BMP-3 in Russian Army

Save them for combat... they should be easy enough to use... by now the auto target tracker software should be part of the fire control system... so launching one should basically be selecting the target and pushing a button...

But still some still need to be fired during training lol. 

I did a little search online and found few articles 

http://googleweblight.com/i?u=http://defensepoliticsasia.com/gun-launched-anti-tank-guided-missiles/&hl=en-UG

in this article dated June 2018 the guy slams gun launched ATGW puts them done at every chance. Iny opinion the totally misses the concept and find his alternatives wrong as well as various other points. 

He talks as though they are a complete replacement of ATGW systems (man packable) he compares sabot rounds costs vs ATGW. and how tank battles are all about charging forward at fast speed and destroying everything and using this type of system slows things down. I wont rant on why he's wrong it's obvious. He states that for targets outwith tank gun range artillery is to be used. 

well he has no clue. Firstly you have to send coordinates and then artillery then set up coordinates and fire this all takes time and the artillery battery could have other fire missions to fulfill. Also it takes a handful of guns to take on one target using conventional shells when the job could be done by one bmp-3 firing a bastion also the chances of the artillery hitting a direct hit on the first salvo is unlikely while bastion is very likely to hit first time. another thing is that a small group of bmp-3 could engage multiple targets or fire 2-3 bastion  (a bastion each) at a mbt and take it out. artillery can only engage a target at a time after the first target destroyed the other enemy vehicles have already started moving. 

As for costs well the article states $25-40k not sure if this is in direct relation to bastion and other gun launched ATGW or if ATGW in general which would be completely wrong. But in another article I found its first mentions bastion then provides details on refleks such as diameter and range then gives a price of $37,500 which I presume going how it was laid out was the price of refleks so it's possible the mention of 25k in the other article was bastion and the 40k on refleks/svir either way if correct that still pretty cheap for ATGW missile AT-6 is more expensive at around 65-75k. 

but the whole point of the gun launched ATGW system is to allow the tank to engage targets at a range the normal gun can't.  In a sort of sniping role and only a handful are ever carried the way the guy was talking you would think that the tank only carried these and no tanks rounds were carried. He fails to see that this is a bonus and extra edge for the tank crew and I can't see how having an additional weapon/capability as bad but rather an advantage. 

below footage of SAA T-55 firing bastion at isis bunker the footage is a little blurry which is to be expected due to range dust heat etc. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns9DDn8ns0A&app=desktop

But still some still need to be fired during training lol.

To be honest the area they were operating in for this doco doesn't have a long enough range to justify using an anti armour missile.

During real training I would suspect they fire some off as standard... even if just to use up old stock...

The ammunition is not the same as any other weapon but the missile is a standardised model used in the 100mm gun of the T-54/55, the 100mm smoothbore gun of the MT-12, the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and of course the 115mm gun of the T-62... different names for the different platforms but the same actual missile called 9M117M.

As for costs well the article states $25-40k not sure if this is in direct relation to bastion and other gun launched ATGW or if ATGW in general which would be completely wrong. But in another article I found its first mentions bastion then provides details on refleks such as diameter and range then gives a price of $37,500 which I presume going how it was laid out was the price of refleks so it's possible the mention of 25k in the other article was bastion and the 40k on refleks/svir either way if correct that still pretty cheap for ATGW missile AT-6 is more expensive at around 65-75k.

Hilarious... and which American company sells them these missiles for these prices in American dollars?

Me, dusty on the ground, and with no bottom after rolling on the floor laughing my arse off...

AT-6 missiles have been out of service for 20 years... they were replaced by Atakas years ago and Atakas are getting replaced by Krisantema...

There is no way in hell the AT-6 missile was ever that expensive... that is what Javelins cost...

Keep in mind the Russians export Metis-M1 for $13,000 per missile so that will include an enormous profit for the maker...

but the whole point of the gun launched ATGW system is to allow the tank to engage targets at a range the normal gun can't. In a sort of sniping role and only a handful are ever carried the way the guy was talking you would think that the tank only carried these and no tanks rounds were carried. He fails to see that this is a bonus and extra edge for the tank crew and I can't see how having an additional weapon/capability as bad but rather an advantage.

He is making the same mistake America made with gun launched ATGMs... their missiles cost more than an entire TOW system mounted on an upgraded M113 vehicle... the Sheridan tank was a complete piece of shit because they designed the missile and then they designed a gun and a tank around the missile.

It was a complete disaster... the gun was bloody useless for anything but firing the super expensive missile and after driving around a bit things got bumped and damaged and nothing actually worked.

It was deployed to several combat zones but there is no record of a single successful launch of the missile which was the primary purpose of the whole programme.

It fired a few low velocity 152mm rounds unique to that vehicle alone when deployed... though one model M-60 was modified to carry it but was found to be just as useless...

On paper a mach 2 152mm calibre anti tank missile able to take out any enemy tank to long range.

In practise it was expensive crap... the billions wasted on a system that in the end was totally inferior to TOW missiles mounted on an M113 chassis.

The difference with the Soviet and Russian models is enormous... first of all they work. Second of all they are not intended to make the tanks missile tanks... they are just another type of ammo these vehicles can use if the target suits. Third, they were not super expensive for what they could offer... and they were effective against enemy helos... which gives them a whole new capability.

They are loaded as standard rounds of ammunition in standard ammo trays with no special handling or issues.

The US equivalent is copperhead which has pages and pages of handling notes... the Krasnopol is handled like a standard round of ammo in a standard ammo handler.

The copperhead has to have full checks and the optical cap is removed and inspected for damage before loading and given a quick clean before being carefully loaded into the gun for firing.

The Krasnopol has its cap left on... the cap is jettisoned in flight so does not need inspection or cleaning before being loaded... it is loaded as a standard round of ammo and is autoloaded in guns with autoloading...

Nice.

So to be clear this new turret has long range ATGMs in the form of four ready to launch Kornet missiles with supersonic flight speed, and a flight range of 10km for the HE warhead version and 8.5km for the anti armour HEAT model. It also has a 57mm long barrel grenade launcher firing enormous HE rounds reportedly of the same power level as 76.2mm artillery shells, plus a retractable launcher for new generation short range guided anti armour missiles.


This is an IFV so it is clear they want a split in weapons and systems... the large number of anti tank guided missiles suggests they want long range precision capability against armour and possibly aircraft, while I suspect the 57mm grenade launcher offers a much better HE punch than the much higher velocity 57mm gun they are also developing for IFVs.

This makes sense as most battlefield targets can be dealt with using a significant HE bomb, rather than a high velocity penetrator.

The combination of mini ATGMs and standard ATGMs means armour threats can be dealt with effectively enough and it means a more effective HE capacity for other softer or area targets.

This would be excellent for use against threats that don't have a lot of armour or air power.

For WWIII against a well armoured enemy the main change would likely be the 57mm medium pressure grenade launcher would be replaced with a high velocity 57mm gun...

In an interesting way the grenade launcher armed BMP sort of uses the 57mm grenade launcher as a mini 100mm gun to deliver HE rounds in direct fire mode, and mini missiles for point armoured light targets (like enemy IFVs), and large ATGMs (kornet) for any tanks or helos encountered.

The high velocity 57mm gun armed BMP could use its high velocity gun against enemy light armoured targets (which it should encounter in greater numbers) leaving the mini and large ATGMs for air threats and enemy tanks...

it will be interesting to see the integration of the unmanned turret from the inside of the vehicle. It would be an added benefit to see more space inside the hull for the dismounts and their gear.

But why?

They have the Kurganets-25

These turrets will be mounted on Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon... it will likely be a mix with both IFV turrets having either the 57mm grenade launcher or the 57mm high velocity main gun... the former being like a BMP-1 but probably with missiles instead of HEAT rounds, while the latter is the BMP-2 with a high velocity 57mm gun able to penetrate enemy IFVs the way the BMP-2s 30mm cannon could in the 1980s... for anything heavier it will likely have a dozen or more ATGMs (big and small).

It makes sense to retrofit the new turrets onto the older vehicles as it improves standardisation... all IFVs will end up with these two turrets... it will be the same with the Armata tank turret being used on the Boomerang and Kurganets and Typhoon... with perhaps a modified version for retrofitting to T-90 and T-80 tanks eventually.

So so far we have the turret with the 30mm cannon for APCs, the HMG mini turret... perhaps for prime movers and other vehicles like command vehicles, these 57mm gun armed vehicles for IFVs, and of course the 125mm gun armed models as tanks or fire support vehicles... eventually to use a new 152mm main gun. The 152mm armed Coalition artillery vehicle for tube artillery, and likely some version of Tornado and TOS for rocket artillery. There will also be engineer vehicles and of course air defence (missile with TOR and gun and missile with Pantsir, though in Typhoon they might use SOSNA instead for reduced weight).

For the BMP-3, an extended range missile

Moscow. January 26th. INTERFAX-AVN - A new high-explosive fragmentation projectile, Vishnya-M, is being developed for the combat module Bakhcha, which is used on the BMP-3, according to materials on the public procurement portal.
According to the data of the portal, the development work "Development of a 100-mm shot with a high-explosive high-explosive fragmentation projectile to the substation 2A70" is currently under way. Experimental design work (OCD) was named "Cherry-M".
The tender documentation states that the ROC is scheduled to be completed by the end of March 2019. In its course should be tested prototypes. During the tests, the projectile will be compared with products 3UOF17 ("Fable") and 3UOF19 ("Cherry").
"Fable" was developed by JSC "NIMI them. VV Bakhirev" (included in "Tehmash"), its range is 4 km. "Cherry" was created by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau, its maximum range is 6.5 km. The shells are designed for use in the combat module "Bakhcha" mounted on the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3 and its modifications.
The BMP-3 is a Russian infantry fighting vehicle. At various times, it was exported to Azerbaijan, Algeria, Iraq, Venezuela, Indonesia, Cyprus, Kuwait, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates.

http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=500440

Modernized BMP-3's (BMP-3M) spotted at the rehearsal for the military parade in St. Petersburg, in honor of the 75th anniversary of the lifting Siege of Leningrad...



Note gunner sight complex Sodema, and PL-1-01 laser beamer.

More photo's at :
https://dishmodels.ru/wshow.htm?p=3696

Did the USSR/Russia ever produce APFSDS rounds for the 2A42/2A72?

BMP-3's in St. Petersburg victory parade rehearsals.
Left : standard version
Right : upgraded version with gunner sight complex "Sodema" and  PL-1-01 laser beamer for commander sight.

Second time we see upgraded BMP-3's in St. Petersburg.
I have seen none at Alabino tho.

Did the USSR/Russia ever produce APFSDS rounds for the 2A42/2A72?

They had APT and APDS rounds... the APT can penetrate 20mm of armour at 60 degrees at 700m and the APDS 25mm at 60 degrees at 1,500m according to the maker.

This is from an advert in 2000, so they have probably developed better rounds by now but may or may not have put them in service.

BMP-3M's for Iraq. Note the spaced armor on the hull sides.

^^^
Beefed up considerably....are they still amphibious?

Hard to tell if they are still amphibious, but spaced armour can include air cells that add to buoyancy and the grill armour is not that heavy.

Sounds a bit weird but that grill armour means the crew can pack stuff in the gap between but tie it on so it does not fall out... stuff like mattresses or sleeping bags to make life a bit more comfortable...

Russia’s BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle to get extra armor after Syria combat experience

There are plans to sign the relevant contract for the delivery of such armor sets for the Russian troops, the chief designer said

https://tass.com/defense/1065828

Experimental BRM-3K with Au-220 module

BMP-3M's perform tactical maneuvers on the Karpovka River during a demonstration lesson at the Prudboy training ground in the Volgograd Region.

Photo: Kirill Braga.


Good to see proliferation of upgraded BMP-3's.

BMP-3 with Epocha turret (background).

Interestingly it's main armament is the AGS-57 (basically a grenade launcher)

Well it makes sense for many vehicles in the IFV role the main gun has little to no anti tank capability anyway... mostly it is used against enemy vehicles and infantry, so a 57mm grenade launcher would offer a rather large and powerful HE round, while multiple missiles could be used to deal with targets out to extended ranges armoured or airborne.

I rather suspect the IFVs in the Russian units to be half and half with 57mm grenade launcher main guns as well as 57mm high velocity guns too...

GarryB wrote:Well it makes sense for many vehicles in the IFV role the main gun has little to no anti tank capability anyway... mostly it is used against enemy vehicles and infantry, so a 57mm grenade launcher would offer a rather large and powerful HE round, while multiple missiles could be used to deal with targets out to extended ranges armoured or airborne.

I rather suspect the IFVs in the Russian units to be half and half with 57mm grenade launcher main guns as well as 57mm high velocity guns too...

It'll be interesting to see the new 57mm grenade round. If it took the 57mm AA's rounds' overall length/width (and was uniformly that wide) but mostly filled with HE instead of propellant it would have amazing destructive performance, and could you imagine a thermobaric round?

The new 57mm grenade will have more BOOM! then the old 73mm grenade of the BMP-1.