Becouse absolutely most western IFV's cant stand 30mm. Still, these what can will be dealt with gun-launched ATGM's and 100mm HEAT. But my point is not anti-IFV duty as it can be done by separate ATGM's - my main point is infantry support. 100mm offers so much extra in that role what you just cant compare. It is a whole another dimension. Imagine EVERY infantry squad having own organic artillery/mortar support - and thats already a reality. More firepower is always better, and more firepower without any delay - priceless.
Calibre of the IFV gun
- Thread starter Mangusta CBT
- Start date
Isn`t the armor protection levels on the latest generation Bradley`s and Warrior`s designed to with stand 30mm, and I would think that CV9040 and PUMA will be even better to with stand a 30mm auto cannon burst.
@Chrom
There is no sense in stating that everything else can be dealt with 100mm HE or the 100mm ATGMs.
The 30mm used in the BMP-3 is its main IFV weapon.
The 100mm low pressure gun is purely for use against soft and semi-soft targets. Against armored targets it is nearly useless.
And while the ATGMs give the BMP-3 a nice AT capability at good ranges it is just not what the designers intended.
If the BMP-3 has to use its ATGMs against enemy IFVs And it looks like this is the case with new IFVs on the market) during frontal engagements the 30mm is near to being dead weight.
@Manfred
I see the 40mm also as a good option for independent weapons stations on lighter vehicles and for example also on the MOUT versions of several MBTs.
There is no sense in stating that everything else can be dealt with 100mm HE or the 100mm ATGMs.
The 30mm used in the BMP-3 is its main IFV weapon.
The 100mm low pressure gun is purely for use against soft and semi-soft targets. Against armored targets it is nearly useless.
And while the ATGMs give the BMP-3 a nice AT capability at good ranges it is just not what the designers intended.
If the BMP-3 has to use its ATGMs against enemy IFVs And it looks like this is the case with new IFVs on the market) during frontal engagements the 30mm is near to being dead weight.
@Manfred
I see the 40mm also as a good option for independent weapons stations on lighter vehicles and for example also on the MOUT versions of several MBTs.
Maskirovka
Banned Member
Another youtubevideo about the swedish Bofors 40mm 3P ammo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq_y6kkDO7Y&mode=related&search=
Yep, but only the latest. Dont forget when 30mm gun was installed...
Against MOVING targets at 1km+ RANGE its indeed useless. But then you can use ATGM's, and 30mm is not any better at these ranges. And, again, 100mm here is mainly for SUPPORT role. Multi-purpose gun, same as conventional artillery.
Is the U.S. looking into programable ammo?
I know for what the 100mm is for.
I wanted to say that if your main IFV weapon (The 30mm) does not provides you with enough penetration capability against latest western designs/upgrades it is dead weight.
If you have to use the 10mm ATGMs to get through the frontal armor of enemy IFVs there is no primary mission for the 30mm any longer.
Anti tank and anti IFV is provided (Or has to be provided) by the ATGMs and for support the 100mm HEs are used.
So you have to go for a bigger calibre to cope with the increased armor protection of western designs or just deinstall the 30mm and use the space for more ATGMs (Which is not the best option in my eyes due to the cost and lower speed of ATGMs, less ammo and because you loose your AA-weapon).
Ah no, obviosly IFV need same form of autocannon. We can debate whenever it should be 25-30-40mm. But modern IFV also need large caliber gun/mortar. So these 2 nicely complement each over. However, if someone ask what SINGLE cannon should be installed - 100mm or 30mm for IFV - then of course it would be 30mm autocannon. This is especeally true for low-scale conflicts where armor penetration is non-issue, but anti-infantry capabilites is. Something like last Israel conflict. Low ROF large caliber guns will NEVER replace autocannons - they have different uses. Allthought both 100mm and 30mm are designed with anti-infantry role as main mission they fill different niches in that role.
I think we are talking about the same.
I agree that a autocannon and a low pressure gun can complement each other especially when you can use ATGMs with the low pressure gun.
My point is that I don't think that the 2A72 30mm is still provides a viable anti-IFV capability against modern/modernized western IFVs.
The question is, is it possible to raise the calibre? Could space and weight problems occur?
If yes I would sacrifice the low pressure gun for a bigger autocannon and external ATGM launcher(s).
If no problems occur everything is fine.
I agree that a autocannon and a low pressure gun can complement each other especially when you can use ATGMs with the low pressure gun.
My point is that I don't think that the 2A72 30mm is still provides a viable anti-IFV capability against modern/modernized western IFVs.
The question is, is it possible to raise the calibre? Could space and weight problems occur?
If yes I would sacrifice the low pressure gun for a bigger autocannon and external ATGM launcher(s).
If no problems occur everything is fine.
I would not want to sacrifice ATGMs on my Bradley, not even for indirect fire capability. I have been bounced by tanks in war games way too many times to advocate sending APCs out with no response to Heavy armor.
Lets build a fantasy vehicle! A 30mm cannon side by side with a 40mm Grenade Launcher would be nice, but adding ATGMs would make for a turret that is almost as large as one on a Main Battle tank... if you included a reasonable amount of ready to use Ammo for the guns (180 for the cannon, 60-80 for the grenades).
Would it be better to have ATGMs loaded into tubes built into the hull of the vehicle? I am picturing 3 or 4 tubes on each side arranged diagonaly. the back-blast can be re-routed outside the hull by pipes, and the missles are guided, so they do not have to be pointed directly at the target when fired. The gunner could even select a multi-launch option, to defeat active defenses that tanks might soon be mounting.
Lets build a fantasy vehicle! A 30mm cannon side by side with a 40mm Grenade Launcher would be nice, but adding ATGMs would make for a turret that is almost as large as one on a Main Battle tank... if you included a reasonable amount of ready to use Ammo for the guns (180 for the cannon, 60-80 for the grenades).
Would it be better to have ATGMs loaded into tubes built into the hull of the vehicle? I am picturing 3 or 4 tubes on each side arranged diagonaly. the back-blast can be re-routed outside the hull by pipes, and the missles are guided, so they do not have to be pointed directly at the target when fired. The gunner could even select a multi-launch option, to defeat active defenses that tanks might soon be mounting.
Opps, forgot about that part!
Sorry, I get carried away sometiimes.:shudder
Didn't the French come out with a 60mm gun/mortar that could be fried from within a vehicle, just a few years ago? I have forgotten the name, but it was purpose-built for just the thing we were talking about. Did it turn out to be a flop?
Sorry, I get carried away sometiimes.:shudder
Didn't the French come out with a 60mm gun/mortar that could be fried from within a vehicle, just a few years ago? I have forgotten the name, but it was purpose-built for just the thing we were talking about. Did it turn out to be a flop?
The Israelis have a 60mm mortar which can be fired under armor in their Merks and mobile 120mm mortar systems like AMOS also allow direct fire but I don't know anything about a french system.
The problem with mortars is that they don't give you good penetration capabilities compared to autocannons.
The problem with mortars is that they don't give you good penetration capabilities compared to autocannons.
While I agree, there also the capability of lobbing some mortar rounds over the ridge/hill that have anti-armour guided munitions, which I believe have been developed for some 120mm Mortars.
A handy capability to have embedded in a company battlegroup I would think.
Feel free to correct me however as this in not really my area.
I totally agree that integrated and directly attached mortar support is important for combined arms units.
Be it the older ones on M113 or the new AMOS, Bighorn or Wiesel 2 systems which, together with the new rounds, even improve the usefullness of mortars.
But not as a main armament for IFVs.
120mm systems are too bulky and smaller systems don't give you the penetration capability you need during normal frontal engagements against enemy mech forces.
Be it the older ones on M113 or the new AMOS, Bighorn or Wiesel 2 systems which, together with the new rounds, even improve the usefullness of mortars.
But not as a main armament for IFVs.
120mm systems are too bulky and smaller systems don't give you the penetration capability you need during normal frontal engagements against enemy mech forces.
You are looking at wrong side when connecting "bulky" and "caliber" stright away. In reality, the ballistic properties of the gun is far more important than caliber. A 57mm high-ballistic anti-IFV gun will be much "bulkier" when low-ballistic 120mm gun. A classical example is monster A-10 30mm autocannon...
With recent advantages in armor and ERA for IFV's i would concentrate much less on the actual armor penetration when deciding what caliber for _autocannon_ to choose. Any sane caliber will not guarantee penetration. I will much more concentrate on anti-infanrty capabilities. As such, 30-40mm is prefered right now.
I looked at the current 120mm mortars with direct fire capability, especially 1 tube AMOS, when I made my statement.
And those systems are just too bulky and there is just not enough space for the squad when installed in an IFV of reasonable weight and dimension.
And I totally agree with you that autocannons are the weapon of choice for IFVs but as stated before in this thread I would prefer 35-40mm.
30mm is operating at its borders especially the russian ones against modern/modernized western IFVs.
And those systems are just too bulky and there is just not enough space for the squad when installed in an IFV of reasonable weight and dimension.
And I totally agree with you that autocannons are the weapon of choice for IFVs but as stated before in this thread I would prefer 35-40mm.
30mm is operating at its borders especially the russian ones against modern/modernized western IFVs.
Its strange becouse BMP-3 100mm gun didnt look too bulky. Of course, 120mm will be somewhat bigger but then again there is still place on BMP-3 and BMP-3 itself is not the largest of IFV's. Its rather one of the smallest in its class. So most likely its possible to install 120mm mortar without too much problems.
P.S. Its 40mm what is operated at its borders against CURRENT modern russian IFV's. Against upgraded BMP-3M it already cant penetrate frontally. Its fairly easy to predict what in next few years most modern IFV's will be 40mm proof. So i dont see a point rising caliber of autocannon even further at expence of ROF, ammo and wieght.
Thats said, 40mm probably is a good choice for a single cannon. But as complement for 100mm gun the 30mm AC would be a better choice - most likely.