Posted on 05/24/2019 7:07:37 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
I need one of those for squirrels and such.
Every Shooting range should have one!
Whenever possible, go big!
Ammunition supply comes to mind. A couple of questions come to mind.
Although you can get better penetration out of a 57 mm round and longer engagement ranges ballistically, how likely is an such an infantry fighting vehicle to engage at ranges beyond the effective range of a 30 mm round?
Is the terrain smooth enough to allow those engagements or is it broken up enough to negate the range advantage due to lack of line of sight to target?
None. 30mm was an overkill on BMP at the time. The point of such vehicle is to deviler infantry into engagement in somehow safer manner. The cannon is for saturation fire. In that sense 57 mm has disadvantage. They might believe the days of BMP concept are over. Once again, BMP pushed the envelop adding the capability to defeat earlier tanks to IFV. Maybe they want another breakthrough.
Russians make some pretty cool weapons...
Reminds me, my “Izhevsk” T-shirt just came in the mail.
CC
Dats a big hucking gun.
I was hoping that top pic was from an American gun show. :)
Leave it to the Russians to think big on firepower. I’m sure they think the advantages out weigh the disadvantages.
Even if there’s broken terrain, there will be plenty of times to open fire at long range.
During World War II on the Western Front the average range of daytime tank engagements was 700 yards. For IFVs the average engagement ranges would be even less in similar terrain.
That having been said, it is also true that the Soviets and then the Russians have designed their vehicles to fight in relatively open areas such as the Ukraine rather than Germany. Their operations researchers have looked at these design questions extensively in their tradeoff analyses.
Better be able to shoot and scoot. Lots of anti-armor rockets and missiles flying around these days, not to mention drones.
And stupid Tucker Carlson who has been listening to the top Soviet disinformation operative in the U.S., Prof. Stephen Cohen (ex Princeton and NYU) and this retired Colonel he’s had on a lot, don’t consider Putin’s Russia a threat. He doesn’t even consider Iran a threat (but Iran and Syria both rely on Soviet/Russian weapons of all theater-types for their defense and internal/border offensives.
Stuck on stupid is no way to go through life.
If they don’t believe me, ask about the G3 Soviet Bloc artillery used in Vietnam. Beat the shit out of any US weapon by about 7-10 miles, which the So. Vietnamese ARVN learned in blood during the Easter and Final 1975 offensives.
Our 105’s, 155’s and the 3 175’s were useless. End of story, end of war. Beginning of slavery for So. Vietnam.
What would its mission be, armored scout vehicle, tankette?
Is there some urban combat role the Russians discovered in Syria?
Likely some gun show in Texas? Or Wyoming?
And they're broke and getting broker - thanks to Trump taking on Sarah Palin's "Drill, Baby, Drill" mantra.
Full disclosure. I worked on the Abrams for about ten years, but the hardware, not tactics. Having said that, I will offer an opinion. If the new munitions is “smart” or has a target sensor, and can be, more or less, a fire-and-forget weapon, then this upgrade makes sense. (And, yes, we have those.) On the other hand, if the munitions is dumb and the strategy is to saturate an area with fire...then the Russians will be carrying a lot less of it because of its size.
Possibly the biggest difference between winning and losing is not the size or capability of the hardware, it is the ability to sustain it in operating/fighting condition in the field. The upgraded vehicles would likely fire the same number of rounds in an engagement regardless of caliber as most shots miss. (I have seen estimates of ammunition expended per kill and the numbers are staggering.) Unless the new rounds have a significant strategic value, like being “smart,” then replenishment costs and risks will greatly increase leading to potential battlefield failures.
Big question is why if the 30 mm is adequate for mission performance?
Unless 30 mm is not enough to get the job done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.