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.

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.

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...

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.

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 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.

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...)

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.