Footage of the test of the BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle with the Epoch combat module appeared on the Web

Test footage of an infantry fighting vehicle with the Epoch combat module appeared on the Web. It is assumed that the so-called B-18, better known as the BMP-2 with the Epoch module installed, got on the video.

The Epoch combat module was designed for installation on the promising Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle. However, with the delay in this development, options were made to install this combat module on infantry fighting vehicles already in service. This is how the BMP-2 with the Epoch appeared, the development received the code B-18. There is also an option to install the BM "Epokha" on the BMP-3, which received the code B-19.

If there is almost no information on B-18, except that work is underway, then there is more information on B-19. In 2017, the Ministry of Defense ordered the delivery of an experimental batch of these infantry fighting vehicles with delivery in 2019. In 2021, the B-19 infantry fighting vehicle with the Epoch combat module was used for the first time at the Mulino training ground during the drawing of the main scenario of the West-2021 strategic exercises. The defense episode involved an armored group as part of a BMP B-19 platoon, which was brought into battle according to the scenario to increase the firepower of the defending units.

The Epokha combat module is equipped with a 57-mm automatic cannon, Kornet anti-tank ATGM launchers and a new Bulat missile system with guided small-sized 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. At the same time, the system assesses the danger of a particular object and issues recommendations to the crew on the use of weapons.

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

Comments

[stels_07]

It would be better if all tanks were equipped with Arenas, and infantry fighting vehicles, whatever they are, let them maintain order in the rear

[ZoV]

What is better without us know! They secret the latest developments and do it right

[stels_07]

How do they know better without us for 8 months we have been watching

[Cottodraton]

So go ahead! To the front line, show me how to do it! ... By personal, so to speak, example and experience ...

[ZoV]

Quote: Cottodraton

So go ahead! To the front line, show me how to do it! ... By personal, so to speak, example and experience ...

They all write in Kazakhstan)))

[lucul]

They all write in Kazakhstan

Not only )))
Won 52$ a day on comments earn)))
Reference:

https://m.aftershock.news/?q=node/1171875

[ZoV]

Quote: lucul

They all write in Kazakhstan

Not only )))
Won 52$ a day on comments earn)))
Reference:

https://m.aftershock.news/?q=node/1171875

I would have become a millionaire))) That's just, I'm sitting in other trenches and getting lyuli
We are motivated and love the Motherland!

[Ulan.1812]

Quote: lucul

They all write in Kazakhstan

Not only )))
Won 52$ a day on comments earn)))
Reference:

https://m.aftershock.news/?q=node/1171875

I want to buy a model of electric locomotive VL-19. There is not enough money. Are they all accepted there?

[Mikhail Drabkin]

BMPs, what they are, let them maintain order in the rear

“Not fish, not meat…

—- With this combat module, what mini size should the warriors be so that at least three fit, plus a mechanic - driver and commander of a semi-squad? Not to mention ergonomics...

[KCA]

There are comfortable conditions, but there are combat ones, once we accommodated 100 people in an Audi 12 "cigar", and the owner lay in the trunk, if he burns it, you can stuff 80 people into the BTR-82 or 30, from Moscow time to the Crimea , of course, not ice, but 10-15 kilometers from the base to the database point right at once, but somehow they climbed into the back seat of 6 people in Matiz, two girls lay on their knees, but drove normally, no one shed tears and did not suffer

[aars]

It was a long time ago - I saw how five Uzbeks and two women got out of the Urals.
He somehow put a woman on her knees, also went to the Urals, far away - she served all my legs.

[KCA]

In the Urals 4310 and 4320, and on the Kamaz 5310, I didn’t want to roll on the most, it’s like flying away from the bench myself, but you, apparently, are talking about a motorcycle, they drove me, drove the dog with me in the cradle, not even once , male is not large, husky kg 30

[aars]

Yes, nifiga is not about a motorcycle!
Ordinary machine, TsA-320, grout...
We drove three men and two women on their knees, fucking uncomfortable of course.
The Uzbeks were also on the truck, but they weren’t far to go, it’s true.
In the workshop, they pointed at them with their fingers, like this is what they give.

[Silver99]

At one time, in a construction team in the cab of a GAZ-52, seven people drove along a village road, one taxied, the other pressed the gas and clutch, the third gear switched, the rest explained the way to the driver as they sat on each other's knees and obstructed the view.

[aars]

Yeah!
They do that too!
One works as an automatic transmission at the command of the driver.

[KCA]

I’m not familiar with civilian Urals and Kamaz trucks, I didn’t have to deal with, only with the military, but the cabin, I think, is the same, 7 carcasses are not few, although the Central Asians are mostly small, but with us, in Matiz, in a cigar, the boys were over 100kg , and the rest are not thin, I then weighed 85, the girls, of course, are less

[South Ukrainian]

Quote: aars

He somehow put a woman on her knees, also went to the Urals, far away - she served all my legs.

If the "woman" is interesting, then you can be patient.

[KCA]

I served as a commissar, albeit a small department, a carrier and a signalman, but if necessary, I not only stuffed it into the R-142N in a shishiga, but also stuffed 145 people into my R-60 on the BTR-40PB, and hell who howled, kick received and climbed, an order is an order

[begemot20091]

and if he sits in an interesting place with a soft place

[Ros 56]

We are in the old! tractor Belarus with a cab for one, four of us rode, but what to do with it is necessary to go. And three of them are under 1,75 -1,80 of average fatness.

[D16]

what mini size should the warriors be so that at least three fit

The module is uninhabited, it almost does not eat inside the place. It should be more comfortable with him inside.

[Cottodraton]

To give to all pregnant pensioners in the Arena ....

[barclay]

The new, larger caliber is good for more firepower. But this is still for field tests. For mass use in the troops, it is necessary to produce a sufficient amount of new ammunition. Well, there can be no talk of combat use yet.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Instead of the 30-mm automatic gun 2A42, it was proposed to install an automatic gun of low ballistics LShO-57

What about low ballistics?
There were also ZSU-57-2. (by the way, reduce the volume, add armor and it will be fierce)
Okay, it’s a pity to stick two, but so one would be the same, anti-aircraft.
She will take abrasha on board, and all sorts of Bradleys in general should be shaken.

UPD:
And this is generally 57mm AGS.
Well, then the infantry should be gorgeous, yes.

[aars]

Okay, it’s a pity to stick two, but so one would be the same, anti-aircraft.

There is something called "Derivation".
PS:

The complex is a platform based on the BMP-3, armed with a combat module with a 57-millimeter high ballistics cannon - this is the main know-how. Rate of fire - 120 rounds per minute, muzzle velocity - one thousand meters per second, range - up to ten kilometers, ammunition - 148 shots.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Derivation-air defense?
Is.
But this

Inspires with one look.
There are two trunks. Another would be armor and declare an infantry fighting vehicle (T) or attach a radar.

[Nexcom]

looks mighty. they still knew how to do it in the Union.

[seregatara1969]

In city buildings, it’s probably good to cut off firing points for her.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

They say he drives snipers well.

The installations were actively used during the civil war in Lebanon, where the Syrian peacekeeping contingent was introduced. "Shilki", like the older ZSU-57-2, were especially effective for cleaning up multi-storey buildings in Beirut from snipers who had settled there.

(the article "The Syrian war turned the legendary ZSU-23-4 Shilka into an anti-terror machine" on this site)
https://topwar.ru/86307-siriyskaya-voyna-prevratila-legendarnuyu-zsu-23-4-shilku-v-mashinu-antiterora.html

Well, they wrote about the fact that the Syrians have been using it for a long time, for example, in the article ""Hellish Thresher" was seen as a combat vehicle supporting Syrian tanks."
https://topwar.ru/133810-adskaya-molotilka-zamechena-v-roli-boevoy-mashiny-podderzhki-siriyskih-tankov.html

[alexmach]

And where is the armor then? she's already on a tank chassis.
And 2 barrels are not necessary, but a modern guidance system and modern shells are a must. And use it for its intended purpose in the first place and not as a BMPT.

[Vladimir_2U]

The module is good, but the powerful side armor pleases the eye!

[Romario_Argo]

eye pleasing powerful side armor!

as an option, launch not a BMP-2 into a series, but not a floating BMP-1, it has a board up to 18 mm
in the version of BMP-1AM Basurmanin with ATGM Kornet, 30-mm machine gun and AGS
ideally, of course, the BTR-T side is 80 mm, only in the BMP-1/2 layout
but it will take a long time to move the engine forward of the machine
handicraft was still possible at the LDNR repair plants - now it’s gone

[Timur_kz]

these are floats, also not bad, spacing after all ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Timur_kz

these are floats, also not bad, spacing after all ...

I don’t think, but I admit that these are armored modules with zero buoyancy, i.e. they will not support, but they will not sink either.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

What about low ballistics?

Well, for example, a projectile can be made thin-walled and more blunt, and the sleeve is shorter, respectively, the weight of explosives increases markedly, well, you can put complex (programmable) fuses, and even guided projectiles.

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

Okay, it’s a pity to stick two, but so one would be the same, anti-aircraft.

Well, who now needs to figure out 5 km in height, with no idea what kind of spread?

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

She will take abrasha on board, and all sorts of Bradleys in general should be shaken.

ATGM help!

[Bogalex]

What you are talking about is also being developed. And this is not "Derivation-Air Defense", but precisely the option for the Ground Forces - an independent ROC.
Such an infantry fighting vehicle has the advantage over the "Epoch" - the possibility of using standard ammunition from the S-60, which is probably still stored in the bins of the motherland.
But there is also a significant drawback - restrictions on ammunition. Still, a 57mm cartridge is far from the same as a 30mm cartridge.
Well, what happens in the end and whether it will work out - time will tell.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Well, I’ll put a little gunpowder, let’s say, in a shotgun cartridge (I’ll draw it more clearly).
And a bullet so big (zhekan?).
It will fly like from a howitzer approximately.
And I’ll put it as it should be - the trajectory is already straighter, I’ll shift it (and won’t break the barrel) - it will generally fly well. And then, as if for the sake of this, they sawed off the barrel with a gun (gunpowder may also have been removed).
This is now only AGS.

[bayard]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

What about low ballistics?

So that the car does not shake much with recoil. Yes, and enough low ballistics for all armored vehicles owned by the enemy. and the tank - ATGM.
If, together with the new module, we strengthened the reservation ... The side screens shown seemed to be hung, the forehead would also be strengthened, following the example of how the Finns did with our infantry fighting vehicles. And the machine will be quite itself. There are a lot of them at the storage bases, and for wartime, such an upgrade will do just fine. And such modernization can be organized at repair plants so as not to interfere with the production of new equipment at the main enterprises.
Will this be in time for this war?

[dnestr74]

So there is already a video where our heroes fired back to the last with this module

[Alexander_Snegirev]

Quote: dnestr74

video where our heroes fired back to the last with this module

In this video, a BMP-2M was unwound in battle with another module called Berezhok.

[dnestr74]

4 weapons and a cannon are similar in armament ... there is probably a stronger tower ... So you are right of course, I messed up.

[Alexander_Snegirev]

The Algerian tank support combat vehicle based on the T-62 tank is very interesting.
A turret with a 115-mm 2A20 smoothbore gun was dismantled from the tank, and instead a fighting compartment (B05Ya01) "Berezhok" from the BMP-2M was installed.
Armament:
- Anti-tank missile system with laser guidance "Kornet",
- 30-mm automatic gun 2A42,
- 30 mm grenade launcher AG-30,
- 7,62 mm PKTM machine gun.
And the problem was solved by overloading the front roller of the tank due to the light turret, and the armor on the sides was not cardboard like that of the BMP-2.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Not bad (and the T-54 can be redone this way, if left).
But this БooyaМashinaПsupportТankov.
We don’t push troops into them.
And in the article for БooyaМashinaПhunting.

[mr wolf]

Well, it’s already an Israeli akhzarit that will turn out ... True, that one is an armored personnel carrier.

[PPD]

Interesting, of course.
But.
Judging by the photo, it looks like you can throw out the letter p from the abbreviation bmp. Where should the infantry go? The tower covers almost the entire stern.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: PPD

Judging by the photo, it looks like you can throw out the letter p from the abbreviation bmp. Where should the infantry go? The tower covers almost the entire stern.

Not a tower, but a niche of the tower, and why are the stern doors not satisfied?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The remark is correct. Roof hatches are blocked, an additional way of evacuation from the car. Remote-controlled modules can be made even higher so that the hatches do not overlap and allow the installation of an additional machine gun, for example, on the hatch of the BMP-1 commander, like a machine gun mount on the landing "Rakushka".

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The remark is correct.

The remark, as I understood it, concerned the reduction of the troop compartment.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Roof hatches are blocked, an additional way of evacuation from the car.

Regular BMP-2 hatches, yes, but there is still room for the modified tie-in!

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Remote-controlled modules can be made higher so that the hatches do not overlap

Where even higher? Compare with the original BMP-2 turret.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

and allow the installation of an additional machine gun, for example, on the hatch of the BMP-1 commander, like a machine gun mount on the landing "Shell".

This is a new car is needed.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Above you can easily, a small belt and everything is in order, as on MTLB.

If there is no problem of loading onto the plane, then everything is in order.
And, in my opinion, the machine-gun module from the landing "Shell" is placed on a standard hatch. By eye, everything should pass in size.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Above you can easily, a small belt and everything is in order, as on MTLB.

No, there is a different caliber and BC in the niche of the tower.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

If there is no problem of loading onto the plane, then everything is in order.

In my opinion, the height is usually in order, tilt trucks calmly enter IL-76, there is a problem with booking. More height, more weight, chassis - it's not all-powerful.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And, in my opinion, the machine-gun module from the landing "Shell" is placed on a standard hatch. By eye, everything should pass in size.

From the stern, in the manner of Marder, a point is needed, KMK, but in front it will interfere with the main armament. Remember height.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

These are all tasks of specific design, layout. There would be a desire, but the problems are quite surmountable. On the same BMP-3, in front, two paratroopers on the sides control not quite convenient course machine guns. If the cannon module is raised higher, then everyone can put a machine-gun module from the landing "Shell" on the hatch, the survivability of the vehicle with full-fledged additional machine guns will increase significantly.
I repeat, there would be a desire to create full-fledged machines, but there will be solutions.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

If the cannon module is raised higher, then everyone can put a machine-gun module from the landing "Shell" on the hatch

This is already overkill. And that's why:

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

On the same BMP-3, in front, two paratroopers on the sides control not quite convenient course machine guns.

These fighters are DISmounting! And the launchers become a dead weight, horns that block the guidance angles even for an elevated main installation.

For the same reason, the effectiveness of firing on the move will be sharply reduced, because these horns, when the nose of the vehicle is lifted, will interfere with shooting even horizontally, without a negative angle of VH.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Again I have to repeat myself, if there was a desire to place machine guns, the implementation would not be delayed. The raised module and hatches will release, and machine guns will allow you to install. And when the paratroopers dismount, the control of machine guns on the BMP-3 passes to the driver.
We will stay with our own people, otherwise we will crush water in a mortar.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The raised module and hatches will release, and machine guns will allow you to install.

T-28 is the closest example of the proposed layout, purely to figure out which box is needed under the module. And there is a place for hatches, and a machine gun in the back is relevant.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And when the paratroopers dismount, the control of machine guns on the BMP-3 passes to the driver.

??? To steer and control two machine guns?! And they refused to use hard course machine guns on the T-54 or even 44.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

We will stay with our own people, otherwise we will crush water in a mortar.

You did not convince me.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Because you are approaching the problem from a completely different angle. From the implementation side, not being a constructor of this particular technique. But it is necessary to formulate a task for the designer, and not delve into his problems. If you had to sit in the place of the gunner-operator in the BMP, you would understand the problem right away. The gunner concentrates on one target in one direction and loses vision behind the battlefield. And the survivability of light vehicles primarily depends on the speed of response to unexpected and multiple threats.
The most classic example is a video of a Russian BMP-1 being shot at point-blank range by a Ukrainian armored personnel carrier. The BMP's gun is turned away and the gunner-operator is busy with another target. The armored personnel carrier leaves on board and if the driver had the opportunity to fire from a place like on the BMP-3, the armored personnel carrier would not have left unscathed, perhaps he would have already become a victim.
And the implementation of machine gun control can be different, as well as the location of the gun. The T-28 is not a bad example in this case, but remote control and a gun stabilizer have since appeared.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

From the implementation side, not being a constructor of this particular technique. But it is necessary to formulate a task for the designer, and not delve into his problems.

Just like you.
One of the most important requirements is to ensure the firing angles of the main armament, the modules in the front part contradict this requirement! Here, evaluate the very high location of the gun, and how the DBM with a single machine gun, not even a large machine gun, will interfere with it, if it is in front.

In fairness, the front location of the low-profile machine gun mount was worked out, but the effectiveness was slightly higher than the course ones on the BMP-3, which is understandable.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

If you had to sit in the place of the gunner-operator in the BMP, you would understand the problem right away. The gunner concentrates on one target in one direction and loses vision behind the battlefield.

If you knew the basics of the work of the BBM crew, then you would not write this. The commander is responsible for the review.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The most classic example is a video of a Russian BMP-1 being shot at point-blank range by a Ukrainian armored personnel carrier. The BMP's gun is turned away and the gunner-operator is busy with another target. The armored personnel carrier leaves on board and if the driver had the opportunity to fire from a place like on the BMP-3, the armored personnel carrier would not have left unscathed, perhaps he would have already become a victim.

And what weapon?! Machine gun?! And what sighting devices to equip the mechanic, you thought? I will answer you - at least simplified commander's! Because besides the gunner, only the commander can control the turret and gun. He sees the target in his sight / panorama, presses the button to bring the weapon into his field of view, and then either commands the gunner, or he himself aims and shoots. How to pile up all this expensive beauty in place to the mechanic, huh? NO WAY. The same nonsense with remote machine guns, aggravated by no caliber. You gave a very bad example.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The T-28 is not a bad example in this case, but remote control and a gun stabilizer have since appeared.

This is the best tank with this layout. I cited it as an example of a very high height of a turret box. And without such a box, the DBM weapon stabilizer will interfere.

[Dimax-nemo]

It seems that the T-54 at one time had machine guns on the fenders. But in the end, they were abandoned, as was the course machine gun or the machine gun in the rear of the turret.
Why didn't they try to place this "low-profile installation" on the BMP behind the landing? Did one of the shooters "serve" the armored personnel carrier tower?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

It seems that the T-54 at one time had machine guns on the fenders. But in the end, they were abandoned, as was the course machine gun or the machine gun in the rear of the turret.
Why didn't they try to place this "low-profile installation" on the BMP behind the landing? Did one of the shooters "serve" the armored personnel carrier tower?

Dear Dmitry, in one of the previous broadcasts, our editors were talking about this! Joke.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

From the stern, in the manner of Marder, a point is needed, KMK, but in front it will interfere with the main armament.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And they refused to use hard course machine guns on the T-54 or even 44.

[Dimax-nemo]

Yes, I see. On the T-54, they abandoned the coursework so as not to weaken the frontal part, but for some time they did not want to abandon the machine guns themselves. However, the driver on the T-54 was really not up to them.
At BMD, this "process" of refusing coursework also proceeded amusingly. Although one of these installations was supposed to be serviced by the commander of the department, if sclerosis does not fail me.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

On the T-54, they abandoned the coursework so as not to weaken the frontal part, but for some time they did not want to abandon the machine guns themselves.

Yes, they were transferred to the boxes on the fenders.

[Dimax-nemo]

The T-28 has "inhabited" turrets, and they are almost flush with the "cabin" of the driver and the roof of the MTO. Here the length has increased. Probably, the T-28 could have been made lower without machine gun turrets. But in those days, driver-mechanics were definitely not "reclining".
But here it’s really, either like Marder’s, or machine-gun installations will be very limited in vertical aiming angles.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

The T-28 has "inhabited" turrets, and they are almost flush with the "cabin" of the driver and the roof of the MTO.

In height, they were just like the current machine-gun modules and were obtained, if you count from the shoulder strap, because the machine gunner was almost waist-deep in the turrets.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

Probably, the T-28 could have been made lower without machine gun turrets. But in those days, driver-mechanics were definitely not "reclining".

No, the MTO layout is very loose in height.
Well, either due to a strong decrease in the turret sheet.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

But in those days, driver-mechanics were definitely not "reclining".

Yes perishing, even would planted on a stool. )) But already on the T-44 it is quite modern, but at the same time it is quite a sitting position.

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

But here it’s really, either like Marder’s, or machine-gun installations will be very limited in vertical aiming angles.

[Dimax-nemo]

Yes, modern "modules" are something in height. Where are the BTR and MTLB installations. Good stuff, by the way.
I think the designers of the T-28 especially didn’t bother about the height. Here on the T-35 - yes, the cannon towers required great sacrifices in this sense ......
But modern and not very modern tanks are somewhat similar to the "Americans" with their "two-story" towers. If you remember about the anti-aircraft installation.

[garri-lin]

Again you invented the square wheel.
Again, invent a child prodigy.
Why these two turrets???

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Continue to play computer games and participate in airsoft competitions, serious topics are not for you.

[PPD]

The remark, as I understood it, concerned the reduction of the troop compartment.

Quite right. Probably, then something like BMP 3 needs to be redone as a basis. Yes, and you can’t sit on the armor, if only in front

[skeptic]

Where is "Derivations"? 57mm. against drones, what you need, but discussions continue about what will not improve safety and range. It's like Ren-TV "compares" the "Coalition" (0 at the front) with 155mm self-propelled guns used in battles. Only "Mstu" with "Paladin" ... Who needs such "selectivity"?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It is not entirely clear why the BMP-2 should be upgraded in this way. Critical shortcomings associated with the detonation of ammunition, for example, when detonated by mines, are characteristic of the BMP-1 and BMP-3. On the BMP-2 there is no urgent need to take the ammunition out of the habitable volume, there is only a gas contamination of the fighting compartment during intense firing. In addition, a cheaper modification of the BMP-3 in a steel case was tested, which can serve as the basis for the Epoch module.
Most likely, we are just observing a test copy that will not go into the series. Or it will be an option for upgrading the BMP-1.

[senima56]

"The Epoch combat module is equipped with a 57-mm automatic cannon, Kornet anti-tank missile launchers and the new Bulat missile system" - that's it! This is really "increased firepower"!

[air wolf]

Well, we are waiting for tests in the Donbass, it’s hard for me to say about the 57 mm guns of low ballistics, it’s hard to say in comparison of the 73 mm BMP-1 guns, effectiveness

[mortido]

This is one of those ever-promising developments that has been walking for years from one news item to another. Yes ..., our virtual army is powerful, but in reality we have what we have ....

[stels_07]

Quote: Cottodraton

So go ahead! To the front line, show me how to do it! ... By personal, so to speak, example and experience ...

Are you a military commissar who did not fulfill the plan?

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Most of all I was confused by the words "LShO-57 automatic low-ballistic gun" (C).
Who would write an article. And I would explain on my fingers why low ballistics? With high ballistics, everything is clear - you can have a tank on board and hit higher and a helicopter, if necessary, fill up - like two fingers on the asphalt! :)
Does low ballistics mean giving up versatility in order to increase the power of the projectile? Like, is it more effective to hit infantry and weakly protected area targets? Or why?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And then, that the gun with high ballistics has ammunition almost the size of shells for the T-34 tank with a 76-mm gun.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

So what? Well, they take up more space. With a limited reserved volume, we get a smaller ammunition load. But this is not a reason to refuse! Better less, but effective, than a lot of crackers.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The gun of low ballistics is initially automatic, and for automation of the gun of high ballistics, a screw mechanism is used, which is very overall.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Problems are not a reason to eat shit instead of chocolate, although they have a similar color.

Let me remind you - a cannon on armored vehicles - it is for inflicting maximum damage to the enemy. They increase the caliber for the sake of increasing this very damage. And if the caliber has grown, but there’s no point, then what for then abandon the 30mm caliber, which is already in the series?

Ento what. drank the budget? Like R&D? With a deliberate failure?
Well, or come up with a cool excuse. Like, infantry fighting vehicles with weak ballistics are not independent, but only in a heap with other armored vehicles that will destroy what they cannot do. But then at least hint what will be included in such a group and how they imagine the management of these diverse forces in the face of enemy opposition (including electronic warfare)

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Why this stream of consciousness about the application also with a hysteria about money? The Serbs offered the option of installing a 57-mm module on their large conveyor. It's about the size of the machine.

[garri-lin]

Less return. Higher accuracy. More projectile power. The flat trajectory allows you to hit covered infantry.
And what is most surprising is a good BOPS for direct fire.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Quote: garri-lin

Less return. Higher accuracy. More projectile power. The flat trajectory allows you to hit covered infantry.
And what is most surprising is a good BOPS for direct fire.

I didn’t quite understand, you wrote about these buns for what caliber and with what ballistics?

[garri-lin]

Under LSHO 57 mm. Alas, I did not notice that I wrote "flat" instead of hinged. And the editing time has been missed.

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Quote: garri-lin

Under LSHO 57 mm. Alas, I did not notice that I wrote "flat" instead of hinged. And the editing time has been missed.

And how do low ballistics and direct fire compare in general?

[garri-lin]

It turns out that they are related.
Moreover, in the west there is a similar sample in which the main type of fire is mounted, but it can shoot with BOPS.
In the west, it's like a telescope.
We have a regular shot.
Armor penetration compared to BOPS guns with high ballistics is of course lower. But also vpoone on a level.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

I read that:

The promising automatic easel grenade launcher AGS-57, which is also known under the index LShO-57(light assault gun). It provides the possibility of effective engagement with flat and mounted fire of various targets at a distance of up to 6000 meters. The firing range of a grenade launcher exceeds the effective firing range of most light ground weapons (personal small arms, machine guns, hand and automatic grenade launchers, wearable ATGMs), and significant mobility ensures the surprise of combat use

In general, if the trunk lifts up to the skies, you will get a very malicious self-propelled AGS (and try to cover it with a counter-battery fight).

Although it would be understandable not to shove shells with a smaller canopy into the old 57mm air defense guns ...
It would be possible both as an AGS and as an air defense system, and to hollow it on board.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Nichrome he did not start to act. How fit this bravura lies of biased journalists.

[Cap.nemo58rus]

The video is generally nothing. Something flew by, similar to the BMP -2. But if this cart has a 57 mm cannon, oh well ... Where did they get it?

[Antoshka88]

Modified LShO-57. Increased barrel length, belt feed and automation. For over 5 years now.

[Dimax-nemo]

There's one thing I can't understand. What for is this "automatic grenade launcher" generally needed instead of a gun? So that he had to fence another whole missile system in addition to Cornet? A whole "launcher" of 3 mm, along with a "fly swatter", climbed into the BMP-100 tower. In the Epoch, 57-mm and 30-mm, of course, no longer fit.

[Sergei Kazarin]

Because there is no normal gun ..............

[Dimax-nemo]

And "normal" will not fit there. 37 mm, perhaps, which have long been out of use either in the army or in the navy.

[locks]

Quote: stels_07

It would be better if all tanks were equipped with Arenas, and infantry fighting vehicles, whatever they are, let them maintain order in the rear

Can squads get to zero on the armor of tanks? Should each platoon have a tank as its main weapon? Do not make me laugh

[locks]

Quote: Michael Drabkin

BMPs, what they are, let them maintain order in the rear

“Not fish, not meat…

—- With this combat module, what mini size should the warriors be so that at least three fit, plus a mechanic - driver and commander of a semi-squad? Not to mention ergonomics...

There will only be more space, because the module is uninhabited (everything is at the top)

[locks]

Quote: Dimax-Nemo

There's one thing I can't understand. What for is this "automatic grenade launcher" generally needed instead of a gun? So that he had to fence another whole missile system in addition to Cornet? A whole "launcher" of 3 mm, along with a "fly swatter", climbed into the BMP-100 tower. In the Epoch, 57-mm and 30-mm, of course, no longer fit.

57mm is needed to mow down infantry. Compare the number of fragments with 30mm and questions will disappear.
Bulat is needed for light vehicles.
Cornet is needed for infantry fighting vehicles and tanks.

In addition, remote detonation can be screwed on at 57mm and drones will be completely uncomfortable

[Sergei Kazarin]

Armored vehicles without mine protection are rubbish no matter how you modernize

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Quote: garri-lin

Under LSHO 57 mm. Alas, I did not notice that I wrote "flat" instead of hinged. And the editing time has been missed.

It's okay! As the saying goes, "there is ear porn for an old woman!" (FROM) :)

[Vadim Topal Pasha]

Quote: garri-lin

It turns out that they are related.
Moreover, in the west there is a similar sample in which the main type of fire is mounted, but it can shoot with BOPS.
In the west, it's like a telescope.
We have a regular shot.
Armor penetration compared to BOPS guns with high ballistics is of course lower. But also vpoone on a level.

That's how I understand it in ballistics (and besides me and Buon Parte, there were no other lieutenants who wrote treatises about it in history from the word "absolutely") / blushes modestly / :) after all, guns with low ballistics have too much dispersion to hit to fast and distant targets.

With all the subtleties and reservations, but it all looks like demagoguery.
Do you know what demagogy is? As one of my teachers said, either on general tactics or on the history of the CPSU (it doesn’t matter for what exactly, they are all namesakes, the name Comrade, patronymic Colonel) "Demagogy is when a man explains to a woman that lying down is better than standing up" ( FROM) :)

Before talking about armor penetration, you need to hit the enemy first. And the slower your projectile, the longer it flies to the enemy. And the adversary, far from always standing still. Which reduces the likelihood of hitting to the extent that it moves in how many planes. And if at a direct shot range (extremely low for projectiles with low ballistics) the degree, like the plane, will be the same, then for aircraft it will be the third degree.
Hence the practical conclusion. Sometimes guns with low ballistics are preferable to guns with high ballistics. But this does not always happen. Moreover, the probability of such an event in a war against a technologically equal enemy is extremely small.

This is during the war against popuases .... / neighs / :)