fighting vehicles. A programmable fuse for 30mm roads and eats up space and weight, which is already small in a 30mm projectile.
30mm actually cannot fight drones at a distance of more than one or two km.
Well, yes, shooting in long bursts is history. Modern SLA allows you to hit the target with one shot. Plus, as an option, the removal of ammunition into a crazy niche, as in the Epoch.
And I like the idea of ​​LShO-57. If you strengthen the barrel of the LShO for firing high-ballistic sub-calibers, this will be a replacement with an increase in the characteristics of both 30mm and AGS on the roof.
Above, I suggested an option that seems optimal from my sofa. According to the energy of the shot, it seems to turn out beautifully.

[garri-lin]

LShO 57 mi seems to have a "scrap". Pretty good speed.
When the first conversations started, they posted photos of shots in the section.

[Vadmir]

If you strengthen the barrel of the LShO for firing high-ballistic sub-calibers, this will be a replacement with an increase in the characteristics of both 30mm and AGS on the roof.

But the question arises of combating air targets, it needs both a high initial speed and a remote detonation of a projectile at the same time. For Baikal, all this is easier to implement, it already has high ballistics, and against infantry, remote detonation will do its job.

[demiurg]

500 kJ in 57mm. With a barrel length of 50-55 calibers
1. If you use a crowbar, then you can make holes in the silhouette of any modern and promising BTT at any distance (except for tanks). 150-180mm for a couple of kilometers will be.
2. You can reduce the charge by a factor of three by increasing the projectile. We get 3 kg 300m / s, that is, a shot from an 82mm mortar.
3. 40mm sub-caliber weighing about 1 kg and at a speed of 1000 m / s, with a detonation along the laser beam. Reach in height 4-5 km, in range 5-6. 30mm is a cheap controlled detonation and such ranges were never even dreamed of.

[Vadmir]

Maybe switching to 45 mm would be more appropriate!

One could agree with your conclusion, but we don’t have such systems in hardware, but there are two calibers 30 mm and 57 mm, of these two the choice is obvious - 57 mm. The alternative is to wait for the years that it will take to develop guns in 40-45 mm caliber.

[alexmach]

Yes, there was already such a project, guns for a promising infantry fighting vehicle. They were taken to exhibitions, and buried.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Vadmir

there are two calibers 30 mm and 57 mm,

The "iron" has a 45-mm autocannon with "telescopic" shots (prototype) for the "newest" infantry fighting vehicles ... Alas, the Defense Ministry decided not to "get involved" with the 45-mm caliber and did not allocate money for revision!

[alexmach]

Thirdly, the data still show that switching to a 57-mm automatic cannon, which has been walking around exhibitions for more than a year, would be highly preferable. Combining the increased power of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile and the possibility of using ammunition with remote detonation and ready-made submunitions

What data shows this? Not listed in the article?

[Vic Vic]

So after all, when the enemy is in a trench, a projectile with a different type of fuse that explodes in the air above the trench will be optimal.
Why was this option not considered in the first place?

[senima56]

For several years now, the topic of the production of 30-mm shells "with remote detonation" by our military-industrial complex has been discussed! In the West, these shells are already being used and very effectively, but we, unfortunately, are lagging behind!

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: senima56

For several years now, the topic of the production of 30-mm shells "with remote detonation" by our military-industrial complex has been discussed!

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ordered the military-industrial complex an "experimental" batch of 30-mm projectiles with a programmable detonation ... somewhere since 20!

[demiurg]

And most likely, looking at the cost-effectiveness, they refused to purchase.
The basis of the BC should be cheap.

[Vadmir]

For several years now, the topic of the production of 30-mm shells "with remote detonation" by our military-industrial complex has been discussed! hi In the West, these shells are already being used and very effectively, but we, unfortunately, are lagging behind!

Such ammunition is not universal and not suitable for fighting armored vehicles, but it is expensive and it is very expensive to equip it in one combined tape. So you need power from two tapes with switching. On old technology, this is difficult and expensive to implement, and therefore not cost-effective. And on new equipment - why use a caliber that is already of little promise due to low armor penetration and the inability to deal with modern Western armored vehicles, which are designed to withstand hits by a 30 mm projectile from heading angles, you can immediately switch to 57 mm caliber.

[alexmach]

On old technology, this is difficult and expensive to implement, and therefore not cost-effective.

What? Selective power on old technology has actually been implemented a long time ago.

[Vadmir]

Yes, but not equipment for using shells with remote detonation.

[bk0010]

It seems to me that the matmodel is bullshit. According to it, it turns out that a 30-mm cannon has a higher chance of hitting an ATGM crew than a 122-mm cannon. This is highly doubtful.

[Vadmir]

The BMP has 7 typical tasks on the battlefield:
1 Defeat infantry in open areas;
2 Defeat infantry in the trenches;
3 Defeat infantry in pillboxes, windows of buildings;
4 Defeat of ATGM crews, guns on direct fire;
5 Defeat light armored vehicles;
6 Defeat helicopters, and possibly UAVs at low altitude (optional but desirable task);
7 Defeat heavy armored vehicles (the task is optional, but there should not be a completely defenseless infantry fighting vehicle against a tank);
To solve 1 task, a 30 mm caliber is redundant, here you need a machine gun caliber of 7,62-12,7 mm and the ability to shoot for a long time (large ammunition load). The alternative is 76-122 mm caliber and shrapnel.
Tasks 2 and 4 are (partly) one of the most difficult - it is not rational to shoot at covered infantry with direct fire. Here, either mounted firing from a mortar - howitzers - mortars will do, or a low-ballistic weapon - an automatic grenade launcher 40-57 mm. Or a projectile with a remote detonation, in Russia this means - a caliber of 57 mm.
For task 3, you need a weapon capable of penetrating walls and concrete, followed by an explosion inside - high ballistics for penetration is desirable, a larger caliber is also better, so that something 30 mm remains on the high-explosive fragmentation part here is not enough, better 57 mm.
5 The task has so far been successfully solved with 30 mm caliber, but all Western infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in recent decades have been created with the requirement to withstand 30 mm ammunition. This means that the transition to 40-57 mm caliber is more than relevant. At the same time, the gun must have high ballistics.
Task 6 requires a high-ballistic gun, while the projectile must have a remote detonation and a good spread of fragments. There is no such projectile in Russia in the 30 mm caliber, but there is in the 57 mm caliber. For task 7, an ATGM is needed, but the ability to pierce a tank with a cannon into the side is also not superfluous.
Conclusion: the transition to the caliber 40-57 mm is ripe. In this case, either 2 types of infantry fighting vehicles are needed with a gun of high ballistics (Baikal) and low ballistics (Era). Or a combination of Baikal and AGS in one tower. Well, a machine gun for open purposes. And against tanks - anti-tank systems.

[garri-lin]

LShO 57 mm. And a Baikal and a grenade launcher.
Universal tool.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If executed on the Ural chassis, like the 120-mm Phlox mortar, then the choice of the type of ammunition can be made manually, taking out the necessary cassettes, four shots each. And the portable ammunition will turn out to be very decent.
And how to select the type of ammunition in the Epoch combat module is a question for me. If possible, then there are no problems, but the published scheme of the gun's ammunition supply looks very unreliable and complicated.

[Vadmir]

And how to select the type of ammunition in the Epoch combat module is a question for me.

Two-ribbon power was implemented on 2A42, but here the question is of the electronics that control the detonation of shells.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Look at how the power supply to the Epoch module is made, there is no smell of ribbons there. There is a rather contradictory design, caused by the observance of the condition for the removal of ammunition from the hull.

[garri-lin]

LShO 57 MM is promising for arming a new generation of infantry fighting vehicles.
The issue of ammunition is completely solved. What was drawn for the Epoch is not the best option, but there are other possibilities

[Vadmir]

LShO 57 mm. And a Baikal and a grenade launcher.

Not really. Much can be solved using different ammunition, for example, you can use cumulative or sub-caliber shells to fight armored vehicles, but firstly, switching from one type of projectile to another is a difficult decision in itself, and secondly, the anti-personnel impact on manpower does not raise questions , especially with the use of remote detonation ammunition, but the defeat of light armored vehicles, helicopters and UAVs requires the use of weapons with a higher muzzle velocity, and therefore with greater armor penetration, firing range and accuracy.
Baikal, on the other hand, can deal with air targets and light armored vehicles much more effectively. And remote detonation shells can replace a grenade launcher to fight infantry in the trenches. But again, subject to switching the type of projectile, which means that power should be provided from two tapes - with remotely detonated ammunition and armor-piercing. The option of combining Baikal with AGS seems to me a cheaper alternative to two-tape power.

[garri-lin]

At 57 mm n when there was no tape power.
It's a little different there.
Two guns are certainly good, but Baikal has a huge return. And this is a minus. Plus, the module itself is heavy. Also a minus. Overkill for most purposes.
Before the advent of LSO, I was also with all my strength for the C 60 in a new incarnation. But now he's changed his mind.

[bandabas]

Honestly. Never fired from such a thing. But I believe .

[Lara Croft]

Thirdly, the data still show that the transition to automatic 57 mm cannon, which has been walking around exhibitions for more than a year, would be highly preferable.

The empirialists have been switching to it for a long time ...

[alexmach]

The empirialists are switching to all kinds of high-tech with telescopes and uranium cores.

[igor_sabadah]

and how to cram 3.6 kg into 30mm?

[Alekandr]

UAS Gran and others. Krasnopol are guided by GOS, and this is not cheap! The destiny of the UAS is to hit important point objects. In trenches and weakly fortified shelters, it is more expedient to fire shells with air blast (with a ground proximity sensor). Ideally, heavy infantry fighting vehicles of the first line of 57 or 45 mm guns with remote (programmable) detonation and guns of tanks of the 2nd line will work on the fortifications.

[Sedoy]

switching to a 57-mm automatic cannon would be highly preferable. Combining the increased power of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile and the possibility of using ammunition with remote detonation and ready-made submunitions

this is subject to a sufficient amount of ammunition for infantry fire support ...
of which there is no certainty...
but with any 30mm options, this is yesterday - a potential enemy already has an "infantry fighting vehicle" with armor protection from 30mm ...
at the same time, he puts a "Bushmaster III" cannon - 35mm with a programmable version of shells ...
however, they also have a 30mm "Bushmaster II" - also with programmable ammunition ...
and not with a remote one, as the developers of our army suggest ...
and these, as they say in Odessa, are two big differences ...
enough to supply the army with "cheap stuff", covering up the inferiority of weapons with the principle "cheap and cheerful" ...
perhaps, according to our standards, it is necessary to develop a 37mm programmable projectile for "small caliber" ...
however, as well as a 57mm programmable projectile - and already putting this weapon into operation ...

[t200404]

For me it would be better gsh-6-30

[Vladimir Michailovich]

Another Rostec clown pushing an empty about 57-mm caliber.

[air wolf]

A 30 mm projectile is the limit for our light vehicles, but on the BMPT I would try 37 mm ...

[storm]

The combination of a 30mm automatic cannon and a 120mm Nona mortar cannon in the BMP/BMD weapon module would have worked much more effectively against infantry units and ATGM crews in trenches and shelters.
The effectiveness of a 100 mm gun against modern MBTs is very low, and against infantry in the trenches, a 120 mm mortar is an order of magnitude more effective.

[MSWTO]

In general, a modern infantry fighting vehicle needs a bunch of 125 high ballistics and a 57mm high ballistics gun, direct fire with a 125mm gun, at least from a distance, at least at point-blank range, to break the enemy’s armored vehicles, the enemy’s MBT, the more BMPs and armored cars of the enemy, the canopy will not work because there is not much space in the tower for smart aiming angles, and an additional 57mm gun for drones and infantry.