Calibre of the IFV gun

[Tasman]

Obviously you've never read the history of the battle for Fire Support base Coral in Vietnam.

Suffice to say, towed 105mm artillery pieces firing over "open sights" in a direct fire role is very useful in certain situations. Obviously the persons involved would prefer NOT to have been in such a dire situation, but your enemy is not always that accomodating...

Here's an image of one of the Australian 105mm guns that was "over run" and recaptured intact, the next day.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/rar/coral01.jpg

edit: actually this is more likely the first time an AUSTRALIAN gun has been over run since the Boer war...

Being forced into a situation of having to fire over "open sights" directly ahead definitely sounds way too scary for me! :shudder I guess that at point blank range even the blast effect of 105mm guns would have an effect on closing infantry. I'd certainly rather read about it than experience it first hand. The gunners did well to maintain discipline and stay with their weapons. Returned Vietnam vets I've talked to about the battles that raged around Coral from early May until early June 1968 always spoke with a degree of reverence towards the gunners as well as the APC and Centurian tank crews who I understand were involved in some of the later clashes.

BTW, I'm certainly not putting forward the 105mm towed howitzer as an 'ideal' weapon against IFVs or infantry at close range but it does demonstrate that in an emergency all available assets can have a role to play.

Cheers

 

[extern]

IMHO exelent blend of russian and western solutions for IFV:

 

[Chrom]

IMHO exelent blend of russian and western solutions for IFV:

Good vehicle. But calling it "blend" is not fully justfied as russians have something like BTR-90 and universal 30/100mm turret what can be installed on virtually any IFV including BTR, BMP, BMD. Some nations consdered that turret for they national IFV programs.

 

[Chrom]

BTW, I'm certainly not putting forward the 105mm towed howitzer as an 'ideal' weapon against IFVs or infantry at close range but it does demonstrate that in an emergency all available assets can have a role to play.

Cheers

Good conclusion

 

[extern]

... universal 30/100mm turret what can be installed on virtually any IFV including BTR, BMP, BMD.

I'm yearn to see this 30/100mm turret on 3x3 and even 2x2 wheeled platforms soon...

 

[Chrom]

I'm yearn to see this 30/100mm turret on 3x3 and even 2x2 wheeled platforms soon...

There is nothing impossible in that. The turret itself is not that heavy. But armor and armored troop compartment is just impossible to install on sub 10t vehicle. So you will not see 2x2 or even 3x3 vehicle in 15+ t class.

 

[eckherl]

Obvously, such guns a mere "poor man" choice. If an country can equip its forces with self-propelled guns - it will do it. There is zero doubt what any armored self-propelled gun will be much more effective and much more surviable. There is also zero doubt what such guns lost its importance as anti-IFV assets long ago. They can do they job, and its better to have them than nothing. Its mostly intended as pure defencive asset what is deployed against enemy what is not expected to use counter-artillery fire.

To eckherl: No, its more likely what anti-IFV role requirement will be removed from autocannons. ATGM's and higher caliber cannons will take the role. Its farly easy to achieve frontal protection even against 75mm autocannons, while its almost impossible to instal even 57mm high-ballistic autocannon on IFV.

To be able to protect from a 75mm auto cannon you would be in a weight class that would constitute the vehicle as being a light tank, if not heavy.

Could we be witnessing the death of a true battle field taxi for infantry, with more firepower and additional armor protection it seems the less we can carry to the battlefield.

Yes mortars and artillery both have their place in battle, for artillery on a self propelled platform is the way to go for offensive operations, especially with modern technology that has shaped up in vehicle design and projectiles.
Towed howitzers may have their use only in a defensive poster.
Mortars are good for only defensive poster. I just do not understand why Russia went with a low velocity 100mm for the BMP3, not all future combat is going to be small scale in nature, they do not carry enough ATGMS on this vehicle. They have tons of artillery in their order for battle, they have forward observers in specalized FISTV vehicle to call in any artillery support that they may need, a good high velocity 100mm would of been more of a true IFV killer, plus they could have a few HEP rounds on board to take out a occasional fixed structure or mass of troops.

 

[eckherl]

IMHO exelent blend of russian and western solutions for IFV:

Having the 105mm Stryker looks even more appealing.

 

[Chrom]

To be able to protect from a 75mm auto cannon you would be in a weight class that would constitute the vehicle as being a light tank, if not heavy.

Could we be witnessing the death of a true battle field taxi for infantry, with more firepower and additional armor protection it seems the less we can carry to the battlefield.

Yes mortars and artillery both have their place in battle, for artillery on a self propelled platform is the way to go for offensive operations, especially with modern technology that has shaped up in vehicle design and projectiles.
Towed howitzers may have their use only in a defensive poster.
Mortars are good for only defensive poster. I just do not understand why Russia went with a low velocity 100mm for the BMP3, not all future combat is going to be small scale in nature, they do not carry enough ATGMS on this vehicle. They have tons of artillery in their order for battle, they have forward observers in specalized FISTV vehicle to call in any artillery support that they may need, a good high velocity 100mm would of been more of a true IFV killer, plus they could have a few HEP rounds on board to take out a occasional fixed structure or mass of troops.

Huh, do you realise how much WEIGHT and SPACE take high-velocity 100mm gun? Do you realisize what 75mm AC can be installed only on VERY heavy tank-chassis, probably of 60+ t class? Whereas any 25+t IFV can already achieve frontal protection against 75mm shells, even if something is sacrificed? True artillery support is a good thing, but 100mm canon in EVERY infantry squad is whole another dimension in firepower and reaction time. Very often its SECONDS what decide will you buddies live or die. You just cant wait several minutes (and thats VERY ideal case for VERY modern army) when an artillery regiment somewhere 20km away give you fire support. And i even didnt started to talk about all possible problems with communication in true war.
Again, BMP (IFV) vehicles are NOT battlefield taxies. Thats misunderstanding. They primary job is firesupport, not transporting. And especeally they shouldnt transport infantry under direct enemy fire. For any serious anti-IFV job ATGM's seems much better choice as they have much higher range and require much less identification (tanks or heavy IFV's will be destroyed by ATGM's just as well, not the case with 30-40-75-100mm APSFDS).
Also, any 57+ mm cannon will not have enouth shells and rate of fire to provide supression fire. So, you will still need backup autocannon. Something in the 20-30mm class.
Btw, 100mm high-ballistic gun is much worse than 100mm low-ballistic gun for supporting infantry. Low-ballistic guns are much better against infatry, obstacles, bunkers, etc. There is absolutely no reason to make BIG sacrifice in all IFV properties just to allow its MG destroy _heavy_ enemy IFV's. With all these ATGM's everywhere...
And last argument: Seems weapon developers everywhere around the world support my POV. Be it USA with 120mm mortar, be it Russia with 100mm BMP-3 and 120mm mortar, be it AMV with yet another mortar... As you see noone thinking about installing high-ballistic guns on IFV's.

 

[eckherl]

Huh, do you realise how much WEIGHT and SPACE take high-velocity 100mm gun? Do you realisize what 75mm AC can be installed only on VERY heavy tank-chassis, probably of 60+ t class? Whereas any 25+t IFV can already achieve frontal protection against 75mm shells, even if something is sacrificed? True artillery support is a good thing, but 100mm canon in EVERY infantry squad is whole another dimension in firepower and reaction time. Very often its SECONDS what decide will you buddies live or die. You just cant wait several minutes (and thats VERY ideal case for VERY modern army) when an artillery regiment somewhere 20km away give you fire support. And i even didnt started to talk about all possible problems with communication in true war.
Again, BMP (IFV) vehicles are NOT battlefield taxies. Thats misunderstanding. They primary job is firesupport, not transporting. And especeally they shouldnt transport infantry under direct enemy fire. For any serious anti-IFV job ATGM's seems much better choice as they have much higher range and require much less identification (tanks or heavy IFV's will be destroyed by ATGM's just as well, not the case with 30-40-75-100mm APSFDS).
Also, any 57+ mm cannon will not have enouth shells and rate of fire to provide supression fire. So, you will still need backup autocannon. Something in the 20-30mm class.
Btw, 100mm high-ballistic gun is much worse than 100mm low-ballistic gun for supporting infantry. Low-ballistic guns are much better against infatry, obstacles, bunkers, etc. There is absolutely no reason to make BIG sacrifice in all IFV properties just to allow its MG destroy _heavy_ enemy IFV's. With all these ATGM's everywhere...
And last argument: Seems weapon developers everywhere around the world support my POV. Be it USA with 120mm mortar, be it Russia with 100mm BMP-3 and 120mm mortar, be it AMV with yet another mortar... As you see noone thinking about installing high-ballistic guns on IFV's.

I do not see why you think that a higher velocity gun will take up that much more space, also higher velocity HEP rounds can give you the same performance as a low velocity gun.

Where is it that the U.S is placing a mortar weapons system on a IFV.
How does Russia plan on getting it`s troops to the battle if they are not going to use BMP3, use BMP2 and BTR90?

I have called in artillery support on many occasions and have never had to waite 20 minutes for that support, Russian artillery is even more massive due to a constant barrage mode or if if they are in attack they are quite good at the rolling barrage mode, even after the cold war.

For small scale actions I can see the justification of having BMP3 providing there own indirect fire support, for a sizable conflict no, they need to either put in a high velocity 100mm gun or just go with a more effective auto cannon. Please do not get me wrong Chrom, the BMP3 is a good vehicle, it is my opinion that Russia could have gone to a more robust 100mm gun or auto cannon for it not to have to depend solely on ATGMs for armor defeating capability, or when a IFV gets real close then light em up with a autocannon.
If the Germans can do it with the Puma then surely Russia can do it.

 

[extern]

Mortars are good for only defensive poster. I just do not understand why Russia went with a low velocity 100mm for the BMP3, not all future combat is going to be small scale in nature, they do not carry enough ATGMS on this vehicle. They have tons of artillery in their order for battle, they have forward observers in specalized FISTV vehicle to call in any artillery support that they may need, a good high velocity 100mm would of been more of a true IFV killer, plus they could have a few HEP rounds on board to take out a occasional fixed structure or mass of troops.

If it's high balistic 100mm, so why not to go straight towards 125mm Sprut-like MG? anyway 100mm cant be enough against current MBTs and prospective heavy ICVs ... I think, the answer is: 'bcz there is more cheap, quick and effective solution against the current and prospective armored targets instead of changing caliber: to develop 100mm top-attack gun-launched ATGMs for'.

 

[eckherl]

If it's high balistic 100mm, so why not to go straight towards 125mm Sprut-like MG? anyway 100mm cant be enough against current MBTs and prospective heavy ICVs ... I think, the answer is: 'bcz there is more cheap, quick and effective solution against the current and prospective armored targets instead of changing caliber: to develop 100mm top-attack gun-launched ATGMs for'.

Agreed inregards to the gun except for one thing, what IFV that is out there can take a hit from a high velocity 100mm round without getting gutted out, the Puma is good, but not that good, she isn`t designed to go up against tanks but to punch out other less vehicles and helicopters.

Give me your personnal opinion Extern - are you content with the weapons systems on the BMP3 or do you feel that they could of just kept it at a more armored vehicle killer

 

[Waylander]

For me it is just a question of weight and dimensions.
I have to say I like the concept behind the weapons mix of the BMP-3.

But is a mix of 30mm autocannon, 100mm low pressure gun and tube launched ATGMs worth the space and weight compared to a 35mm + external ATGM mix?

For me this is debatable.

The 30mm operates at the limit of usefullness against enemy IFVs (Because of this I would also like to see a 35 or 40mm on the Puma).
And 100mm tube launched ATGMs are not able to reach the same capabilities like conventional launched ATGMs due to their restrictions in dimension.

I agree that you don't have the same fire support capability like with the BMP mix but you have:
- more ammo for your autocannon
- better ATGMs (Which can also be used for fire support when using dumb rounds like the ones which are under developement for Spike and Javelin)
- The ability to go head on against enemy IFVs without needing to use your ATGMs which are slower and more restricted in numbers and can be easier defeated by an APS
- Less space and weight.

And it is nice to see how much the payload is increased when using 35-40mm instead of 30mm.

 

[eckherl]

I don`t know - my personnal opinion is that a IFV commander has his hands full with lurking helicopters and armored vehicles, I would rather leave the indirect fire role to the big guns, please keep in mind I am thinking I guess along the lines of fighting the mother of all battles with sizable armored vehicles on both sides. (I blame it on that Cold war syndrome that I must still have)

 

[Waylander]

Are you responding to me?

I never said anything about using IFVs for indirect fire support and I totally agree with you that the current tasks of an IFV commander are a fulltime job.

 

[eckherl]

Are you responding to me?

I never said anything about using IFVs for indirect fire support and I totally agree with you that the current tasks of an IFV commander are a fulltime job.

Sorry - yes I was responding to you. I just have a hard time buying into the BMP3`s 100mm gun capabilities in re gards to HE support.

 

[oskarm]

Oh, I forgot to say you 'thanks' for this exellent info, oskarm! It's first time I saw a professional judgment about the BMP-3 frontal protection. It's worth to bring it here separately: BMP-3 =150mm RHE, BMP-3+ (modernised)=175mm RHE, BMP-2+ (modernised) =100mm RHE. Of course it means the hull bcz I still think, the turret has traditionaly weaker armor on the Russian vehicles.

I think you should inform engeeniers from Nistali about your knowlage. They claims:
Protection against AP bullets:
- 12.7mm B-32 AP bullets - point-blank;
- 14.5mm B-32 AP bullets - at 50m.
Hull protection against 30mm AP ammunition at firing angles of ±30° at 0m.

source: http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/bmp_en.htm#2 Please note that 30mm AP has penetration like 50-60 mm of RHA at 1000m. It's not APFSDS with penetration 100-120mmm of RHA.

TM's about Bradlay says that in frontal arc it is protected against AA autocanons (so I think it is rather against 23mm API).

For example: Ulan's at weight of 29 tons has
Ballistic protection: Cal. 30 mm x 173 APFSDS @ 1,000 m horizontal, lateral range of +/-15° frontal
- Cal. 14.5 mm x 114 API @ 500 m horizontal all-around
- Cal. 7.62 x 51 mm AP (WC) @ 30 m horizontal all-around
surce: http://www.steyr-ssf.com/pdfs/_2_Specifications_Ulan.pdf

 

[Waylander]

I don't see the 100mm of the BMP as an indirect fire support weapon and because of this I was confused.

In the end you will always get better results during fire support when using low pressure guns than when using high v0 guns of the same calibre.
Low pressure guns just don't have to use that much space for the propulsion charge and so have more space for the payload itself.

But as I said before I find the idea behind the weapon mix of the BMP-3 interesting but I more advantages when using a more traditional mix of a good autocannon (With a good payload for HEs, ABMs and APFSDS) and external ATGMs with intelligent AT ammo and dumb cheap ammo for blowing holes into walls, etc.

 

[eckherl]

I don't see the 100mm of the BMP as an indirect fire support weapon and because of this I was confused.

In the end you will always get better results during fire support when using low pressure guns than when using high v0 guns of the same calibre.
Low pressure guns just don't have to use that much space for the propulsion charge and so have more space for the payload itself.

But as I said before I find the idea behind the weapon mix of the BMP-3 interesting but I more advantages when using a more traditional mix of a good autocannon (With a good payload for HEs, ABMs and APFSDS) and external ATGMs with intelligent AT ammo and dumb cheap ammo for blowing holes into walls, etc.

I know that it is not a howitzer so not being a true indirect fire gun, but this is what it seems what target arrangement that they are shooting at besides firing a few ATGMs. I personally wouldn`t go for a 100mm high velocity either, but with break throughs in propellant designs I would think that it would be feasable to come out with a shortened Anti armor style round if you could comphesate for the recoil.

 

[Chrom]

I do not see why you think that a higher velocity gun will take up that much more space, also higher velocity HEP rounds can give you the same performance as a low velocity gun.

Trust me, it is. Weight of the gun, recoil, associated weight of turret... That alone will be in 5-6t class. Add another 3-4t increase in chassis to carry that weight and you get +10t instantly. Thats just experience.

Where is it that the U.S is placing a mortar weapons system on a IFV.
How does Russia plan on getting it`s troops to the battle if they are not going to use BMP3, use BMP2 and BTR90?

USA mortar http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav-mc.htm
Note, there is also a version with high-ballistic 105mm MG. But that version is protected only against .50 cal, and carry just 18 ammo shells. Now, given what most of these shells will be APFSDS, that gun will be nearly useless in supporting infantry. In the other words, crap. As for transporting infantry - its indeed transported by BTR/BMP _TO_ battlefield but NOT IN battlefield under direct enemy fire. Thats said, in some ocassions it may be nessesary to do so, but commander must avoid it whenever possible.

I have called in artillery support on many occasions and have never had to waite 20 minutes for that support, Russian artillery is even more massive due to a constant barrage mode or if if they are in attack they are quite good at the rolling barrage mode, even after the cold war.

Man, its not only the question of masses. How long should you wait? 10 sec? 50 sec? 10 min? Again, thats ideal case. Your artillery may be just not there, it may be busy supporting another squad, it may be destoyed by enemy, you may not have nessesary tools to provide exact targetting to artillery, enemy might be too close, etc. Note, the artillery DID NOT replaced ATGM's. Contrary, ATGM's and RPG's are even more widespread and important now as ever. Why? Becouse these are direct fire support weapons with zero reaction time. Its just another thing. You cant substitute one with another.

For small scale actions I can see the justification of having BMP3 providing there own indirect fire support, for a sizable conflict no, they need to either put in a high velocity 100mm gun or just go with a more effective auto cannon. Please do not get me wrong Chrom, the BMP3 is a good vehicle, it is my opinion that Russia could have gone to a more robust 100mm gun or auto cannon for it not to have to depend solely on ATGMs for armor defeating capability, or when a IFV gets real close then light em up with a autocannon.
If the Germans can do it with the Puma then surely Russia can do it.

Hope i answered you why its even more important in full scale conflict. You concentrate too much on anti-IFV capabilty, when in modern battlefield anti-infantry capability is much more important. Or, better to say, current army have more than enouth anti-IFV assets in sub 2km class. Note, Russians BMP-3 DID NOT depend on ATGM's for anti-IFV job. 30mm can still do its job against most NATO IFV's. 100mm cannon can fire HEAT and HE shells what can penetrate any IFV. GUN LAUNCHED ATGM"s are threat not only to enemy IFV's, but also to MBT's. And not only to sub 2km, but up to 5km. I cant see how high-ballistic cannon will increase BMP-3 anti-IFV capability. I mean, if 4 to 8 ATGM's what nearly always hit is not enouth - than how it will be 8 to 16 APFSDS enouth? And add here ATGM's what are carried by infantry squad - and you get the picture.

P.S. Well, even you admit what 100+ mm high-ballistic gun may be usefull ONLY in full-scale conflict, and even then only against equal opponent what also should have masses of heavy protected IFV's (or your gun will be overmatch). Huh, i dont see these kind of conflicts around. Whereas common approach with mortars is ALWAYS usefull. And, should i say, ALWAYS MORE usefull (debatable).