Jump to content
tanknet.org

Russia Looking At Upgunning Afv's To 57Mm


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think barrel launched KEM would be too constrained by the chamber dimensions of the gun

 

How so ? The charge need not be large. You want it coming out of the barrel at 600 m/s and then the booster taking it out to 1600 m/s at around 1000 metres range. If you want better performance you can use a longer missile and have it loaded further down the barrel. But then it will not fit in the standard storage rack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...