Military Review

Media: BMP-3 will be strengthened by the Baikal artillery module

131
Uralvagonzavod and the Petrel Research Institute intend to install the remote-controlled artillery module AU-3М Baikal on the BMP-57 220-mm, the newspaper reports News.


Media: BMP-3 will be strengthened by the Baikal artillery module


“Equipping an infantry fighting vehicle with this complex will significantly expand the capabilities of combat vehicles, since today there are no armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles in the world that are able to withstand the shot of Baikal,” the newspaper writes with reference to representatives of the military-industrial complex.

It is noted that "a multifunctional complex is equally effective against both ground targets and means of air attacks."

The rate of fire of "Baikal" is up to 120 shots / min, the maximum range is 12 km, the high-explosive, armor-piercing and guided projectiles are included in the ammunition load.

Photos used:
Press Service of the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant, bastion-opk.ru
131 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mojohed2012
    mojohed2012 30 May 2016 10: 01
    +12
    But what, the 100-mm gun with the paired 30-mm is not enough for the enemy BMP and, if you're lucky for the tanks?
    100 mm is still more powerful than 57. Or did it drank the budget or could explain the advantage?
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 30 May 2016 10: 08
      +22
      There is a double-edged sword - of course, for a weakly armored for air purposes, of course, a 57mm rapid-fire gun is better. By manpower, naughty 57mm shells are of course bust. But 100mm has adequate landmines for these purposes. In addition, for armored purposes there is a guided weapon for a 100mm gun. And the accuracy of firing bursts of 57mm guns on such a light chassis remains in question. I think here it is necessary to work out a reasonable proportion of the composition of parts of such machines. But here the question arises of servicing and supplying vehicles with different weapons.
      1. mojohed2012
        mojohed2012 30 May 2016 10: 12
        0
        I agree with you. I am in favor of this question of the Russian military-industrial complex: "Give the armata BMP combat module consisting of: 100-mm cannon + 57-mm cannon + 30-mm cannon + 30-mm cannon + PKT coaxial machine gun + anti-aircraft machine gun on the head in a remote turret.
        Oh. It’s too much ... So it asks for the language: AU Mr. Rogozin !!! Give BMPT based on Almaty?
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 30 May 2016 11: 22
          +4
          Quote: mojohed2012
          I am in favor of this question of the Russian military-industrial complex: "Give the armata BMP combat module consisting of: 100-mm cannon + 57-mm cannon + 30-mm cannon + 30-mm cannon + PKT coaxial machine gun + anti-aircraft machine gun on the head in a remote turret.

          Bullshit. And will you carry ammunition to these trunks in a trailed cart? lol
          There is a T-14 MBT on the platform of the same name, which perfectly solves all the tasks assigned to it to remove specialized modern threats.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 30 May 2016 14: 23
          +2
          Quote: mojohed2012
          But what, the 100-mm gun with the paired 30-mm is not enough for the enemy BMP and, if you're lucky for the tanks?

          So far, it’s normal (however, like 30mm + ATGMs), there’s still enough potential for 10-15 years.
          However, it's time to think about the new gun.
          And such claims to the old module:
          - The BC is located in the fighting compartment, and it’s exactly in the middle of the profile, in the most likely place of defeat, and according to modern trends, it’s ay-ay-ay.
          - The power of 100mm TOURS has long been lacking for a confident defeat, not only MBT, but also a modern highly protected infantry fighting vehicle
          - The 30mm gun is also experiencing the decline of its glory, and needs to be replaced with a more powerful one, with an expanded range of ammunition.

          Theoretically, the remote DBM should come in place, with a promising 40-45 mm gun for telescopic ammunition (with new shells - sub-caliber, dist. Detonation, etc.), and new ATGMs with a multi-channel seeker.

          In return, we see:
          - gun of the 60s, the ammunition is still stored in the combat compartment (recall, in the module tower - only 80 out of 200 shells);
          -shells are old, at the technological level of the 70s of the last century.
          There were no new, long-promised ammunition; there were none;
          - About ATGM on this module is not mentioned at all, even about the good old Cornet.

          And it is pushing this pseudo "new" cannon - the UVZ and Petrel lobby: here you have orders, saws, kickbacks, and maintaining the reputation "unparalleled in the world !!!" - and all this instead of really doing new a tool for armored vehicles, which could, like the ingenious gun of Gryazev-Shipunov, occupy its niche in armored vehicles for the next 50 years.
          1. avt
            avt 30 May 2016 19: 13
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            And it is pushing this pseudo "new" cannon - the UVZ and Petrel lobby: here you have orders, saws, kickbacks, and maintaining the reputation "unparalleled in the world !!!"

            Well, it will end just like the notorious "Terminator" from the same manufacturers. Well, the Kazakhs will buy, maybe someone else. Maybe this modular bowl will sweep past the armored vehicles of the Russian Federation.
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 30 May 2016 10: 40
        +9
        Quote: Engineer
        In terms of manpower, mocking 57mm shells is of course overkill.

        You are sure? No. Those. 30mm can be "smacked", but 57mm not?
        Quote: Engineer
        But 100mm has adequate landmines for these purposes.
        The effectiveness of 100-mm shells on field-type fortifications is certainly higher yes but it’s a low-ballistic gun that loses precision to the 57 mm.
        Quote: Engineer
        And the accuracy of firing bursts of 57mm guns on such a light chassis remains in question.

        Why would? The firing accuracy of the same 57-mm S-60 guns suspended on jacks was quite acceptable, but with a more stable and heavy tracked chassis "questionable"? In addition, the rate of fire of the 57-mm gun is very low.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 May 2016 11: 01
          +2
          But from a 100 mm cannon you can shoot rockets.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 30 May 2016 11: 24
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            But from a 100 mm cannon you can shoot rockets.

            For this, there are MBT T-90 and T-14.
            Each should do his own thing.
          2. Snow323
            Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 42
            +3
            Isn’t it easier to hang ATGMs, like on a BMP-2? 100mm missiles for armor penetration very much lose to larger caliber missiles. And the vast majority of targets such a gun picks itself.
        2. Snow323
          Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 41
          +7
          Those. 30mm can be "smacked", but 57mm not?
          A 30mm shell weighs 400g and gives about 300 fragments weighing less than a gram, therefore, the enemy can only be killed by a direct hit, or by a very successful hit close to the enemy. There is no air blast. A 57mm projectile weighs about 3 kg and heavier fragments, plus a possible air blast - a couple of shells will be enough to guarantee the defeat of the enemy even in the trench.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 30 May 2016 13: 21
          +1
          High ballistics is crucial when firing BPS. A specific 100mm gun is not intended for this. For firing at armored targets, that is PTRS and Cumulative Shell. For the striking effect of a 100mm HE shell, a high flight speed is not needed. An introduction to the arsenal of a programmable fuse for the OFS is what can increase the effectiveness of shooting.
          1. alexmach
            alexmach 31 May 2016 00: 29
            0
            An introduction to the arsenal of a programmable fuse for the OFS is what can increase the effectiveness of shooting.

            They recaptured such a shell for Bahchi. Cherry was called. Looks like a series did not go.
      3. Snow323
        Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 37
        +4
        Why bust? 57mm with an air blast - the very thing you need to shoot at infantry, including sheltered.
    2. 1976AG
      1976AG 30 May 2016 10: 11
      +1
      Quote: mojohed2012
      But what, the 100-mm gun with the paired 30-mm is not enough for the enemy BMP and, if you're lucky for the tanks?
      100 mm is still more powerful than 57. Or did it drank the budget or could explain the advantage?


      At the same time, the 100-mm gun is also a missile launcher ... I read such articles and I think, either I was very detached from life and missed something, or the author was born yesterday ...
      1. BARKAS
        BARKAS 30 May 2016 10: 14
        +1
        Most likely they will offer for export why not!
      2. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 30 May 2016 10: 20
        +18
        Strongly divorced from life wink The ballistics of the 57 mm gun allows you to perform tasks that are completely inaccessible to the 2A70 gun, which has a low gas pressure in the barrel, and therefore does not know how to perform tasks to destroy high-altitude targets. You do not look only at the caliber — there are many other parameters on which the use of the gun depends.
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 30 May 2016 10: 30
          -1
          Quote: Dimon19661
          Strongly divorced from life wink The ballistics of the 57 mm gun allows you to perform tasks that are completely inaccessible to the 2A70 gun, which has a low gas pressure in the barrel, and therefore does not know how to perform tasks to destroy high-altitude targets. You do not look only at the caliber — there are many other parameters on which the use of the gun depends.


          And I look not only at the caliber, but also at the fact that the 100-mm gun is also a missile launcher, so the combat capabilities are much greater.
          1. Dimon19661
            Dimon19661 30 May 2016 10: 49
            0
            Absolutely not a fact.
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 30 May 2016 11: 07
              -2
              Quote: Dimon19661
              Absolutely not a fact.


              Fact.
              1. Snow323
                Snow323 30 May 2016 12: 24
                0
                No, not a fact. It is better to launch missiles from a special ATGM, and for other parameters, apart from a high-explosive action, 57mm is incomparably better.
              2. Dimon19661
                Dimon19661 30 May 2016 13: 07
                0
                Well, you know better ... I’ve been working on similar systems for 20 years, brought them to mind ... and you are a bam and the right conclusion. Hmm ...
          2. just exp
            just exp 30 May 2016 10: 55
            +5
            On BMP PU missiles can be delivered separately. what we see on the BMP-1,2 and the Kurkans and TBMP on the platform of Almaty.
            1. 1976AG
              1976AG 30 May 2016 11: 06
              -4
              Quote: just EXPL
              On BMP PU missiles can be delivered separately. what we see on the BMP-1,2 and the Kurkans and TBMP on the platform of Almaty.


              Can. Will you throw high-explosive shrapnel manually?
              1. just exp
                just exp 30 May 2016 21: 33
                +1
                57mm PF also has a besides the cornet (which is on the new BMP) there is a warhead with a thermobaric part. believe in your share is more than enough.
          3. Snow323
            Snow323 30 May 2016 12: 25
            +1
            57mm guided projectiles are assumed.
        2. i80186
          i80186 30 May 2016 10: 32
          +10
          Well, I remember she possesses S-60 ballistics, which means that the caliber projectile BR-281, developed in 1956, penetrates 1000 mm of armor at a distance of 100 m. How much a modern projectile can penetrate is not known at all. So the big question is which is better. A modern ATGM caliber have 125mm or more. What is the point of 100mm ATGM?
          1. 1976AG
            1976AG 30 May 2016 10: 46
            +1
            Quote: i80186
            Well, I remember she possesses S-60 ballistics, which means that the caliber projectile BR-281, developed in 1956, penetrates 1000 mm of armor at a distance of 100 m. How much a modern projectile can penetrate is not known at all. So the big question is which is better. A modern ATGM caliber have 125mm or more. What is the point of 100mm ATGM?


            And what is the big problem to make a modern 100mm ATGM? An RPG-7 with modern grenades is still allegedly an effective means of fighting tanks. Given the mass of the BMP-3, a new ATGM is needed. Much more important is the ability to fight precisely with enemy tanks, and against manpower, and so on to fig weapons.
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 30 May 2016 10: 56
              +3
              Quote: 1976AG
              And what is the big problem to make a modern ATGM 100-mm?

              Do you think that they just increase the caliber of ATGMs and move on to defeat MBT from above?
              Quote: 1976AG
              An RPG-7 with modern grenades is still allegedly an effective means of fighting tanks.
              I would say "relatively effective". Even the tandem rounds of the PG-7VR on the forehead do not guarantee the defeat of a modern tank, and the firing range of the PG-7VR is relatively small. The length of tandem shaped charges is much larger and it is very difficult to fit them into the dimensions of a 100-mm projectile (ATGM) fired from a gun.
              1. 1976AG
                1976AG 30 May 2016 11: 13
                0
                The fact of the matter is that the BMP-3 gun is more universal: in some cases it is effective against armored vehicles and in almost all against manpower, the 57-mm caliber does not.
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 30 May 2016 11: 19
                  +4
                  Quote: 1976AG
                  The fact of the matter is that the BMP-3 gun is more universal

                  Really? No. And you compare the effective firing range and rate of fire 2A70 and C-60.
                2. Snow323
                  Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 46
                  +2
                  I do not agree, only a high-explosive action on the fortifications, but there is a strong minus - the BMP is still used for transporting infantry, and the crew is sitting in an embrace with 100mm shells.
                  1. wasjasibirjac
                    wasjasibirjac 30 May 2016 19: 40
                    0
                    and with a new gun will cuddle with a 57 mm. who cares? can it be better to use this module to upgrade BMP-1, BMP-2?
                    1. Snow323
                      Snow323 30 May 2016 20: 00
                      0
                      It will not, see below photos. Baikal is a remote module.
                3. K-50
                  K-50 30 May 2016 12: 03
                  +3
                  Quote: 1976AG
                  The fact of the matter is that the BMP-3 gun is more universal: in some cases it is effective against armored vehicles and in almost all against manpower, the 57-mm caliber does not.

                  All modern infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are built from the ability to withstand 30-mm rounds, and the old ones are upgraded to this level. A PTR of 100 mm caliber in the BMP-3 ammunition may simply not be enough to counter the threats placed on our borders by enemy equipment. Therefore, there was a transition to a larger caliber. Again, a 57-mm shot with an air blast is much more effective against helicopters and UAVs, and also against infantry in shelters. hi
                  1. potroshenko
                    potroshenko 30 May 2016 12: 16
                    +7
                    Again, a 57-mm shot with an air blast is much more effective against helicopters and UAVs

                    And will the gunner be guided at air targets "by eye"? Or will a system for detecting, capturing, calculating a lead for air targets be additionally installed?
                    1. Cat man null
                      Cat man null 30 May 2016 12: 25
                      +7
                      Quote: potroshenko
                      And will the gunner be guided at air targets "by eye"? Or will a system for detecting, capturing, calculating a lead for air targets be additionally installed?

                      - ts-sssss !!!
                      - I once tried to argue here on this subject crying
                      - they pecked me at feng shui and said that it was "against hovering helicopters" request

                      Well, and against wounded turtles, obviously .. laughing
                      1. sivuch
                        sivuch 30 May 2016 13: 10
                        +2
                        Will you arrange pairing with Barnaul or do you need your own radar on each BM?
                      2. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 30 May 2016 13: 25
                        +3
                        Quote: sivuch
                        Will you arrange pairing with Barnaul or do you need your own radar on each BM?

                        - I don't know what "Barnaul" is in this horse-text .. request
                        - Here I personally MSA for volatile targets on the BMP in general .. did not rest anywhere ..
                        - and by wounded turtles hovering (from surprise, obviously .. like: "Oh! BMP !!!") helicopters - it will do anyway yes
                      3. sivuch
                        sivuch 30 May 2016 14: 41
                        +7
                        - I don't know what "Barnaul" is in this horse-text ..
                        But it’s time.
                        In general, this is such an ACS (automated control system) of air defense of SV.Te. TsU on BM anti-aircraft battalion. (Yes, I know that most of the former operators obscure this product, but this is just an example) Moreover, the last rival -PU-12M12 could give the command to force the BM tower to turn around.
                        Now the same is necessary not only for regular air defense systems, but also for everything that can shoot at air targets.
                        If there is a priority objective, like Harop flying to a tank, then the whole collective farm must shell it.
                      4. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 30 May 2016 14: 49
                        +3
                        Quote: sivuch
                        In general, this is such an automatic control system (automated control system) of air defense SV.Te.

                        - Thank you, I didn’t know .. I’m not a Pirashnik nirazu;

                        Quote: sivuch
                        Moreover, the last veteran -PU-12M7 could give a command to force the turn of the BM tower.
                        Now the same is necessary not only for regular air defense systems, but also for everything that can shoot at air targets

                        - mdya .. I want to doubt ..
                        - I found it .. well, ATGM calculation, for example
                        - only his gunner has healed, and he rrrrr-times !! - and the tower was deployed .. and he sees no longer the ATGM, but a helicopter
                        - which, moreover, does not fly at him, at all past, and at the same time, the cattle - it quickly flies
                        - I would be in the place of a gunner .. I would be very upset, at least

                        As far as I understand, the LMS of an air defense machine is very different from the LMS of a tank / infantry fighting vehicle. To everyone. Since it is capable of accompanying fast-flying targets, the lead itself is counted / worked out, etc.

                        But the tank (and BMP) do not know how to do this nirazu .. I know that for sure yes
                      5. sivuch
                        sivuch 31 May 2016 08: 49
                        0
                        so I wrote - for priority purposes, for example, a drone. I appeared - wait for greetings from the MLRS. Or Harop, who will now fall to the next car. Believe me, in this case the gunner will understand and forgive
          2. max702
            max702 30 May 2016 13: 16
            -1
            Quote: K-50
            . A PTR of 100 mm caliber in the BMP-3 ammunition may simply not be enough to counter the threats placed on our borders by enemy equipment.

            I repeat the armor penetration 750mm .. Where more then? But finalizing the SLA and the electronics of the ATGM itself will not hurt ..
            1. Ardein
              Ardein 30 May 2016 15: 02
              +1
              Quote: max702
              I repeat the armor penetration 750mm .. Where more then? But finalizing the SLA and the electronics of the ATGM itself will not hurt ..

              Does the "homogeneous armor" postscript bother you?
              Modern armor (of new and modernized equipment) is that layer cake, which often has higher protection.
              1. max702
                max702 30 May 2016 19: 46
                0
                Quote: Ardein
                Does the "homogeneous armor" postscript bother you?

                Do you think the result for penetration armor for 57mm was not considered for homogeneous armor? How long is there? 100mm per 1 km ? Wonderful! Etozh success no comparison with ATGM which and 5km 750mm!
    3. i80186
      i80186 30 May 2016 11: 16
      +4
      Quote: 1976AG
      And what is the big problem to make a modern ATGM 100-mm?

      Awesome. It is necessary not only to dig a hole, but also to have a high-explosive effect.
      Quote: 1976AG
      An RPG-7 with modern grenades is still allegedly an effective means of fighting tanks.

      Yeah, if you shoot from the bushes in the MTO.
      Quote: 1976AG
      Given the mass of the BMP-3, a new ATGM is needed. Much more important is the ability to fight precisely with enemy tanks, and against manpower, and so on to figs of weapons.

      "Cornet" - here is a decent 152mm ATGM for fighting tanks.
      And 57mm is more likely for Bradley there, with 100mm of armor on the face you need. 30-mm guns do not take it in a frontal projection, as it were, and ATGMs on BMPs are not spent on the bosses.
      1. max702
        max702 30 May 2016 13: 21
        +1
        Quote: i80186
        and ATGMs on BMPs are not spent on business.

        In general, in recent conflicts, from Chechnya to Afghanistan and ending with Syria ATGMs and for a single infantry target, they were used only on the road! And if at the same time it was possible to destroy, for example, machine-gun crew, then this was considered an excellent result ..
    4. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 44
      +4
      Physical restrictions. The lasso gun on a 100mm cannon is quite modern, but most modern tanks do not hit the forehead. A 152mm cornet can.
  2. max702
    max702 30 May 2016 13: 14
    +1
    Quote: i80186
    Well, I remember she possesses S-60 ballistics, which means that the caliber projectile BR-281, developed in 1956, penetrates 1000 mm of armor at a distance of 100 m. How much a modern projectile can penetrate is not known at all. So the big question is which is better. A modern ATGM caliber have 125mm or more. What is the point of 100mm ATGM?

    Well, according to the 100mm ATGM wiki, it penetrates 750mm and at a distance of 5 km, something tells me at this distance with a 57mm projectile that it’s hard to get into the tank without speaking about its defeat, but about modern shells for holes it’s possible to modify the ATGM and it’s effective will grow one and a half times-two ..
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 30 May 2016 13: 50
      +1
      Quote: max702
      Well, according to the ATGM wiki, 100mm breaks through 750mm and at a distance of 5 km

      "Vika" is not the most reliable source of information No.As the saying goes, "paper" will endure everything. It seems to me that the real armor penetration in the given dimensions is 500-600 mm without remote sensing.
      1. max702
        max702 30 May 2016 19: 53
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        It seems to me real armor penetration in the given dimensions of 500-600 mm without DZ.

        Well Duc and statements about super duper penetration 57mm from the same opera! Be objective, almost any modern ammunition that hits the front of the tank will not penetrate it! For this, the tanks are made weighing 45-70 tons .. Otherwise, no one would have bothered with this .. In Syria, the T-90 in the forehead and TOW did not take .. I have doubts that Abrams "Cornet" will take it straight in the forehead. The armor is designed for this, otherwise the tanks would be written off as unnecessary ..
    2. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 20: 03
      0
      Yes and no, she’s not against the tanks to fight.
    3. alexmach
      alexmach 31 May 2016 09: 22
      +1
      Well, all the same, comparing ATGMs with a steel disc is not entirely correct.

      But still this article is surprising. They are going to order new BMPs with this module? or existing refit? If existing - then it is not clear why. If new - why not Kurgan?
  • just exp
    just exp 30 May 2016 10: 54
    +4
    The 100mm cannon in the BMP 3 has a weakened ballistics. as an anti-tank weapon it’s not serious at all. yes she has guided missiles. but a 100mm rocket is not a fountain either.
    this gun was needed more as a high-explosive fragmentation. to work on infantry and fortifications.
    1. max702
      max702 30 May 2016 13: 25
      +1
      Quote: just explo
      this gun was needed more as a high-explosive fragmentation. to work on infantry and fortifications.

      And you remember when the last time with armored vehicles massively had to fight? But with the infantry and fortifications EVERY day! So a low-ballistic gun with a very powerful projectile equivalent to 122mm plus the ability to work on mortar (aiming angles) to support infantry is more preferable .. I’ll not sit in the USSR again ..
      1. Snow323
        Snow323 30 May 2016 20: 03
        0
        Well Ukraine.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 30 May 2016 10: 58
    0
    Our MO will not buy these guns - these are weapons for export.
    1. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 47
      0
      Where does this information come from?
  • Snow323
    Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 36
    +2
    How did you get the idea that a 100mm low ballistic gun (essentially a grenade launcher) is more powerful than a 57mm high ballistic gun? The combination of 30mm + 100 clearly loses to the combination of 57+ pet.
  • max702
    max702 30 May 2016 13: 08
    +4
    The module with 57mm down is a development of "Uralvagonzavd" and its partners, and this is the only reason for pushing it into armored vehicles .. The banal development of budget money, there is no military necessity with the replacement of "Troika" by 57mm! In its modern version, the "troichetka" with a programmable projectile for 100 mm, and more recently for 30 mm, is capable of hitting any targets on the battlefield, do not forget about the possibility of firing 100mm at a mortar, which is often in demand with a DB. The 57mm module is not capable of this, and the small ammo of 80 rounds is not impressive, as is the power of the projectile against armored vehicles, especially at long distances .. In the USSR, they were not fools and when choosing weapons for the BMP-3 they considered the 57mm option but rejected it due to its low versatility and the low efficiency of the OFS .. It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, it is much more efficient to modify the "troicha" with the help of a modern LMS and this is more than enough.
  • alexmach
    alexmach 31 May 2016 00: 22
    0
    And one more question. Commander and gunner from the BMP-3 tower, where will they go?
  • AKsvlad047
    AKsvlad047 30 May 2016 10: 06
    +3
    Great module !!!! Let his brothers be faster in the army and everything will be a bunch !!!!
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 30 May 2016 10: 07
    +7
    Will anti-tank weapons be suspended outside? If ATGMs are weighted, then perhaps not a bad option. All lightly armored and helicopters immediately turn into game, and against the infantry shells with remote detonation are quite (although it would be worth thinking about the AGS), and the line of such armor-piercing sub-caliber weapons against any tank is a very unpleasant thing, it takes away the entire "canopy" from it, bringing in a limited combat-ready state, and the caterpillars can break ... Again, "not a symmetrical response"? The West just got 40 mm, and we got them - Benz!
    1. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 48
      +1
      Moreover, almost all modern tanks hit the line of such a gun on board.
  • MolGro
    MolGro 30 May 2016 10: 14
    +11
    good thing against infantry.

    For those who do not understand, here is the Amersky analogue in the video!



    A larger caliber will not give that rate of fire, although they do not refuse 100.
    1. 1976AG
      1976AG 30 May 2016 10: 24
      -6
      And what gives your rate of fire besides special effects? Where the 57 caliber spends ten or two ammunition, the 100 mm spends 1 ammunition.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 30 May 2016 10: 44
        +5
        Quote: 1976AG
        And what gives your rate of fire besides special effects? Where the 57 caliber spends ten or two ammunition, the 100 mm spends 1 ammunition.

        A 100-mm ATGM no longer guarantees the defeat of modern tanks. For a long time already I saw a decommissioned T-54 with frontal armor "gnawed" through by 30-mm armor-piercing shells from a BMP-2 cannon at the test site. The armor penetration of a 57 mm gun is several times higher than that of a 30 mm gun, and the effectiveness of such a vehicle in the fight against armor targets will also be higher.
        1. 1976AG
          1976AG 30 May 2016 11: 02
          -2
          Quote: Bongo
          Quote: 1976AG
          And what gives your rate of fire besides special effects? Where the 57 caliber spends ten or two ammunition, the 100 mm spends 1 ammunition.

          A 100-mm ATGM no longer guarantees the defeat of modern tanks. For a long time already I saw a decommissioned T-54 with frontal armor "gnawed" through by 30-mm armor-piercing shells from a BMP-2 cannon at the test site. The armor penetration of a 57 mm gun is several times higher than that of a 30 mm gun, and the effectiveness of such a vehicle in the fight against armor targets will also be higher.


          On the roller, a lousy cutter was shot at all, it can also be soaked from a heavy machine gun, so the advantages of the 57-mm caliber are not visible here. Gnawed T-54 is also not an argument (they would have put the T-26, it was even more spectacular). Penetration of a 57-mm gun is higher than that of a 100-mm ATGM - I do not believe it.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 30 May 2016 11: 07
            +2
            Quote: 1976AG
            On the roller, a lousy cutter was shot at all, it can also be soaked from a heavy machine gun, so the advantages of the 57-mm caliber are not visible here.

            But this does not mean that the 57 mm projectile is bad.
            Quote: 1976AG
            Gnawed T-54 is also not an argument (if T-26 would have been delivered, it was even more spectacular).

            The comparison is not entirely correct, if the memory of T-26 does not change my forehead -16 mm, and that of T-54-120-mm.
            Quote: 1976AG
            The armor penetration of the 57-mm gun is higher than that of the 100-mm ATGM - I do not believe it.

            Absolutely fair yes But you forget that the 57-mm is an automatic machine. The penetration of an 57-mm projectile is enough to destroy MBT into the side, and you can gnaw your forehead with a burst.
      2. corporal
        corporal 30 May 2016 15: 39
        -1
        Quote: 1976AG
        Where the 57th caliber spends a dozen or two ammunition, there is a 100 mm spends 1 ammunition.

        They already explained to you that getting from 100 mm is more difficult than from 57. Due to the high ballistics. So it's the other way around - it’s better to hit once out of 57 than to miss twice out of 100mm wink
      3. MaksoMelan
        MaksoMelan 17 October 2016 13: 05
        0
        Why a dozen or two. Just two think. On one 100mm. In addition, one 100 may be redundant in one place and more expensive. A 57 line over the entire line of the trench. And to correct the ballistics for mortar shelling, add shells with a smaller weight of gunpowder. And keep one of the cars so bk.
    2. Lieutenant Izhe
      Lieutenant Izhe 30 May 2016 10: 35
      +1
      WHAT ARE YOU DROPING A BOTTLE? crying
    3. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 48
      +1
      Swedish counterpart.
  • common man
    common man 30 May 2016 10: 21
    +6
    First of all, "Baikal" is uninhabited. The internal space inside the BMP increases sharply. And the ammunition is obtained from the outside. I saw it myself in Tagil. Although the question of recoil when firing bursts is probably also worth it. Probably more ideal is the "Baikal" mounted on the T-15 and hung with ATGMs.
    1. Lieutenant Izhe
      Lieutenant Izhe 30 May 2016 10: 39
      +2
      yes on T-15 instead of 30mm "pukalki" better "Baikal" with 57 mm. "fluff" (+ radar with AFAR), ATGM and AGSom ....
      1. MaksoMelan
        MaksoMelan 17 October 2016 13: 11
        0
        I propose to create a computer simulation. We make different bases (armata, armored personnel carriers and all that is). And we hang up all the options on them who is much more naturally with weight restrictions. Can be made based on toys. Computer strategies only without balancing equipment and units. And let's see who will use it and how to upgrade which kit.
  • masiya
    masiya 30 May 2016 10: 23
    0
    farther and farther into the forest ... it’s not the BMP anymore, but rather the tank will remind you of the difference here, where mobility and other advantages of the infantry vehicle are.
    1. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 51
      0
      On light and medium infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy infantry fighting vehicles that come in the same formation with tanks should be just like that.
  • common man
    common man 30 May 2016 10: 26
    +8
    This is Baikal on the BMP-3. Inside the case is natural.
    1. itvs
      itvs 30 May 2016 12: 46
      +2
      This is a layout made specifically for the RAE2015 exhibition. The requirements of the Ministry of Defense at the time of its creation of the layout (spring 2015) have not yet been formulated. See the photo on the Internet, it is clear that the guidance devices and the machine gun on the tower are made of plastic. On the second day, by the way, visitors had already broken off the arrester on the machine gun. When installing a real combat module on a BMP, either the overall height will increase due to the barbet installed under the tower, or the internal space will greatly decrease. - it will depend on the requirements of the Ministry of Defense for the composition of the ammunition
  • Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 30 May 2016 10: 27
    +4
    100mm is certainly not bad, but ..... 57mm is also very serious, excellent rate of fire, power is almost doubled, I personally am "for" !!!
    1. 1976AG
      1976AG 30 May 2016 10: 34
      0
      Quote: Alexey-74
      100mm is certainly not bad, but ..... 57mm is also very serious, excellent rate of fire, power is almost doubled, I personally am "for" !!!


      In order to change one weapon for another, the argument "is also very serious" is somehow not enough.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Editor
    Editor 30 May 2016 10: 32
    +8
    and if on the BMP "Broadsword" to install? ... - so that each pie has its own mouth.

    just thought ... but already standing ...

    1. Lieutenant Izhe
      Lieutenant Izhe 30 May 2016 11: 00
      +3
      "What is the strength in, brother ?"
      - in MODULES!
      laughing
    2. K-50
      K-50 30 May 2016 12: 22
      +1
      Quote: Redactor
      and if on the BMP "Broadsword" to install? ... - so that each pie has its own mouth.

      just thought ... but already standing ...


      And where to put cartridges for six-barrels? They eat them not measured!
      1. Dulat
        Dulat 30 May 2016 12: 46
        0
        teleport directly from the warehouses of the enemy's arsenal laughing
    3. MaksoMelan
      MaksoMelan 17 October 2016 13: 15
      0
      Well, you need to book a middle then. What kind of cap is that with handles? Krunyak will forgive and no anti-aircraft guns.
  • common man
    common man 30 May 2016 10: 33
    +5
    And this is Bahcha inside the BMP
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 30 May 2016 11: 45
      +1
      Quote: man in the street
      And this is Bahcha inside the BMP

      "Watermelons" that you need! good
  • nrex
    nrex 30 May 2016 10: 34
    0
    You guys look at the rate of fire with this machine gun and everything will become clear. 120 rounds per minute !!!! This is the pace of the drill line. What 100 mm gun will give such a rate of fire? For BMP is better not to come up with.
  • Gronsky
    Gronsky 30 May 2016 10: 37
    +4
    Quote: MolGro
    Here is the Amersky analogue in the video!


    This is not Amer, but Swedish.
    Bofors guns mounted on Visby-class corvettes, if I'm not mistaken. hi
    And yes, it is impressive, both remote detonation and direct hit.
    The firepower of modern 57 mm guns is not comparable with the same period of 1941-45.
    In general, it's worth the sin to bury such a development.
  • chenia
    chenia 30 May 2016 10: 41
    +3
    Quote: mojohed2012
    But what, the 100-mm gun with the paired 30-mm is not enough for the enemy BMP and, if you're lucky for the tanks?


    A lot of. The "melon" module for the Airborne Forces is justified, given the shortage of artillery (although the very use of units and formations of the Airborne Forces in a serious war is doubtful).

    And why the heck would the infantry have such calibers (100mm), if behind them is a bunch of serious artillery right up to the RGK.

    And after the transfer of fire to the object (400 m from the chain, 200 B / L tanks), shooting from 100 mm to 250-300 mm. our infantry itself will not do.

    57 most versatile infantry system. It replaces a 30 mm cannon, a 40 AG gun, and an 82 mm mortar, and will take some tanks on board (100 mm of weak ballistics, this is not possible). And it can "drive away" air targets (helicopters for sure).


    If you fancy with ammunition, and create a composite HE shell (a certain amount in the BC) of weak ballistics for firing up to 3 km, then there will be no price for such a system.
    Let me explain - the camora cannot be reduced, and due to the decrease in charge in the liner, to have three shells connected in series (or three parts) which, when released after a certain time, fly apart with little dispersion. The head can have a remote fuse, the rest of the drums.
    1. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 53
      0
      I can hardly imagine how it can replace the 82mm mortar, but if there is a guided projectile, the helicopters will click once, no worse than the shell.
  • Corvetkapitan
    Corvetkapitan 30 May 2016 10: 43
    +1
    For fire support for infantry with high-explosive shells, a 100 gun is better, so the modernization is very dubious.
  • vadimtt
    vadimtt 30 May 2016 10: 44
    +7
    Normally, any modern / promising MBT will be shot aboard from 500-600 meters, and if you are lucky, then from 1000. Any BMP in the forehead. Than this 57-mm gun didn’t please you? Yes, with a rate of 2 shots per second?
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 30 May 2016 11: 02
    +6
    This song is good - start over. ©

    For half a century, the Petrel has been trying to shove its 57-mm cannon somewhere. They tried to offer it to the fleet - but the fleet did not take either the A-220 or the A-220M. Only AK-176 - and nothing less.
    We switched to the army - and here, too, thank God. The army refused to re-equip the PT-76 with a 57-mm one. Now they are trying to put 57-mm on BMP, running into questions about the comparison of firepower (especially high-explosive impact) with a standard 100-mm cannon, the possibility of firing low-flying targets, as well as the most important question - how much will the development and launch of production cost " from scratch "of the entire line of 57-mm ammunition.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 30 May 2016 13: 30
      0
      Strange. And I heard that I am going to put the 22160mm AU on the steamships of pr.57.
      The Vietnamese refused to modernize the PT-76, NNP. In the Russian Federation, did the floaters generally remain?
      In addition to the high-explosive impact, there are a bunch of other criteria - we have already said above. Let's say a drone has a high-impact drum, especially if the initial velocity of a projectile with low ballistics is low.
      What is the problem with low-flying targets - on the contrary, this 30mm has limitations on the height of the target.
      With shells, of course, it’s more interesting. I think that there are still enough stocks of old shells. C-60 reserves existed at least until the beginning of the 90s. But UASs, of course, need to be created
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 30 May 2016 14: 22
        +2
        Quote: sivuch
        Strange. And I heard that I am going to put the 22160mm AU on the steamships of pr.57.

        EMNIP, on these patrolmen there is again a choice between A-220M and AK-176. And it seems to me that the fleet will choose a more powerful and well-developed three-inch.
        Quote: sivuch
        In addition to the high-explosive impact, there are a bunch of other criteria - we have already said above. Let's say a drone has a high-impact drum, especially if the initial velocity of a projectile with low ballistics is low.

        To work by air with a "weaving" in the standard tower is paired 2A72.
        Quote: sivuch
        What is the problem with low-flying targets - on the contrary, this 30mm has limitations on the height of the target.

        120 rounds per minute. To work with such a rate of fire for air targets, you need a good SUAO.
        This is 2A72 with its 500 V / m, you can adjust the fire on the highway.
        Quote: sivuch
        With shells, of course, more interesting. Stocks of old shells, I think, are enough. ZAP with S-60 existed, at least until the beginning of the 90s.

        They write that now in the caliber of 57 mm only naval supplies remained.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • alex-cn
    alex-cn 30 May 2016 11: 02
    0
    In my opinion, the BMP-3 is rather weak for this module, but on the T-15 it will be quite in place.
  • oppa
    oppa 30 May 2016 11: 12
    +2
    Many "friendly" BMPs hold a 30mm projectile - 45mm puma BMP in the forehead, 30mm in the side, 14,5 aft. I consider 57 mm necessary, but the ATGM must be suspended
  • black
    black 30 May 2016 11: 15
    0
    Initially, there was talk that "Baikal" would be exported.
  • chenia
    chenia 30 May 2016 11: 17
    +2
    Quote: Corvetkapitan
    For fire support for infantry with high-explosive shells, a 100 gun is better, so the modernization is very dubious.


    Well this is your marine psychology. I repeat the periods of artillery attack carried out by normal field artillery (now in the SME division should be 152 mm). And the transfer of fire (quite childishly explain) takes place 400 meters from the chain.

    Further, the infantry acts on its own (gun-machine gun, AGS, 30 mm, etc.) Its 100 mm will not allow its own infantry closer than 300 m).
    And why the heck is needed.

    And the Airborne Forces capture protected areas. bridgeheads (but do not break through layered). And hold (this is the main function) until the arrival of the main forces. And the presence of 100 mm guns can be explained by the deficit of artillery.
  • SERGUNCHOs
    SERGUNCHOs 30 May 2016 11: 20
    +2
    It is high time. 57 on the infantry / turntables with auto undermining the most it. A couple of such in a city can bring down a flurry of buildings. And birds can also be mounted.
  • 31rus2
    31rus2 30 May 2016 11: 25
    0
    Dear, you argue with glasses, what is not? Where is the BMP-3 itself, the Arabs and we have a dozen, modulo, and what to do with "Baikal" without the ATM, but there is no ATM on it just because of the large mass, it means that it is necessary to refine, it means that they will not be adopted again, you don’t dream, but do it, at least with the same "Bakhcha", stop these marketing moves, we need things, namely the BMP-3 itself
    1. Snow323
      Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 56
      0
      In the BMP-3 troops, for example, 19 MSBRs on them for sure. We have them in the army.
      1. 31rus2
        31rus2 30 May 2016 12: 16
        0
        Dear from the day we have adopted 500-520bmp-3, despite the fact that the Arabs put together under a thousand, the difference is significant, the bmp-2 is now equipped with the "Bakhchi", what's the point of sculpting "Baikal"?
        1. Snow323
          Snow323 30 May 2016 12: 42
          -1
          500 BMP-3 is not enough ?! Baikal makes sense for the new BMP-3s that they plan to purchase.
  • ARES623
    ARES623 30 May 2016 11: 43
    0
    Quote: 1976AG
    And I look not only at the caliber, but also at the fact that the 100-mm gun is also a missile launcher, so the combat capabilities are much greater.

    ATGM can be mounted on any module of the BMP-2 type. This module can be detachable and fired from the ground in order to leave the "armor" in cover, as it was on "1" with the baby. And it is more profitable. You can shoot from an infantry fighting vehicle at a tank only once, then abruptly "dissolve", but you might not have time. 100-mm ATGM - 3rd generation, laser controlled. Modern tanks will probably be covered from such a rocket, the rocket will fly for 10-15 seconds, plus the time for aiming - in total - BUT with an average qualification can either "drive" scrap "from side to side", or an OFS with a remote fuse "hang" overhead ... To the crew in both cases "eternal memory". BMP, as far as possible, should avoid direct fire combat with heavy armored vehicles. But on the BMP of a potential enemy and other lightly armored vehicles, I think, Baikal can work confidently, and at any range possible for real optical observation.
    1. 31rus2
      31rus2 30 May 2016 11: 59
      0
      You are mistaken, just on "Baikal", you cannot put an ATGM because of the large weight of the module, you need to either modify the BMP itself or look for other solutions, but see the essence above, I wrote
      1. ARES623
        ARES623 30 May 2016 14: 41
        0
        Quote: 31rus2
        you are wrong, just on "Baikal", you can not put an ATGM because of the large weight of the module, you need to either modify the BMP itself or look for other solutions, but see the essence above, I wrote

        And where does the weight of the module? To put an ATGM, you only need a threaded pin on the turret, and place control equipment at the NO. Have you ever seen the ground installation "Metis" or "bassoon"? Remove the machine, the launcher with the rocket - on the roof and no problem ... On the BMP-2 it was. How is Baikal different?
    2. Konstantin Yu
      Konstantin Yu 30 May 2016 12: 29
      0
      It’s possible you can drag this module as a trailer behind you, but if you pushed it to the parapet or to the intersection and fell, people are more visible and safer there ... you need to start the cart for yourself ... so you can attach it to any suitable technique, Yes, and repair is easier - access, another hitched or put in the back, ...
    3. max702
      max702 30 May 2016 21: 02
      0
      Quote: ARES623
      ... Modern tanks will probably be covered from such a rocket, the rocket will fly for 10-15 seconds, plus the time for aiming - in total - BUT with an average qualification can either "drive" scrap "from side to side", or an OFS with a remote fuse "hang" overhead ... To the crew in both cases "eternal memory".

      Do not write nonsense .. How on that and on the other side of the nerves will be abundant .. Watched a tank biathlon? And how are the best crews in a non-combat situation fired from licked \ prepared vehicles? Divide into three, something like this will be in battle ..
      1. ARES623
        ARES623 31 May 2016 11: 37
        +1
        Quote: max702
        Have you watched the biathlon tank? And how are the best crews in a non-combat situation fired from licked \ prepared vehicles?

        That's just the point - biathlon and real combat will differ from each other. In biathlon, there is a limited number of shots, therefore they aim. For BMP armor, even a nearby exploded shell can be lethal. In this case, I would not appeal to the comparison with biathlon, but to "KSSO BM and T". And the fact that a 100-mm laser-guided ATGM is not relevant for modern MBTs does not need to be explained. Most of them are equipped with a smoke screen. And the armor is not what it was 15-20 years ago. True, you did not explain what you want to share? Target hitting probability or reaction time?
  • 31rus2
    31rus2 30 May 2016 11: 47
    0
    Still, as an argument from history: the T-34 is just being mastered, like the KV-1, there is retraining of personnel, there is no material base, there is no minimum ammunition, this is 1941, doesn’t it remind?
    1. ARES623
      ARES623 31 May 2016 12: 19
      0
      Quote: 31rus2
      Still, as an argument from history: the T-34 is just being mastered, like the KV-1, there is retraining of personnel, there is no material base, there is no minimum ammunition, this is 1941, doesn’t it remind?

      Argument from history: When creating the F-22, Grabin proposed an increased powder charge to increase the power of the shot. Marshal Kulik rejected the offer under the pretext of having a huge amount of 76-mm shells for the divisional gun. L-10, L-11, F-32, F-34 were also developed for this projectile. So there were plenty of shells for the T-34-76. But there was also a human factor, planning and logistics factors. There is that is, but in the wrong place and at the wrong time ... That was very little, it was experience with new materiel, but the general literacy of the population. Today it is anyone you spit at - with a driver's license, and then only lighting kerosene was better known from diesel fuel and gasoline. I think that the analogy with 1941 is slightly far-fetched. "Baikal" is not so terrible a new installation as to confuse BUT average, although it will still be necessary to study. As well as any new, albeit related, mastered business.
  • Snow323
    Snow323 30 May 2016 11: 57
    0
    I didn’t understand from the article, will this be an alteration of old BMP-3s to a new module, or will new cars be purchased?
  • Konstantin Yu
    Konstantin Yu 30 May 2016 12: 09
    0
    I think from 57 mm in the city (and not only), lines of landmines on floors will be more effective than, pauses, and misses of 100 mm. The universality of the 57 mm module will find its place in the ranks, ... maybe they drove like pickups, such as URAL or KAMAZ, and UAZ can also shoot from carnets
    1. 31rus2
      31rus2 30 May 2016 12: 26
      0
      Yeah, and the cavalry will clear the rear of the enemy, only our enemy is NATO
      1. Konstantin Yu
        Konstantin Yu 30 May 2016 12: 35
        0
        So what? and NATO doesn’t like it when they are shot, and by helicopters, by drones, by Bradley, and by HAMERS ... and by cyclists
  • itvs
    itvs 30 May 2016 13: 02
    +3
    In the comments a bunch of schoolchildren.
    an armament complex is installed on the machine, which is an inseparable pair of BOEPRIPAS + Guns with guidance tools. The reincarnation of a rather old 57mm gun is due to the technical feasibility of creating a CHEAP guided ammunition in this caliber. (Look for OCD Derivation) The cost of developing a projectile is much higher than the cost of developing the machine itself.
    From the purchases of the Central Research Institute “Burevestnik”: As part of the implementation of the state contract N / 3/3 / 81-2014-DGOZ dated 24.12.2013 at the ROC “Derivation-Air Defense” (“Derivation-SV” is the creation of the 57-mm anti-aircraft artillery system ZAK- 57) in 2014 Orders placed:
    Chassis development - Uralvagonzavod, 274 million rubles.
    Development of an optoelectronic system - Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant, 46,8 million rubles.
    code "Derivation-PVO-BP4" - VNIITransmash, 3 million rubles.
    code "Derivation-PVO-BP2" - GosNIIMash, 3 million rubles.
    code "Derivation-PVO-TAS1" - NPK Alfa-M, 7 million rubles.
    code "Derivation-PVO-PNS1" - SKB instrument making and automation, 37,6 million rubles.
    code "Derivation-PVO-MPO1" - NPK Alfa-M, 7 million rubles.
    Development of a shot with a guided artillery shell (code "Derivation-PVO-UAS") - KBtochmash them. Nudelman, 340 million rubles.
    1. itvs
      itvs 30 May 2016 13: 09
      0
      Here is a link to the side of the Nubelman’s kbtochmash with a description of the system:
      http://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-center/articles/articles_26.html
    2. sivuch
      sivuch 30 May 2016 13: 35
      0
      Or maybe it’s not worth it, hanging around, hang tags?
      Personally, I read about this OCD. But I don’t know if there is an MO order for modernization. Without it, it’s only Petrel’s Wishlist (although I myself agree with them)
  • chenia
    chenia 30 May 2016 13: 04
    +1
    Quote: Snow323
    I can hardly imagine how she can replace the 82mm mortar,


    Well, for example, a cornflower, and see below.

    Quote: chenia
    to create a composite HE shell (a certain amount in the BC) of weak ballistics for firing up to 3 km, then there will be no price for such a system.
    Let me explain - the camora cannot be reduced, and due to the decrease in charge in the liner, to have three shells connected in series (or three parts) which, when released after a certain time, fly apart with little dispersion. The head can have a remote fuse, the rest of the drums.


    Any enemy infantry can be squeezed, and its closest possible approach to the object of attack.
    And for tasks where high ballistics are needed, ammunition already exists.

    57 mm captures a significant (and as much as possible) range of infantry tasks that are carried out.

    And do not replace them with artillery (especially when it is enough).
    In individual (private) cases, it is better than 100 mm, but these cases (by tactics) are not typical for infantry. And let there be such modules.

    But the main should be a module with 57 mm.

    ATGM portable. Guides on the module. It’s hard to open the hatch and stick the container in. And if necessary, you can shoot from the ground. And a little more caliber.

    There will be more space in the BMP, cartridges with shells, not a carousel in the middle of the car.
  • JD1979
    JD1979 30 May 2016 13: 26
    +3
    Derivation? Have not heard. Hand face. Especially the comments of the ekperds proving the superiority of 57mm over 100mm for the destruction of MBT are delivered ... and those fiercely bypassing those who say the opposite. Low ballistics you say? "Pasana" (I don't know how to contact you yet) sandbox is waiting for you. Advertising is the engine of progress and the source of the cheers of the couch experts. But tell me at what distance the electronic brains of the BMP will be able to identify the target, not to mention the possibility of capturing and auto-tracking or calculating the damage? Answer. 4500m for BMP-3M, even less for the rest. And how is the declared 12 km range being realized here? Further, the surface of the earth is not the surface of salt lakes, there are, as it were, lowlands, hills, all sorts of trees with bushes grow there, but we do not have a radar, in total, the distance of fire contact may well be reduced to 1-2 km. And while as they put it, "57mm will be a burst of gnawing through the frontal armor of the MBT" in response, a single 120mm caliber projectile will arrive very quickly. Further, about armor penetration, what do you think is better for maintaining your fifth point: use a 100mm ATGM with a penetration of 550-750, or darts from a 57mm cannon? I think the first. High-explosive fragmentation projectiles, the same 57mm, cannot be compared with 100mm. there are many more arguments, but laziness. Total. To realize the capabilities of a 57 mm cannon with high ballistics, it needs to determine the scope of its application, ... although we have defined it long ago since the time of the ZSU-57-2 and that's all. On the BMP-3 instead of Bakhchi-U it is senseless to put it, because this will greatly limit its capabilities, and the shelling of the aircraft is not a priority for the BMP. Maybe put on boats, but there is also a big question, 76mm is more reliable for military purposes and the range is higher, and for civilians, such as a boat destroyed by Beaufort, 12,7 machine guns are enough, if we want to detain him, of course, and interrogate those who are there about the purpose of the visit , it's not stupid to zanocidit everyone and everything and shoot a cool video with special effects. By the way, if you are not too lazy to visit the website of the manufacturer of this module, you will be able to read that the installation of this module allows you to expand the scope of combat use of armored combat vehicles by solving firing tasks at ... attention, shot! ... at air targets! Everything. Not a word about expanding the ability to work on land. And who needs this module with optical guidance on a target in the field of air defense, I think it is clear to everyone - no one, there are no bad ones. Unity where it can be attached is either on the old BMP-1-2, if the base can withstand, or on the new T-15, Kurganets or Boomerang, tk. 30mm they look frivolous there, if they are not going to put Bakhchu there. And again, questions with the release of ammunition, spare parts and associated logistics and the price for all this.
    1. ARES623
      ARES623 30 May 2016 15: 02
      +2
      Quote: JD1979
      "Pasana" (I don't know how to contact you yet) sandbox is waiting for you.

      You, young man, are stupid and presumptuous, beyond measure. Adults should not be treated like that. Maybe in the center of Minsk you won't find targets further than 2 km, but if you were in the mountains, you would hear the "trill" of DShK degrees 50 degrees from the horizon, your mother would go broke for diapers. And about 12 km of range is spoken of as a power characteristic of the gun, and not at all as a prohibition to shoot closer. And if you want to go against the MBT with a 100-mm BMP-3 cannon, then the kingdom of heaven is for you. Going out to a duel against Leo-2a7 with a “sotochka”, even with an ATGM, is senseless impudence and nonsense. And the aerial target is not only U-2, but also a hovering Iroquois or Apache (whoever is lucky). Life is real, such an inventor! In general, rudeness does not paint anyone.
      1. Dimon19661
        Dimon19661 30 May 2016 15: 32
        -1
        Good explanation soldier
        And by the way, the Tsar-gun has even more caliber, I propose to put it.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 30 May 2016 13: 27
    +1
    The issue has been discussed more than once, there are many advantages in one version and in another. The only point that is difficult to dispute is that 57mm is not enough to hit a target like Tank, and 100mm PTRS can help. Those. for the full destruction of tanks in the composition of the machine with a 57mm module will have to introduce ATGM on the tower. On the other hand, the power of a 100mm PTRS is no longer enough to defeat modern tanks.
  • pwg-pwg
    pwg-pwg 30 May 2016 15: 21
    0
    And abrams will be pierced aboard if he suddenly gets caught in a third country.
  • senima56
    senima56 30 May 2016 15: 30
    0
    This will be "STUKA" !!!! good Would rather see it in the "hardware"!
  • Skubudu
    Skubudu 30 May 2016 15: 32
    0
    Small bk only 200 shells ...
    Most likely a low barrel life of 57mm
  • Slon1978
    Slon1978 30 May 2016 15: 46
    -1
    Quote: ARES623
    You think it’s better to maintain your fifth point: use a 100mm ATGM with a break of 550-750, or darts from a 57 mm gun

    Maybe I will surprise you, but having rolled out from behind a hill and resting on a tank at 500-1000 m, I would rather have 57 mm ready for instant shooting. an automatic machine to try to spud this tank and at least blind, or maybe set it aboard, instead of shoving anti-tank missiles with shaking hands, pointing it and waiting 10-20 seconds for it to arrive and it is advisable not to miss.
    1. ARES623
      ARES623 30 May 2016 19: 36
      0
      Quote: Slon1978
      Maybe I will surprise you

      You have already surprised me. How did you manage to quote under my nickname JD1979? I don’t put the minuses (I don’t put them at all, everyone has the right to think ...), but would ask to be more careful. Pzhlsta.
  • MaksoMelan
    MaksoMelan 17 October 2016 00: 39
    0
    I want to add good
    1. MaksoMelan
      MaksoMelan 17 October 2016 12: 52
      0
      Well, imagine. Do you play strategy on a computer ..... Do you take a BMP with such a gun with or without a gun? Ptur must be set immediately. I don’t understand, therefore, they don’t put it on the armored personnel carrier to 30mm cannons. Here I play Wrheim red Dragan. And such a technique erupts in the rear, but there is no ptur, and some kotoryl tank wets them. And always with heavy armor so that there is a version. What a pity that ours doesn’t look like armored shilka. This is me about the game. But the old-fashioned super woodwafel BMPT is not a Terminator. Armored with melon U.