CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

^what's the one with a 20-30mm and a 90-100mm gun?
Vanilla BMP3, I seem to recall that it might actually be 94mm or something. I may be misremembering.
 
You have lost me again, but hang on to this thought

It is very easy to be busy, even easier to look busy and it is just as easy to do both without producing any useful output.

Light Cavalry is a poor light infantry solution looking for a problem.

Strike does not and can not exist as there is no appropriate equipment,
Disagree on light Cav

agree on Strike
 
148 rounds (and a 120 RPM ROF...) and weighing 6 tons, although that seems to be for the entire turret. In comparison the unmanned WCSP turret weighs 1.5 tons. See what I mean when I've been banging on about weight of auto-cannons, and how venturing above 35mm starts getting expensive fast?
And to what benefit?

As far as I can tell, there is no APFSDS nature for this gun (HVAP is fixed AP), so penetration is going to be around 100-110mm RHA - still no more a ‘tank killer’ than our own 40mm CTA.

I suspect this has been pushed out there as an upgrade/alternative to 30mm, or the ‘intermediate’ low velocity guns like 76mm on PT-76.

It saves them developing a new medium calibre round to compete with 40mm or super-50, but it comes at the price of a horrendous weight burden for gun and ammunition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
148 rounds (and a 120 RPM ROF...) and weighing 6 tons, although that seems to be for the entire turret. In comparison the unmanned WCSP turret weighs 1.5 tons. See what I mean when I've been banging on about weight of auto-cannons, and how venturing above 35mm starts getting expensive fast?
Is the 57mm capable of taking on MBTs ( not just older generation ones )

If not why is this being held up by 40mms chief critic as a great all singing idea in comparison to the 40mm on Ajax - logic says if he views 40mm as silly because its not enough to kill tanks and overkill for anything else then 57mm is even more so.
 
Is the 57mm capable of taking on MBTs ( not just older generation ones )

If not why is this being held up by 40mms chief critic as a great all singing idea in comparison to the 40mm on Ajax - logic says if he views 40mm as silly because its not enough to kill tanks and overkill for anything else then 57mm is even more so.
No.

Because it’s Russian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I suspect this has been pushed out there as an upgrade/alternative to 30mm, or the ‘intermediate’ low velocity guns like 76mm on PT-76.
My cynical brain says its a sales pitch to people who don't understand vehicle design. "Look those infidel Americans are going with 50mm auto-cannons, we can sell you a 57mm one! Bigger is better right!"

Also I didn't know about the cheap APCR only rounds, so thanks.
 

NemoIII

War Hero
Disagree on light Cav
Interested in why you disagree? I was Light Cavalry, having joined to actually drive "real" tanks.

As a JNCO it almost seemed like the whole thing was made up. The doctrine was a scrambled mess of Light Inf, Armoured Recce, and convoy protection.

I remember as a brand new Crowbag trooper parking my wagon in a wood block and walking 2km to set up a dismounted VCP. To this day I have yet to understand why you would leave your manoeuvre and firepower parked quite literally miles away.

It was sole destroying having joined to be a AFV crewman, to spend so much time walking around as a poor man's infantry. Have they got the doctrine nailed down yet? Haven't got a clue, but when I left it was still just making stuff up and claiming this was the Light Cavarlys ability to be so flexible.
 
And to what benefit?

As far as I can tell, there is no APFSDS nature for this gun (HVAP is fixed AP), so penetration is going to be around 100-110mm RHA - still no more a ‘tank killer’ than our own 40mm CTA.

I suspect this has been pushed out there as an upgrade/alternative to 30mm, or the ‘intermediate’ low velocity guns like 76mm on PT-76.

It saves them developing a new medium calibre round to compete with 40mm or super-50, but it comes at the price of a horrendous weight burden for gun and ammunition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From what I understand the Russian 57mm gun is intended for use in:

Anti-aircraft roles, including counter-UAV, replacing 30mm guns with one which has longer range and more bang. These would still be paired with missiles.

Replacing the 30mm guns in Terminator urban combat vehicles. The 30mm didn't have enough penetration into large buildings in places such as Aleppo. Size and weight aren't a problem in this case, as the Terminator is based on an MBT chassis.

Naval gun armament for small corvettes.

It's a multi-purpose gun, so it isn't necessarily optimised for any particular role, but instead is a compromise over several. The UK has no plans for a Terminator equivalent and would probably just buy the Bofors 57mm naval gun of one were desired for naval applications. For anti-aircraft use, I don't know what the UK has planned in terms of gun armament in this application, if anything.

From what little I've seen, the Russian 57mm and the UK/French 40mm CTA are intended for different purposes.
 
From what I understand the Russian 57mm gun is intended for use in:

Anti-aircraft roles, including counter-UAV, replacing 30mm guns with one which has longer range and more bang. These would still be paired with missiles.

Replacing the 30mm guns in Terminator urban combat vehicles. The 30mm didn't have enough penetration into large buildings in places such as Aleppo. Size and weight aren't a problem in this case, as the Terminator is based on an MBT chassis.

Naval gun armament for small corvettes.

It's a multi-purpose gun, so it isn't necessarily optimised for any particular role, but instead is a compromise over several. The UK has no plans for a Terminator equivalent and would probably just buy the Bofors 57mm naval gun of one were desired for naval applications. For anti-aircraft use, I don't know what the UK has planned in terms of gun armament in this application, if anything.

From what little I've seen, the Russian 57mm and the UK/French 40mm CTA are intended for different purposes.
I know the 57mm’s pedigree, but our Russian friends seem quite serious about its use as an up-gun for IFVs etc - which is what the Baikal AU-220 is marketed as (see our favourite fanboy’s comments above).






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Majorpain

War Hero
It was sole destroying having joined to be a AFV crewman, to spend so much time walking around as a poor man's infantry. Have they got the doctrine nailed down yet? Haven't got a clue, but when I left it was still just making stuff up and claiming this was the Light Cavarlys ability to be so flexible.
I always thought that the some Cav VSO went - "We have a load of spare vehicle crews and some cast offs from Herrick, put them together and find something for them to do before they get cut".

Im worried to see it makes as much sense on the inside as it does on the outside!
 
148 rounds (and a 120 RPM ROF...) and weighing 6 tons, although that seems to be for the entire turret. In comparison the unmanned WCSP turret weighs 1.5 tons. See what I mean when I've been banging on about weight of auto-cannons, and how venturing above 35mm starts getting expensive fast?
ROF is selectable, normal is 80rpm, but of course, it’s also got a single shot and burst mode - notes also 40CTA guns are only @200 rounds installed.
As well as duffing up armour and dismounts, it also provides a very robust AAA capability, (well it is a dedicated AAA gun), against helos, low flying fast movers and drones at a very credible range.
As always, the Russians do take careful note of how the real non PowerPoint battlefield is developing and take steps. Your AH-64 may be built to take hits from 20-30mm, but it most definitely isn’t 57mm proof.
 
I always thought that the some Cav VSO went - "We have a load of spare vehicle crews and some cast offs from Herrick, put them together and find something for them to do before they get cut".

Im worried to see it makes as much sense on the inside as it does on the outside!
I think you're probably closer to the truth than you realise :), but worthy of it's own thread probably.
 
ROF is selectable, normal is 80rpm, but of course, it’s also got a single shot and burst mode - notes also 40CTA guns are only @200 rounds installed.
As well as duffing up armour and dismounts, it also provides a very robust AAA capability, (well it is a dedicated AAA gun), against helos, low flying fast movers and drones at a very credible range.
As always, the Russians do take careful note of how the real non PowerPoint battlefield is developing and take steps. Your AH-64 may be built to take hits from 20-30mm, but it most definitely isn’t 57mm proof.
That's why hellfire has a much longer range.
 
I always thought that the some Cav VSO went - "We have a load of spare vehicle crews and some cast offs from Herrick, put them together and find something for them to do before they get cut".

Im worried to see it makes as much sense on the inside as it does on the outside!
I was going to comment on the exact same thing but then knew if i scrolled down, someone else would be as cynical and sharp as me!;)
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top