Calibre of the IFV gun

[Waylander]

That would depend on actually what type of contact that they have, if they are coming up against a mechanized unit then I see your point, but if they are clearing out wood lines or towns or villages then they are sitting ducks inside of their IFV`s, there may be occasions where you have no choice but to dismount to clear out a well entrenched enemy.

BMP`s series vehicles are designed for carrying infantry to the battle, and you are right, with the offensive style tactics that are used by Russian forces or any sizable NATO armored force why dismount if you do not have to, let your artillery keep them pinned in place while you out manuver or by pass them. The name of the game is to eat up as much real estate that you safely can do without out running your supporting units and make your opponent react to your moves, be it offensive or defensive, if he has to react to your moves by throwing in additional assets or reserve units then he has lost the game. Dammit - I wish I could get back in a tank!

I totally agree with you.

I just wanted to show that you just cannot say that the BMP is not designed to carry infantry under fire.
It totally depends on the situation and I just stated some situations were also BMPs are used for transporting infantry during a battle without dismounting.

 

[Chrom]

No transport under direct fire with the BMP series?

I really doubt that.
Infantry is not going to dismount as soon as a mixed column of Ts and BMPs gets contact with an enemy mech force.
Otherwise they would be sitting ducks if the contact occurs in open field.
And speed is also an important factor. You are not going to dismount if you just breach one enemy line. There is a reason for the loopholes in the BMPs.

I see a lot possible situations were infantry has to be carried under fire especially when I consider the fast combined arms style used by russian forces.

They will dismount as soon as they encounter enemy forces. Even in open field infantry is much safer and much more usefull than inside BMP. Thats said, there are situations of course when they will not dismount, but same could be said about simply unarmored truck. Still, soviet tactic did not suggest breaching enemy lines under direct fire with BMP-3 with infatry inside. The enemy capable of direct fire should be destroyed prior to transporting troops, and BTR/BMP armor in that case is enouth to protect troops against indirect artillery fire splinters.
P.S. Understand it - transporting troops under direct enemy fire is EMERGENCY situation for BMP. As such, its not optimized for that task. The same way the simply bus is also capable of transporting troops under fire - its just better not doing so.

 

[Chrom]

I thought everyone was getting out of DU ammunition except for U.S and Russia.

Nope. Everyone trying to replace DU ammo for small-scale conflicts, while keeping large stocks of DU ammo for big hot wars. But only NATO (USA) use DU in "peacekeeping" wars - barbaric behavior from my POV.

 

[Waylander]

This is not what they told us.

If the enemy has a small time window he is not going to dismount at every mech contact in open field.

See it like this.

An overstrength company of Ts and BMPs run into a defense position held by a mixed company of Leos and Marder.

They exchange fire and when the russians close too much the Leos retreat into the next position.
This would be ideal.

The normal countertactic for this is that the attacker advances as fast as possible to close the gap as soon as possible. This makes an organized retreat for the defender very difficult and often enough the attacker eats up the whole defense when he is fast enough.
And the defender might also be forced to leave its mech infantry behind.

But if you always dismount your mech infantry you give the defender the time he needs.

This runs into the total opposite of how sovjets try to overcome enemy defenses.

 

[eckherl]

Nope. Everyone trying to replace DU ammo for small-scale conflicts, while keeping large stocks of DU ammo for big hot wars. But only NATO (USA) use DU in "peacekeeping" wars - barbaric behavior from my POV.

HA HA - that is not the case, everyone is getting out of DU type projectiles due to health and environmental issues, exception being U.S, Russia maybe China and a few others. Still trying to confirm if Pakistan is using them. What type of DU ammunition are we using in Iraq or Afhganistan, zero.

 

[Waylander]

France definitely has their own DUs.

But you are right when stating that the Brits get out of it with their change from L30 to L/55. But they could easily use US stocks.

 

[eckherl]

France definitely has their own DUs.

But you are right when stating that the Brits get out of it with their change from L30 to L/55. But they could easily use US stocks.

One of the issue`s that we are having test firing 829 series penetrators is that they can become erratic in flight when fired out of the L55. I was also told that France wanted to switch to Tungsten and get out of DU also. But if the sh_t hits the fan then I do not think people will be caring what is being fired, including Germany.

 

[Waylander]

I never heard of any tests done with M829A3 and L/55 so my knowledge there tends to nothing.

But it would be interesting to see the shere power of a stable M829A3 fired out of a L/55 if the problems can be solved.

 

[Manfred]

Well, this in interesting...

If America's enemies cannot deal with DU rounds, they will buy a political solution and ban it's use buy purchasing public outrage. (Hey, it worked for the neutron bomb, and might work for global warming)

Can we expect to see a return to Dr. Gerlich's squeeze-bore? I thought Tungsten was a very cool round, and a neat idea for engineers.

Is the high-low pressure gun still around? The Belgian 90mm always looked like that type of cannon to me.

 

[eckherl]

Well, this in interesting...

If America's enemies cannot deal with DU rounds, they will buy a political solution and ban it's use buy purchasing public outrage. (Hey, it worked for the neutron bomb, and might work for global warming)

Can we expect to see a return to Dr. Gerlich's squeeze-bore? I thought Tungsten was a very cool round, and a neat idea for engineers.

Is the high-low pressure gun still around? The Belgian 90mm always looked like that type of cannon to me.

The problems at the current time is that Tungsten penetrators tend to mushroom or bend, thus is the reason why we haven`t gone to it yet.

 

[eckherl]

I never heard of any tests done with M829A3 and L/55 so my knowledge there tends to nothing.

But it would be interesting to see the shere power of a stable M829A3 fired out of a L/55 if the problems can be solved.

They tend to waffle a little bit in flight.
But oh yea - you come out with a DU round specifically for the L55, that would have outstanding penetration power.

 

[Waylander]

They say that with their new WHA mix in the DM53/63 the tendency to mushroom is now much more limited and that it more behaves like a DU round.

In the end that's what the company says...

 

[Chrom]

HA HA - that is not the case, everyone is getting out of DU type projectiles due to health and environmental issues, exception being U.S, Russia maybe China and a few others. Still trying to confirm if Pakistan is using them. What type of DU ammunition are we using in Iraq or Afhganistan, zero.

Did you actually readed what i wrote? Yes, everyone trying to get away. Even at the expence of perfomance and cost. Still, most countries maintain large stock of DU projectiles and continue producing and developing them - as right now DU projectiles are much cheaper than alternatives. BUT ONLY NATO actually USE THEM!!! Other countries (including Russia and China) use less hazardous alloys in actual fightings - even if these are worse and more expencive. I repeat - Russia have large stocks of DU ammo, and continue developing DU ammos. But Russia DONT use it due to ecological reasons.

 

[Chrom]

Well, this in interesting...

If America's enemies cannot deal with DU rounds, they will buy a political solution and ban it's use buy purchasing public outrage. (Hey, it worked for the neutron bomb, and might work for global warming)

Can we expect to see a return to Dr. Gerlich's squeeze-bore? I thought Tungsten was a very cool round, and a neat idea for engineers.

Is the high-low pressure gun still around? The Belgian 90mm always looked like that type of cannon to me.

There is already much hype about using DU rounds, and especeally in European medias. Thats said, nothing can be banned on international level without USA assistance, and even then USA will pull out the treaty as soon as it serves them. Moreover, banning DU rounds is a bit like banning nuclear weapons use - its impossible without actually banning the nuclear weapon itself.

 

[Chrom]

This is not what they told us.

If the enemy has a small time window he is not going to dismount at every mech contact in open field.

See it like this.

An overstrength company of Ts and BMPs run into a defense position held by a mixed company of Leos and Marder.

They exchange fire and when the russians close too much the Leos retreat into the next position.
This would be ideal.

The normal countertactic for this is that the attacker advances as fast as possible to close the gap as soon as possible. This makes an organized retreat for the defender very difficult and often enough the attacker eats up the whole defense when he is fast enough.
And the defender might also be forced to leave its mech infantry behind.

But if you always dismount your mech infantry you give the defender the time he needs.

This runs into the total opposite of how sovjets try to overcome enemy defenses.

As i said, there are cases when infantry doesnt dismount. But attacking prepared position is not one of them. If there are heavy enemy fire expected, and NOTHING could be made to avoid/suppress it (shouldnt be the case in the attack, but for the sake..) then infatry will go in BTR/BMP 2nd wave. 1st wave will either dismount or be without infatry inside. Again, we always can think out rare cases where its nessesary to transport infanrty under direct enemy fire. BUT its not a primary function of IFV's, commanders will try to avoid it as much as possible - and so many compromises in the transport function of BMP was made. Think about it - the designers desided what greater firepower, better armour and mobility is usefull in much higher number of cases than better troop transporting ability.

 

[extern]

Sorry but I believe more to Nistalis' employees then western experts. For me it's clear that their data includes both basic an additional Armour.

It's your choice... but agree with me, it isnt logical to bring source (even it's from Sweden), that you dont fully sure in its competence.

However, I'm still dont see any contradiction between the two, because NIIStali wrote then nothing about a thikness of BMP-3 armor in steel equivalent. So I still beleive to both source, but their information need be put in order: the frontal thikness of BMP-3+ (modernised)=150-170mm HSE (sweden source you brought) and can withstand against any 30mm (NIIStali) but not against 40mm APFSDS (according to the Swedens).