Mangusta CBT
New Member
Which is the best calibre for the IFV gun? more large is better? for example future France VBCI and Italian VBC will have 25 mm, German Puma a 30 mm gun, Dutch CV90 a 35 mm gun. which is the better choice?
Calibre of the IFV gun
- Thread starter Mangusta CBT
- Start date
It depends on the role of the vehicle.
Alot of people have set classes of vehicles which have to have a certain calibre gun. A 35mm will cut through everything except for a tank, and then a small secondary gun is usually fitted for the light stuff. This is a good combo for a light tracked or wheeled vehicle.
If the enemy is not heavily armoured then even a 20mm gun can do the job.
Personally im a fan of having a large calibre primary gun that is overkill for the forces it may face. This gun can then also be used to bust a bunker and offers many advantages. Also most 30mm guns usually fire in small bursts to ensure a kill. A 50+mm would require a single round per target, so even though each round takes up more space less rounds would be required. Though a 30mm gun is usually more than big enough.
A 50mm main gun would only be used on a light vehicle if it could accidently come up against a main battle tank. This is not going to happen with the US, but for countries like Iran, a mobile 50mm vehicle would be good.
Alot of people have set classes of vehicles which have to have a certain calibre gun. A 35mm will cut through everything except for a tank, and then a small secondary gun is usually fitted for the light stuff. This is a good combo for a light tracked or wheeled vehicle.
If the enemy is not heavily armoured then even a 20mm gun can do the job.
Personally im a fan of having a large calibre primary gun that is overkill for the forces it may face. This gun can then also be used to bust a bunker and offers many advantages. Also most 30mm guns usually fire in small bursts to ensure a kill. A 50+mm would require a single round per target, so even though each round takes up more space less rounds would be required. Though a 30mm gun is usually more than big enough.
A 50mm main gun would only be used on a light vehicle if it could accidently come up against a main battle tank. This is not going to happen with the US, but for countries like Iran, a mobile 50mm vehicle would be good.
In my opinion a 35-40mm is a good choice.
Modern IFVs and HAPCs tend to be well protected frontally which could cause trouble forn 30mm and smaller guns.
And with 35-40mm you can make sure to be able to penetrate possible enemy threats except MBTs, deliver enough payload into other targets (bunkers, fortified positions, infantry groups, buildings,...) without compromising too much space for storing the ammo.
Modern IFVs and HAPCs tend to be well protected frontally which could cause trouble forn 30mm and smaller guns.
And with 35-40mm you can make sure to be able to penetrate possible enemy threats except MBTs, deliver enough payload into other targets (bunkers, fortified positions, infantry groups, buildings,...) without compromising too much space for storing the ammo.
Ct40
As for me it is perfect solution. No IFV (present or in development) can stand it and amunition is much smaller then Bofors 40mm.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf
This gun is undergoing tests on modernised Warrior and propoably will be used by France for its FCS.
As for me it is perfect solution. No IFV (present or in development) can stand it and amunition is much smaller then Bofors 40mm.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/cta.pdf
This gun is undergoing tests on modernised Warrior and propoably will be used by France for its FCS.
Excellant information, thanks for sharing.
It's such a clever piece of engineering! Much more compact than a traditional 40mm gun. I fervently hope we & the French adopt, & go on to sell it profitably to many of our friends & allies.
I would like to see a 40mm also, not just for the stopping power, but for the range, a larger gun generaly means longer range, and that is very important as well.
How difficult (expensive) would to be to give an APC a gunsight capable of targeting jet aircraft, with a reasonable chance of hitting one?
How difficult (expensive) would to be to give an APC a gunsight capable of targeting jet aircraft, with a reasonable chance of hitting one?
The Swedes use it because they have stocks, so it's effectively free. There's a reason why everyone else fits something else to their CV90s. It's very old.
Fitting a good FCS together with good ammo (for example programmable) which gives you the chance to attack and hit helicopters is the best you can hope for without fitting a good (And big) radar and specialised AA FCS onto it like on specialised vehicles (Tunguska, Gepard,...).
Leave everything else than an emergency capability against helicopters to the specialised AA units.
Situatuinal awareness against helicopter threats is difficult enough for AFV crews and often enough doesn't work.
Try to see and engage a fast mover coming in close to the ground is even much more difficult.
Leave everything else than an emergency capability against helicopters to the specialised AA units.
Situatuinal awareness against helicopter threats is difficult enough for AFV crews and often enough doesn't work.
Try to see and engage a fast mover coming in close to the ground is even much more difficult.
But it still works .... http://youtube.com/watch?v=YUsgZZeJqhE
Try this link for info on the AHEAD munitions used against aerial targets for the Skyranger system. The turrent could be fitted to an IFV.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/tuesday/bradick.pdf
My understanding is that the system is mainly self contained within the Turrent. It is base on the Navy Skyshield system that has zero deck penetration. I'm told that in a larger vehicle such as an ACV-S you can still have a fully equipped squad. Although no one said how many that was.
The Skyranger system also only has an electro optical sighting system
"In September 2005, FNSS signed an agreement with Oerlikon Contraves of Switzerland to co-operate on a programme for mounting the Oerlikon Skyranger Air Defence 35mm gun turret on the ACV-S or the FNSS Pars 8x8 wheeled chassis."
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
Personnaly I'm a fervent suporter of the franco-british CTA 40mm gun.
Reduce space and weight compared to a traditional 30mm gun but much more firepower.
And since the gun does not take a lot of space inside the turret, it is then possible to fire at higher elevation than other guns, worthy in urban combat.
Reduce space and weight compared to a traditional 30mm gun but much more firepower.
And since the gun does not take a lot of space inside the turret, it is then possible to fire at higher elevation than other guns, worthy in urban combat.
Hmm, i'm inclined to think what modern IFV (NOT just APC-wanna be IFV) should have a option for bigger punch. I.e. the ability to fire 100+ mm caliber ammunition. Be it mortar, low velocity gun or large number of cheap guided missiles - it should have something what could really support your infantry, even behind obstacles.
Why not develop some cheap dumb missiles for ATGM systems like Spike (I think there it is already done or in development), Javelin, TOW, etc?
This gives you the chance to either load modern ATGMs against possible armor threats and dumb HEs against structures.
And I would go with something larger than 30mm.
The Puma is already protected frontally against 30mm AP (At least the producer says so ). Future IFVs might also be well protected.
I don't want to sit in an IFV which always needs one of his ATGMs when he faces another IFV.
This gives you the chance to either load modern ATGMs against possible armor threats and dumb HEs against structures.
And I would go with something larger than 30mm.
The Puma is already protected frontally against 30mm AP (At least the producer says so
). Future IFVs might also be well protected.I don't want to sit in an IFV which always needs one of his ATGMs when he faces another IFV.
BMP-3 claimed protection against 30mm, with ERA blocks its probably protected against 40mm frontally as well. I think newer US IFV's also protected against 30mm frontally.Why not develop some cheap dumb missiles for ATGM systems like Spike (I think there it is already done or in development), Javelin, TOW, etc?
This gives you the chance to either load modern ATGMs against possible armor threats and dumb HEs against structures.
And I would go with something larger than 30mm.
The Puma is already protected frontally against 30mm AP (At least the producer says so
I don't want to sit in an IFV which always needs one of his ATGMs when he faces another IFV.
BMP-3 protected against 30mm frontally?
This is the first time I hear about this.
And I really doubt it.
This vehicle weights 18,7 tons.
The add-on armor for the C configuration (The only config which is protected against 30mm AP) of the Puma alone weights 13 tons.
This is the first time I hear about this.
And I really doubt it.
This vehicle weights 18,7 tons.
The add-on armor for the C configuration (The only config which is protected against 30mm AP) of the Puma alone weights 13 tons.