BMP-3 in Russian Army

An assault gun makes ilttle sense when you have UMPK 500/1000/1500/3000kg bombs at your disposal. The heavy direct fire siege artillery only came about during WW2 because airpower outside of dive bombers (which required highly skilled trained pilots) had dogshit accuracy.

But aircraft like the Il-2 and Su-25 essentially flying CAS missions with bombs and rockets and cannon provide the accuracy to take out hard points and problems for the ground forces moving forward.

Systems like the Tulip and the Malka exist because sometimes a bigger heavier shell is what is needed and sometimes you can't wait for air power or it is snowing and they can't find their own arses in the prevailing weather.

The reason the BMP-1 remained in use together with the BMP-2 and that the BMP-3 has a 100mm gun as well as a 30mm cannon is because sometimes a heavy HE shell is useful.

You don't need an assault gun when all the strongpoints have been deleted.

Yes, calls to the men to stand up and walk slowly through no mans land because artillery and machine guns have already taken out the enemy so you just walk slowly and try not to step on a land mine on your way to capturing the enemy trenches full of dead enemy soldiers...

When your men start walking towards the enemy position new machine gun positions and gun positions that remained silent before almost always open up... which is when a few ISU-152s come in handy with their sights set to 6km direct fire from behind the tanks moving forward to obliterate anything that opens up.

The one thing going for assault guns is that it is much cheaper and quicker to manufacture than a proper tank. You can also add more armour for better protection due to weight savings. For these very reasons I would seriously consider re-introducing the assault gun concept of old.

Modern front line tanks have 125mm guns which are not a lot less powerful than the assault guns of old, but I would say that in lieu of building custom designed assault guns you could simply use the communications your front line troops would now enjoy and have them call in laser homing 152mm shells on the targets they would use a 152mm gun on the front line against. Being able to lase the target for direct hits means a Coalition 30km behind the front line could be as accurate or even more accurate than an ISU-152 that is operating 6km behind the front line providing direct fire support.

For real fire power you could have a Tulip or Tulip replacement sitting 5km behind the front line dropping laser guided 130+kg bombs on the enemy... with the precision of a guided weapon such rounds would be devastating.

Assault guns had the advantage that they were cheaper and faster to produce than tanks.
Which is still important today.

A modern gun might have an unmanned gun mount that allows better elevation and a bit more traverse and an autoloader and auto ammo handler racking system where the three crew are just in the front hull as with the T-14 while the middle and rear are engine and ammo with a large box structure.

The point is that an assault gun does not need a high velocity round... a scaled up 203mm round based on the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 could be used to lob a super heavy shell a moderate distance to a nearby target. Perhaps even a 240mm mortar based gun but with a shorter heavier barrel designed to fire shells as well as current mortar bombs...

Hole wrote:Assault guns had the advantage that they were cheaper and faster to produce than tanks.
Which is still important today.

Not only that.
Every aviation sortie costs tens of thousands $.
War economy works.

It is very heavy, but 125mm and 152mm ammo would already be provided by tanks at the front line and the artillery vehicles that would support armoured groups.

The propellant charge would be variable but would not need to launch these shells enormous distances... in fact the very high velocity of the new 152mm rounds would work against them... the rather low velocity of the 240mm mortar means you can locate the vehicle within 10m of a large building and use the building for cover while landing shells nearly vertically downwards which improves their fragmentation pattern on the ground (which comes from the side walls of the round, so a near vertical impact means an even circular fragmentation pattern all around the point of impact), but also means you can drop shells between large buildings so there is nowhere to hide.

To achieve such performance with a 152mm round from a gun designed to fire at targets 80km away is easy to achieve by massively reducing the number of propellant charges you use so short range shots don't go up so high... spend less time in the air in cross winds and the like and have a much shorter flight path to the target.

Essentially any new 203mm gun would use similar small incremental propellant charges and the only difference with an assault gun is that it will carry the projectiles but probably far fewer propellant charges as fewer will be used with each shot and the much shorter barrel will also reduce firing range too.

Maybe a 160mm gun/mortar might be most suitable with 40kg HE rounds it is comparable to a 152mm round but over a much shorter distance while the shell rounds could be developed the same way they developed shell rounds for the 120mm mortar to create the Nona and Vena gun/mortar system.

The point is that the whole reason for being for an assault gun is to deliver a HE charge other platforms cannot... or should I say removing the HE rounds from tanks and putting them in a dedicated vehicle that sits further back from the front line...

Being based on the Armata vehicle it will be rather well armoured and with fully automated ammo handling and loading its structure wont need to be enormous or super thick.

Of course it raises the question as to whether the Armata mortar carrier is 120mm or 160mm or 240mm... and if that is the case, also therefore is the Coalition going  to be for Armata units or is it going to remain T-90 based and be used with lighter vehicles while the Armata units get a new 203mm Coalition based on the Armata platform, while the Kurganets and Boomerang get the truck based Coalition using the Kurganets and Boomerang engine and in the latter case the wheels and transmission etc.

I am sure they will be learning a lot from their Syrian and Ukrainian experience and new systems and equipment will be fast tracked and approved or cancelled where appropriate.

Assault guns would have specific purposes and could use loader vehicles to keep them firing for as long as they need to. The Russian armoured unit will have a range of guns within the unit and for supporting their attack as well as drones and attack helicopters and artillery and air power of course. These assault guns wont be instead of anything... they will be in addition to...

Tanks can move in cities, but their long guns are a obstacle in some cases, that´s why the proposed assault robot will get
a shortend gun.

Slow and heavy assault guns are also easy targets, even if they are protected by a "tortoise" superstructure like the Tsar-mangal. In such cases, a 155mm round or a drone with a bigger punch than current FPVs could potentially neutralize them.

Both good points... a robot assault vehicle with heavy HE rounds could be used as an assault gun, or if needed driven into an enemy position and detonated like a rather large bomb.

The weight of the projectiles means it would need full automation of loading and ammo handling so it would not need a huge fixed structure, and it wont be used as long range artillery so a shorter barrel with reduced propellant charges means more ammo and less propellent is used to engage closer targets... fully automating it would be interesting.

All vehicles on a modern battlefield will be vulnerable to all sorts of threats from ATGMs and rockets and mines and drones and air to ground munitions and cluster munitions etc etc, but modern ground based vehicles are going to need all sorts of levels of protection too from ERA and cages and APS systems and laser jammers to actual laser weapons to shoot down light drones, to smoke and chaff and IR decoys and jamming equipment and IR and radar camouflage kits... without a moving turret I would say cage protection and camo will be rather simpler to implement as well as armour options could be expanded too.

It does not matter how dangerous it gets on the front line you are always going to need men to take positions and hold positions and support convoys to keep them supplied and equipped and armed. Those supply convoys can be robotic and also protected from attack, but at the end of the day there are so many weapons and so many counter systems and weapons and counter counter measures that you are never going to be 100% safe no matter what you are sitting in.

For a while western experts claimed that Abrams tanks or the newest Leopards or the Challenger tanks were safe from everything, but nothing is... not even the T-14.

Just as there is no aircraft that can't be shot down, or no ship or sub that can't be sunk.

cancelled probably. A rear ramp door on its own wouldn`t improve survivability that much - the energetics in the Manul are still uncompartmentalized.

Unless they found something horribly wrong with the design I don't see why they would cancel it... it seemed to be a reasonable upgrade of the vehicle.

Not talking about what they have in production... as opposed to announcing what they have just sent to operational units or just completed production and delivered to the military is quite normal.

The-thing-next-door wrote:They have probably concluded that the armour is insufficient.

The sole title already classifies the whole shit.
"To counter Bradley" ...
Vanilla BMP3 tears M2 apart, as it is better armed and armored.
Who is putting this propaganda shit into people's heads?!?
Both M242 and 2A42 have ammunition capable of penetrating up to 100 mm homogenous steel, which is hell enough for an IFV.
A fukin Leopard 1 has as much, frontal.

It is big, first of all.
A beloved target of FPV operators, had to miss - is the most usual comment.

The Bradley is 50% heavier than the BMP-3 but in practice the difference in mass only results in the Bradley being slightly more resistant to 30mm autocannon fire. Literally anything that can kill a BMP-3/2 will kill a Bradley with the same ease.

lyle6 wrote:The Bradley is 50% heavier than the BMP-3 but in practice the difference in mass only results in the Bradley being slightly more resistant to 30mm autocannon fire. Literally anything that can kill a BMP-3/2 will kill a Bradley with the same ease.

M2 can't be "slightly more resistant" because it is much underarmored if compared to BMP3.
The thickest part of its frontal armor is 2.05 inch of old, '40s standard 5083 Al alloy.
BMP3 armor package is not only thicker but made of 40 years more modern ABT-102 alloy.

That is why I call this sort of shitty materials an overall propaganda campaign.
M2 is twice the weight, 1.5 the size, still less armored and much weaker armed than BMP3, so again the sole thing that can be applied here is propaganda crap all around.