Jump to content


Photo

Russia Looking At Upgunning Afv's To 57Mm


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,549 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 2049 PM

Are the odds favorable that this can be afforded?

 

 

https://www.janes.co...h-57-mm-cannons


  • 0

#2 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 06 June 2019 - 2255 PM

Apparently it is being pitched as a replacement for ZSU-23 too.

There is also a low velocity 57mm HE thrower for CS:

https://bmpd.livejou...om/3499099.html

4581369_original.jpg

s4ZRAP3.jpg


Edited by KV7, 06 June 2019 - 2259 PM.

  • 0

#3 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1102 AM

Are the odds favorable that this can be afforded?

 

 

https://www.janes.co...h-57-mm-cannons

 

Good question.  I dare say that the same thing would have (and perhaps most likely still is) been in the minds of people when the T-14 Armata first made its public appearance.  

 

Certainly with the recent and ongoing experiences in Syria, the venerable 57mm shell seems to have worked very well against ground targets such as enemy infantry taking shelter in thick-walled buildings.  Certainly makes more sense than using an expensive ATGM.

 

I guess time will tell if such vehicles are actually deployed within the Russian military forces.  Did the similarly-armed PT-76 amphibious tanks ever receive the 57mm cannon?


  • 0

#4 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,275 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 June 2019 - 2030 PM

That was the tech demonstrator. It had a manned turret.


  • 0

#5 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,826 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0548 AM

 

Are the odds favorable that this can be afforded?

 

 

https://www.janes.co...h-57-mm-cannons

 

Good question.  I dare say that the same thing would have (and perhaps most likely still is) been in the minds of people when the T-14 Armata first made its public appearance.  

 

Certainly with the recent and ongoing experiences in Syria, the venerable 57mm shell seems to have worked very well against ground targets such as enemy infantry taking shelter in thick-walled buildings.  Certainly makes more sense than using an expensive ATGM.

 

I guess time will tell if such vehicles are actually deployed within the Russian military forces.  Did the similarly-armed PT-76 amphibious tanks ever receive the 57mm cannon?

 

Just wondering if it is feasible to "swap out" different weapons for different missions. Say a larger caliber HE, low velocity gun and a lower caliber, higher velocity one?


  • 0

#6 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0636 AM

When you see how difficult the US Army found painting all its vehicles every season in MERDC variants, I cant see that could ever work. The maintenance and logistic troops would go ape.


  • 0

#7 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0639 AM

One could switch a regiment of Cents from 105 mm to 20 pdr in a weekend.
  • 0

#8 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0654 AM

Yes, but the difference there was, you had the ammunion for 20pdr, but not 105. This would require you to keep adequate stocks of both on hand, and permanent facilities (preferably mobile) to change as the circumstances demanded. If they couldnt do it  in WW2 when weapons were a lot simpler, Its going to be a struggle now.

 

That isnt to say someone wont give it a try of course......


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 17 June 2019 - 0654 AM.

  • 0

#9 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0707 AM

Changing on the fly would be onersome. Changing before/between deployments may be easier. Probably better still to pick a gun and change the ammo loadout as required.
  • 0

#10 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0719 AM

But then you have the training issue. It would mean you would have to qualify on 2 or 3 different weapon systems and be current for all of them.

 

Im sure it could all be done, but is anyone really willing to pay extra for what would probably be a niche capability? Bear in mind the conscripts only get a year of service now.


  • 0

#11 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0753 AM

Fair point there Stuart.  I'm wondering if this was a major reason why BMP-1 and BMP-2 vehicles were supposedly allocated to different units rather than mixed together - and not just for the sake of ammunition supply.

 

I did wonder if the 57mm autocannon could replace the current 100mm/30mm armament of the BMP-3 however I recall that the 100mm also fires an ATGM as well so you'd lose out on that front.


  • 0

#12 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0815 AM

Does having a gun launched atgm vs an exterior mounted one offer that much benefit?


  • 0

#13 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0820 AM

Fair point there Stuart.  I'm wondering if this was a major reason why BMP-1 and BMP-2 vehicles were supposedly allocated to different units rather than mixed together - and not just for the sake of ammunition supply.

 

I did wonder if the 57mm autocannon could replace the current 100mm/30mm armament of the BMP-3 however I recall that the 100mm also fires an ATGM as well so you'd lose out on that front.

 

They might have done in the very early days in East Germany, but they certainly dont do it now. There was a well publicised drill in about 2009 IIRC, where a Brigade from one part of Russia flew by air to pick up prepositioned equipment and run an exercise. They were all qualified on BMP2, and unfortunately all the vehicles they had in stock were BMP1. Something they were completely unfamiliar with, unfortunately for them.


  • 0

#14 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 June 2019 - 0911 AM

Fair point there Stuart.  I'm wondering if this was a major reason why BMP-1 and BMP-2 vehicles were supposedly allocated to different units rather than mixed together - and not just for the sake of ammunition supply.
 
I did wonder if the 57mm autocannon could replace the current 100mm/30mm armament of the BMP-3 however I recall that the 100mm also fires an ATGM as well so you'd lose out on that front.

You can easily stick pair of Kornets to the side of 57mm turret, and Kornet is much more than 100mm ATGM can ever be.
  • 0

#15 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1001 AM

Does having a gun launched atgm vs an exterior mounted one offer that much benefit?

 

Being able to load and fire the ATGM under armour certainly springs to mind although does an AFV with a gun-launched ATGM capability raise the overall cost of said AFV considerably?  

 

Gargaen comes up with a fair point about externally mounting launchers for Kornet ATGM's to the side of the 57mm turret.


  • 0

#16 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1005 AM

They might have done in the very early days in East Germany, but they certainly dont do it now. There was a well publicised drill in about 2009 IIRC, where a Brigade from one part of Russia flew by air to pick up prepositioned equipment and run an exercise. They were all qualified on BMP2, and unfortunately all the vehicles they had in stock were BMP1. Something they were completely unfamiliar with, unfortunately for them.

 

 

 

Thanks Stuart.  I bet there were some rather unhappy vehicle crews when they made that discovery...

 


  • 0

#17 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1031 AM

Does having a gun launched atgm vs an exterior mounted one offer that much benefit?

Gun launched ATGM for anything but tank is cons today, not pros. Mostly because caliber severely restricting capabilities of missile.


  • 0

#18 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,432 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1600 PM

IMO BMP-3 turret w/o tube ATGM capability with 2 launcher for F&F ATGM would fulfil 99% of the fire support for practically any army in the world.


  • 0

#19 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 2233 PM

Gun launched ATGM with AT capability need to be top attack, or in the 152/155mm class, as on Sheridan.

The other exotic option would be a barrel launched KEM, which would have some advantage over standard KEM as you gain some efficiency from using a propelling charge and a smaller booster over a larger booster. But AFAICT no one has done work in this area, presumably because main guns are considered deadly enough already.


  • 0

#20 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,061 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 June 2019 - 0108 AM

IMO BMP-3 turret w/o tube ATGM capability with 2 launcher for F&F ATGM would fulfil 99% of the fire support for practically any army in the world.

Full power 57mm offers some capabilities troichatka lacks. Like burst firing effective ABHE munitions, healthy APFSDS making ATGM usable mostly only against MBTs, more effective AA work.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users