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

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

The difference between the 180 mm and the 203 mm is not big in relative terms. Where it is possible to have only 10 rounds of 203mm, it is not possible to have more than 12-13 of 180mm.

Still, I think it is possible to do better than this in a armata platform with a weapon of 203mm.

Even I expect a new self propelled vehicle with a weapon of 240mm based on the armata platform to replace the current 2S4.

The difference between the 152mm calibre and the 203mm calibre is shell weight... the 152mm guns fire 40-45kg rounds, while the 203mm guns fire 100-110kg rounds.

The old 152mm guns tended to fire from 20km to about 40km for the longest barrel models, while the 203mm guns tended to fire over very similar ranges but with a much heavier projectile that would be rather more effective against specific targets.

The point is that the new 152mm guns have guided shells (and therefore very high accuracy which makes them rather more effective) and much improved range... up to 70km.

The 203mm shells in a new gun would be expected to have similar improvements in range and accuracy, but the increased power and recoil would be significant.

I agree that a 203mm gun on land would probably lose the turret and 360 degree angle of fire that a turret offers but having a limited traverse... say 10 degrees left and 10 degrees right would mean a recoil spade could be used to soak up the enormous recoil and make the gun smaller and lighter.

The new gun would be autoloaded and the gun mount unmanned. A crew of perhaps three in the hull front with a driver, commander and gunner.

A naval version would obviously have a proper turret as water absorbs recoil very efficiently.

I would expect projectile weight to be 110-120kgs and gun range to be of the order of 90-100km. the enormous calibre would allow a very large and effective shaped charge arrangement and would be wide enough for a large seeker and control equipment for both gun launched UAVs and gun launched diving top attack guided missiles to be fired from the weapon.

With guided shells perhaps even a smoothbore design for extra range...

I have read about guidance kits that fit in the nose fuse position of existing ammo that has both the Glonass guidance system and also steerable control vanes to steer the projectile in flight... having a non spinning projectile would greatly simplify guidance and control...

I think the recoil problem can be solved by 180mm rounds.

The recoil problem is created by physics... shell weight multiplied by the velocity it leaves the muzzle of the gun gives you recoil.

You can reduce recoil by going for a smaller lighter shell or by going for shorter range with lower muzzle velocity.

The point is that shell weight and range are useful things with artillery so you really don't actually want to give up either of those things.

The 180mm shell weighs under 90kgs and has a standard range of about 30km but that extends to about 44km with a further reduced HE charge and a rocket booster to extend range.

The point is that you could easily do exactly the same to a 152mm shell and get a 30kg shell with extended range... if you reduce it down to a 5kg HE shell you could probably extend the range to hundreds of kms... but what would be the point with only a 5kg warhead?


The 180mm gun was a specialist weapon... like the 175mm in US use... a long range counter battery round.

It simply makes more sense to go larger in the 203mm round for the few situations you would find it useful.

The Typhoon based units and the Kurganets and Boomerang based units are unlikely to want such weapons but for heavy use an Armata force might need some extra heavy support. 130kg shells coming in at an almost vertical angle would be ideal in terms of anti personnel use as it is the walls of the rounds that generate the fragments, meaning a dense pattern of fragments with no gaps for nose fuses or rear bodies...

For harder fortified targets a long range 120kg HE shell would be devastating, but most of the time for most targets 120mm and 152mm rounds will be enough as long as they are accurately delivered.

A 120mm shell hitting a target does more damage than a 110kg HE 203mm round that misses by 200m...

Against particularly hard targets the heavier shell can be rather more effective than even repeated hits from the smaller rounds.

If the option would be to replace the 203mm caliber by the 180mm caliber, I do not think there is a chance. In overall terms I think the position of the 152mm, 203mm and 240mm (around 150, 200 and 250 mm) is significantly more solid in the Russian Armed Forces than the position of the 180mm caliber (around 175mm).

In my opinion the decission about the 180mm caliber was made decades ago, in the 1960s and the 1970s, when the possible movements to design and to adopt a self propelled weapon of this caliber failed, while succeed for the 203mm and 240mm calibers. And has been reinforced since then by the following decissions. The line since the 1960s seems to be to keep the 152mm, 203mm and 240mm calibers while to go not forward with the 180mm caliber.

Despite it, there is some point in the argument in favor of the 180mm caliber as a caliber around 175mm, between the 152mm and 203mm calibers, like Russia has the 120mm, 122mm, 125mm and 130mm as calibers around 125mm, between the 100mm and 152mm calibers. This would be one of the 5 most likely positions to see a new caliber

Still, very difficult to see a return.

After many years of working, almost all has been proved at this point. In overall terms it is very difficult to see new calibers. Most of the calibers that survived hold a strong position in the weapons system of the Russian Armed Forces, and only a few can be considered redundant and as consequence more likely to disappear in the future. As example, 4 of the 5 positions where it would be more likely to see a new caliber, are options that had previously some caliber that has been retired. The 180mm caliber would be in one of these positions.

Actually there were not a huge number of 180mm guns actually made... it was never in large scale service.

It was a very powerful and very useful weapon for its time, but I don't see it being adopted.

The 203mm round has the advantage that is was at one stage used by the Navy too and could be returned to service in the future as a potential heavy gun for Cruisers, but the 180 was a niche weapon.

It would only be useful if it could be made to have an amazing feature... when it first entered production its amazing feature was its range.

With the 152mm guns firing to 70kms then 44km with a reduced charge is no longer amazing.

The developments that made the 152mm rounds able to reach 70km could be applied to a 180mm gun to extend its range and accuracy but it makes more sense to do the same to the 203mm as it is also a standard round and with a reduced payload and increased charge and onboard rocket propulsion you could get even more range with a better payload.

Artillery is all about range and payload... the latter more important than the former most of the time.

the larger shell size of the 203 would allow more variety of options like jammers, guided rounds, even UAVs and cluster payloads...

Next question would be to see which calibers can be redundant, and can disappear.

Assuming a very recent total decommission of the 82mm caliber, we can remember the active calibers today, bolding the cases where there are redundancies:

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

1.- There is a group of 4 calibers that are redundant in terms of size more than use, because every use can be achieved for everyone of them:

130mm
125mm
122mm
120mm

Until 3 of them can disappear in the long term. Today are important calibers (the 125mm caliber is the most used) and it is not clear which of them will fall.

Between the 4, the 122mm caliber can be the first to be out of the Russian Armed Forces. This caliber likely will disappear with the total decommission of the 2S1, a veteran weapon that is modern still as combat concept. The transformation of 2S1 in 2S34 (120mm) is not fast enough to cover all the units of 2S1 before its natural decommission. The retirement of the 122mm caliber can come in the decade of the 2030s.

2.- There is a second group of 2 calibers that are also redundant in terms of size:

25mm
23mm

One of them is likely to disappear. The 23mm caliber would be in the most solid position to survive by its higher development in the past that gives a better basis for a development in the future.

The 25mm has been less used and less developed. It is the most likely naval caliber to disappear. Only has been used in 4 of the current Russian warships commissioned after 1980 (1989, 1989, 2000 and 2008, all of them of the Project 1265). The retirement of this caliber can come also in the decade of the 2030s.

3.- And finally, there is a third group of 2 calibers that are also redundant in terms of size:

76mm
73mm

Today the most solid of them seems to be the 76mm caliber. This caliber is used today in many combat ships, including modern warship projects like the Project 22800 Karakurt or like the Project 11660/11661.

The 73mm caliber is used today only by the BMD-1 and the BMP-1, which total decommission can come in the decade of the 2020s. The intense use of the BMP-1 in Syria, and the fact that the turrets of the BMD-1 can be used to keep the numbers of BMP-1 will make shorter the cycle of both weapons in Russia.

My impression:

1.- 73mm: The first caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2020s.
2.- 122mm: The second caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2030s.
3.- 25mm: The third caliber to disappear in the future, likely in the decade of the 2030s. Its presence in 2 young warships can delay the total retirement of this caliber.

240 mm
203 mm
152 mm
130 mm
125 mm
122 mm
120 mm
100 mm
082 mm
076 mm
073 mm (ammunition out of production)
057 mm
045 mm (ammunition out of production)
030 mm
025 mm
023 mm
014.5 mm
012.7 mm
009 mm
007.62 mm
005.45 mm

Actually it is worse than that... there are at least three different 152mm gun systems with different ammo.

There are also different 100mm guns... the 100mm rifled gun of the T-54/55 which is also used as a towed gun, but there is also the 100mm rifled medium pressure gun used by the BMP-3, and also a 100mm towed smoothbore gun that is used as an anti tank gun.

There are also other calibres... 9x18mm is for the Makarov pistol and Stechkin machine pistol, but the 9 x 19mm round is also used with the new PYa pistol and some new SMGs. There is also the 9 x 21mm round used in the SR-1 pistol and SR-2 SMG. And again there is the 9x39mm round used in the AS and VSS suppressed weapons used in recon units and the new 12.7 x 55mm round used in the larger heavier equivalents.

there are also specialist rounds too for special small arms including suppressed grenade launchers...

As I am not a native speaker of the English language, I feel a preventive empathy for those who are and read this.

Considering the basic elementary knowledges of the physics and mechanics principes applied to the "confined auto-propulsion inert projectile"  Small Caliber Weapon System, a naive idea come to my mind.

The primar (internal) and intermediate (external) ballistics are the two main variables which govern the efficiency of the Terminal (lesionnal) ballistics. Considering the first two steps, we can put on a methodologic perspective those empirical rules :

Velocity is mainly given by : the relation of powder to barrel length
Inertia is mainly given by : Weight

The spatial and temporal extension of the quoted properties can be assured by : aerodynamic shape

• A decent barrel length will alow enough time for the speed acquisition,
  

• A decent weight will assure a good inertia (temporal storage of energy), as the "temporal energy storage used in industry"
  

• And a very-low drag will reduce to the optimum, the frictional surface offers by the bullet, to limit the kinetic energy destruction by the "air" gas from thermal transfer.
  

If we apply this to the project of "Unified Small Calibers Ammunition Project", the limiting factor of the efficiency of USCAP is the upper limit extension of the range, it mean that if we limit the Small Calibers Weapons System (Assault Rifle, MG, DMR) to decent ranges (0 to 750m), we can "easily" define a "6mm pattern" caliber which will safely satisfy the three criteria, sin equa none ballistics conditions to achieve the "upper limit" exigences range of the USCAP Project. (750m Terminal effects)

As I say, the prototype design and technical solution are already here, some resist to the operationnal exam, some do not  : 6mm Creedmoor, 6.5 Creedmoor, 6x49 Experimental, prhps 6 mm SAW..

Only the barrel length will dispatch different prerogatives to the same ballistic, which again, assure by itself at least the two main criteria of energy retention : decent inertia (weight), very low drag design.

Assault rifle : 17 " barrel
MG : 23" barrel  
Precision Rifle : 25 " barrel  

By the implementation of an Unified Family, all the logistics and bio-mechanics criteria will be easily improved and positively affect on  : interoperability, mutual supports, weight, ammo volume, accuracy, recoil for the price of :

- a lower barrel life due to higher pressures and velocities.

for a "same terminal effect  upper range limit".

Here is my modest, naive and un-scientific contribution to the technical aspects of the "USCAP" utopia that any infantry man will pursue for his Small Calibers Weapons System.

The decisional and prospective aspects are Politics, so money, so Benefits <==> Costs ratio, so global incidence of Small Calibers Weapons Systems in Modern Warfares (close to nothing) so, unbalanced Benefits <==> Costs ratio, so waiting for a Technlogic rupture wich will push the Benefits <==> Costs ratio to a strategic point that will destroy any financial barrier..


 ?

In terms of small arms it seems the Russian military is happy with the 5.45mm calibre.

It seems to be exploring with other calibres for longer range use like a 9mm version of the 338LM round, but there are other variables involved.

In terms of small arms there is the compromise between performance down range and performance on target... in other words you could simply introduce a flechette round as was done with a Steyr entry in the US rifle competition... but accuracy is an issue and terminal effects was another problem.

It doesn't matter how high velocity and flat shooting you make a round it still needs to be able to kill effectively.

The future potential of EM guns suggests the days of conventional propellent might be numbered...

Talking about the future of the 45mm caliber in other topic, I can see a future for this caliber in two forms:

- As a launched grenade caliber, taking with the time the position of the current grenades of 40 and 43mm, in adition to the current grenades of 45mm. This is an example of this use for the caliber today:

45mm: DP-64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DP-64 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%9F-64

- As a high rate of fire caliber, when the aircrafts, helicopters and small armoured vehicles begin to become resistent to the 30mm caliber. This is an interesting precedent of the use of this caliber in this role (obviously it would need improvements):

45mm: NS-45 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Suranov_NS-45 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%A1-45

It would be weapons in the mold of the modern GSh-30, maybe with multiple barrels:

30mm: GSh-30-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-301 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%A8-30-1
30mm: GSh-30-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-30-2 ////// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%A8-30-2
30mm: GSh-30-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-6-30 ///// https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/30-%D0%BC%D0%BC_%D1%88%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82_6%D0%9A30%D0%93%D0%A8

The analysis over the 45mm must be done taking into account the Russian Armed Forces in overall terms. no only from the point of one of their branches (Army, Navy,...)

Arnt the 12.7 and 14.5 also occupying the same space and one of them can be removed from service?

Arnt the 12.7 and 14.5 also occupying the same space and one of them can be removed from service?

Not totally... although there is not a great difference in calibre the 14.5mm calibre pretty much occupies the place a 20mm cannon occupies in the west... trading HE capacity for high velocity armour penetration performance.

Probably the best replacement for the 14.5mm round would be a 23 x 115mm based weapon... the 14.5 x 114mm round would be very similar in size to the larger calibre round but the 23mm would add much better HE shell performance over the 14.5mm round and a APFSDS round in the larger calibre offers potential armour penetration performance comparable if not better than the smaller calibre round.

Previously the main use of the 14.5mm HMG in the Soviet and Russian Army has been as a main armament for light APCs like the BTR-60/70/80 vehicles.

These have been replaced in service in the BTR-80A and BTR-90 and now BTR-82 with a more powerful 30mm cannon.

The main user of the 23 x 114mm calibre is the Soviet and Russian AF on fighters like the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-31, and on helicopters like late model Mi-24 Hind helos.

@Eehnie,

The 45mm round fired by the DP-64 is a low velocity rocket propelled grenade.

The 45mm NS-45 round is a very large, very heavy, low velocity round that would not be more effective than the current 30mm calibre weapons.

The 45mm NS-45 round was intended as an air to air weapon for fighter aircraft to be able to kill enemy aircraft with one or two shots.

knew Artillery, mortar and bullet rounds.

Big damage with smaller rounds.

You put thermite inside the round, inside the copper as shown in attachment.

It will melt the copper like a 4,000 pond IED bomb does.

You can ether just melt 90% of the copper inside core before it hit's the target, or at the last second or impact.

It will get past the best amour in the world including any Hi tec vest.

Put a micro explosive tip behind the copper that once it hits the target, gravity makes it slam into the copper or the tip detonates it, blasting copper in all directions with explosive force and poison.

Put this in anti jet fighter bullets and rounds 2. As the fighter travels at 2,000km/h the air speed and thermite alone will cripple a jet fighter.....No need for copper in the big bullets. Will start eating big holes in the jets disabling them and making them un-aero dynamic.

Think of more ways to use this. Like thermite rounds that hit tanks and eat past the armour or tanks, crippling it. Once in the explosive back tip, drops in and detonates an gravity  poisonous explosive tip. It will detect drop after the impact turns it on, and will detonate and poison on the inside or explode acid melting shit / send a flame ball or so on.  

So bullets can now punch a whole in armour as the copper bs is super hot melted, and will get past detonating the micro poison or explosive instantly after, even if the copper only wounds the enemy.

Thermite can even be used as tank petrol bombs, but the burn the wheel off and so on, disabling it.

Thank you Garry, thats very helpful

So in the evolution of calibres over time it would appear that 14.5mm might be removed and replaced by 30mm. With 12.7mm being kept as is.

I can see the potential of the 23 x 115 your talking about, its a very useful round. I wonder if the last 6 years of urban combat in syria has influenced the decision to move on from 14.5, skip development of 23mm and go strait for 30mm

So future ground forces calibres may look like: 

240 mm
203 mm
152 mm
125 mm
120 mm
057 mm
030 mm
012.7 mm
009 mm
007.62 mm
005.45 mm

Talking about all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces, I tend to think that by 2050 it will be more like this:

240 mm
203 mm
152 mm
130 mm
125 mm
120 mm
100 mm
076 mm
057 mm
045 mm
030 mm
023 mm
014.5 mm
012.7 mm
009 mm
007.62 mm
005.45 mm

With 2 of the 3 bolded calibers being a little redundant but remaining still.

So in the evolution of calibres over time it would appear that 14.5mm might be removed and replaced by 30mm. With 12.7mm being kept as is.

Lets be clear the 30 x 165mm high velocity round from the bmp-2/3 and anti aircraft guns might be kept or replaced.

You could replace the 14.5mm calibre with the 30mm round which is much bigger and much more powerful with better armour penetration and better HE effect, but it is more expensive and more recoil issues for the platform.

Replacing it with the 23 x 115mm round means more rounds carried, increase in HE power, but reduction in Armour piercing performance unless a new APFSDS round is developed. Ammo will be cheaper and much more compact and recoil will be much reduced.

Of course for HE effect they could just go for the new 40mm Balkan grenade launcher, or the new 57mm model with very potent projectiles.

In terms of your list, for ground forces:

240 mm Mortar only and only reserve
203 mm Heavy land artillery in reserve too
152 mm Standard medium/heavy artillery calibre + improved tank calibre
125 mm Tank calibre
120 mm Most widespread mortar calibre for vehicles
057 mm Grenade launcher calibre and high velocity IFV and AAG
030 mm Cannon calibre where enemy armour is not expected
012.7 mm Standard HMG and heavy sniper calibre
009 mm 9x21mm pistol and SMG calibre and 9x69mm heavy sniper round for 1.5km range.
007.62 mm would replace this with 6 x 49mm new calibre for sniper rifles and MGs.
005.45 mm standard assault rifle and LMG calibre.

I would add 82mm for portable light mortars and 40mm for automatic grenade launchers like the Balkan.

For the all branches list:

Talking about all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces, I tend to think that by 2050 it will be more like this:

240 mm Land based mortar in reserve only.
203 mm Heavy cruiser artillery calibre and reserve land calibre
152 mm Destroyer artillery calibre and land standard artillery calibre and big tank calibre
130 mm Frigate calibre
125 mm Tank calibre
120 mm medium widespread mortar calibre
100 mm Corvette/frigate calibre
076 mm Corvette calibre
057 mm IFV and AAG and Corvette calibre but can be used on larger vessels as CIWS with guided shells.
045 mm Grenade calibre for navy, otherwise not needed.
030 mm CIWS and aircraft fighter weapon and some land use
023 mm land and air use.
014.5 mm ground and sea use
012.7 mm ground and sea use
009 mm small arms for pistols, SMGs, and long range sniper rifles
007.62 mm replace with 6 x 49mm round.
005.45 mm Assault rifle and SMG calibre.

Of course you would have to add 122mm and 220mm and 300mm for unguided artillery rockets... and 40mm, 93mm, 105mm, and 125mm for shoulder fired rockets of several types.

@eehnie i made a separate thread for heavy calibers. The other we will keep it for rifles

Modern fighter cannon

Modern Western airsurfers to direct air support (CAS which) allocate an air gun as a means of defeating small-sized soft targets in those cases when the positions of ones and others are extremely close, as it is theoretically very precise and can be used without threat to its own. For example, during the second Iraq, two A-10 pilots received awards for the attack on militants, who fired upon marines behind the fence, literally on the other side of the road.

It was for this purpose that the gun on the F-35A was pierced, and the marines begged for a cannon container - in this context, the above had to be explained ten times.

By the way, in the current campaign, it is known at least that the English gun "Typhoon" was used for the first time.

Until recently, until recently, the gun was firstly considered as a means of air combat - and in vain, a 30-mm single-barrel is just more to work on the ground is attractive, it is possible to offend the BMP.

Su-35S VCS of Russia attacks militants in the Syrian desert in the east of the province of Damascus with the help of an air cannon. Under the wings it looks like the blocks with NAR are suspended.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2644425.html

Guns evolve with experience.

Experience from the conflict with Georgia led the Su-25SM3 to have its gun modified to allow a range of different rates of fire to be used.

It was found in combat that the very high rate of fire of the gun led to too many rounds being fired at each target.

Modifications mean lower rates of fire can be used to reduce the number of rounds fired per burst so more targets can be engaged.

The Ka-52 (onboard number "48 red") from the 39th helicopter regiment of the 27th Mixed Aviation Division of the 4th Air Force and Air Defense Army of Russia (Dzhankoy airfield, Crimea) damaged the fuselage itself with a projectile when firing from its own 30-mm gun , The incident took place in 2016. It is alleged that this incident is not the first.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2657147.html

The cannon on the Kamov can elevate and also turn a little.

The computers control the aim of the gun so I guess the problem is that the pilot turned the aircraft while a gun burst was being fired at a target in front of the aircraft... the angle of the gun allowing contact with the aircraft... just as well there are arming safeties on the rounds to prevent them from exploding before travelling a distance from the muzzle.

A cross section of the projectile shows the fuse mechanism fills most the tip of the round and has an arming delay mechanism to prevent the round exploding near the cannon as it is fired... for example in this case hitting the airframe of the helo the gun is mounted on, but also in case it hits something very close to the weapon just after the round is fired.

George1 wrote:@eehnie i made a separate thread for heavy calibers. The other we will keep it for rifles