Military Review

Anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles

67
Anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles


This year marks the 50 years since, as in 1966, the infantry combat vehicle BMP-1 was adopted by the Soviet Army. In terms of its characteristics: mobility, security, and firepower, the new vehicle was significantly superior to the armored personnel carriers that had previously been used to transport infantry. The Soviet Union became the first country to adopt an armored vehicle of this class. Its layout has become a classic for the BMP. The engine compartment is located in the front of the hull, in the middle of the hull is a tower with weapons, in the rear of the hull is the troop compartment.

In the future, BMPs became widespread in the armed forces of other states, displacing the lungs Tanks. In terms of protection, the BMP-1 was close to the floating tank PT-76. Frontal armor BMP-1 withstood shelling of 12,7-20 mm caliber ammunition, the side, the stern and the roof of the hull protect against fragments and rifle bullets.


BMP-1


Armament BMP-1 had a pronounced anti-tank orientation. Soviet commanders believed that motorized rifle units operating autonomously should have ample opportunities to oppose enemy tanks. In this regard, the 73-mm smooth-bore gun 2А28 "Thunder", paired with an 7,62-mm PKT machine gun, and the Malyutka anti-tank missile 9М14М were included in the armament of the combat vehicle. The gun installed in the turret has a circular firing sector, elevation angles -5 ... + 30 degrees.



The main purpose of the 73-mm gun launcher is precisely the fight against armored vehicles. Some time after the adoption of the BMP-1, the cumulative PG-2В shot with a cumulative PG-28В gun was used as a weapon for the 15А9 gun. This cumulative ammunition is also used in the 73-mm LNG-9 anti-tank grenade launcher.

An active-reactive shot with a cumulative grenade consists of a powder propellant charge in a short sleeve and a cumulative PG-9B grenade with a jet engine. The grenade leaves the cannon at a speed of 400 m / s, and then accelerates with a jet engine to a speed of 665 m / s. In this case, the maximum range of shooting is 1300 meters, and the range of a direct shot at the target height of 2 meters - 765 meters. That is, the effective range of fire for armored vehicles from 73-mm guns of the BMP-1 is comparable to the range of firing from a PKT machine gun, caliber 7,62 mm.

Weight: Shot PG-15В - 3,5 kg, grenades ПГ-9В - 2,6 kg. The first version of PG-9В could penetrate 300 mm armor. The armor penetration of a modernized cumulative PG-9C grenade amounts to 400 mm of homogeneous armor. The cumulative jet of this munition is able to overcome 1 meter of reinforced concrete, 1,5 meter of brick or 2 meter of soil.


Layout of an active-jet shot with a cumulative PG-15В grenade


The BMP-1 ammunition with the 1974 of the year also includes OG-15В fragmentation shots intended to destroy manpower and destroy light field fortifications. Mass: FG-15B shot - 4,6 kg, FG-9 grenades - 3,7 kg, grenade contains 375 grams of explosive.

For the 2А28 “Thunder” gun, a loading mechanism is used, thanks to which the technical rate of fire is 8-10 rds / min (real 6-7 rds / min). Semiautomatic loader with electromechanical drive and mechanized conveyor-type ammunition. It provides storage, transportation and removal of shots to the line of issue. After the introduction of the BMP-1 ammunition set of OG-15B fragmentation shots, the feed mechanism was excluded, since the loading of OG-15В can only be done manually. In connection with this, loading with cumulative shots PG-15V was also carried out manually. The ammunition of the gun is 40 cumulative and fragmentation shots.

At the time of adoption by the BMP-1, its 73-mm gun could, within the effective firing range, fight tanks: Leopard-1, M48, M60, AMX-30, Chieftain. However, after the appearance of multi-layered armored tanks and the massive introduction of dynamic protection (reactive armor), the capabilities of 73-mm cumulative ammunition became insufficient. In the course of combat operations, where BMP-1 was used, the weakness of the gun was revealed during the suppression of tank-dangerous targets - infantry with RPG and ATGW. In addition, when undermining the BMP-1 on an anti-tank mine, the fuze shells of 73-mm guns often became a combat platoon and self-destructed after a short time interval. When this occurred, the detonation of the entire ammunition with the death of the crew and the landing. All this led to the fact that the military in the future demanded the introduction of small-caliber automatic weapons into the armament, which has great potential for dealing with helicopters, light-armored equipment and infantry of the enemy.

Even at the stage of development of the BMP-1 against tanks at medium distances, it was decided to equip the machine antitank guided missile 9K11 "Baby" complex with the launch range 500-3000 m. The missile 9M14 weight 10,9 kg flew 3000 meters in 25 seconds at a speed of 120 m / with. The combat unit of an ATGM with a mass of 2,6 kg, pierced normal 400 mm of homogeneous armor. In the BMP-1 ammunition there were 4 anti-tank missiles "Baby". Later, a modernized anti-tank 9М14М appeared with armor penetration to 460 mm.


ATGM "Baby"


Thus, the 73-mm gun and the ATGM complemented each other. However, for the effective use of a joystick-controlled anti-tank missile through wires, the level of professional skills of the gunner-operator had to be quite high. In combat, the operator, after launch, visually observes the flight of the ATGM and corrects it. At a distance of less than 1000 meters, the rocket can be guided "by eye". At long distances, an 8 multiple optical sight is used. For visual observation of the rocket on the trajectory, a well-marked tracer in its tail section is used. During the Doomsday War, in order to maintain the qualifications of the Egyptian “Malyutka” ATGM operators at the proper level, it was necessary to conduct training sessions on a simulator daily. Even so, the probability of hitting a moving tank did not exceed 0,7. In the case of getting into the tank M48 or M60, the armor is not equipped with dynamic protection and penetrated approximately in 60% of cases.

For the first time, the opportunity to assess the anti-tank weapons capabilities of the BMP-1 presented itself during the next Arab-Israeli conflict in 1973. Although the Egyptians due to improper tactics and poor crew training lost an unreasonable amount of BMP-1, these cars made a strong impression on the Israelis. Thus, during the fighting in the area of ​​Kantar, light and passable BMP-1s were able to cross the salt flats and shot stuck Israeli tanks. Sufficiently effective armament BMP-1 against tanks used by the Syrians in the 1982 year. It is believed that on the account of the gunner-operators several destroyed Israeli tanks "Magah-3" during a night battle in the Sultan-Yakub area. Also, the Syrians declared the destruction of the "Magah-6" and "Merkava" tanks in other military episodes. But by the middle of the 80-x after the appearance of the DZ and the new generation of tanks, the capabilities of the BMP-1 armament did not meet modern requirements. In this connection, in return for the 9K11 ATGM “Baby”, in the 1, the BMP-1979 BMP-9 was re-equipped with the Fagot anti-tank complex 111-1. The upgraded car received the designation BMP-1P. Up to this level, during the overhaul, a large part of the early release of the BMP-XNUMX was available.


BMP-1P


The launch range of the first variants of the Fagot ATGM was 2000 meters. But at the same time, the guidance became semi-automatic, which means that after the launch of the rocket, the operator only needed to hold the target in an optical sight. At the same time, the automation itself was driving a wire-controlled rocket to the line of sight. The armor penetration of the first 9М111 missiles remained at the level of the 9М14М ATGM, but the maximum flight speed increased to 240 m / s, and the "dead zone" decreased to 75 meters. Later they were developed and entered service with a missile with a launch range of 2500-3000 meters with armor penetration 600 mm.

The introduction of an ATGM with a semi-automatic guidance system significantly increased the likelihood of hitting the target and reduced the requirements for the training level of the gunner-operator. However, it should be understood that even with the increased likelihood of penetration and armor penetration, the ability of the BMP-1 to combat modern main battle tanks remains very modest. The 2А28 “Thunder” gun is hopelessly outdated and has a chance to penetrate only the onboard armor, and the anti-tank missile, which is not equipped with a tandem warhead, does not guarantee overcoming the multi-layered frontal armor. In addition, the ATGM in combat is essentially a one-time weapons, reloading the launch container under enemy fire is extremely problematic.

Soon after the adoption of the BMP-1, the design bureau of the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant began designing a new infantry fighting vehicle with an improved weapon system. The reason for this was the information about the creation in Germany and France of BMP "Marder" and BMP AMX-10P. In addition, helicopters armed with ATGM began to play a major role in the fight against tanks. To combat them, a small-caliber automatic gun was needed. By the beginning of the 70-x, the priority task of the BMP was to fight not against tanks, but against tank-dangerous targets — anti-tank artillery and infantry armed with an ATGM and RPG, as well as the destruction of lightly armored targets: the BRDM, BTR and BMP. The border Soviet-Chinese conflict on Damanskiy Island played a role in the decision to modernize the BMP armament, where the low effectiveness of the 73-mm cannon in the fight against enemy manpower was revealed.


BMP-2


In 1977, the small-batch production of the BMP-2 began, its main difference from the BMP-1 is the armament complex. In the new, more spacious turret, an automatic 30-mm 2A42 gun with ammunition in 500 shots was installed as the main armament. The gun has separate power with the ability to change the type of ammunition - one tape is equipped with armor-piercing tracer shells, the other - high-explosive-incendiary and fragmentation-tracer. Shooting from 2А42 is possible with single and automatic fire with a high and low rate. 30-mm PKT machine gun is paired with a 7,62-mm cannon. For the fight with tanks initially installed ATGW "Fagot." In addition, there are six 81-mm “Cloud” grenade launchers for setting up a smoke screen.

The first BMP-2 were sent for military trials to the 29 tank division, stationed near Slutsk in Belarus. After entering the "limited contingent" in Afghanistan, cars from the BVI were sent for Pyanj. At the same time, in Kurgan, 1980 began mass production of BMP-2.

During the fighting in Afghanistan, the BMP-2 has proven itself well. Of course, our motorized infantrymen did not have to fight combat helicopters and tanks there, but the 30-mm automatic cannon with elevation angles −5 ... + 74 ° was the best fit for defeating the firing points of the rebels on the mountain slopes. In addition, 30-mm projectiles are not detonated during explosions of BMP-2 on mines and land mines.

In order to increase security in the 1982, the BMP-2D was created. On this modification, additional side armor screens were installed, the side armor of the turret was increased, the driver was covered from below with an armor plate. Because of the increased mass from 14 to 15 t, the machine lost its ability to swim, but in the conditions of Afghanistan, greater security turned out to be more important.


BMP-2D


It is considered that the 30-mm gun can fight only with lightly armored vehicles. Thus, an 30-mm 3BR8 armor-piercing projectile at a distance of 100 meters penetrates an 45 mm armor plate mounted at an angle of 60 °, and at a distance of 500 meters - an 33 mm of armor. However, it should be borne in mind that the fire on the bronzer can be fired in a queue, and the 2А42 submachine gun has quite good accuracy. This means that at relatively short distances, the shells will fall almost in one place. At the end of the 80, the author happened to observe the decommissioned T-54 tank used as a target at the test site. His 100-mm frontal armor was literally “gnawed” by 30-mm armor-piercing shells. The early-type turret with “lures” also had holes. From this it follows that the 30-mm armor-piercing projectile line-up, fired at close range, is fully capable of penetrating the onboard armor of the main battle tank, damaging observation devices, scopes, and armament, setting fire to the mounted fuel tanks. In the course of real hostilities, cases of disabling and even destruction of modern tanks by the BMP-2 were repeatedly recorded.

Compared with the BMP-1, the anti-tank capabilities of the “two” have significantly increased, including through the use of the latest series of ATGMs 9K111-1 “Konkurs” and 9K111-1М “Konkurs-M” on the machines. The launch range of the anti-tank guided missile 9М113М of the Konkurs-M complex is 75-4000 meters. The missile is guided along a wire line in a semi-automatic mode. An anti-tank guided missile with a tandem warhead is capable of penetrating 750 mm of homogeneous armor after overcoming dynamic defenses. In total, the BMP-2 has 4 ATGM. However, their reloading takes a lot of time and the most effective combat against tanks is possible during operations from ambushes.

The analysis of the combat use of infantry fighting vehicles, the change in tactics of combat operations, and the emergence of new weapons and ammunition development capabilities led to the formulation of new requirements for a fundamentally new infantry fighting vehicle with significantly increased firepower.

In 1987, the BMP-3 was put into service, its production began at the Kurgan Machine Building Plant. The new combat vehicle was strikingly different from the familiar BMP-1 and BMP-2. The front layout of the engine and transmission compartment, which is traditional for Soviet cars of this class, has been replaced by aft one - like in tanks. With the front arrangement of MTO - the engine serves as additional protection in case of penetration of frontal armor. At the same time, due to the front centering, the BMP-1 and the BMP-2 are prone to "pecks", which significantly limits the speed of movement over rough terrain. When the engine is in the rear position, the weight is more advantageously distributed along the length of the machine, the volume of habitable space increases and the driver's view improves.


BMP-3


The body of aluminum armor alloys is additionally reinforced with steel screens. According to the manufacturer, frontal armor 30-mm armor-piercing projectile 2А42 from the distance 300 meters. It is also possible to further increase the level of security due to the installation of modules of invoice armor. But at the same time, the weight of the car increases from 18,7 to 22,4 tons, it loses its ability to swim, the mobility and running gear life decreases.

For the BMP-3, the Instrument Design Bureau (Tula) created a very unusual set of main armament installed in a low-profile conical turret. It consists of a low-pulse 100-mm gun, the 2A70 launcher and the 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon. With guns rigidly "consistent" 7,62-mm PKT machine gun. BMP-3 has a developed fire control system. It includes the 2EX52 weapon stabilizer, the 1D16 range finder, the ballistic platform for the operating system, the tachograph, the speed sensor and the heading sensor, the 1K539-1 sight gauge, the PPB-13 sight, the 2PX-2 aiming device, the 110-01 sight gauge, the 01XXUMX-6 sight gauge, the 60-100 aiming device; Vertical aiming angles -XNUMX ... + XNUMX ° allow you to hit targets on the mountain slopes and upper floors of buildings, as well as carry out mounted shooting XNUMX-mm projectiles and fight low-flying air targets.



Ammunition 100-mm guns 40 unitary shots, of which 6-8 ATGM. The range of ammunition includes a 17 ZUOF with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile (OFS) ZOF32 and ZUBXNNXXK1-10 with ATGM 3X9. Due to the automatic loader, the 117-mm 100-2-gun fire rate is 70 rds / min. The 10 projectile fits into the conveyor of the automatic loader. A unitary shot of ZUOF 22 with OFS ZOF17 with an initial speed of 32 m / s can hit targets at a distance of up to 250 meters. In terms of its destructive characteristics, it is similar to the high-explosive fragmentation projectile of a tank 4000-mm D-100T cannon and is capable of fighting enemy enemy manpower, suppressing tank-dangerous targets, destroying field-type shelters and destroying light-armored vehicles. In 10, 90UOF2 and 70UOF3-19 shots with increased firing range and increased projectile action were created for the 3А19 gun.

In addition to high-explosive fragmentation projectiles from the 100-mm guns of the BMP-3, it is possible to fire in semi-automatic mode at the beam of the 9K116-3 ATUR laser. Structurally and according to its characteristics, the guided weapons complex (KUV) is similar to the KUV “Bastion” of the T-55M tank and the Kasttet 100-mm anti-tank gun MT-12 and is capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 4000 meters. The armor penetration of the first version of the 9М117 ATGM was 550 mm of homogeneous armor. In the future, improved versions of the 9М117М and 9М117М1 appeared with a launch range increased to 5000-5500 meters. According to the manufacturer's handouts, the 9М117М1 Arkan missile with a tandem warhead can penetrate the 750 mm homogeneous armor plate after overcoming the DZ. Mathematical modeling has shown that to defeat М1А2, Leclerc, Challenger-2 tanks, 2-3 of Arkan ATGM is necessary. For use in the armament of the existing BMP-3 new guided missiles in our country, it is necessary to refine the CRC. So far, their ammunition contains only the 9М117 ATGM, which can no longer guarantee penetration of frontal armor of modern tanks.

Since 2005, small-scale production of the universal automated combat module (Bachcha-U tower) has been in progress. It is designed to equip advanced and upgraded models of armored vehicles and, compared to the original weapon system, the BMP-3 has a number of advantages. Module "Bakhcha-U" in the combat position weighs 3600-3900 kg. The ammunition has 4 ATGM and 34 OFS.


Fighting module "Bakhcha-U" at the exhibition "Engineering Technologies", 2014 year


Thanks to the use of new, more efficient guided (including the Arkan ATGM) and unguided munitions, advanced sensors and a ballistic calculator, the range and effectiveness of firing increased significantly. Thanks to the introduction of the satellite positioning system (GPS / GLONASS), it is possible to fire with new 100-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectiles from closed firing positions at a range of up to 7000 meters.

Coupled with 100-mm gun BMP-3 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72 with ready to use ammunition rounds 500 Munitions completely unified with 30-2A42 mm cannon and its ability to combat bronetselyami similar gun mounted on BMP-2.

The start of serial production of the BMP-3 coincided with the collapse of the USSR and the beginning of the “economic reforms”. This is the most negative impact on the fate of the car in the Russian armed forces. Given that the army had a large number of well-mastered BMP-1 and BMP-2, the need for a fairly complex BMP-3, with still-existing "childhood sores", was not obvious to the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry. The BMP-3 armament complex turned out to be too difficult to be mastered by conscript soldiers, and the creation of the necessary repair infrastructure required additional investments. All this led to the fact that the BMP-3 was mainly built for export, and there are very few capable vehicles of this type in the Russian armed forces. However, work to improve the BMP-3 did not stop. Recently it became known about the tests BMP-3 with artillery module AU-220M "Baikal".



For a number of characteristics of the AU-220М “Baikal” with an 57-mm automatic gun, even more preferable than “Bakhcha-U”, it is also important that it will be significantly cheaper during mass production. According to the developers, the rate of fire of “Baikal” is up to 120 rds / min, the maximum range is 12 km. Ammunition includes high-explosive fragmentation, armor-piercing and guided projectiles. By "managed", obviously, you should understand fragmentation shells with remote undermining of the trajectory. Maximum range - 12 km is also a purely advertising statement; no one in their right mind can fire 57-mm guns at ground targets at such a range. But if we discard the advertising husk and analyze the characteristics of the AU-220M “Baikal”, it can be concluded that for the BMP it is in many ways the optimal armament.


AU-220M "Baikal"


The 57-mm automatic artillery system when firing existing armor-piercing shells is guaranteed to hit all existing BMP and BTR, it can also pose a serious threat to the main battle tanks. In the case of adopting a new ammunition with increased armor penetration can be introduced into the ammunition. 57-mm fragmentation shells for automatic firing will be much more effective than 30-mm for suppressing tank-hazardous manpower. In the case of the introduction of remotely programmable ammunition or projectiles with a radio fuse and the creation of an appropriate fire control system, the BMP-3 will receive the functions of an effective anti-aircraft self-propelled unit.

In order not to overload the article with unnecessary volume, it does not deliberately consider the “airborne infantry fighting vehicle” armament complex: BMD-1, BMD-2, BMD-3, BMD-4 - since they are almost identical in weaponry and, accordingly, the capabilities of fighting with tanks BMP ground forces. Partly confirming the weakness of the anti-tank capabilities of the Airborne Forces was the adoption of the SPrut-SD with the 125-mm smooth-bore tank gun.

At the Victory Parade in 2015, the wheel-mounted BMP of the middle weight category “Boomerang” and the heavy tracked BMP “Kurganets-25” were presented. According to information published in open sources, promising infantry fighting vehicles will be armed with an uninhabited Boomerang-BM combat module with an 30-mm 2-42 cannon. The gun has selective power, 500 ammunition of shots (160 BPS / 340 OFS), with a gun 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun is paired. For the fight against tanks, four launch containers of the Kornet ATGM 9K135 are intended. Guidance ATGM 9M133 carried out by a laser beam in a semi-automatic mode. The target launch range of the 9M133 ATGM is 5000 meters, armor penetration beyond the DZ is 1200 mm of homogeneous armor, which is enough to penetrate the frontal armor of modern MBT.


"Boomerang-BM"


It is known about the creation of an upgraded version of the "Cornet-D" with a firing range of up to 10 km. The 9М133ФМ-3 rocket with a high-explosive warhead can be used to combat air targets flying at speeds up to 250 m / s. For hitting air targets with a miss to 3 meters, the ATGM is equipped with an additional non-contact fuse. Targeting a combat module can be carried out by the gunner and the commander. Due to robotization, the universal combat module after capture is capable of tracking the movement of the target and conducting its firing. In the future, it is planned to equip new infantry fighting vehicles with more sophisticated anti-tank weapons operating on the principle of "fired and forgotten."

Based on:
http://weaponwars.ru/bmp-1/13.html
http://www.anaga.ru/bmp-2.html
Author:
67 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 14 June 2016 07: 43
    +16
    I wonder who put the article minus? Can you voice your position for what? You are not satisfied with the Russian BMP, or how the author told about them? It seems that the site was divorced without a measure of anonymous mine servers that are not capable of anything else. I suspect that it is precisely in the “sympathies” of the author, that Seryozha does not tolerate the illiterate “uryalok”.
    1. papik09
      papik09 15 June 2016 05: 21
      +5
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      anonymous mineSerov

      hi
      It would be correct to call them "knowSers" laughing

      "- How many predators have you killed?
      - Predators? I do not know. But 15 nocera shot.
      “The Nousers?” And who is it?
      - I'm walking through the woods. Someone is sneaking towards it. I ask "Wolf?" In response: "noser" (No, ser). I shoot. And so 15 times. " laughing
      Well, and, accordingly, shoot am
      repeat drinks
    2. venik
      venik 15 June 2016 13: 33
      +1
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      I wonder who put the article minus?


      Not me!!! I liked the article, for which the author "+" and personal respect - everything is very clear, competently and succinctly stated.

      But one remark to the author! The assumption that under a guided projectile is most likely - just a projectile with a remote fuse - is the personal opinion of the author!

      Recently, information slipped through (unfortunately I do not remember where exactly (the article was called like "a cannon competing with an anti-aircraft missile" or something like that ... well, who wants to look for it), where it was just indicated that for the new 57-mm complex, along with a remote detonation projectile, homing (or remotely corrected anti-aircraft projectiles (as I understood something like Kitolov and Krasnopol) are being developed (or have already been developed) with a probability of hitting a transonic target of 0.8 (2 projectiles).

      How much this information is true - I do not know (for which I bought it - for that I sell it!). It seems to look like science fiction (although the article seemed to look serious), but on the other hand - taking into account the rapid progress of microelectronics - EVERYTHING CAN BE!
      1. Bongo
        15 June 2016 14: 33
        +3
        Quote: venik
        But one remark to the author! The assumption that under a guided projectile is most likely - just a projectile with a remote fuse - is the personal opinion of the author!

        Of course, this is my personal opinion. yes Since creating a shell with remote detonation is many times easier and cheaper than controlled, especially in such a caliber.
        Quote: venik
        Respected! Have you ever seen the upgraded versions of the BMP-2 (Russian) with 2 twin Kornet ATGMs, on the sides of the turret and a 30-mm AGS (top) ??

        Only exhibition samples.
        Quote: venik
        It seemed that there was information that the process of modernization in the army had already begun ...

        In the Far East, there are definitely no modernized infantry fighting vehicles.
        1. venik
          venik 16 June 2016 15: 58
          +3
          Re: Bongo

          Yeah, I got it! That's who the author is!
          I meant that when there is information about the development of a 57-mm homing anti-aircraft projectile, the statement that most likely means "remote detonation" sounds, you see, a little "rough" ... By the way, in the same material it was mentioned that for new modules are being created and a shell for remote detonation, although all the data is still classified.

          Well, the fact that DP projectiles are easier to control - there is no doubt the Austrian DP projectile for 30-mm has been developed for 10 years (about our developments - I don't know anything ..). Here the main "trick" is precisely in homing, and precisely anti-aircraft! This is what NOBODY certainly did (Krasnopol, Kitolov, Arkan, Excalibur, etc. - still a little different - large-caliber, with a lower initial speed, only for ground targets ...).

          As for the BMP-2m (Berezhok), a couple of years ago they seemed to be bought (or rather paid for modernization) by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and there were contracts for export (either Algeria, India, or both). In the Russian Federation, the army was delaying, but it’s also kind of already gathered, although they still have dust of protection questions, it remains the same, but it didn’t work to strengthen it — the chassis, engine and transmission do not allow it ...)

          In general, as for the "Baikal" / "Derivation" - I personally have great suspicions that in fact - they are not designed for the BMP-3 - swaying may occur on this chassis, with all the consequences, and when firing bursts ... But for BMP-T 14 (Armata) - this is the very thing !!! And the BMP-3 is more likely to be used for "running-in" and testing (the Armats are still doing one by one, but there are a lot of "triplets"). Although, who knows!
    3. seos
      seos 2 November 2016 11: 03
      0
      Frontal armor BMP-1 withstood 12,7-20 mm caliber ammunition, the side, the stern and the roof of the hull protect against fragments and rifle bullets.

      The forehead holds 23 mm, the side 12.7 mm from 300 m (according to T.Z.)

      By "guided", obviously, we should understand fragmentation shells with remote detonation on the trajectory.

      In the news, the information was that such shells were developed, but “guided” shells should be understood as “guided” laser-guided shells, like the Italians have 57mm.
  2. qwert
    qwert 14 June 2016 07: 47
    +5
    For some time after the BMP-1 was adopted for service, the ammunition of the 2A28 gun included only a cumulative PG-15V shot with a PG-9V cumulative grenade. This cumulative ammunition is also used in the 73-mm machine gun anti-tank grenade launcher LNG-9.
    It is more correct to say that almost until the end of the 80's. And there, after the adoption of high-explosive fragmentation rounds, their production and deliveries to the troops did not unfold in full swing. Most BMP-1 have ended their century with exclusively cumulative ammunition.
    A loading mechanism is used for the 2A28 Thunder gun, due to this the technical rate of fire is 8-10 rds / min (real 6-7 rds / min). The semi-automatic loading mechanism with an electromechanical drive and a mechanized conveyor-type combat stack.
    In those BMP-1 descriptions, and in the army this is called a mechanized combat deployment, not a loading mechanism. These are slightly different things. It is thanks to the mechanized warhead that the rate of fire up to 7 rounds per minute is achieved. Which is very good given the small size of the tower and a decent length of ammunition.
    In the course of hostilities, where BMP-1 were used, the weakness of the gun was revealed in the suppression of tank-dangerous targets - infantry with RPGs and ATGMs. In addition, when the BMP-1 was detonated on an anti-tank mine, the fuses of 73-mm shells were often placed on a combat platoon and self-destructed after a short time interval. In this case, the detonation of the entire ammunition with the death of the crew and the landing occurred. All this led to the fact that the military further demanded the introduction of small-caliber automatic guns, which had great capabilities for fighting helicopters, lightly armored vehicles and enemy infantry.
    Explosion detonation in a mine? In 60-70? Where? And if it became clear in Afghanistan and the Arab-Israeli wars, then by this time the BMP-2 were already in service.
    The task of the Thunder gun was to cover the minimum range (which was on the order of 400 meters) of the Baby complex. That is, at a distance in 400 meters of BMPs and fighters were deprived of the opportunity to use the main anti-tank weapon. Therefore, it was necessary to introduce an additional anti-tank agent. At the same time, the military and the designers realized the need to combat enemy aircraft (helicopters), in addition, the world already had experience using the German Marder. Therefore, with the advent of the second-generation ATGM with a reduced dead zone, the designers were able, with a clear conscience, to put a quick-firing gun on the BMP-2 30-mm to combat aircraft and lightly armored vehicles. Something like this
    hi
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 14 June 2016 11: 00
      +5
      Quote: qwert
      The task of the Thunder gun was to cover the minimum range (which was about 400 meters) of the Baby complex. That is, at a distance of 400 meters, BMPs and fighters were deprived of the opportunity to use the main anti-tank weapon.

      500 meters. Minimum range. Moreover, launching from BMP-1 even at such a range required highly trained operator. With a portable was easier.
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 14 June 2016 11: 29
        +8
        Slovak modernization of BMP-2, with ATGM "Kornet" in the booked launchers.

        Ours, what is weak to do? Rather, ON, no one needs it.

        Not one modernization of the BMP-1,2, for the entire time of operation. (THIS IS A WORLD ANTI-RECORD) !!!!
        1. venik
          venik 15 June 2016 14: 07
          0
          [quote = cosmos111]
          Not one modernization of the BMP-1,2, for the entire time of operation. (THIS IS A WORLD ANTI-RECORD) !!!!

          =======
          Respected! Have you ever seen the upgraded versions of the BMP-2 (Russian) with 2 twin Kornet ATGMs, on the sides of the turret and a 30-mm AGS (top) ??
          It seemed that there was information that the process of modernization in the army had already begun ...
          ---
          Heck! I can’t insert the picture! ...
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 June 2016 15: 15
        +3
        He meant a shot from the Thunder. This is a fairly accurate weapon, up to 600-700m you can hit a target the size of a tank with 1-2 shots.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 14 June 2016 15: 15
        0
        He meant a shot from the Thunder. This is a fairly accurate weapon, up to 600-700m you can hit a target the size of a tank with 1-2 shots.
    2. Bongo
      15 June 2016 14: 40
      +2
      Quote: qwert
      For some time after the BMP-1 was adopted for service, the ammunition of the 2A28 gun included only a cumulative PG-15V shot with a PG-9V cumulative grenade. This cumulative ammunition is also used in the 73-mm machine gun anti-tank grenade launcher LNG-9.
      It is more correct to say that almost until the end of the 80's.

      Such a shell was introduced into the ammunition in the 1974 year, as discussed in the publication.
      Quote: qwert
      In those BMP-1 descriptions, and in the army this is called a mechanized combat deployment, not a loading mechanism. These are slightly different things.

      Before the introduction of the fragmentation shell, in fact it was just an automatic loader, which is also mentioned in the publication.
      Quote: qwert
      Explosion detonation in a mine? In 60-70?

      It turned out in Afghanistan, it is strange that you have not heard about it. request
      Quote: qwert
      The task of the Thunder gun was to cover the minimum range (which was on the order of 400 meters) of the Baby complex.

      Not exactly, ATGM is a ranged weapon (long arm). With an ammunition load of 4 ATGMs and a low rate of fire, it could in no way be the "main anti-tank weapon."
      1. qwert
        qwert 16 June 2016 08: 13
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        It turned out in Afghanistan, it is strange that you have not heard about it.

        Well well. What years were these ??? And when the BMP-2 created ??? Here ... And you say that the transition to the 30 mm gun was for this reason. Could not however. By time. BMP-2 was already running when problems with detonation became clear. I wrote about that.

        Quote: Bongo
        Such a shell was introduced into the ammunition in the 1974 year, as discussed in the publication.

        It was officially adopted. But in the Army they saw him only in the second half of the 80's, when the BMP-1 was already withdrawn from service with might and main. That is what I wrote. Ask those who served in 70's. No one has seen this shell (or rather a grenade) in the eye.
        1. Bongo
          16 June 2016 08: 22
          +2
          Quote: qwert
          ack. What years were these ??? And when the BMP-2 created ??? Here ... And you say that the transition to the 30 mm gun was for this reason. Could not however. By time. BMP-2 was already running when problems with detonation became clear. I wrote about that.

          You may, of course, "not in the know," but the mass production of the BMP-2 began after the "limited contingent" was brought into Afghanistan. The propensity of the BMP-1 ammunition to detonation was one of the reasons why the new BMP-2s were primarily sent there, but the large elevation angle of the 30-mm gun played an important role.
          Quote: qwert
          It was officially adopted. But in the Army they saw him only in the second half of the 80's, when the BMP-1 was already withdrawn from service with might and main. That is what I wrote. Ask those who served in 70's. No one has seen this shell (or rather a grenade) in the eye.
          Maybe you just did not see? In the 5 Army in the Far East, fragmentation shots were already somewhere in the 1980 year.
    3. mkpda
      mkpda 24 June 2016 17: 11
      +1
      You forgot about the only tower, which is there one for all. The commander sits behind the driver and has a worse view than the operator-gunner.
  3. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 14 June 2016 07: 47
    +3
    According to a number of characteristics, the AU-220M “Baikal” with a 57-mm automatic gun is even preferable to the “Bahcha-U”, it is also important that in mass production it will be significantly cheaper.

    I think in the coming years, given the increased armor protection of the BTR and BMP, a caliber of 57 mm will become standard for the BMP.
  4. avt
    avt 14 June 2016 09: 35
    0
    The 57-mm automatic artillery system when firing existing armor-piercing shells is guaranteed to hit all the existing BMP and BTR, it can also pose a serious threat to the main battle tanks.
    laughing ,, Yes, I can sink an aircraft carrier! ..... If I hit " laughing
    If adopted, new ammunition with increased armor penetration can be introduced into the ammunition. 57-mm fragmentation shells during automatic shooting will be much more effective than 30-mm when suppressing tank-dangerous manpower. In the case of the introduction of remotely programmable shells or shells with a radio fuse and the creation of an appropriate fire control system, the BMP-3 will receive the functions of an effective anti-aircraft self-propelled gun.
    laughing Key - IN THE CASE laughing Well this is how many accidents in the end must coincide in order for what is described to happen in practice .... including opening the MBT on something like Abrams with a queue, like a main bank. laughing But the author turned it beautifully - IN THE CASE. For good reason.
    The BMP-3 weapons complex was too difficult for the conscripts to master, and the creation of the necessary repair infrastructure required additional investment. All this led to the fact that the BMP-3 was mainly built for export, and in the Russian armed forces there are very few capable vehicles of this type. Nevertheless, work to improve the BMP-3 did not stop.
    Apparently, even from the time of Leskov, his Lefty knows that “In England, guns are not cleaned with bricks.” Can you still teach crews?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 June 2016 11: 32
      +3
      Quote: avt
      laughing Key - IN THE CASE of laughing This is how many coincidences should coincide in order for the described to happen in practice.

      I especially liked:
      In the case of the introduction of remotely programmable shells or shells with a radio fuse and creating an appropriate fire control system, BMP-3 will receive the functions of an effective anti-aircraft self-propelled gun.

      Only one question - if you put in BMP SUAO, capable of turning it into a ZSU - where then to put the landing. For armor? smile

      In general, all this has already happened. The film "The Pentagon Wars" perfectly shows how you can kill an infantry fighting vehicle with excessive universalization.
      Col. Robert Laurel Smith: As a result, before us ...
      Sgt. Fanning: An infantry transporter who cannot transport infantry is a reconnaissance vehicle that is too striking for reconnaissance ...
      Lt. Colonel James Burton: and a "like a tank" that has less armor than a snowplow but still carries enough ammunition to wipe out half of DC.

      Given the fact that the author of the book on which the film was shot, served in the Pentagon just in the service of acceptance and testing of weapons - this process is shown almost documented. smile
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 14 June 2016 12: 16
        +4
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Only one question - if you put in BMP SUAO, capable of turning it into a ZSU - where then to put the landing. For armor?


        A sho much space is needed? or ZSU 30mm bullet shell? Kakraz now module Bahcha gobbled up the whole place because of 100mm shells, and nothing landing fit.

        And where did our landing not sit on the armor? Unless in the exercises, but in reality, all as they were on the armor, remained.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 June 2016 12: 32
          +2
          Quote: Falcon
          A sho much space is needed?

          And you look at the insides of the "tunguska" or "shell". Or on the inside of PZA Loara.
          Quote: Falcon
          Kakraz now module Bahcha gobbled up the whole place because of 100mm shells, and nothing landing fit.

          So if the "Baikal" is given a normal ammo, which will be enough for both anti-aircraft fire and to support the infantry, it will crawl inside the hull in the same size as the "Bakhchi".
          Quote: Falcon
          And where did our landing not sit on the armor? Unless in the exercises, but in reality, all as they were on the armor, remained.

          After 08.08.08 motor riflemen and other users of armored vehicles are constantly driven under the armor.
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 14 June 2016 12: 47
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And you look at the insides of the "tunguska" or "shell". Or on the inside of PZA Loara.


            No, that’s different. It's hard for me to say for the Author, but I will express my TZ There is a target tracking machine. Those. We get a thermal image on the monitor - capture the target and accompany it. This principle must also be developed for an aerial target. This is far from an air defense system - but already better. Search in any case not by radar.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            So if the "Baikal" is given a normal ammo, which will be enough for both anti-aircraft fire and to support the infantry, it will crawl inside the hull in the same size as the "Bakhchi".


            Controversially, 57mm is still smaller than 100mm. And the gun is smaller and one is needed.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            After 08.08.08 motor riflemen and other users of armored vehicles are constantly driven under the armor.


            I do not know. There were no real combatants, and this was the case in the exercises before. Unfortunately "Infantry Battle Grave" I did not say. There is not much sense from such armor.

            Look at Israel, there are no light infantry fighting vehicles at all.
            1. Bongo
              15 June 2016 14: 41
              +4
              Quote: Falcon
              No, that’s different. It's hard for me to say for the Author, but I will express my TZ There is a target tracking machine. Those. We get a thermal image on the monitor - capture the target and accompany it. This principle must also be developed for an aerial target. This is far from an air defense system - but already better. Search in any case not by radar.

              Yes, Cyril, this is what I had in mind.
          2. cosmos111
            cosmos111 14 June 2016 13: 14
            +5
            Quote: Alexey RA

            So if the "Baikal" is given a normal ammo, which will be enough for both anti-aircraft fire and to support the infantry, it will just crawl inside the hull in the size of the "Bakhchi"


            57 mm gun, an excellent tool to neutralize ATGM operators.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 14 June 2016 15: 17
            +1
            What anti-aircraft fire from the BMP? You will not have time to aim and you will not be able to lead the target. You don’t have a radar ...
          5. psiho117
            psiho117 14 June 2016 15: 18
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA

            So if the "Baikal" is given a normal ammo, which will be enough for both anti-aircraft fire and to support the infantry, it will crawl inside the hull in the same size as the "Bakhchi".

            And he is already inside the case. An advertising "flat" model from Abu Dhabi is bullshit, it has no ammunition. Here are the real dimensions:

            And then, according to rumors, in the AZ there are only 80 shells. The remaining 120 are apparently crammed into the case.

            I hope everyone remembers as far as 57mm shot hefty? Refresh bully
            Cry:
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 14 June 2016 18: 21
              +3
              Quote: psiho117
              And he is already inside the case. An advertising "flat" mock-up from Abu Dhabi is bullshit, without ammunition. Here are the real dimensions


              BMP-3 in mod. - "Derivation" with BM "Baikal" looks like this:



              And this is the module itself with the pipeline:




              1. cosmos111
                cosmos111 14 June 2016 20: 09
                +3
                Quote: wanderer_032
                BMP-3 in mod. - "Derivation" with BM "Baikal" looks like this:


                BMP Marder with automatic 57-mm gun Bofors (Courtesy Harry Zertner), for ammunition 57x438R.
                In the series did not go.
          6. Monarchist
            Monarchist 15 June 2016 22: 06
            0
            This is from the series "if there were mushrooms in the mouth." Unfortunately, everything comes down to finances.
          7. Narak-zempo
            Narak-zempo 19 July 2018 12: 55
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And you look at the insides of the "tunguska" or "shell". Or on the inside of PZA Loara.

            And why can’t you put in equipment that, in the presence of a ZSU in the convoy’s structure, will receive target designation from it and produce gun pointing angles taking into account the relative position of the machine? In theory, it does not take up much space.
  5. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 14 June 2016 09: 56
    +5
    Quote: avt
    The 57-mm automatic artillery system when firing existing armor-piercing shells is guaranteed to hit all the existing BMP and BTR, it can also pose a serious threat to the main battle tanks.
    laughing, Yes, I can sink an aircraft carrier! ..... If I hit "

    And besides sarcasm, can you give the characteristics of armor penetration of 57-mm guns?

    Quote: avt
    Apparently, even from the time of Leskov, his Lefty knows that “In England, guns are not cleaned with bricks.” Can you still teach crews?

    Those. do you think that in our army there are no modern infantry fighting vehicles - is this from non-crew training? No.

    Unfortunately, Seryozha (the author) went fishing, he would probably argue with you arguably, and I am incompetent in this matter. request
    1. avt
      avt 14 June 2016 10: 23
      0
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      And besides sarcasm, can you give the characteristics of armor penetration of 57-mm guns?

      Uh-uh-! Slyuschay! I’m waiting for someone to give me specific data, how to chop up OBT 57. The article is called
      Anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles
      Notice -PROTIVOTANK, not
      The 57-mm automatic artillery system when firing existing armor-piercing shells is guaranteed to hit all existing BMP and BTR,
      up to the passage about the 57mm "Baikal", which is "accidental"
      also able to pose a serious threat to major battle tanks.
      it went quite so well in full accordance with the headline, and after that too.
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      Those. do you think that in our army there are no modern infantry fighting vehicles - is this from non-crew training?

      laughing Did you read the article yourself? Or just immediately in the comments and mine to look for? Well, for especially gifted and attentive readers, here's an encore
      The BMP-3 weapons complex was too difficult for the conscripts to master, and the creation of the necessary repair infrastructure required additional investment. All this led to the fact that the BMP-3 was mainly built for export, and in the Russian armed forces there are very few capable vehicles of this type. Nevertheless, work to improve the BMP-3 did not stop. Recently it became known about the tests of the BMP-3 with the artillery module AU-220M "Baikal".
      Well, surely in your concept
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      the fact that in our army there are no modern infantry fighting vehicles

      "Modern", this is when they put on the Soviet "three-ruble note"
      Recently it became known about the tests of the BMP-3 with the artillery module AU-220M "Baikal".
      ?? wassat Or still here, again, with the full meaning indicated in the title of the article
      According to information published in open sources, promising infantry fighting vehicles will be armed with an uninhabited Boomerang-BM combat module with a 30mm 2A42 cannon. The gun has selective power, an ammunition load of 500 rounds (160 BPS / 340 OFS), and the 7,62 mm PKTM machine gun is paired with the gun. To combat the tanks are four launch containers PTRK 9K135 "Cornet". Guidance ATGM 9M133 is carried out on a laser beam in a semi-automatic mode. The aiming range of the ATGM 9M133 launch is 5000 meters, the armor penetration behind the DZ is 1200 mm of homogeneous armor, which is enough to penetrate the frontal armor of modern MBTs.
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      he would probably argue with you reasonably,

      Yes, it’s not a question - he’ll come easily in a personal email.
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 14 June 2016 12: 30
        +3
        Quote: avt
        how they will crumble will be MBT 57. The article is called
        The anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles Note-ANTITANK, not


        Heard - they don’t read wine - they drink wine (this is the name)

        And what about 57 on the sides, too, does MBT not flash?


        with 2: 18
      2. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 14 June 2016 12: 41
        +4
        Quote: avt
        Uh-uh-! Slyuschay! I’m waiting for someone to give me specific data, how to chop up OBT 57. The article is called
        Anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles
        Notice -PROTIVOTANK, not
        The 57-mm automatic artillery system when firing existing armor-piercing shells is guaranteed to hit all existing BMP and BTR,

        And what does this actually change? what A question of terminology and nothing more.
        Quote: qwert
        By the way, Abrams’s onboard just does not exceed 75, see. Draw conclusions ...

        You do not remember what armor penetration the Soviet 57-mm anti-tank gun had during the Second World War?
        Moreover, Sergei writes:
        at the end of the 80's, the decommissioned T-54 tank, which was used as a target, was observed at the test site. His 100-mm frontal armor was literally “gnawed” by 30-mm armor-piercing shells. The early-type turret with “lures” also had holes.
        1. avt
          avt 14 June 2016 14: 37
          0
          Quote: zyablik.olga
          And what does this actually change?

          laughing Well, as anyone, I think that's how it is, "When you see the inscription on the cage of a lion - a buffalo, do not believe your eyes"
          Quote: zyablik.olga
          A question of terminology and nothing more.

          Well, if they invented some terminology in which the tank, armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle are the same thing, just projections from different sides - a flag in hand.
          Quote: zyablik.olga
          You do not remember what armor penetration the Soviet 57-mm anti-tank gun had during the Second World War?

          Look in my comments and find out - I laid out extracts from the protocol for Stalin in front of Cusk on shelling the Tiger. Here, too, it’s quite specifically about
          Quote: Falcon
          And what about 57 on the sides, too, does MBT not flash?

          then caliber. Also quite a people
          Quote: Falcon
          Heard - they don’t read wine - they drink wine

          We did not buggy and drew conclusions on the field tests and .... there appeared a PTO 85mm and so on up to 100mm "Rapiers" reached, which we use, and even "Octopus" 125mm on the way. Why would? laughing No . I understand - "Baikal" 57mm the author likes, but from what side this module, about which even its creators themselves are talking through their teeth - it is necessary to mount ATGM, SUDDENLY it became in a row
          Anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles
          ??wassat Let me guess -
          Quote: zyablik.olga
          A question of terminology and nothing more.

          laughing In general, according to the meaning of the article indicated in the title, there is clearly a lack of the module "Berezhok", which the "twos" are going to arm, so it should have been added to the article, or inserted instead of "Baikal".
          1. Falcon
            Falcon 14 June 2016 15: 07
            +4
            Quote: avt
            We did not buggy and drew conclusions on the field tests and .... there appeared a PTO 85mm and so on up to 100mm "Rapiers" reached, which we use, and even "Octopus" 125mm on the way. Why would?


            Oh well, it started. Of course 125mm is cooler than 100 and than 85 and than 30. e is even better 152mm fellow

            But in this way it is possible to reach BR, which is trifling. What does this have to do with infantry fighting vehicles, where do I need to deploy more troops? Yes, and the sprud is already on the move ...
            Why? And we reached Bahchi with 100mm - where is her armor-piercing? HE shells are not quite for this. But there is UR. And here Question:

            Quote: avt
            about which even its creators themselves are gritting their teeth - it is necessary to mount ATGM


            But in 100mm it is not necessary to mount it, but what for, do you need this ATGM 100mm caliber? When the whole world naughty 152mm with greater armor-piercing ???
            And Bakhce ATGM 152mm is only a plus, but nowhere else.
            1. avt
              avt 14 June 2016 15: 56
              -2
              Quote: Falcon
              . What does this have to do with infantry fighting vehicles, where do I need to deploy more troops?

              And no, especially when
              Quote: zyablik.olga
              And what does this actually change? A question of terminology and nothing more.

              If it is deep purple that the armored personnel carrier, that the BMP, then, then, medicine is powerless "Even if the author specifically indicated the title of the article
              Anti-tank capabilities of domestic infantry fighting vehicles
              and, to give credit, adhered to the stated theme, until the thought came to him about the "Baikal" he liked, which he stuck instead of "Berezhka".
              Quote: Falcon
              And Bakhce ATGM 152mm is only a plus, but nowhere else.

              “Do not na-a-a-hell-a-hell-a-ally - all life is ahead”, at the suggestion of Lopatov, as he spoke on this topic on the website, they will bring the main caliber to “Viennese” -120mm and there will be happiness on the mountain to 57 millimeters. laughing
          2. Monarchist
            Monarchist 15 June 2016 22: 32
            +1
            I propose to arrange a reasoned debate for you and Sergey - it will be interesting to the forum users, and with Olya it is somehow not solid to arrange debates.
        2. psiho117
          psiho117 14 June 2016 15: 45
          +4
          Quote: zyablik.olga

          You do not remember what armor penetration the Soviet 57-mm anti-tank gun had during the Second World War?

          Lord, just not again ...
          SW Olga, comparison absolutely incorrect !!! in a 57mm shot for the ZIS-2, a cartridge from a 76-mm division gun was used with a re-compression of the cartridge barrel from 76 to 57 millimeters. He had an armor-piercing shell weighing 3,14 kg, and a length of more than half a meter!


          A 57mm anti-aircraft gun is an independent caliber using a 57 × 348 mm SR projectile

          Quote: zyablik.olga

          And besides sarcasm, can you give the characteristics of armor penetration of 57-mm guns?
          You see, except sarcasm - it does not cause anything. Here, take a look:

          Armor-piercing UBR-281 - on the right. So what do you think?
          Technological level - the end of the 60s, armor penetration - at the same level. Discontinued 50 years ago.

          EVERYTHING! no more armor piercing no!
          And such a blunt bump, well, it can’t in any way surpass the 30 mm projectile for 2A42.
          So all this euphoric hysteria around the "derivation" has no real basis.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 14 June 2016 15: 59
            +4
            heh, the site is moderating the word "blunt". Administration, are you obsessed with tolerance there? the word "stupid" is not allowed, "ameri" is not allowed, "pederasty" is not ... Asking for honor and dignity, you panic ..

            Explanatory dictionary in your hands.
          2. Bongo
            15 June 2016 14: 45
            +5
            Quote: psiho117
            Lord, just not again ...
            SW Olga, the comparison is absolutely incorrect !!! in the 57mm shot for the ZIS-2, the cartridge was used from the 76-millimeter divisional gun with re-compression of the cartridge barrel from 76 to 57 millimeters. He had an armor-piercing shell weighing 3,14 kg, and a length of more than half a meter!

            I completely agree with you, but do not judge Olya strictly. Hand on heart tell me how many girls are interested in military equipment and know that we had a 57 mm PTO in the Second World War? Already only for this Olga is admirable! love
            1. F.NN
              F.NN 16 March 2017 01: 03
              0
              Quote: Bongo
              Totally agree with you

              To no avail.
          3. Skifotavr
            Skifotavr 15 March 2017 22: 24
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            except sarcasm - it does not cause anything. Here, take a look:

            Armor-piercing UBR-281 - on the right. So what do you think?
            Technological level - the end of the 60s, armor penetration - at the same level. Discontinued 50 years ago.
            ALL! no more armor piercing !
            g>
            And such a blunt bump, well, it can’t in any way surpass the 30 mm projectile for 2A42.
            So all this euphoric hysteria around the "derivation" has no real basis.

            Oh, I watch the same comments stupidly copy in all articles related to this topic. Not bad! laughing
          4. F.NN
            F.NN 16 March 2017 01: 01
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            in the 57mm shot for the ZIS-2, a cartridge from a 76-mm divisional cannon was used with re-compression of the cartridge barrel from 76 to 57 millimeters.

            You read less "popular authors" in the letter S.
            The shell of the ZIS-2 shell was original, 480 mm long.
            The sleeve of a three-inch shell was 385 mm long.
            Only the bottom diameter of them coincided, 90 mm.
      3. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 14 June 2016 18: 36
        +4
        Quote: avt
        I myself am waiting for someone to lay out specific data to me, how they will crumble will be MBT 57.


        With old Sovey shells, the un-upgraded C-60 could:

        Armor Penetration Chart for C-68
        Shell \ Distance, m 500 1000 1500 2000
        BR-281 / BR-281U (meeting angle 30 °) 90 80 70 60
        BR-281 / BR-281U (meeting angle 0 °) 110 100 85 70

        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ЗСУ-57-2

        If you work on the modernization of the gun itself, as well as on new ammunition for it, then it is likely and opportunities will increase. But this information will be left as a surprise to those who seriously decide to find out what it is like in a real battle.
        1. avt
          avt 14 June 2016 19: 06
          0
          Quote: wanderer_032
          With old Sovey shells, the un-upgraded C-60 could:

          Quote: wanderer_032
          Shell \ Distance, m 500 1000 1500 2000

          Well, a conclusion began to be drawn - despite the optimistic statements of exalted supporters of "Baikal"
          Quote: Falcon
          57mm is still less than 100mm. And the gun is smaller and one is needed.

          Quote: avt
          even its creators themselves are gritting their teeth - it’s necessary to mount ATGM systems,

          Like "Berezhka" with some kind of article
          It is known about the creation of an upgraded version of the "Cornet-D" with a firing range of up to 10 km. The 9М133ФМ-3 rocket with a high-explosive warhead can be used to combat air targets flying at speeds up to 250 m / s. For hitting air targets with a miss to 3 meters, the ATGM is equipped with an additional non-contact fuse. Targeting a combat module can be carried out by the gunner and the commander. Due to robotization, the universal combat module after capture is capable of tracking the movement of the target and conducting its firing. In the future, it is planned to equip new infantry fighting vehicles with more sophisticated anti-tank weapons operating on the principle of "fired and forgotten."
          Well .....
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 14 June 2016 15: 24
      +2
      I think that the creator of the 57mm module has not reached the ammunition yet, they are waiting for an order for the module. Today I read about a 25mm French gun, its BPS shell pierces 80mm armor. I think, in any case, this is not enough for a tank, But do not forget that the% of the main tanks in the armies of different countries is declining, the armies are switching to heavy infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers (even though they have 105 and 120mm guns) and MPMs. This means that if you are not going to fight with the armies of the Russian Federation, NATO, CHINA, India, then 57mm and ATGM will be enough for you.
    3. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 14 June 2016 15: 24
      +1
      I think that the creator of the 57mm module has not reached the ammunition yet, they are waiting for an order for the module. Today I read about a 25mm French gun, its BPS shell pierces 80mm armor. I think, in any case, this is not enough for a tank, But do not forget that the% of the main tanks in the armies of different countries is declining, the armies are switching to heavy infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers (even though they have 105 and 120mm guns) and MPMs. This means that if you are not going to fight with the armies of the Russian Federation, NATO, CHINA, India, then 57mm and ATGM will be enough for you.
    4. Skifotavr
      Skifotavr 16 March 2017 00: 19
      0
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      And besides sarcasm, can you give the characteristics of armor penetration of 57-mm guns?

      You still won’t believe it, but I found it! http://www.sinopa.ee/pvo/pvo013/pvo13.htm
  6. qwert
    qwert 14 June 2016 11: 12
    +4
    Regarding the 30 mm BMP-2 gun. The officers liked to say that a line of five shells breaks through the armor of the Leopard tank. However, it was a Leopard-1 tank, where the frontal armor was 75mm. I am sure that this was not just chatter, but information obtained from official data. Surely a gun was fired at the firing range. They didn’t say such things about the M-60, so his armor is thicker. This also adds faith to their words. Because if you talk, then it would be possible to bend about M-60 and about Abrams. By the way, the Abrams onboard just does not exceed 75 see. Draw conclusions ...
    1. Alexey T. (Oper)
      Alexey T. (Oper) 14 June 2016 14: 02
      +4
      I have not heard about breaking through the armor. But somewhere the results of shelling of T-72 and "Abrams" with BTS bursts from 2A42 came across. Engines ripped off the pins, "shaved" turrets, instruments torn from the brackets inside and turned into elements of defeat and crews who received injuries incompatible with the further conduct of the battle.
      If I find, be sure to post a link.
  7. Raven
    Raven 14 June 2016 13: 26
    +5
    Quote: qwert
    By the way, Abrams’s side just does not exceed 75 cm.


    at least you spread your hands and imagine how much it is ... fellow
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Skubudu
    Skubudu 14 June 2016 14: 34
    +2
    Our army needs a family of anti-tank missiles with an active seeker, with the possibility of hitting the least protected part of the tank.
    Wearable ATGM up to 20kg shooting from the shoulder. range up to 5-6km
    Heavy for installation on Helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles, etc., with a firing range of 15-20km
  10. Raven
    Raven 14 June 2016 14: 35
    +4
    Here's the most interesting thing: the Baikal combat module seems to be good for everyone, but ...
    damn pedivikia claims that the projectile for our 30-mm gun, developed by Oerlikon, is 1,8 times more effective in terms of armor penetration than ours ... sad from this very simple fact, it is easy to conclude that the BK of our own guns of a similar class is at least no worse ... this means that almost the entire fleet of BBM in our army is affected by the standard armament of the NATO BMP. but they, in turn, from the late 90s famously put into practice the requirement to protect armored infantry fighting vehicles such as infantry fighting vehicles from 30-mm BPS ........... belay at least in frontal projection. And we?
    And we shove a new woman into the old building !!! angry and nehai choke ...
    from the point of view of formal logic, everything is true: 57 mm is more than 30 mm in every sense ... but allow a few BUT:
    - Are you sure that all the possibilities of upgrading the 30 mm BPS have been exhausted ??? sad maybe it’s cheaper to think about a new shell that is a priori cheaper than creating a new module, producing from scratch, and even ...
    - create ammunition under it, namely BPS! here we must remember that for the ancestress there were only OFS and caliber shells, which is now bad manners ...
    those. when adopting and manufacturing Baikal, it will be necessary to build up the BPS along with the modules and installations themselves, which would be no less expensive than creating new types of shells for 2a42 ... while the effectiveness of fire against air targets at the declared range is not clear what is guaranteed: simply put The installation does not have its own AFAR radar ... so the further the more in the statements of the advertising developers ...

    elementary logic suggests that it is much more efficient to create a specialized air defense system based on a 57-mm caliber, with large ammunition, large radar capabilities and leave the BMP with its native functions ...
    really an example of as brutal as useless "Terminator" taught the designers nothing ...?
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 14 June 2016 17: 22
      +2
      Quote: Raven

      damn pedivikia claims that the projectile for our 30-mm gun, developed by Oerlikon, is 1,8 times more effective in terms of armor penetration than ours ...
      There is such a thing. And the American 30mm "silver bullets" are generally 2-2,5 times so, with an incomparable over-the-counter action. Depleted uranium however!
      Unfortunately, our 30mm more likely corresponds to their 25mm (31 mm at an angle of 60 ° to 1,5 km for tungsten), and the American 25mm uranium APFSDS-T M919 is even more powerful.
      And by the way, the cases of Abramov being shot down in the rear of the tower - precisely with this shell lol
      Compare: relatively recently, the 3UBR8 "Kerner" was adopted by us - it provides armor penetration of 25 mm at an angle of 60 ° from the normal, at a distance of 1500 mm (the old 3UBR6 caliber has only 14 mm), but here too the problem: 3UBR8 needs to be interfered with BT / OF in the tape, so that it feeds normally.
      Well, everything is not glory to God ... bully


      - Are you sure that all the possibilities of upgrading the 30 mm BPS have been exhausted ??? sad maybe it’s cheaper to think about a new shell that is a priori cheaper than creating a new module?


      I absolutely agree with you, the potential for modernization of 30 mm has not yet been exhausted.
      And if you change it, it’s not the old S-60, but the new 45mm gun for telescopic ammunition (which remains in the diameter of 30-35 mm shells, but it is shorter and more powerful.

      Penetration 40 mm telescopic APFSDS - more than 150 mm at a distance of 1,5 km at an angle of 60 °.

      In addition, the 57mm caliber does not correspond to the modern DBM concept - the ammunition should be inside the module, and not in the fighting compartment.
      And with 57mm fools this can not be achieved.
      1. Raven
        Raven 14 June 2016 18: 02
        +3
        verily, only I'm still not a supporter of the new gun ... besides the limit of modernizing the projectile, there is also the limit of modernizing the armor by which it works, when it becomes impossible to strengthen the protection of BMPs / armored personnel carriers - the equipment simply transfers to another class in terms of weight, cost, size .. . and that means less ... NATO has become accustomed to not upgrading their shells and adopting protection standards - we now cut them off with the new development of a 30-mm BPS and the economic losses there will reach exorbitant heights ...

        caliber more than forty, suejectively, I think for BMP superfluous ... well, let it be 45 ... let the fetishists rejoice ... repeat
      2. cosmos111
        cosmos111 14 June 2016 19: 56
        +2
        Quote: psiho117
        , and on the new 45mm gun for telescopic ammunition


        This is the 40 mm telescopic ammunition for the 40 CTAS automatic cannon - Cased Telescoped Armament System.
        The 40 CTAS guns are developed and manufactured by the French-British consortium CTA International, created by defense companies BAE Systems and Nexter Systems.

        40 CTAS gun at Eurosatory 2014.

        Ammunition for the 40 CTAS guns: six types of ammunition have been developed, including training, armor-piercing, air blasting, interdiction, and projectiles designed to hit air targets,the distance for conducting targeted fire will be 2,5 km, the maximum distance for firing - 5 km.

        The mass of the gun is 340 kg with a total length of 3,4 m and a barrel length of 2,8 m.
        The rate of fire is 180 rounds per minute, and due to the loading system with a rotating ammunition supply mechanism, the change in the type of shells is fully automated and takes no more than three seconds.
        Installed and tested on the new British Ajax combat vehicle.

        http://vpk.name/news/153618_britanskaya_armiya_zavershaet_zhivyie_ognevyie_ispyi
        taniya_platformyi_ajax.html
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 14 June 2016 21: 36
          +1
          Quote: cosmos111
          Quote: psiho117
          , and on the new 45mm gun for telescopic ammunition

          These are 40 mm telescopic ammunition for the 40 CTAS automatic cannon.

          Thanks I know yes Pictures were given just as an illustration - how it looks.

          I was talking about our Russian 45mm design, which was "spotted" in the Kurganmashzavod patent. It depicted one of the early versions of a promising BMP (now Kurganets-25), and then it was shown to Rogozin in the 11th year.
          Here is an example infa from the patent:
          The gun - automatic, single-barrel with separate 2-sided feeding of cartridges
          two appointments
          Rate of fire, rds / min .......................... ... 150 ... 200
          The mass of the gun, kg ................................. ... .. 300 ... 350
          Types of ammunition: cartridges with shells of armor-piercing and high-explosive incendiary action in cartridges with a capacity of 4 and 5 shells
          Ammunition: unitary, telescopic
          Projectile: rotation stabilized
          Weight, kg ................................. 2,7 (OFZ) / 3,6 (BPS)
          Shells Weight, kg ........................ 1,3 (OFZ); 0,67 (BPS)
          Mass of explosives, kg ........................................ 0,17 (OFZ)
          Core mass, kg ............................... 0,42 (BPS)
          The initial velocity of the projectile, m / s ......... 1640 (BPS); 850 (OFZ)
          Penetration, mm .................... BPS 150mm (D = 1500m)
          1. cosmos111
            cosmos111 14 June 2016 22: 07
            +2
            Quote: psiho117
            I was talking about our Russian 45mm design, which was "spotted" in the Kurganmashzavod patent. It depicted one of the early versions of a promising BMP (now Kurganets-25), and then it was shown to Rogozin in the 11th year.
            Here is an example infa from the patent:


            I read, BUT reliable information, after 2011 of the year 000ZZZ.
            Some assumptions.

            And while millions of 57-mm shells "rust" in warehouses, it is difficult to refuse not to dispose of them in combat conditions.

            57 mm C-60 can be considered transitional options until 45 mm with telescopic warheads is ready.
  11. snc
    snc 14 June 2016 15: 40
    +1
    Baikal in the form in which it is now does not have any RAL anti-tank capabilities. An infantry fighting vehicle with Baikal needs to be approached to a FIXED tank standing at the back or side at a distance of less than 500m and have about 10s for 2-3 aimed shots at one point. It is naive to hope that such a freebie breaks off in real life.
    You can, of course, try to disable the tank’s sights with a shrapnel shell with remote detonation, but there is a problem: the tank gun should look at the BMP at that moment, which may be unsafe to say the least)
    The only option for a BMP combat with MBT is to shoot an ATGM from an ambush and immediately dump it. And it’s better to have it Attack or Whirlwind, and not Cornet. less flying time gives more chances to survive BMP.
    And ATGMs should be in normal armored casings with automatic wings and protection of at least 12.7, and not with such visors from rain as on the T-15 and Kurganets.
  12. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 14 June 2016 22: 11
    0
    BMP-1, more than 50 years in service with the Russian army, even today it is our most massive BMP.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 14 June 2016 22: 41
      +1
      Quote: cth; fyn
      BMP-1, more than 50 years in service with the Russian army, even today it is our most massive BMP.


      We need a radical modernization of the BMP. At least to the level of the Chinese BMP ZBD-04A.
  13. Penguin
    Penguin 14 June 2016 23: 05
    +4
    I myself served on the BMP-1. Cons: there is no ventilation - in the tower after the shot it’s full ..... there were no spare parts at that time and now I think too, half of the cars didn’t even have fuses and sometimes they fired without an aiming net (they didn’t burn), but on machine guns they didn’t the electric release worked. engine and chassis are strong. In the training after shooting there were a lot of blanks under the eye - the scope after the shot was set :). Who served as a gunner will understand me. Hi military unit 35256 - there I knew this car.
  14. Two handed
    Two handed 16 June 2016 09: 03
    +3
    He served on the BMP-1 as a mechanical drive, while riding on rough terrain in triplex, one can see either the sky or the earth. The mechvod is still bearable, the landing party and the gunner just flew back and forth) The overview of the mechvod is for some reason only forward and to the left (as if it was a t-34 and the radio operator was looking to the right). Sometimes the hatch latches did not work and when driving with the head stuck out, one had to drive with one hand, hold the hatch with the other so that the head would not tear off) The ventilation seemed to be, I remember repairing / replacing myself on the roof. The nets didn’t work on some cars, sometimes gunners aimed at the barrel. There were very few spare parts, what remained from Soviet times, a lot of Czech details. Polish production. The engines were good. We had them 2 varieties, Czech production and domestic. The Czechs worked flawlessly, ours liked to stall in some situations. Due to the lack of spare parts, the units dragged them from each other, dragged from canned equipment, from equipment intended for thorough repairs, etc.