Northrop Grumman's XM913 50mm Cannon's Achievements and Prospects

XM913 gun without additional devices

The Pentagon is currently pursuing several programs to develop advanced armored vehicles for the ground forces. All of them aim to improve the performance characteristics of combat vehicles, including their firepower. To this end, the new 50mm XM913 automatic cannon and fighting compartments for its installation are being developed. The weapon has now completed some of the development and testing stages, which gives cause for optimism.

Programs and projects

In 2018, the Pentagon once again decided to develop a replacement for the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. At the same time, it launched a new program, the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV). However, just a few months later, this project was renamed the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). The NGCV designation was then transferred to a larger program that envisions the development of five different armored vehicles and platforms, including the OMFV.

In the spring of 2019, the Pentagon released the performance requirements for the future OMFV infantry fighting vehicle and opened the call for bids for the competitive development. At that time, the Army wanted an armored vehicle with a turret or combat module carrying a 30mm automatic cannon, a machine gun, and missilesThese plans were later revised.

In June 2023, the Army selected the finalists for the OMFV competition. The American branch of the German company Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems are vying for future contracts. At that time, the project was renamed the Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle, and the future IFV was designated XM30.

A gun on an experimental turret for an infantry fighting vehicle

Both participating companies have now presented the design and key specifications of their IFVs for the competition. Work on the projects is now set to move into the prototype assembly phase. In 2026, these vehicles will undergo preliminary testing and be handed over to the Pentagon for evaluation and comparison.

Arms issue

According to initial plans, the NGCV/OMFV combat vehicle was to carry a turret or remotely controlled weapon station with a 30mm automatic cannon. A machine gun and a modern missile system were also envisaged. Such armament required a digital fire control system with a standard set of functions.

It's worth noting that the US has long been debating the feasibility of equipping future armored vehicles with 30mm cannons. Potential adversaries' combat vehicles have long been protected against such weapons, and their potential appears questionable. Proposals have included new 30mm rounds with improved penetration characteristics or the development of new, larger-caliber cannons to address this issue.

In the late 2010s, almost immediately after the OMFV program's launch, the Pentagon decided to experiment with equipping a prospective IFV with a larger-caliber gun. After conducting the necessary research, they settled on a 50mm caliber.

The development of such a gun was entrusted to Northrop Grumman, which has extensive experience in the field of small-caliber artillery, and also produces several types of guns for armored vehicles. The existing developments were planned to form the basis of a new project. The future 50mm cannon was designated XM913.

Muzzle device with projectile velocity sensor

To speed up and simplify the project, the new weapon was developed based on the Bushmaster family of cannons. Northrop-Grumman produces several similar weapons, similar in design but with different calibers. The developer had to scale the technical solutions to the 50mm caliber.

Production and supply

Developing a new cannon based on existing ones didn't take long. In 2019-20, Northrop Grumman manufactured the first pilot batch of XM913 cannons and delivered them to the relevant Pentagon agencies for testing. New cannons were then delivered. By the end of 2021, the total number of pilot and pre-production units approached two dozen. Three types of new 50mm rounds were submitted for testing along with the cannon.

During this phase, the experimental XM913 cannons underwent firing tests at firing ranges. The initial firings were conducted using special rigs. The cannons were then tested alongside experimental turrets developed by various companies. The cannons were reported to have confirmed their basic design characteristics. It's likely that some issues requiring correction were also identified.

A few days ago, in January 2026, the developer announced the receipt of a new order. To conduct a new phase of testing, the army recently ordered 16 more pre-production units. The first of these have already been delivered to the customer, and the next ones will be shipped soon.

The new batch of XM913 guns is intended for installation on experimental MICV infantry fighting vehicles from the two companies. This means they will be tested as part of a full armament suite on combat vehicles in the foreseeable future. The guns will be evaluated alongside control systems and self-propelled platforms.

Ammunition for the XM913

It's still unclear which of the two IFVs has the best chance of winning. The Pentagon will have to conduct a full range of tests, consider a multitude of factors, and draw the appropriate conclusions. However, it's already clear that the winning vehicle will carry the Northrop Grumman 50mm automatic cannon.

Design features

The XM913 cannon was developed based on existing guns and retained their core design features, operating principles, and other features. At the same time, all components and assemblies were scaled up to meet the requirements and loads of the new 50mm ammunition. This approach somewhat simplified development and enabled the desired level of performance.

Like other Bushmasters, the new XM913 cannon is an automatic weapon With an external drive. Structurally, it consists of the barrel, the receiver with the bolt carrier, the belt feeder, and the electric motor that drives the automatic mechanism. The barrel and receiver are arranged in a linear fashion. The belt feeder and external drive are located on the receiver.

The assembled gun is approximately 4,1 meters long, with a barrel length of 2,99 meters. The fighting compartment houses components measuring 948 mm in length and 469 x 491 mm in diameter. The total weight of the gun, without the feed system and ammunition, is 314 kg.

The ammunition feed mechanism and bolt movement are powered by a separate electric motor. Firing is accomplished using the bolt advance principle. Ignition of the cartridge case occurs before the bolt fully extends forward, partially offsetting recoil.

A gun on a test bench

Fire control is accomplished by delivering electrical pulses with the required parameters and duration. Single and burst fire are supported at a rate of 100 or 200 rounds per minute. Fire parameters are controlled remotely via the carrier vehicle's standard control system.

The XM913 cannon is compatible with various ammunition feed systems, including the ability to feed two types of rounds. The feed is controlled by the standard fire control system, following commands from the gunner.

A new family of 50 x 228 mm rounds is being developed for the XM913. These rounds are designed to engage a variety of targets and are expected to offer significant advantages over existing smaller-caliber ammunition.

For example, the XM1203 round, which fires a subcaliber fin-stabilized armor-piercing projectile, has been developed for combating armored vehicles. The penetration characteristics of this round have not yet been disclosed, but it should outperform existing 30- and 35-mm rounds.

The XM1204 round is designed for engaging personnel and other soft targets, as well as for destroying structures. It is equipped with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile with a programmable fuse. Depending on the target type and the mission, it can be detonated by contact, triggered at a predetermined point in the trajectory, or detonated with delay.

Two IFVs for the XM30 competition. On the left is the GDLS project, on the right is the Rheinmetall one.

The XM1202 round will be used in firing practice. Its ballistics are similar to those of a high-explosive fragmentation round and it is equipped with a tracer. This ammunition will allow for the training of gunners and eliminate the significant investment in full-fledged rounds.

To improve performance

Thus, the Pentagon has concluded that 30mm artillery systems are obsolete and plans to equip armored vehicles with larger-caliber weapons. Moreover, tangible measures have already been taken: a new gun, combat modules for it, and carrier vehicles have been developed. Two advanced infantry fighting vehicles of this type will soon begin testing and demonstrate their potential.

It's worth noting that the XM913 50mm automatic cannon project is not the only one of its kind. For example, since the beginning of the last decade, the Russian industry has been working on a series of combat modules with 57mm cannons. Other countries have similar projects.

All this speaks to an understanding of the current problems with penetration characteristics and the search for a solution. Clearly, the development of larger-caliber guns will continue, and such systems will eventually be adopted by the armies of developed countries. The only question is when such weapons will be deployed and the subsequent pace of rearmament.

Comments

[Pechorsky]

The confrontation between sword and shield is eternal!

[PROXOR]

In this regard, I'm very curious about the ammo for the AU-220. Will they ever finish developing a remote detonation system for it?

[alexoff]

We haven't heard anything for a long time, neither about conventional shells, nor, especially, about derivation. Apparently, they were quietly shut down, like all of Shoigu's ceremonial projects.

[Grossvater]

You just have to keep your sense of humor. Larger caliber, less ammunition, heavier gun, and so on, with all the stops. And there will always be some target that's invulnerable to the available caliber.
Well, that's the thing. History has long known that the most effective anti-tank weapons were the 14- and 16-inch guns of American and British battleships. In Normandy, not only were the types of German tanks destroyed after the artillery strikes, but they couldn't even count how many there were. .

[stankow]

New year, new story...
...............

[hagen]

Ultimately, this was all predictable. The trend toward increasing the caliber of onboard weapons for potential enemy motorized infantry units has been evident for some time, and we need to respond in armoring our MRVs. Clearly, we'll have to abandon amphibious infantry fighting vehicles and replace their 2A42/2A72s with at least the AU-220. With all the ensuing consequences. While the West produces tanks in single units per year, they churn out IFVs and APCs like hotcakes—by the thousands. Considering that the EU is striving to become a military superpower in the near future, we, too, need to hurry. They already have vehicles in production for MRVs, armored to match our 30x165mm.

[Per se.]

Quote: Hagen

Obviously, we will have to abandon the floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

Perhaps we shouldn't reject it, but rather supplement it. The Soviet Military District, essentially a stalemate, is hardly a criterion for drawing the right conclusions, just like our war in mountainous and shallow Afghanistan, where attacks on convoys predominated. Where and with whom are we slated for a major war, or should we take moped-mounted assault aircraft as a model? What's the point of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle if, with an assault force, it's just ballast for a turret and weapons, and without it, it's a substandard BMPT with a useless transport compartment? Perhaps a heavy IFV should be seen as a kind of "duplex": a heavy APC, where the primary focus is the protection and comfort of the assault force, and a BMPT (or BMPP), where the primary focus is protection and specialized armament? The IFV was born in the USSR, and its essence lies precisely in versatility and maneuverability; otherwise, we're left with distortions. Of course, using amphibious vehicles in the desert and MRAPs instead of convoys, like army vehicles, won't do much good.
Regarding 50-57mm guns, by eliminating the heavy and bulky tank gun, it's possible to create a well-protected specialized support vehicle on its basis, or perhaps even revive the "missile tank" concept with a rapid-fire automatic cannon and new anti-tank missile capabilities. I'll repeat the old image of such a "missile tank" based on the T-72/T-90.

[hagen]

Quote: Per se.

Maybe we shouldn't refuse, but rather complement.

This is probably the most optimal option. Divide the infantry into light and heavy. And in the MSD, for example, have a couple of "light" MSBs, equipped with BMP-3s, and the rest with "heavy" IFVs. I think as soon as a countermeasure to drones is found, we'll return to the massive use of armored vehicles, one way or another. And we need to be prepared to meet an MPV with a 50mm cannon instead of today's 20mm (Bradley).

[VlK]

and BMPT (or BMPP), where the main thing is protection and specialized weapons?

A fully-fledged BMPT (BMPP) is an assault tank, which is also a modern (and promising) MBT for current conditions. Why endlessly multiply entities, inventing new crutches in the form of additional types of equipment? Maybe it would be more logical to simply return the tank to its original task of breaking through fortifications?

[Per se.]

Quote: VlK

Maybe it would be more logical to simply return the tank to its original task of breaking through fortified lines?

The discussion was about infantry vehicles, infantry support vehicles, and the tanks themselves. Tank gun caliber increases can't be endless; sacrifices have to be made. When the Object 195 (T-95) was being developed, the 152mm 2A83 cannon had to be placed in an unmanned turret, increasing the tank's dimensions and weight. When our reformers scrapped a nearly complete tank and created a "platform" based on the T-14 with a 125mm cannon, that's what "creating entities" is all about. Compromising platforms (T-15, T-14) on a crude, expensive, and complex base hardly benefited the tank. Considering the IT-1, which was even mass-produced, it's the "missile tank," by eliminating the heavy cannon, that can meet weight and size constraints while gaining enhanced protection and powerful missile and cannon armament. Versatility and specialization both have their pros and cons. Here, it's necessary to prioritize the tasks expected to be accomplished in war. The figure compares the T-14 (125mm gun) and the T-95 (152mm gun and 30mm secondary gun). Incidentally, the T-95 was intended as a reinforcement tank, not a complete replacement for the main battle tank. Incidentally, it's unlikely there will be assaults on new "Maginot Lines," although it seems our generals in the North Military District aren't looking for easy ways out, and "through Belgium" isn't particularly effective in solving problems through frontal assaults.

[Inj Meh]

Quote: Per se.

Quote: Hagen

Obviously, we will have to abandon the floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.

Perhaps we shouldn't reject it, but rather supplement it. The Soviet Military District, essentially a stalemate, is hardly a criterion for drawing the right conclusions, just like our war in mountainous and shallow Afghanistan, where attacks on convoys predominated. Where and with whom are we slated for a major war, or should we take moped-mounted assault aircraft as a model? What's the point of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle if, with an assault force, it's just ballast for a turret and weapons, and without it, it's a substandard BMPT with a useless transport compartment? Perhaps a heavy IFV should be seen as a kind of "duplex": a heavy APC, where the primary focus is the protection and comfort of the assault force, and a BMPT (or BMPP), where the primary focus is protection and specialized armament? The IFV was born in the USSR, and its essence lies precisely in versatility and maneuverability; otherwise, we're left with distortions. Of course, using amphibious vehicles in the desert and MRAPs instead of convoys, like army vehicles, won't do much good.
Regarding 50-57mm guns, by eliminating the heavy and bulky tank gun, it's possible to create a well-protected specialized support vehicle on its basis, or perhaps even revive the "missile tank" concept with a rapid-fire automatic cannon and new anti-tank missile capabilities. I'll repeat the old image of such a "missile tank" based on the T-72/T-90.

My personal opinion is that it makes sense to change templates.

Due to:
1. APCs/IFVs were originally designed because tanks don't fight without infantry (or only fight for a short time). Concepts like the Abrams reincarnation are being developed as a permanent formation of at least two vehicles (a tank and an IFV).
2. The military constantly wants to increase the firepower of infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) and armored personnel carriers (APCs), which are already approaching the level of medium, substandard tanks from WWII. AT THE SAME TIME, FOR SOME REASON, THEY WANT A HIGH-BALLISTIC GUN. This creates an insoluble contradiction between a fully-fledged infantry squad, armor, or weapons.
3. The current trend of decreasing the density of both equipment and personnel in combat formations, but at the same time the possibility of increasing their combat capabilities with the help of various types of drones (see the US CMP concept)
4. Multi-angle threats => the need for multi-angle fire

It follows from this:
1. The presence of reduced landing force in each vehicle from a group of at least 2 vehicles (2+4 / 3+3 / 4+4 / 3+3+3 / etc.)

2. Specialization of the main combat vehicles by the range of the main armament/main caliber. For example

2.1. A tank with a 120+-150+mm rifled gun/howitzer/guided missile launcher. Primarily used for direct fire and artillery barrages. Where the guided missile launcher is a guided missile launcher (including loitering munitions).
+ paired with a 30+–40+mm atomic cannon with anti-aircraft firing function.
+ optional/mission-based remote-controlled missile systems (these include small-sized FPV drones/30-40mm automatic grenade launchers of the BMP type) controlled by the landing force

2.2. Self-propelled gun with a mortar/mortar/guided missile launcher 120+-150+mm. Where guided missile launcher is a guided weapon launcher (including loitering munitions interchangeable with a tank gun/howitzer/guided missile launcher).
+ paired with a 30+–40+mm atomic cannon with anti-aircraft firing function.
+ optional/mission-based remote-controlled combat vehicles (these include small-sized FPV drones) controlled by the landing force

2.3. Can be used as a heavy-duty rescue/extraction vehicle

3. universal chassis of the main combat vehicle (in different weight categories)

4. The main armament is placed in quick-detachable modules /DUBM main armament with standardized dimensions and connecting devices

5. The crew and landing force are accommodated in universal capsules, standardized in size and connecting devices (landing capsules, ideally high-speed evacuation buggies)

Classic artillery is still in use and differs from the above in range, accuracy, and the ammo it carries (while airborne troops can serve as combat security/precision weapons operators). At the same time, an attempt at fully robotizing towed artillery with remote control (some kind of self-propelled heavy DUBM capable of being towed by a tractor) seems interesting.

[bushmaster]

We have floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers in our arsenal not because they actually need to float, but because they are light-class vehicles.
Heavier armored vehicles will be expectedly expensive, certainly over 30 tons, and that would require stealing engines, the entire chassis, and the transmission as a whole from the T-72 and T-90.
The Ministry of Defense's eyes will pop out of their sockets from such expected expenses

The Au-220 is a bad choice; perhaps a 100-115mm gun would be a better option.

[dragon772]

2S38 - armed with a 57mm 2A90 cannon; they should produce more. 57mm can easily penetrate a Bradley's frontal area.

[PROXOR]

Actually, its mission is somewhat different. It's primarily a short-range air defense system, which is currently in short supply.

[dragon772]

Add to the feed of BOPS and it will crush NATO infantry fighting vehicles.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

How come our two BTR-82As, with their 30mm cannons, were able to stop an enemy column of 17 vehicles, damaging and destroying 14? Maybe the 30mm caliber is sufficient in most cases?

[NordOst16]

If they had 57mm guns, they would have stopped it with less stress for the crews.)

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

With 57mm guns, you'll have significantly less ammunition, and with a low-ballistic gun, you'll have worse flatness. The best is the enemy of the good.

[NordOst16]

A smaller ammunition load doesn't necessarily mean it's insufficient. Furthermore, using projectiles with programmable fuses will improve their effectiveness.
A 30mm round will, of course, knock all the armor off a tank (as happened with our 90), rendering it useless. But it's a different matter if the shells can penetrate the armor of modern infantry fighting vehicles and injure the crew. So, reducing the ammunition load in exchange for increased firepower may be justified.
In principle, a gun with low ballistics would be a good fit for an infantry fighting vehicle, but an analogue of the S60 could be installed on the BMPT.

[Nikolaevich I]

In a recent article about calibers by our beloved author Shpakovsky, it was mentioned that the 50mm caliber has been forgotten! I countered this by citing this American cannon as an example, but unfortunately, he didn't provide its specifications! I'm glad K. Ryabov was able to do so "soon!" I'd also like to remind you of the German dual-caliber 35/50mm cannon, developed some time ago... Perhaps mass production of the "American" will also spur production of the "German" one! A 45mm cannon was developed in Russia for a prospective infantry fighting vehicle, but it never entered service, just like the German cannon! Although in a number of respects, it is "more convenient" than the notorious 57mm "Derivatsiya" (much talked about, but no one has seen it!) If the American 50mm cannon "takes off," then Russia will have the opportunity to produce a 45/50mm cannon, just like it did with the 152/155mm! P.S. I once "heard" online that a Rostec representative was considering developing a lightweight 50mm cannon for rocket-assisted projectiles (possibly a smoothbore one!), but that seems to be where it all ended!

[NordOst16]

Quote: Nikolaevich I

Although in a number of respects it is "more convenient" than the notorious 57mm "Derivatsiya" (which is much talked about, but no one has seen it!)! If the American 50mm cannon "goes viral," then Russia will have the opportunity to produce a cannon in the 45/50mm caliber.

The 57mm gun should have greater penetration and better ballistics due to its higher projectile energy. The higher projectile velocity is also beneficial for engaging aerial targets. Furthermore, I believe the Russian military-industrial complex may have problems with mass production of programmable fuses for 30-35mm calibers. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the 57mm was chosen: the projectile is larger, meaning the fuse will be simpler to make, and there's potential savings due to the need to use fewer shells to engage a single target.

[garri-lin]

If we take Western programmable ammunition, the price of a fuse hovers around 1000 euros.
One 57mm shell is equivalent to 4-5 35mm shells in terms of fragment weight. The savings from the larger caliber are obvious.

[2al]

It's worth noting that the cost of the detonator depends on the method of programmable detonation. If detonation is performed by laser or radio pulse illumination, the cost is significantly lower, with acceptable reliability.

[garri-lin]

Will a controlled detonation initiated by a laser or radio pulse be able to detonate a specific projectile in a line?
To be honest, I don't know. What about you?

[stankow]

1000 euros? For an electronic product that's 4 orders of magnitude (10000 times) simpler than a modern smartphone? Stop making people laugh.

[garri-lin]

The power supply is the first thing.
The overloads that the projectile experiences when fired is the second.
The hardware there is on par with the 90s, but very demanding.

[stankow]

Even a 155mm isn't worth 1000 euros. And a 50mm costs 25 times less. A programmable fuse costs no more than 10 euros. With such batch sizes and fully automated production... The problem is that not all Russian 30mm cannons have a programming device.

[garri-lin]

So, are actual figures from foreign sources empty words for you?
Panyatna.
And the main problem with regard to Russia is the lack of MASS production of many necessary products.

[bushmaster]

They really don't like the 50mm; countries were sold the 50mm cannon, but they refused and took the 35mm version.
There's no real need to switch to 50mm, and 35mm is cheaper.
People don't use instruments to measure who has more; people count money first and foremost.

[Izotovp]

The 30/100 system performs well in modern conditions. But I agree that the 57 should have been around yesterday. And today, we need to try the 76 on the T-15 or another tank-based IFV.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It depends on how fast the drive can be for more powerful guns. Firing FPV drones requires a highly mobile weapon.

[Izotovp]

For protection against FPV in particular, and for equipping various transport and combat vehicles in general, the GSG-7,62 would be more logical. Target angular velocities have increased, necessitating a higher fire density.
Food for thought: the Chinese recently tested a six-barrel 30mm mount on a tank chassis. I don't know the objectives, results, or conclusions, unfortunately, but it's quite interesting. If anyone has any information on this topic, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

[gribanov.c]

I wrote about this before:
We need a light fire support tank, capable of remote control, but also with space for a crew member, gunner, and driver. It should be a light tank with reinforced armor on the top and front hemisphere, and thick, multi-layered protection. The weapon should be an automatic thresher cannon, available in two versions: 30mm and 57mm, with a variety of ammunition—high-explosive rounds, armor-piercing rounds, fragmentation rounds with remote detonation, and so on. The cannon should have a high elevation angle for engaging aerial targets. It should also have a radar and an electronic fire control unit, capable of electronically searching for, locking on, and firing on command (at the push of a button).
The main task of such a tank is to follow the infantry, always facing the front, and support the infantry with fire in the attack, from a distance of 1-3 km. Conduct continuous fire on enemy infantry in field fortifications, in buildings, in forest belts, on light equipment, and the 57-mm can stop even a tank. When the ammunition runs out, the vehicle goes to reload, it is immediately replaced by another one, it must be ready for replacement, and so on all the time.
The losses will be large, this is a consumable machine, a workhorse, which means there must be continuous conveyor production.
Of course, it needs to be covered from drones that will simply fly towards it, so a light anti-aircraft gun like the Shilka should work in tandem with it.

[bushmaster]

In fact, the BMP is the evolution of the light tank for direct infantry support.
And NATO's infantry fighting vehicles also have light tanks or fire support vehicles based on them, but no one wants to buy them, because every NATO country has already gone broke on infantry fighting vehicles and has no desire to spend more money on another light tank.

[Zaurbek]

It's strange that Russia isn't working on increasing the caliber of its autocannons. 57mm isn't a panacea; it's heavier and has a smaller ammo capacity.
And in the West there are even projects to replace 30mm with new 50mm in existing vehicles.
This is despite the fact that even the 30mm NATO shell is more powerful than ours, not to mention the range of shells.

[NordOst16]

Quote: Zaurbek

57mm is not a panacea, it is heavier and has a smaller ammo capacity.

If the development of heavy infantry fighting vehicles/BMPs continues, then the use of 57mm weapons makes sense because the projectile energy will be higher, which means it will be able to hit vehicles and shelters more reliably, while the increased mass of the vehicles will not rock them as much from the recoil.
Questions remain about the use of this gun as an anti-aircraft weapon. The modern 2A90 was clearly designed with the S60, which was an anti-aircraft gun, in mind. Regarding recoil and rate of fire, the 35mm gun clearly has the upper hand, but the question remains whether the Russian military-industrial complex can produce programmable fuses for 30-35mm calibers in sufficient quantity. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the 57mm PPL was chosen.

[bushmaster]

They say the Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicle can already withstand 57mm.
Maybe stop showing off and install a 100mm tank gun to solve the armor penetration issue, and at the same time, we already have proven BOPs and OFFs

[NordOst16]

Quote: bushmaster

They say the Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicle can already withstand 57mm.

If they are not lying about the mass of 44 tons, then this is quite possible.

Quote: bushmaster

Maybe stop showing off and install a 100mm tank gun to solve the armor penetration issue.

Then it would be a light tank. The 100mm isn't as effective against infantry as automatic cannons, and I'd like an infantry fighting vehicle to be able to do the same.

[bushmaster]

BMP is a light tank

The point of autocannons is to work against air and lightly armored targets; in all other respects, they are inferior to large-caliber guns, including against infantry.

[NordOst16]

Quote: bushmaster

BMP is a light tank

Yes, I agree.

Quote: bushmaster

The point of autocannons is to work against air and lightly armored targets; in all other respects, they are inferior to large-caliber guns, including against infantry.

I disagree here. On the contrary, autocannons are good for dealing with infantry. I think light vehicles were a secondary target. Because the MBT is quite capable of dealing with vehicles, even light ones.

[bushmaster]

The main battle tank gun is too powerful for a car or armored personnel carrier.
And against infantry, large-caliber artillery shells are the best, with more high-explosive action and more heavy fragments.
AGSs are good against infantry, and autocannons with their high muzzle velocity and weak AFV are better than machine guns, but nothing more.

[NordOst16]

Quote: bushmaster

Large-caliber artillery shells are the best against infantry; they have a higher explosive effect and produce more heavy fragments.

While I'm not an expert, I've always believed that an autocannon can fire far more iron per minute than a large-caliber weapon. If the shells have a programmable fuse, I think an autocannon would be far more effective at showering enemy infantry with shrapnel than 100mm+ guns.

Quote: bushmaster

AGS are good against infantry

In fact, 30+ mm autocannons, with approximately similar effectiveness in firing at infantry (or better if they have programmable fuses), will also be quite versatile.
But again, I'm not an expert.

[bushmaster]

The 30mm OFFZ doesn't have much of this hardware; a third of the shell is just the fuse.
In 100-125mm armored vehicles the walls are thicker, there is simply a huge amount of explosives, so there are a lot of heavy, lethal fragments with a high initial velocity

The Berezhok complex consists of (the combat kit is indicated in brackets):
weaponry
30-mm automatic cannon 2A42 with 500 rounds of ammunition
30-mm automatic grenade launcher AGS-17 in the rear of the turret (300 rounds)
7,62 mm PKT machine gun (2,000 rounds)
Guided weapons (4 Kornet ATGMs)[2]

If the 30mm 2A42 was so effective against infantry, no one would bother with installing an AGS, especially with 300 grenades.

That's why the BMP-3 with a 100mm grenade launcher appeared, and the Americans are still struggling with their light tank with a 105mm cannon, because the Bradley's 25mm gun is crap.

Programmable fuses for autocannons are a very expensive and situational item, so there are practically none in the world

[alexoff]

It seems like our artillery developments are just on paper these days. It requires a lot of hassle, testing, shells and charges, factories...

[Melior]

There's a perfectly serviceable 37mm 2A11 automatic cannon from the ZSU-37-2 Yenisei, which never went into production. Apparently, there was even a small production run of a towed version.

[NordOst16]

Quote: Melior

There is a quite suitable 37mm automatic cannon 2A11

Most likely, there was.

[Grossvater]

The penetration characteristics of this projectile have not yet been disclosed, but it should surpass existing 30- and 35-mm products.

With a 9" long case? Oh, that's doubtful! You can jump around with the barrel length or the projectile design, but the energy of a gun is ultimately determined by the mass of the propellant charge. No matter what.

[Zaurbek]

Many projects are based on smaller caliber cartridges. This allows the gun to be installed in the turret of older infantry fighting vehicles.

[Glory1974]

On the one hand, the caliber of guns needs to be increased. On the other hand, as the experience of the Air Defense Forces has shown, the presence of large-caliber ammunition, if the vehicle is hit, leads to the death of the crew and troops. Therefore, when deploying on combat missions, either the troops are not taken on board or large-caliber ammunition is not loaded. And there's talk that vehicles transporting troops shouldn't be equipped with guns; a machine gun will suffice.
Such a dilemma.

[acetophenone]

Firing is accomplished using the bolt-advance principle. Ignition of the cartridge case occurs before the bolt fully rolls forward, partially offsetting recoil.

What a brilliant idea! I love it! And in general, the electric drive, IMHO, improves accuracy. And with limited ammunition, that's especially important!

[Lad]

It's an old idea. It's been tried periodically in small arms, with varying degrees of success. The idea has both its pros and cons. If it didn't have these cons, everything that fires would operate on this principle. But alas... In this case, the electric drive probably makes things easier. Unlike all other drives (gas and others), an electric drive makes it easier to adjust the timing of different stages of the firing process.

[karabas-barabas]

In 1977, the Germans built a prototype "tank escort" Begleitpanzer 57mm with a Bofors 57mm automatic cannon. It holds 48 rounds (you'll have to dig around in the magazine to find out how much, but I'm guessing it's similar to the naval Bofors 57mm, where it originated) and six TOW ATGMs. Bofors documents online indicate that APFSDS (or APFSDS) rounds were developed for its cannon. Overall, the 57mm Bofors APFSDS has 200mm+ penetration at approximately 1700 m/s, with an effective range of up to 4000 m. Overall, this wasn't bad at all for the 1970s, and it still holds up well today. Today, programmable 57mm rounds from BAE Systems can be guided to their targets like missiles, changing their trajectory, which at 1000+ m/s is very useful against airborne targets. But in my opinion, given the performance characteristics of guns like the MK2 on the Lanz 1 and 2 turrets, or the AA guns like the Oerlikon 35mm for the Skyranger 35 and the Rheinmetall 30mm for the Skyranger 30, I don't really see the point of a 50mm or 57mm. The only thing is, the 40mm could be a more universal piercing weapon, since the 40mm APFSDS round could already penetrate 140mm in the 1990s, and programmable 40mm rounds have significantly more impact on a target than 30mm. But then again, the ammo capacity is a significant issue, although I believe there are options for telescoped 40mm rounds.