Rigid barrel fixation is a priority upgrade for light armored vehicles in the SVO

34 149 165
Rigid barrel fixation is a priority upgrade for light armored vehicles in the SVO


Priority of accuracy


Not long ago, a series of publications appeared in Russian literature comparing domestic light armored vehicles with foreign ones. The BMP-3 and its predecessors were particularly criticized. In addition to weak armor and inefficient use of interior space, the designers were criticized for the comparatively poor accuracy of the gun tandem.



According to Russian testers, the American Bushmaster M242, installed on the Bradley, has twice the accuracy of similar Russian guns, despite its smaller caliber. This is largely due to the electric ammunition feed drive, which ensures the gun remains stationary during firing. Russian guns use the energy of the propellant gases to reload. This is very efficient—no external forces are required to feed the ammunition, but it does not ensure complete immobility of the gun components during firing.

Theoretically, this can be overlooked. For example, when you're facing a clearly weaker adversary, unable to respond in kind. But Ukraine has deployed a significant amount of NATO armored vehicles, and a head-to-head confrontation with them puts our equipment in an awkward position. We're forced to either close to dagger-length or open fire first, which isn't always possible. To be fair, firefights between armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were rare before, and now they're practically isolated. But this doesn't eliminate the need to improve the accuracy of the standard guns on modern Russian armored vehicles.


Bucephalus with the Parus combat module

There are several ways to improve accuracy. First, improve barrel cooling. weaponsA long burst from an automatic cannon can reduce accuracy by 20-30 percent due to thermal deformation of the metal alone.

Secondly, reducing the number of parts moving in the breech of the gun at the moment of firing significantly increases accuracy, as mentioned above.

Thirdly, improving the projectile's ballistic characteristics, muzzle velocity, and propellant quality will be beneficial. Muzzle velocity can be increased, all other things being equal, by lengthening the barrel, but this is not always possible.

Fourth, reducing gun barrel vibrations during firing. If you look closely at the 30mm 2A72 cannon on the BTR-82A, even with the naked eye, you can see the parasitic, whip-like movements of the barrel. Unlike the 2A72 mounted on the BMP-2, the APC's cannon operates automatically using the recoil energy of the barrel, which further reduces accuracy. While there's no particular desire to glorify enemy equipment, the Ukrainians have overcome this problem by mounting a rigid frame around the BTR-4's barrel.

As a reminder, unlicensed production of the 2A72 was established in Ukraine in 2004. The Bucephalus BTR-4 itself is a tangled web of contradictions and shortcomings, but the rigid barrel locking mechanism can certainly be counted among its achievements.

Serial prospects


From all of the above, we can conclude that there are two ways to improve the accuracy of automatic cannons with minimal effort: improving cooling and increasing barrel rigidity. All other options require radical design changes. However, these approaches are also not easy to implement. But first things first.


A variant of the 2A42 barrel mount. Photo from the report "Experience with a Rigid Barrel Mount for Automatic Cannons of Combat Vehicles"

Several months ago, a report titled "Experience Using a Rigid Barrel Support for Automatic Cannons of Combat Vehicles" was made publicly available. The report is Russian and was most likely prepared by specialists from the 38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense in Kubinka. The test subjects were the BMP-2 and BTR-82A. Notably, the design solutions for increasing barrel rigidity differed. The 2A42 cannon was equipped with a 17,8-kilogram tie rod with three clamps, designed to reduce whip-like vibrations. This barrel support was not rigidly connected to the gun mantlet. The 2A72 cannon of the BTR-82A was equipped with an additional barrel support, similar in appearance to the similar unit on the Ukrainian Bucephalus. Tests showed that upgrading the BMP-2 cannon was detrimental. From the report:

The gunner's aiming of the 2A42 cannon using manual drives is difficult due to the significant increase in the cannon's weight; rigid fixation of the barrel, due to its significant weight, leads to malfunction of the weapon stabilizer during its use; when firing from the 2A42 BMP-2 with the barrel lock installed, the extracted cartridge case hits the rod of the lock itself, which leads to its displacement; the accuracy parameters of the cannon with the barrel lock installed do not meet the requirements of the operating manual; changing the position of the lock relative to the gun barrel in different variants (right, left, top) does not have a positive effect on improving the accuracy of fire. At the same time, a pattern has been revealed whereby the direction of fire of the cannon changes in the direction opposite to rigid fixation of the barrel.

What does this mean? It means that any attempts to improve the accuracy of guns are futile – the stabilizer's lifespan will be reduced, and the shells will miss their target entirely. In the specific case of the tested BMP-2, the problem also lay in the barrel locking mechanism. Without a rigid connection to the gun's breech, the crowbar bolted to the barrel proved to be a harmful addition. But ensuring the rigidity of a gun that recoils with each shot, while securing the unit to the hull, is far from trivial. It will be both more difficult and far more complex. Let's again turn to Ukrainian experience in this area. The Shkval combat module, which is over 25 years old, is a clear example. In Russia, the BMP-2 never received anything similar, although the Berezhok module, which is in many ways much more advanced than its Ukrainian counterpart but lacks the barrel rigidity enhancement, went into production.


Additional barrel support for the 2A72. Photo from the report "Experience with a rigid barrel support for automatic cannons of combat vehicles."

What about the BTR-82A? Here, the testers are more optimistic:

The accuracy of the 2A72 automatic cannon at a range of 100 m has been improved with additional barrel support.

They didn't specify the extent, but the improvements are noticeable. This, however, requires separate study:

The parameters of the frequency of damage from a burst from the BTR-82A with an additional barrel support when firing on the move at a stationary target at a distance of 1000 meters when assessing damage from one projectile increased by 17,3%, when assessing damage from two projectiles it decreased by 20%.

Be that as it may, the improved accuracy doesn't compensate for a host of shortcomings—the malfunction of the gun's shock absorber, the reduction in gun depression, the increased effort required on the manual aiming drives (the mount weighs 19,2 kg), and much more. In their recommendations, the testers, in particular, indicated the need for additional support for the barrel mount to prevent forward movement, to prevent impacts from the rear barrel bushing when inserting into the guide, and to counterbalance the swinging part of the fighting compartment with additional weights.

While story The agency is silent on whether the developers of the devices that improve the accuracy of automatic cannons have managed to eliminate the identified deficiencies. Something else is surprising. The special operation is entering its third year, and there are clearly identified ways to improve the accuracy of the main calibers of domestic light armored vehicles, but almost nothing has been done. Perhaps testing is underway somewhere, but nothing has yet gone into production. Modernization doesn't require multi-billion dollar investments or a radical redesign of the concept. It simply requires balancing the new component with the rest of the weapon and making it ergonomic. For the Russian military-industrial complex, this is not a difficult task; it just needs to find the appropriate official willing to give the order and assume responsibility.
165 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    1 October 2025 04: 17
    You just need to find the appropriate official who is ready to give the order and take responsibility.
    But here's the problem: it's hard to find, and the responsibility is overwhelming...
  2. -4
    1 October 2025 04: 51
    Unlike the 2A72 mounted on the BMP-2
    BMP-3, indeed!
    But of course it’s a shame to stick a thin-walled rod, designed for a triple (not even a twin) separately, without doing anything to maintain accuracy.
    1. +9
      1 October 2025 08: 56
      Unlike the 2A72 mounted on the BMP-2

      No, there's a typo, it should be 2A42 - that's the one on the BMP-2 and it has a gas vent.
      The only thing the author doesn't mention is that the 2A72 isn't simply a "spoiled/simplified/cheapened/lightened, etc." 2A42; it was specifically designed for use in situations where the 2A42 is unsuitable due to its high recoil. The 2A72's recoil is three times less.
      1. +7
        1 October 2025 14: 34
        Quote: zampolit
        It was specifically designed for use in areas where the 2A42 cannot be used due to its high recoil. The 2A72 has a recoil that is three times less.

        Historians will probably someday determine what idiots, back in 1994, i.e., while still "with the best Soviet education in the world," managed to launch the BTR-80A with a 2A72 gun into mass production and accept it into service. But this mess has been going on for over 30 years.

        And the 2A42 cannon on combat vehicles where its use is supposedly impossible "due to high recoil":
        1. 0
          1 October 2025 15: 32
          The presence of individual items is not an indicator... who knows what is left of the BRDM-2, what its service life is, etc.
          Muromteplovoz itself, the manufacturer of the MB2 tower modules, offers the Kord, AG 17 or 30, and PKTM for the modernization of the "mess," and specifically the 2A72 for the "matalyga."
          1. +4
            1 October 2025 15: 39
            Quote: zampolit
            The presence of individual items is not an indicator... who knows what is left of the BRDM-2, what its service life is, etc.

            What difference does it make what the BRDM-2's service life is if the question raised is: "Impossible due to high recoil"?

            https://inni.info/produkt/zenitno-raketnyye-kompleksy-ustanovki-avtomaty/2a42-30-mm-avtomaticheskaya-pushka

            2A42 Recoil force, kN (kgf) 40…50 (4000…5000)

            https://inni.info/produkt/zenitno-raketnyye-kompleksy-ustanovki-avtomaty/2a72-30-mm-avtomaticheskaya-pushka

            2A72 Recoil force, kN (kgf) 60 (6000)
            1. +7
              1 October 2025 16: 31
              That's right, with the same barrel length and the same ammunition, there can be no noticeable difference in recoil energy.
              The difference is that the recoil of a cannon with a moving barrel is somewhat spread out over time, resulting in a maximum recoil of 7000 kgf versus 20000 kgf for the 2A42. It's like the recoil of a shotgun and a rifle—the energy is the same, but it feels completely different.
              It is this difference that allows the 2A72 to be used in lighter vehicles.
              While the 2A42 requires a heavier turret module, and accordingly, a reinforced suspension, ring, etc.
              The BTR-90 with 2A42 weighed 22 tons compared to 15-16 tons for the BTR-82 with 2A72.
              1. +3
                1 October 2025 17: 22
                You forgot about the muzzle brake on the 2A42. If you're not convinced by the links I provided to the recoil force values ​​for the 2A42 and 2A72, you can look at the recoil force of, for example, the 23mm MP-6 cannon (a short-recoil operated weapon) and the VYa (a gas-operated weapon).

                "There was an ugly story with the MP-6 recoil. In mid-October 1940, S. V. Ilyushin asked Taubin for the recoil force value of his gun to take it into account when designing the BSh-2 attack aircraft. He reported a force of 2200 kgf. And then, during the tests, it turns out that the MP-6 gun has a much stronger recoil than originally expected. Research conducted at TsAGI showed its value of about 5000–5200 kg, i.e. more than 2 times greater than stated by Taubin. Ilyushin was not satisfied with this recoil, he began to refuse the MP-6, citing strong vibrations of the aircraft's wing during firing and the possibility of its destruction. Taubin replied to Ilyushin with the results of gun tests on the Me-110, which passed without damage to the aircraft, modified the hydraulic brake, reducing the recoil force to 3500–3800 kg, but still Ilyushin did not want to take Taubin's gun... Later, in 1943, when Taubin was no longer alive
                And during the Great Patriotic War, the Research Institute of Air Force Aviation of the Red Army determined that the recoil of the VYa also exceeded the "cherished" 2200 kgf, reaching around 4000 kgf. Meanwhile, the Il-2 successfully fought with VYa cannons throughout the war..."

                As we can see, the recoil of the MP-6 with a short barrel stroke and a modified hydraulic brake was 3800 kgf, and the recoil of the VYa was 4000 kgf.

                If a muzzle brake had been installed on the VYa, its recoil would have been lower than the recoil of the MP-6 with automatic operation using a short barrel recoil.

                After this historical example, are you no longer surprised that the recoil force of the 2A42 is lower than the recoil force of the 2A72?

                However, if you believe that the maximum recoil force of the 2A42 is 20000 kgf, simply provide the source from which you learned this value.

                I hope this will be a textbook, or at least an article in a peer-reviewed journal, and not someone's remark on a forum?
                The BTR-90 with 2A42 weighed 22 tons compared to 15-16 tons for the BTR-82 with 2A72.
                1. 0
                  1 October 2025 18: 11
                  What's the point of arguing with physics? If the impulse is transmitted faster, the peak force will be higher.
                  You can take any textbook on the design of automatic small arms and see that the recoil resistance force graph for the two systems will be different: for a system with a recoil barrel, the curve will have a flatter, more extended peak, while for a system with a fixed barrel, it will be shorter and sharper.
                  The same Chinn in Machine Gun notes that in systems with a moving barrel, a significant portion of the recoil energy is absorbed by the mass of the moving parts, which reduces the load on the machine.
                  And regarding the photos, I'll repeat: one-off display models that weren't accepted into service aren't indicative. Those guys, for example, mounted B-8V20A missiles on pickup trucks and launched unguided rockets...
                  1. +5
                    1 October 2025 20: 51
                    I'm trying to demonstrate to you, with links, quotes, and figures, that you're overestimating the impact of the operating principle on recoil force. Often, a muzzle brake on a gas-operated system outweighs all the advantages of an automatic system based on the energy of the barrel's long recoil, not to mention a system that utilizes the energy of a short barrel recoil.

                    You respond with some other numbers, without citing their source, and say there's no point in arguing with physics. There's no point in arguing with physics, but there is with your understanding of it.
                    You can take any textbook on the design of automatic small arms and see that the recoil resistance force graph for the two systems will be different: for a system with a recoil barrel, the curve will have a flatter, more extended peak, while for a system with a fixed barrel, it will be shorter and sharper.

                    Excellent point. I'm sure you're aware of how much time individual automatic weapons designers have spent developing designs that reduce the impact of recoil on the shooter.

                    As is well known, the world's first assault rifle (the Fedorov assault rifle) had an automatic mechanism based on the use of a recoil-operated moving barrel, although with a short rather than a long stroke.

                    And how many modern, widely used individual small arms do you know whose automatic mechanism operates using the recoil of a moving barrel, with its short, or better yet, long, stroke?

                    Don't these designers read textbooks on the design of automatic small arms?

                    Can you name any mass-produced automatic individual small arms with a muzzle brake or compensator? Do you even know?

                    So maybe you will still pay attention to the fact that the 2A42 has a muzzle brake?
              2. 0
                1 October 2025 17: 35
                Quote: zampolit
                While the 2A42 requires a heavier turret module, and accordingly, a reinforced suspension, ring, etc.
                The BTR-90 with 2A42 weighed 22 tons compared to 15-16 tons for the BTR-82 with 2A72.
                I agree with this opinion. The 2A72 is also found on lighter vehicles.
                1. +3
                  1 October 2025 21: 25
                  All the above arguments are worthless. In fact, the 2A72 was designed for completely different reasons; recoil has absolutely nothing to do with it. The 2A42, when firing in bursts, causes gas contamination in the fighting compartment and is extremely difficult to load and switch ammunition types.
                  But how can idle commentators who have never had anything to do with these guns know this?
                  It was precisely because of the difficulty of switching the type of ammunition and the difficulty of loading that two 2A42 cannons were installed on the BMPT.
                  The problems with loading the 2A42 seem to have been resolved relatively recently with the "Spitsa" remote-controlled missile system, but this module is not being mass-produced.
                  If a higher rate of fire and lower recoil are required, then a 23 mm 2A14 cannon from the ZU-23-2 can be installed.
        2. 0
          1 October 2025 22: 07
          Don't judge so harshly. At that time, the 2A72 gun had a much simpler loading system. And the examples shown in the photo with the 2A42 are manned modules, where switching between ammunition types and loading is done manually. Apparently, priority was given to the 2A72-equipped remote-controlled missile system back then; it was developed for the 2A42 gun much later, once the technical issues with loading and ammunition selection had been resolved.
          1. 0
            1 October 2025 22: 30
            The BPPU-1 turret machine gun mount on the BTR-80A is quite manned. Unmanned combat modules were invented in the 21st century. The first BPPU-1 variants didn't even have electronic machine guidance; everything was manual.

            https://web.archive.org/web/20140302211518/http://www.amz.ru/produktsiya/btr-80a/

            "BTR-80A... The vehicle is a modification of the BTR-80 armored personnel carrier with the retention of the main components and assemblies. It is armed with a BPPU-1 turret machine gun mount with an externally mounted 30-mm 2A72 automatic cannon with a dual-belt selective feed and a coaxial 7,62-mm PKT machine gun with aiming angles from -5 ° to + 70 ° vertically and 360 ° horizontally. The turret mount is equipped with a 1PZ-9 day and TPNZ-42 night sights with an OU-5M ​​searchlight, a 902V smoke grenade launching system... The weapon aiming mechanisms are manual with braking devices. The gun cocking mechanism is electromechanical. The fire control panel has three positions for selecting gun firing modes: single shots, low and high rates."
            1. 0
              2 October 2025 09: 18
              That's not what I'm getting at. If you'd handled the 2A42 in the 80s, you'd know that the gun requires an exceptionally large amount of manual effort to load and cycle the ammunition belts. That's why it wasn't installed in remote control modules before. Then, most likely, the 2A42 was modified for automatic operation and began to be installed on remotely controlled missile systems.
              1. +2
                2 October 2025 13: 32
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                If you had handled the 2A42 in the 80s, you would have known that the gun required an exceptionally high amount of manual effort when loading and switching ammunition belts.

                Yes, on the BMP-2, the belt type is switched manually, using a switch on the gun's butt plate. And from this perspective, the 2A42 wasn't suitable for the BTR-80A's BPPU-1. But that's only for the BMP-2. For example, the experimental Object 688 infantry fighting vehicle, the predecessor of the future BMP-3 (Object 688M), was equipped with a low-profile turret with a remote 2A42 gun mount. No one there ever reached for the butt plate to switch the belt type. The same is true, for example, of the Mi-28 helicopter, which made its maiden flight in 1982.

                If the designers wanted to make someone's life easier by using a remote 2A72 cannon mount, rather than the 2A42 cannon in the BPPU-1 BTR-80A mount they were designing, it was primarily for themselves.

                As a reminder, the first version of the BPPU-1 had only manual horizontal and vertical aiming drives. The 2A72 gun, however, is 31 kg (37%) lighter than the 2A42 gun. Consequently, its manual horizontal and vertical aiming is much simpler.

                Then the BPPU-1 was converted to electromechanical guidance drives and even a two-plane stabilizer was installed, but the 2A72 cannon, already on the BTR-82A, remained.

                The only thing that was recently introduced to solve the problem of low accuracy when firing bursts of the 2A72 cannon in the BPPU-1 installation is the second low rate of fire of the cannon - 90±9 rounds per minute.

                However, even where the 2A72 is used with a frontal support, they have taken care to reduce the rate of fire:

                https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/eksperimentalnoe-issledovanie-vliyaniya-izmeneniya-tempa-strelby-na-harakteristiki-rasseivaniya-snaryadov-v-ocheredi
                https://patents.google.com/patent/RU178187U1/ru

                But who in the military will independently figure out why this second low rate was introduced on the BPPU-1? A shooter in combat strives to see the "density of fire."
          2. 0
            1 October 2025 22: 38
            JSC Muromteplovoz has been offering the MB2-03 combat module (compartment) for many years:

            https://muromteplovoz.ru/product/mil_cs_mb203.php

            2A42 cannon, AG-17 grenade launcher, PKTM machine gun, electromechanical two-plane weapon stabilizer... but the BTR-82A continues to be equipped with the improved BPPU-1 with the 2A72 cannon.
            1. 0
              2 October 2025 09: 20
              They're probably still using the 2A72 module for standardization reasons. Or maybe military experts don't believe in the new automatic system for the 2A42, and I completely understand that. The gun was previously very finicky.
    2. 0
      1 October 2025 09: 01
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      But of course it's a shame to stick a thin-walled fishing rod in

      There's one thing I don't understand: how can this be? Even when I watch the video of the shooting, I can see the barrel dangling like it's in an ice hole. Neither the developers nor the inspection team paid attention to this. My conclusion is that they were just raking in the dough; no one was planning to fight.
      1. +7
        1 October 2025 09: 38
        My brother served in the motorized infantry on the first version of the BMP-3.
        I don't know who doesn't like its accuracy - he says that with the 30mm cannon of his BMP, it was possible to literally place the shells where you want at all real firing ranges (about 3 km).
        I had no problems with accuracy or grouping at all, unless I fired long bursts. But long bursts from a cannon are a whole other story. The 100mm cannon, while not particularly accurate, was a different matter entirely. But within 5 meters of the target, plus or minus, it didn't matter.
        To be honest, this is the first time I’ve heard about accuracy as a problem with the BMP-3.
        1. 0
          1 October 2025 10: 58
          Quote: multicaat
          literally put the shells where you want

          Details are important here. What's the target size and what does "where you want to aim" mean? What's the spread from the aiming point? Typically, a shooting score is given based on a hit somewhere near the target. For a guaranteed hit, especially at a long range, spread plays a negative role.
          1. 0
            1 October 2025 11: 25
            They had an exercise like that: shooting at half-height targets from 3 km away.
            My brother said that hitting the target wasn't a problem at all, even without a scope - you shoot, make an adjustment for the tracers, and hit the target because of the excellent flatness.
            1. +4
              1 October 2025 20: 02
              A half-height target from 3 km? Are you serious? The gun's developers themselves said that hitting an ATGM crew from 2 km would require accidental fire. And from my own experience, firing even at a tank-sized target from 1,5 km is no easy task; the dispersion is quite large for various reasons.
              1. 0
                2 October 2025 09: 43
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                Shooting even at a tank-sized target from 1,5 km away is not an easy task.

                I assume you're aware that a non-rifled gun isn't the best when it comes to projectile trajectory stability? That's an unfair comparison. Also, heavily overloaded guns lose accuracy, like the Tiger's Acht-Acht, which was much more crooked than our D-25. So comparing it to a tank gun is completely wrong.
        2. +5
          1 October 2025 11: 58
          Quote: multicaat
          To be honest, this is the first time I’ve heard about accuracy as a problem with the BMP-3.

          The article doesn't mention anything about the BMP-3. The BMP-3 likely doesn't have this problem because the 30mm cannon is paired with a 100mm cannon, ensuring the necessary barrel rigidity and, consequently, excellent accuracy.
        3. -2
          1 October 2025 13: 21
          To be honest, this is the first time I’ve heard about accuracy as a problem with the BMP-3.

          The main uproar began precisely after the publication of a report on comparative testing of the Bradley and the BMP-3. This report shattered all stereotypes, even among patriotic Russians, as it was an official admission that even the Bradley, although not the best, was superior to our vehicles in some ways. And so the re-thinking began, as it turned out that this wasn't a unique weapon, but some kind of rip-off from the Perestroika/90s/00s era.
          But.
          The car must be looked at as a whole, not piece by piece.
          On the one hand, the BMP-3 is a really good vehicle with its own undeniable advantages.
          On the other hand, yes, in general, a vehicle like the BMP-2/Bradley turned out to be the most optimal option in practice.
          And it’s no wonder that while in the West such vehicles have been continuously improved over the last 30 years, we still have the same BMP-2 from the 70s.
          It's better not to listen to the authors who create sensations and tragedies every day, but simply wait and see what our designers will roll out over the next 10 years.
          Modernization of our equipment fleet has been long overdue; it's been underway since the 10s. We now have a wealth of real-world experience with our equipment, as well as the ability to compare it with our competitors' equipment.
          There is no doubt that, based on the experience of the Air Defense Forces, we will formulate the technical requirements for the long-standing issue of replacing the main armored fighting vehicles.
          1. +1
            1 October 2025 13: 56
            The BMP-3 was a logical development of the theory of mass combined combat
            the same theory, where accuracy for the AK-47 and AKS was considered unimportant.
            In the West there are similar developments - for example, the Marder, and there are other options like the Merkava and Bradley.
            But I seriously doubt the technical specifications for the new IFV are adequately formulated—our Ministry of Defense is very fond of bleating helplessly, "We don't know, make something ourselves." Information from the experience gained is severely curtailed when conveyed to the developers.
            What kind of IFV do I envision? I think we should start with developing something simpler and more practical, similar to the Marder-3, rather than a mega-sized IFV like the Kurganets or based on the Armata, focusing on protection and ease of use. We'll focus on a basic platform, and then think about its armament later.
            When they developed the BMP-3, they made a mistake by immediately loading it with weapons, forgetting that it wasn't a tank, but an infantry vehicle. And of course, the requirements for amphibious capabilities of everything in the army need to be reconsidered. Currently, they're incompatible with battlefield survivability.
          2. RMT
            0
            1 October 2025 14: 30
            "...just wait and see what our designers roll out over the next 10 years..."
            And if in 10 years they say, “Well, I couldn’t do it,” then wait another 10 years!
          3. +2
            1 October 2025 14: 43
            Quote: English tarantass
            The main noise began precisely after the publication of the report on comparative tests of the Bradley and the BMP-3.

            The report is actually fake. Cooked up by enthusiasts in the depths of 404 and dumped "into your internets." (C) George W. Bush wink
            1. 0
              4 October 2025 11: 48
              The report is actually fake.

              What's fake there?
              There's nothing supernatural written there. Everything was already known:
              Bradley, despite its weight, moves.
              The Bradley still weighs more than the BMP-3, with all the consequences.
              Bradley's armor with screens is slightly better.
              The sights are better.
              The ergonomics of the car are exemplary.
              The gun is expensive, but good.
              That's basically all that the report said about Bradley.
              1. 0
                4 October 2025 12: 21
                Quote: English tarantass
                What's fake there?

                The authorship is false. Employees of the 38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation have nothing to do with this "report."

                https://topwar.ru/263424-bmp-3-protiv-bradley-kak-ne-nado-delat-fejki.html

                "BMP-3 vs. Bradley: How Not to Fake It"
                1. 0
                  4 October 2025 15: 06
                  The authorship is false. Employees of the 38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation have nothing to do with this "report."

                  And the content of the publication? Is it also fake?
                  And the public made a lot of noise after this - that's a fact.
                  Well, the Ministry of Defense hasn’t refuted anything, as far as I know.
                  The author of the link you provided points out that the document allegedly portrays the BMP-3 in a bad light, which means this is one piece of evidence that the document is fake.
                  As if the details listed in the document hadn't long been known and understood by anyone with any understanding, making the BMP-3 a terrible vehicle. And as if our government agencies and the Ministry of Defense have never told the truth, including the less-than-flattering ones.
                  1. 0
                    5 October 2025 14: 16
                    Quote: English tarantass
                    And the content of the publication? Is it also fake?

                    "We supplied the Germans with a subtle mixture of truth, half-truth, and lies—truths that meant nothing to us, and lies that our enemies had no way of verifying." Dusko Popov

                    Do you love "refined blends" from the specialists in supplying them? wink
                    1. 0
                      6 October 2025 12: 25
                      Do you love "refined blends" from the specialists in supplying them?

                      So what is not true in the report regarding the performance characteristics of the two vehicles?
                      Or will there be no substantive conversation?
                      1. 0
                        6 October 2025 13: 04
                        The report is fake. Disguised as a report from the 38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the reader is offered a "refined mixture" of truth, half-truths, and lies of Bandera's making. Are you suggesting that I "separate" this "mixture" into its "ingredients"? I'm not interested in wasting a significant amount of time on that. But I can accommodate you. We can do it this way: you provide a quote with a statement from the report that particularly interests you. In response, I'll write whether it's true, half-true, or false, and why. I await the first quote from the report that interests you. How about a "substantive conversation"?
                      2. 0
                        7 October 2025 12: 41
                        You provide a quote with some statement from the report that interests you greatly.

                        2 and 6
                      3. -1
                        7 October 2025 17: 07
                        The quote begins with an obvious lie.

                        At no distance does the armor penetration of the 25mm APFSDS (not BPOS, as the villagers wrote) M919 NOT exceed the armor penetration of the 30mm APFSDS projectile of the 3UBR8 cartridge by 2 times.

                        Moreover, the Banderites don't have the M919. The Americans simply don't supply ammunition with uranium cores to foreign armies.

                        At best, the ammunition loadouts of the infantry fighting vehicles supplied to Banderites include 25mm APFSDS rounds with tungsten cores. For example, the Oerlikon PMB090, which has slightly less armor penetration than the M919 APFSDS round.

                        But most likely the ammunition consists of the banal American M791 APFSDS with tungsten cores, which are inferior in terms of armor penetration (25 mm of rolled steel homogeneous armor of medium hardness at an angle of 60 degrees at a distance of 1300 m) to the 30 mm APFSDS projectile of the 3UBR8 cartridge.

                        It can also be added that the domestic 30 mm BOPS, which is used with the 3UBR11 cartridge, has significantly higher armor penetration than the 25 mm BOPS M919.

                        What exactly is in 2? Farmers can't even spell the abbreviation BOPS correctly, and I'm supposed to comment on their understanding of the relative maintainability of the power unit, generator, fighting compartment, and, especially, the gun barrel. The gun barrel can be replaced without removing the gun itself, both in both cases.

                        6. Half-truth. The commander and gunner-operator can only move from the fighting compartment to the troop compartment when the turret is facing forward.
                      4. 0
                        9 October 2025 11: 40
                        2 and 6

                        I'm for you.
                        And you to me
                        The quote begins with an obvious lie.

                        Although you wrote
                        I'm not interested in spending a fair amount of time on this.

                        So you decide, there is no time or we answer everything in a row.
                        At no distance does the armor penetration of the 25mm APFSDS (not BPOS, as the villagers wrote) M919 NOT exceed the armor penetration of the 30mm APFSDS projectile of the 3UBR8 cartridge by 2 times.

                        At 2, no. At 1.5, it's fine.
                        But that's not what I was asking about.
                        And the issue is not about what is supplied or not supplied to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but about the content of this publication.
                        Yes, the publication is very crooked, it looks like a hastily made copyright.
                        But I haven’t seen any refutation from the Ministry of Defense.
                        Farmers can't spell the abbreviation BOPS without making mistakes, and I'm supposed to comment on their ideas about the comparative maintainability of the power unit, generator, fighting compartment, and, especially, the gun barrel?

                        You promised to give a substantive answer) go ahead and answer.
                        6. Half-truths

                        The screenshot says that it is superior in ergonomics.
                        So is it superior or not?
                        It doesn't say how much, it says that it's better in Bradley.
                        Basically, you're just trying to justify yourself. The Ukrainian Armed Forces don't have those shells, we have better ones, and they're superior, but not exactly superior.
                        That's exactly what I'm hinting at. Either something to the point or nothing at all.
                        The report contains very real facts. It's just crooked, and its origin is questionable.
                        But only the inaccuracy of the publication can serve as evidence of forgery, and not your and Fedorov’s justifications.
                        The report also mentions many advantages of the BMP-3.
                      5. 0
                        9 October 2025 14: 45
                        Quote: English Tarantas
                        2 and 6 I to you. And you to me.

                        I don't know you. Don't poke me.
                        Although you wrote

                        You provided a quote. As promised: "In response, I write whether this is true, half-truth, or a lie, and why." - I pointed out that it begins with an obvious lie, and what kind of lie exactly. What exactly didn't you understand? You didn't understand that the armor penetration of the 25mm APFSDS M919 Does NOT exceed 2 times The armor penetration of the 30mm AP round of the 3UBR8 cartridge is unknown at any range? Do you understand the essence of this answer?
                        I haven't seen any refutation from the Ministry of Defense.

                        The Russian Ministry of Defense is not a ministry for refuting Bandera's nonsense on any occasion.

                        You've already been thoroughly explained in an article published on "Military Review" that the report allegedly from the 38th Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defense is fake, and why. I provided a link to the article above. If you lack the knowledge to recognize the report as fake, don't hesitate to draw on the knowledge of others.
                        You promised to give a substantive answer) go ahead and answer.

                        I promised to point out where in the quote you provided there is a lie, where there is a half-truth and where there is truth, and why. I have.
                        The screenshot says it's superior in ergonomics. So is it superior or not?

                        It's superior in some ergonomics, but not in others. For example, the dismounted troopers on the Bradley M2A2 ODS are positioned in the rear of the hull, and while sitting on transverse benches while moving, they are more susceptible to motion sickness than troopers in the BMP-3.

                        The BMP-3 is equipped with a sanitary device and is designed to remain in contaminated areas for 48 hours without the crew or troops leaving the vehicle.

                        The M2A2 ODS-SA does not have a sanitary device and this IFV is not designed for long-term operations in WMD-contaminated areas.

                        Have I clearly described in what ergonomic characteristics the M2A2 ODS-SA is inferior to the BMP-3?

                        Do you understand why "superior in ergonomics" is a half-truth?

                        Or have the farmers convinced you that the M2A2 ODS-SA is completely ergonomically superior to the BMP-3?
                        Basically, you're just trying to make excuses.

                        I know enough not to fall for Bandera's fake news. You don't. Therefore, you are an easy victim of Bandera propaganda. You are easily deceived. The authors of the "Results of Research Tests of the Bradley M2A2 ODS SA Infantry Fighting Vehicle (USA)" supposedly from the 38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense have succeeded in deceiving you.

                        The problem is that after you have been deceived, you begin to persist in the fact that: "No, I wasn't deceived!"

                        Never mind the report. The main thing is, don't fall for the phone scam. Otherwise, the news will show another victim of a Bandera-backed call center setting fire to a military registration and enlistment office. With you in the lead role.
                      6. 0
                        9 October 2025 15: 03
                        For example, dismounted paratroopers in the Bradley M2A2 ODS are located in the rear of the hull and, sitting on transverse benches while moving, they are more susceptible to motion sickness than paratroopers in the BMP-3.

                        My God. These are some arguments.
                        Should the seats be upholstered in leatherette or fringed? It makes a significant difference in ergonomics.
                        It's not like you have to get out of the BMP-3 through the opening and jump from one and a half meters with 50 kg of gear (you'd still have to get into it with that kind of gear).
                        Well, the question about access to the main units of the machine is still not resolved by you.
                        Well, I'll finish by moving on to my personality.
                      7. 0
                        9 October 2025 15: 33
                        Quote: English Tarantas

                        For example, dismounted paratroopers in the Bradley M2A2 ODS are located in the rear of the hull and, sitting on transverse benches while moving, they are more susceptible to motion sickness than paratroopers in the BMP-3.

                        My God. These are some arguments.
                        Should the seats be upholstered in leatherette or fringed? That makes a significant difference in ergonomics. It's not like you have to climb out of the BMP-3 through the entryway and jump five feet into the air with 50 kg of gear (it's still a real challenge to get into it with that much gear). And you still haven't answered the question about access to the vehicle's main components. Well, I'll leave it at that.

                        https://omnidoctor.ru/upload/iblock/1e2/1e2f7ea43a1a51382736ceff709f6e64.pdf

                        "People predisposed to kinetosis need to adhere to certain rules:
                        • In transport, you must sit facing the direction of travel (between the wings on an airplane, in the front seats on a bus, in the middle of a ship)"


                        The idea of ​​sitting in the forward, or better yet, middle, part of the hull, applies not only to ships, but also to armored vehicles, especially tracked ones, which, due to the specifics of the drive system, are more susceptible to longitudinal oscillations of the hull.

                        https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osobennosti-vzaimodeystviya-gusenichnogo-dvizhitelya-s-deformiruemoy-opornoy-poverhnostyu-pri-neravnomernom-dvizhenii-mashiny

                        These ergonomic aspects are extremely important when the armored vehicle is often moving for many hours before dismounting.

                        If you are wondering what the crew and troop seats in a combat vehicle should be covered with, you should figure it out for yourself.

                        I'll give you just one hint - flame-retardant materials that do not emit highly toxic gases when burning.
          4. 0
            1 November 2025 12: 11
            Send me a link to the report, I have big doubts.
      2. 0
        1 October 2025 13: 10
        My conclusion is that they were stealing money and no one was going to fight.

        The result depends on the specifications.
        Any product is a set of compromises and counterweights.
        The 2A72 is a solution for mounting a 30mm assault rifle on light vehicles. It does so without adding weight and unnecessary cost to the entire module, due to heavier and more complex recoil devices, the gun carriage, and the overall strengthening, which means heavier components such as the turret, ring, and drives.
        I wouldn't be surprised if a 2A72 turret could be mounted on a Ural and it wouldn't be knocked over or knocked over by the recoil.
        The author manipulates. He compares the Bradley's gun system to that of the BTR-82A.
        But these are vehicles of very different levels, weights, and missions. If you remember that the BTR-82 is an armored personnel carrier, then the mere presence of a 30mm cannon is significant.
        The same goes for the BMP-3, where the 2A72 is precisely what complements it. Considering that the BMP-3 can simultaneously fire 30mm bursts and HE shells even more powerful than the T-54/55 once did, the Bradley's superiority isn't so clear-cut.
        1. -3
          1 October 2025 14: 02
          A 30mm grenade launcher on an APC isn't exactly impressive. Instead of this rigmarole, they should have designed a 40mm AGS for light vehicles with good fragmentation, a HEAT round, and a sight. It would have been much more effective, both against infantry hidden in folds of terrain and against light armored vehicles.
          1. 0
            1 October 2025 14: 08
            Quote: garri-lin
            A 30mm grenade launcher on an APC isn't exactly impressive. Instead of this rigmarole, they should have designed a 40mm AGS for light vehicles with good fragmentation, a HEAT round, and a sight. It would have been much more effective, both against infantry hidden in folds of terrain and against light armored vehicles.

            I'm also surprised that light armored vehicles don't have this kind of weaponry; indirect support is ideal. You can't just go out and take direct fire with a 30mm.
            Incidentally, the Americans used more AGS grenades in Iraq than small arms ammunition. They simply kept the Iraqis with automatic weapons at bay, taking advantage of the longer range of their MK19s, with a 1,5-kilometer effective range.
            1. +1
              1 October 2025 15: 31
              There were attempts to create a proper HEAT round for the 30mm, but they failed because it requires a specially shaped shaped charge, and with such small dimensions, this was deemed impractical. The same 40mm grenades have HEAT rounds, but they also have more money. The same story applies to the 30mm subcaliber for the 2A42 and 2A72, which also failed, unlike the uranium 25mm "needle" for the Bushmaster... Meanwhile, the Belgians created a 30mm subcaliber for our 30mm with incredible characteristics, almost 50-60mm at 60-degree angles, which makes it quite possible to penetrate the side of those Leopard-2 tanks.
              1. 0
                1 October 2025 17: 40
                Quote: Dmitry Eon
                The same story with the 30mm sub-caliber for the 2a42 and 2a72, which they also couldn't handle.
                Our 30mm BR-11 projectile (penetrates 60mm of homogeneous armor)
            2. +1
              1 October 2025 15: 35
              It's not even about working from concealed positions. You can fire continuously for several minutes at a well-prepared 30mm cover. And you won't achieve anything. Just shut up, and they'll come flying. But what if there are two such cover positions? Identified firing points need to be destroyed, not suppressed. Heaping fragmentation shells on top and poking at a 30mm parapet is a very different thing.
              1. 0
                1 October 2025 20: 18
                Quote: garri-lin
                Poured shrapnel on top...

                The BMPT Terminator and BMP-3 will receive projectiles with programmable detonation. What will this change?
                ___ The essence of such ammunition lies in the remotely controlled activation of fuses immediately at the moment of their approach to air or ground targets at a distance of 10-20 m.
                ___ The range to targets can be measured either by laser rangefinders (in the case of using the 2A42 cannons installed on the BMPT, or the 2A72 cannons of the BMP-3M), or by using a guidance radar when using such projectiles in the Pantsir-S1 ammunition load.
                ___ The final command to detonate will be transmitted to laser photoreceivers located in the tail sections of the projectiles, after which the munition detonates and destroys the target. Projectiles of this type are highly effective in intercepting a wide range of targets: from maneuvering kamikaze UAVs to stealthy tactical and cruise missiles.
                ___ What are the differences between the Western concept of programmable detonation and the Russian one?
                __ In German 35mm AHEAD fuses (also known as ABM/KETF), the fuse is programmed not along the trajectory, but at the moment of exit from the barrel. The detonation time of each projectile is determined by comparing its initial velocity and deceleration rate with the distance to the target at the moment of firing. A similar system is used on the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle.
                ___What are the disadvantages of the AHEAD system?
                The Western concept of using such munitions is based on the fact that the projectiles are pre-programmed. It is impossible to change the flight program due to changing firing conditions.
                The detonation moment of Russian shells can be adjusted along the trajectory depending on the target's behavior. This allows for more flexible firing and optimized ammunition consumption.
                https://vk.com/militarychronicles
                1. 0
                  2 October 2025 05: 42
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Poured shrapnel on top...

                  The BMPT Terminator and BMP-3 will receive projectiles with programmable detonation. What will this change?
                  ___ The essence of such ammunition lies in the remotely controlled activation of fuses immediately at the moment of their approach to air or ground targets at a distance of 10-20 m.
                  ___ The range to targets can be measured either by laser rangefinders (in the case of using the 2A42 cannons installed on the BMPT, or the 2A72 cannons of the BMP-3M), or by using a guidance radar when using such projectiles in the Pantsir-S1 ammunition load.
                  ___ The final command to detonate will be transmitted to laser photoreceivers located in the tail sections of the projectiles, after which the munition detonates and destroys the target. Projectiles of this type are highly effective in intercepting a wide range of targets: from maneuvering kamikaze UAVs to stealthy tactical and cruise missiles.
                  ___ What are the differences between the Western concept of programmable detonation and the Russian one?
                  __ In German 35mm AHEAD fuses (also known as ABM/KETF), the fuse is programmed not along the trajectory, but at the moment of exit from the barrel. The detonation time of each projectile is determined by comparing its initial velocity and deceleration rate with the distance to the target at the moment of firing. A similar system is used on the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle.
                  ___What are the disadvantages of the AHEAD system?
                  The Western concept of using such munitions is based on the fact that the projectiles are pre-programmed. It is impossible to change the flight program due to changing firing conditions.
                  The detonation moment of Russian shells can be adjusted along the trajectory depending on the target's behavior. This allows for more flexible firing and optimized ammunition consumption.
                  https://vk.com/militarychronicles


                  This is great, but there are doubts about the actual availability of this in commercial quantities and quality in the shortest possible time.

                  Again, when applied to a broad spectrum of ground targets, a smoke screen should negate the advantage of laser-based remote detonation control, even setting aside the accuracy issue.

                  Thank you.
                2. +1
                  2 October 2025 13: 05
                  Mla Mla Mla. We've heard it more than once.
                  The main paradox here is that the requirements of the Air Defense and Infantry for a small-caliber projectile with a detonation on the trajectory are diametrically opposed.
                  Anti-aircraft defense is characterized by high speed and fragmentation along the projectile's initial trajectory. A projectile flies, and then a cloud of fragments, a meter or a meter and a half in diameter, flies in the same direction.
                  Meanwhile, infantry needs fragments to fly as perpendicular to the projectile's longitudinal axis as possible. This requires a powerful explosive charge, and there's no room for it. Plus, fragments from the hull or main body are light and few in number.
                  Something like this.
                  1. 0
                    2 October 2025 15: 52
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    While the infantry needs the fragments to fly as perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the projectile as possible.
                    This requirement is also suitable for combating drones.
                    1. +2
                      2 October 2025 17: 24
                      This requirement reduces the density of the fragmentation field and makes aiming more difficult.
            3. +1
              2 October 2025 05: 22
              Quote: Konnick
              Quote: garri-lin
              A 30mm grenade launcher on an APC isn't exactly impressive. Instead of this rigmarole, they should have designed a 40mm AGS for light vehicles with good fragmentation, a HEAT round, and a sight. It would have been much more effective, both against infantry hidden in folds of terrain and against light armored vehicles.

              I'm also surprised that light armored vehicles don't have this kind of weaponry; indirect support is ideal. You can't just go out and take direct fire with a 30mm.
              Incidentally, the Americans used more AGS grenades in Iraq than small arms ammunition. They simply kept the Iraqis with automatic weapons at bay, taking advantage of the longer range of their MK19s, with a 1,5-kilometer effective range.


              Yes, the rule suggests itself:
              Lightly armored vehicle == main armament with trajectories or with the ability to be used from behind cover.

              There is a general shortage of automatic grenade launchers with a good selection of ammunition, transportable ammunition, and automatic sighting systems on armored vehicles.
        2. -3
          1 October 2025 16: 39
          Quote: English tarantass
          The very fact that it has 30mm is impressive.

          Why do we need a thirty if it loses to a twenty, and there is also a problem with accuracy.
          1. +2
            1 October 2025 21: 35
            Two BTR-82As, armed with 14 such rounds, fired upon a column of 17 enemy APCs, virtually unarmed. Fourteen of these were damaged or destroyed. The enemy armored vehicles' armament proved to be completely useless and pitiful.
            And what objections will there be to such effectiveness of the 30mm 2A72 cannon?
            1. -1
              8 October 2025 09: 09
              I saw this video and our guys missed pretty badly, where they shot 14, there were 4, 3 were gone
          2. 0
            4 October 2025 14: 48
            if she loses 20 ke

            With what?
            Yes, there is also a problem with accuracy.

            Is this what the author of this article told you?
            He didn't even give normal accuracy figures for the 2A72.
            The accuracy there is normal. Not the best, yes. Normal.
    3. +1
      1 October 2025 11: 08
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      But of course it’s a shame to stick a thin-walled rod, designed for a triple (not even a twin) separately, without doing anything to maintain accuracy.

      They tried that. They installed a barrel casing with an additional barrel mount at the muzzle, but it didn't help. They had to reduce the rate of fire.
      Below I have given a quote from twower, who provided first-hand information.
      1. 0
        2 October 2025 05: 19
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Below I have given a quote from twower, who provided first-hand information.

        No, not "first-hand", but "I'm selling it for what I bought it for".
        Quote: Alexey RA
        We installed the barrel in a casing with an additional barrel mount at the muzzle, but it didn't help. We had to reduce the rate of fire.

        How is this possible? I can't tell whose words they're saying, and it's inaccurate, too—"didn't help" and "helped a little" are noticeably different. Not to mention that every casing is different...
        So there is more faith in these words:
        Footage of field tests of the upgraded 30mm 2A72 automatic cannon on the BTR-82A, featuring an additional barrel support structure, has surfaced online. The tests confirmed that the new solution increased the accuracy of fire on the move against a stationary target at a distance of 1000 meters by 17,3% in single-round mode and by 20% in two-round burst mode.
    4. +2
      1 October 2025 11: 19
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      stick a thin-walled fishing rod, designed for a triple (not even a twin) separately, without doing anything to maintain accuracy.
      Our team worked to improve the accuracy of the 2A72 cannon. They installed a barrel casing inside it, but the casing was later abandoned. They reduced the cannon's rate of fire so the barrel had time to return to its starting point when firing (lateral oscillations), which improved accuracy (and that was all).
  3. + 10
    1 October 2025 05: 07
    What does this mean? It means that any attempts to improve the accuracy of guns can lead to nothing good – ...

    There is no need for CRAZY attempts to elevate it to ANYTHING! (at least maintain symmetry of the hinges)
    The Bradley's accuracy is higher not "in spite of", but thanks to the reduced caliber and the lighter weight of the projectile (but without saving on the weight of the barrel!)
    1. -1
      1 October 2025 10: 02
      But at the same time, the Bradley gun has higher armor penetration due to a more advanced projectile, but this is generally a problem with domestic projectiles - our modern 125mm APFSDS are also inferior to NATO 120mm, and this lag began even with the development of armored vehicles.
      1. +1
        1 October 2025 10: 20
        We have problems with gunpowder. That's why armor penetration is worse.
      2. 0
        1 October 2025 13: 31
        Our modern 125mm APFSDS are also inferior to NATO 120mm, and this lag began even earlier

        It only started in the 90s.
        All NATO ammunition that was critically superior to ours appeared somewhere around the turn of the 80s-90s.
        It's important to remember that similar ammunition for small calibers simply hasn't been in large-scale production for a long time. As for large calibers, we also developed the 3BM46 and 3BM60, which are on par with their NATO counterparts, but, yes, they hit a ceiling.
        But we must remember that at the turn of the 80s and 90s, the USSR was developing entirely new tanks. If everything hadn't happened the way it did, then where NATO adopted the new APFSDS rounds, we would have adopted either a new gun or a new tank with a larger magazine for similar sub-caliber rounds at the same time.
        At the very least, 152mm guns were tested on domestic armored vehicles, but the tests ended not so much with the rejection of the 152mm, but with the conclusion that the 152mm could not be installed in existing tanks and that a new vehicle was needed. These were developed, and eventually, a corresponding vehicle was even made and accepted into service.
        1. +1
          1 October 2025 15: 36
          Let me disagree with you. The gap existed before. A trivial example: the M774 (1980) for the L-7 Abrams had similar characteristics to our ZBM-32 Vant (1985), but the American shell was for a 105mm gun, while ours was for a 125mm... The same thing can be seen before—in some countries, T-62 guns were replaced with 105mm L-7s, and you could also consider the guns of World War II...
  4. +5
    1 October 2025 05: 30
    Who's stopping us from using an electric shell feeder for the gun, like the Americans have? Or combining both of these loading methods. For sniper fire, roughly speaking, we can use an electric feeder and barrel recoil for area targets. Another issue with the recoil-operated method is that when firing, the first shell flies precisely to the target, but then, as the burst fires, the shells begin to scatter. This same effect occurs with the Kalashnikov assault rifle. Slow-motion video footage shows this as the barrels bend. The AN-94 assault rifle has a lesser effect due to its balanced design.
    1. +5
      1 October 2025 08: 24
      Quote: V.
      The same effect occurs when firing a Kalashnikov assault rifle

      I find it funny when they try to improve accuracy by raising the barrel, using a muzzle brake/compensator... The barrel still wobbles when fired. But the RPK-74 has better accuracy at 500 meters than the thin-barreled SVD due to its thicker barrel, even though it's chambered for assault rifle ammunition. I was hoping that the RPK-16 with a thick barrel and magazines would go into production as a replacement for the assault rifle.
    2. +3
      1 October 2025 09: 03
      Quote: V.
      What's stopping us from using an electric shell feeder for the gun, like the Americans have? Or combining both of these shell loading methods.

      The price of the issue, and when combining methods, the complexity of the design is even greater.
      1. -1
        1 October 2025 09: 16
        The main thing is victory, we will stop at nothing. soldier
    3. 0
      1 October 2025 09: 34
      Why sacrifice autonomy when there's a more elegant solution in the form of a frame around the barrel? That's what they did. Ukrainians On the BTR-3 and BTR-4. The Germans did the same on the Puma.
    4. +1
      1 October 2025 12: 13
      Quote: V.
      Who's stopping us from making an electric drive for feeding shells to the gun like the Americans have?

      We and the Americans have different approaches to ensuring the reliability of automatic armament in armored vehicles. Unlike the American ones, our automatic cannons can operate even with a dead generator or a dead battery.
      Quote: V.
      For roughly speaking sniper shooting, use an electric drive, barrel recoil at area targets.

      How do you envision this design? Can we see a kinematic diagram and mass calculation?
      1. 0
        1 October 2025 13: 42
        Our automatic guns, unlike American ones, can function even if the generator is not working and the battery is dead.

        Does it make sense in this day and age to try to fight in a car whose engine or batteries have been knocked out?
        Should I continue to stay in a car whose engine has already been knocked out, when there are drones in the sky that do nothing but smash any car that stops into mush?
        1. 0
          1 October 2025 14: 09
          What if the power cable is simply damaged?
          Or should I not leave the car? Does the area need to be "cleared"?
          Inoperability in the absence of power supply is a huge disadvantage.
        2. +4
          1 October 2025 14: 23
          Quote: English tarantass
          Does it make sense in this day and age to try to fight in a car whose engine or batteries have been knocked out?

          In a combat situation, a vehicle may be without power, but it's still necessary to fire at the enemy. Drones aren't the only ones operating on the battlefield.
          1. 0
            4 October 2025 11: 45
            Drones aren't the only things operating on the battlefield.

            Not alone. But there are many of them.
            Even taking into account that even without drones there are an incredible number of other anti-tank weapons on the battlefield.
            At the very least, they will fire artillery at a parked car.
            Everyone understands the danger of even a de-energized armored vehicle.
            The infantry will lie down and simply wait for a short time until something finishes off the stationary vehicle.
            The issue is precisely the effectiveness of fire without the ability to change position; the vehicle can initially become stuck in a poor firing position. And the ability to maneuver fire while the vehicle is de-energized is, I think, self-evident. Manual transmissions are real "brakes."
            While it's certainly nice to have such an option, it's questionable whether it's actually used. I don't think the battlefield valor award should be considered a mandatory requirement for a vehicle.
            The crew is more valuable than the iron.
      2. -3
        1 October 2025 15: 07
        No, it’s a design and technological secret.
        1. 0
          2 October 2025 02: 10
          Quote: V.
          No, it’s a design and technological secret.

          wassat fool
          1. 0
            2 October 2025 05: 47
            Thank you for your attention, and may God bless your happy family. The site has been boring without you.hi
          2. 0
            2 October 2025 05: 57
            After your complaints, the site owner asked you not to give me negative ratings. I'll only give you positive ratings. hi
            1. +2
              2 October 2025 08: 57
              You must be so hot that you even wrote two comments at once! fellow
              Quote: V.
              Thank you for your attention, God bless your friendly family.

              What makes you think I'm specifically paying attention to you?
              Quote: V.
              The site was boring without you.

              Yes, unlike you, I don't sit idly at the computer; I travel around the country, going fishing and hunting. But I have good news for you: I'm not planning any long trips in the next few months and will be dedicating my free time to writing. So, you won't have time to get bored!
              Quote: V.
              After your complaints, the site owner asked you not to give your comments a negative rating.

              Why lie? I don't know who owns the site, but the administrator could require stop posting continuous unmotivated "-"Besides, I haven't complained about anyone. I understand that given the volumes of "awl" you've consumed in the past and how it affects your brain, it's difficult for you to understand the site's algorithms, which automatically track the ratio."+" and "-", which the administration is nevertheless paying attention to, albeit belatedly. So please be careful! But considering how long I've been with Military Review, I'm completely indifferent to the downvotes I'm getting from various freaks.
              Quote: V.
              I will only give pluses.

              This is completely unnecessary! No.
              In turn, I also wish you health, especially mental health!
              1. 0
                2 October 2025 13: 37
                So, keep an eye on who comes up to and uses your computer in your absence.
                1. +1
                  4 October 2025 02: 16
                  Quote: V.
                  So, keep an eye on who comes up to and uses your computer in your absence.

                  If I need your advice on anything, I'll definitely contact you. But given your expertise, that's unlikely to ever happen.
              2. 0
                2 October 2025 15: 29
                I was just thinking how come you, a member of the editorial board, don't know who publishes your work here and you live off of it?
                1. +2
                  4 October 2025 02: 20
                  Quote: V.
                  I was thinking

                  Wow, is this really possible? lol
                  Quote: V.
                  You, a member of the editorial board, don’t know who publishes you here and you live on this?

                  I support myself and care for those I care for myself and don't see any income from my articles. If you have any doubts about this, please ask the VO administration.
    5. +3
      1 October 2025 13: 38
      The AN-94 assault rifle has a lesser effect due to its balanced design.

      Not quite.
      The barrel bending is caused by the gas-operated automatic system. When the gases hit the piston, according to the law "the force of reaction equals the force of action," they push back on the barrel.
      This effect can be reduced either by using two or more gas outlets, as the Chinese do, spreading the effect out over time, or by using a DI system, as in the AR15, where the effect is also more uniform and delayed.
      The AN-94 operates in the same way. The accuracy of the first shots is improved only due to the shorter delay between the first two shots, so that barrel vibrations don't have time to become so severe as to cause the same amount of barrel deflection as on the AK-74.
  5. +1
    1 October 2025 05: 35
    You'd have to be an idiot not to understand that your gun's spread is enormous and not record it! They show off these endless military acceptance tests, saying how long they take to accept vehicles, test them, and check them everywhere. They test them, but very poorly, apparently, because they can't even make a decent vehicle and even figure out how to even handle a barrel.
  6. +8
    1 October 2025 05: 38
    A hot topic, our strict savings on metal are always surprising, well, make the barrel of the same 2A42 bigger, since you can’t weld on the stiffeners. I remember when I studied on the Ka-50 in the aviation department, we were told that a sniper pilot maintains a crosshair on a target of 5 thousandths, that’s 5 meters per kilometer. The accuracy of the 2A42, depending on the shots fired, is 5-10 thousandths, a salvo burst of 10 shots, this means at a range of 1 km, 10 shells will ideally fall in a circle of 20-30 meters. Where is the accuracy of hitting the target? And if it is moving, and the barrel and helicopter vibrate, in short, to hit with a cannon, you need either a tracer, or an ideal combination of barrel-cartridge-cartridge-heavy helicopter and a sniper. hi
    1. +5
      1 October 2025 08: 32
      Quote: air wolf
      , since you can’t weld the stiffeners

      They are sharpened and not boiled.
      Otherwise it will become skewed.
      1. +3
        1 October 2025 09: 33
        Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
        Quote: air wolf
        , since you can’t weld the stiffeners

        They are sharpened and not boiled.
        Otherwise it will become skewed.

        I wonder if they've tried using faceted barrels in modern technology?
        In theory, a triangular barrel should be more rigid and have a significantly larger heat transfer surface than a round barrel, with a relatively small increase in weight.
      2. +1
        1 October 2025 10: 03
        The stiffening ribs on the barrel are obtained by milling.
        1. +1
          2 October 2025 11: 18
          Well, a milling cutter is, roughly speaking, a subtype of a lathe.
          A turner-miller.

          In terms of impact on the material, it is very close.
          And one without the other is money down the drain.
      3. +1
        1 October 2025 18: 42
        Not quite so, learn the basics
  7. +1
    1 October 2025 05: 49
    solutions for increasing barrel rigidity...parasitic whip-like movements of the barrel and no external forces are required to feed ammunition, but do not ensure complete immobility of the gun components during firing
    - somewhat different. "...horses and men got mixed up..." The barrel vibration and rigid mount are different (although they can be used for that purpose, too). Other methods are used to reduce "vibrations." It's strange that the "testers" don't know about this.
  8. +7
    1 October 2025 05: 56
    This problem was solved back in the 19th century by Hiram Maxim. The recoil-operated barrel had a sliding bearing at both the breech and muzzle ends. The frame supporting the front bearing was made of corrugated sheet metal and also served as a coolant container. Modern cannons would also benefit from additional cooling. As any second-year mechanical engineering student who passed the strength of materials course in their first semester will confirm, a double-bearing beam setup provides much better rigidity than a cantilevered one.
    1. D16
      +5
      1 October 2025 07: 52
      Additional cooling wouldn't hurt today's guns either.

      It helps with the navy. There's plenty of water there, and you can pump it through the barrel casing.
      The frame supporting the front support

      The 2A42 and 2A72 cannons were developed according to customer requirements. This means no one expected sniper fire from the BTR-82A. The price for using powerful ammunition is a tradeoff between the module's weight, its volume, firepower, and the cost of the ammunition and the module itself. Any attempts to improve anything will lead to the development of a new cannon and ammunition, and the corresponding costs. And for cheap, accurate fire from an APC, one must revert to the KPVT.
      1. +1
        1 October 2025 09: 34
        But for cheap, accurate shooting from an armored personnel carrier, you have to roll back to the KPVT.


        The KPVT is the same old story. It also doesn't hit anything. And the ammunition is five times weaker.
      2. 0
        1 October 2025 09: 41
        Quote: D16
        Additional cooling wouldn't hurt today's guns either.

        It helps with the navy. There's plenty of water there, and you can pump it through the barrel casing.
        The frame supporting the front support

        The 2A42 and 2A72 cannons were developed according to customer requirements. This means no one expected sniper fire from the BTR-82A. The price for using powerful ammunition is a tradeoff between the module's weight, its volume, firepower, and the cost of the ammunition and the module itself. Any attempts to improve anything will lead to the development of a new cannon and ammunition, and the corresponding costs. And for cheap, accurate fire from an APC, one must revert to the KPVT.


        Well, something can always be improved if there is a desire.

        For example, a corrugated barrel casing made of thin-walled metal with a sliding support with ejection air cooling at the moment of firing (see the British disk machine gun from the WWI era, the MG was cooled by approximately the same principle, if I am not mistaken).

        You can even get creative with thin-walled screw-type barrel attachments and casing inserts, which will add additional rigidity and swirl the cooling flow for uniform cooling.

        Of course, it is impossible to improve infinitely without changing anything in the design.
    2. 0
      1 October 2025 09: 28
      Quote: Nagan
      This problem was solved back in the 19th century by Hiram Maxim. The recoil-operated barrel had a sliding bearing at both the breech and muzzle ends. The frame supporting the front bearing was made of corrugated sheet metal and also served as a coolant container. Modern cannons would also benefit from additional cooling. As any second-year mechanical engineering student who passed the strength of materials course in their first semester will confirm, a double-bearing beam setup provides much better rigidity than a cantilevered one.


      I confirm (even though I don’t understand the machine gun’s design very well).

      Cantilever loads are not very good.
  9. +5
    1 October 2025 06: 18
    we just need to find the appropriate official
    In Stalin's time, someone responsible for an ineffective decision could be quickly identified and put up for sabotage. Now, such an official would only receive a bonus from the plant's director for forcing the Ministry of Defense to order more weapons due to their rapid failure.
    1. +7
      1 October 2025 11: 14
      Quote: scientist
      During Stalin's time, they could quickly find someone responsible for an ineffective decision and put them up against the wall for sabotage.

      Yeah, right. During Stalin's time, the plant's chief engineer could ignore decisions signed by the heads of the Main Artillery Directorate, the People's Commissariat of Armaments, and even the Labor and Industrial Bureau. And he got away with it—those involved simply shrugged their shoulders at the latest deadline slippage.
      I am forced to agree with the deadline for the commissioning of KPV-44 at anti-aircraft installations, as defined by you on January 1, 1945.
      However, there are fears that this period by Plant No. 2 will not be fulfilled as well as the previously appointed dates.
      Inspection at the factory number 2 found that not all the installation details have been launched into production and the assembly of plants is extremely sluggish.
      © Head of the State Autonomous Institution of the Red Army.
      Meanwhile, the plant director could send obviously ineffective tanks to the army for a year and a half, getting away with excuses like "we'll fix it in the next model." His punishment was a transfer to the position of People's Commissar.
    2. +5
      1 October 2025 14: 57
      Quote: scientist
      During Stalin's time, they could quickly find someone responsible for an ineffective decision and put them up against the wall for sabotage.

      And even in Comrade Stalin's time, it was far from always the case. For example, Comrade Ilyushin, the only seven-time winner of the Stalin Prize, was never found. And yet, on his Il-2, the cannons were farther from the fuselage than the ShKAS machine guns, wing-span-wise. If Comrade Ilyushin had simply installed VYa cannons in place of the internal ShKAS machine guns, moving them 430 mm closer to the fuselage (and correspondingly moved the ShKAS machine guns elsewhere, perhaps in place of the external ShKAS in the original TsKB-57 machine gun variant, or even synchronized, mounted in the fuselage), this would have improved the accuracy of cannon fire from the Il-2 by at least 1,5 times. But in early 1941, Comrade Ilyushin was in a great hurry to install cannons on the Il-2, which had already entered serial production, and he installed them in a way that was easier for him to do right then and there, not in a way that would have resulted in better cannon accuracy from an aircraft. That's how they fought the entire war, with this solution being mass-produced by the tens of thousands.
      1. 0
        2 October 2025 12: 27
        Quote: AlexanderA
        and it would have been possible to make them synchronous by placing them in the fuselage)

        Will the synchronized ShKAS missiles fit into the armored hull? Is there room inside? Plus, the extra holes in the frontal projection weaken the armor.
        1. +2
          2 October 2025 14: 13
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Will the synchronous ShKAS fit into an armored hull?

          It was quite a large aircraft. Much larger than the Yak-1 or even the MiG-3 fighters, whose synchronized ShKAS missiles fit under the upper cowling. Ilyushin simply didn't have the time to deal with it.

          Regarding the "weakening" of the armor, when the issue was finally addressed scientifically, it turned out that steel armor on the upper part of the cowling was completely unnecessary. On the Il-10:

          "The upper part of the armored hull, which was a double-curved surface, was made of duralumin sheets with a thickness of 1,5 to 6 mm. As experience with the combat use of the Il-2 attack aircraft showed, the upper front part of the armored hull was practically not damaged in air combat."

          But the synchronized ShKAS missiles didn't appear on the Il-10 either. Such "trifles" clearly didn't bother Ilyushin.

          More precisely, they excited him in the summer of 1942, when Ilyushin (very timely!) proposed the "MSh" attack aircraft design (pictured below). It featured synchronized ShKAS machine guns, synchronized ShVAK cannons, and even Shpitalny's 37mm Sh-37 cannon, firing through the hollow propeller shaft, a la the Airacobra.

          But Ilyushin was probably told straight out that he was completely out of time with this project, and apparently they were insistently asking: "When will the two-seater Il-2 go into production?" - and Ilyushin forgot about his "MSh-AM-38" (a modernized attack aircraft with an AM-38 engine), and did not think about synchronized machine guns and cannons anymore, much less the 37 mm cannon firing through the hollow propeller shaft.

          For example, the experimental Il-16 (first flight in 1945) and Il-20 (first flight in 1948) attack aircraft had asynchronous wing-mounted cannons, as did the production Il-10M attack aircraft (first flight in 1951).

          "That'll do!" (C) cartoon "Vovka in the Far Far Away Kingdom" (USSR, 1965)
  10. +1
    1 October 2025 07: 01
    A collective farm solution. A disgrace for military specialists. Re-certification in materials resistance is required.
  11. +1
    1 October 2025 07: 28
    Yeah, I remember the firing range, a kilometer away, and the result was practically zero! And this BMP-2 fired almost 200 rounds. I was terrified then, but everyone kept quiet, everyone was happy with it. And now we're scratching our heads, wondering how this could have happened, like we didn't know before.
    1. +2
      1 October 2025 09: 33
      They should have hit the target reliably at 1 km. There must have been something wrong with your targeting system. Or maybe your operators were incompetent.
  12. -3
    1 October 2025 08: 14
    We need to put this official in his office and tell him he'll only emerge when the guns start firing in close succession! But seriously, when will our leaders finally be held accountable for their work?
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 09: 04
      When someone is found who will hold him accountable, we will delegate these powers to him. For now, the Elohtorat is happy with everything. Some have been unlucky, of course, but our citizen (a native) is a fatalist by nature.
  13. 0
    1 October 2025 08: 35
    Well, in the BMP-3 it is attached to a gun-howitzer-rocket launcher (which is 100 mm).
    Even though the BMP2 in its latest modification is upgraded, it's squeezing the last bit of performance out of an outdated vehicle.
    The same with armored personnel carriers.
    It's high time they were put into reserve or converted into unmanned aerial systems.
  14. +3
    1 October 2025 08: 47
    Well, if seven doors close in front of you, open ten more! Attaching a crowbar to a gun barrel is a brilliant solution, clearly demonstrating the caliber of the "scientists" and "engineers" currently nesting in our military "science." Brilliant tests, divine, and spending money on them—exactly what one would expect from this bunch! My God...
    Of course, there are solutions. Many, even. But our military "science" has been developed for the wrong purposes over the past 30 years.
    1. +1
      1 October 2025 09: 31
      Yes, screwing a rusty pipe to a barrel with clamps is the modern level of our gunsmithing school...
    2. 0
      1 October 2025 15: 04
      Quote: Mikhail3
      But our military "science" was not created for those tasks over the last 30 years.

      As if our military "science" worked any differently in Tsarist or Soviet times. Historical examples abound.
      1. -1
        1 October 2025 21: 06
        In Soviet times, it was completely different. It's completely different.
        1. +1
          1 October 2025 22: 13
          In my humble opinion, you have an overly idealized view of Soviet times. Which era should I cite—early Soviet or late Soviet? Let's use the early Soviet era, when order was supposedly maintained under Comrade Stalin.

          Many have heard of the long-running adventure with Kurchevsky's dynamo-jet cannons. It's not even worth mentioning.

          Many people interested in history know that at the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, Russian field, naval and coastal artillery did not have shells loaded with significant charges of high explosives.

          However, fewer people interested in history today know about the catastrophic situation in the Red Army with armor-piercing shells on the eve of June 22, 1941.

          https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/proizvodstvo-protivotankovyh-boepripasov-v-sssr-nakanune-i-v-nachale-velikoy-otechestvennoy-voyny

          "Production of anti-tank ammunition in the USSR on the eve and at the beginning of the Great Patriotic War."

          "...Thus, due to the fact that the Soviet ammunition industry had not mastered the production of 76-mm armor-piercing shells in the required quantities before the Great Patriotic War, Soviet artillery in the second half of 1941 was unable to effectively combat modernized types of medium enemy tanks. This became one of the main reasons that in the second half of 1941 - especially in the period from July to October - German tanks broke through the Soviet defenses when and where it was necessary for the Wehrmacht command. As a result, German tank wedges, supported by motorized infantry in converging directions, penetrated deep into our defenses so far,
          The encircled Soviet troops were unable to break out before running out of ammunition, fuel, and food. Since communication and supply lines were disrupted by the enemy who had broken through, there was nothing left to fight with. As a result, mass surrenders occurred—only during the
          During the encirclement of our units near Kiev in September 1941, approximately 650,000 Red Army soldiers and officers were captured. All this worsened the situation at the front as a whole and led to the loss of vast territories, which later had to be recaptured during the fierce battles of the second half of 1942–1944.


          I don't even want to write about the Soviet munitions "science" figures who came up with the "world-unparalleled" casing shape of the Soviet 76,2mm BR-350A armor-piercing projectile, the production of which the Soviet industry struggled so hard to master for several pre-war years. They really did their best, as they say.

          And then there's the low accuracy of the 30mm 2A72 cannon in high-rate automatic fire, inherited from the "red designers" and "red directors." The 2A72's high-rate fire was supposed to be limited to airborne targets, but the operator, as they say, doesn't read the manual.

          To not supply Soviet artillery of 76,2 mm caliber with armor-piercing shells for the war, or almost, or not at all (for artillery systems of 85 mm caliber).

          Or, already in the late Soviet times, give the Soviet aviation the medium-range air-to-air missile R-27 of various modifications, which, as it turned out during later local wars, had a pitiful probability of hitting the target in single digits.

          Previously, "science" had epochal achievements, but today it is only a pitiful shadow of them.
          1. -2
            2 October 2025 08: 12
            I didn't read any further than the dynamo-jet guns. Apparently, this post was paid for. Well, well...
            1. +1
              2 October 2025 14: 26
              "Whoever doesn't regret the collapse of the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants to recreate it in its former form has no brain."

              Those who "haven't read it, but I condemn it" usually have no brains.
              1. 0
                4 October 2025 07: 49
                I admire the courage of those who twist the brilliant words of others, turning them into crap. I don't do that, because "Foolishness and Courage" isn't my thing.
                1. 0
                  4 October 2025 10: 01
                  Frankly, it doesn't matter what you like or dislike, or how you twist someone else's words. You lack historical knowledge—that's the main thing. Because you're not a reader. The exchange of opinions is over.
  15. +5
    1 October 2025 08: 58
    Gentlemen, let's turn to sniper rifles. They use a free-floating barrel to improve accuracy.
    Because every point of support adds vibration to the barrel. The speed of sound in metal is higher than the speed of a bullet. And as they travel through the barrel, these sound waves create a bending effect.
    There is only one way out. A thick-walled barrel.
    No frames or external skeletons can compare with a thick-walled, properly calculated barrel.
    Especially if it has longitudinal stiffening ribs. And most importantly, such a barrel will be lighter than the frame.
    This is like the Axiom of Strength of Materials
    1. +4
      1 October 2025 09: 13
      Quote: garri-lin
      There is only one way out. A thick-walled barrel.

      Dragunov once made the S-49 sport rifle. I had the honor of holding it in my hands... the barrel is 3 centimeters thick and weighs as much as a PK machine gun. This rifle has record-breaking accuracy.
    2. +2
      1 October 2025 14: 55
      There, to improve accuracy, a free-floating barrel is used.

      Support!
      There is no lunette on the Bradley Bushmaster.
      As Albert Kazimirovich Dzyavgo told us: "If you need accuracy, then there should be nothing on the barrel, no muzzle brake, no gas vents."
      And there should be a low-braking recoil, that is, before the projectile leaves the barrel, the recoil brake should not exert force.
      And yes, strive for barrel rigidity. Perhaps secure it with a light-alloy casing. Bending rigidity is proportional to the fourth power of the cross-sectional size and only to the first power of the modulus. And it's good for cooling.
      1. -1
        1 October 2025 15: 37
        Thanks for your support. It's strange that the Ministry of Defense doesn't support it.
  16. +1
    1 October 2025 09: 22
    Unlike the 2A72 mounted on the BMP-2, the APC's gun operates automatically using the recoil energy of the barrel, which further reduces the accuracy of fire.
    But isn't the 2A42 used on the BMP-2? belay I once read online that the 2A42 on the BMP-2 achieves acceptable accuracy thanks to its rather thick (heavy) barrel! The 2A72, with its thinner (lighter) barrel, is attached to the 100mm gun barrel on the BMP-3 for a reason! To "stabilize" the 2A72 barrel during firing!
  17. +7
    1 October 2025 09: 30
    The author is a bit off-topic. Technical accuracy of a barrel depends solely on the quality of manufacture and the materials used for the barrel itself, the perfection and correct alignment of the aiming and sighting devices, and the consistent quality of well-designed ammunition. The mechanics of the weapon only affect the second and subsequent shots. The fact that our guns are gas-powered is a plus. The fact that the 2A72 was poorly designed raises questions for the gunsmiths. Browning managed to create a fairly accurate M2 machine gun with a moving barrel. The KORD, with its rigidly fixed barrel and gas piston, demonstrated that large-caliber accuracy can approach that of a rifle. We shouldn't be making frames out of rusty tabletop pipes; we should be conducting full-scale R&D to improve the accuracy of existing autocannons. We need to implement changes in design and technology.
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 10: 20
      On Zvezda, in one of the "Large-Caliber Panic" episodes, they showed a comparison of the 12,7mm NSV Utes and Browning M2 machine guns. The Comandante fired both in single shots, short bursts, and long bursts, and the Browning outperformed the Utes in every way. Worst of all, firing the Utes in bursts from a field mount was practically impossible: short bursts would fly off into the sky, and long bursts would blow the machine gun itself off into the sky. The Browning, however, could fire accurately in both short and long bursts. Furthermore, the Utes blinded the gunner with its flames, something the Browning didn't do. I don't think the Kord is much better than the Utes. There's a comparison video on YouTube; you can check it out.
      1. +2
        1 October 2025 11: 12
        The KORD is better than the Utes. Significantly so. But one drawback remains: the barrel flips up significantly when firing in bursts. The mount needs to be dug out and weighed down. The weapon's mechanics are peculiar.
      2. 0
        1 October 2025 18: 19
        The M2 is an American 12,7 mm heavy machine gun designed by American inventor John Browning.
        Weight, kg 38,22 kg (58,6 kg on the machine)

        The NSV Utes (NSV - Nikitin-Sokolov-Volkov; GRAU index - 6P11) is a Soviet 12,7 mm large-caliber machine gun designed to combat lightly armored targets and fire weapons, to destroy enemy manpower and engage air targets.
        Weight, kg 25 (machine gun body),
        41 (on the 6T7 machine)
      3. +1
        1 October 2025 20: 50
        As always, you're missing the point. The M2 Browning should be compared to a similarly weighted DShK, not a lighter Utes. Doesn't that occur to you?
        1. 0
          1 October 2025 22: 12
          Really? And I, in my foolishness, thought that the systems we should be comparing were the Utes-Kord and Browning systems currently in service... Yes Sorry for my stupidity... Yes I bow before your intelligence and insight. Yes
          1. +3
            2 October 2025 09: 34
            If you'd been paying attention, you'd know that in addition to the DShK, there's also the new Kord, which has the 6P49T "KORD T" and 6P49V "KORD V" tank and helicopter versions for vehicle mounting. It features a thicker barrel and improved accuracy.
            And comparing the Utes and Kord machine guns with the heavier Browning is completely incorrect.
  18. 0
    1 October 2025 10: 04
    Problems with rigid fixation of the gun barrel of the infantry fighting vehicle/armored personnel carrier? what Then give us guided missiles! fellow Read about BLAM technology! wink
    1. +1
      1 October 2025 20: 55
      It's all vanity. We should focus on the small-caliber 82mm Bulat rockets, and use them to solve the problem of hitting targets at long ranges, as well as adapting and using them for anti-aircraft purposes. Struggling with the accuracy of 30mm cannons is more than pointless. After all, for those who need it, there's the 23mm 2A14 cannon from the ZU-23-2. Those seeking greater accuracy and precision can use it.
  19. 0
    1 October 2025 10: 45
    I have a question for the esteemed commentators: why do you dislike external drives or electric drives so much? In practice, there are certain advantages and disadvantages.

    Pros: Less bending loads on the barrel and generally different harmonic oscillations, the ability to automatically eliminate delays, the ability to select a convenient rate of fire (in the case of chainguns, this is up to 400-600 rounds per minute), freedom in selecting the weight of the projectile and their other configurations due to the external drive

    Cons: dependence on the automatic drive (in practice, who fires an autocannon in a de-energized vehicle with dead batteries and does not abandon it in case of danger), as a rule, a lower rate of fire (on chainguns) compared to traditional systems, limited to 400 rounds per minute (600 on the Apache, I think) for reliable and confident operation of the automatics from the on-board network and overheating control
  20. +4
    1 October 2025 11: 05
    Does the author of the article distinguish between the BMP-2 and the BMP-3 and the 2A42 and the 2A72?
    At least you yourself understood what you were writing about...
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 13: 23
      In short, according to the wiki, the 2a72 has less recoil force (precisely) than the 2a42, right?
  21. +2
    1 October 2025 11: 06
    What about the BTR-82A? Here, the testers are more optimistic:
    The accuracy of the 2A72 automatic cannon at a range of 100 m has been improved with additional barrel support.

    Either physics has changed, or someone at one time adjusted the solution to their capabilities.
    Because when the BTR-82A was being developed, they tried to solve the 2A72's poor accuracy by using a casing with a support (as a result, the barrel was mounted in the same way as on the BMP-3). It didn't work. The rate of fire had to be reduced.
    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 the cannon with a ring at the end in which the barrel goes.
    But it didn’t help much either. The solution was found after watching ultra-fast shooting shooting. Some time after the shot, the gun barrel takes its initial position, so the rate of fire was adjusted so that the next shot occurred at that moment. Yes, the maximum rate of fire became slightly lower than what is indicated in the tabular values ​​for 2A72, but sufficient to solve the same problems.
    © twower - from an interview with the designers
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 21: 49
      There's no point in further improving the 2A72's accuracy. This problem was solved with the 2A42 gun on the "Spitsa" module and the development of the "Epoch" module, also equipped with the 2A42 gun.
    2. -1
      8 October 2025 08: 49
      The result is clearly rigged - the gun misses? Well, let it fire less often... So is the gun automatic or self-loading?
  22. -1
    1 October 2025 11: 33
    I wonder why such an obvious fact was not taken into account when these machines were being developed?
    1. +1
      1 October 2025 11: 50
      Quote: Pioneer1984
      I wonder why such an obvious fact was not taken into account when these machines were being developed?
      If the gun did not meet the customer's specifications, it would not have been accepted into service.
      1. 0
        1 October 2025 12: 25
        The technical specifications can always be adjusted if they are justified correctly.
  23. -1
    1 October 2025 12: 13
    Two questions remain to be answered: why does an IFV need a cannon at all, and why is the IFV itself even needed? As a concept in today's conditions. wink
  24. +1
    1 October 2025 13: 18
    Maybe we don't need to reinvent the wheel... We're currently in a "computer war" where drones are beating drones, and every piece of equipment and every person is being hunted... We need to develop electronic warfare (like the SICKLE) and equip rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns with a thermal imager (like a 2*23mm), automatic targeting, and human-controlled AI... (with a red "AI off" button, like a reset button on a computer :)
  25. +4
    1 October 2025 13: 33
    Once again, we're being dragged back to yesterday, offered solutions that are correct, safe, feasible, but outdated. It feels like the old guys are mumbling in the design bureau.
    If this wasn't done under the Soviets, then there must have been reasons. Only one idea can be accepted: install a thick, heavy cast-iron barrel. It's both stronger and cheaper.
    .
    The author's systematic error: he advocates for an intermediate result. Improving accuracy and grouping is certainly good, but one must consider target lethality. For engaging moving targets at ranges of kilometers or more, accuracy and grouping aren't all that important. There, you need to densely seed the target's vicinity with bullets to ensure at least one hits.
    This requires completely different approaches.
    And if you think about a robot machine gun, then...
    .
    I will sell the idea for a small amount of money.
  26. +2
    1 October 2025 13: 39
    The author believes that if the barrel is secured more rigidly, accuracy and grouping will improve. Naive.
  27. +1
    1 October 2025 13: 45
    The author bases his opinion on the possibility of "dueling" with enemy armored vehicles. If you see enemy armored vehicles, you shouldn't rely on machine guns, but rather use anti-tank missiles.
    We shouldn't mess around with the rifles, but allow the use of RK even against individual soldiers, not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers.
    1. +4
      1 October 2025 21: 05
      Actually, there was a telling incident during the enemy attack on the Kursk region. There, two of our BTR-82As routed a column of 17 enemy armored vehicles. Fourteen were destroyed or disabled, and three managed to escape.
      Thus, the concept of arming the BTR-82A with a 30mm 2A72 cannon has proven its worth. The accuracy, precision, and rate of fire were quite adequate.
      And the concept of the enemy's virtually unarmed armored personnel carriers has once again demonstrated its inconsistency.
      All this does not at all cancel the possibility of installing additional missiles on combat modules.
      1. 0
        2 October 2025 12: 31
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        Thus, the concept of arming the BTR-82A with a 30mm 2A72 cannon has proven its worth. The accuracy, precision, and rate of fire were quite adequate.
        And the concept of the enemy's virtually unarmed armored personnel carriers has once again demonstrated its inconsistency.

        This fight confirmed only one thing: if you organize a Zerg rush along the road, without reconnaissance, security, or normal communication, then even an eggshell with a blacksmith's hammer can stop it.
        A Ural with a ZU-23 could just as easily have been in the place of the BTR-82. And in the place of the enemy's MRAP, a BTR-82A.
        1. +1
          2 October 2025 15: 15
          These are inappropriate comparisons, taken at random. A Ural with a ZU-23-2 gun couldn't have been in ambush; its belt length and gun power wouldn't have been sufficient. The ZU simply wouldn't have penetrated some of the armored vehicles, and the ambush would have been exposed. Accuracy would have dropped due to the sway, and repositioning would have been much more difficult.
          And the enemy's MRAPs were practically unarmed, with manually operated machine guns and limited visibility. Had they been properly armed vehicles, such as Ukrainian BTR-4s, at least one of them would have put up a fight, and the situation wouldn't have been so dire.
          This has been a proven fact more than once: where the BTR-70/80 becomes a victim, the BTR-82A becomes a formidable adversary.
  28. -2
    1 October 2025 17: 29
    Isn't it your destiny to master the production of small-caliber guns with electric feed? Are you really that stupid? I don't believe it!
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 21: 06
      Why bother? If you need accuracy, install the 23mm 2A14 cannon or even the entire ZU-23-2 mount. You can even install a naval 25mm cannon if you want.
  29. 0
    1 October 2025 19: 47
    Recently, I was unpleasantly surprised by the Americans' somewhat meticulous approach to creating the M242 cannon. Let's look at the photo and pay attention to the external shape of the barrel.
    While our best cannon's barrel is a simple thin-walled tube with simple, uniform rifling, the American version features a noticeably tapered barrel and a complex profile of reinforcing ribs. From the table, we see that due to the heavier barrel and its smaller length and caliber, the barrel wall thickness is significantly thicker compared to our product. Our barrel is 10! kilograms lighter, and the gun itself is 4 kg lighter. Does this provide any advantage when mounted on vehicles weighing around 20 tons? The service life of our barrel is more than half that. This means we shouldn't compare the cannons themselves, but the underlying manufacturing strategy. Either we get cheap consumables for war and pay dearly in the lives of our soldiers, or they give their soldiers high-tech, expensive weapons to gain an advantage on the battlefield and the ability to defeat a less technologically advanced enemy.
  30. -1
    2 October 2025 06: 54
    To be complete, the article lacks information about the inoperability of the solution for the BMP-3 through an additional support for the 100mm barrel.

    If this solution is workable, then what, in principle, prevents us from simply repeating it, for example, by making a PU support (with one large-caliber missile or a package of small-caliber missiles), using stabilization drives from the BMP-3, thereby reducing the accuracy problem and increasing firepower?
    1. 0
      2 October 2025 13: 14
      Quote: Ing Mech
      To be complete, the article lacks information about the inoperability of the solution for the BMP-3 through an additional support for the 100mm barrel.

      If this solution is workable, then what, in principle, prevents us from simply repeating it, for example, by making a PU support (with one large-caliber missile or a package of small-caliber missiles), using stabilization drives from the BMP-3, thereby reducing the accuracy problem and increasing firepower?


      Perhaps I'll answer myself:
      "Silent minusologists, incapable of even understanding that this is an open question, which also implies the delusion of the questioner, for whom a logical explanation is sufficient, which the silent minusologists are also incapable of."

      So we will win!?
  31. +1
    2 October 2025 20: 53
    So Ukrainians We figured this out a long time ago, but apparently our manager thought it was too expensive.
  32. -2
    3 October 2025 01: 44
    If today's domestic "engineers" are incompetent and worthless, then maybe they should just copy decent, high-quality captured guns? Well, if there aren't any steady hands or honest bosses left...
  33. 0
    3 October 2025 08: 59
    Why did the author forget that we still have rotten gunpowder?
    1. +1
      3 October 2025 16: 54
      When talking about accuracy, you need to take into account the mass of the vehicles from which the fire is carried out. If one vehicle weighs 22 tons and the other 33 tons, then, all other things being equal (for example, the same guns are installed), the accuracy of automatic fire will be higher on the vehicle with the greater mass.
  34. +1
    6 October 2025 22: 55
    They've all mixed it up. The 2a72 was originally designed for the BMP-3 and was rigidly attached to the 100mm barrel.
    And they put it on light carts due to the lack of a lighter weapon.
    Let me remind you that in the USA there are two 30mm cartridges: one for the 30mm Apache cannon and light BM, and a powerful one for the BMP and ZA cannons... and the A10 cannon.

    The Apache cannon was based on a 20mm autocannon and its cartridge, with a 30mm barrel and projectile installed.
  35. +1
    8 October 2025 08: 37
    The article left me with a strange feeling – the facts are that there were complaints about the BTR-82's accuracy with its new 2A72 gun, if I'm not mistaken. The only complaints about the BMP-3 were about its armor compared to the Bradley. Now everything's all mixed up... Was the accuracy required when the BMP-2 was adopted? Or was it insufficient? Is the inaccuracy simply a result of poorly maintained equipment? Or faulty design?
  36. 0
    8 October 2025 13: 22
    "Not long ago, a series of publications appeared in domestic literary sources comparing domestic light armored vehicles with foreign ones. The BMP-3 and its predecessors received particular criticism."
    Dear author, this article was fake. It's strange that such "experts" are buying it.
  37. 0
    8 October 2025 13: 36
    We live in interesting times - the author scribbled something incomprehensible from a fake article (I didn't see anything other than a short summary), and people started discussing it with serious faces.
  38. 0
    9 October 2025 19: 24
    Quote: Author
    ...Russian report and, Most likely, prepared by specialists from the 38th Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense in Kubinka.

    what

    There was already a fake "Russian report" on VO laughing
  39. 0
    11 October 2025 11: 07
    If we look for analogies with civilian weapons, it's no coincidence that over-and-under double-barreled hunting shotguns are so popular. A similar design for small-caliber guns would reduce barrel heating and barrel oscillation.