A look from the 90s: on increasing the firepower of our infantry fighting vehicles

Back in 1991, the journal “Bulletin of Armored Equipment” published material containing the results of a study on the possibility of increasing the firepower of Soviet infantry fighting vehicles. As part of this work, the authors, having compared the armament of the BMP-1, BMP-2 and BMP-3, made very interesting conclusions about how to increase the effectiveness of this type of military equipment against tank-dangerous enemy personnel.

The material, despite its age, is quite interesting - and not only as a “historical» reading. It also contains practical points that may be relevant today. Therefore, we definitely recommend reading it.

The Ground Forces are armed with three infantry fighting vehicles: BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3 with various weapon systems.

The BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with an unstabilized 73 mm smoothbore gun and a coaxial 7,62 mm PKT machine gun. The 9M14M “Malyutka” or 9M113 “Konkurs” ATGM launcher was used as additional weapons. The fighting compartment of the BMP-1 is unified with the fighting compartment of the BMD-1 airborne combat vehicle.

The BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with a 30-mm automatic cannon stabilized in two planes and a coaxial 7,62-mm PKT machine gun. The 9M11Z “Konkurs” ATGM launcher was used as an additional weapon.

The BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with a 100-mm gun-launcher (OPU), a 30-mm automatic cannon and a 7,62-mm PKT machine gun located in one mantlet. This weapon is stabilized in two planes.

An analysis of the armament of domestic BMP-1 shows that the 73-mm smoothbore BMP-1 gun does not meet modern requirements, since to solve the main fire mission - suppression and destruction of tank-dangerous manpower - the ammunition load contains only 16 rounds with the OG-9 fragmentation grenade . The armament of this infantry fighting vehicle is not suitable for firing at air targets.

The absence of a weapon stabilizer eliminates the possibility of effective shooting on the move. The anti-tank 73-mm cumulative grenade has low effectiveness when fired at tanks (up to 40 shots are required to hit a tank).

Fragments of the OG-9 grenade scatter to the sides and upwards, as a result of which undershoots of the grenade over 1,5-2 m do not lead to defeat. When flying, the shooting efficiency is even lower. The experience of using the BMP-1 in mountainous conditions showed the need to modernize its weapons in the direction of ensuring firing at elevation angles of more than 30°. A tactical and technical specification was developed for the built-in installation of a 30-mm automatic grenade launcher for these vehicles. In 1987, field tests were carried out, and in 1990, control tests of the BMP-1 with a built-in AG-17 grenade launcher were carried out, which showed positive results in terms of the effectiveness of firing from a grenade launcher.

The BMP-30 2-mm stabilized automatic cannon allows firing from a standstill and on the move at ground and air targets, which increases the efficiency of solving the main combat missions of infantry fighting vehicles. However, this weapon does not have enough power from fragmentation and armor-piercing shells. The fragmentation effect is reduced by the fact that the shells often bury themselves in the ground or ricochet off it. An armor-piercing projectile has an armor penetration of 18 mm at an angle of 60° at a range of 1000 m (or 14 mm at 1500 m), and an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile has an armor penetration of 25 mm at 1500 m.

At the same time, tests of the built-in installation of the AG-17 grenade launcher on an infantry fighting vehicle showed that the effectiveness of the 1000-mm AG-30 grenade launcher on infantry located in trenches at ranges of up to 17 m is significantly higher than that of the 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon. This is explained by the fact that the range dispersion of a grenade launcher is much lower than that of a cannon: at a distance of 1000 m it is 12 m, while for a cannon it is 63 m. In addition, grenades do not bury themselves in the ground and do not ricochet, which also increases their fragmentation effect. However, the energy of grenade fragments from a 30-mm grenade launcher is only sufficient to destroy manpower unprotected by body armor. Therefore, an automatic grenade launcher only complements an automatic cannon in the fight against tank-dangerous manpower. Therefore, upgrading the BMP-2’s weapons by installing the built-in AG-17 automatic grenade launcher is quite advisable.

To increase the power of ammunition for a 30-mm automatic cannon, they must be improved in the direction of increasing armor penetration and fragmentation action. The latter can be enhanced by increasing sensitivity and reducing the deceleration time of fuses, which will reduce the number of ricochets and explosions buried in the ground.

The BMP guided weapons system with a launcher does not exclude the possibility of using a modernized missiles 9M113 or another missile with greater armor penetration, possibly even with an increased caliber.

The armament of the BMP-3 is significantly more effective than the armament of the BMP-1 and BMP-2. The 100 mm cannon launcher can fire fragmentation shells and rockets. The ammunition load of fragmentation shells is 40 rounds, which is equal in weight to 840 rounds of ammunition for a 30-mm cannon (in belts).

The disadvantage of the 100-mm gun-launcher is the impossibility of constant impact on manpower, which allows them to return fire. To ensure the required effectiveness of a 100-mm fragmentation projectile, it is required to deliver it to the target with high accuracy (range deviation should not exceed ± 5 m).

This is due to the shape of the fragmentation zone (elongated along the front and narrow in depth) and the irrational crushing of the projectile body into fragments (large).

To destroy manpower with shrapnel, first of all, accurate range measurement is required. Increasing the reliability of measuring the range of small targets is problematic even for the best laser rangefinders. To do this, you need to simultaneously narrow the laser beam and increase the stabilization accuracy. It is possible to improve the fragmentation of a projectile into fragments by moving from alloy steel to cast iron, which allows for small overloads acting on the projectile in the barrel (the initial velocity of the projectile is 250 m/s). However, the shape of the dispersion of fragments cannot be changed, since the angle of its incidence is very small (5 and 11° at ranges of 1000 and 2000 m, respectively).

Therefore, fragments will scatter in the same way as a 100-mm tank gun shell - from the lower hemisphere into the ground, from the upper hemisphere - up and to the sides.

It should be noted that the real target in this case will be hit due to the high-explosive effect of a projectile with an explosive mass of 1,7 kg. There are problems associated with the use of a proximity fuse. Until now, there is no reliable fuse that would ensure detonation of a projectile at the optimal height (4-6 m) above the target. In addition, when firing with a proximity fuse, especially on wet ground, it is impossible to assess not only the quantitative deviation of the gap in range, but also the qualitative one (overflight-undershoot-target). Shooting under these conditions, and even with low reliability of range measurement, becomes ineffective.

Another disadvantage of the 100-mm gun-launcher is the caliber restrictions, which do not allow us to count on a further increase in the missile’s power. It should be emphasized that in order to defeat modern M-1A1 and Leopard-2 tanks, equipped with combined armor and dynamic protection, it will be necessary to at least double the armor penetration of a serial missile, which is a difficult task.

Based on the above, it is advisable to consider the possibility of using a weapon complex on an infantry fighting vehicle, consisting of a 30-mm automatic cannon (AP), a 40-mm automatic grenade launcher (AG) and an ATGM installation. The development of a version of a serial 40-mm grenade launcher for installation in infantry fighting vehicles will not require large financial costs and scientific research. The volume-mass characteristics of such a weapon system in relation to the BMP-3 allow us to count on increasing the ammunition load for the 30-mm 2A72 automatic cannon by 200-300 rounds and placing the ammunition load for the 40-mm automatic grenade launcher in the amount of 500-600 grenades.

In addition to those discussed, it is also possible to use a more powerful ATGM of higher caliber.

Calculations of a comprehensive indicator of the firepower of various BMP armament options confirmed this proposal. The values ​​of the complex firepower indicator for various BMP armament options are:

30 mm automatic cannon and 100 mm gun launcher – 1,0.
30 mm automatic cannon and 120 mm gun launcher – 0,74.
30 mm automatic cannon and 125 mm gun launcher – 0,56.
30 mm automatic cannon and 130 mm gun launcher – 0,59.
30 mm automatic cannon, 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, ATGM - 2,28.
45 mm automatic cannon, 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, ATGM - 1,81.
57-mm automatic cannon, ATGM – 1,66.

As you can see, the BMP weapon system, consisting of a 30-mm automatic cannon, a 40-mm automatic grenade launcher and an ATGM launcher, has the highest comprehensive firepower indicator. Of course, this concept requires further research, taking into account the need to suppress tank-dangerous manpower at various ranges.

Conclusion. The firepower of an infantry fighting vehicle can be increased by using a weapon system consisting of a 30 mm automatic cannon, a 40 mm automatic grenade launcher and an ATGM launcher.

Source:
L.V. Poddubny, A. S. Popkov, A. F. Uskov. Study of the possibility of increasing the firepower of infantry fighting vehicles / L.V. Poddubny, A. S. Popkov, A. F. Uskov // Bulletin of armored vehicles. – 1991. – No. 8.

Comments

[wlkw]

It follows from the review that the most useless thing is the 30 mm gun. It would be better to replace it with a 12,7 mm machine gun or a cannon in order to free up mass and volume for other weapons and armor. Now this will be needed for protection against drones.
Or replace it with a 57 mm gun, in light of the latest trends. True, questions may arise regarding the grenade launcher. ATGM becomes the central and most powerful weapon.

[Rus_80]

Or replace it with a 57 mm gun, in light of recent trends

The Kurgan people have a project BMP-3 Manul with 57 mm

[parma]

How did you draw this conclusion? From the article (and from practice) - the most useless are 73 and 100mm guns, because they are not enough for armored vehicles, but a lot for a single infantryman... to be honest, I don’t understand the reasoning at all on the topic of firepower, when this is not the main problem of domestic vehicles against the background armor protection, ergonomics, awareness (NVD, thermal imager) and survivability... even the SVO showed that a 20-30 mm + machine gun + ATGM (well, those BMP-2 set) is quite sufficient firepower... you can at least install a combat laser from the Star Wars universe, but if the car “bursts” almost from machine gun bullets, then this will not add efficiency...

[Wildcat]

And if personnel prefer to ride ON an infantry fighting vehicle, and not INSIDE an infantry fighting vehicle, where fuel, ammunition and small hatches with a “very sitting” position are wonderfully combined, then wouldn’t it be better to stay on an uninhabited tower and remove the tanks from the hull, following the example of the M113? In order to avoid instant annihilation like “BC and fuel”?
Remaking the hull/hatches higher for the BMP1/2 is not an option, of course. But for the BMP3 there is a normal option with a rear hatch - Dragoon, and not all this “through an engine for a gymnast”, so why don’t they do it?!

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Wildcat

- wouldn’t it be better to stop at an uninhabited tower and remove the tanks from the hull, following the example of the M113? In order to avoid instant annihilation like “BC and fuel”?

If my eyes don't deceive me, the M113's tank is located at the back, on the left. And also vertically, just like in the BMP-1.

[Wildcat]

Here you can see it better, IMHO.
" M113A2 (1979) .... led to the A2, which included a number of modifications, including improved engine cooling by repositioning the fan and radiator, stronger torsion bars for greater ground clearance, and additional shock absorbers for a smoother ride. To increase range, armored fuel tanks were mounted externally on either side of the rear ramp (a significant element of recognition). This also helped free up 16 cubic feet of interior space for other uses."
https://tank-afv.com/coldwar/US/M113_APC.php

Separating the fuel separately from the crew and the ammunition, which does not immediately detonate, destroying the vehicle, gives the crew a chance to escape alive. Anyone hit by godfather - well, amen - and the rest can move on with their lives.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Wildcat

Separating the fuel separately from the crew and the ammunition, which does not immediately detonate, destroying the vehicle, gives the crew a chance to escape alive.

It's logical, but when the vehicles were created, they didn't think much about survivability. It was believed that if a tank gets hit in the side, then it doesn't matter with or without fuel. However, time has made its own adjustments. Tanks weren't encountered that often, but mountains of "carrots" like RPGs were made, so there was an infantryman with a gift under every bush. Only then did they start thinking about it.

[Wildcat]

Not really, IMHO.

But this is a long conversation and the criteria of “survival” or “convenience” were simply incalculable in numerical terms, where there were “speed”, “armor penetration”, “kilometers per refueling”, etc.

[Non-fighter]

For field strengthening, 73 mm is just right. Veremeev directly writes that the BMP-1 was created for a war that never happened, for a “march to the English Channel” through contaminated terrain, with hastily constructed field fortifications.

[parma]

A very controversial statement, especially taking into account the number of fragmentation weapons in ammo... for bunkers you can always use ATGMs, 30mm, RPGs OR RPOs of attached infantry in the end...
IMHO, the installation of a 73 mm gun (and a 100 mm later too) is more like the idea of ​​​​creating an “undertank” for each infantry squad...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The 100mm cannon is equipped with a sight for mounted shooting. This is primarily a means of fire reinforcement. And, just with its help, the ATGM is launched.

[bk0010]

Quote: Not the fighter

For field strengthening, 73 mm is just right.

This is not the same 73 mm as the 76 mm of the ZIS-3, it is 73 mm like the SPG-9. The first ATGMs had a dead zone of 500 m, so the BMP was equipped with an analogue of the LNG-9, which was supposed to close this dead zone. It is rather weak for dismantling fortifications.

[alexmach]

so they installed an analogue of LNG-9 on the BMP, which was supposed to close this dead zone

By the way, this is a completely sensible decision. And the weapons complex of the BMP-1 was completely thought out and relevant to those threats and tasks of course. It's definitely outdated now.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In principle, I cannot agree. The 73mm caliber was poorly chosen. The focus on the LNG-9, and not on the 82-mm recoilless rifle B-10, was, in my opinion, a serious mistake. It was necessary to install an 82-mm mortar gun with a large barrel elevation angle. Then the infantry fighting vehicle could support motorized rifle units with mortar fire from the depths of the defense.

[Konnick]

Or replace it with a 57 mm gun, in light of the latest trends. True, questions may arise regarding the grenade launcher.

Such a gun can only be used in line of sight, which is like death for an infantry fighting vehicle, and a 40mm automatic grenade launcher can provide support from a closed position.

[wlkw]

But the videos from the SVO indicate the opposite, oddly enough. They shoot not just at direct fire, but also at point-blank range. And even our tank was torn apart from a hundred meters away.
And for closed positions there is a 120 mm self-propelled mortar. It will be cooler than our cannon fantasies!

[Konnick]

And for closed positions there is a 120 mm self-propelled mortar. It will be cooler than our cannon fantasies!

What ammunition does a self-propelled 120mm mortar have? Constant suppression is needed during an attack, and a 120mm mine with its destructive effect will not allow you to get close to the trenches. This is where an automatic grenade launcher is needed. The study confirmed this.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

What is the ammunition capacity of a self-propelled 120mm mortar?

40-60 shots.

Quote: Konnick

But constant suppression is necessary during an attack, and a 120mm mine with its damaging effect will not allow you to get closer to the trenches.

And a 40-mm grenade launcher will pick at a firing point blocked from above until it reaches the carrot’s end.
Moreover, the overlap over the OT will be 146% - for protection from the same UAVs.

[Konnick]

And a 40-mm grenade launcher will pick at a firing point blocked from above until it reaches the carrot’s end.

Well, let them sit there until Lent, but at least they can't stick their heads out. The BMP is at the disposal of the squad leader, and the 120mm mortar is at least under battalion command.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The United States has long come up with cumulative fragmentation ammunition for AGS, which seems to pierce ceilings. Submunitions for cassettes of this caliber make holes in the ground half a meter deep.

[AAK]

There is some inconsistency, colleagues. As I understand it, the article cited is a publication from 1991, where the combination of a 30mm cannon, 40mm automatic grenade launcher and ATGM is recognized as the most effective. But the whole dog rummaged about the fact that the 40mm automatic grenade launcher (6G27 "Balkan") only entered the troops in 2008 as an installation batch of 8 units from EMNIP, the previous Soviet/Russian AGS-17 and AGS-30 had a caliber of 30mm. Then what kind of system could the authors refer to the effectiveness of the 40-mm AGS during testing? American Mk-47 or something? In general, another very dark opus. Well, it’s completely unclear for what purposes, from what range, and from what type of position for the BMP itself (on the move, from cover, from a closed position) were each type of BMP weapon tested?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: AAK

But the whole dog rummaged about the fact that the 40mm automatic grenade launcher (6G27 "Balkan") only entered the troops in 2008 as an installation batch of 8 units from EMNIP, the previous Soviet/Russian AGS-17 and AGS-30 had a caliber of 30mm. Then what kind of system could the authors refer to the effectiveness of the 40-mm AGS during testing?

The authors refer to test results 30-mm AG-17 grenade launcher.

In 1987, testing grounds were carried out, and in 1990, control tests of the BMP-1 with a built-in grenade launcher were carried out AG-17, which showed positive results in terms of the effectiveness of firing from a grenade launcher.

At the same time, they write that the power of 30-mm grenades is small, but the combination of an automatic grenade launcher and an automatic cannon is the best combination. Therefore they consider it necessary to develop 40 mm automatic grenade launcher.

Based on the above, it is advisable to consider the possibility of using an armament complex on an infantry fighting vehicle, consisting of a 30-mm automatic cannon (AP), a 40-mm automatic grenade launcher (AG) and an ATGM installation. The development of a version of a serial 40-mm grenade launcher for installation in infantry fighting vehicles will not require large financial costs and scientific research.

Moreover, the development of high-caliber AGS (40 mm) has already been carried out since the mid-80s (its result was the “Balkan”).

[Foul skeptic]

Then what kind of system could the authors refer to the effectiveness of the 40-mm AGS during testing?

Mathematical models allow you to emulate any weapon system.

[Konnick]

It follows from the review that the most useless thing is the 30 mm gun.

No, it doesn't leak. The best combination is a 30mm autocannon and AGS

30 mm automatic cannon, 40 mm automatic grenade launcher, ATGM – 2,28

40-mm automatic mounted grenade launcher, designed to destroy enemy personnel and firing positions located in shelters, trenches and for natural folds of the terrain (in recesses, ravines, on reverse slopes of heights).
And a rapid-fire 30mm cannon can be used against armored vehicles and infantry in open area, and also on flying objects.. To each his own.

[Rus_80]

"...the highest comprehensive indicator of firepower is possessed by the BMP armament complex, consisting of a 30-mm automatic cannon, a 40-mm automatic grenade launcher and an ATGM launcher"

Such a weapon system already exists and works on the SVO. This is the BMPT Terminator. Only with 2 30-mm guns. There is Berezhok for the BMP-2.

[wlkw]

Do they have 40 grenade launchers there? Well, the Terminator is not an infantry fighting vehicle.

[Rus_80]

But there is a pair of two thirty.
Not an infantry fighting vehicle, of course. But I believe that the Terminator can and should be used as a reinforcement for both infantry fighting vehicles and tanks

[wlkw]

However, they didn’t make it into a large series... Are they even being released??
Except the ones that they did.

[Rus_80]

This is unknown to me.

Text short

[bayard]

Quote: wlkw

Well, the Terminator is not an infantry fighting vehicle.

"Terminator" is the best available infantry fighting vehicle. Or rather, ShMPP (assault infantry support vehicle). If the RF Armed Forces receive the TBTR (there is already a prototype based on the T-72\90 chassis), then their combination with the Terminator small-propelled gun will be the best combination of armor, firepower and conditions for transporting assault infantry to dismount lines.
The BMP-3 combat module is also very good. In addition, it has the ability to fire (to support infantry) from closed positions with large elevation angles.
And for the new TBTR, the optimal module will be from the BTR-82A.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: bayard

"Terminator" is the best available infantry fighting vehicle

Will the landing force fit there?
She is probably really the best, but for support.

[bayard]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

Will the landing force fit there?

Of course not . For this purpose, there is already a TBTR on a tank chassis with a tank level of protection. It’s with this sweet couple that they fight – one provides covering fire, the other delivers troops. But mixing everything in one pile is both more expensive and not so rational.

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

She is probably really the best, but for support.

Well, of course :

Quote: bayard

"Terminator" is the best infantry fighting vehicle available. Or rather ShMPP (assault infantry support vehicle)

The most correct thing would be to reclassify the “Terminator” into ShMPP. For it is in this role that all of his combat capabilities are revealed in the best possible way.

[bk0010]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

She is probably really the best, but for support.

The tank is better.

[Konnick]

Such a weapon system already exists and works in the Northern Military District. This is the Terminator BMPT.

His grenade launchers are mounted not on the turret, but on the front ones. Therefore, it is not particularly convenient to fire from them.

[egsp]

That is, Soviet designers chose the worst option? 100 mm and 30 mm?

[wlkw]

Everything just changes quite quickly. Well, in general, the BMP3 is the best we have so far.

[bayard]

Quote: egsp

That is, Soviet designers chose the worst option? 100 mm and 30 mm?

It was and is an excellent choice, which confirmed its combat qualities in the Northern Military District.
There are just different tools for different tasks. Just look at the size of the ammo (100 mm and 30 mm shells) of the BMP-3. If you really want 40 mm too. grenade launcher, attach it with a separate module on top of the turret, and there will be happiness for the grenade launcher.
The BMP-3 is essentially a chic light amphibious tank capable of firing and hitting any type of target. . . with a troop compartment. In the Northern Military District, it is most often used without landing forces - as a fire support combat vehicle capable of conducting overhead fire at “mortar” elevation angles.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There are not enough fuses for 100 mm projectiles with non-contact detonation at a height of 4-6 meters above the surface.

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

There are not enough fuses for 100 mm projectiles with non-contact detonation at a height of 4-6 meters above the surface.

This would really not hurt - a fuse with a programmable detonation. NATO countries have this for 30-35 mm. shells have already been made, we seem to have them on the way too, and in the fleet we already have them for main battery guns - for working on air targets. There is only one principle: you need to scale up production.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

We also seem to have a programmable detonation along a flat trajectory; we do not have the AR-5 type for detonation above the ground along a suspended trajectory.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

With such a gun, the BMP-3 is never a tank. More likely a light version of 2S31.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Not at all.
100mm is good for hollowing out shelters, a land mine is already excellent.
The ballistics are such that although it is not yet a mortar, it is already almost a howitzer.
Rockets come out of it.

The 30mm is convenient because it is a mega-machine gun (tear light armor, demolish attachments from heavy armor).

After the outdated cannon from the BMP-1 and 30mm + missiles on the BMP-2, the weapons are three and interesting.

[Doctor]

That is, Soviet designers chose the worst option? 100 mm and 30 mm?

100%. It's hard to think of a worse combination. But of course, these are not fools.
Agents of influence. There was a lot of this in our weapons; stupidity alone cannot explain it.

[George Sviridov]

Why unsuccessful? The BMP-3 is very successful; the 100mm gun is in great demand, especially when storming populated areas.
Of the unsuccessful, or rather not unsuccessful, but outdated, this is an anti-tank gun, of low power for hitting modern tanks head-on, yes... And the machine is very effective. With additional screens and grilles, it is quite durable, and it has a factory body kit.
The fact that they don’t put AGS on it is bad, although there have been experiments with AGS...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Much of the past findings are outdated. For example, it has become possible to adjust fire using drones. Based on this, an AGS is not particularly needed if a non-contact detonation fuse for 100 mm shells is available. And from a 30-mm cannon it is possible to conduct mounted fire with proper adjustments.

[George Sviridov]

It seems that there were attempts to develop shrapnel for 100mm, but apparently the forces were armored for some other ammunition.
With 30 mm it’s hard, it’s possible, but not always, it’s too flat.
But 100mm normal can be added when adjusting the norms.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You don't necessarily need shrapnel; you just need to change the fuse if necessary. Moreover, the existence of proximity fuses for 100-mm shells was mentioned in the open press.

[egsp]

In the sense that installing a 120 and 125 mm gun on an infantry fighting vehicle. initially no one was going to.

[Victor Alien]

And what the hell is Octopus?! The process of producing military equipment is akin to tuning a car - everything original is rethought over time and something new is created based on new combat conditions and production capabilities. It’s not for nothing that civilian motorcycles and pickup trucks are back in service. The problem is choosing a method to destroy the target. In fact, it is no longer clear what to separate types of troops. Direct communication is needed by sergeants in the infantry to artillery, tanks and turntables. But with us everything goes at least up to the captain or even higher than the inf, and then where it’s needed.

[George Sviridov]

Well, the octopus is a mobile PI weapon, primarily for the landing force and marines, although it can be almost everywhere... The octopus is a replacement for the outdated Rapiers - which have neither mobility nor crew protection, but at the same time work at the forefront, and as a replacement Rapier - Octopus is not bad.
But whether he will be better than Chrysanthemum is another question...
In general, the development of FVP makes all of the above funds less relevant...
The octopuses were of course late for their wars. Yes, and chrysanthemums too.
I’m generally silent about ancient rapiers; they should have been sold/melted down a long time ago...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The Octopus is primarily an offensive weapon, a light tank capable of independently overcoming water obstacles.

[George Sviridov]

Well, yes, a means of strengthening the units capturing the bridgehead, which is why they were primarily planned for the Airborne Forces. Although in general, as an anti-tank weapon, it can also be used in motorized rifle units precisely to strengthen units that are capturing some bridgeheads. Although, like any tank guns, they are also effective in cities, for destroying enemy firing points exposed by UAVs... A couple of octopuses, like any tanks, will very quickly destroy any building, except for the strongest ones.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Namely, to capture and hold bridgeheads. But it’s unlikely to go to the city on such a thing. Tanks equipped with protection sometimes withstood hits from RPGs even from above. And with thin armor it’s dangerous there. An armored personnel carrier in the city is justified, it is for delivering infantry, and a light tank is only for lack of a better one.

[S.Z.]

Interesting material for me, thanks to the Author. There are some errors.

This is where the word “power” looks very strange. Translation?
"However, these weapons do not have enough power to operate fragmentation and armor-piercing shells."

[Frettaskyrandi]

The power of ammunition is an indicator of the effectiveness of its action on the target. For example, the power of high-explosive projectiles is determined by the area of ​​the destruction zone; armor-piercing - the thickness of the pierced armor at a given angle of impact; fragmentation - the area of ​​​​the reduced zone of fragmentation, determined by the number, mass and speed of expansion of the fragments; for all projectiles - the probability of hitting the target.

Glossary of military terms. - M .: Military Publishing. Comp. A. M. Plekhov, S. G. Shapkin .. 1988.

[George Sviridov]

The word power is just a normal military term that denotes the effectiveness of weapons, taking into account various parameters such as armor-piercing, armor impact, and damage radius.

[Parvis rasulov]

An armor-piercing projectile has an armor penetration of 18 mm at an angle of 60 ° at a range of 1000 m (or 14 mm at 1500 m), and an armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile - 25 mm at 1500 m. This data does not correspond to reality, an armor-piercing tracer projectile at 1500 meters had an armor penetration of 25-28 mm at an angle of 60 degrees, in reality, the BT easily penetrates the lower part of the side projection of the T-62M hull in the area of ​​​​the tracks at a distance of 1000 meters, which is about 45 mm. The armor penetration of the Kerner shot is even more important than the armor-piercing tracer shot at a distance of 1000 meters, this shot penetrates the turret of the BMP 2 itself if the hit occurs where there is free space inside. The BMP 1 cannon, despite some of its shortcomings, is a very good cannon and numerous conflicts confirm this, no matter what anyone writes. Both the shrapnel action and the hit on the tank, especially the T-64, disabled the tank.
And I agree with the authors about the additional weapons of the AGS 17, especially the BMP 1, but here other problems arise: the placement of ammunition inside the BMP 1 turret there is simply no room there

[Vadim S]

Nobody is going to modernize anything, we need new vehicles here. The BMP-1 has already been tried in Basurmanin, Kliver, and in our design bureau in the early 5s there were 30 different versions, including one with two!!! XNUMXmm cannons. Where is all this? These vehicles have outlived their usefulness in all directions, but for some reason we don't make new ones, why are engineers racking their brains then, it's not clear

[Konnick]

30-mm stabilized automatic cannon BMP-2 allows firing from a place and on the move at ground and air targets, which increases the efficiency of solving the main combat missions of the BMP. However, this weapon has insufficient power of fragmentation and armor-piercing shells.

In order to blind a modern tank, remember the duel between Bradley and T-90. And if the tanks are equipped with KAZ, then with the launch of an ATGM, simultaneous firing from an automatic cannon will help overcome this defense.

[Illanatol]

Quote: wlkw

It follows from the review that the most useless thing is the 30 mm gun

I don’t know what it means, but the 30 mm gun is a completely usable and versatile barrel, capable of solving many problems.
Including combating drones (not necessarily aerial ones), if there are suitable projectiles for such projectiles.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

This is explained by the fact that the range dispersion of a grenade launcher is much lower than that of a cannon: at a distance of 1000 m it is 12 m, while for a cannon it is 63 m.

Yes, how is that?
Is the barrel shaking?

[wlkw]

This is where the biggest mistake comes in. Dispersion at such a distance is only a few meters. You can believe the 6,3 metro. 63 meters is already similar to a smoothbore cannon and cannonball fire.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: wlkw

You can believe the 6,3 metro. 63 meters - this already looks like a smoothbore cannon and cannonball fire

Exactly.
Although then the AGS is 1.2 meters (and already “wow how is it so accurate? ), or the conclusions become opposite (if 6.3 versus 12).

[Foul skeptic]

This is where the biggest mistake comes in.

No, that's right

Dispersion at such a distance is only a few meters.

The components Vb (in direction) and Vv (in height) are smaller. In terms of range (Vd) - the dispersion is higher.

[Konnick]

at a range of 1000 m it is 12 m, while for a gun it is 63 m

Yes, how is that?
Is the barrel shaking?

This is when the machine is on the ground, but when it is mounted on the tower there is no jerking.

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: Konnick

This is when the machine is on the ground, but when it is mounted on the tower there is no jerking.

Well, for some reason the BMP-3 barrel is additionally attached to the barrel of a 100mm gun.
There are suspicions that it is to dampen the jerking.

[wlkw]

This is true. They wrote about it. On many foreign systems, a frame is made around the trunk like an Eiffel Tower so that the trunk does not sway. In our case, we took advantage of the proximity to the barrel of a 100 mm gun.

[Konnick]

Well, for some reason the BMP-3 barrel is additionally attached to the barrel of a 100mm gun.

A 30mm cannon is attached to reduce barrel jerking, and the range spread is due to the flatness of the trajectory. And for the AGS, if it is rigidly mounted on an armored vehicle, the dispersion is minimal along the mounted trajectory, the barrel is short

[Hitriy Zhuk]

Quote: Konnick

and the spread in range is due to the flatness of the trajectory.

That is, if you drive a car onto a hill by lifting the front end, can you hit it like an AGS or even more accurately?

[Konnick]

That is, if you drive a car onto a hill by lifting the front end, can you hit it like an AGS or even more accurately?

The firing range will be too long, beyond the horizon...is this necessary? And the range is an even greater spread. And an AGS with a permissible elevation angle of 30 degrees can be placed on a mounted one at a minimum range of 1000 meters, and at this range the spread is 12 meters. and from a 30mm cannon the minimum range is mounted - wherever God sends.

[Foul skeptic]

Yes, how is that?
Is the barrel shaking?

According to the laws of external ballistics.
grenade launcher grenades fall more vertically due to the lower initial speed. Therefore, the Vd component is naturally lower than that of higher-speed projectiles.

[George Sviridov]

The trajectory is very tabletop - that is, even if the projectile flew only 1 cm above the target, it will fly many more meters behind it.

[Dozorny severa]

Does the author suffer from some kind of mental disorder?
We read: “This is explained by the fact that the range dispersion of a grenade launcher is much lower than that of a cannon: at a distance of 1000 m it is 12 m, while for a cannon it is 63 m.”
That is, the author claims that the long-barreled 30-mm 2A42 gives less accuracy than the short-barreled AGS whistle gun, which is designed for area action?
The 30-mm 2A42 is an excellent weapon, perhaps the best in the world and has excellent ballistics.
Count to the author!!!

[Konnick]

That is, the author claims that the long-barreled 30-mm 2A42 gives less accuracy than the short-barreled AGS whistle gun, which is designed for area action?

Because the 30mm gun has a flat trajectory. and the AGS may also have a mounted one. Range dispersion. And if the AGS is rigidly attached to the equipment, then it can be placed well in a trench

[Konnick]

The 30-mm 2A42 is an excellent weapon, perhaps the best in the world and has excellent ballistics.

The spread is large when shooting. The barrel is thin, flutters, and was designed for aviation. lightweight. But for armored vehicles you need either a thicker barrel, or a hard casing, as is done by the military vehicles

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

The spread is large when shooting. The barrel is thin, flutters, and was designed for aviation. lightweight.

Isn’t it the 2A72 that has problems with barrel vibrations?

[Konnick]

Isn’t it the 2A72 that has problems with barrel vibrations?

Of course, I am writing about this, not about 100mm for aviation. I don't think there is a difference in the thickness of the 72 and 42 barrels. Only in the length of the barrel, they lengthened it for the BMP, and the movable barrel.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Konnick

Of course, I’m writing about this, not about 100mm for aviation. In my opinion, there is no difference in thickness between 72 and 42 barrels.

However, the basic 2A42 is better in accuracy than the basic 2A72. For the BTR-82A, the plant struggled for more than a year to somehow bring the single 2A72 to the level of the 2A42. The victim was the rate of fire.

1. Low accuracy of fire from the 2A72 cannon BTR-82A - fairy tales. Yes, The designers worked for more than a year to ensure an acceptable result: accuracy and accuracy should be no lower than that of the 2A42 on the BMP-2. Without fulfilling this condition specified in the technical specifications, the vehicle was not accepted for service. One machine was even made with a third fulcrum: a casing on top of a cannon with a ring at the end in which the barrel goes.
But that didn't help much either.. The solution was found after watching high-speed shooting footage. Some time after the shot, the gun barrel returns to its original position, so the rate of fire was adjusted so that the next shot occurred at that very moment. Yes, the maximum rate of fire has become slightly lower than what is indicated in the table values ​​​​for 2A72, but sufficient to solve the same problems.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dozorny severa

That is, the author claims that the long-barreled 30-mm 2A42 gives less accuracy than the short-barreled AGS whistle gun, which is designed for area action?

Keyword highlighted:

This is explained by range dispersion the grenade launcher is much lower than the cannon: at a range of 1000 m it is 12 m, while the cannon is 63 m

This is a common problem with all guns with a high initial projectile velocity: the ellipse itself may be small, but its projection onto the horizontal surface (ground) stretches very far.

[George Sviridov]

No, he didn’t write that the gun was bad, he said that precisely because of the high speed of the projectile and, as a result, the flatness of the trajectory, the dispersion of the shells from the gun will be very small along the front - roughly speaking, 2-3 meters per kilometer of distance, but very large in depth - that is, when flying over a trench with infantry even just a few centimeters - the shell will fly very far - tens of meters, where it will explode - the fragments will not reach the trench (this is why such guns are usually fired not at the trench, but at the treetops above the trench), and for the AGS, on the contrary, due to the hinged trajectory, the spread along the front of the projectiles and in depth will be commensurate...
Roughly speaking, a burst from a cannon will draw a long “sausage” on the ground a couple of meters wide and several tens in length. And the line from the AGS will give an oval, say 15 meters wide and 25 meters long...

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

A 30 mm cannon can also be used for overhead fire. But there is no sight for such shooting. Because there was no fire adjustment, which became available with the help of drones. Mounted fire from a 30 mm automatic cannon is almost like a cluster munition exploding.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: wlkw

Or replace it with a 57 mm gun, in light of the latest trends. True, questions may arise regarding the grenade launcher. ATGM becomes the central and most powerful weapon.

Do you even understand what you are writing? What rate of fire will the 57 mm have? What ammunition? How much will the mass increase? This has long been obvious to everyone.
Dreamers read Rostec press releases.

[wlkw]

I think that for a 57 mm gun the main thing is not the rate of fire, it is not an anti-aircraft gun, no matter what anyone says about versatility. The main thing is the greater power of the projectile compared to a 30 mm projectile. And the possibility of implementing controlled projectiles, well, at least the same remote detonation. The larger the caliber, the easier it is to make.
And no fairy tales from Rostec!!!

[alexmach]

I think that for a 57 mm gun the main thing is not the rate of fire

Well, that's it. We saw the patent for the charging device for the Epoch. "Cassette" loading of 3 shells and then, probably, lowering the barrel - is this a normal rate of fire or is it too much?

Have you seen the video of Bradley being hit by a T-90? Was their rate of fire too much? and in general, 30mm cannons that processed landings at close range, covering the infantry, also did not seem to complain about the excess rate of fire.

[Cympak]

The 57-mm 2A94 autocannon for the BM "Epoch" has relatively compact rounds. The developer claims that the combat power of the high-explosive fragmentation projectile is comparable to an 82-mm mine. The BC has projectiles with programmable detonation (but this is not certain) and APFSDS.

[Cympak]

It must be understood that this study was carried out in the late 80s of the last century. More than 40 years have already passed, and technological progress does not stand still. First of all, in terms of the development of electronics, which makes it possible to improve the speed and accuracy of laser rangefinders, create new ammunition with remote detonation, and create ATGMs that attack armored vehicles in the upper hemisphere.
In this regard, it is necessary to conduct a new similar study to determine an effective BMP weapon system

[Cympak]

In addition, combat tactics have changed and new types of targets have appeared.
The main change in the types of targets is the emergence of UAVs and relatively small-sized ground-based combat robotic and remotely controlled platforms (for example, a machine gun on a remote-controlled turret)
By tactics:
- helicopters and attack aircraft strike from long distances, use jumping/pitching
- the need to conduct combat operations in urban areas
- the need to defeat the enemy in wooded areas (forest belts, etc.)
- the need to engage the enemy with fire from a closed firing position
- the need to defeat a ground enemy at greater distances than before
- the need to defeat the UAV
- the need to destroy remotely controlled firing points

[George Sviridov]

Well, after the current conflict, the javellina-type anti-tank gun is dead - very expensive and controversial... FVP drones are many times cheaper and more reliable and even longer-range...
But classic anti-tank guns, which are much cheaper (and still more expensive than FVP), but outperform drones in power, will still be used... In general, they have proven to be effective, both portable, in tank guns, and when used from helicopter guns.

[Alex 1970]

Educational, definitely a plus. In light of recent events, of course something suggests itself to combat firewood. I don’t know if there is a programmable explosion for 30 mm shells, it would certainly increase efficiency. Well, regarding the dispersion of the BMP 1 gun, it’s most likely a typo.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Parvis Rasulov

And I agree with the authors about the additional weapons of the AGS 17, especially the BMP 1, but here other problems arise: the placement of ammunition inside the BMP 1 turret there is simply no room there

There is a place there, since the Malyutka ATGM has been removed from service. So you can install an AGS above the gun, connecting its machine with a follower drive to the 2A28 gun and develop recommendations for firing taking into account standard sighting devices.
The main problem of military development in the Russian Federation is that the top leadership is absolutely incompetent in scientific and technical issues, and all their advisers are economists.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dozorny severa

There is a place there, since the Malyutka ATGM has been withdrawn from service.

So this place will be occupied by the BC of another ATGM. Because it is impossible to leave an infantry fighting vehicle without a guided weapon system - you need a means of accurately hitting at safe distances, if not tanks, then bunkers and other point targets.

[wlkw]

Quote: parma

but if the car “bursts” almost from machine gun bullets, then this will not add efficiency...

A good question, but this is the topic of a completely different article, not about that now.

[Pavel57]

Interesting stuff. But the conclusion in favor of 30mm creates the impression that the author is biased.

[Cympak]

The conclusion is made in favor of a combination of a 30-mm autocannon with high ballistics and an AGS.
At the same time, the AGS can effectively hit infantry with overhead fire, and the autocannon fights lightly armored targets with a vertical projection.

[Sergey_K]

Something is completely confusing among the authors in the article... How can a 1000mm gun have a dispersion of 30 m at a range of 63 m!!!! And in the end, in their article the 30mm cannon is “called” a 30mm GRENADE LAUNCHER! Shameful!!!

[Konnick]

How can a 1000mm gun have a dispersion of 30 m at a range of 63 m!!!!

Since this gun fires along a flat trajectory, the dispersion along range 63 meters, so that the projectile explodes when it hits the ground.

[George Sviridov]

The ellipse along the ground will be 63 meters, well, this is just adequate data, I thought by the way it would be at least a hundred...

[wlkw]

Quote: Konnick

and a 120mm mine with its destructive effect will not allow you to get closer to the trenches

you somehow mixed lethality and firing range into one pile. Warm with soft, as they say in such cases. Find out for yourself here.

[Cympak]

Quote: Dozorny severa

We read: “This is explained by the fact that the range dispersion of a grenade launcher is much lower than that of a cannon: at a distance of 1000 m it is 12 m, while for a cannon it is 63 m.”
That is, the author claims that the long-barreled 30-mm 2A42 gives less accuracy than the short-barreled AGS whistle gun, which is designed for area action?

We are talking about horizontal dispersion when firing at infantry lying down or hidden in a trench. All guns with high ballistics have problems with hitting targets with a small vertical projection. The AGS hits targets along a hover trajectory, which is due to its low ballistics and it is more effective against targets without a vertical projection and in the horizontal projection with such fire its dispersion will be less

[wlkw]

Quote: AAK

Then what kind of system could the authors refer to the effectiveness of the 40-mm AGS during testing? American Mk-47 or something?

To assess the effectiveness, they could have calculated theoretically, and they could have taken the American as a basis.
P.S. In the 20s of the last century, they assessed the calibers of guns for fighter aircraft. Moreover, there were no such aircraft guns yet, and there were no such aircraft yet that could carry them. But all the assessments turned out to be correct.
It's about the same here

[Alekandr]

The LShO 57 is perhaps the most suitable weapon for an infantry fighting vehicle. Multifunctional, effective and lightweight.

[Cympak]

On the basis of the LShO, a 57-mm 2A94 autocannon was created, which was installed on the Epoch fire-fighting vehicle.

[alexmach]

And after reading the article, it becomes clear where the legs of this “Era” grow from.
But something was screwed up there too much, the same “pencils” most likely indicate that the gun could not be modified to fire sub-caliber shells.

[Cympak]

"Pencils" are probably "Bulat" guided missiles, which, according to the concept of the "Epoch" DUMB, are intended to destroy vehicles and lightly armored targets at a long distance, where the accuracy of the 2A94 gun with moderate ballistics is insufficient. "Kornets" are provided for the destruction of heavy armored vehicles, fortifications and helicopters.

[alexmach]

Yes, it’s not entirely clear. Either the “Bulat” is another missile in the dimensions of the “Kornet”, but not an anti-tank missile system but a thermobaric one, or these “Pencils”.

Well, for this gun they showed a feathered sub-caliber projectile, in theory it should maintain accuracy at a decent distance, and I have great doubts that the small racket will fly further than the same 1,5 kilometers at which the sub-caliber should be effective.

As for low ballistics - well, it’s not very compatible with sub-caliber ones. It probably still depends on the amount of propellant charge, and for a sub-caliber projectile there should be more of it than for a high-explosive fragmentation projectile.

Well, since they are developing a mini-rocket, something probably went wrong with the sub-caliber. But the idea was very interesting, and if this gun had been completed in the form that was hinted at, it could have been a solution for arming light armored vehicles for years to come, implementing, among other things, the ideas described in the article.

[S.Z.]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

The power of ammunition is an indicator of the effectiveness of its action on the target. For example, the power of high-explosive projectiles is determined by the area of ​​the destruction zone; armor-piercing - the thickness of the pierced armor at a given angle of impact; fragmentation - the area of ​​​​the reduced zone of fragmentation, determined by the number, mass and speed of expansion of the fragments; for all projectiles - the probability of hitting the target.

Glossary of military terms. - M .: Military Publishing. Comp. A. M. Plekhov, S. G. Shapkin .. 1988.

Live forever, learn forever, it’s a damn thing, you’ll die a fool... This is me talking about myself. :)

[newtc7]

Proximity fuses are a necessity for modern warfare and not a whim.
57 MM with non-contact + anti-tank guns + 40 mm grenade launcher looks the most optimal for a modern infantry fighting vehicle, provided it has good armor. A reconnaissance drone on a cord will also be a very big plus

[Cympak]

At the current moment, what is needed is no longer a remote detonator (which is sensitive to vegetation, other obstacles on the flight path and can be suppressed by electronic warfare), but a programmable detonation.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Konnick

The spread is large when shooting. The barrel is thin, flutters, and was designed for aviation. lightweight. But for armored vehicles you need either a thicker barrel, or a hard casing, as is done by the military vehicles

Quiet your fantasies already, you're a sofa artilleryman... there's nothing fluttering around there. They put a hard casing on other guns.

[Zaurbek]

In my couch opinion, the autocannon + 4 Kornet ATGM scheme is optimal. But the 30mm caliber needs to be increased to 37mm or 45mm (new NATO vehicles have 30-50mm). And it will be good.
All fresh infantry fighting vehicles from NATO countries are adapted for our 30mm projectile; the HE effect of 30mm is small and a grenade launcher is required. 37 and 45mm have a powerful HE projectile. And they mean powerful BOPS.

[alexmach]

the autocannon + 4pcs Cornet ATGM scheme is optimal

I also noticed that in the combat zone, both “terminators” and “Berezhki” travel without ATGMs, always exclusively with empty casings.

[Zaurbek]

The last massive use of anti-tank guided missiles was during a counterattack.

[alexmach]

Yes, but from what media? I suspect that from ordinary ground-based launch tripods.

[Zaurbek]

No. There they shot from tanks....and from BMP3

[Shelest2000]

I don’t understand what 40mm automatic grenade launcher the author is talking about?

[senima56]

That's what I didn't understand. That's why I wrote my comment.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Shelest2000

I don’t understand what 40mm automatic grenade launcher the author is talking about?

About the future of AGS-40 "Balkan". Its development began just in the mid-80s.

[Shelest2000]

But which, after several modernizations and field tests by the troops, has not been adopted into service to date.

[Illanatol]

Quote: parma

From the article (and from practice) - the most useless are 73 and 100mm guns, because for armored vehicles there are few, but for a single infantryman there is a lot ... to be honest, I don’t understand the reasoning at all on the topic of firepower, when this is not the main problem of domestic vehicles against the background armor protection, ergonomics

100 mm is quite enough to destroy armored vehicles, even heavy ones (tanks), from a suitable angle.
Both the Abrams and the Leopard have vulnerabilities that can be damaged even by 100 mm caliber.

It is quite enough to destroy field fortifications. The combination of 30 mm and 100 mm in one package is a very good solution.

It is impossible to provide decent protection for infantry fighting vehicles using armor. Any infantry fighting vehicle/armored personnel carrier will still be vulnerable to more or less modern ATGMs. And if you add armor comparable to a tank, you get a tank, but why is this necessary, the question is?

However, thin and light armor provides our infantry fighting vehicles with the so-called. operational mobility. This lies in the fact that our infantry fighting vehicles are capable of independently swimming across water obstacles, in other words, rivers.
"Bradley" and CV-90 are not capable of this, which in the conditions of this theater of operations is a very big minus.

[Zaurbek]

Even the 100mm Rapier is not a reliable tank destroyer.

[senima56]

Much has been said here about the 40 mm grenade launcher. But where is it? The AGS-40 "Balkan", which has been demonstrated at exhibitions, has not been adopted for service for over 30 years! It only appears at presentations! And on the LBS only the old man AGS-17 "Plamya" is noticeable. And very, very rarely the AGS-30. Of course, the AGS-17(30) is a good, reliable grenade launcher, but the power of its 30-mm grenades is clearly not enough. But the enemy has long since adopted and successfully used the UAG-40! Here we are lagging behind! :hi It is high time to introduce all the best and most advanced and send them to the SVO zone! And those who "slow down" this - to answer!

[David1993]

“the power of its 30-mm grenades is clearly not enough” is a strong statement.

[senima56]

This is not my statement. The decision to develop a grenade launcher for 40 mm ammunition was precisely caused by the “insufficient power of a 30 mm grenade”!

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Hitriy Zhuk

Well, for some reason the BMP-3 barrel is additionally attached to the barrel of a 100mm gun.
There are suspicions that it is to dampen the jerking.

The 30mm guns on the BMP-2 and BMP-3 are different...

[storm]

The values ​​of the complex firepower indicator for various BMP armament options are:

30 mm automatic cannon and 100 mm gun launcher – 1,0.
30 mm automatic cannon and 120 mm gun launcher – 0,74.
30 mm automatic cannon and 125 mm gun launcher – 0,56.
30 mm automatic cannon and 130 mm gun launcher – 0,59.

Some kind of stupidity or the numbers are messed up!
I would like to receive a link to the original article.
How can the firepower of a 125 and 130 mm gun-launcher be lower than that of a 100 mm gun, provided that the 30 mm automatic gun is the same everywhere???
Is it possible that only a 125 mm cannon will fire blanks, and a 100 mm cannon will fire modern shells with remote detonation...

[Foul skeptic]

How can..

The key here is"an integrated firepower indicator."
For typical targets, 100 mm is already enough, the extra power is excessive, but the ammunition load is higher, that is, more targets can be hit. This may be primitive, but it is easy to explain.

[storm]

For typical purposes, 100 mm is already enough, the extra power is excessive, but the ammunition capacity is higher,

Let’s say a 100 mm projectile is not enough to destroy the enemy in shelters and dugouts.
The ammunition capacity of the BMP with a 120-125 mm gun can be increased to the same 40 rounds as the BMP-3 thanks to a special niche in the rear of the turret.

[Foul skeptic]

Let’s say a 100 mm projectile is not enough to destroy the enemy in shelters and dugouts.

Do not delegate BMP tasks to artillery.

The ammunition capacity of an infantry fighting vehicle with a 120 - 125 mm gun can be increased to the same 40 rounds as the BMP-3 due to a special niche in the rear of the turret.

What for?

[storm]

Do not delegate BMP tasks to artillery.

Why then do you need a 100 mm gun, a 30 mm + AGS + PC is enough

[Alexey RA]

Quote: assault

The ammunition capacity of an infantry fighting vehicle with a 120 - 125 mm gun can be increased to the same 40 rounds as the BMP-3 due to a special niche in the rear of the turret.

After which either the suspension will say “crunch”, or the infantry fighting vehicle will crawl into a 30-ton niche. Massive infantry fighting vehicle, yes...
40 shots is "Octopus". And the BMP also needs to transport and disembark troops.

[storm]

The ammunition is in an isolated tower, and the landing force is in the airborne squad, and they should not intersect in any way.
30-40 SHELLS and 120 mm mines from NONA will not KILL the running gear of an infantry fighting vehicle.
On the contrary, a large tower will protect the troop compartment from attacks from above...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: assault

The ammunition is in an isolated tower, and the landing force is in the airborne squad, and they should not intersect in any way.
30-40 SHELLS and min 120 mm from NONA will by no means KILL the chassis of an infantry fighting vehicle.

Can you imagine the volume of an isolated tower into which a ammunition shell of 30-40 120 mm rounds fits? It will be either a 2S25 with a half-hull turret compartment:

Or a turreted niche, like the Abram.
And now we are cramming a troop compartment for 8 people into a hull with such a turret. And we provide the landing party with a free exit.

Oh yes, with ammunition in a turreted niche, the landing party will simply be happy to sit in the DO, having three dozen 120-mm shells overhead behind two thin sheets of armor.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Zaurbek

All fresh infantry fighting vehicles from NATO countries are adapted for our 30mm projectile; the HE effect of 30mm is small and a grenade launcher is required. 37 and 45mm have a powerful HE projectile. And they mean powerful BOPS.

What, for example? Are there protocols for testing equipment by shelling? Why broadcast foreign press releases.

[alexmach]

Are there any shelling test reports for equipment?

By the way, smartly, such protocols should appear soon. Well, not in the open press, of course, but there are already enough models for testing.

[Meaning of life]

Quote: AAK

There is some inconsistency, colleagues. As I understand it, the article cited is a publication from 1991, where the combination of a 30mm cannon, 40mm automatic grenade launcher and ATGM is recognized as the most effective. But the whole dog rummaged about the fact that the 40mm automatic grenade launcher (6G27 "Balkan") only entered the troops in 2008 as an installation batch of 8 units from EMNIP, the previous Soviet/Russian AGS-17 and AGS-30 had a caliber of 30mm. Then what kind of system could the authors refer to the effectiveness of the 40-mm AGS during testing? American Mk-47 or something? In general, another very dark opus.

You make hasty conclusions without knowing all the information. The Balkan prototype was tested back in the 1980s. youtu.be/0Z2CwWwA9S8?t=224

[storm]

However, the energy of grenade fragments from a 30-mm grenade launcher is only sufficient to destroy manpower unprotected by body armor. Therefore, an automatic grenade launcher only complements an automatic cannon in the fight against tank-dangerous manpower.

A weak 30mm cannon + a weak 30mm grenade launcher will of course complement each other, but in any case, a more powerful 45-57mm automatic cannon with shells with remote detonation is needed.
NATO countries have taken this path and we urgently need to catch up with them.
To increase the firepower of infantry units, they must have 120mm self-propelled guns-howitzers-mortars capable of direct fire at infantry and armored vehicles, as well as at enemy infantry in shelters and fortified areas.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Alexey RA

So this place will be occupied by the BC of another ATGM. Because it is impossible to leave an infantry fighting vehicle without a guided weapon system - you need a means of accurately hitting at safe distances, if not tanks, then bunkers and other point targets.

Another ATGM hatch for supplying a small ATGM for a short shot will not fit into the place of the little one.
Now the ATGM launchers are being attached to the outside. And in fact, no one is stopping you from hanging the armored box with ammunition on the rear of the tower - there is no desire - the sons of officials and generals are not in the trenches.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dozorny severa

Another ATGM hatch for supplying a small ATGM for a short shot will not fit into the place of the little one.

Yes, you are right - "Bassoon"/"Competition" was placed in the center of the tower.

It’s just that the “snail” full of grenades above the gun is somehow... annoying. Maybe not to philosophize, but take the AG installation diagram from the Berezhka - a grenade launcher, drives and a box in the rear of the turret?

Or the whole “Berezhok” as a whole?

[Ivan Seversky]

I compared the data on the number of armored vehicles available at the beginning of 2022 according to Military Balance and losses since the beginning of the Northern War according to Oryx.
These data are NOT fully reliable, but they allow us to understand the demand for this or that armored vehicle - if there are no losses, then it is not used, if the losses are large, then it is needed in the troops; the number of new / taken from storage / repaired ones delivered to the troops is also not taken into account after equipment damage.

3076 out of 4600 infantry fighting vehicles lost (67%)
BMP-3 losses 505 out of 760
BMP-2 losses 1522 out of 3370
BMP-1 losses 851 out of 470
198 unidentified infantry fighting vehicles 1/2

Lost 404 of 1351 BMD (30%)
BMD-4: 121 out of 351
BMD-2: 283 out of 1000

Lost armored personnel carriers 1139 out of 4570 (25%)
BTR-82a 789 from 1870
BTR-80 221 out of 1700
63 unidentified BTR-80/82a
BTR-70 15 out of 200
BTR-60 1 out of 800
BTR-50 9 out of 0

According to these data, it turns out that the most actively used are BMP-3 (67% lost), BMP-1/2 (64% lost),
BTR-82a takes second place (45% lost),
BMD-4 (34% lost) and BMD-2 (28% lost) are noticeably behind;
the losses of the machine gun BTR-80 are small (14%).

[Dozorny severa]

Well, just galoshes from the USSR and not a single lost Boomerang, Kurganets or Armata. It wasn't in vain that they introduced innovations into the army...

[Inj Meh]

From the depths of my amateurism and with the awareness of the severity of the defeat of all currently existing brain clots:

I would personally consider the option of a recoilless gun - an UR/NUR launcher, unified in terms of shots with tank ammunition (if this is possible in principle, for example, from the side of a BMP-type turret), with the 30-57 AP option in the center of the turret, and , ideally with a 40 mm independently driven grenade launcher.

OR

A variant of an uninhabited turret of the BTR 82/Marder type with the full above set of “defeat tools” + an additional independent remote-controlled weapons station (Marder type) with AG and P.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: Dozorny severa

Another ATGM hatch for supplying a small ATGM for a short shot will not fit into the place of the little one.

Yes, you are right - "Bassoon"/"Competition" was placed in the center of the tower.

It’s just that the “snail” full of grenades above the gun is somehow... annoying. Maybe not to philosophize, but take the AG installation diagram from the Berezhka - a grenade launcher, drives and a box in the rear of the turret?

Or the whole “Berezhok” as a whole?

This is an example of what not to do.
All this gimmick of roofing iron will be demolished by the first explosion of a 120 mm mine.
And the guard will not fit on the BMP-1, it is better to install a pair of PKT + AGS in place of the standard weapons - you can use a standard electric trigger and guidance system.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Dozorny severa

All this gimmick of roofing iron will be demolished by the first explosion of a 120 mm mine.

If a mine explosion demolishes the turret, then you can forget about the BMP-1 itself - its body made of elite cardboard will be perforated by shrapnel.

Quote: Dozorny severa

And the guard will not fit on the BMP-1, it is better to install a pair of PKT + AGS in place of the standard weapons - you can use a standard electric trigger and guidance system.

Maybe it would be better to supplement the Basurmanin BPPU with an AGS?

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: alexmach

Are there any shelling test reports for equipment?

By the way, smartly, such protocols should appear soon. Well, not in the open press, of course, but there are already enough models for testing.

In the USSR, all captured equipment was immediately subjected to fire and the results were analyzed, after which instructions were drawn up for the Red Army.
And why not expose the Bradley, Leopard, or CV-90 to public fire?
It would be great to advertise one’s own and anti-advertise someone else’s.

[alexmach]

In the USSR, all captured equipment was immediately subjected to fire and the results were analyzed,

There is hope that they have done this now, although there were many rumors that they were taken “directly to the exhibition at Patriot” and not to those who needed it.

[Alexander_Sh]

IMHO it is better to shoot at trenches with a 57mm with remote detonation.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Alexey RA

If a mine explosion demolishes the turret, then you can forget about the BMP-1 itself - its body made of elite cardboard will be perforated by shrapnel.

There's no need to push the idiot here...

[Illanatol]

Quote: assault

How can the firepower of a 125 and 130 mm gun-launcher be lower than that of a 100 mm gun, provided that the 30 mm automatic gun is the same everywhere???

Maybe, maybe. Since 100 mm shells are unitary. Larger calibers have separate loading, that is, the rate of fire is reduced, and the size of the ammunition will be smaller.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: alexmach

In the USSR, all captured equipment was immediately subjected to fire and the results were analyzed,

There is hope that they have done this now, although there were many rumors that they were taken “directly to the exhibition at Patriot” and not to those who needed it.

Yes, there is only hope - I’m already tired of stupid PR.
I think the partners called and asked for this (not to fire).

[Chuk-i-gek]

I read all the comments and realized that more than half of the commentators have never seen these BMP-1, 2, 3. All these vehicles are from different universes. It is not the fault of the BMP-1, created in the late 60s, that it has to work in the twenties of the 21st century. In theory, it should have retired long ago. But we can only dream of retirement. Next. Any BMP is exclusively a means of transporting personnel and providing fire support. And therefore its armor is like that. Well, it's not a tank, not a tank. Regarding fire support. When the BMP-1 was created, its firepower was more than enough, but more than 60 years have passed. Guys, hello - more than 60 years. What are you comparing? Even as a primary source, the author of the article provides an excerpt from 1991 - 33 years ago. And even then everything was bad, and you want everything to become wow in 2024? Well, in conclusion. The attempt to cross a bulldog with a rhinoceros (BMP-3) was clearly unsuccessful. Personal opinion. They stuffed everything that couldn't be stuffed into it and were happy. Let's be honest. A 100 mm gun is anything but a story about an IFV. Unfortunately, today all these IFVs are obsolete, and there is nothing else. We are glad that at least this exists. However, the situation in the West is similar.

[Doliva63]

I've been reading such nonsense since the 90s. That's probably why there's such a mess in our heads, because they even thought of a 55-ton IFV. IFVs are supposed to deliver personnel along reconnoitered and engineered roads/off-roads to the battlefield and provide them with cover from anti-personnel weapons. The rest is like the song about the BMPT, which no one knows where to stick. Well, until BUSV changes.

[AmOgus]

To summarize briefly: attempts at full-fledged non-tank guns on infantry fighting vehicles are crazy. Because they are both non-tank and non-small guns at the same time. They are not able to hammer 125 mm bullets into the enemy, but at the same time they cannot work quickly to compensate for the low power. Adequate and current ATGMs cannot be fired through them. And it would seem worth throwing them out and finally returning to the layout of the “white man’s” combat module, which was on the BMP-2, and after that he might think about how to create a protected “white man” BMP...

But no! What are you doing?! Where then will the OG-9 shells or shots for a 100mm gun go? They really added power and beauty to the explosion of an infantry fighting vehicle if the hit hit the ammunition!

[Alexey RA]

Quote: AmOgus

And it would seem worth throwing them out and finally returning to the layout of the “white man’s” combat module, which was on the BMP-2, and after that he might think about how to create a protected “white man” BMP...

The problem is that the attempt to separate the function of “heavy” fire support (100-125 mm guns) from the infantry carrier immediately runs into two eternal problems of our army - interaction and communication.
Yes, in theory, the attackers have standard large calibers - mortars and artillery supporting them, which in theory can replace the BMP gun. But in practice... it’s necessary to plan the operation every time, prescribe interaction with the artillerymen, groom and cherish the spotters. And the main thing is to wait each time until this artillery receives a control center, develops data for firing and hits the target. And it would be good if there was adjustable ammunition. And if not, then you will have to look at the formation of the lunar landscape, in the hope that the next projectile in the ellipse will still hit the target. And this is all the time wasted - and the pace of the offensive was disrupted.
And this is ideal. But in practice, at a critical moment, when the infantry is pinned down by OT fire, it may turn out that there is no connection with support.
It is precisely the problems of interspecies interaction that lead to the appearance of products like “Mur and Meriliz” - I carry everything with me. Here you have an autocannon, here you have a weapon with high explosives, here you have an anti-tank missile launcher. If it were possible, the motorized riflemen would have shoved a 152-mm howitzer into the squad.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Chuk-i-gek

I read all the comments and realized that more than half of the commentators had never seen these BMP -1, 2, 3

First, tell us about your experience in operating an infantry fighting vehicle—probably a Word tank—you guessed it.

[Illanatol]

Quote: Zaurbek

Even the 100mm Rapier is not a reliable tank destroyer.

A rapier is an artillery mount that is unable to maneuver and take an advantageous position for shooting. The BMP is very capable; on real off-road conditions it can easily approach from the desired angle, for example, from behind.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The research is outdated not so much in terms of the choice of weapons, but rather does not take into account the main task today, namely protection from enemy drones. The combat module, one after another, must be an air defense module. We need an air defense missile and gun module, and instead of smoke grenades, we need net launchers.

[Zaurbek]

China, with all the range of autocannons in production, has the main combat vehicle on its own and wheeled infantry fighting vehicles - our licensed module from the BMP-3 with 30mm and 100mm cannons.

[Dozorny severa]

Quote: Cympak

Quote: Dozorny severa

We read: “This is explained by the fact that the range dispersion of a grenade launcher is much lower than that of a cannon: at a distance of 1000 m it is 12 m, while for a cannon it is 63 m.”
That is, the author claims that the long-barreled 30-mm 2A42 gives less accuracy than the short-barreled AGS whistle gun, which is designed for area action?

We are talking about horizontal dispersion when firing at infantry lying down or hidden in a trench. All guns with high ballistics have problems with hitting targets with a small vertical projection. The AGS hits targets along a hover trajectory, which is due to its low ballistics and it is more effective against targets without a vertical projection and in the horizontal projection with such fire its dispersion will be less

Calm down already, clown. You're a couch potato. There's no dispersion there - 2-3 sighting shots, and then you shoot bursts of 3-5 shots into a 10x10 square. Unified State Exam victims will crawl in. And with a side wind, you can get to 1000 m from the AGS with just your finger to one place... where do you get these guys from... and it’s not a shame to teach something...

[bone1]

The development of armor and weapons in armored personnel carriers (infantry fighting vehicles) - during their existence - pure humor - armor is a measly penny thicker than that of competitors - weapons - pure laughter - pathetic 23-30mm - and who, in the end, has to fight them? ATGMs with colossal armor penetration? - It’s impossible to install 37-57mm guns and mow down enemy armored personnel carriers in batches?

[senima56]

Good article. One thing is not clear - where is it, the 40-mm grenade launcher?! As is known, for 20 years, if not more, they have been "testing, improving and perfecting" the AGS-40 "Balkan". But it has not gone beyond individual copies at Exhibitions and Presentations!