Experts evaluated the Manul infantry fighting vehicle with a 57-mm cannon as a means to counter enemy forcing water barriers

Reports are being published that a variant of the promising Russian BMP "Manul" with an automatic gun of 57 mm caliber has appeared. It's about this option. weapons, which is installed on an uninhabited module created by the Burevestnik Central Research Institute. In addition to the 57-mm cannon with 80 rounds of ammunition, the module is equipped with a machine gun (caliber 7,62 mm) and an anti-tank missile system.

The Manul infantry fighting vehicle itself is actually a development option for the BMP-3. The BMP is capable of speeds up to 70 km / h on the highway and up to 9-10 km / h afloat. This makes it possible to implement the UTD-32 engine with a power of 660 hp, located in front of the tracked armored vehicle.

Assessing a new version of the domestic infantry fighting vehicle capable of transporting an airborne squad, experts note a significantly increased capability in terms of hitting targets. The 57-mm cannon allows you to defeat various types of armored vehicles, as well as hit targets such as airplanes and helicopters. Also, the Manul infantry fighting vehicle with such weapons can be used as a technique to counter the landing of sea / river assault. For example, it could be effectively used against enemy groups that are trying to cross the Dnieper using high-speed boats and floating armored vehicles. One "Manul" can easily cover a fairly long coastline in an amphibious direction.

Considering that the machine from the Kurganmashzavod is mobile and maneuverable, we can say that it can easily change its position for firing at the enemy, who intends to land on the coast and create a bridgehead.

Comments

[dmi.pris1]

"Kurgagets" would be put on stream .. Otherwise, the fighters are fighting on samples of equipment half a century ago.

[lis-ik]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

"Kurgagets" would be put on stream .. Otherwise, the fighters are fighting on samples of equipment half a century ago.

There is no other, contrary to statements.

[Incvizitor]

Kurgan dear, it’s easier for them to take the ancient armored personnel carriers of the BMP of the 70s.

[FoBoss_VM]

The oligarchy must be nationalized, the chickens do not peck money in the country. Remember the Colonel and 13 billion in cash, and that's just ONE character. And there are thousands of them ... Peter 1, as he built the fleet, gathered the boyars and stewards and said I know how many are buried where, from three boyar households - a frigate. Under fear of death. And with our five-columns, it’s also necessary, there is enough money for everything, and there will also be left for the moon trampoline. And if you fuss with them, then we will collect the whole country for the guys for armor, socks and first-aid kits

[cast iron]

For whom the people vote for 30 years in a row, they get it as a result. There is no capitalism without oligarchs and other abominations.

[bravo77]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

"Kurgagets" would be put on stream .. Otherwise, the fighters are fighting on samples of equipment half a century ago.

Are you discrediting Shoigu?
"2018 - Shoigu declares that 71.8% of new weapons in the army is the highest figure in the world"

[biznaw]

Kurgan is a "written sack" of Rostec and parquet sharks of the Tuvinian MO

[Bodipancher]

What is the advantage over Bahcey? 40 100mm shots and 500 30mm shots seem more impressive in strength than 80 57mm. If 100 mm is equipped with a remote detonation and ready-made submunitions there will be fire in general.

[D16]

40 100 mm shots and 500 30 mm

And all this in the fighting compartment with the crew and troops behind cardboard armor.

[75 Sergey]

But this is not a tank, it makes sense to make it harder if it still cannot withstand a full-fledged shot.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: D16

40 100 mm shots and 500 30 mm

And all this in the fighting compartment with the crew and troops behind cardboard armor.

If 80-57mm shells (which are worse protected than if they were inside the car) detonate on the roof of the BMP, then everyone inside the car will not survive.

At first, "Manul" was with the Boomerang-BM combat module - they are experimenting.

[Bodipancher]

BMP 3 has a good level of armor compared to BMP 1 and 2 where the armor is cardboard. On Manul, the MTO was moved forward and the armor was even more strengthened. These are positive changes. It is not clear what is the point of replacing the combat module.

[Crimean partisan 1974]

BMP 1 and 2 where the armor is cardboard. On Manula, the MTO was moved forward

.. my hello ra .. this is where you picked up such nonsense, ... at the PEX 1 and 2 engines from the front from the beginning of time .. at the top three of the engine in the middle ... Manul rather adapt the weapons on the PEX 1 and 2

[Bodipancher]

What nonsense. Manul is a further development of the BMP 3. The BMP has 3 MTOs at the back, the landing force climbs out through the top. Manul has nothing in common with BMP 1 and 2.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bodypuncher

Manul is a further development of the BMP 3

Based on the BMP-3, there are options with a front engine. This is "Manul" and BMP-3M "Dragoon" (with "Bakhcha")

(drive wheel in front)
PS
Under the abbreviation "BMP-3M" there is an infantry fighting vehicle with a rear engine, the engine is more powerful, the combat module is like that of the BMD-4M (I have no information on whether it is purchased for the Army)
BM BMD-4M

[locks]

in that:
1. it frees up a lot of space for the landing and its weapons
2. powder gases do not get to the crew
3. 57mm caliber is optimal for hitting NATO armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles and there is a remote detonation against UAVs and infantry.
4. there are already ready-made samples (bm dagger, bm derivation)

[Sergey39]

In the photo, additional armor on the sides. The press wrote that with the experience of the SVO, on the BMP 3, they began to hang additional armor.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Bodypuncher

40 100mm shots and 500 30mm shots seem more impressive in strength than 80 57mm

Perhaps the experts will throw slippers on me, because I myself am not a tanker at all and all communication with the "armor" is based only on their fire support and as a passenger, but still I dare to speak out.

All this, of course, is good, but, as practice shows, the troop compartment is used exclusively as a "barn-warehouse" by the "tractor drivers" themselves and as a "trunk" by us when we move on it "on horseback". I had a chance to ride inside only in training - the impressions are so-so ...
In this regard, this is what if we leave the minimum cargo space, and use the vacated volume and carrying capacity to increase the BC and improve the reservation?
57 mm, of course, is a good thing, but BC 80 shots - ...
All the same, no one ever travels inside this "pan" in the troops. But there were cases when an infantry fighting vehicle, having shot a BC, became, at best, a "movable wall".

I understand that it’s not with my demobilization mind to invade the high spheres of concepts for the development of armored vehicles. But after all, our BMPs (at least those with whom we had to closely "communicate" - the BMP-2, much less than the BMP-1 and "just look" at the BMP-3) have two main "sores" - armor and ammo. And cut out the unnecessary internal troop compartment.
I repeat, not a specialist at all, but maybe it won’t be an infantry fighting vehicle at all, but some kind of light tank?

[Skeptic3]

Very interesting opinion from the practice, thanks. We constantly see infantry on the armor, but somehow we don’t think - why is that?

It seems to me that the point is the security and comfort of the fighting compartment.
If it is a box with token protection and terrible conditions inside, the infantry will prefer to ride on armor, despite all the obvious risks and inconveniences of such a method of movement.

So, this is a question more about the quality of technology, and not about the design.

[lucul]

What is the advantage over Bahcey?

If you equip it with at least OLS and shells with remote detonation, then up to 5 km it can work on UAVs, like Derivation-Air Defense.

[Grandfather]

and the "terminator" will not be able to do all this or something. forests out "mows" in the video, and only "swimmers" on boats.?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Get acquainted with the characteristics of the 2A42 gun, the same one that is on the "Terminator" and you will understand. The range of a 30-mm cannon in open spaces is clearly not enough, and there are few ATGMs in the amount of 4 pieces.

[Adrian28]

They plan to put 3mm on Terminator 57. Together with its armor and other weapons, it is better suited to support both tanks and infantry. Than plywood infantry fighting vehicles.

[Atlas]

shoot the boats going through the water and move back. All that is required of him. Rockets are not needed there, only if someone is shot at on the other side, and the range of the guns should be enough with a margin. You can put several Terminators and block a larger section of the coast. But it is well armored and protected from enemy fire than the BMP.

[biznaw]

You apparently don’t know how the same DShK mows the forest, and even more so the KPVT, and the PKM cuts not only wood but also rails.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Bodypuncher

40 100mm shots and 500 30mm shots seem more impressive in strength than 80 57mm.

100mm is, as it were, not a "Rapier" even once, and ballistics and range are not a fountain, and the rate of fire is not satisfactory for hitting maneuverable targets. 30mm apparently does not satisfy the range of destruction and the power of ammunition. on a helicopter at a distance of 8 km is not effective. 57mm is the golden mean. and the ballistics are good and the power of the ammunition is sufficient and the rate of fire is acceptable and the range is up to 14 km (in the export version). apparently so.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SanichSan

100mm is, as it were, not a "Rapier" even once, and ballistics and range are not a fountain,

An infantry support gun, and its high-explosive fragmentation shells for these purposes are enough for the eyes

[Sebostyuan]

There is no goal, there is a way.
We do not seek to strengthen the armor, expand the range of ammo. It is "easier" for us to create another technique.

[antikilller55]

In terms of performance characteristics, it’s not even bad, you need to put it on the conveyor, it will come in handy at the forefront.

[ivan1979nkl]

now it is more important to manufacture + refine and modernize existing ones, rather than develop promising models

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

controversial topic.
Why is this gun better than a regular 100mm gun + 30mm rapid-fire gun?
Unclear...

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

It is rather an attempt by the plant to shove its products. You look at least some order will slip through. In any case, this is all ersatz, not mass production. The absence of unification and a variety of equipment at the front will be a curse for the Rembaz. Either to put into production a new generation of equipment, or it is no longer necessary to produce entities when the main problem is the inability to use what is and the lack of will to win at the top.

[PROXOR]

Have you seen recently in the Zaparozhye direction how our guys came under auto-detonation shots? Still need an answer? It is not possible to make a remote detonation on a 30mm cannon. But at 57mm there is. Moreover, they made it back in the 50s, for the ZSU-57-2.
Second problem. A 100mm land mine will not smoke out the enemy because of a concrete wall. If the room without windows is not an option. A 57mm armor-piercing shot is guaranteed to pierce.
Actually, I think that here we need a tandem of equipment with Bakhcha and AU-220.

[PavelT]

It is not possible to make a remote detonation on a 30mm cannon. But at 57mm there is. Moreover, they made it back in the 50s, for the ZSU-57-2.

The topic itself is sorted up and down here: https://topwar.ru/189114-boepripasy-s-distancionnym-podryvom-povysjat-jeffektivnost-30-mm-pushek-bmpt-terminator.html

1. The Swedes have been doing it for a long time and without problems under their good old 40 mm guns for the L70 Bofors gun, and there are two types: a) A PFHE projectile with a proximity fuse that reacts to a target nearby.
b) Universal projectile 3P with programmable detonation time, either detonating near the target (proximity fuse) or detonating on impact (contact fuse). A sort of station wagon - type 3P stands for 3P = PPP = Prefragmented, Programmable, Proximity-fuzed. http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/3P.pdf https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/fuze-3p-ammunition It is also available for 57mm caliber (naval guns): https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/fuze-3p-ammunition

And the last thing: we also did something secretly and even used it like in the Donbass (see the video https://www.yaplakal.com/forum28/st/50/topic1592758.html?hl=#entry59581462 ), but that’s all hung...
2. The Germans recently made for 35 mm anti-aircraft guns https://youtu.be/pb5_F4_Eod8

3. It seems that once we made 57 mm
Well, where is this ammo? How many were made? How many were used in all wars? How much is left in storage? Why are they not being used against drones now? Who ever saw them in real life?

[YOUR]

Author, respond. Where did you get this

One "Manul" can easily cover a fairly long coastline in an amphibious direction.

In this case, the BMP-3, with its armament of 30 mm and 100 mm guns, can cover an even larger coastline. And why coastal? Do you think the car has a very narrow specialization, only the fight against landing. Why is she so needed?

[Sanichsan]

Quote: YOUR

In this case, the BMP-3, with its armament of 30 mm and 100 mm guns, can cover an even larger coastline.

how? 30 and 100 have different ballistics and will not work with both barrels. or 100 or 30. this is not 100 + 30. and what area will you cover? at a distance of 1-3 km? versus 7-9km for 57 (maximum 14km)?

[28st region]

One car means nothing. Shoots at 7 - 9 km, so what. How many armored vehicles of this class as an infantry fighting vehicle shoot at such a range? All within line of sight
And the BMP-3 is two guns, one for the near zone of 30 mm, the second 100 mm for the far one.

[Serg koma]

Quote: SanichSan

y 57 (maximum 14km)

And what computer system will you use to hit a target at a distance of 10-14, but at least 7-9 km? Do you perceive this machine as self-propelled guns? Then why is a tank needed with its useless, compared to this BMP, aiming range
2A46M-1 Sighting range in meters
BPS: 5000
BCS: 5000
OFS: 12000
ATGM: 9000
Maximum range of OFS: 12000 METERS!

Quote: SanichSan

against 7-9km at 57

- it’s not enough to shoot, the main thing is to hit at such a distance! Window dressing in tank biathlon, with static shooting, in greenhouse conditions, at much shorter distances, is an example of this. Without a NEW SLA, you will only scare in areas, with a random cover / defeat. As a result of such a "fire" you will be left without ammo in front of the enemy, or you will rush to the rear to replenish your ammunition. The enemy completed the task - took your position.

[Kurganets-45]

"Manul" is a multifunctional tracked chassis, you can stick a lot of things on it

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Kurganets-45

"Manul" is a multifunctional tracked chassis, you can stick a lot of things on it

Well, as for multifunctionality, so far they only promise .... but they promise!

[dnestr74]

The main advantage is the uninhabited module.

[Old_geologist]

Here I imagined how I was driving like this in the airborne squad along with my comrades, and it was not the driver Vasya, whom I trust, who was driving the car, but a robot or Petya, but on TV. Brrr! I am for robots, but without people on board.

[nazgul-ishe]

When a sufficient number with excellent quality will be in the troops, then we will discuss. And so another Armata.

[TerraSandera]

If the goal of an infantry fighting vehicle is the safe delivery of personnel closer to the front line, then it should fulfill this goal, and not be an under-tank. Where increased firepower plays a cruel joke (less armor due to the BC kit, and the combat module - probably at least a couple of tons for everything that is essential for an infantry fighting vehicle and engine). At the same time, it will not provide a significant increase in infantry firepower with a conventional gun, without programmable detonation shells and other expensive body kits. (Again, weak armor, probably the lack of mine protection).
As for me, an infantry fighting vehicle should have at least anti-mine protection MRAP +, well, armor holding from Zu23, up to 30mm. But in any case, this is a transport, and not a full-fledged combat unit. If the tank can still withstand ATGMs and something like that, then such a Beha will fly away or be immobilized. And the javelin operator can set it on fire from a boat.

[Bodipancher]

BMP is an infantry fire support vehicle, firepower is very important for it. The transport function is an armored personnel carrier.

[Eug]

BC should be increased. In general, it is interesting to offer a platform based on the BMP-3 (the base can be any) with different combat modules, and then the choice of the customer.

[Bodipancher]

In fact, this is what happens. There were options with LShO 57 and with a high ballistics gun Derivation and with Bakhcha. With the Berezhok module, it seems that there was also an option.

[PROXOR]

He has a rate of fire not 30mm guns. For 1-2 shots, an AK-220 2A46 or 2A72 will do 10.
But we understand that we do not need quantity, but quality. AU-220 is more powerful. And in the light of the arrival of Bradley and Western tanks, the AU-220 looks more profitable. Not a single NATO tank can withstand a side hit from a 57mm cannon. By the way, let me remind you that the CV90 with 40mm Bofors will come to dill.

[svp67]

One "Manul" can easily cover a fairly long coastline in an amphibious direction.

And who will cover it? And what if you can't protect him?
The war is not won by loners, even if it is a "wonder weapon".

[Zaurbek]

It seems to me that there is confusion in the photo and in the article. With 4 pieces of ATGM Cornet, they showed a 57mm (as an option) low ballistics gun or 30mm 2a42. And they showed two separate modules with 57mm C60 (one anti-aircraft, the other for infantry fighting vehicles).

[biznaw]

This is the main misunderstanding, what kind of module was manuled for, if with 57mm LSHO57 (AGS57) then this is the BM Epoch, if the gun is from Stalin's Hellish Thresher, then this is Derivation. For Derivation, there are shots with a remote fuse from the 50s. And in general, these shots in the warehouses of the air defense and the Navy are like shit in mouse holes. The epoch module is designed to destroy infantry, there is an active defense. It looks like Manul is the Epoch that they planned to put on Kurganets.

[Ghost1]

How many of these promising models were at exhibitions and nothing went into mass production.

[Kurganets-45]

because demand creates supply. Initiative R&D is not cheap, but there is nothing to say about mass production. If it were a planned economy, things would be different.

[savage3000]

the article is unclear. what is worse than 100 mm 30 mm in one bottle on BMP-3 ???

[biznaw]

There are no universal machines. Even in order to cut down a tree, there are at least two types of machines, and even more specialization for combat vehicles. A 100mm cannon is good for the city, you can break walls, destroy opornika with 30mm. It is better to destroy infantry with shells that give the maximum number of fragments over a large area, such as AGS. So, a 57mm low-ballistics Light Assault Gun is a 57mm automatic grenade launcher that bombards a large area with a hail of shells. A 100mm cannon will not give such an effect, there are few fragments of a rumble, a lot of land in the air.
The journalist apparently does not know about such a topic, perhaps the robot wrote the article, as the editorial robot writes most of the articles with blunders and reservations at Vzglyad, although each article is signed by the full name. Perhaps this article was written from a robot who pulled pieces of information from the Internet.

[Vert]

We need a 57 mm Derviation and a guided projectile to work on drones and missiles, and it will also cover the expanses of water from the landing, more than one small vessel will not leave the UAS. For one, one gap in front of the BMP tank and the optics are over. Blind and therefore less dangerous. WHERE IS DERVIATION WITH UAS.

[Introvert]

Quote from Vert

WHERE IS DERVIATION WITH UAS.

He is looking for the radio-electronic industry in Russia and a plant for the production of 57mm cucumbers, but so far there are managers who can draw beautiful pictures.

[Vert]

The ship's AK752 stood and still stands on the ships of the Russian Navy that without BC, as far as I know A 220m with the same cucumber on the doves of peace 22160 "Vasily Bykov" there is a turret, which means that BC can be found by Derviation, 6 pieces were on the parade . Here and in the Donbass is a test in battle.

[Viktor Sergeev]

Or maybe it's time to spit on BMPs altogether and create just a light tank at BMP bases, using the vacated space to increase ammunition and armor?

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

Do you propose to roll back in development a hundred years ago? Will the infantry walk? Or on trucks? As in 1941 before the appearance of mechanized units in the Red Army. Then we won’t bite our elbows and the General Staff will curse that they listened to us.

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

It is very interesting to observe how the enthusiasm and preferences of the audience and "experts" change depending on the momentary situation. When the battles for Mariupol were going on, everyone already choked that we needed super-protected assault infantry fighting vehicles with super armor and super tanks with 152-mm guns (or 203-mm). Indestructible, indestructible and carrying a platoon of infantry. The weight of this bullshit. Then the enthusiasm for maneuvering abilities went when the war went into the field. Now special bmp to protect the Dnieper. Tomorrow, it seems, we will again remember that floating equipment is needed.
You may still wonder what kind of UNIVERSAL armored vehicles are needed for a real war in modern conditions (including with WMD). What kind of infantry fighting vehicle is needed to swim in the mountains and in the desert, and in the mud, and cross the rivers, and in the city and anywhere. Moreover, in a mass war, to fight so that the infantry behind the breakthrough tanks has time, since the war is not won as we are conducting the NWO.
And everything else is just the correct organization of the battle.

[biznaw]

Without a prepared landfall, floating equipment is useless, but who will strengthen the coast under enemy trenches

[Pavel57]

Quote: Bodypuncher

BMP is an infantry fire support vehicle, firepower is very important for it. The transport function is an armored personnel carrier.

According to modern canons, the difference between an infantry fighting vehicle and an armored personnel carrier is the presence of a gun.

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Quote: D16

40 100 mm shots and 500 30 mm

And all this in the fighting compartment with the crew and troops behind cardboard armor.

So what? Will you cross the hedgehog and the snake again, try to make the BMP as the main battle tank?
If you are interested, then according to the combat regulations in the field, infantry fighting vehicles were supposed to move 300 meters behind the infantry line, and the infantry - 200 meters behind the tanks. And the tanks were supposed to go 100 meters from the firing shaft. And BMPs were never supposed to go like tanks. And move from cover to cover and support tanks and infantry with fire.
But modern couch strategists, after all, they are the smartest and think that the BMP / BTR should go ahead of the infantry. Well, when you fight with the "barmaley" hiding in the settlement, it still rolls, but in the fields, when there is a full-fledged war, something immediately goes wrong when the tactics of actions against the "barmaley" are transferred to a full-fledged combined arms battle.

[Vladimir80]

pseudo-experts discussed a promising (non-existent) version of the BMP ... a concentration of absurdity, a "parallel reality" in which many prefer to exist

[Tank destroyerSU-100]

Again, weapons are adjusted only for the fight against armored objects. And how will this gun behave if it is necessary to destroy the field fortifications?
If we take the history, then the 57-mm ZIS-4 cannon for arming the T-34 was more effective against tanks than the 76,2-mm F-34, but the weak high-explosive action of the shells was indicated as the main drawback. Where the 76mm projectile successfully coped with the wood-and-earth emplacement, the 57mm fragmentation projectile showed much less effectiveness.
The 100-mm BMP-3 projectile is orders of magnitude more powerful than the 57-mm one in terms of high-explosive action and will cause much more damage when it hits the target. Here is a stone or panel concrete house turned into a long-term firing point. A 57-mm fragmentation projectile will not penetrate a wall. An armor-piercing chamber shell of a 57-mm wall can penetrate a wall, but a small explosive charge in a sufficiently large internal volume of a house will have an insufficiently high-explosive effect. A 100-mm projectile, even with low ballistics, due to the high filling of its explosives, will be capable of both destroying brickwork or a concrete panel, and causing great damage inside if it breaks through a wall and explodes behind it. In the explosion of a projectile with 2-3 kg of explosives, even in a room with an area of ​​​​15-16 meters, it will smear everyone who is there on the walls.
Therefore, all these dances with tambourines around the 57-mm gun are incomprehensible.

[Thorvlobnor IV]

The 57-mm cannon allows you to defeat various types of armored vehicles, as well as hit targets such as airplanes and helicopters.

Do you mean planes and helicopters standing on the ground? After all, the car has neither a radar nor an optical-location station. Why write bullshit?

[FPEDDI_KPYGEP]

Tried to google about booking and weight of the manul, absolutely no information
There are 2 options for booking
1 This is scrap metal armor like BMP2
2 This is armor like Bradley 2 versions

[Bad_gr]

Quote from: FPEDDI_KPYGEP

Tried to google about booking and weight of the manul, absolutely no information
There are 2 options for booking
1 This is scrap metal armor like BMP2
2 This is armor like Bradley 2 versions

If it was made on the basis of the BMP-3, then what does the options with the BMP-2 and Bradley have to do with it?
The side and roof armor is the same as for the BMP-3. Only the frontal differs (in the direction of lightening, which means deterioration of the protective properties, since the overload of the front end due to the engine shifted forward)

[alexmach]

What is the article, what is it about?

"Manul" is supposedly the body of the BMP-3 with the "Epoch" module. The era is produced by KBP (on the first photo).
The Burevestnik pushes through its 57mm Baikal module (in the second photo), like the one on the tree-air defense, and it is too big for a light infantry fighting vehicle.

Neither is mass-produced yet.
What does it have to do with overcoming water barriers? In principle, this should be a universal weapon for infantry fighting vehicles.

This makes no sense.

[biznaw]

The era is a short and light gun LSHO57 (AGS57) Derivation is an anti-aircraft gun, a long barrel, auto-detonation, on an infantry fighting vehicle it violates weight distribution. What is Manul, FIG knows, it seems that the Epoch, only without active dynamic protection, is as light as possible to swim confidently.

[senima56]

The machine is good! Well then what? She will go to the troops and the NVO zone, or they will make a couple of pieces for parades and exhibitions, will it all end there ?!

[IVZ]

There is no point in propagating fighting compartments precisely on the "Manul". no Manula. You can try them out and evaluate the effectiveness and range of applications on the "three-ruble note". There are more opportunities, unfortunately. And "Manul" must be brought up and also tested, and so far with the excellent proven BMP-3 module. So you can evaluate the correctness of the adopted layout decisions and the effectiveness of weapons options.

[VB]

Wonderful! When will they be adopted? When will they put it on the conveyor? How much will be produced per day. When will he appear at the front?

[Andron78]

Yes, for firing at high-speed small-sized maneuverable targets from a long distance, the ammunition load is small. I will join those who talk about strengthening armor, abandoning the landing force, and increasing the ammunition load. But this is already "Derivation -SV", something like that. And if this gun also has good accuracy at long distances, then you can use it well not only for infantry without entering the zone of destruction of anti-tank weapons, from 7-10 kilometers or more. Like such a highly mobile rapid-fire mortar / cannon.

[Vert]

The fight of caliber 30-57-76-100-125-130-152 will never end (the fight between sword and shield is eternal) why 57 mm derviation
1. There are no active search engines on board, the basis of passive detection is therefore poorly detected by the enemy.
2. AUS allows you to adjust the ballistic flight of the projectile, increases the chance of hitting the first projectile.
3. Combating MBT projectile with a programmable detonation, a distance of up to 4 km, detonation of a projectile remotely in front of an armored combat vehicle, fragmentation of optical surfaces, with a successful detonation, the demolition of attachments, the operation of dynamic protection, at least partially. Undermining over the trenches defeat the enemy personnel.
3.UAS for drones has more consumption, but the chances of defeat are higher, subject to external target designation, and most importantly, the cost of defeat falls according to the cost-effectiveness criterion.
4. t 34-57 was discontinued due to the high cost and long production cycle of barrels with a unique barrel rifling.

[biznaw]

According to clause 4. St. John's wort T34 was discontinued due to the lack of regimental field guns, the plant was loaded with the production of 76mm howitzers.

[BorzRio]

Just not long ago I read an article here on VO about the shortcomings of an uninhabited remotely controlled weapon station for infantry fighting vehicles and MRAPs, especially about its uselessness when firing from a cannon at airplanes and helicopters, about the inconvenience of reloading, about unreliability - and on you, another article about how he is beautiful and necessary. And at the same time, the BMP again - the one that was created to overcome water barriers in the water, which means it was deprived of full-fledged armor. Are there many such infantry fighting vehicles in the NWO to swim across the river? Absolutely not! All over bridges and pontoons.
Another push through of an unnecessary army of vehicles, and the necessary ones - well-armored and protected with light weapons and ATGMs are again "not needed".

[Introvert]

Again, the wet fantasies of the marketers of Kurganmashzavod, a car that no one needs, with which no one understands what to do and where to enter. It is strange that they forgot to write that she knocks down all types of UAVs to the heap.

[scary]

And what about the asterisk from the side of the front projection was not covered, since the engine is in front. If only small gratings were installed, and the mass of these gratings would turn out to be small, perhaps they would work.

[air wolf]

And what about the terminators, is it more secure? Do not shoot from the shore to swim!

[Pavel57]

Quote: Zaurbek

It seems to me that there is confusion in the photo and in the article. With 4 pieces of ATGM Cornet, they showed a 57mm (as an option) low ballistics gun or 30mm 2a42. And they showed two separate modules with 57mm C60 (one anti-aircraft, the other for infantry fighting vehicles).

Yes, it should be clearer in the description, where 57mm, a gun with low ballistics is clearly not against armored targets.

[biznaw]

You are not right. Look at the link below or search for "comrade Gryazev's hole puncher".

[biznaw]

https://aftershock.news/?q=node/873726&full
Here is a comrade who analyzed in detail the advantages of 57mm guns and our currently existing modules and foreign ones. If the link does not work by searching for "Comrade Gryazev's puncher"

[Krasnoyarsk]

= Experts evaluated the Manul infantry fighting vehicle with a 57-mm cannon as a means to counter enemy forcing water barriers =
The best experts are now at the front. They should send "Manul". They will give you an accurate estimate.

[Glagol1]

As for covering the coast - here I doubt it. You need a direct hit, nothing else. And there are only 80 shots. Much more interesting is a 30 mm twin, or a 23 mm twin or even a quad. Here is the ammunition load and obesity! Eh, Shilka will never get old.