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

d_taddei2 wrote:I agree that for Afv that 30 mm and 57mm will be kept 23mm will be phased out but as long as other countries use it it will be produced. 160mm, 180mm and 240mm are in Syria but haven't heard of any use of them unless anyone else has info on syrian army use???. Not sure if Russia has been providing ammo for them or not.  

There are reports of 2016 and 2017 about the 240mm 2S4 in active service in Russia.

The 160mm and 180mm calibers are out.

I know that 160mm and 180mm but I never said they were still in production I asked if anyone had reports on Syrian art using them as they have them in stock. And I wouldn't be surprised if Russia still had ammo in a warehouse somewhere Georgia still produces 160mm mortar rounds.

d_taddei2 wrote:I know that 160mm and 180mm but I never said they were still in production I asked if anyone had reports on Syrian art using them as they have them in stock. And I wouldn't be surprised if Russia still had ammo in a warehouse somewhere Georgia still produces 160mm mortar rounds.

In Syria weapons of both calibers seem to be present. In the case of the 180mm S23 it would be around 10 units, in the case of the 160mm M-160 and M-43 maybe over 200, in both cases without quit the loses of the war. Not easy to find reports, but there is something. As example The Military Balance count them and I remember something else. If there are not stocks it is possible that ammunition for both calibers be produced also in Syria.

I remember seeing a picture on one of al mascara article where syrian army were pictured using 160mm mortar there was about 8 of them in row.

152-mm cannon 2A89

At the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" JSC "Plant No. 9" (Ekaterinburg, the former special production of Uralmash) demonstrated the model of 152-mm gun 2A89. Presumably, the 2A89 gun was intended for a prospective self-propelled artillery unit 2C36 for the Zaurales-D missile system, developed for the Airborne Forces of Russia with the leading role of JSC Central Scientific Research Institute of Precision Engineering (JSC TSNIITOCHMASH). In 2016 it was reported that the ROC "Zauralets-D" was suspended in favor of the RK "Lotus" creating a self-propelled artillery gun in a caliber of 120 mm.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2802076.html

They should offer a naval version of this gun.

It is a medium pressure gun mortar type weapon... as a comparison the 152mm gun of the Coalition would be rather more powerful and vastly longer ranged... this is more of a larger calibre gun/mortar as fitted to the NONA and VENA, which was a 120mm calibre weapon.

It would have nothing like the range or power of the 152mm artillery gun in Coalition or the new tank gun of the Armata tank vehicle.

It would in fact be a larger calibre gun mortar round firing gun for heavier mortar carriers like NONA and VENA.

Based on mortar shell weights the 120mm gun/mortar fires 16kg HE shells and mortar bombs as well as guided missles.

This new 152mm weapon probably fires rounds similar in size to the 160mm gun/mortar... ie 40kg HE mortar bombs.

George1 wrote:152-mm cannon 2A89

At the International Military Technical Forum "Army-2017" JSC "Plant No. 9" (Ekaterinburg, the former special production of Uralmash) demonstrated the model of 152-mm gun 2A89. Presumably, the 2A89 gun was intended for a prospective self-propelled artillery unit 2C36 for the Zaurales-D missile system, developed for the Airborne Forces of Russia with the leading role of JSC Central Scientific Research Institute of Precision Engineering (JSC TSNIITOCHMASH). In 2016 it was reported that the ROC "Zauralets-D" was suspended in favor of the RK "Lotus" creating a self-propelled artillery gun in a caliber of 120 mm.



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2802076.html

A very interesting and expected weapon that likely will have a very important use in the future.

We can see in the new how this weapon has been proved on the BMD-4M platfom, and has been rejected very likely because of being too heavy for the BMD-4M platform. Well, it is safe to think that also will be proved in the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms, and very likely will succeed on them. It means the basic self propelled mortars on the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms will be have very likely this new 2A89 weapon of 152mm instead of the also recent 2A80 weapon of 120mm. And also, it means the use of the 120mm mortars on the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms will take the form of 2B11 mortars (or successor) carried inside infantry vehicles of these platforms (not mounted in the hull). The smaller size of the BMD-4M platform makes easier the use of the 120mm mortar mounted in the hull as 2A80 weapon.

eehnie wrote:It means the basic self propelled mortars on the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms will be have very likely this new 2A89 weapon of 152mm instead of the also recent 2A80 weapon of 120mm.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

About how the time puts the things in its place. Interesting to remember:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1606p200-russian-gun-artillery-discussion-thread#171664

eehnie wrote:I think it would be room for a new weapon of 152mm in the mold of the 2A80 weapon of 120mm, that can be used as mortar perfectly.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1606p200-russian-gun-artillery-discussion-thread#171681

GarryB wrote:

would be room for a new weapon of 152mm in the mold of the 2A80 weapon of 120mm, that can be used as mortar perfectly.

Why? Why develop a brand new calibre? A 240mm mortar can't outrange a 122mm gun, so any 152mm calibre mortar wont outrange existing 240mm mortars and wont come close to current 152mm guns let alone outrange them.

Why would a 70km range Coalition in 152mm calibre adapt to firing 152mm mortar rounds likely with a range of 12-14km.... especially when existing 120mm gun/mortars can reach 13km range targets already.

There is no value in introducing a new calibre of Mortar round inferior to already existing calibres (160mm and 240mm).

Project Canada wrote:

eehnie wrote:It means the basic self propelled mortars on the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms will be have very likely this new 2A89 weapon of 152mm instead of the also recent 2A80 weapon of 120mm.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

The type of weapon is different. It will be likely three different weapons of 152mm that cover the entire spectrum of ranges, firing agility and direct-indirect fire:

- 2A88 152mm: The purpose is long range direct fire. Mounted on the Armata platform gives as result the 2S35.
- 2A89 152mm: The purpose is to allow indirect (mortar) fire combined with direct fire. Mounted on the Armata platform will give as result another different self propelled artillery piece.
- 2A83 152mm: The purpose is agile direct (tank-antitank) fire. Mounted on the Armata platform would give as result a T-14 with weapon of 152mm.

Being of the same caliber, the three potential weapons have the advantage of being able to share a part of their ammunition.

In fact this follows also the same scheme that we have in the group of calibers around 125mm:

- 2A?? 130mm: The purpose is long range direct fire. Mounted on the MAZ-543 platform gives as result the A-222 Bereg.
- 2A80 120mm: The purpose is to allow indirect (mortar) fire combined with direct fire. Mounted on the BMD-4M platform gives as result the 2S42. Mounted on the BMP-3 platform gives as result the 2S31.
- 2A82 125mm: The purpose is agile direct fire (tank-antitank) Mounted on the Armata platform gives as result the T-14.

Note that the 122mm caliber weapons would be also more oriented to the long range direct fire.

In this case for the range of calibers around 125mm, every caliber needs its own ammunition even being for the same use. The system designed for the 152mm caliber will be far more efficient, significantly more powerful, and will be available for the Armata, Kurganets and Bumerang platforms.

They have clearly developed a 152mm calibre gun mortar... not to be confused with the 152mm tank gun, or the 152mm artillery gun.

The purpose of this weapon will be short range infantry and armour support with heavy HE projectiles.

Without any actual details on the system we can assume a projectile weight in the range of 40kgs because that is the mortar bomb weight of the 160mm mortar.

The firing range is unknown but unlikely to be more than 15-20km because this is a low to medium pressure gun/mortar.

The only serious purpose for this calibre would be to enlarge the fuse area to enable guided rounds to be cheaper.

The problem will be weight of the round but as all new guns have unmanned turrets ammo handling will be automatic anyway.

The other problem is the number of rounds that could be carried on any given vehicle.

AFAIK the 120mm is good enough... the airborne have chosen the 120mm calibre as their standard replacement for the 120mm NONA.

For the time being I suspect the smaller calibre will be used because smaller rounds are getting the job done and there is no urgent need for a larger weapon... the same situation as with the 152mm tank gun vs the 125mm tank gun.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

To replace the 120mm gun/mortar calibres.

GarryB wrote:They have clearly developed a 152mm calibre gun mortar... not to be confused with the 152mm tank gun, or the 152mm artillery gun.

The purpose of this weapon will be short range infantry and armour support with heavy HE projectiles.

Without any actual details on the system we can assume a projectile weight in the range of 40kgs because that is the mortar bomb weight of the 160mm mortar.

The firing range is unknown but unlikely to be more than 15-20km because this is a low to medium pressure gun/mortar.

The only serious purpose for this calibre would be to enlarge the fuse area to enable guided rounds to be cheaper.

The problem will be weight of the round but as all new guns have unmanned turrets ammo handling will be automatic anyway.

The other problem is the number of rounds that could be carried on any given vehicle.

AFAIK the 120mm is good enough... the airborne have chosen the 120mm calibre as their standard replacement for the 120mm NONA.

For the time being I suspect the smaller calibre will be used because smaller rounds are getting the job done and there is no urgent need for a larger weapon... the same situation as with the 152mm tank gun vs the 125mm tank gun.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

To replace the 120mm gun/mortar calibres.

I'm thinking that maybe it's a replacement for the 2S4 Tyulpan?

A similar sort of specialized weapon.

With modern guided shells of course, there's less need for the massive 240mm mortar shells of yesteryear. The calibre is now downsized, and that allows for a faster rate of fire and more ammo onboard.

Also, compared to a standard 120mm mortar shell, a 152mm shell might be able to house a thermobaric mixture significant enough to equal the destructive power of a 240mm HE shell against softer targets.

Such vehicles will probably be equipped with both HE and thermobaric shells. Gonna be a real urban-warfare and anti-bunker shocker.

flamming_python wrote:

GarryB wrote:They have clearly developed a 152mm calibre gun mortar... not to be confused with the 152mm tank gun, or the 152mm artillery gun.

The purpose of this weapon will be short range infantry and armour support with heavy HE projectiles.

Without any actual details on the system we can assume a projectile weight in the range of 40kgs because that is the mortar bomb weight of the 160mm mortar.

The firing range is unknown but unlikely to be more than 15-20km because this is a low to medium pressure gun/mortar.

The only serious purpose for this calibre would be to enlarge the fuse area to enable guided rounds to be cheaper.

The problem will be weight of the round but as all new guns have unmanned turrets ammo handling will be automatic anyway.

The other problem is the number of rounds that could be carried on any given vehicle.

AFAIK the 120mm is good enough... the airborne have chosen the 120mm calibre as their standard replacement for the 120mm NONA.

For the time being I suspect the smaller calibre will be used because smaller rounds are getting the job done and there is no urgent need for a larger weapon... the same situation as with the 152mm tank gun vs the 125mm tank gun.

Why would they need a new 152mm artillery gun for Armata when they already have Koalitsya?

To replace the 120mm gun/mortar calibres.

I'm thinking that maybe it's a replacement for the 2S4 Tyulpan?

A similar sort of specialized weapon.

With modern guided shells of course, there's less need for the massive 240mm mortar shells of yesteryear. The calibre is now downsized, and that allows for a faster rate of fire and more ammo onboard.

Also, compared to a standard 120mm mortar shell, a 152mm shell might be able to house a thermobaric mixture significant enough to equal the destructive power of a 240mm HE shell against softer targets.

Such vehicles will probably be equipped with both HE and thermobaric shells. Gonna be a real urban-warfare and anti-bunker shocker.

The purpose of the Tyulpan is the destruction of heavily fortified structures so precision will not make up for a lack of explosive power.

People are geting too carried away what with the western propaganda saying that precision munitions are the best and trump eaverything...You do realise that amunition needs to be replaced on a regular basis and guided amunition is very very expensive and ofcourse very profitable for the american MIC.

Precision guided munitions are ofcourse very usefull but are not capable of replacing eaverying like the western MIC claims them to be.

If you need a small target like a amunition/fuel depo or command vehicle destroyed a 152/120mm guided shell is the thing to choose.

If however you need a heavily fortified biulding destroyed a 203/240mm shell is invaluble.

Thus it is advisable to keep a few big guns around just incase you need them and they are a great alternative to wasting a valuble cruise missile on a rather unimportant target that may be too heavily fortified for 152mm giuded shells to eliminate.

Actually precision means you need less explosive and less shots at target.

Being able to directly hit exactly where you what means penetrating heavy structure can be performed with shaped charge warheads instead of just lots of HE and a strong shell case.

GarryB wrote:Actually precision means you need less explosive and less shots at target.

Being able to directly hit exactly where you what means penetrating heavy structure can be performed with shaped charge warheads instead of just lots of HE and a strong shell case.

Well there are always cruise missiles but thoes are rather expensive and guided HEAT shells in the 152mm caliber do not exist and even if they did a giuded 203/240mm would be vastly superior.

Let me put it a different way... if rifle calibre bullets could be guided and guarantee a direct head shot every time do you think it would be better to have them in 14.5 x 114mm calibre or 5.45 x 39mm calibre?

If both will kill, then you would get lots of benefits from using a much smaller lighter round in a calibre more widely used and deployed...

GarryB wrote:Let me put it a different way... if rifle calibre bullets could be guided and guarantee a direct head shot every time do you think it would be better to have them in 14.5 x 114mm calibre or 5.45 x 39mm calibre?

If both will kill, then you would get lots of benefits from using a much smaller lighter round in a calibre more widely used and deployed...

And if an enemy humvee roled up even an unguided 14.5mm would suddenly become very apealing.

My point is it is there are scenarios where heavy artillery is more usefull and you don't have to waste an Iskander or KH-101.

Having one 14.5mm weapon per unit would be nice but not everyone in the unit will have a 14.5mm weapon each.

What most of them can have is a 5.45mm weapon... which if it gets head shots with every shot would be far more useful than having one weapon in the unit that can kill accurately from extended distances and take on light armour too.

And BTW a humvee is not an armoured vehicle... AP 5.45mm will kill the crew.

It is a very big heavy slow vehicle and some models do have armour... but an RPG-18 and anything later will destroy it easily from any angle... the armoured models are even bigger and heavier than the unarmoured models.

Larger calibres means guidance is easier, but once you have accurate guidance inside standard rounds a soldier can carry 300 guided rounds in 5.45mm.

In comparison a 14.5,mm weapon needs a crew of 3-4 to move it around the battlefield... in fact it will probably be mounted on a light vehicle if you want to carry any reasonable amount of ammo with it, so in many cases if enemy armour is expected a 30mm would be more useful... a BTR-82A for instance.

My point is that if you can make it lighter but accurate enough to get a reliable kill then there are benefits to that.

I am not suggesting heavy weapons don't have a use... sometimes nothing cracks open a hard point like a near vertical 130kg 240mm mortar round, but the problems of operating them means they are a special weapon for specific roles and not a general purpose widely used weapon.

Most often it will likely be used in mountains where its steep trajectory make it very useful and very effective... though a bit wasteful against a single person position... of course if they are a sniper then it is worth it.

Seeing how the Tu-22M3M's will be losing their rear mounted cannons in favor of a Su-34 styled ECM tail-boon, I think there's still a place for them in the ground forces. I like the 57mm Derivation for the T-15, as a modern equivalent of SPAAG it's a step in the right direction, but it could be improved on by adding the GSH-23M near the rear of the turret. Adding a unmanned GSH-23M cannon with a max rate of 3600-4000 rpm, near the rear with independent elevation, slaved to a radar and a electro-optical combo system, with the turret bustle acting as the storage for it's ammo. The turret bustle could be internally split in half, with 23x115mm HE-Frag rounds on one side (hardkill), and the Chaff shell equivalents on the other side (for defensive screens), with a dual feed mechanism for the GSH-23M cannon. The beauty of the system is that it's a point blank range system that could engage technicals, UAV's, infantry, as well as destroying ATGM's from a distance, acting as a bridge between the gap of APS and SHORAD. Instead of expending/depleting 57mm shells on those targets, the GSH-23M could engage them in quick fashion.

Yeah for reference this is the post that was moved:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t6260p75-heavy-calibre-ammo-artillliery-ifv-tank-aa-naval-guns#240321

magnumcromagnon wrote:Seeing how the Tu-22M3M's will be losing their rear mounted cannons in favor of a Su-34 styled ECM tail-boon, I think there's still a place for them in the ground forces. I like the 57mm Derivation for the T-15, as a modern equivalent of SPAAG it's a step in the right direction, but it could be improved on by adding the GSH-23M near the rear of the turret. Adding a unmanned GSH-23M cannon with a max rate of 3600-4000 rpm, near the rear with independent elevation, slaved to a radar and a electro-optical combo system, with the turret bustle acting as the storage for it's ammo. The turret bustle could be internally split in half, with 23x115mm HE-Frag rounds on one side (hardkill), and the Chaff shell equivalents on the other side (for defensive screens), with a dual feed mechanism for the GSH-23M cannon. The beauty of the system is that it's a point blank range system that could engage technicals, UAV's, infantry, as well as destroying ATGM's from a distance, acting as a bridge between the gap of APS and SHORAD. Instead of expending/depleting 57mm shells on those targets, the GSH-23M could engage them in quick fashion.

Okay for what Garry said:

GarryB wrote:

Interesting idea, but the low muzzle velocity gives the gun a relatively short range of 2-3km only.

I rather think that the gun would be ideal for use on light unmanned vehicles and also as a replacement for the 30mm cannon on some light platforms where the enemy does not have armour like in COIN operations.

The enormous rate of fire means short bursts can put clusters of rounds on target rapidly... like a shotgun blast of exploding shells...

Ideal for enemy infantry suppression like use against snipers or machine gun positions or indeed ATGM teams.

The low recoil means light vehicles could carry it, and the relatively small ammo could be carried in enormous volumes... it has ammo commonality with late model Hind helos that have twin 23mm guns in chin turrets on the latest model.

30 or 40mm grenade launchers and rifle calibre machine guns and HMGs would compliment this gun for light an unmanned vehicles.

This twin barrel 23mm cannon is also widely used in Soviet and Russian gunpods and seems rather popular.

Oops, the above reply was referring to a post about 23mm cannon being used for air defence on the new 57mm air defence vehicle.... but it seems to have moved...

Its tilts vertically but its fixed in azimuth & small so its not a search radar, I presume its something like a ranger/shell tracker.

It might even transmit a command to detonate a round as it gets near its target as tracked by that antenna (ie tracking both the outgoing shell and the incoming target).

Or it might track the outgoing shell to track its trajectory and speed and update the fire control system to allow for that to improve accuracy in real time.

But I have seen ground radar that size that could track targets out to about 10-15km, so it should be able to track targets and outgoing shells out to the 14.5km shown in the poster.

1.) I don't mean to use the GSH-23M as a CIWS system for PGM's, as you said the 2-3km engagement just won't cut it these days. When I meant by 'hardkill' I meant for the purpose of destroying ATGM's mid-air, like a extension of APS, as well as engaging technicals, infantry, UAV's as a point defense weapon. As you mentioned in prior posts, the 23mm shells parent case is the 14.5mm shells, with the difference is that the diameter is wider but the length is relatively the same. The 23's dimension of '23x115mm' to the 14.5's dimension of '14.5x114mm'. With the relative compact shell it allows a significant amount of shells to be stored in a turret bustle, hundreds easily, in a black eagle style turret bustle, easily thousands. With the promotion of swarm UAV's and their tactics, as well as the prolific rise of ambush ATGM tactics, a point defense weapon could add a significant contribution. The 57mm shells could be focused on defeating more sophisticated threats, like aerodynamic targets, MLRS munitions, more sophisticated UAV's (Predator/Reaper, Global Hawk, MALE/HALE), and more sophisticated ground targets like modern NATO Medium armor. 23mm shells defeats all the low-intensity expendable targets, conserves the main weapons ammo store, and it's huge ammo capacity significantly decreases the success of cheap suicide-UAV's utilized in swarm tactics.

2.) For defensive purposes the chaff shells will be fired in front of the Derivation to protect if if from being targeted from PGM's (with semi-auto control, manned by the commander), while the main 57mm gunner engages the PGMs (and if in range) the munition launching platform as well. The chaff shells could also be used to defend armor columns from sophisticated PGM attacks (fired in front of the incoming attack direction), as well as stationary points.

Interesting idea, but the low muzzle velocity gives the gun a relatively short range of 2-3km only.

I rather think that the gun would be ideal for use on light unmanned vehicles and also as a replacement for the 30mm cannon on some light platforms where the enemy does not have armour like in COIN operations.

The enormous rate of fire means short bursts can put clusters of rounds on target rapidly... like a shotgun blast of exploding shells...

Ideal for enemy infantry suppression like use against snipers or machine gun positions or indeed ATGM teams.

The low recoil means light vehicles could carry it, and the relatively small ammo could be carried in enormous volumes... it has ammo commonality with late model Hind helos that have twin 23mm guns in chin turrets on the latest model.

30 or 40mm grenade launchers and rifle calibre machine guns and HMGs would compliment this gun for light an unmanned vehicles.

This twin barrel 23mm cannon is also widely used in Soviet and Russian gunpods and seems rather popular.

1.) I don't mean to use the GSH-23M as a CIWS system for PGM's, as you said the 2-3km engagement just won't cut it these days. When I meant by 'hardkill' I meant for the purpose of destroying ATGM's mid-air, like a extension of APS, as well as engaging technicals, infantry, UAV's as a point defense weapon.

If you mean you want it to act as an APS then why not just fit an APS?

They have DRODZ-2, ARENA-2, and Afghanist.

For engaging ATGM teams before or during missile launch, for engagement of enemy light vehicles that don't really need 57mm cannon shells, and for infantry it would be rather good... but against UAVs, air burst ammo is vastly superior because getting a direct hit is rather unlikely, which means requiring large numbers of shells to be fired for a kill.

Having airburst rounds means rather fewer rounds would be needed so you will be able to engage more targets.

I have mentioned a light UCAV armed with a 40mm grenade launcher with a grenade designed as a claymore type mine that has fragments in the nose and a small explosive charge in the rear to blow the fragments forward like a super shotgun blast... such a round with a fixed flight distance of say 50m would be excellent for shooting down enemy UAVs, but having a rear facing sensor in the grenade that detonates the grenade upon being lased by the platform that fired the round would mean it could be detonated at any range as it approached the target... including troops on the ground. A secondary fuse could detonate the grenade after it penetrated light cover... so say punch through a car window and then boom.

The advantage of the 40mm is it is a small light gun that will already be entering service. Its very low trajectory means you can lob it over frontal cover like a wall or small building, which would be a problem for a high velocity 57mm round.

As you mentioned in prior posts, the 23mm shells parent case is the 14.5mm shells, with the difference is that the diameter is wider but the length is relatively the same. The 23's dimension of '23x115mm' to the 14.5's dimension of '14.5x114mm'. With the relative compact shell it allows a significant amount of shells to be stored in a turret bustle, hundreds easily, in a black eagle style turret bustle, easily thousands. With the promotion of swarm UAV's and their tactics, as well as the prolific rise of ambush ATGM tactics, a point defense weapon could add a significant contribution.

The 23mm round is very useful and is already in service, and would be a very useful high volume fire round that would be useful to stop an ambush... most ambushes rely on overwhelming fire power... having a few vehicle spewing 23mm cannon shells back at you in enormous numbers could break the ambush and turn the tables.

Actually I could see a twin barrel 23mm gun being used on a ZU-23 mount with lighter lower recoil rounds, you could use it for perimeter defence at a base as it could still reach out to great distances and kill with its HE rounds being rather potent for their calibre.

But then a 40mm grenade launcher could also do the same job with lower velocity grenades but with even bigger payloads out to 2.5km.

The 57mm shells could be focused on defeating more sophisticated threats, like aerodynamic targets, MLRS munitions, more sophisticated UAV's (Predator/Reaper, Global Hawk, MALE/HALE), and more sophisticated ground targets like modern NATO Medium armor. 23mm shells defeats all the low-intensity expendable targets, conserves the main weapons ammo store, and it's huge ammo capacity significantly decreases the success of cheap suicide-UAV's utilized in swarm tactics.

I understand what you are saying... Israeli tanks often carried 60mm mortars... originally for firing illumination rounds for night fighting but they started carrying HE rounds too because the 60mm bombs were small but quite effective against a range of targets and you could easily carry a lot more than you could carry 105mm or 120mm main tank rounds.

Like the BMP-3 carries 100mm shells and 30mm shells and ATGMs that can be fired through the main 100mm gun each weapon compliments the other and there is no real overlap of capabilities... the 100mm gun is relatively low velocity, while the 30mm cannon is high velocity... it could benefit from a 30mm grenade launcher because the two 30mm weapons have different trajectories and purposes... the low velocity grenade can be used to hit targets behind frontal cover for example but is smaller lighter ammo than the 100mm rounds which you could also lob over cover...

2.) For defensive purposes the chaff shells will be fired in front of the Derivation to protect if if from being targeted from PGM's (with semi-auto control, manned by the commander), while the main 57mm gunner engages the PGMs (and if in range) the munition launching platform as well. The chaff shells could also be used to defend armor columns from sophisticated PGM attacks (fired in front of the incoming attack direction), as well as stationary points.

Again, an interesting idea but I would think having large chaff/flare/decoy/smoke grenades in the fixed grenade launchers would make more sense and always be ready to use at the flick of a switch...

GarryB wrote:

1.) I don't mean to use the GSH-23M as a CIWS system for PGM's, as you said the 2-3km engagement just won't cut it these days. When I meant by 'hardkill' I meant for the purpose of destroying ATGM's mid-air, like a extension of APS, as well as engaging technicals, infantry, UAV's as a point defense weapon.

If you mean you want it to act as an APS then why not just fit an APS?

They have DRODZ-2, ARENA-2, and Afghanist.

For engaging ATGM teams before or during missile launch, for engagement of enemy light vehicles that don't really need 57mm cannon shells, and for infantry it would be rather good... but against UAVs, air burst ammo is vastly superior because getting a direct hit is rather unlikely, which means requiring large numbers of shells to be fired for a kill.

Having airburst rounds means rather fewer rounds would be needed so you will be able to engage more targets.

I have mentioned a light UCAV armed with a 40mm grenade launcher with a grenade designed as a claymore type mine that has fragments in the nose and a small explosive charge in the rear to blow the fragments forward like a super shotgun blast... such a round with a fixed flight distance of say 50m would be excellent for shooting down enemy UAVs, but having a rear facing sensor in the grenade that detonates the grenade upon being lased by the platform that fired the round would mean it could be detonated at any range as it approached the target... including troops on the ground. A secondary fuse could detonate the grenade after it penetrated light cover... so say punch through a car window and then boom.

The advantage of the 40mm is it is a small light gun that will already be entering service. Its very low trajectory means you can lob it over frontal cover like a wall or small building, which would be a problem for a high velocity 57mm round.

So I did some research, and it looks like The Armata platform utilizing the Afghanit defense suit will implement what I suggested.

"Armata" will shoot enemy shells with a machine gun
Changing the trajectory of the projectile should reduce its damaging force or not allow it to get into the domestic tank

The standard machine gun of the advanced tank "Armata" is planned to be used to fight the enemy projectiles flying up Relevant tests will be conducted at the Volga State Ammunition Test Site this year.

The technology being tested is designed to fight projectiles at longer distances. According to the terms of reference, it is planned to simulate the interaction of cartridges of automatic tank armament of several calibers with the body of anti-tank ammunition. It is assumed that a hit in the projectile will change its trajectory.

Tank locators operating in automatic mode will detect flying ammunition. The calculating device will evaluate the parameters of its flight and decide on the use of tank armaments.

“The weapons we are talking about should shoot the ammunition and, if not destroy, then make the projectile deviate and not hit the target,” says deputy chairman of the Duma defense committee Franz Klintsevich

https://iz.ru/news/568891

I could see real problems with this sort of thing...

Imagine a COIN operation with terrorists all over the place and no front line with good guys mixed with bad guys and friendlies and neutrals all over the place.

An attack is mounted on a vehicle from amongst civilians and these machine guns open up trying to shoot down the rocket... how to you prevent it from hitting civlians or even friendlies?

Much better to use short range munitions like ARENA and DROZD...

Tank locators operating in automatic mode will detect flying ammunition. The calculating device will evaluate the parameters of its flight and decide on the use of tank armaments.

I suspect most of the time the calculating device would choose DROZD or Afghanit munitions for the interception...