2S38 Derivatsiya-PVO 57-mm SPAAG

This 2S38 based in the BMP-3 seems not for Russia.

The adoption and procurement of a combat armoured vehicle based on the BMP-3 platform under the State Armament Program 2018-2025 seems unlikely to me.

I expect to see only the adoption and procurement of new combat armoured vehicles of the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang, BMD-4M and Typhoon 6x6 platforms plus some armoured truck (mostly armoured cabins to replace the tractor elements of Surface-Surface, Surface-Air and Artillery systems that today have unarmuered wheeled tractor elements).

eehnie wrote:
This 2S38 based in the BMP-3 seems not for Russia.

The adoption and procurement of a combat armoured vehicle based on the BMP-3 platform under the State Armament Program 2018-2025 seems unlikely to me.

I expect to see only the adoption and procurement of new combat armoured vehicles of the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang, BMD-4M and Typhoon 6x6 platforms plus some armoured truck (mostly armoured cabins to replace the tractor elements of Surface-Surface, Surface-Air and Artillery systems that today have unarmuered wheeled tractor elements).

Aren't BMD-4M and BMP-3 are pretty similar?

And why only 140 rounds of ammo?

This vehicle is likely not for the Russian Army... it seems to be for the PVO or Aerospace Defence Forces so using the BMP-3 platform makes sense.

Over time it might be adopted in some form by the Army, but will be data linked up the ying yang and probably have missiles and radar mounted on it too for army use.

And why only 140 rounds of ammo?

Because 57mm shells are enormous and ammo handing equipment would take up a lot of space inside the vehicle.

Note those models in the images look like BMD-4M vehicle chassis and seem to have three hatches in the front hull which suggests unmanned turrets.

This would be a very powerful vehicle for the airborne... as well as airfield security on air bases... a single hit would ruin the day of any helo or light aircraft...

GarryB wrote:
Because 57mm shells are enormous and ammo handing equipment would take up a lot of space inside the vehicle.

I think 140 is a little less amount ammo considering the RoF

The 2S31 also based in the BMP-3 platform was rejected at the begin of the 2011-2020 State Armament Program. And was rejected for the entire Russian Armed Forces.

Like the 2S31, the 2S38 seems also an artillery piece to export.

I think 140 is a little less amount ammo considering the RoF

You are clearly not familiar with Anti aircraft gun systems...

The Shilka carries about 2,000 rounds of ready to fire ammo but each of the four cannon fire 1,000 rpm... meaning 30 seconds of ready to fire ammo.

Tunguska has a similar amount of ammo on board but each of the two twin barrel 30mm cannon fire between 2,000 and 2,500 rpm.

A paper rate of fire of 120rpm means 140 rounds would last more than one minute if it ever fired continuously... which it wont.

The barrel would melt and droop.

With modern fire control system and air burst shells and guided shells a shell or three would be fired and the results assessed... against many targets that would be enough.

Like the 2S31, the 2S38 seems also an artillery piece to export.

This is a high velocity anti armour gun, not artillery... and fitting it to a BMD chassis means airborne or naval infantry while its potential for anti aircraft use also suggests Aerospace Defence Force use too.


Ignore the vehicle chassis platform... we are talking about a new modular turret system for AA use or possible anti armour use or both.

This is potentially a new IFV turret, or a new SPAAG turret or possibly both... though I would expect the new SPAAG turret to have radar sensors too.

GarryB, the 2S38 is not an artillery piece? I think you need to remember what the designation 2S38 means.

Being on the BMD-4M platform would be a different piece of air defense artillery with a different designation. Then it would have some chance if the weapon is good enough.

GarryB, the 2S38 is not an artillery piece? I think you need to remember what the designation 2S38 means.

You are confused regarding the name artillery.

It does not just mean gun.

The 2S6M is Tunguska and is a gun based airdefence system... you would not call it artillery because artillery is much heavier calibre used most of the time in indirect fire roles.

This system (2S38) is primarily an anti aircraft gun with anti armour performance as a bonus because it will also be used on IFVs.

In other words it will be a high velocity direct fire weapon... much like the German 88mm flak gun of WWII where its high velocity for Anti aircraft use made it effective against armour.

@robognus

This forum is English an language forum... you can post other languages but please include english summaries or translations.

The idea of a nose of a projectile to steer a guided projectile is not new and would be rather less effective on a larger calibre like 57mm rounds as these rounds slow down fairly rapidly and don't leave the muzzle at high speed in the first place.

A full calibre 57mm guided round will probably only be moving at about 900m/s and so for much of their flight... 6km plus will likely actually be subsonic... where a flexible nose wont offer enough turning performance to hit moving targets.

Some stats on the 2S38...

max effective horizontal range: 6km
max effective vertical range: 4.5km
max speed of target 500m/sec
Max rate of fire 120rds/min (carries 148 rds)
Gun elevation -5 / +75 deg
3 man crew

With timed fuses it would be excellent for shooting at UAVs.

In the direct fire support role it would also be interesting.

The real question however for me is what does the ammo look like.

Can we assume it uses the same shape ammo as the S-60 AAG, or have they developed a new gun with a new round.

They will need all new rounds as the old 57mm rounds were conservative in design and much more powerful ammo could be created on the same basis now.

With new case design they could also develop a rather new rather more powerful weapon as well.

Love it! Looks very cyberpunk, like something out of Ghost in the Shell.

Hopefully it gets APFSDS from the get-go.

Most 57mm unmanned turrets I have seen have ATGMs witch suggests that it is an IFV turret most likely It will be used on the kurganets 25 and T-15 Armata and the use of epoch turrets on parade vehicles may have been because the 57mm was not ready at the time of construction.

The lack of any missiles or radar clearly indicates that it is not intended as an anti aircraft weapon although if using the T-15s radar it could be used as a very poor ad system if the commander would wish to do so.

I hope to see it on the T-15 soon a heavy IFV having the same weapon system as a wheeled APC is down right ridiculous.

Interlinked wrote:Love it! Looks very cyberpunk, like something out of Ghost in the Shell.

How does this vehicle look cyberpunk? The BMPT-72 looks like a sci-fi vehicle but the 2s38?

The-thing-next-door wrote:

How does this vehicle look cyberpunk? The BMPT-72 looks like a sci-fi vehicle but the 2s38?

It's the grey.

Interlinked wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

How does this vehicle look cyberpunk? The BMPT-72 looks like a sci-fi vehicle but the 2s38?

It's the grey.

What? I do not understand do you mean that if someone were to paint a T-35 grey it would somehow look futuristic?

The-thing-next-door wrote:

What? I do not understand do you mean that if someone were to paint a T-35 grey it would somehow look futuristic?

It has the same "feel" as the Object 782. If you don't get it, you don't get it. It's just a passing remark, and it doesn't deserve to be pursued further.

Interlinked wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:

What? I do not understand do you mean that if someone were to paint a T-35 grey it would somehow look futuristic?

It has the same "feel" as the Object 782. If you don't get it, you don't get it. It's just a passing remark, and it doesn't deserve to be pursued further.

Oh you mean it reminds you of the twin turreted street sweeper I thin I get it.

A 2S38 designation suggests it wont be an IFV, and further the listing of 148 rounds on board suggest to me the rear hull might just contain ammo for the main gun in an auto ammo handling system.

It could be a gun platform that operates with air defence vehicles and receives target data from those other vehicles.... ie TOR and Pantsir.

Keep in mind that the Tunguska designation is 2S6M, so they could be splitting the guns and missiles apart again, though this calibre would allow guided shells to be a standard option.

Cyberspec wrote:Some stats on the 2S38...

max effective horizontal range: 6km
max effective vertical range: 4.5km
max speed of target 500m/sec
Max rate of fire 120rds/min (carries 148 rds)
Gun elevation -5 / +75 deg
3 man crew

The ranges of this weapon would be inside the margin of ranges of the modern man-portable air defense weapons.

In Russia, in heavy platforms, today only would have a chance combined with other roles/weapons. It can be combined with infantry roles (in IFVs) or with some stronger air defense missile (going toward a Pantsir model or toward a BMPT model with some additional air defense capability).

Will the 57mm gun be standard?

BMPs are usually the grinders into witch nato would throw their infantry.

BMP-3 has a fast firing 30mm autocannon a low velocity 100mm and 3 7.62mm MGs all of witch are primarily anti infantry.

BMP-2 Brezhok has a fast firing 30mm autocannon a 30mm AGL and a 7.62mm MG it only has ATGMs incase it encounters something that is armored.

So will we be seeing 2 IFV types in the Russian army?

Bearing in mind the west has a extremely large supply of infantry and they are considered highly expendable.

Doubt it will be standard anytime soon.  It's under trial and considered experimental atm

GarryB wrote:

GarryB, the 2S38 is not an artillery piece? I think you need to remember what the designation 2S38 means.

You are confused regarding the name artillery.

It does not just mean gun.

The 2S6M is Tunguska and is a gun based airdefence system... you would not call it artillery because artillery is much heavier calibre used most of the time in indirect fire roles.

This system (2S38) is primarily an anti aircraft gun with anti armour performance as a bonus because it will also be used on IFVs.

In other words it will be a high velocity direct fire weapon... much like the German 88mm flak gun of WWII where its high velocity for Anti aircraft use made it effective against armour.

Anti-air artillery always has been artillery.

We can see very clearly that Zak-57 has 2 coaxial guns attached on 2 sides of the main gun. They look like 2A72 30mm gun but I am not sure. Do you know exactly what these guns are?

kopyo-21 wrote:We can see very clearly that Zak-57 has 2 coaxial guns attached on 2 sides of the main gun. They look like 2A72 30mm gun but I am not sure. Do you know exactly what these guns are?

Those are way too small to be anything other than a part of the support frame or part of the recoilling mechanism. They're also too long to be PKTM machine guns, and there is already one on the right side of the turret anyway.

They look like recoil struts to me to be honest...

It would not make sense to have coaxial 30mm high velocity guns with a 57mm high velocity gun as they would be rather redundant.

Having a low velocity 57mm grenade launcher with a high velocity gun would make sense... in this case it would be like the 30mm and the 100mm guns on the BMP-3... a small calibre high velocity gun to penetrate armour and a larger calibre low velocity gun for heavy HE shells against soft or area targets.

In this case however it seems they would not need a 30mm high velocity gun with a high velocity 57mm gun... the 57mm gun would have both a better HE round and a better armour piercing round... the only advantage the 30mm cannon would have is smaller more compact ammo and higher rate of fire.

Guided 57mm rounds would make higher rate of fire redundant, and a 30mm grenade launcher or 40mm grenade launcher would have even more compact ammo able to carry even more rounds with a different flight trajectory able to hit targets behind cover unlike the high velocity 57mm gun.

GarryB wrote:Guided 57mm rounds would make higher rate of fire redundant, and a 30mm grenade launcher or 40mm grenade launcher would have even more compact ammo able to carry even more rounds with a different flight trajectory able to hit targets behind cover unlike the high velocity 57mm gun.

Unguided 57mm rounds would already be good enough to make a higher rate of fire redundant, and low velocity grenade launchers aren't necessary for defeating targets behind cover/in trenches. It would be better to implement an advanced fuse with programmable delay to allow the shells to penetrate the barrier and explode on the other side. The same type of fuse would enable air bursting. You could fire a few rounds over a barrier (or through a window) and take out enemies that way, and this is very important in urban fighting. A low velocity grenade launcher would be able to lob grenades over a wall, but it would be pretty useless if there is a roof in the way. Low velocity grenade launchers would also be worse than high velocity autocannons against snipers bunkered down in high rises.