Military Review

BMP "Dragoon" with 57-mm gun

99
In Nizhny Tagil on RAE-2015 was presented the own name "Dragoon" radically modernized BMP-3, which at the request of the customer can be armed with various combat modules. Earlier Messenger of Mordovia already talked about this car and its weapons. This time, the agency’s attention was attracted by the unmanned 57-mm automatic artillery unit АУ-220М.




“The combat module is equipped with a modern fire control system with the same optoelectronic sights of the gunner-operator and the commander of the machine. They have several working channels, including thermal imaging, ”the author reports.

BMP "Dragoon" with 57-mm gun


According to the materials prevailing at the exhibition, “the firing rate of the gun is at least 80 shots per minute, the target range is 8000 m, the angles of vertical / horizontal guidance are 5 ... + 60 / 360 hail, the ammunition load of the gun is up to 200 shots (of which 80 is ready) shooting), ammunition coaxial PKTM - up to 2000 cartridges ".

According to the author, this 57-mm gun is one of the most powerful in its class. “BMP crews with its help will be able to effectively disable not only BMPs and armored personnel carriers, but also main combat Tankshitting them in the lateral projections, ”concludes the publication.

Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tomket
    tomket 23 September 2015 12: 18
    +2
    Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 23 September 2015 12: 20
      24
      Quote: tomket
      Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

      Rate of fire!
      1. edge
        edge 23 September 2015 16: 57
        +4
        Quote: neri73-r
        Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

        ammunition, weight and placement in the module, service capabilities ....
    2. Rattenfanger
      Rattenfanger 23 September 2015 12: 21
      15
      Rate of fire and possibly flatness. For LB goals, aircraft and manpower 57 more interesting.
      1. tomket
        tomket 23 September 2015 12: 24
        +3
        Quote: Rattenfanger
        and 57 manpower more interesting.

        Why is this 57mm more interesting in terms of manpower? The land mine 100mm will be more powerful and efficient in every way. The same is true for armor-piercing.
        1. inkass_98
          inkass_98 23 September 2015 12: 39
          +8
          Quote: tomket
          The same for armor-piercing

          Don't tell. The ZiS-2 was withdrawn from production at the beginning of the war, preference was given to the 76-mm gun, since no worthy targets were found for it - it pierced German tanks through and through. And with the advent of "tigers" and "panthers," the high-speed 57 mm projectile found its way into use. Here, too, not only the caliber plays a role, but the length of the barrel, i.e. projectile speed. In terms of manpower - yes, here the high-explosive 100 mm projectile will be much better.
          1. tomket
            tomket 23 September 2015 12: 44
            +5
            Quote: inkass_98
            ... And with the advent of "tigers" and "panthers," the high-speed 57 mm projectile found its way into use. Here, too, not only the caliber plays a role, but the length of the barrel, i.e. projectile speed.

            It seems to be no one sets the task of infantry fighting vehicles. To combat tanks in extreme cases, you can use anti-tank systems. Against the armored personnel carrier 30mm guns is enough. Against the 100mm infantry, a landmine is also preferable. So the need for such modernization is unclear ....
            1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Uncle VasyaSayapin 23 September 2015 13: 00
              20
              Germany is rearming with new infantry fighting vehicles. Following her, the rest will begin to rearm. I think the new western BMPs are designed to not penetrate 30 mm in the forehead.
            2. ava09
              ava09 23 September 2015 13: 18
              10
              The battles are fought not only in endless fields. There is also the concept of versatility, the need to quickly transfer fire, rate of fire with sufficient caliber, ammunition, mobility, dimensions and many more conditions that are calculated by designers and the military and which you may not have heard of. And if you like power so much, then you stopped at 100 mm, there are more powerful guns. Imagine a "vigorous" land mine - it will blow everything to pieces! -)))))
            3. edge
              edge 23 September 2015 17: 13
              +1
              Quote: tomket
              So the need for such modernization is unclear ....

              -increasing b / c, increasing the power of light armored vehicles, increasing armor space, increasing survivability and all this in the same weight.
          2. SPACE59
            SPACE59 23 September 2015 12: 59
            +1
            Quote: inkass_98

            Do not tell. ZiS-2 was at one time discontinued at the beginning of the war, preference was given to the 76-mm gun,

            Almost true, only preference was given to the magpie.
          3. EvilLion
            EvilLion 23 September 2015 13: 11
            +2
            ZiS-2 was discontinued due to technological problems with its extra-long barrel. These guns were not enough until the end of the War, even after mastering the release.
          4. edge
            edge 23 September 2015 17: 08
            +1
            Quote: inkass_98
            In terms of manpower - yes, here a high-explosive fragmentation 100 mm shell will be much better.

            controversial-positional battles are almost no longer being fought, and firing 100th against mobile and small groups is ridiculous. BMP-3 is good for a classic war, but its power is excessive and lacking in fighting against moving groups
            1. alecsis69
              alecsis69 25 September 2015 00: 37
              +1
              So is the warrior, where the army against the army has not been around for a long time. And about non-ongoing positional battles, tell us in Donbas.
          5. alecsis69
            alecsis69 25 September 2015 00: 32
            0
            ZiS-2, among other things, was still more difficult to manufacture and, accordingly, more expensive, which in the conditions of the evacuation of factories put an end to the possibility of its mass production, and in the 43rd, when the issue of equipping it with the T-34 was considered, since the F-34 ceased to cope with the armor of new German tanks, the preference was, as is known, given to 85 mm ZiS-53, just because of the greater high-explosive effect.
        2. razzhivin
          razzhivin 23 September 2015 12: 44
          +2
          Ammunition 57 mi will be more than 100 ...
          1. tomket
            tomket 23 September 2015 12: 50
            +4
            Quote: razzhivin
            Ammunition 57 mi will be more than 100.

            Your logic is to put a submachine gun with a caliber 9mm. You can carry ammunition, you will download !!!!
            1. Black Colonel
              Black Colonel 23 September 2015 12: 54
              +2
              Do not go to extremes.
            2. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 23 September 2015 15: 15
              +2
              If the 9mm round has the required weight and speed, then the tank can be penetrated. But you can't get the PF action from him, so they are looking for a "golden" mean.
              1. Mama_Cholli
                Mama_Cholli 23 September 2015 17: 17
                +2
                Quote: Zaurbek
                If the 9mm round has the required weight and speed, then the tank can be penetrated. But you can't get the PF action from him, so they are looking for a "golden" mean.

                + 10500 you can also break through the tank with a piece of cheese or a piece of apple, for example, if you disperse it to 2 space ...
                1. Aljavad
                  Aljavad 23 September 2015 20: 02
                  +3
                  + 10500 you can also break through the tank with a piece of cheese or a piece of apple, for example, if you disperse it to 2 space ...


                  Only in a vacuum! Otherwise, a piece of cheese will be rubbed off the air and will not break anything. For it will not fly.
            3. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 23 September 2015 15: 15
              0
              If the 9mm round has the required weight and speed, then the tank can be penetrated. But you can't get the PF action from him, so they are looking for a "golden" mean.
            4. edge
              edge 23 September 2015 17: 20
              +1
              Quote: tomket
              Your logic is to put a submachine gun with a caliber 9mm. You can carry ammunition, you will download !!!!

              you’re wrong, -weapons are selected to solve a wider range of infantry tasks (and this is: moving to the battlefield, fire support in attack and defense, fighting against attack aircraft and light enemy combat vehicles), and for fighting tanks there are grenade launchers, anti-aircraft guns, and Fri artillery.
          2. avt
            avt 23 September 2015 13: 15
            -8
            Quote: razzhivin
            Ammunition 57 mi will be more than 100 ...

            Well, throw the fucking shells 57mm along with the gun and pick up small rounds of ammunition - there will be even more! fool
            Quote: KOSMOS59
            In this situation, at least a rate of fire.

            request
            Quote: KOSMOS59
            such a fan of shells, even in the forehead, will have an effect, knock down everything that is possible from the tower, damage the gun, break the tracks. it seems to me))

            Well I say - a clinic! Here is 100mm ATGM from "Bakhchi" - sucks, and you can knock out a tank.
            Quote: KOSMOS59
            such a fan of shells, even in the forehead, will have an effect, knock down everything that is possible from the tower, damage the gun, break the tracks. it seems to me))
            wassat laughing laughing And most importantly, if hit - why, demolish and tear? ”It's a shame!
          3. Lenivets
            Lenivets 23 September 2015 20: 53
            +2
            "57 ammunition will be more than 100 ..."

            And taking into account the 30-mm guns on the BMP-3?
            So it’s less, and since there are only 80 ready for shooting, it’s very significant. hi
        3. avt
          avt 23 September 2015 13: 05
          -2
          Quote: tomket
          Why is this 57mm more interesting in terms of manpower? The land mine 100mm will be more powerful and efficient in every way. The same is true for armor-piercing.

          It is not treated. It is chronic fool from long sitting in front of a computer in shooting games and orgasm from talking about how "Abrams" can be destroyed from a machine gun. Just the same jokes a la "Peculiarities of national fishing" - "I can sink an aircraft carrier ..... if I get" More you can close the viewing devices with your greatcoats. Here are these anecdotes about
          Quote: inkass_98
          since there were no worthy goals for her, she was flashing through German tanks.

          And who really saw these "stitched through and through" ??? There is a photo? And if, without anecdotes, you actually look at the documents WHY was 57mm removed and how, again, according to reports, it showed itself on the same T-34? , flashers "tanks through and through and knockers" Tigers "and" Panthers "will not answer - Why is it, given the miracle of a 57mm cannon, the PTA caliber did not grow childishly through 85mm to 100mm already IN THE DURING THE WAR ??? To be honest, I'm already tired of even hearing the answer to
          Quote: tomket
          Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

          In terms of the same high-explosive action, an answer of the type - A can be placed where ONE 100mm shell is put, put FOUR 57mm, well, of course, if they fall into one funnel wassat
          Quote: tomket
          It seems to be no one sets the task of infantry fighting vehicles. To combat tanks in extreme cases, you can use anti-tank systems.

          To this they answered me - you can hang the ATGM module on the 57mm, but to the question - Why did they not immediately hang it like on the "Berezhok" ??? NONE of them who ends at the sight of this trunk ANSWERED. Not if this module, yes, they sniff to someone over the hill to Africa, or some other Arabia - at a good hour and with a good profit, but why did he not surrender in the Russian army in the presence of the modernized "Bakhchi" presented at the same exhibition. In fact, they have already discussed this wonderful miracle, or a wonderful miracle on the site three times, there is actually nothing to add, especially to those who do not want to hear anything from across and cannot argue in essence, except for the emotion of the new device, which will certainly be used in battle on the world of tanks. sense of a new level, in the mortal battalion on the fields of virtual.
          1. Arandir
            Arandir 23 September 2015 14: 45
            +1
            It is necessary to be less annoyed by the opinions of others, and the fact that some end up so that they were waiting for the appearance of this weapon on the domestic BBM and finally waited.
            They didn’t put 34 mm on the t-57 because the Germans were fixated on the anti-tank battle of their tanks. The Soviet command before the t-34 posed broader tasks: breaking and breaking through the enemy’s defense and fighting enemy tanks. Bunkers, bunkers, artillery, infantry in the field, infantry sheltered in buildings. Will you open 57 mm bunkers?
            BR-281 / BR-281U (meeting angle 0 °) for 2000 meters of 70 mm armor, for 500 meters of 110 mm of armor. This is a solid armor-piercing projectile for the ZSU 57-2, which was nicknamed the "hellish thresher". But you can develop BOPS.
            ZSU 57-2 was actively used during the Vietnam War, in all Arab-Israeli wars. It worked very well in firing at ground targets during the Lebanese civil war. The Syrian army used self-propelled guns to deal with snipers who sat on the upper floors of Beirut skyscrapers. Also, for ground targets, the installation was used during the civil war in Yugoslavia. A special page in the history of ZSU-57-2 is participation in the Iran-Iraq war, in one of the most bloody conflicts after the Second World War. ZSU was actively used on all fronts, was used for infantry and armored targets. It was then that the Iranians called it the "infernal thresher." This car, despite its venerable age, continues to serve even today. The Iranians still operate self-propelled guns and, apparently, are in no hurry to part with them. ZSU were also seen in northern Iraq.
            And about the hugging with 100 mm shells inside the fighting compartment, others wrote.
            1. avt
              avt 23 September 2015 15: 08
              +2
              Quote: Arandir
              You need to be less annoyed by other people's opinions,

              And you your opinion on the FACTAK line, and do not suck out of the finger.
              Quote: Arandir
              They didn’t put 34 mm on the t-57 because the Germans were fixated on the anti-tank battle of their tanks.

              Have you actually looked at the WATER quantity of artillery in the Wehrmacht’s tank division and the number of anti-tank guns in particular on Wikipedia ??? Especially in comparison with similar Soviet units
              Quote: Arandir
              e before the t-34 posed broader tasks: breaking and breaking through the enemy’s defense and the fight against enemy tanks. Bunkers, Bunkers,

              Yeah yeah ???? And therefore, in particular, they created a heavy KV tank, and even in two copies - one with a 152 mm gun!
              Quote: Arandir
              . The Syrian army used self-propelled guns to deal with snipers who sat on the upper floors of Beirut skyscrapers

              And there they also put KPVT on jihat mobiles - they’ll stand up for lack of fish and you’ll get cancer yourself, so what?
              Quote: Arandir
              And about the hugging with 100 mm shells inside the fighting compartment, others wrote.

              And these "others" about the modernized "Bakhchu" presented in the same place as this module, and on the same chassis did not write anything?
              Quote: Arandir
              and. This is a solid armor-piercing projectile for the ZSU 57-2, which was nicknamed the "hellish thresher".

              Again repeat repetition
              Quote: avt
              Again, the flashers of "tanks through and through and knockers" of Tigers "and" Panthers "will not answer - Why is it, given the miracle of a 57mm cannon, the PTA caliber did not grow childishly through 85mm to 100mm already DURING THE WAR ???
              1. Arandir
                Arandir 23 September 2015 18: 26
                -1
                And here the staffing of the division we are talking about a specific gun of one combat unit. What exactly is one tank, infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier can and should do on the battlefield.
                Not because they created a heavy tank, even in duplicate, but because military science of those years required light, medium and heavy tanks. Yes, the KV-2 was created to combat the pillboxes and therefore put a 152 mm howitzer on it, but this does not mean that all the breakthroughs were created exclusively by heavy tanks, and all the pillboxes were destroyed exclusively by the KV. Artillery, aircraft, self-propelled guns, heavy tanks. At this moment, the t-34 stood on the sidelines and nervously smoked from its helplessness?
                Something tells me that you intentionally bring everything together. Itself can not figure out and confuse others.
                So, many opponents need to be a high-class specialist with lightning speed. But judging by the answers, an aggressive amateur.
                Organization of German Tank Forces http://tankfront.ru/deutschland/organisation.html
          2. edge
            edge 23 September 2015 17: 32
            +1
            Quote: avt
            there’s nothing to add, especially to those who don’t want to hear anything across and cannot object in essence, except for being touched by the look of a new device

            in general, the module was developed to replace the turret light weapons of the ussr era in the conditions of army workshops, which is beneficial for countries buying Russian weapons, and of course we .... this module is easily stuck on bmp-1, -2, btr, bmd and get a brand new a car
            1. avt
              avt 23 September 2015 18: 03
              0
              Quote: hert
              ... this module is easily stuck on bmp-1, -2, btr, bmd and get a brand new car

              Yes-ah-ah !? Where and when? No, I seriously don't know when and where this module was piled up for a penny, or for two. I heard about "Berezhok", but this is generally quite specific and different - a Tula story.
              Quote: hert
              , which is beneficial for countries buying Russian weapons,

              Well, so am I about the same!
              Quote: avt
              .Not if this module, but with the BIP, is pushing someone over a hill into Africa, or some other Arabia - at a good hour and with a good profit,

              And if, along with the old pennies, it’s only forward! Yes, even there
              Quote: hert
              in the conditions of army workshops,

              from those already purchased in the USSR they will be remade - but for health. The Kazakhs bought the Terminator and it's nice, they like it - the flag on the tower and let them buy it again. Why the heck for us, especially if there is a decent Berezhok for the same twos?
        4. avdkrd
          avdkrd 23 September 2015 13: 51
          +7
          Quote: tomket
          Why is this 57mm more interesting in terms of manpower? Landmine 100mm will be more powerful and efficient. The same for armor-piercing

          The 100 mm BMP 3 gun has low ballistics (the initial velocity of the projectile is 250 m / s), which generally excludes the use of armor-piercing shells (BPS), only cumulative and OFS. The power of the 100mm OFS is certainly higher than 57 (four times), but the probability of hitting the target is an order of magnitude lower (there is no flatness — only a hinged path). The rate of fire of the 57mm gun is -120 rounds per minute and the burst of three shells is guaranteed to hit such a complex target as the calculation of ATGMs or machine gunners. It’s hard to say with regard to armor-piercing properties, but the frontal projection of a modern tank will not penetrate either 57mm or 100mm, but it will hit the light projection on the side projection 57mm (armor-piercing projectile (not BPS) 120mm), while the probability of being hit by an automatic gun is higher. Another plus is the ability to 57mm guns to deal with helicopters.
        5. edge
          edge 23 September 2015 17: 02
          +1
          Quote: tomket
          Why is this 57mm more interesting in terms of manpower? The land mine 100mm will be more powerful and efficient in every way. The same is true for armor-piercing.

          yeah, or you have 40 shots, or 200. the bolle is capable of hitting tanks in the side projection; the more b / c the longer the battle ...
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 23 September 2015 15: 12
        0
        Quote: Rattenfanger
        For LB goals, aircraft and manpower 57 more interesting.

        Special aircraft are needed for aircraft, i.e. not so much the caliber and power of the ammunition as the guidance system and rate of fire.
        The fragmentation, and the high-explosive action of the 57-mm projectile is not very good. This is me about the infantry.
        Such a caliber of guns is used, as a rule, against light- (and not very easy) armored vehicles.
        Now MSV, MSR has ATGMs for this, but a platoon of BMP with 57-mm cannons in a company-battalion will not hurt. ATGM can "blunder" in the event of intense interference, powerful EMP, etc. And the cannon ... as Suvorov used to say: "the bullet will cheat, the bayonet will not cheat!"
    3. SPACE59
      SPACE59 23 September 2015 12: 24
      +3
      Quote: tomket
      Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

      In this situation, at least a rate of fire.
      gun rate - at least 80 rounds per minute,

      such a fan of shells, even in the forehead, will have an effect, knock down everything that is possible from the tower, damage the gun, break the tracks. it seems to me))
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 September 2015 12: 40
        +3
        Quote: KOSMOS59
        such a fan of shells, even in the forehead, will have an effect, knock down everything that is possible from the tower, damage the gun, break the tracks. it seems to me))

        But isn’t it easier to work on the tank with what is designed to defeat it - ATGM? And do not engage in perversions?
        Moreover, in the context of "knocking everything off the turret", the 2A72 will make the 57 mm cannon purely due to the rate of fire.

        By the way, something I do not see PU ATGM on the module with a 57-mm gun ...
        1. SPACE59
          SPACE59 23 September 2015 12: 44
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA

          But isn’t it easier to work on the tank with what is designed to defeat it - ATGM? And do not engage in perversions?

          These questions are best addressed to the designers))
    4. mihasik
      mihasik 23 September 2015 12: 24
      +6
      Quote: tomket
      Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

      BC is larger, and efficiency is not much less.
    5. KGB WATCH YOU
      KGB WATCH YOU 23 September 2015 12: 35
      +4
      As for me, the biggest "plus" is the isolated BC. It is somehow not pleasant to sit in an embrace with 100mm shells ... But also the rate of fire, carried ammunition, shells with remote detonation, etc.
    6. Engineer
      Engineer 23 September 2015 12: 49
      -1
      The petrel is pushing its new gun, which for some reason the sheikhs did not want, as I understand it. And so it is not needed on the BMP-3 more than at all. In terms of manpower, a bullet from such a stupid one is lightly armored and takes a 30mm gun, there are no landmines, there are no guided weapons, due to the strong recoil, the BMP's light body will be rocking, so aiming firing will be difficult - at 100mm the recoil is very small. For me, so Bahcha where the balance for the BMP-3.
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 23 September 2015 12: 57
        +2
        "... which for some reason the sheikhs did not want ..."
        And since when did the sheikhs become marshals of victory?
      2. KGB WATCH YOU
        KGB WATCH YOU 23 September 2015 13: 08
        +7
        1. Sheikhs did not refuse, because there is nothing to refuse, the combat module has not yet been finalized and tested.
        2. Under the 57 mm cannon, shells with remote detonation are already being developed, so it’s rather stupid to shoot 100 mm at the infantry (and even carry shells in an embrace with the landing), 30 mm does not have a high explosive effect.
        3. 30 mm gun does not take modern infantry fighting vehicles and even some armored personnel carriers.
        4. Landmines will be, we return to point 2.
    7. EvilLion
      EvilLion 23 September 2015 13: 09
      +4
      There the 100 mm gun is extremely low-pulse, although it can shoot rockets at the armor. Here the argument may be a general simplification of the entire system with a reduction in price.
    8. seregatara1969
      seregatara1969 23 September 2015 14: 47
      0
      muzzle velocity
    9. prosto_rgb
      prosto_rgb 23 September 2015 15: 49
      +2
      Quote: tomket
      Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

      How than :? The fact that the designers do not live in a vacuum, the friction over 100 or 57 for 30 years already. Funding has gone and 57 have done. Take what you want, but then do not be offended.
    10. svp67
      svp67 23 September 2015 20: 05
      +1
      Quote: tomket
      Question. Than a 57mm gun is better
      Since the 57 mm cannon is based on an anti-aircraft cannon, it has higher ballistic properties than the 100mm gun, which means range and accuracy. She is a kind of "golden mean" between 37mm and 100mm guns
    11. Welcome to hell
      Welcome to hell 23 September 2015 22: 50
      0
      your question, I understand the better 57mm than the one that was on bmp3? Yes, because the one that stood (100mm) fired only high-explosive fragmentation, it was designed to deal purely with infantry and lightly armored vehicles, and 57mm it can effectively fight against air targets and it can penetrate tanks into sides and stern, which essentially makes Its more attractive to some countries. But the RF Ministry of Defense is unlikely to order this modification (57mm) since for us, BMP is primarily infantry support (fighting against enemy infantry and lightly armored vehicles), and for MBT and air targets we have ATGMs and air defense systems that cover each brigade
    12. kolyhalovs
      kolyhalovs 24 September 2015 06: 07
      -1
      Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???


      Maybe just cheaper?
    13. nikoliski
      nikoliski 9 August 2018 08: 37
      -1
      only one-rate of fire and pickup angles, which allows it to be used as anti-aircraft
  2. Rattenfanger
    Rattenfanger 23 September 2015 12: 20
    +7
    Author-author .... You need to learn the materiel. "Dragoon" comes with a hundred square meters, and a module "Derivation" comes from the 57-mm one.
    1. fox21h
      fox21h 23 September 2015 12: 25
      +7
      Quote: Rattenfanger
      Author-author .... You need to learn the materiel. "Dragoon" comes with a hundred square meters, and a module "Derivation" comes from the 57-mm one.

      The BMP-3M Dragoon weapons systems complex with BM 100 + 30, BM 57 and BM 125 weapon modules, so the author was not mistaken
      1. gjv
        gjv 23 September 2015 12: 57
        +4
        Quote: Rattenfanger
        You need to learn the materiel. "Dragoon" comes with a hundred square meters, and a module "Derivation" comes from the 57-mm one.

        "Derivation" is equipped with a robotic combat module with a 57-mm automatic high-ballistic cannon AU-220M. The combat module also has a fire control system with a sight stabilized in two planes, television and thermal imaging channels, and laser rangefinders. The rate of fire of the gun reaches 120 rounds per minute. The gun uses high-explosive fragmentation, armor-piercing and the latest guided projectiles, which significantly increase the accuracy of fire. In addition to the cannon, the Derivation is equipped with a 7,62 mm machine gun paired with it. The module can conduct a circular attack, the vertical guidance angle is 75 degrees.
        Quote: fox21h
        Combined weapon systems BMP-3M "Dragoon" with weapons modules BM 100 + 30, BM 57 and BM 125, so the author was not mistaken

        Retaining the basic armament of the BMP, "Dragoon" changed the layout: the engine was moved to the bow, which increased the troop compartment and appeared a ramp for the exit. This is the main difference - in the "Dragoon" you do not have to jump over the engine through the upper hatch.
        We learn materiel.
      2. Rattenfanger
        Rattenfanger 23 September 2015 13: 34
        +2
        The version with the uninhabited module AU220M includes a 57-mm automatic cannon - "Derivation". Combat modules with which the Dragoon can be equipped: BM 100 + 30 with 100-mm 2A70 and 30-mm 2A72 guns; "BM 57" with a 57-mm cannon; "BM 125" with a 125-mm cannon 2A75.
        This article is about AU 220 M.
        More questions?
        1. Rattenfanger
          Rattenfanger 23 September 2015 13: 39
          -1
          http://military-informant.com/army/poyavilos-video-ispyitaniy-novoy-rossiyskoy-b
          mp-derivatsiya.html
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. gjv
          gjv 23 September 2015 13: 45
          +2
          AU220M Baikal is a Russian uninhabited combat module with a 57-mm cannon developed by the Central Research Institute Burevestnik. AU-220M made in the form of a remotely controlled artillery unit designed for installation on promising and modernized combat armored vehicles with the aim of increasing the firepower of motorized rifle and infantry units. The ammunition power of the 57-mm gun allows you to hit most of the existing armored objects on the battlefield. The gun is an improved version of the anti-aircraft artillery guns C-60.
          57 mm automatic gun of the combat module BM-57 is a modification of the Soviet 57-mm automatic gun AZP-57, which is used as part of the anti-aircraft artillery system C-60developed by the Central Research Institute "Petrel". Previously, this gun was supposed to modernize the PT-76B tank, as part of the AU-220M combat module.
          Quote: Rattenfanger
          More questions?
          1. Rattenfanger
            Rattenfanger 23 September 2015 13: 47
            -1
            What was this for?)
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. gjv
              gjv 23 September 2015 14: 01
              0
              Quote: Rattenfanger
              to what

              Why write about guns, they can be here and there.
              Write directly - the author was mistaken in the fact that in the article he compiled Dragoon with Derivation.
              1. Rattenfanger
                Rattenfanger 23 September 2015 14: 30
                0
                Quote: gjv
                Why write about guns, they can be here and there.
                Write directly - the author was mistaken in the fact that in the article he compiled Dragoon with Derivation.

                1) and here and there they can be at a miracle that has never sat in the tower of a box. And for the operator, the moment, whether the module is autonomous or classic, is "two big differences" (c).
                2) I, in fact, started from that point to the author’s mistake.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. atk44849
    atk44849 23 September 2015 12: 23
    +3
    such a fluff can be drowned by the destroyer! this is a ship's version of the AK family guns.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 23 September 2015 12: 57
      +3
      Quote: atk44849
      such a fluff can be drowned by the destroyer! this is a ship's version of the AK family guns.

      On the contrary. AU-220M is a land version of the ship A-220M, which in turn is a modernized version of the A-220, developed already in the late 60s (the roots of this family grow generally from S-60).
      Since then, "Petrel" has been trying in vain to sell this 57-mm cannon to anyone. The problem is that the fleet on light ships is quite happy with the AK-176 and they are not going to reduce the caliber (perhaps the Monsoon MRK disaster also played a role here, when the 57-mm AK-725 seemingly achieved hits, but could not inflict significant damage to a target missile that left the course, which eventually hit the RTO). So I had to do the overland version.
  4. Neputin
    Neputin 23 September 2015 12: 30
    0
    Tell an ignorant person, will a 57 mm cannon be able to penetrate the side armor of a main tank (for example, a T-90) with an active defense system and other "gadgets"? If so, then why put 100mm and 125mm guns on tanks, if you can get by with 57mm? I am plagued by vague doubts that he cannot.
    1. SPACE59
      SPACE59 23 September 2015 12: 38
      0
      Quote: Neputin
      Tell an ignorant person if a 57 mm cannon can penetrate the side armor of the main tank (for example, T-90) with a complex of active protection and others

      If I understand correctly, then active armor does not save from such a projectile, it is also focused on a cumulative jet.
    2. KGB WATCH YOU
      KGB WATCH YOU 23 September 2015 12: 38
      +6
      KAZ of the "Arena" type will not save from 57 mm, DZ in 99 cases out of 100 are not placed on the sides (but in vain!), So it will penetrate the T-90 and Abrams, Leopard. But only to the side and stern.

      125 mm is needed to pierce tanks in the forehead, oddly enough lol

      100 mm nafig is not needed on light armored vehicles, IMHO. For everyone new LMM should be 45 or 57 mm cannon + "suspended" ATGM
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 23 September 2015 12: 43
        +2
        Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
        100 mm nafig is not needed on light armored vehicles, IMHO. All new LMEs should have 45 or 57 mm cannons + ATGMs "suspended"

        Yeah ... and complaints from the motorized riflemen will show up about the weak fragmentation and high-explosive effect of shells. And from mortar bombers - complaints about the inability to burst and fulfill all the infantry requests with regular trunks, some of which the infantry could previously resolve itself, due to the 100 mm OFS.
        1. KGB WATCH YOU
          KGB WATCH YOU 23 September 2015 12: 58
          +4
          So, and now, in more detail, in what conflicts was the BMP-3, BMD-4 involved? The first and last participation of LMWs with 100 mm was in Chechnya (not counting the ongoing confrontation in Yemen, let’s summarize the results of the use of BMP-3 after the conflict), where BMP-3 was broken into molecules due to the presence of 100 mm shells after the first hit. Then followed a ban on the participation of BMP-3 in battles.
          57 mm shell has a good high-explosive impact, the ability to use anti-infantry shells (in trenches, in buildings) currently developing shells with remote detonation, ammunition separate from the crew, etc.

          PS Here is the result of any BMP-3 hit / detonation (because there is no armor and there are 100 mm shells inside, nothing surprising)

          1. lelikas
            lelikas 23 September 2015 14: 03
            0
            Quote: KGB WATCH YOU

            PS Here is the result of any BMP-3 hit / detonation (because there is no armor and there are 100 mm shells inside, nothing surprising)

            It’s a landmine, and he’ll do practically the same with any lightly armored vehicles, even if you hammer her with bricks. It all depends on how much explosives have been planted.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 23 September 2015 15: 14
            0
            Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
            The first and last participation of LMWs with 100 mm was in Chechnya (not counting the ongoing confrontation in Yemen, let’s summarize the results of the use of BMP-3 after the conflict), where BMP-3 was broken into molecules due to the presence of 100 mm shells after the first hit.

            EMNIP, this is not a hit, but a detonation. There, in the video, all the roadsides were in PT-mines. And from the TM "saucers" the same BMP-2 with their 30-mm shells laid out no worse. After all, 6,5 kg (TM-57) or even 8 kg (TM-62) explosive.
    3. ROD VDVshny
      ROD VDVshny 23 September 2015 13: 08
      +3
      Quote: Neputin
      But can a 57 mm gun break through the side armor of the main tank

      Some of the tank reservation analysis can be found here:
      http://topwar.ru/23416-analiz-bronirovaniya-tanka-m1a2-sep-abrams.html особенно комментарии почитайте lol
      Quote: Neputin
      Why put 100 mm and 125 mm guns on tanks, if 57 mm can be dispensed with?

      "All sorts of guns are needed, all sorts of guns are important" yes
      There are goals for which a tank shell is luxury and excess.
      57mm gun - BMP weapon
  5. Tor5
    Tor5 23 September 2015 12: 34
    0
    And the article is good in its entirety, and the machine presented!
  6. tomket
    tomket 23 September 2015 12: 37
    +1
    Quote: Neputin
    Tell an ignorant person, will a 57 mm cannon be able to penetrate the side armor of a main tank (for example, a T-90) with an active defense system and other "gadgets"? If so, then why put 100mm and 125mm guns on tanks, if you can get by with 57mm? I am plagued by vague doubts that he cannot.

    What definitely can be is to remove different surveillance devices. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the MBT crew allowed such an infantry fighting vehicle to the effective firing range. All the same, whatever one may say BMP is not PT. And therefore, the main objective of armament on the BMP is the fight against enemy infantry and armored personnel carriers. The combination of 30mm and 100mm is, in my opinion, optimal.
    1. Arandir
      Arandir 23 September 2015 13: 55
      +1
      Nobody has canceled the ambushes, maneuvering combat, natural terrain, greenhouse, beams, ravines, urban development. Anna Karenina had no choice on the rails before the engine. Why did the Americans take that their abrash would always be just an impenetrable forehead to the enemy deployed?
  7. atk44849
    atk44849 23 September 2015 12: 39
    +3
    Quote: Neputin
    Tell an ignorant person, will a 57 mm cannon be able to penetrate the side armor of a main tank (for example, a T-90) with an active defense system and other "gadgets"? If so, then why put 100mm and 125mm guns on tanks, if you can get by with 57mm? I am plagued by vague doubts that he cannot.

    will break armor in a place with cumulative protection. due to the rate of fire and the initial speed of the ammunition and its filling, respectively. If interested, read about ship Ak. here they reduced the rate of fire. otherwise the tower will be torn off.
  8. Engineer
    Engineer 23 September 2015 12: 45
    0
    A couple of those already happened - why one more if there is nothing new in it?
  9. tomket
    tomket 23 September 2015 12: 46
    0
    Now, if such a module on BMP-2 put. Then progress would be obvious.
    1. KGB WATCH YOU
      KGB WATCH YOU 23 September 2015 13: 10
      0
      They say they set it, but it didn’t.
  10. atk44849
    atk44849 23 September 2015 12: 50
    +2
    Quote: tomket
    Now, if such a module on BMP-2 put. Then progress would be obvious.
    the BMP-2 suspension will not stand. and all the equipment too.
  11. user
    user 23 September 2015 12: 55
    +1
    That's interesting, but can the AU-220M be delivered to the BMP-2?
    After all, if you upgrade the BMP-2s that are in service, and there are several thousand of them today, with such an installation, the machine will simply immediately transfer to another class of vehicles.
    1. KGB WATCH YOU
      KGB WATCH YOU 23 September 2015 13: 10
      0
      They didn’t fit smile
  12. Crown
    Crown 23 September 2015 13: 02
    0
    Perhaps later they will put on heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
  13. Buxus
    Buxus 23 September 2015 13: 11
    +2
    Quote: tomket
    Quote: Rattenfanger
    and 57 manpower more interesting.

    Why is this 57mm more interesting in terms of manpower? The land mine 100mm will be more powerful and efficient in every way. The same is true for armor-piercing.

    but you can substantiate your position with specific numbers, and then justification by the term "anything" is too much for me. I would like to understand how much one 100mm HE shell will be more powerful than a burst of 10-15 57mm HE shells fired within 10-12 seconds.
    1. tomket
      tomket 23 September 2015 13: 26
      0
      Quote: Buxus
      I would like to understand how much one 100mm HE projectile will be more powerful than the line of 10-15 57mm HE launched in 10-12 seconds.

      We proceed from the assumption that the projectile will still hit the target, and not from the fact that it is necessary to plow the field with shells and fill the BMP with shell casings, like the Americans with their Gatlings.
      1. Arandir
        Arandir 23 September 2015 13: 58
        0
        And if you still don’t hit the target and you just need to plow the field with shells, given that the shells are ejected from the BMP automatically
      2. bish
        bish 23 September 2015 15: 48
        +1
        To combat the calculation of ATGMs, it is sometimes better to plow the field than send it once 100 mm. If another 57 mm is equipped with the ability to detonate at a given distance in the air, it will be possible to greatly complicate the life of anti-tank infantry calculations.
  14. Maksus
    Maksus 23 September 2015 13: 12
    0
    57mm - a good caliber, but the question arises with ammunition - what will be the nomenclature? You can’t shove a normal formatting object in 57mm, but you can make quality BOPS.
    1. Genry
      Genry 23 September 2015 14: 18
      +3
      At 57mm, it will shove much more than 30mm (once every 8). Plus a smart fuse with remote detonation. Flying over the trench or around the corner of the building or through the fence will delight the enemies hiding there with a beautiful bouquet of fragments.
      According to the cost of production: _ the number of operations on the conveyor 30mm and 57mm will be the same, hence the cost differs only in the volume of materials, which is insignificant in relation to the cost of manufacture.
  15. Corsair0304
    Corsair0304 23 September 2015 13: 23
    +2
    Well, the controversy has begun! In my opinion, both the one and the other machine have both their pros and cons.
    Here you need to understand that RAE is a kind of car dealership where PR-actions for the sale of products are held. And just like in a car dealership, there is a demonstration of equipment for "super-duper" equipment and "that's such a little price."
    To summarize: only military tests and not in a year or two, but more thoughtful ones, can reveal all the advantages and disadvantages of machines in full. Here I subscribe to the opinion of "KGB WATCH YOU" on the nomenclature of shells for 57-mm and weak protection of the crew and troops in the vehicle version with 100-mm.

    "The first and last participation of the LME with 100 mm was in Chechnya (apart from the ongoing confrontation in Yemen, we will summarize the results of the use of the BMP-3 after the end of the conflict), where the BMP-3 exploded into molecules due to the presence of 100 mm shells after the first hit. Then came the ban on the participation of BMP-3 in battles. "
  16. Arandir
    Arandir 23 September 2015 13: 24
    +2
    Among other things, 57-mm is also the possibility of anti-aircraft fire, it is possible to defend yourself from air attacks on your own in the absence of "Tungus", etc. And the problem with unmanned vehicles is being solved, of which there are many. You will shoot 100 mm at the crumbs. 30 mm "puma" in the forehead does not need to use ATGM or 100 mm, 57-mm is enough. 4 pieces of 57-mm are better than one 100-mm infantry. Remote detonation in the air in this context is much more interesting than high-explosive fragmentation. And if necessary, on an unarmored convoy of trucks in machine-gun mode.
    It was not without reason that they put 100 and 30 mm in the pair, which means that one caliber is not enough, and the other is redundant for other purposes. And during the fighting, the provision of two calibers is immediately more problematic than one.
    In general, 57 mm is an interesting caliber since the days of Grabin. Excessive strength before the appearance of the "tigers".
    Two times less than 100, two times more than 30. The golden mean.
    This cannon would have two more remote-controlled modules: a coaxial 57-mm grenade launcher with ptm. Two are so independent. This would be the "terminator" "serpent gornovich". Uncle of "Cheburashka" Lysenkovsky.
    In terms of firepower against lightly armored and undefended targets, he would have no equal even among promising tanks.
  17. vlad7777kul
    vlad7777kul 23 September 2015 13: 30
    0
    Increase the caliber. It looks like 30mm is no longer satisfied.
  18. ya.seliwerstov2013
    ya.seliwerstov2013 23 September 2015 14: 23
    0
    I like the idea. 57mm is the thing!
    + uninhabited fighting compartment.
  19. Leeder
    Leeder 23 September 2015 14: 34
    +1
    Quote: tomket
    Question. Than 57mm gun is better than 100mm gun ???

    And also, with large ammunition, the weight of the gun (the speed of rotation of the gun, the ability to install more armor), takes up less space. For ballistics, less impact, better flatness, the ability to conduct more intense fire on aircraft.
    Only it seems to me that the ammunition 200 will not be enough ...
  20. IS-80
    IS-80 23 September 2015 15: 45
    0
    This 57 mm cannon is not needed. Avt is right. But "Bakhcha" also needs modernization. A 30 mm gun needs to be replaced with a 45 mm gun, and a 100 mm gun with a 125 mm gun launcher. This will unify the range of ammunition and increase combat effectiveness.
    1. Arandir
      Arandir 23 September 2015 18: 47
      0
      Better yet, the "tulip" and the "hyacinth" paired with it, and a bundle of "cornflowers" and "acacia"
  21. bish
    bish 23 September 2015 15: 53
    0
    Quote: tomket
    Quote: Buxus
    I would like to understand how much one 100mm HE projectile will be more powerful than the line of 10-15 57mm HE launched in 10-12 seconds.

    We proceed from the assumption that the projectile will still hit the target, and not from the fact that it is necessary to plow the field with shells and fill the BMP with shell casings, like the Americans with their Gatlings.


    If it is necessary to destroy the ATGM calculation, it will be preferable to plow the field 57 mm than send it once 100 mm, not the fact that it will cover the entrenched infantrymen. If at 57 mm they realize the possibility of undermining a projectile in the air at a given distance, the fight against anti-tank crews using a 57 mm gun will become much better, I think it will be easier to hit the aircraft like that.
    1. IS-80
      IS-80 23 September 2015 16: 03
      0
      Quote: bish
      If in 57 mm realize the possibility of undermining a projectile in the air

      What prevents to make remote detonation on a 100 mm gun?
  22. corporal
    corporal 23 September 2015 16: 30
    0
    The Swedes out for their 40 mm and BOPS and programmable OFS did, and rejoice. So if you make the same for 57 mm - it will be better and more powerful in armor penetration and fragmentation, respectively.
    Although, if specialists consider 57 excessive, then you can return to 45 ke with the same idea of ​​BOPS and programmable.
  23. Maxwrx
    Maxwrx 23 September 2015 19: 14
    +1
    I'm for 57mm! but I want to add to the previous comments.
    1. the weight will be less than melon, and therefore better throughput, reliability, etc.
    2. The cost of production of melon is many times greater than this module.
    3. less projection (read the probability of hitting)
  24. common man
    common man 23 September 2015 23: 17
    +3
    Please compare the volume occupied by different modules inside the BMP.
    1. Berezhok.


    2. Melon.


    3. Derivation.
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2015/500/dice148.jpg