Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-AA-Helos-Naval guns)

GarryB wrote:AFAIK the Mi28N is a modified aircraft of the 1980s.

I hope the Mi-28M  has all the electronics and sensors and systems upgraded to current, but as I said a more aerodynamic ammo storage option for the main gun would have been nice IMHO.

Even a change in calibre to the twin 23mm cannon of the new Hinds with smaller more compact ammo with lower recoil could have been a better option in my opinion... though information about how the gun is performing in Syria and Iraq would be useful to consider this option.

Hi, Garry

That's precisely my take on it as well. I just don't see the point in having a gun that so greatly reduces ammunition count, especially when one considers that the 30mm (like in the Apache) is only used against third world shepherds, pick up trucks and Toyotas. A 23mm would be able to achieve everything that the more powerful 30mm achieves while carrying far more ammo and producing far less recoil.

It should be a tier system:

The 23mm should be used against enemy personnel, APCs and last generation IFVs. I assume that the new laser guided 80mm rockets could better penetrate modern IFVs than even the 2a42 and the missiles can deal with the tanks.

The Russian 30 x 165mm round is huge and rather powerful... but most ground targets are engaged with HE shells.

The 23 x 115mm calibre has rather heavy projectiles for its calibre... the tradeoff is low muzzle velocity... but high muzzle velocity is rarely important when used against soft and medium ground targets.

Against hard targets a 30mm calibre is little use anyway.

The 23mm weapon is already used on new model Hinds and the ammo is as compact as HMG ammo so plenty could be carried.

If you really wanted to you could develop a high velocity APFSDS round for it, but I think that might be good for a IFV mounted HMG in that calibre or an anti material rifle in that calibre it would be not very useful for a helo.

GarryB wrote:The Russian 30 x 165mm round is huge and rather powerful... but most ground targets are engaged with HE shells.

The 23 x 115mm calibre has rather heavy projectiles for its calibre... the tradeoff is low muzzle velocity... but high muzzle velocity is rarely important when used against soft and medium ground targets.

Against hard targets a 30mm calibre is little use anyway.

The 23mm weapon is already used on new model Hinds and the ammo is as compact as HMG ammo so plenty could be carried.

If you really wanted to you could develop a high velocity APFSDS round for it, but I think that might be good for a IFV mounted HMG in that calibre or an anti material rifle in that calibre it would be not very useful for a helo.

Thanks for the answers, Garry.

I really am fond of the 23mm and it does seem to offer real-world benefits that can't be ignored. The ZU-23-2 still has much better muzzle velocity [970mps] than the Apache's M230 chai gun [805mps] and so it's already starting from a very strong position with many other great qualities. How much RHA penetration (at 500 m) could we expect from a high velocity APFSDS 23mm round?

Careful... the ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4 use a different round.

The ZU-23/ZSU-23-4 shell is a 23 x 152mm round with a long case with lots of propellent and a high muzzle velocity for shooting down aircraft.

It was developed from the 23mm cannon used on the Il-2 Shturmovik of WWII fame.

The 23 x 115mm calibre round uses the same projectile... which has a heavy HE projectile, but its much shorter case means much less propellent and lower muzzle velocity.

The advantage is the short case allows a lot more ammo to be carried and the low muzzle velocity allows a much higher rate of fire without all the problems of higher velocity rounds.

the 23 x 115mm round is used in air to air cannons as used on the MiG-21 and MiG-23... its high rate of fire and heavy projectile makes it very effective and the twin barrel guns that fire the round have a high rate of fire so fast moving targets are easier to hit with what is like a shotgun blast of shells.

It is not a super high velocity laser weapon... more a shotgun... which is very effective against small fast targets.

Note the late model Hinds use a twin barrel chin mounted 23mm gun in 23 x 115mm calibre where rate of fire is high and shell weight is good and recoil low.

AFAIK there is no current APFSDS in 23 x 115mm, but the 14.5 x 114mm round has a similar sized case and with a larger calibre you can push more energy down the barrel.

APFSDS rounds generally don't like muzzle brakes so a shift to 2A72 cannons instead of 2A42s might be required...

Generally I would say a full calibre APHE for targets like light vehicles and HE shells for soft targets would be the best solution... hard targets like IFVs and tanks would be better engaged with unguided rockets with guidance kits or ATGMs.

Russian command guided ATGMs are cheap enough to be used in enormous numbers without breaking the bank...

GarryB wrote:Careful... the ZU-23-2 and ZSU-23-4 use a different round.

The ZU-23/ZSU-23-4 shell is a 23 x 152mm round with a long case with lots of propellent and a high muzzle velocity for shooting down aircraft.

It was developed from the 23mm cannon used on the Il-2 Shturmovik of WWII fame.

The 23 x 115mm calibre round uses the same projectile... which has a heavy HE projectile, but its much shorter case means much less propellent and lower muzzle velocity.

The advantage is the short case allows a lot more ammo to be carried and the low muzzle velocity allows a much higher rate of fire without all the problems of higher velocity rounds.

the 23 x 115mm round is used in air to air cannons as used on the MiG-21 and MiG-23... its high rate of fire and heavy projectile makes it very effective and the twin barrel guns that fire the round have a high rate of fire so fast moving targets are easier to hit with what is like a shotgun blast of shells.

It is not a super high velocity laser weapon... more a shotgun... which is very effective against small fast targets.

Note the late model Hinds use a twin barrel chin mounted 23mm gun in 23 x 115mm calibre where rate of fire is high and shell weight is good and recoil low.

AFAIK there is no current APFSDS in 23 x 115mm, but the 14.5 x 114mm round has a similar sized case and with a larger calibre you can push more energy down the barrel.

APFSDS rounds generally don't like muzzle brakes so a shift to 2A72 cannons instead of 2A42s might be required...

Generally I would say a full calibre APHE for targets like light vehicles and HE shells for soft targets would be the best solution... hard targets like IFVs and tanks would be better engaged with unguided rockets with guidance kits or ATGMs.

Russian command guided ATGMs are cheap enough to be used in enormous numbers without breaking the bank...

Hi, Garry

Thanks for this very informative post. The 23x115mm is a very good round and should be a very good alternative to the 30x165mm in Russia's attack helicopter fleet. It would more than double the on-board capacity. I noticed that helicopters like the Rooivalk and the AH-64 have to allow their autocannons to cool down for 10 minutes between 300 rounds, so could a GSH-6-23 type weapon (with a more sustainable rate of fire) truly remove this limitation?

Thanks for this very informative post. The 23x115mm is a very good round and should be a very good alternative to the 30x165mm in Russia's attack helicopter fleet. It would more than double the on-board capacity. I noticed that helicopters like the Rooivalk and the AH-64 have to allow their autocannons to cool down for 10 minutes between 300 rounds, so could a GSH-6-23 type weapon (with a more sustainable rate of fire) truly remove this limitation?

The Soviets analysed the data they collected from real combat in WWII and realised that while high velocity rounds are very good for anti armour use, it was shell weight and HE power that actually made them effective against soft targets when high velocity rounds would punch easily through but actually do not that much damage.

This led to the adoption of the 23 x 115mm round with low velocity and low recoil that could be fired from cannon at very high rates of fire without the vibration and problems with more powerful rounds.

Even so there were serious problems with the GSh-23-6 gun from the MiG-31, which was intended for short range use against small targets like cruise missiles.


One of the requirements of the twin barrel 23mm cannon on the new model Hinds was that it should be able to fire off the entire magazine of ammo without overheating.

The aircraft cannon of the Soviet union and now Russia are electrically fired so changing their rate of fire should not be too hard.

With a normal rate of 12,000 rpm the GSh-23-6 would need to be fired in short bursts to avoid overheating.... but then the only aircraft that carries it as an internal weapon is the MiG-31 which carries only about 250 rounds of ammo anyway.

the twin barrel 23mm cannon fitted to the new model Hinds should be able to fire off their entire load of ammo without overheating... though they do fire at about 2,500 rpm.

From memory I think the late model Hinds carry about 870 rounds of 23mm cannon shells as standard.

Note the first Model D Hind with the four barrel 12.7mm gatling couldn't fire off its full load of ammo without overheating so they upgraded the gun and increased its weight from about 45kg to about 65kgs, which allowed it to fire continuously without overheating.

Garry B wrote:

The Soviets analysed the data they collected from real combat in WWII and realised that while high velocity rounds are very good for anti armour use, it was shell weight and HE power that actually made them effective against soft targets when high velocity rounds would punch easily through but actually do not that much damage.

This led to the adoption of the 23 x 115mm round with low velocity and low recoil that could be fired from cannon at very high rates of fire without the vibration and problems with more powerful rounds.

Even so there were serious problems with the GSh-23-6 gun from the MiG-31, which was intended for short range use against small targets like cruise missiles.


One of the requirements of the twin barrel 23mm cannon on the new model Hinds was that it should be able to fire off the entire magazine of ammo without overheating.

The aircraft cannon of the Soviet union and now Russia are electrically fired so changing their rate of fire should not be too hard.

With a normal rate of 12,000 rpm the GSh-23-6 would need to be fired in short bursts to avoid overheating.... but then the only aircraft that carries it as an internal weapon is the MiG-31 which carries only about 250 rounds of ammo anyway.

the twin barrel 23mm cannon fitted to the new model Hinds should be able to fire off their entire load of ammo without overheating... though they do fire at about 2,500 rpm.

From memory I think the late model Hinds carry about 870 rounds of 23mm cannon shells as standard.

Note the first Model D Hind with the four barrel 12.7mm gatling couldn't fire off its full load of ammo without overheating so they upgraded the gun and increased its weight from about 45kg to about 65kgs, which allowed it to fire continuously without overheating.

Hi, Garry

I really do love the fact that the Russians approach these matters methodically and make decisions on considered evidence. I recently read up on the GSH-6-23 and the troubles that it faced, but the GSH-23 seems like an incredible fit for attack helicopters especially if the rate of fire can be reduced to something more reasonable -- around 300-550 rds/min. The GSH-23 would be ideal considering that it doesn't overheat after over 800 rounds -- which is a lot better than the overheating that the M230 experiences after just 300 rounds.

Garry B wrote:
Being able to do the same job at less cost and with higher ready rates is not a bad thing.

The Ka-50 was probably better armoured than the Mi-28A but I suspect the Ka-52 is less well armoured than the Mi-28N.

The new model Mi-28NMs will have 360 degree radar... but to be honest they would be rather better protected by an Su-35 or MiG-35 flying top cover than just having their own radar...

The Mi-28 is a good attack helicopter and is cheaper and less maintenance heavy due to its less radical design and so it wins point for that, but the Ka-52 is a truly ideal attack helicopter with unique capabilities. There is only one other helicopter that I like as much -- the ever troubled Rooivalk but I found some claims about it (when compared to the Mi-28 and the Ka-52) a little strange.

The latter is best illustrated by its 5,545m "out-of-ground effect" hover ceiling (the height at which it can hover without the cushion of air caused by rotor downwash). The next best is the US Apache (3,866m), followed by the Russian Mi-28 and Ka-52 (3,600m); the Franco-German Tiger (3,200m) and the Chinese WZ-10 (2,000m). The Rooivalk also has the highest cruise speed, the best rate of climb and the best range/weapons load performance, and shares with the Tiger the best power to weight ratio, all factors critical in operations and combat.

Source: http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2016/01/21/developing-the-rooivalk-mk2-would-tick-many-vital-boxes

I find it terribly strange that the Rooivalk can apparently hover 5, 545m in out of ground effect even though it's more than half a ton heavier than the Apache and has less powerful engines even though the article claims that it has the best power to weight ratio. Question: could the Ka-52 reach 5, 545m if it was lighter? There are materials now that are stronger and lighter than steel but also crucially cheaper so the Ka-52 can be made lighter - perhaps as light as the Rooivalk but far more powerful. These recent breakthroughs have Soviet origins. Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/news/a13919/new-steel-alloy-titanium/

There are also new alloys that are as light as aluminum but as strong as titanium. Source: https://gadgtecs.com/2016/01/02/new-alloy-strong-titanium-light-aluminum/

I quite like the South African Helo, but those claims are a little weird.

First of all hover out of ground effect is not really of great importance... if you are flying at 5km altitude then a MiG-29 from 60km away will see you and shoot you down and there is very little you could do in return from that altitude.

From what I can tell the Rooivalk has a top speed of about 309km/h... both the Hokum and Havoc are faster and rather better armed with 30mm cannon and the new Hermes missiles offering 20km range.

Garry

I hope I'm not pestering you with my flurry of questions but I find you incredibly well informed. I know that the Mi-28 currently uses the 2a42 but if it was to use the 23×115 round instead with AFPDS, what kinds of speeds could we reasonably expect?

It is difficult to say for sure.

First I would mention that I don't actually know of any APFSDS rounds for the 23 x 115mm round.

The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for low velocity low recoil high rate of fire weapons... the purpose was to spray a dense pattern of heavy shells rapidly... high velocity high energy rounds meant recoil and short flight time to target, but did not improve lethality against air targets.

The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for aircraft use against enemy aircraft so the combination of heavy HE shell to maximise the effect of an impact along with a very high rate of fire in a small compact weapon were considered ideal.

Aircraft generally don't fire APFSDS rounds as the Sabot tends to damage engines when ingested in the air intakes.

For most modern helos the value of an armour piercing cannon is not enormous... there wont be an A-10 equivalent in rotary wing aircraft simply because a missile will do the job far easier and more reliably and at much greater range than any gun... range means keeping the helo safe.


A modern helo faces a range of targets that it has to be able to deal with but the average Havoc loadout generally will include 16 ATAKA missiles and 40 x 80mm unguided rockets plus 300 odd cannon shells.

The cannon is a good way to deal with quick soft targets, but ATAKA missiles are actually rather cheap and plentiful.

Ugroza will make unguided rockets accurate enough to be used to 4km or so and will be relatively cheap too.

In terms of hovering in out of ground effect... helos are not the best option in mountains... the wind can be more dangerous than enemy fire.

Over flat terrain helos wont fly at high altitudes... the whole point of a helo is to fly low to see the target and to avoid longer range ground fire.

Regarding performance of 23 x 115mm ammo.. if you look at US SLAP ammo for their 12.7 x 99mm ammo... you probably get an idea... the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round the Russians use has twice the muzzle energy and so the 23 x 115mm is a larger calibre so more energy can be pushed down the barrel.

In the 1980s I would say no because having APFSDS in 23 x 115mm would be of a totally different trajectory to any other ammo the weapon might fire as the standard HE round is heavy and only leaves short barrels at about 700m/s... whereas a sabot round will be small light penetrator dart and propellant and would likely have a muzzle velocity in the 1,400m/s to 1,500m/s velocity range.

Light and fast and very low drag vs large and slow and high drag means the aim point with one round and the aim point for the other would be very different... ie looking down the iron sights firing a mixed belt of these two rounds means one round hitting target and the other zipping miles over head or dropping well short.

In a dual feed weapon like the 2A42 however you can swap aim points when changing ammo but only today with modern electronic sights with ballistic computers you could make a very effective anti material rifle in 23 x 115mm with powerful low velocity HE shells and effective APFSDS rounds.

I would estimate 60-80mm armour defeat out to 1,200m or so... but that is just a guess.

In the 1990s the west experimented with a 15mm calibre weapon based on the 14.5mm Soviet round and it managed a 40mm armour defeat capability at 1km range.

Nobody bought it because it was not standard ammo, but the Russians already have the 23 x 115mm round in service. It would not take much to develop an anti material heavy rifle able to use the 23 x 115mm calibre as well as their 14.5 x 114mm round and of course their 30mm grenades and perhaps their new 40mm grenades. (man portable rifles are probably too small and light for their new 57mm grenade launchers...)

GarryB wrote:It is difficult to say for sure.

First I would mention that I don't actually know of any APFSDS rounds for the 23 x 115mm round.

The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for low velocity low recoil high rate of fire weapons... the purpose was to spray a dense pattern of heavy shells rapidly... high velocity high energy rounds meant recoil and short flight time to target, but did not improve lethality against air targets.

The 23 x 115mm round was developed specifically for aircraft use against enemy aircraft so the combination of heavy HE shell to maximise the effect of an impact along with a very high rate of fire in a small compact weapon were considered ideal.

Aircraft generally don't fire APFSDS rounds as the Sabot tends to damage engines when ingested in the air intakes.

For most modern helos the value of an armour piercing cannon is not enormous... there wont be an A-10 equivalent in rotary wing aircraft simply because a missile will do the job far easier and more reliably and at much greater range than any gun... range means keeping the helo safe.


A modern helo faces a range of targets that it has to be able to deal with but the average Havoc loadout generally will include 16 ATAKA missiles and 40 x 80mm unguided rockets plus 300 odd cannon shells.

The cannon is a good way to deal with quick soft targets, but ATAKA missiles are actually rather cheap and plentiful.

Ugroza will make unguided rockets accurate enough to be used to 4km or so and will be relatively cheap too.

In terms of hovering in out of ground effect... helos are not the best option in mountains... the wind can be more dangerous than enemy fire.

Over flat terrain helos wont fly at high altitudes... the whole point of a helo is to fly low to see the target and to avoid longer range ground fire.

Regarding performance of 23 x 115mm ammo.. if you look at US SLAP ammo for their 12.7 x 99mm ammo... you probably get an idea... the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round the Russians use has twice the muzzle energy and so the 23 x 115mm is a larger calibre so more energy can be pushed down the barrel.

In the 1980s I would say no because having APFSDS in 23 x 115mm would be of a totally different trajectory to any other ammo the weapon might fire as the standard HE round is heavy and only leaves short barrels at about 700m/s... whereas a sabot round will be small light penetrator dart and propellant and would likely have a muzzle velocity in the 1,400m/s to 1,500m/s velocity range.

Light and fast and very low drag vs large and slow and high drag means the aim point with one round and the aim point for the other would be very different... ie looking down the iron sights firing a mixed belt of these two rounds means one round hitting target and the other zipping miles over head or dropping well short.

In a dual feed weapon like the 2A42 however you can swap aim points when changing ammo but only today with modern electronic sights with ballistic computers you could make a very effective anti material rifle in 23 x 115mm with powerful low velocity HE shells and effective APFSDS rounds.

I would estimate 60-80mm armour defeat out to 1,200m or so... but that is just a guess.

In the 1990s the west experimented with a 15mm calibre weapon based on the 14.5mm Soviet round and it managed a 40mm armour defeat capability at 1km range.

Nobody bought it because it was not standard ammo, but the Russians already have the 23 x 115mm round in service.  It would not take much to develop an anti material heavy rifle able to use the 23 x 115mm calibre as well as their 14.5 x 114mm round and of course their 30mm grenades and perhaps their new 40mm grenades. (man portable rifles are probably too small and light for their new 57mm grenade launchers...)

Garry

Thank you so much, mate. This certainly clears up a lot of things for me. You're right...It does make more sense to use rockets against armor and the new laser guided rockets strengthen the case for this. How much penetration does the current standard 23x115 HE round achieve at 2km? I understand that the 2a42 can reach out to 4km (double that of the M230) so is this why the 23x115 was replaced for certain platforms in the Russian military?

How much penetration does the current standard 23x115 HE round achieve at 2km?

Zero.


HE shells are for soft targets, not armoured targets.

Against troops out in the field a HE round is vastly more effective than Armour piercing rounds because the exploding shell scatters shrapnel all over the place so even a near miss can be lethal. With AP rounds you need to actually hit the target to damage it. A HE round just needs to hit the ground near by.

I understand that the 2a42 can reach out to 4km (double that of the M230) so is this why the 23x115 was replaced for certain platforms in the Russian military?

AFAIK the 23 x 115mm round has only ever been used in fighter aircraft for use against enemy fighter aircraft and as a defensive round for transport aircraft.

The first interceptors like the MiG-15 and MiG-17 had 37mm cannon and 23mm high velocity cannon... but when they went to the MiG-21 they changed to low velocity 23mm cannon rounds.

AFAIK the only Soviet or Russian army platform that uses the 23 x 115mm calibre is the late model Hinds in a chin turret.

The ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4 both use the much more powerful 23 x 152mm shell for shooting at aircraft from the ground... recoil and ammo size is less of an issue.

The 30 x 165mm ammo replaced the 23 x 152mm ammo in army use when the Tunguska replaced the Shilka... and that was for extra effective range.

For a helo the cannon is pretty much close range self defence for which I would expect the 23 x 115mm round is perfectly suited... not too big, not too powerful in terms of recoil, high rate of fire if needed, heavy HE shell for its calibre.



As you can see above there is a difference between 23x115mm and 30x165mm ammo...

GarryB wrote:

How much penetration does the current standard 23x115 HE round achieve at 2km?

Zero.


HE shells are for soft targets, not armoured targets.

Against troops out in the field a HE round is vastly more effective than Armour piercing rounds because the exploding shell scatters shrapnel all over the place so even a near miss can be lethal. With AP rounds you need to actually hit the target to damage it. A HE round just needs to hit the ground near by.

I understand that the 2a42 can reach out to 4km (double that of the M230) so is this why the 23x115 was replaced for certain platforms in the Russian military?

AFAIK the 23 x 115mm round has only ever been used in fighter aircraft for use against enemy fighter aircraft and as a defensive round for transport aircraft.

The first interceptors like the MiG-15 and MiG-17 had 37mm cannon and 23mm high velocity cannon... but when they went to the MiG-21 they changed to low velocity 23mm cannon rounds.

AFAIK the only Soviet or Russian army platform that uses the 23 x 115mm calibre is the late model Hinds in a chin turret.

The ZU-23 and ZSU-23-4 both use the much more powerful 23 x 152mm shell for shooting at aircraft from the ground... recoil and ammo size is less of an issue.

The 30 x 165mm ammo replaced the 23 x 152mm ammo in army use when the Tunguska replaced the Shilka... and that was for extra effective range.

For a helo the cannon is pretty much close range self defence for which I would expect the 23 x 115mm round is perfectly suited... not too big, not too powerful in terms of recoil, high rate of fire if needed, heavy HE shell for its calibre.



As you can see above there is a difference between 23x115mm and 30x165mm ammo...

Garry

Sorry, mate I meant a High-Explosive Incendiary round. What kind of penetration could we get out of a High-Explosive Incendiary 23x115 round? The M789 HEDP from the M230 can apparently penetrate 25mm of RHA at 500m, so what can a comparable 23X115 round achieve? The M230 (a "light 30") is much weaker than all other 30mm and so I doubt that it can penetrate more. The 25mm penetrates more so I assume that the 23x115 can penetrate at least as much as the M230.

Cyrus the great wrote:

Garry

Sorry, mate I meant a High-Explosive Incendiary round. What kind of penetration could we get out of a High-Explosive Incendiary 23x115 round? The M789 HEDP from the M230 can apparently penetrate 25mm of RHA at 500m, so what can a comparable 23X115 round achieve? The M230 (a "light 30") is much weaker than all other 30mm and so I doubt that it can penetrate more. The 25mm penetrates more so I assume that the 23x115 can penetrate at least as much as the M230.

23x115mm do only use HE/HEFI and Target practice rounds for GSh-23L on Hinds. That means they do not have any number figures of what they can penetrate because of their purpose and design. The contact fuze HE rounds have  two fuzes -  a) contact fuze that detonates with a small delay to have the capability to penetrate the surface and detonate inside rather than on the surface to enhance the damage. The second b) fuze is a safety contact fuze that initiates a detonation on contact when the surface is to hard for the HE shell and the delayed contact fuze is to slow to initiate the detonation. This safety contact fuze will detonate the round before it squashes itself and the shell open from the kinetic energy against the surface to prevent a dud.

The M789 is an HEDP (HEAT) round that is why it has such penetration and the penetration rather goes up with distance due to the rotating and negative spinning (centrifugal effect) on the copper liner of the shaped charge. The penetration performance is horrible at close range and goes up with every hundred meters to the ~25mm.

Exactly by that two contact fuzes or measurements it is hard to say what penetration it can have, for sure is that it will penetrate any armored BTR-60 up to BTR-80 or any MRAP and detonate inside. It won't have any chances of penetrating tanks or any better armored IFV in head on engagement. That round was never designed for such purpose. There are also no APFSDS 23 nor 30mm rounds in service, few designd like ZUBR-9/10 and new one now ZUBR-11 but non adopted so far. The current one is ZUBR-8 with 45mm penetration at 100m and 28mm at 1km, 22mm at 2km.

Sorry, mate I meant a High-Explosive Incendiary round. What kind of penetration could we get out of a High-Explosive Incendiary 23x115 round?

HEI is High explosive Incendiary... in other words it is a HE with a material in it to make it burn.

It is used to start fires in combustible material. Or set fire to ammo and fuel.

HE is not actually that good at starting fires as its high velocity blast wave tends to put small fires out rather than encourage them.

The M789 HEDP from the M230 can apparently penetrate 25mm of RHA at 500m, so what can a comparable 23X115 round achieve?

HEDP is High Explosive Dual Purpose... it contains a shaped charge to penetrate armour and is designed to fragment like a HE shell, so it can kill exposed troops and penetrate light armour.

There is no equivalent 23mm round AFAIK.

The M230 (a "light 30") is much weaker than all other 30mm and so I doubt that it can penetrate more.

The M230 is like the 23 x 115mm round... a heavy projectile with a light short case to give relatively low muzzle velocity and therefore low recoil.

The 25mm penetrates more so I assume that the 23x115 can penetrate at least as much as the M230.

Shaped charges derive their penetration from their diameter so a larger calibre round all other things being equal should be better at penetrating than a smaller calibre.

The effect under armour of a 30mm HEDP cannon shell would be debatable, and I rather doubt developing a comparable 23mm version would be worth while.

Whether you are shooting enemy aircraft or soft ground targets a good HE round is much more use than an anti armour cannon shell.

If you spot an armoured vehicle, first of all you don't want to be within 2km because even a HMG is a threat to you and armoured vehicles often carry such weapons... even light unarmoured civilian vehicles have them.

An 80mm rocket with a laser homing head is the best way to deal with light armoured vehicles and ATAKA and Krisantema for heavier vehicles and bunkers.

Hi Garry,

I wonder why Mil did not re-arrange the 2A42 gun position on Mi-28 by moving it back to the center of gravity like Kamov did with the same gun on Ka-50/52 to reduce the firing vibration. Of course the gun barrel traveling would be limited between 2 landing gear but still much wider than Ka-50/52's.

Werewolf wrote:The current one is ZUBR-8 with 45mm penetration at 100m and 28mm at 1km, 22mm at 2km.

The ZUBR-8 is for Naval CISW gun and much shorter than other rounds so they have to belted it with other ones for 2A42 or 2A72 firing. In that case I don't know how the gun's FCS system solve the big different muzzle velocity between them to calculate the ballistic.

Hi Werewolf,

I had a mistake between ZUBR-8 AP-T round and ZUBR-10 "Kerner" APFSDS-T round. So although they have published ZUBR-10 "Kerner" since long time a go but it has never been in service yet?

I wonder why Mil did not re-arrange the 2A42 gun position on Mi-28 by moving it back to the center of gravity like Kamov did with the same gun on Ka-50/52 to reduce the firing vibration. Of course the gun barrel traveling would be limited between 2 landing gear but still much wider than Ka-50/52's.

To be useful the 30mm gun has to be pointable. Having on the chin of the nose means it can swing around freely and more importantly rapidly at targets that appear suddenly.

For the Kamovs the nose turning ability comes from the momentum of the main rotors so it has a strong nose turning ability at low flight speeds.

For the Mils the tiny tail rotor has little turning force once the aircraft is flying forward so it needs a turret to aim and mounting the turret forward gives it the best arcs of fire over a wider range of flight speeds.

The 2A42 and 2A72 have dual feed ammo belts so it can fire one or other type of rounds. when it changes between belts it can change aiming points for the different rounds.

For weapons like the 2A38M twin barrel 30mm guns and the AO-18 Gatlings they use rounds in a continuous belt so they all need to have similar ballistic performance so they all print around the aim point.

The topic is about the Army, but I think the discussion about calibers must be done looking at the entire Armed Forces. The main reason is that there is not a real optimization of calibers if it is done by branches. If some caliber must disappear must disappear in the entire Armed Forces.

I have been looking at the weapons present in the Russian Armed Forces, and I found present the following calibers (not included grenade, rockett or missilie calibers):

240 mm
203 mm
152 mm
130 mm
125 mm
122 mm
120 mm
100 mm
076 mm
073 mm
057 mm
045 mm (to confirm if continues in production)
030 mm
025 mm
023 mm
014.5 mm
012.7 mm
009 mm
007.62 mm
005.45 mm

I found all these calibers recently in production except the 45mm caliber.

Also it is possible to see how the less used calibers are the biggest, or are used by a good number of different warfare (like different warship projects), or by warfare with high number of units still present in the Russian Armed Forces.

Aditional calibers offered by Rosoboronexport today:

155 mm: Nato caliber.
082 mm: Mortar caliber. Decommission may be not totally finished.
018.5 mm:
005.66 mm: Underwater caliber. Decommissioned weapons liquidation. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
005.56 mm: Nato caliber. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
004.5 mm: Underwater caliber. Decommissioned weapons liquidation. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.

Other calibers used and/or produced until recently that are not offered today to export:

180 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
160 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
115 mm: Ammunition out of production at the begin of this decade.
107 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
085 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
037 mm: Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
011.43 mm: Foreign caliber. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.
005.6 mm: Ammunition out of production at the begin of this decade.
005.5 mm: Foreign caliber. Ammunition in production at the begin of this decade.

Conclussions:

1.- These 20 calibers of the first block are the result of a continuous process of selection done in the last decades. While 20 calibers remain, 12 are out of the Russian Armed Forces in recent years (without to count the NATO calibers).
2.- To see all these calibers still in production and to know that Russia has been directly involved in 5 wars in the last 25 years, likely means that the amounts of ammunition of these calibers in storage have not too much size.
3.- The range of calibers surviving is well balanced, without holes but with some redundant case still. There is not need of new calibers. The future changes can be for reduction.
4.- Assuming the total decommission of the 82mm caliber, the weakest caliber, and the first caliber to disappear, maybe the 73mm caliber used by the BMD-1 and the BMP-1.
5.- The rest of redundant calibers can remain easily until at least 2030.

Could 180mm be potentially a good compromise between heavy 8'' and medium 6'' artillery? This caliber was shown in soviet WW2 cruisers to have very good ballistics. Maybe the same could be done for a modern version installed on an SPG, which could be fully enclosed and still be more mobile, have a larger ammo supply and have a more rapid ROF compared to a 203mm piece. In short, a 180mm round could be more wieldy, and have the same effectiveness as a 203mm round in destructive capability and range due to the application of modern guidance and propellant technologies.

Oh, they managed to build such an artillery piece in the 50s, the S-23, perhaps the Russians can adapt into an SPG.

Is there a chance that 76mm will become extinct due to being replaced by either 100mm in the navy and 57mm in the army?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there a chance that 76mm will become extinct due to being replaced by either 100mm in the navy and 57mm in the army?

The 76mm caliber is present in a good number of warship projects, that in some cases are recent, like the Project 11660/11661. It will not be retired in decades. Even taking your argument about the 180mm between (I imagine, because I'm not fluent with inches) the 152mm and the 203mm, the 76mm is a good compromise between the 57mm and the 100mm. Even maybe more necessary as a compromise in relative terms.

About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.

eehnie wrote:
About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.

But with a 180mm you could make an MSTA with the same shell power and range as the 2S7.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

eehnie wrote:
About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.

But with a 180mm you could make an MSTA with the same shell power and range as the 2S7.

I think they will try it but with the 203 mm caliber. They have guidded ammunition and even rocket assisted projectiles if I remember well.

[quote="eehnie"]

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

eehnie wrote:
About the 180 mm caliber, I do not think it will be a return.

But with a 180mm you could make an MSTA with the same shell power and range as the 2S7.

However a new 203mm SPG will most likely be turretless, completely unarmored, and have <10 rounds.