Military Review

News of the project AU-220M "Baikal"

219
In the domestic media there were reports about the prospects of one of the most interesting developments of recent times. One of the options for the future use of the new combat module with an increased power tool was voiced. As stated, one of the future carriers of the AU-220M system could be the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3.


According to Izvestia, Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation and Burevestnik Scientific Research Institute, which is part of it, have already identified possible ways to use the prospective AU-220М Baikal combat module. Among other armored vehicles, the existing BMP-3 can become the carrier of this system. It is assumed that such a re-equipment will significantly improve its characteristics, as well as give it new combat qualities. According to the authors of the project, at the moment there is not a single infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier in the world capable of withstanding shelling from the main weapons system "Baikal".

Representatives of development organizations claim that the new AU-220М combat module can be used for various purposes, to attack objects of various types and classes. There is the possibility of attacking and destroying various ground targets that differ in the level of protection, including armored vehicles and fortifications. Also, the new combat module can attack helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and other low-altitude low-speed targets. The existing Terminator machines, as well as the prospective Armata, Kurganets-25, Boomerang, ATOM, etc. platforms can be used as a base for the installation of Baikal. It is not excluded the installation of combat modules on boats and ships.

News of the project AU-220M "Baikal"
BMP-3 with the AU-220M module as an artist. Figure Burevestnik.com


It should be noted that the installation of the combat module AU-220М on the BMP-3 is not news. About similar plans of the domestic industry became known last year. Over the past year, Uralvagonzavod and the Petrel Research Institute, participating in various exhibitions of weapons and military equipment, have repeatedly demonstrated both promotional materials for the Baikal project and natural samples of the new system. At the end of the summer, on the eve of the Russia Arms Expo 2015 exhibition, it became known about the upcoming premiere of new equipment and industry plans to update existing samples.

In this context, there were reports of the project with the symbol "Derivation". Its goal is to upgrade the existing BMP-3 with new weapons. The AU-220М Baikal system is proposed as a new combat module capable of drastically changing the fighting qualities of the vehicle. It is noteworthy that the possibility of installing "Baikal" on the BMP-3 by that time had already received indirect confirmation. Long before the announcement of the existence of the “Derivation” project, a drawing depicting the BMP-3 chassis with the AU-220M system appeared on the official website of the Petrel Research Institute. This picture in its time was the subject of controversy, and the official reports on the "Derivation" put an end to these discussions.

The Baikal project is an attempt to significantly increase the firepower and combat effectiveness of various military equipment (primarily land armored vehicles) by increasing the caliber and other characteristics of the main gun. Currently, the standard for light armored vehicles are automatic cannon caliber 20-30 mm, which affects the level of their protection. To increase the firepower and ensure the defeat of modern equipment of a conditional enemy, the specialists of the Central Research Institute Burevestnik suggested using an 57 caliber gun.

The combat module AU-220М is made in the form of a low-profile tower about 1,3 m high, suitable for installation on various chassis and other equipment. The body of the product is made of aluminum armor capable of withstanding shelling from 30-mm guns in a frontal projection. All-view protection against 7,62-mm ammunition is also provided. The hull provides for systems for the installation of several weapons and the necessary sighting equipment.


Battle module AU-220M. Photo Burevestnik.com


The main weapon of the new system is an automatic gun caliber 57 mm. The gun is equipped with a wedge gate and is supplemented with auger ammunition system. A rate of fire up to 120 shots per minute is provided. The gun can use ammunition of various types, depending on the current situation and the type of target selected. The existence of high-explosive, armor-piercing and guided projectiles is known. The maximum firing distance, depending on several parameters, reaches 12 km.

As an additional weapon in the “Baikal” system, an 7,62-mm PKT machine gun coupled to the main gun is used. The machine gun uses tape feed and has 2000 ammunition ammunition. A cannon and a machine gun using common aiming drives can fire in any direction and point in a vertical plane ranging from -5 ° to + 75 °. This ensures the attack of both ground and air targets.

A combat module of a new type carries a set of optical-electronic systems designed to monitor the situation, search for targets, and target weapons. The signal from the sighting equipment is fed to the operator’s console of the module. All mechanisms and weapons are controlled by remote systems.

The combat module AU-220M “Baikal” was first shown at the beginning of last year. After that, it was demonstrated at several exhibitions as a separate exhibit. Salon Russia Arms Expo 2015 has become a platform for the first demonstration of a promising system as a possible weaponry of armored vehicles. The first carrier of "Baikal" was the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3, modified by the project "Derivation". A prototype of such a machine was presented at one of the exhibition sites.


BMP-3 "Derivation". Photo by Alternalhistory.com


In the near future, as reported by domestic media, the AU-220M module will be shown along with another carrier. In early June, an exhibition KADEX 2016 should be held in Kazakhstan, during which they will show the Barys wheeled armored vehicle of Kazakh design. The exhibition model is equipped with a Russian-made combat module that received an 57-mm automatic gun.

The construction and demonstration of promising armored vehicles armed with the AU-220М “Baikal” combat module shows the potential of this system, as well as its wide compatibility with the existing and developed chassis. It is expected that in the foreseeable future, the new module will become the standard weapon of some new combat vehicles of domestic production. In addition, the delivery of such systems for export is possible. At the same time, however, the exact plans for the development of armored vehicles using Baikal are not yet known and, perhaps, are not even defined. So, it is known that the Russian Ministry of Defense is showing interest in this product, but the contracts for mass production and supply have not been signed yet. Perhaps such documents will appear later.


On the materials of the sites:
http://izvestia.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://burevestnik.com/
Author:
219 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 31 May 2016 06: 39
    +13
    in my opinion a very promising development ....... and the versatility and power of the projectile at altitude. good luck!
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 31 May 2016 08: 21
      +25
      What is it universal? But with Bahcea-U it is universal: 7,62 for close combat with infantry, 30mm universal cannon for suppressing manpower up to 4km, lightly armored vehicles and helicopters of the enemy, 100mm gun with high-explosive shells for suppressing manpower and guided projectiles for armored targets. And that Baikal is 7,62mm and 57mm. You manpower from 57mm guns will be naughty? Not. You can’t shoot at the infantry with land mines. Means to combat lightly armored vehicles and aircraft and no opposition to armored targets. Universal? Not. The petrel flew by with orders in the Middle East, where the gun and the gun were carefully advertising now for our army to the detriment of the versatility of the BMP.
      1. mirag2
        mirag2 31 May 2016 08: 42
        0
        And I think -57mm is not the ammunition, on the one hand it’s too big, on the other hand it’s too small ...
        For the rate of fire, it’s too big, for the defeat of something serious ... well, maybe not too small, but all the same, it limits the rate of fire, that's why he is not very fond of me.
        1. yehat
          yehat 31 May 2016 13: 34
          +5
          I'm not a fan of 57mm either, but judgments should be "in balance"!
          do not judge the projectile only by its caliber!
          A 57mm projectile can differ significantly in mass, and the mass of a high-explosive projectile, respectively.
          Therefore, I just don’t see a big problem in this, but there is another - too high a projectile speed for a land mine is very inconvenient. This can be offset by new fuses. And there is also buckshot. I think, in general, a gun against infantry is applicable. Although the effectiveness of a 100mm cannon loses.
          but there is an interesting potential against lightly armored targets - all helicopters and BMPs of likely friends are not designed for 57mm of joy.
          But then again, the problem is different - BPM supports infantry, and does not engage in hunting. Most of these goals will never appear before her.
          In general, the 57mm caliber is not for infantry support. And why else do you need to arm the BMP? In my opinion, rare specks of such machines are useful, but is it worth it in terms of logistics - this is the main question!
          In my opinion, I would equip each motorized infantry unit with a small number of machines such as a gain reserve.
          1. ARES623
            ARES623 31 May 2016 22: 35
            +2
            Quote: yehat
            there is an interesting potential against lightly armored targets - all helicopters and BMPs of potential friends are not designed for 57mm of joy.
            But then again, the problem is different - BPM supports infantry, and does not engage in hunting. Most of these goals will never appear before her.

            And what will appear? Autobots and hesipticons? Have you read stories about the war?
            1. yehat
              yehat 1 June 2016 09: 22
              +2
              there will be crowds of morons who are trying to troll the machine with their ass
        2. venik
          venik 31 May 2016 16: 17
          +8
          Quote: mirag2
          And I think -57mm is not the ammunition, on the one hand it’s too big, on the other hand it’s too small ...
          For the rate of fire, it’s too big, for the defeat of something serious ... well, maybe not too small, but all the same, it limits the rate of fire, that's why he is not very fond of me.

          =====
          You see, most of the promising "light" NATO BT (infantry fighting vehicles and partly armored personnel carriers) - are developed taking into account all-round protection against 30-mm armor-piercing and subcaliber projectiles (guess whose production) at distances from 300-500 meters (that's why they "got heavier "(By the way, most of them do not swim! And for the existing ones, a hinged armor is being developed, providing the same x-ki.
          And now look at this gun - it will provide penetration at almost all distances of direct visibility !!!
          1. Forest
            Forest 31 May 2016 23: 01
            -7
            C-60 is weaker than 30-ok, so even Stryker will completely restrain the armor-piercing of this module.
            1. oldbuddy
              oldbuddy 2 June 2016 02: 32
              +7
              S-60 is weaker than 30-ok?

              30-mm gun 2А42
              energy: 150-180 kJ

              57-mm anti-aircraft automatic gun AZP-57
              Energy: 1400 kJ

              :)
              1. ILDM1986
                ILDM1986 2 June 2016 10: 46
                +1
                Quote: oldbuddy
                S-60 is weaker than 30-ok?

                30-mm gun 2А42
                energy: 150-180 kJ

                57-mm anti-aircraft automatic gun AZP-57
                Energy: 1400 kJ

                :)

                But what is the use of this muzzle energy if you use an armor-piercing chamber projectile instead of BOPS?
          2. cast iron
            cast iron 2 June 2016 15: 58
            +2
            What are you? And what kind of NATO BMPs and armored personnel carriers have "all-round protection" from 30mm shells? )))) There are BMPs that can withstand three to five hits of 30mm from the front, under certain conditions WITH WORK. The rest of the BMP and armored personnel carriers are sewn right through like cans.

            Now take a look at common sense. The trick is that out of the 57 mm autocannon you are unlikely to get anywhere at a distance of over 3,5 km. Stupidly technical accuracy of the trunk is not enough. The same characteristics of 30mm autocannons.
      2. cosmos111
        cosmos111 31 May 2016 08: 50
        +11
        40 mm Bofost on BMP CV-90 naughty, with remote detonation.


        This is not the point, but the insufficient BM (80 SN). (120 rounds per minute) for one minute of the battle.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 16: 02
          0
          The Soviet Union was quite analogous to 40mm bofors - 37 mm anti-aircraft gun. Why not put it on the BMP?
      3. vomag
        vomag 31 May 2016 10: 07
        +13
        And what is universal for you? Is when there are 3 barrels in the 1st tower + birds and ags ...? And who will manage all this? ...... Yes, imagine that we’ll be naughty with the manpower of a 57mm gun and the norms are like that comes out ....
      4. potroshenko
        potroshenko 31 May 2016 10: 20
        +1
        to combat lightly armored vehicles and aircraft

        Already asked in another topic. How to conduct detection, capture and take preemption to hit air targets?
        Will it fight aviation "by eye"?
        1. shonsu
          shonsu 31 May 2016 11: 52
          +4
          Before asking such questions, it would not hurt to ask about the principle of operation of such fire systems so as not to look silly. similar and put on modern ships.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 31 May 2016 12: 01
            +4
            Quote: shonsu
            Before asking such questions, it would not hurt to ask about the principle of operation of such fire systems so as not to look silly. similar and put on modern ships.

            Sumptuously. Here are just BMPs in size slightly smaller than the ship. And I’m afraid that it will not be possible to put the ship's SUAO on it.
          2. potroshenko
            potroshenko 31 May 2016 13: 35
            -1
            Before asking such questions, it would not hurt to ask about the principle of operation of such fire systems so as not to look silly. similar and on modern ships put

            Well, show me where such a system is installed on BM Baikal so that it does not look silly.
        2. gallville
          gallville 31 May 2016 11: 55
          +1
          Quote: potroshenko
          Will it fight aviation "by eye"?

          I guess the groundwork for the future. While it is visible "by eye". Further, with the help of target designation of specialized means through the ACCS. If the height of the gun will shoot at least 4 km. and a range of 10-12 km. then a motorized rifle company will give such a curtain of fire that more than one helfair will not dare to release. And they won't fly from above on an attack aircraft.
          But I repeat, apparently it touched the future.
          1. potroshenko
            potroshenko 31 May 2016 13: 41
            0
            using target designation of specialized tools through ASUV. If the height of the gun will shoot at least 4 km. and range 10-12km. then a motorized rifle company will give such a fire curtain that more than one helfer will not dare to release. Yes, and on top of the attack aircraft will not fly

            I have never met a combat vehicle - a symbiosis of BMP and ZSU, if I am mistaken, please give examples.
            1. gallville
              gallville 31 May 2016 14: 45
              +4
              Quote: potroshenko
              I have never met a combat vehicle - a symbiosis of BMP and ZSU, if I am mistaken, please give examples.

              One of the reasons for the 30mm gun on the BMP-2, do not tell me?
              1. potroshenko
                potroshenko 31 May 2016 15: 32
                0
                Where are the specialized tools that help bring down helpers and attack aircraft?
                1. gallville
                  gallville 31 May 2016 15: 56
                  +5
                  Quote: potroshenko
                  Where are the specialized tools that help bring down helpers and attack aircraft?

                  And where did I talk about shooting down helpers? Keep the helicopter out of range. It will be brought down by specialized tools. The fire against the attack aircraft is aimed at raising them higher, which means complicating the task, substituting it under more serious systems and increasing the cost of the ammunition used by them.
          2. JD1979
            JD1979 31 May 2016 15: 23
            +3
            Quote: gallville
            If the height of the gun will shoot at least 4 km. and range 10-12km. then a motorized rifle company will give such a fire curtain that more than one helfer will not dare to release. And they won’t fly on top of the attack aircraft.


            Yes, it’s simply impossible to overcome such a curtain of fire ... for about 60 seconds, then the BC will end and it will be time to take off your legs.
      5. Volga Cossack
        Volga Cossack 31 May 2016 11: 19
        +4
        and what is bad 57 mm of ??? ?????? if the queue for manpower ??????
      6. The comment was deleted.
      7. Volga Cossack
        Volga Cossack 31 May 2016 11: 27
        0
        sorry who is she ?????? I wrote about the module and not about BMP - 3 !!!! read carefully!
      8. The comment was deleted.
      9. Tektor
        Tektor 31 May 2016 12: 59
        +4
        You manpower of the 57mm gun will be naughty? No. You can’t shoot at the infantry with land mines. Means to combat lightly armored vehicles and aircraft ...
        If the gun is capable of operating anti-aircraft guns, then at least it has, among other things, fragmentation shells with remote detonation (at best - UAs), and this is the best ammunition for hitting infantry behind shelters !!! ...
        and no counter to armored targets.
        And what prevents to have in ammunition sub-caliber armor-piercing telescopic ammunition ??? Not all armor can withstand such a flying crowbar.
      10. venik
        venik 31 May 2016 15: 26
        +3
        Quote: Engineer
        You manpower of the 57mm gun will be naughty? No. You can’t shoot at the infantry with land mines.


        =======
        Imagine! It is 57 mm and it is the infantry!
        In the west, for 15 years already, 30-mm shells with remote fuses (GV) and GGE (ready-made striking elements) have been used. They say that they work very well on infantry (including those in the trenches!) And mind you, only 30 mm !! A 57 mm? With the same GGE and DV? It will certainly be more expensive than just an HE shell, but!
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 16: 03
          0
          In the West, remote military detonation of 30mm shells has not yet been used in any military company, much less at least 10% of their army has been armed with these shells. For they are experimental and expensive for automatic shooting.
      11. 11 black
        11 black 31 May 2016 16: 08
        +2
        Quote: Engineer
        What is it universal? But with Bahcea-U it is universal: 7,62 for close combat with infantry, 30mm universal cannon for suppressing manpower up to 4km, lightly armored vehicles and helicopters of the enemy, 100mm gun with high-explosive shells for suppressing manpower and guided projectiles for armored targets. And that Baikal is 7,62mm and 57mm. You manpower from 57mm guns will be naughty? Not. You can’t shoot at the infantry with land mines. Means to combat lightly armored vehicles and aircraft and no opposition to armored targets. Universal? Not. The petrel flew by with orders in the Middle East, where the gun and the gun were carefully advertising now for our army to the detriment of the versatility of the BMP.

        You compare the mass ... immediately everything will fall into place.
        Our new technology has UNABILITATED combat modules, and Bahcha is Bahcha

        And here is Baikal


        In addition - this is why in terms of manpower it is impossible to shoot from the 57-mm quick-shooter?

        Will the 2-3 landmine from Bahchi be more effective than the 20-30 HE shells of Baikal?

        57-mm caliber breaks through a brick wall - put a shell with a delay in detonation and you get a monster of urban battle. 2A42 does not have such an opportunity ...

        Of course, Bakhcha can destroy not too powerful fortifications, and therefore, for example, it will probably be better for the Airborne Forces, but for the BMP or BMPT - only Baikal.

        About the battle with tanks from Bahchi they had fun - a lot of you will hit with 100mm mortar - do not tell ...
        1. yehat
          yehat 31 May 2016 16: 45
          +3
          Quote: 11 black

          Will the 2-3 landmine from Bahchi be more effective than the 20-30 HE shells of Baikal?

          At one time, the Germans compared the high-explosive action from a stub of a 75mm gun with a PzIV and from a 75 panther gun. Due to the fact that the panther has too high projectile speed, it turned out that the PZ-IV gun is much more effective against targets like machine gun calculation / mortar or a small gun
          so. YES, with a skilled artilleryman, 2-3 Bakhchi landmines are more effective.
          but the fact is that skillful no more than 20%. Most gunners cannot shoot at distances greater than a couple of kilometers. Although there are enough training standards for this, such recruits come. Sorry, but even a dog can learn part of the multiplication table in half a year, but recruits can’t.
          From this point of view, a 57mm gun with new fuses is better. It’s easier to aim with it.
          1. 11 black
            11 black 31 May 2016 17: 38
            +6
            Quote: yehat
            At one time, the Germans compared the explosive action of the stub of the 75mm gun with the PzIV and the 75 panther gun.

            I seem to say - said just about that
            Quote: yehat
            Of course, Bahcha can destroy not too powerful fortifications, and therefore, for example, it will probably be better for the Airborne Forces

            But what is meant is the fragmentation of the 2-3 bursts from Baikal and the 2-3 Bahchi shots.
            At the same time (WWII) 1-2 T-60 with ShVAK guns could stop the company’s advance ... ShVAK has an 23 mm caliber - imagine 57mm and with remote detonation over their heads ...
            Quote: yehat
            Due to the fact that the panther has too high projectile speed, it turned out that the PZ-IV gun is much more effective against targets like machine gun calculation / mortar or a small gun

            I did not catch the connection between the initial velocity of the projectile and its high-explosive / fragmentation effect - explain.
            Quote: yehat
            YES, with the skilled artilleryman 2-3, the Bahcea mine is more effective.

            2-3 HE explosive on a HE action - YES, on a shrapnel - NO!

            + I repeat - the 57mm caliber allows you to break through an 2,5-3 brick with a projectile with an ELECTRON fuse, that is, a SHARDBAR projectile will burst INSIDE the building, breaking through the wall behind which the adversary is seated.
            A 30mm 2A42 cannot penetrate such a wall and an electronic fuse in a 30MM bullet cannot be pushed in. You will not be on every machine gun in the window, or even on every window in which a machine gun may presumably shoot a 100mm fool, and the task of "probing windows and doors" is very important, especially in urban combat, and Baikal seems to be created for this.
            1. yehat
              yehat 1 June 2016 09: 26
              0
              Can you imagine what 2-3 lines of 57mm guns are? How much does it weigh?
              you will run out of ammunition! And 2-3 Bahchi shells are much lighter and by the way, many times cheaper.
        2. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 16: 05
          0
          Yes, you can shoot at the entrenched infantry with anything, but back in 1941, our great-grandfathers realized that even a 76mm gun was not enough. That is why the caliber of tank guns is higher than 100mm. That is why the 100mm cannon of the "Bakhcha-U" module is capable of destroying an apartment or a bunker with one shot, while a 57mm cannon cannot do this even with 5 shots.
      12. Denimax
        Denimax 31 May 2016 19: 00
        +3
        Another "news in 57 mm". A lot of chatter, but you need a ready-made sample in the test on video, and not pictures of models. Then you can clearly see and discuss all the prospects.
      13. venik
        venik 31 May 2016 19: 16
        +9
        Quote: Engineer
        What is it universal? But with Bahcea-U it’s universal: 7,62 for close combat with infantry, a 30mm universal gun for both suppressing manpower up to 4km, and lightly armored enemy vehicles and helicopters, a 100mm gun with high-explosive shells for suppressing manpower and guided shells for armored goals. And that Baikal - 7,62mm and 57mm. You manpower of the 57mm gun will be naughty? No. You can’t shoot at the infantry with land mines.


        =================
        Dear Engineer!
        Let me disagree with you (as the classic said - “categorically !!”
        Without at all diminishing the OUTSTANDING (this is not irony!) Dignity of “Bahchi” and its predecessor “Trojchatka” (it was necessary to contrive and implant such powerful and universal weapons on the BMP and BMD ... Indeed, this is GENIUS! But, as they say, there is always their "BUT" ...
        ===
        1) Promising infantry fighting vehicles and some NATO armored personnel carriers are created taking into account the CIRCULAR (well, or at least partial) protection against 30-mm shells of guns 2A42 and 2A72 (they’ll defend the Bushmaster’s estesses) at distances of 300-500 m and even closer ! But this means that the day is not far off when on the battlefield armored vehicles against which traditional 30-mm guns will be frankly not very effective! Want to argue that there is a 100 mm 2A70 for this? Have but!! Ammunition - only 34 shells (of which - ONLY 4 - guided!). Not so much, right?
        And now, compare Baikal has an ammunition load of 200 (!) Shells at the same time, armor-piercing (not to mention sub-caliber) shells in a state to hit ANY existing and PROMISING BM, at distances of several kilometers! The maximum firing range is 12 km (for 2A70 - 4-6.5 km). The initial velocity of the 57-mm projectile is -1 m / s (000A2 - 70-250 m / s). Impressive?
        ===
        2) Now about armor penetration. 2A70 - of course a chic thing - light and powerful, capable of coping with tanks like M-48, M-60, T-54/55, etc. without any problems. BUT! (again, this damn “BUT”!) - against modern MBT (Abrams, Leopard, Leclerc) - let's just say “not really” ... The fact is that the maximum penetration ability of 9M117 guided projectiles of all modifications does not exceed 750 mm (without dynamic protection!). Not enough! Sub-caliber and armor-piercing shells are not provided - the initial speed is too low! Say "Baikal" and this can not? I agree! Can not. It’s better to fight modern tanks with ATGMs (for that, the Cornet has 1 mm (for dynamic protection!). Now, if the Cornet manages to mantle Baikal, then it will be super !!!!
        =====
        3) The question "about infantry" ... Sir, how do you argue strangely! That is, to grind on openly located infantry from helicopters and attack aircraft with 57-mm S-5 NARS with a warhead weighing 815 grams is EFFECTIVE (recognized by the way !!), and shoot at the same infantry with 57-mm HE shells (the weight of the striking part is 2.8 kg (!)) - this means it is ineffective ?? Or do you think that an HE shell is more expensive than the same S-5 rocket ?? Do not tell please! Much cheaper!
        So, excuse me, I’m asked. You got a little excited here!

        PS In general, I do not perceive Baikal as a direct competitor to the Bakhche / Troichatka. Rather, it is a quite reasonable ADDITION that can significantly increase the firepower of motorized infantry!
        1. Forest
          Forest 31 May 2016 23: 05
          0
          C-60 has no sub-calibers, only armor-piercing ones with penetration of 105 mm under 90 degrees. at 1 km, while the 25-mm Bushmeister punches with its BOPS 120 mm under the same conditions.
      14. tupolev-95
        tupolev-95 1 June 2016 21: 12
        +3
        I think if you give the infantry fragmentation 57-mm. with remote detonation, then only the spray will fly.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 16: 11
          0
          I think that if the infantry digs in according to the rules and prepares the settlement for defense by engineering methods, then with a 57mm bullet you can only let a salute fire - here, too, a 125mm OFS can hardly cope.
      15. The comment was deleted.
    2. goose
      goose 31 May 2016 11: 13
      +6
      Most importantly, new ammunition with remote detonation (shrapnel, landmine), and preferably moderate ballistics, which most likely implies an increased projectile weight.
      Only such an approach can make this universal instrument a universal weapon. With existing shells, so far Bahcha is better, because against field fortifications and tank-dangerous targets it is better.
      The only role in which resuscitation of the S-60 is better is to shoot at helicopters, but for it you need a good SLA and detection equipment to open the gun.
      1. Forest
        Forest 31 May 2016 12: 28
        +1
        Yes, the problem is that the shells will be the same. New is not provided.
      2. yehat
        yehat 31 May 2016 17: 00
        +2
        and what parameters of the LMS should be?
        Firstly, I think we need increased rangefinder efficiency. Laser, as on the BMP-3 is not suitable. 7 meter horns on the towers laughing that stood on the battleships are also not good. Secondly, I don’t understand how with BMP 3, and even on the go to search for ground targets at a distance of at least 10 km. Otherwise, the instrument cannot be opened.
        The only real alternative that comes to mind is the use of reconnaissance drones and the development of systems of a single information space on the battlefield.
        Which ultimately leads to the idea that the development of the LMS does not solve the problem from the word at all.
        The only thing that the LMS can change is the reaction time to the appearance of the target.
      3. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 16: 12
        +1
        Well, what kind of resuscitation are we talking about? What kind of helicopters? Well, what helicopter were you planning to hit at a distance of 8-10 km from an autocannon? What will be the consumption of shells? Well, isn’t it funny?
        1. Bloodsucker
          Bloodsucker 24 November 2016 09: 57
          0
          Quote: cast iron
          Kamrad, well, what kind of resuscitation is it

          Do you say no resuscitation? Yes, there is also what.

          And not in one copy.

          So by helicopter, 57 mm will be just right.
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 24 November 2016 13: 24
            0
            Yah. Syria, coughing up blood from the Civil War, is forced to get all the junk out of the warehouses and repair because newer weapons have simply been destroyed during the war years.

            They simply do not have modern MANPADS and SAM systems. These are the reasons for all these "resuscitation" of corpses.
  2. Just seraph
    Just seraph 31 May 2016 06: 43
    +10
    About the BMP-3 with 57 mm. I automatically hope for 2 things:
    1. think of putting ATGMs
    2. the ammunition will NOT be 80 shells (as stated).
    And of course the machine fire)
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 31 May 2016 08: 44
      +2
      The ammunition load obviously depends on how many shells can be loaded into the CAM module, possibly even into the auger itself. If there were projectiles from the BMP itself, the ammunition would be more.
    2. avt
      avt 31 May 2016 10: 02
      +3
      Quote: Just Seraphim
      About the BMP-3 with 57 mm. I automatically hope for 2 things:

      laughing Aha! As with the notorious "Terminator"? "Suddenly" it turns out that we need more guns and again
      Quote: Just Seraphim
      1. think of putting ATGMs

      Quote: Just Seraphim
      2. the ammunition will NOT be 80 shells (as stated).

      laughing And all in chorus, again as about "Bakhche", that you need to remove the ammunition from the fighting compartment somewhere ... outside wassat .Well on wood bast - start over
      Quote: Just Seraphim
      And of course the machine fire)

      here you go
      In early June, Kazakhstan should host the KADEX 2016 exhibition, during which they will show a wheeled armored vehicle Barys of Kazakh design. The exhibition model is equipped with a combat module of Russian design, which received a 57-mm automatic gun.
      they like it - let them buy like the same Terminator
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      good luck!

      Quote: bish
      In the case of a 57 mm gun with a rate of 120 rounds per minute and remote detonation of a projectile at a given distance, it will be able to turn the shelled infantry in the trench into forcemeat at a firing distance, I think this is the main idea.

      Well this is-yes-ah-ah ... Especially if at
      Quote: bish
      30 mm and 100 mm with the available characteristics can not effectively deal with anti-tank crews that are sheltering in a trench or other shelter on a flat terrain, provided that the combat vehicle to defeat the crew should not enter the ATGM destruction zone.
      That only a small-caliber projectile with remote detonation of everyone into minced meat will turn purposefully and drive heretical thoughts from the brain away that a large-caliber projectile can also be modified to increase efficiency. The main thing is that everything is like people
      Quote: cosmos111
      40 mm Bofost on BMP CV-90 naughty, with remote detonation.

      and even 17mm thicker! laughingAnd by the way, drunken gamers of the World of Tanks, knocking out the "Abrams" not only from 57mm, in general from DShK with a click of replenishment of the BC on a computer can not convince you of idolizing this 57mm device. ", from which they also wrote in ecstasy together with Rogozin boiling water on the Internet, they do not take arms.
      1. bunta
        bunta 31 May 2016 10: 32
        +1
        Quote: avt
        The main thing is that, as the previously notorious "Terminator", from which they also wrote boiling water on the Internet in ecstasy together with Rogozin, they do not take arms.

        So there are still sane. How long will they last?
      2. goose
        goose 31 May 2016 11: 19
        0
        Quote: avt
        and even 17mm thicker! And by the way, drunken gamers of the World of Tanks, knocking out the "Abrams", not only from 57mm, in general from DShK with a click of replenishment of the BC on a computer can not convince anything in idolizing this 57mm device.


        Onboard, this 57-mm cannon can be used to destroy almost any tank even with ordinary armor-piercing cannons, especially if it can be loaded with a dozen shells.
        Head-on? Hope only for the failure of sighting equipment and tracks, shrapnel is needed.
        Marders, Ahzarites and other TBTR and TBTR in the forehead will not succeed.
        1. yehat
          yehat 31 May 2016 13: 45
          +1
          it is difficult to "take" heavy machines in the forehead, however, you can
          1. to increase everything that provides attacking potential - a gun, SLA, headlights, tracks, etc.
          2. In some places you can stun the crew
          3. jam the tower
        2. avt
          avt 31 May 2016 14: 11
          0
          Quote: goose
          Onboard, this 57-mm cannon can be used to destroy almost any tank even with ordinary armor-piercing cannons, especially if it can be loaded with a dozen shells.

          ,, I can sink an aircraft carrier! ..... If I get there. " wassat Scenario ,, Features of national fishing "copy-paste in ,, Features of the national world of the same tanks". bully Flag in your hands - make a movie - we’ll be with the whole of Mongolia, especially when I give the stage for the film, hit
          Quote: goose
          if you can put a dozen shells.
          at one point, even let someone then bayonet the crew on a three-line bayonet!
          1. yehat
            yehat 31 May 2016 17: 32
            +1
            but in vain you laugh!
            with a rate of fire of 120 per minute, shells will create vibration and weakened zones of tension in the armor. The thickness of the side armor on the T72 varies from 70 to 80 mm, plus 10 can be thrown due to the screens and mounted DZ. a total of 80mm partially weakened by vibration and jagged hits of steel plate.
            for a 57mm cannon with good energy, this is quite a breakable goal.
            For comparison, during WW2 the 57mm ZIS-2 cannon easily pierced the tiger in the forehead with a 100mm plate of high-quality ship armor. True, not from 12 kilometers. laughing
            1. avt
              avt 31 May 2016 18: 43
              +1
              Quote: yehat
              For comparison, during WW2 the 57mm ZIS-2 cannon easily pierced the tiger in the forehead with a 100mm plate of high-quality ship armor.

              request fool There is actually quite an archival document of shelling tests of a captured T-VI from May 4, 1943 to the People's Commissar of Defense Marshal Stalin and the stamp S.S. removed from it, well, so an excerpt from it that in the period from April 24 to April 30 of this year, they smacked from everything that is, and, Board, stern and tower armor of a tank with a thickness of 82 mm breaks through when meeting at a right angle - Armor-piercing solid projectile 57mm anti-tank gun ZIS-2 from a distance of 1000 meters .... The frontal armor of the T-VI with a thickness of 100mm is penetrated by an armor-piercing shell of an 85mm anti-aircraft gun from a distance of 1000 meters, 76mm F-34 from 200 meters did not take it, and that's it! Oh! Yes! There was also -, Give an assignment to comrade. Grabina urgently to make for the IS tank a sample of a powerful tank gun of 100 mm caliber. "So
              Quote: yehat
              with a rate of fire of 120 per minute, shells will create vibration and weakened zones of tension in the armor.

              Be careful with the vibrator in the battle on the fields of the World still of the tank.
              1. yehat
                yehat 1 June 2016 09: 32
                0
                you are talking nonsense again. and intentionally offensive. Would you at least try to pass chemistry at school by 2 or something
                finally, who is now shooting armor-piercing armor-piercing from a 57mm gun ?? Almost always with cores choose.
                Here it’s for sure that you didn’t get stuck with WOT, but at the same time repeat the school course from grade 6 without two.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 1 June 2016 12: 15
                  0
                  You name BOPS for C-60.
                  1. yehat
                    yehat 1 June 2016 14: 20
                    0
                    what are you talking about ???
                    what BOPS for anti-aircraft guns?
                    we started talking about shooting at the armor, and you told me about the anti-aircraft gun.
                    let's just, first you name the real flying target for the S-60 with armor under 100mm, and then I will tell you the brand of the projectile for this target. and not the other way around. No.
            2. Forest
              Forest 31 May 2016 23: 06
              0
              This module from ZiS-2 did not go far, on the contrary - more primitive, because This is the anti-aircraft C-60, which is not equipped with sub-calibers.
        3. venik
          venik 31 May 2016 23: 50
          0
          [quote = goose] [quote = avt].
          Marders, Ahzarites and other TBTR and TBTR in the forehead will not succeed. [/ Quote]
          =====
          Marder will just take it, but Ahzarit is unlikely!
  3. Nix1986
    Nix1986 31 May 2016 07: 10
    +3
    It seems to me this or that. Such a caliber is prohibitive against infantry or lightly armored targets, while at the same time its power is insufficient against the obt. As an option of light self-propelled guns, we have an octopus, although its quantity is small. From the foreign as a kind of analogy, only the Italian otomatik comes to mind, but there is 76mm and a radar, which makes it a good zk, the radius of destruction is good.
    1. the47th
      the47th 31 May 2016 07: 21
      +3
      The advantage of "Baikal" is its range, the 2A70 has a maximum range of 6500m, and the AU-220 - 12 km. In addition, it turned out that the ZSU-57-2 can drive terrorists across the desert quite well.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 31 May 2016 07: 26
        +3
        This gun is not a howitzer, but shoots along a flat trajectory, which is limited by the MSA, and not by the range of the shot. If my memory serves me, then the aiming range record belongs to the challenger in an Iraqi company, and that was something like 4km with a penny. And again, we have a sau octopus with a 125mm obt.
        1. goose
          goose 31 May 2016 11: 32
          +1
          Quote: Nix1986
          If my memory serves me, then the aiming range record belongs to the challenger in an Iraqi company, and then it was something 4km with a penny

          Shooting from a 100-mm Bahchi caliber for 4 km is a regular exercise, despite transonic ballistics. I don’t think that you need a complicated SLA to get a 10-second burst at such a distance with the ballistic of AU-220.
          Another thing is, if you need from the first or second shot, then you will have to drive, optics and LMS significantly modify.
          But most importantly - I have not seen new shells anywhere. As long as there is a remote fuse and that's it. We need something simpler for the army, at least as the Swedes, in terms of speed, with automatic programming.
          The laser rangefinder should be measured at a greater distance, you need another rangefinder, for shooting at helicopters, like a radio sight of fighters, so that it can detect in a narrow sector at a distance of actual shooting up to 10 km. You can take the finished base with Chrysanthemum. In this case, the radio fuses will do. BUT then the selection of shells suggests itself, so that the type can be selected. How to do it?
          1. Nix1986
            Nix1986 31 May 2016 12: 45
            0
            That's the goal that hit from the first shot. The Challenger managed to load a blank for 4 km to a point, because he has the only modern rifle rifle gun, in addition to the actual SLM (let the more competent colleagues correct it, but on all other modern rifles either the German smooth-bore rheinmettal, or like our smooth-bore gun launcher )
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. cosmos111
        cosmos111 31 May 2016 09: 05
        +2
        Quote: the47th
        that ZSU-57-2 can pretty well drive desert terrorists.


        YES and "Shilka" does not do a bad job. Better twin ZU-23-2, BMP for BMP, difficult to find + "Vienna" With a 120 mm mortar gun.


        Universalization is not always GUT.
      4. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 16: 17
        +3
        And where do you get it from 57mm for 10-12 km? You are strange people. Look at the firing of 125mm tank guns. They barely fall into a distance of 3-4 km, and you believe in fairy tales about aimed shooting at 12 km)))) Holy simplicity.
    2. vomag
      vomag 31 May 2016 10: 17
      +4
      And here is beyond ? Who told you such nonsense? in at the same time, his power is insufficient against obt.Hahahah begging this pearl, you see everything as guys on an infantry fighting vehicle across the battlefield \ tanks chasing ??? .... (I want to swear, though .. your ideas are bad) yes 57mm will most likely displace 30mm and this is only a fact to various comrades who are not quite distant, it seems that this is not so ....
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 31 May 2016 11: 00
        +1
        Spring Fever? Not? Do not react so sharply, everything will be fine, you will have 57 mm for the infantry and for the "mace" for the tank.
      2. shonsu
        shonsu 31 May 2016 12: 03
        +4
        how strange that there are sane minorities here. the bulk of the "strategists" who write here know about weapons and equipment from the tyrnet. but screeching already hurts his eyes. )))
        1. Nix1986
          Nix1986 31 May 2016 12: 39
          +2
          There is a whole army of WoT fans on the site, who fall asleep every night with the idea of ​​driving armature across the lawn of the white house and consider themselves the second Kolobanovs and Wittmanns. Well, in the morning again for the briefcase and to school. laughing
          1. yehat
            yehat 31 May 2016 16: 23
            -1
            rather, in a manger, judging by the level of intelligence. negative
          2. vomag
            vomag 31 May 2016 22: 16
            0
            Yes, yes, as soon as there are disagreeing with your opinion so immediately shkolota dull, etc. etc. ... arguments to the studio ... I brought my own ... if you are not too lazy to look at the leisure line of armored personnel carriers and replacing their weapons .. everything is very simple ... conclusions do only to you ..
    3. Shark Lover
      Shark Lover 31 May 2016 13: 11
      +3
      You know, for the infantry and 30 mm, an extraordinary caliber. Yes there 30mm-14.5 (KPVT) and then the rail already !!!! I am in my shoes, I personally experienced an unforgettable feeling when they hammer at you from 14.5 anti-aircraft guns !!! Barbarians !!! At what, okay, to destroy the shelter and chop up with fragments or fill up with debris, so no, there was no shelter! It flew from the bottom upwards, approximately by eye, 10 cm above me. After each turn, I asked the soldier to see if everything was intact on my back and if I had a back at all.
      But to break down a brick wall and 30 mm is not always enough, or rather, always not enough, that’s why we need such a caliber, get it behind cover, and save ATGMs and RPGs, specifically for heavy equipment. And imagine a volley of 57 mm HE in the mountains in stones, a miracle !!! There it will splash so much that it will not be necessary to spend ATGMs (as in Vidio in Syria, when ATGMs are bashing over the accumulation of basmachi).
      According to LBT (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles), 57 mm should be planted in the frontal projection, I think 100% of the wounded equipment will not be sewn all together with the engine and all bulkheads, everything will be cut with fragments inside and everyone’s fairy tale!
      1. goose
        goose 31 May 2016 15: 21
        +3
        Quote: Shark Lover
        According to LBT (armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles), 57 mm should be planted in the frontal projection, I think 100% of the wounded equipment will not be sewn all together with the engine and all bulkheads, everything will be cut with fragments inside and everyone’s fairy tale!

        It seems to me that such ballistics was chosen in order to reduce the time of impact on the helicopter / calculation of anti-tank systems.
        Flatness - easier to aim - you can "cross"
        The speed of the projectile is about 1000 m / s, quickly reaches a distance of 2 km or more. If you shoot from Bahchi, then the 100 mm OFS will fly 3-4 times longer. During this time, the calculation of the ATGM will have time to shoot and dump the rocket, or it may not fall, but it will have time to direct the rocket. And then they will not have time for guidance. The real situation - you are traveling the field calmly - at a distance of 2,5 km, a flash from the launch of a rocket engine. Your actions? On the standard BMP-3 only hide. And here you can actively prevent time.
        Range - the actual range of fire from 2A42 helicopters from a force of 3 km, rather 2 km. Here it’s already possible to shoot at a range of about 4 km (but you need a normal LMS and a detection system), the main thing is to notice the helicopter at this distance in time. Many ATGMs have a range of 2 km, according to them a 30 mm ue gun is ineffective, and a 100 mm is not too accurate to hit quickly (Yes, and not so much shells).
        The ability to hit light and medium BT without using missiles. “What our budget army needs.” Many missiles never happen.
        Well, the tanks. Most modern MBTs have a side and stern reservation of not more than 60-100 mm from kinetic ammunition, which gives a good chance of defeat from a decent distance of more than 1 km. At the same time, they learned to deal with cumulative ammunition, and even take it on board does not always work.

        PS For lovers of whining that 80 shells are few. Have you seen the shells from the S-60? - they are very overall, not less than 100 mm from 2A72. 80 shells is really a lot, especially when you consider that 3-4 shells are spent on one target to guarantee. And there is a real opportunity with such ballistics to be solitary in 1-2 shots.
        1. yehat
          yehat 31 May 2016 16: 32
          +2
          Quote: goose

          The speed of the projectile is about 1000 m / s, quickly reaches a distance of 2 km or more. If you shoot from Bahchi, then the 100 mm OFS will fly 3-4 times longer. During this time, the calculation of the ATGM will have time to shoot and dump the rocket

          how will he get down? do not have time to run out even for the radius of guaranteed stuffing
          the delay is rather different - in the accuracy of aiming. At 100mm, this is not crosshair pointing. My brother served on just such a machine. He says that such people come to the motorized infantry, as if they are specifically looking for the dumbest. He was appointed just responsible for additional training in guidance skills. Many people don't know how to count without a calculator. Therefore, when aiming a gun, where it is necessary to calculate the parameters of ballistics, they constantly mow. All this will lead to the fact that they are guaranteed to give time for the calculation of the anti-tank equipment not only to shoot, but also to the wreck, slowly leaving.
  4. Max repp
    Max repp 31 May 2016 07: 22
    +3
    It seemed to me like an ideal thing on a light BTT 30 mm autocannon + 100-120 mm smoothbore complemented by a course 7,62 and possibly turret well or AGS
    1. goose
      goose 31 May 2016 15: 25
      +3
      Quote: Maks Repp
      It seemed to me like an ideal thing on a light BTT 30 mm autocannon + 100-120 mm smoothbore complemented by a course 7,62 and possibly turret well or AGS

      And I liked the 57-mm idea with remote detonation, especially if there is another 82-120 mm mortar in stock.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 04
        +1
        How were you going to fight with a well-entrenched opponent with a 57mm stick? In WWII, everyone understood everything about calibers - even 76mm was not enough.
  5. Shelest2000
    Shelest2000 31 May 2016 07: 36
    +3
    It is not clear why the old version of the BMP armament with 100 and 30mm twin cannons is bad. What is the qimus of replacing weapons with a weaker version? After all, for a hundredth and a bird, is there a barrel for shooting?
    1. Vitail
      Vitail 31 May 2016 08: 08
      +2
      It is not bad, it’s just that Baikal’s range of destruction of targets is several times higher and it can work on air targets, in addition, by its power, 57-caliber projectiles can also effectively hit enemy’s MBT like 100 mm only from a greater distance.
      1. Forest
        Forest 31 May 2016 09: 21
        +2
        The destruction range is unlikely to be more than 4 km. Continue to shoot - wasting BC in vain. And the 100-mmka is many times more powerful and has TOURS that will give other MBT heat.
        1. Vitail
          Vitail 31 May 2016 10: 10
          -2
          Well, this is just your speculation, I watched a video about a 30 mm BTR-80 cannon, and so a line of 7 30 mm shells splits the frontal armor of tanks like T-55 and T-65 and here 57 mm
          1. Forest
            Forest 31 May 2016 12: 25
            0
            Thai metal is already old, and the armor itself is outdated. Yes, and, most likely, a simple advertising and progandist move - either the armor was already split, or weakened in advance. So our 30-mm shells are inferior to the KPVT bullets at some distances. But the C-60 shells are even more primitive than the 2A42 and 2A70 - still they were produced in WWII.
            1. Vitail
              Vitail 31 May 2016 16: 59
              0
              Again your speculation, I believe that the designers who created the Baikal module know a little more than yours without any speculation.
              1. Forest
                Forest 31 May 2016 22: 58
                0
                They were told - they did. The designer does not flounder from the bay, but on orders from above. Look at the penetration of the ZiS-2 and compare it with the MK30 from Puma. And the S-60 is weaker than the ZiS-3. When 25-mm cannons pierce more "promising" guns of the 1950 model, it is pathetic.
          2. goose
            goose 31 May 2016 15: 29
            +1
            Quote: Vitail
            splits the frontal armor of tanks

            Yes, it splits with a large number of hits, but at a short distance. At a distance of about 1 km, not so much impact also occurs - like peas against a wall. Shells quickly lose energy.
            1. The comment was deleted.
          3. cast iron
            cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 07
            +2
            This is YOUR speculation, because even a hefty 125mm cannon cannon effectively shoots no more than 4 km. And here is a 57mm bundle, which, according to your fantasies, will not yield to it exactly and surpasses it. These are all your fantasies. As well as fantasies about the fact that a 30mm bullet of an armored personnel carrier pierces 120mm frontal homogeneous T-55 armor.
        2. Vitail
          Vitail 31 May 2016 17: 05
          +2
          An ATGM is an expensive toy, unlike 57 mm shells, a machine with a Baikal module will be indispensable for organizing ambushes, thanks to its rate of fire and range, this gun can build up a bunch of equipment and manpower from an ambush, while being out of reach for enemy return fire.
          1. cast iron
            cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 09
            0
            Dreamer)))
    2. goose
      goose 31 May 2016 15: 27
      +1
      Quote: Shelest2000
      After all, for a hundredth and a bird, is there a barrel for shooting?

      Modern ATGMs in the caliber of 100 mm are not enough to break ALL modern MBT into the forehead. Need a caliber 132-152 mm to create a cumulative charge of sufficient power. Then it is possible to form the focus of the cumulative jet under 2,5 meters, which is enough for any dynamic protection.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 10
        0
        At the same time, for some reason they forget that a 57mm fart at all will not cause special damage to a tank at a distance of firing a missile from 100m Bahchi-U)))))
  6. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 May 2016 08: 08
    +4
    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 for hitting a target like Tank, and 100mm PTRS can help. Those. for the full destruction of tanks in the composition of the machine with 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 destroy modern tanks
  7. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 31 May 2016 08: 25
    0
    12 km - Yes! This is already akin to ship systems! Well done designers-gunsmiths! Keep it up!
    1. yehat
      yehat 31 May 2016 16: 08
      +2
      if they had made a three-ruler 2 times more in 1895, she would have already shot 12 km
      so it’s not so much progress.
      But the fact that with such a projectile energy a cannon can fire 120 rounds per minute is already something.
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 15
      0
      Ship systems are equipped with powerful SLAs and radars, which allow relatively accurately hit the target at such distances. In the BMP, no such radar will fit.
  8. bish
    bish 31 May 2016 08: 37
    +4
    Quote: Shelest2000
    It is not clear why the old version of the BMP armament with 100 and 30mm twin cannons is bad.

    30 mm and 100 mm with the available characteristics can not effectively deal with anti-tank crews hiding in a trench or other shelter on a flat terrain, provided that the combat vehicle to defeat the crew should not enter the ATGM destruction zone. 30 mm for these purposes is not suitable, it will not allow the queue to effectively hit the calculation, because at a distance of about 3 km it will have a wide spread, as a result the enemy will hide in a trench, after which he will be able to continue firing from anti-tank missiles. 100 mm shells with an existing gun, at a distance of over 3 km, it is unlikely to be able to get into the trench located on a flat terrain, because of which the calculation will also not be affected. I do not know information about remote detonation devices for 100 mm shells. 30 mm projectiles in size do not allow the installation of a remote fuse, while maintaining a sufficient area of ​​destruction of such a projectile.
    In the case of a 57 mm gun with a rate of 120 rounds per minute and remote detonation of a projectile at a given distance, it will be able to turn the shelled infantry in the trench into forcemeat at a firing distance, I think this is the main idea.
    1. Mik13
      Mik13 31 May 2016 10: 40
      +8
      Quote: bish
      30 mm and 100 mm with the available characteristics can not effectively deal with anti-tank crews that are sheltering in a trench or other shelter on a flat terrain, provided that the combat vehicle to defeat the crew should not enter the ATGM destruction zone.

      To do this, you first need to notice at least a trench at a distance of 3 km, not to mention the calculation.
      The fact is that the ATGM calculations, as a rule, behave extremely unconstructively, do not use the indicators adopted by gamers and neon lighting, and sometimes even use some kind of disguise.
      Not only that, they also change position after a shot ... bastards ...

      Quote: bish
      30 mm is not suitable for these purposes, it will not allow the queue to effectively hit the calculation, because at a range of about 3 km there will be a wide spread, as a result the enemy will hide in a trench, after which he will be able to continue to fire from ATGMs.
      I will tell you in great confidence that even during firing from a trench, nothing but a launcher sticks out, even the operator’s head. The calculation for some reason does not come out in full force. They’re not fighting according to the rules. They are probably just despicable cowards and do not want to die ...
      1. bish
        bish 31 May 2016 11: 01
        +1
        In order to notice there is intelligence, and if the ATGM opened fire and was noticed, according to your logic, you need to let them calmly pack up and change their position.
        There are also devices that allow detecting enemy optical devices at the indicated ranges, which are also available for ATGMs.
        And I’ll tell you a secret that during the conduct of hostilities everyone behaves differently and far from being taught, they can also protrude from the trench. But if all the same, only PU sticks out, then I wrote about this that the 57 mm projectile with remote detonation will destroy this infantry. Independently, they hid in the trench or not.
        1. Mik13
          Mik13 31 May 2016 11: 32
          +7
          Quote: bish
          In order to notice there is intelligence, and if the ATGM opened fire and was noticed, according to your logic, you need to let them calmly pack up and change their position.
          There are also devices that allow detecting enemy optical devices at the indicated ranges, which are also available for ATGMs.
          And I’ll tell you a secret that during the conduct of hostilities everyone behaves differently and far from being taught, they can also protrude from the trench. But if all the same, only PU sticks out, then I wrote about this that the 57 mm projectile with remote detonation will destroy this infantry. Independently, they hid in the trench or not.

          Listen, bish, in the place of a company commander in an infantry fighting vehicle, I would have acted differently:
          I definitely will not be after detecting the launch of ATGMs
          1. stop BM (any of the companies) - because on the go to engage in this debauchery is simply unrealistic.
          2. look for the firing position, measure the range to it and choose the operating mode of the gun.
          3. and for all this trash I have no more than 30 seconds - after that, there will be no one else at the OP ATGM.

          Moreover, the ATGMs are not used alone, but there will be 4-5 launches, no less. Except, perhaps, partisans.

          I will order the smokes (there is a cloud system on the BMP for this) and under the smoke I will try to jerk the company out of the affected area.
          And according to the positions of the ATGM, the battalion commander will set me up after my report on the mortar.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. bish
            bish 31 May 2016 20: 14
            0
            Why do you need an IFV at all, have more smoke bombs and a taxi for your personnel, and the battalion commander will solve all problems.
            But seriously, a lot depends on the situation, the ability to hit infantry in a trench with an explosion from above (BMP fire) will help a lot to accomplish a number of tasks, and if a projectile with sufficient explosive power is generally good. For example, in some mountain gorges that have roads for artillery to move equipment, the discovered position may not be possible to cover.
            About 4-5 launches something I doubt very much where you heard about this. ATGMs are basically weapons of defense, if we are not talking about partisans, then the offensive will be carried out on an enemy who has several times less forces, moreover, after artillery preparation. I don’t think that 5 ATGM will be assembled for one BMP, even if they shoot at the first BMP that appears.
            1. Mik13
              Mik13 31 May 2016 23: 18
              0
              Quote: bish
              Why do you need an IFV at all, have more smoke bombs and a taxi for your personnel, and the battalion commander will solve all problems.

              There are tasks that the infantry cannot solve.
              There are situations when the solution of some problems is impractical.

              Quote: bish
              About 4-5 launches something I doubt very much where you heard about this. ATGMs are basically weapons of defense, if we are not talking about partisans, then the offensive will be carried out on an enemy who has several times less forces, moreover, after artillery preparation. I don’t think that 5 ATGM will be assembled for one BMP, even if they shoot at the first BMP that appears.

              Yes you! Well, if the company will attack the platoon on BMP-2 on the defensive, then there is 3 anti-tank missile system 9m113 with a range of destruction of up to 4000 m. Transportable ammunition - on 4 missiles on BM. Rocket speed - 200 m \ s.
              And you can use it separately - it is removed from the car if necessary. In defense, most likely it will be so.
              1. bish
                bish 1 June 2016 07: 13
                0
                Well, already 3 PU in the company, and not 4-5 on one BMP as it was at the beginning.
                Of course, you’re right in something, but I repeat, there are different situations.
                For example, at the entrance to Tskhinval, one of the first armored personnel carriers of the regiment entered the city and immediately received a shot from an RPG, which is why it was disabled. Then the commander moved to another armored personnel carrier and continued to conduct the offensive.
                Because of this, no one stopped the offensive and Tskhinval did not level the earth with artillery, they all decided on their own and by means.
                If an infantry fighting vehicle can independently destroy an ATGM calculation on its own without entering its fire zone, this is a big plus. The company cannot afford to fall out of the general offensive due to the calculation of ATGM, provided that the means of suppression will be occupied with other tasks. In this situation, you have to deal with yourself.
                1. Mik13
                  Mik13 1 June 2016 11: 00
                  0
                  Quote: bish
                  Well, already 3 PU in the company, and not 4-5 on one BMP as it was at the beginning.

                  I did not write about 4-5 on one BM. I wrote that the ATGMs are not used by individuals, but by units from several calculations \ PU.
                  For example, in the anti-tank platoon MSB on the armored personnel carrier 6 of the 9-111 complexes.
                  If MSB on BMP-2, then there are 3 of them for each platoon.
                  And they will not be used in single launches.

                  Quote: bish
                  For example, at the entrance to Tskhinval, one of the first armored personnel carriers of the regiment entered the city and immediately received a shot from an RPG, which is why it was disabled. Then the commander moved to another armored personnel carrier and continued to conduct the offensive.
                  Because of this, no one stopped the offensive and Tskhinval did not level the earth with artillery, they all decided on their own and by means.

                  WAH! And how does it look like:
                  Quote: bish
                  30 mm and 100 mm, with the available characteristics, cannot effectively deal with anti-tank crews hiding in a trench or other shelter on a flat terrain, provided that the combat vehicle must not enter the ATGM destruction zone to defeat the crew

                  Maybe you should not mix warm with soft?

                  Quote: bish
                  If an infantry fighting vehicle can independently destroy an ATGM calculation on the offensive without entering its fire zone, this is a big plus.
                  The BMP will not be able to destroy the ATGM calculation without entering its fire zone because:
                  1. the available BMP surveillance tools do not allow detecting the ATGM calculation at their firing range (3500-4000m) before launch.
                  2. the available BMP surveillance tools do not allow the use of weapons for calculating ATGMs at their firing range (3500-4000m) after starting an ATGM during the flight (20 seconds)
                  3. very often PU anti-tank missiles are not detected even after launch.
                  So the point is not at all about the capabilities of weapons.
                  By the way, at ranges 3500-4000 m. If the ATGM calculation is detected, it can also be fired from 30 mm. With a rather high probability of defeat. The main thing is to discover.
              2. bish
                bish 1 June 2016 07: 13
                0
                Well, already 3 PU in the company, and not 4-5 on one BMP as it was at the beginning.
                Of course, you’re right in something, but I repeat, there are different situations.
                For example, at the entrance to Tskhinval, one of the first armored personnel carriers of the regiment entered the city and immediately received a shot from an RPG, which is why it was disabled. Then the commander moved to another armored personnel carrier and continued to conduct the offensive.
                Because of this, no one stopped the offensive and Tskhinval did not level the earth with artillery, they all decided on their own and by means.
                If an infantry fighting vehicle can independently destroy an ATGM calculation on its own without entering its fire zone, this is a big plus. The company cannot afford to fall out of the general offensive due to the calculation of ATGM, provided that the means of suppression will be occupied with other tasks. In this situation, you have to deal with yourself.
        2. goose
          goose 1 June 2016 09: 31
          +2
          Quote: bish
          In order to notice there is intelligence

          The company has no separate intelligence. In addition, try to notice the calculation of the ATGM for 3 km, even if it is openly standing in the field, not even in the trench. At such a distance, even a jeep with anti-tank systems can not be immediately noticed.
      2. bish
        bish 31 May 2016 11: 01
        -1
        In order to notice there is intelligence, and if the ATGM opened fire and was noticed, according to your logic, you need to let them calmly pack up and change their position.
        There are also devices that allow detecting enemy optical devices at the indicated ranges, which are also available for ATGMs.
        And I’ll tell you a secret that during the conduct of hostilities everyone behaves differently and far from being taught, they can also protrude from the trench. But if all the same, only PU sticks out, then I wrote about this that the 57 mm projectile with remote detonation will destroy this infantry. Independently, they hid in the trench or not.
        1. Forest
          Forest 31 May 2016 12: 34
          +3
          For C-60 there is no programmable shell, unlike 100-ki.
          1. goose
            goose 31 May 2016 15: 42
            +2
            Quote: Forest
            For the S-60 there is no programmable shell, unlike the 100s

            But there is a regular radio fuse.

            Oh, of course, I want cheaper, more compact and more reliable.

            I also want a stupid contact fuse, but a thin-walled superheavy projectile with ballistics for speeds of ~ 1 Mach, so that the fragmentation field would be like a mortar. So that the shell was not 3 kg, but 5-7 kg.

            By the way, there is already a project in the Nudelman Design Bureau for UAS in this caliber just for the S-60.
            http://www.kbtochmash.ru/press-center/articles/articles_26.html

            That's just how to choose all these shells from styling? All of these are programmable, UAS, etc. After all, the instrument is revealed precisely by shell variety.
            1. Forest
              Forest 31 May 2016 16: 07
              +1
              The radio fuse will not provide the required accuracy, it’s not an 85 mmka after all, the cloud of fragments is rather liquid. And we almost never produce new shells. Well, if 91 year released 1 million shells of all calibers. Personally, I think - do not worry, buy / steal drawings of the production of Bofors 40-mm with its programmable shells and BOPS.
              1. cast iron
                cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 23
                0
                Comrade, has this Beaufors surrendered to you? Well, is it clear that the Scandinavians are actively promoting him for sale? The USSR had an analogue in the Second World War - 37mm guns with different shells. Finish them not fate? And who said the beaufors programmable shell is good? In the advertisement showed what? )))
                1. Forest
                  Forest 2 June 2016 17: 58
                  0
                  Bofors is more promising due to the caliber and simpler than MK30 or Bushmeister 3, which are unlikely to be mastered in large quantities in our country. In general, I will support you that a tool like Nona looks best.
            2. cast iron
              cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 21
              0
              As a variant of the Bakhcha-U modernization, it is quite possible to install a 37mm cannon - such barrels were made in the Second World War. Plus, either modify the shells for a 100mm cannon, or put something like a 120mm NON gun with advanced functions and ammunition.
    2. yehat
      yehat 31 May 2016 16: 21
      +5
      1. Where do we have such ideal conditions with plains and without trees? Are you going to fight in the tundra? or in Mongolia? Basically, we are talking about a European theater of action, and there is not often a line of sight higher than even 3 km.
      2. How do you yourself see / find such a calculation from 5-10 km? Moreover, far from everywhere there is a bare desert and there is always where to take refuge. And if not, there is a mask network, etc.
      It is ridiculous to think that the BMP, which is much more noticeable than the calculation of TVET, and even unmasks itself with movement, will notice the calculation earlier.
      3. What makes you think that a 100mm cannon cannot send a projectile at the right distance?
      My brother served just on BMP-3 with this weapon. says range was enough
      as for accuracy, any target was struck by a hit within a radius of 30 meters.
      such a projectile ...
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 25
        +3
        Many students at the forum do not understand that even a 28-fold magnifying tube of theodolite is almost invisible to a person at a distance of 2-2.5 km against the backdrop of the landscape. And then the student was going to reveal the disguised calculation of ATGM for 5-10km. Laughter and more. And after all, they set up cons, while realizing that they do not understand much)))
    3. cast iron
      cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 19
      +1
      Those. A 57mm fart with no explosive effect can fight against fortified infantry, but a 100mm OFS - not? Did you go through logic at school? )))

      About the ATGM engagement zone. My dear, even a tank with a 125mm gun cannot help but enter the target area of ​​a guided missile. And you tell tales about the "long-range" 57mm fart))))

      Very strange))) An 88mm mortar from the Second World War puts mines quite heaped at 5km, and then a BMP-3 with a modern SLA and can’t get a heap of its 100mm OFS on a trench? Oh well. Storyteller.

      In the trench, he can and will be able to turn anyone into mincemeat, but in the bunker, go bunker, she will not turn anyone into mincemeat))))
  9. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 31 May 2016 09: 08
    +2
    Argument from the past
    Why Grabinsky ZiS-2 (57 mm with an initial velocity of the projectile 1100 m / s) was removed from service? - excess power to start a war - tanks of the T-III type pierced right through, and DIGGER action 57 mm the shell was recognized INSUFFICIENT for hitting infantry. The high-explosive action of the 57 mm projectile was inferior to the 76 mm projectile F-22, ZiS-3.
    Only with the advent of the tigers Pz-VI and Panther Pz-V, the Grabin ZiS-2 was returned to production.

    By the way, for reference - the German infantry called the Grabin divisional gun ZiS-3 - "Tum Tum". Due to the high initial velocity of the projectile, the sound of the shot and the rupture occurred almost simultaneously - the infantry did not have time to lie down and suffered heavy losses (it is repeatedly found in memoirs, especially on the Kursk Bulge).
    1. castle
      castle 31 May 2016 10: 03
      +4
      I did not understand your thought. The projectile flies faster than the speed of sound. First, the shell explodes, and then the sound of a shot is heard. Although, under mortar shelling, at certain distances, you can first hear the sound of a shot, and then the mines fly up.
      He did not want to interfere in the discus, but could not resist.
      If the 57 mm will have the possibility of programmable detonation (I did not find traces of the "programmer" on the gun, maybe I overlooked that), the price of such a gun will not be in the fight against infantry both in the open area and in urban combat! If you charge from two "drums", then you can work against strong armor. But it will be necessary instead of a taxi for the infantry to make a light tank from an infantry fighting vehicle. The infantry will be of great help.
      1. goose
        goose 31 May 2016 11: 41
        0
        Quote: hrad
        I did not find traces of the "programmer" on the gun, maybe I overlooked it

        And you will not see, even if you were.
        But of the regular shells from the remote so far there is only a radio fuse, but for him nothing should stand on the gun.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 31 May 2016 15: 56
        +1
        Quote: hrad
        I did not find traces of the "programmer" on the gun, maybe I overlooked it)


        The programmer is mounted on the breech of the gun - accordingly, in the armored volume it is not visible.
    2. goose
      goose 31 May 2016 11: 39
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      The DIGGER action of a 57 mm projectile was deemed INSUFFICIENT to destroy infantry. The high-explosive action of the 57 mm projectile was inferior to the 76 mm projectile F-22, ZiS-3.

      You will take a closer look at the question of why the high-explosive fragmentation shell from the 75-mm Panther gun was worse in effectiveness against infantry than the OFS shell of the 45-mm gun, then write. No one is going to shoot thick-walled blanks from this gun. Moreover, if you use an extra-heavy OFS projectile with a contact fuse with standard shelling, then the ballistics will become moderate, which will allow you to push even more explosives into such a projectile and get a good ellipse of fragments in a collision with the ground. And if remote detonation is used, then generally good.
    3. Rorabek
      Rorabek 31 May 2016 16: 30
      +2
      I read that in the 41st 57 mm the gun didn’t go in series for technical reasons, which was corrected after the new Lend-Lease machines were removed (improving the quality of processing) in 1943 and the production of the above type of weapons was resumed ... but the best divisional gun remained 76 mm ZIS-3, even the Angles bought a license, and this type of weaponry was even delivered to the mujahideen during the operations of the USSR troops in Afghanistan, possibly from storage depots

      although 57 mm was always anti-tank, by the way ... and in 41 years, a 57 mm mm PT gun was not needed, and in 1943 with the advent of the Tigers and Panthers, the production of these guns became relevant, but most plants produced ZIS-3, and the reconfiguration of defense plants in war we tried to do in exceptional cases
    4. avt
      avt 31 May 2016 16: 32
      +3
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Argument from the past

      Anecdote from the past.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Why Grabinsky ZiS-2 (57 mm with an initial velocity of the projectile 1100 m / s) was removed from service?

      It is corny that there was not enough ammunition, and even more so the armor-piercing one, which, according to the aforementioned anecdote, “pierced through the tanks per kilometer,” in general, there was a problem with armor-piercing shells at the beginning of the war. the barrel is 72 calibers shorter, to facilitate the manufacturing technology. For the T-10 tank destroyers with 34mm, I don’t say so. So in the end, the 57mm epic in the troops was finished at the beginning of 57 on the experimental model B-1950. Well, in the end, they stayed, , stupid scoops "with 22 mm PTO and .... 85mm, with which the Rapier caliber" is used to this day by the legacy of the USSR, not knowing to this day the happiness of acquiring this new manir and omnipotent mondul .... true with a creak of teeth, the pushers of this divays wondrous already say - to mock up de ATURS need wassat laughing Somehow they themselves do not believe in computer shooters where
      Quote: goose
      Onboard, this 57-mm cannon can be used to destroy almost any tank even with ordinary armor-piercing cannons, especially if it can be loaded with a dozen shells.

      Quote: yehat
      2. In some places you can stun the crew
      3. jam the tower

      Or maybe a colleague is right, and now we need to revive
      Quote: yehat
      if they had made a three-ruler 2 times more in 1895, she would have already shot 12 km

      laughing
    5. yehat
      yehat 1 June 2016 09: 44
      +2
      the Hrabin cannon was not withdrawn from service, but was suspended.
      These are completely different things. And they suspended it because the USSR had a shortage of high-precision machine tools and the leaders seemed too greasy to invest in them for the sake of cardboard tanks,
      for which the Germans punished them, not in the year 43 near Kursk, but in the 41st, because the 45mm cannon didn’t penetrate very well into the forehead pzIII
  10. 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 31 May 2016 09: 09
    +2
    It looks like the BMP is trying to turn into a tank. Could have - put a 125mm machine gun and it would be happiness! It is very likely that our military has a "crisis of the genre" with the concepts of using military equipment. (What targets will hit, and in what quantities is this "what" needed)
    I would leave 30mm on the BMP and develop external target designation. Imagine, any infantryman who is nearby will be able to transmit the targets they see to the combat module operator. All the "trifles" in the form of grenade launchers, machine gunners, snipers, anti-tank systems, simply accumulations of manpower will be "swept away" instantly to a distance of 2 km.
    1. bish
      bish 31 May 2016 09: 15
      +1
      At these 2 km you still need to approach, 30 mm will not be able to hit the targets you named if they simply hide behind the terrain, and get a long battle, rather than instant removal of the enemy.
      And with regard to external target designation, we are already working on this.
      1. Forest
        Forest 31 May 2016 12: 38
        +1
        Above 2 km, you rarely meet the battle distance, this is not Kazakh steppes and spherical tanks in a vacuum. If you meet a target at a great distance - it is easier to shoot ATGM.
      2. JD1979
        JD1979 31 May 2016 14: 50
        +2
        Quote: bish
        At these 2 km you still need to approach, 30 mm will not be able to hit the targets you named if they simply hide behind the terrain, and get a long battle, rather than instant removal of the enemy.


        And do you think that 57 mm will be sewn through these very folds of the terrain?
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 31
          0
          No, they are teleported by mortar trajectory from outer space precisely for the purpose)))) At the same time, target designation and adjustment are not required))) Well, it’s in the minds of schoolchildren who like 40mm and 57mm bullets.
      3. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2016 13: 51
        +1
        Quote: bish
        And with regard to external target designation, we are already working on this.

        in fact, it’s a shame for a country that collects prizes from a bunch of programming and mathematics olympiads that the army still does not have a sane unified target designation system. Most of the complexes used, sorry for the expressions, but at the level of handicrafts from cones. What is the problem? We have the most talented and cheap programmers, is it really that expensive to do this?

        ps I have seen many in action. Yes, they solve a number of narrow tasks, and even well, but at the army level, all this does not mean much.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 32
          +1
          For proper target designation, you need to know at least math, geodesy, physics, and cartography. Programmers do not need this))))
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 31 May 2016 14: 41
      +1
      This is an extreme, but a 125mm low ballistic gun and a 37mm machine gun would be just right.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 31 May 2016 16: 12
        0
        Large cannons require large ammunition.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 33
          +1
          Small guns require dozens and hundreds of shots where a large gun costs one or two shots.
      2. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 34
        0
        You read my mind directly. Why are the famous Soviet 37 mm quick-firing guns not even considered a replacement for 30mm autocannons? And in Bahce-U it’s time to mount instead of 100mm something like a universal NON launcher with a caliber of 120mm.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 31 May 2016 14: 41
      +1
      This is an extreme, but a 125mm low ballistic gun and a 37mm machine gun would be just right.
      1. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2016 15: 48
        0
        right? maybe a 124mm gun is better suited?
        37mm machine - it is very, very different. For comparison - British 40mm pom-pom
        and, for example, a 37mm automatic machine of the Red Army. Completely different devices in terms of performance
        and which one do you mean?
    4. yehat
      yehat 1 June 2016 13: 43
      +1
      Yes?
      Well then tell me how to make a stable target designation per person at a distance of 2 km?
      infrared? Not okay. radar? does not see the optics? and if he lies down or hides behind a tree?
      Footman backlight? I think half of these idiots just will not live up to the right time.
      Now imagine that target designation comes dynamically and you need to accompany, say, 10-15 goals at the same time?
      so how do you do that? I see no way without a network of flying drones to make high-quality target designation over the battlefield. But this is still half the trouble. The main thing is the software for this, because contractors are cunning people and take on what is simpler than what is needed.
      These are Americans, they were ready to put AEGIS on the road for 15 years, and they put it and brought it to mind, and we have effective managers. For each segment of the troops, control programs were written on the knee, and how to combine them, nobody cares. And it’s not worth talking about a single target designation base on the battlefield.
      By the way, we must pay tribute to the development of projects such as WOT - there are conducted active tests of different options for displaying interactive information on the map of the battlefield. People draw hundreds of mods for outputting target designation information in real time with varying degrees of detail and scaling. And there are ready-made solutions. Just use it.
  11. Forest
    Forest 31 May 2016 09: 24
    -3
    I do not understand why spoil the excellent BMP antediluvian gun, which is weaker than the western 30-mmok?
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 31 May 2016 10: 16
      0
      Perhaps there are a lot of 57 mm ammunition in the warehouses?
      1. Forest
        Forest 31 May 2016 12: 20
        +2
        We need new shells, not obsolete samples of the 30's and 40's.
        1. KaPToC
          KaPToC 31 May 2016 22: 10
          0
          Of course, new shells of various types are needed, but the old ones will go into business, well, not to conduct barrage fire with high-precision ammunition or, God forbid, expensive missiles!
          1. Forest
            Forest 31 May 2016 23: 00
            0
            IFVs are not self-propelled guns, they should not fire barrage, but as soon as possible hit a target that is dangerous to themselves and motorized rifles.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 2 June 2016 23: 55
              0
              Quote: Forest
              IFVs are not self-propelled guns, they should not fire barrage, but as soon as possible hit a target that is dangerous to themselves and motorized rifles.

              Initially, weapons on various military transporters were intended to destroy precisely air targets.
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 37
      +2
      Very often, western 30mm autocannons are endowed with fantastic characteristics))) But in reality they are not much ahead of the good old 2A42)))))
  12. chenia
    chenia 31 May 2016 09: 50
    +11
    Quote: Engineer
    What is it universal? But with Bahcey-U it’s universal: 7,62 for close combat with infantry, 30mm universal cannon for both suppressing manpower up to 4km, and lightly armored vehicles and enemy helicopters, 100mm


    The people, and who knows tactics? Or we act on the principle. the bigger, the better.

    The system works in the interests of separation, platoon. Why the heck do you load it with functions that are not inherent in a tactical formation.
    The battalions have 120 mm systems, and the regiment already has 152 mm. There are many specialized equipment for solving most problems.

    That's just 57 mm and more universal for most tasks of an infantry platoon, squad. Have a portable ATGM (you can control it from an infantry fighting vehicle, or takeaway. Takeaway launcher or a guide on the tower. What prevents this (and an ATGM caliber can be more, and more efficient).

    Consider a battle taking into account the interaction of means of all military branches, and you cannot create one system for all occasions.
    1. cast iron
      cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 40
      0
      It's one thing when you ALREADY have as many as 3 vehicles in the platoon, armed with 100mm OFSs and their delivery vehicles. And a completely different matter is the chain of interaction between companies, platoons, and battalions on the topic of fire support from mortars and regimental artillery. In the first case, the lieutenant has 3 large guns HERE AND NOW. And in the second case, he simply can’t get through to art support, which has happened more than once.
  13. Andrewgross
    Andrewgross 31 May 2016 11: 38
    +2
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    By the way, for reference - the German infantry called the Grabin divisional gun ZiS-3 - "Tum Tum".

    In memoirs, the name "ratsh-boom" is more common. These are two sounds accompanying the firing of the cannon. The first is the rustle of a supersonic (muzzle velocity over 600 m / s) projectile flying near the observer. The second is actually the sound of a shot, which comes later. According to another version, "ratsh" is the sound of a hit, and only then "boom" is the sound of a shot.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 31 May 2016 15: 51
      +1
      Quote: Andrewgross
      In memoirs, the name "ratsh-boom" is more common. These are two sounds accompanying the firing of the cannon. The first is the rustle of a supersonic (muzzle velocity over 600 m / s) projectile flying near the observer. The second is actually the sound of a shot, which comes later. According to another version, "ratsh" is the sound of a hit, and only then "boom" is the sound of a shot.


      Perhaps it was called differently in different departments, translation features are also possible
  14. gallville
    gallville 31 May 2016 11: 58
    0
    I wonder why the pts have regretted?
    By the way, it would be nice to unify Pu Ptur with Pu Pzrk.
    As a result, it is possible to assemble the body kit of the car, and at the same time, if there is a desire to launch an assault squad or air defense squad.
    1. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 31 May 2016 16: 45
      +1
      First of all, you need to think about what we want to get at its core - an ATGM capable of at least work on air targets, or a MANPADS (namely MANPADS, because a full-fledged air defense system based on an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle cannot be placed only if the armored personnel carrier ceases to perform its main functions) , which can hit tanks if necessary. IMHO, the first option is still preferable, since there are already effective military air defense and missile defense systems such as "shell", "tunguska", "beech", "wasps", etc. capable of operating at ranges of tens and hundreds of kilometers, but an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle may not have full protection against tanks at the right time, and instead of a cumulative warhead, you can successfully place a thermobarric, high-explosive fragmentation or provide a remote detonation system with ready-made striking elements.
      In my opinion, the ATGM and MANPADS missiles have a discrepancy, first of all, in terms of size (for an ATGM, a rocket of a large cross-section is desirable, since the armor-piercing of the cumulative jet increases, and for MANPADS, the rocket should be as thin and elongated as possible - in order to reduce the drag and increase thus the range / height of hitting the target, the speed for hitting "in pursuit") and by the OMS, more precisely, by the guidance and / or control channels. For MANPADS, preferable IR homing heads (there are such on our "Needles", "Arrows" and "Verbakh"), since the targets air targets are not only high-contrast, but also high-speed and can easily disappear from the field of view, but for ATGM we have there are no such (yet?) (but our sworn friends have - ATGM like Javelin, Spyke, Type 96 MPMS, etc.). Guidance of our ATGM "Kornet" (the most likely candidate for installation in a twin with a 57mm gun) is carried out via a thermal imaging channel, control - by a laser beam, and in the ATGM "Hermes" laser beam illumination and inertial guidance are used, but these methods are almost never used in MANPADS (the exception is laser beam illumination in the British "Starstreak"). It would be possible to direct by radio, but you cannot put a normal full-size radar on the military equipment of the front echelon, the dimensions are too large, and it is expensive for a mass complex that will most likely be installed on a large number of equipment - armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, BMPT and TBMP. Control over the radio channel is problematic in the modern world saturated with electronic warfare systems, although in this case it would be possible to launch a missile from closed positions and carry out remote guidance to a target through any channels available to third-party gunners. Among other things, the question of speed is relevant, for the Kornet ATGM system 300 m / s is enough, but for a man-portable missile system it is clearly not enough - the Strela speed is 400-430 m / s, the Igla speed is 600 m / s, which means it is necessary to reduce the reaction time when management, complication and rise in the cost of installation. The use of combined guidance and control channels will also cause an increase in the cost and complexity of the installation, and an increase in size.
      That is, in principle, it is possible to "teach" ATGMs to aim at low-flying, low-speed, high-contrast targets, but this will be a niche road, an inferior air defense system difficult to use, only for fighting helicopters and reconnaissance drones, not applicable against normal ground attack aircraft. In my opinion, the military is unlikely to want to invest in the development of such a deliberately hopeless project.
    2. yehat
      yehat 1 June 2016 14: 01
      0
      Ptur needs backlighting and probably its retention, not optics.
      different aiming.
  15. JD1979
    JD1979 31 May 2016 14: 24
    +6
    Quote: the47th
    The advantage of "Baikal" is its range, the 2A70 has a maximum range of 6500m, and the AU-220 - 12 km. In addition, it turned out that the ZSU-57-2 can drive terrorists across the desert quite well.

    An example of effective shooting at 12 km caliber 57mm on a ground target? Advertising also says that chewing gum protects against tooth decay.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 31 May 2016 16: 36
      +3
      At least an example of firing 100/125 mm guns (tank) at a ground target at 12 km. I would have looked. Most importantly, I can’t imagine firing a 57mm gun with a closed OP.
    3. cast iron
      cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 45
      +1
      Schoolchildren who overplayed the computer do not want to part with their fantasies))) They are not aware that 12km is already only a hinged trajectory that you can shoot. The direct shot range for schoolchildren is an empty phrase, they do not understand the meaning))))
  16. senima56
    senima56 31 May 2016 15: 57
    0
    Quote: Volga Cossack
    in my opinion a very promising development ....... and the versatility and power of the projectile at altitude. good luck!

    I completely agree with you! But when you see that an excellent promising development is "slowed down" with the introduction ... Immediately I remember A. Gaidar and his immortal work "Military Secret", there were such words: "Someone throws stones under their braids, someone throws sticks in the wheels inserts! "
  17. the47th
    the47th 31 May 2016 16: 48
    0
    Yes, everyone missed that the BMP M2 of the latest modifications has its forehead protected from armor-piercing shells 2A72 at distances from 100 m. This is where the AU-220M comes in handy.
    1. Forest
      Forest 31 May 2016 23: 12
      -1
      Bradley's forehead is protected from 30-mm shells in general, including the German MK30 and Bushmeister 2, which are much more powerful than the 57-mmki.
      1. yehat
        yehat 1 June 2016 11: 51
        +3
        I did not understand, more powerful which 57mm?
        if you are talking about the one that is discussed here in the subject, then you are very wrong.
        I will only give an example.
        30mm and 57mm differ in diameter by almost half.
        cross section: proportional to the square of the radius
        (57/2)*(57/2)-15*15= почти 4 раза
        in mass, the difference is even greater, because often a large caliber is even longer
        projectile energy increase is proportional to the mass and squared velocity
        for a 30mm projectile to be at least EQUAL 57mm in terms of the power of the armor deformation energy, it should be 4-5 times faster. And the laws of aerodynamics are such that the difference between them is no more than 10-15% in speed.
        now you understand what nonsense are about the fact that the Bushmaster is 30mm cooler than the 57mm?
        1. Forest
          Forest 1 June 2016 12: 21
          0
          More powerful C-60, which stands on this module. Penetration is not only dependent on energy. Tank BOPS weighs 4-8 kg and a diameter of about 30 mm, while its power is several times higher than the most powerful 128-mm anti-tank gun with a caliber projectile weighing under 30 kg. Penetration also depends on the quality of the armor-piercing core, and it is ridiculous to compare the all-steel blank of the 30's with BOPS from depleted uranium.
          1. yehat
            yehat 1 June 2016 13: 56
            0
            I don’t put a minus, I think the question is in the unsuccessful use of terminology. You called armor penetration power?
            1. Forest
              Forest 1 June 2016 14: 54
              -1
              Yes, more powerful in terms of armor penetration. If we talk about energy - this is already muzzle energy, there is something else.
        2. ILDM1986
          ILDM1986 1 June 2016 13: 46
          +2
          Regarding muzzle energy in theory, of course, everything is correct, but the question is in its effective implementation. 30 mm shells have BOPS which, with a lower mass, has greater hardness, sharpness, and also a smaller cross section - thanks to this, its energy is effectively transferred to a small surface area, respectively, the shell has high armor-piercing. Our 57mm BB shell is essentially a chamber ship’s ammunition, that is, a significant part of the volume is occupied by an explosive charge, a tracer and a thick shell to enhance the armor-piercing effect and the formation of fragments, while the armor-piercing tip is made of mild steel to reduce the likelihood of re-striking. No, UBR-281u of course breaks through the armor, but its armor-piercing is in the best case comparable to the 30mm BOPS, if not lower. On the other hand, the armored impact of 57 mm (and even chamber) ammunition is certainly much better, but he will be able to realize it when firing at concrete or brick shelters than on armor.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. Munchhausen
    Munchhausen 31 May 2016 20: 32
    0
    Listen, is it worth it to fence a garden? Maybe the best infantry fighting vehicle is a tank with an airborne squad?
    With normal tank armor and guns.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 31 May 2016 22: 18
      +1
      BMP is a tank with an airborne transport compartment, unnecessary semantics, a stupid argument about terms. We have to compromise between the landing and weapons, between mobility (buoyancy) and armor, between quality and quantity.
    2. cast iron
      cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 48
      0
      I'd like to see how you create a BMP with tank armor and fit in at least 70-80 tons)))) I think you can’t)))
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 2 June 2016 23: 56
        +1
        Quote: cast iron
        I'd like to see how you create a BMP with tank armor and fit in at least 70-80 tons)))) I think you can’t)))

        Tank defense is a vague term, I will be guided by tanks of the thirties of the last century and will fit perfectly into twenty tons.
        1. cast iron
          cast iron 3 June 2016 00: 22
          0
          What are you? T-34 with 45mm armor in a circle fits within 30 tons. And this despite the fact that the reserved volume is minimal. And this despite the fact that a modern machine will take it apart for parts at least from the side at a distance of a kilometer.
          So you can’t meet anywhere. Do not fantasize.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 4 June 2016 01: 48
            0
            Quote: cast iron
            T-34

            Are you talking to yourself? or just ignore what others write?
            Where the thirties, and where the T-34!
            1. cast iron
              cast iron 5 June 2016 14: 39
              0
              Did I miss something and armor steel has become as dense as aluminum? ))) Judging by the German advertising in Puma, they provided only circular protection from 30mm shells and it weighs 43 tons. How much will a heavy BMP with a normal protivodosnaryadny VLD weigh?
  20. CTABEP
    CTABEP 31 May 2016 22: 23
    0
    Without the development of new ammunition - IMHO a meaningless thing. But if in the future there will be selective nutrition and new shells - with a programmable detonation with ready-to-use striking elements, BOPS, with a radar fuse and FCS standards - it may well take off. And I think the same anti-tank systems from above hang up not a big problem.
  21. alexmach
    alexmach 31 May 2016 23: 10
    0
    Derivation

    Well at least not Deviation.
  22. Evil 55
    Evil 55 1 June 2016 03: 31
    0
    Perhaps this is still a complex for BRM, and not a full-fledged BMP ..
  23. papik09
    papik09 1 June 2016 05: 30
    +3
    Things are good. BUT (!) "The gun is equipped with a wedge breechblock and is supplemented auger feeding system. The gun can use various types of ammunition, depending on the current situation and type of target selected."
    Dear forum users. hi Can anyone explain HOW (?!) fool with auger ammunition system, can I choose the type of ammunition? what
    It turns out as in one verse: "I'm standing on the asphalt, I'm shod with skis. Either the skis don't go, or I'm ... well-worn." wassat
    1. yehat
      yehat 1 June 2016 15: 44
      0
      Quote: papik09
      Can anyone explain HOW (?!) fool with auger ammunition system, can I choose the type of ammunition?

      do you see the gopher no? So I don’t see ... but he is! laughing
  24. Leeder
    Leeder 1 June 2016 12: 08
    0
    Quote: Aspeed
    I strongly suspect that 2–3 57mm HE shells will be no worse than 1 mm.

    Worse, somewhere an order of magnitude.
    It is enough to compare the mass of the explosive shell, 100 and 57 mm. landmine. Somewhere 150 grams in 57 caliber and 1.5 kg in 100 mm caliber. And if we compare the impact drop of the blast wave, then by several orders of magnitude.
    1. ILDM1986
      ILDM1986 1 June 2016 13: 51
      +1
      For the destruction of fortifications and long-term shelters made of reinforced concrete, there is 125-152mm long-barreled artillery, the BMP’s task is to effectively hit enemy firing points, for this 57mm is quite enough, it remains to wait until new BPS and GPE shells are developed. Without them, really replacing 100mm with 57mm will not make sense.
      1. cast iron
        cast iron 2 June 2016 17: 51
        0
        The mission of the BMP is to fight. In war, there are a large number of goals. It’s one thing when the lieutenant has 3 100mm guns in the platoon right now and at hand, and another thing when the lieutenant needs to get through to the regimental artillery, which still needs to be adjusted and deployed.
    2. yehat
      yehat 1 June 2016 13: 59
      0
      that’s not all, actually there’s still a question of which landmine can fly more precisely.
      with all the super-rigidity of the 57mm gun, the hundredths have a more stable projectile trajectory and a more hinged one, which makes it possible to more accurately determine the explosion point itself.
    3. cast iron
      cast iron 3 June 2016 01: 08
      0
      And taking into account that BMP3 appeared OFS ZUOF19 with an explosive mass of 2.3 kg, then we can assume that by its destructive ability it came close to the 122mm OFS of regimental artillery with all the consequences.
  25. Kozliu
    Kozliu 7 July 2016 22: 35
    0
    if he increase bk, an excellent module will be
  26. Anatoly
    Anatoly 22 October 2016 19: 13
    0
    The author clearly got excited about exchanging guns for BMP-3, for the 57th there is a niche of its own: BMPT and T-15 and you do not need to create an ideal gun for everything, otherwise it will work for nothing. As the experience of modern local conflicts shows, it is necessary to create modular tactical units in the aggregate, each unit must have the entire set of weapons to deal with any enemy, especially for battles in a city where BMPT with a powerful gun and the ammunition base are desperately needed to increase it at times.