[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1

All we have to do is wait until May... We can do it, we can do it.....

Mike E wrote:All we have to do is wait until May... We can do it, we can do it.....

damn, such c*ckteasers- they should at least have taken the top off T-95- i wanna see what that mature beauty is packing beneath underneath that cloth- from what ive seen she is indeed really filling it quite well

Must be fan art.

Not fan art.

Official model shown at factory that would produce it if their design is selected... orders of magnitude higher than just fan art, but still not certain.

Are segmented rubber band tracks being considered for Armata (or tracked Kurganets)?
Softer on roads/etc, softer on the platform itself, and field replaceability all seem universally welcome...???
I imagine even if a wheel or two is destroyed, if the band segments are replaced, the vehicle could still move.

Any of you here seen Jordan's Falcon turret upgrade before? Kinda turns older Centurions, Chieftains, and Challengers in an Armata-like platform. - Unmanned turret with an autoloader, crew is located entirely in the hull with a separate ammo compartment. Just thought that it is somewhat a good idea... Wonder if Russia could do a similar kind of mutant-tank with the unmanned turret of the Armata and the hull of a T-90 etc. Course the hull would need to be raised and in general, enlarged quite a bit. But with the lesser weight of the turret more armor could be applied to the frontal glacis of the hull. Personally.... I think it would be a great idea for older T-72 chassis that are going to be scrapped eventually. It wouldn't require much modification (Falcon turret doesn't) and should be a cheaper and more efficient way of upgrading Russia's and possibly exports' land vehicle force. TBH the general idea is that it would be a BMPT-like vehicle with the gun of a MBT (Armata). Possibly it could function as a tank destroyer of sorts...

i saw that the reactive armour explode when a spike push it. but isnt that too late? a false wall that give signal for detonating earlyer and trown a metal plate to the spike would be usefull?

victor1985 wrote:i saw that the reactive armour explode when a spike push it. but isnt that too late? a false wall that give signal for detonating earlyer and trown a metal plate to the spike would be usefull?

The spike is an important factor for penetrative capabilities, but the metal plate that is thrown against the KE penetrator will make it Yaw and perforate the penetrator itself, meaning it will lose two significant important factors for its penetration (weight and angle of attack) after that it wouldn't penetrate armor anywhere else but make cosmetic damage on the surface.

The outer surface of ERA is not the metal plate that is thrown in the path of the penetrator in early model ERA and in late model ERA that uses two plates the guillotine the penetrator the outer surface is not one of the two plates either.

Mike E wrote:Any of you here seen Jordan's Falcon turret upgrade before? Kinda turns older Centurions, Chieftains, and Challengers in an Armata-like platform. - Unmanned turret with an autoloader, crew is located entirely in the hull with a separate ammo compartment. Just thought that it is somewhat a good idea... Wonder if Russia could do a similar kind of mutant-tank with the unmanned turret of the Armata and the hull of a T-90 etc. Course the hull would need to be raised and in general, enlarged quite a bit. But with the lesser weight of the turret more armor could be applied to the frontal glacis of the hull. Personally.... I think it would be a great idea for older T-72 chassis that are going to be scrapped eventually. It wouldn't require much modification (Falcon turret doesn't) and should be a cheaper and more efficient way of upgrading Russia's and possibly exports' land vehicle force. TBH the general idea is that it would be a BMPT-like vehicle with the gun of a MBT (Armata). Possibly it could function as a tank destroyer of sorts...

it doesnt have a separate ammo compartment- afaik some rounds are still stored under the turret ring with the 2 crew member, and it uses a bustle autoloader for the rest. aside from that, there is not much point, especially if you have to make significant restructuring of the hull, and it does need a significant bit of beefing up to be at least comparable to frontal turret protection. not only that, armata unmanned turret more than likely uses a vertical carousel AL- no space for two dudes under the turret ring- the center space in the AL needs to be unoccupied so that the gun could depress.

GarryB wrote:

Must be fan art.

Not fan art.

Official model shown at factory that would produce it if their design is selected... orders of magnitude higher than just fan art, but still not certain.

I forgot the /sarc tag. The fan art is based on this model and previous guesses. But we will see in May what it really looks like.
I don't want to be disappointed.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Mike E wrote:Any of you here seen Jordan's Falcon turret upgrade before? Kinda turns older Centurions, Chieftains, and Challengers in an Armata-like platform. - Unmanned turret with an autoloader, crew is located entirely in the hull with a separate ammo compartment. Just thought that it is somewhat a good idea... Wonder if Russia could do a similar kind of mutant-tank with the unmanned turret of the Armata and the hull of a T-90 etc. Course the hull would need to be raised and in general, enlarged quite a bit. But with the lesser weight of the turret more armor could be applied to the frontal glacis of the hull. Personally.... I think it would be a great idea for older T-72 chassis that are going to be scrapped eventually. It wouldn't require much modification (Falcon turret doesn't) and should be a cheaper and more efficient way of upgrading Russia's and possibly exports' land vehicle force. TBH the general idea is that it would be a BMPT-like vehicle with the gun of a MBT (Armata). Possibly it could function as a tank destroyer of sorts...

it doesnt have a separate ammo compartment- afaik some rounds are still stored under the turret ring with the 2 crew member, and it uses a bustle autoloader for the rest. aside from that, there is not much point, especially if you have to make significant restructuring of the hull, and it does need a significant bit of beefing up to be at least comparable to frontal turret protection. not only that, armata unmanned turret more than likely uses a vertical carousel AL- no space for two dudes under the turret ring- the center space in the AL needs to be unoccupied so that the gun could depress.

AFAIK the more recent models have separate ammo storage units within the hull. This could be exclusive to one vehicle though.

kvs wrote:


Must be fan art.

Even better, not even MBT.

Yes, that is reportedly the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle that protects tanks from enemy infantry in situations where friendly infantry are unable to operate in the open safely.

the MBT model appears to be this one... from the same table:



To the far right... in tracks with the low profile turret and the 125mm gun... ie not the truck.

this is of course the Kurganets MBT turret but as the turrets are standardised it should look very similar.

A Kurganets with a gun is not a MAIN battle tank, IMO.

Not in any honest definition of the word.

Also, I will bet Russian Army has no plans to buy such a vehicle in any case.

GarryB wrote:Yes, that is reportedly the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle that protects tanks from enemy infantry in situations where friendly infantry are unable to operate in the open safely.

the MBT model appears to be this one... from the same table:



To the far right... in tracks with the low profile turret and the 125mm gun... ie not the truck.

this is of course the Kurganets MBT turret but as the turrets are standardised it should look very similar.

This is completely up side down. The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
How can anyone confuse them? The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it. The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90. The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

This is completely up side down. The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
How can anyone confuse them? The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it. The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90. The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

This is not a BMPT it can not be a BMPT, because for that role you need armor on the same level as a real MBT. The definition of BMPT is Tank Supporting Vehicle and IFV's don't drive next to Tanks on the front line against enemy Tanks.

This vehicle next to the truck is nothing else but an IFV plattform with 120/125mm cannon, russia did so far not use any kind of such vehicles and i 2nd what TR1 said, russia unlikely to buy such vehicle now, it has no use with the armament range of todays russian AFV's nor see i much future for it. It is just Kurganetz plattform which is unnecessary and is everything but a tank and it would be already inferior to todays IFV's if this model on the table represents the weaponary it supposed to have without any additional armement that the model does not show.

Werewolf wrote:

This is completely up side down. The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
How can anyone confuse them? The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it. The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90. The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

This is not a BMPT it can not be a BMPT, because for that role you need armor on the same level as a real MBT. The definition of BMPT is Tank Supporting Vehicle and IFV's don't drive next to Tanks on the front line against enemy Tanks.

This vehicle next to the truck is nothing else but an IFV plattform with 120/125mm cannon, russia did so far not use any kind of such vehicles and i 2nd what TR1 said, russia unlikely to buy such vehicle now, it has no use with the armament range of todays russian AFV's nor see i much future for it. It is just Kurganetz plattform which is unnecessary and is everything but a tank and it would be already inferior to todays IFV's if this model on the table represents the weaponary it supposed to have without any additional armement that the model does not show.

My bad, I thought BMPT stood for some glorified BMP. The only BMPT I could find is the "terminator" which uses a regular tank chassis. It looks
nothing like the model picture I posted.

kvs wrote:

GarryB wrote:Yes, that is reportedly the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle that protects tanks from enemy infantry in situations where friendly infantry are unable to operate in the open safely.

the MBT model appears to be this one... from the same table:

To the far right... in tracks with the low profile turret and the 125mm gun... ie not the truck.

this is of course the Kurganets MBT turret but as the turrets are standardised it should look very similar.

This is completely up side down.   The model on the far right is clearly the BMPT variant and the image I linked is the main battle tank.
How can anyone confuse them?   The MBT has the scale and shape to identify it.  The actual BMPT (the far right model) is clearly smaller
since if you assumed it was the size of MBT it would have a profile higher than a T-90.  The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

The plaque in front of the leftmost vehicle reads "Боевая артиллерийская машина на унифицированном базовом шасси Армата", it uses the Armata chassis but its turret is not optimized for Main Battle Tank duty. The Kurganets with the big gun is something like the CV-90 with a 120mm gun.

A Kurganets with a gun is not a MAIN battle tank, IMO.

You are quite correct, but the term has already been rendered inaccurate already.

The first MBT was the T-34, which had medium weight, good armour, good firepower, and good mobility.

It was technically a medium tank but got good protection using sloping armour to maximise the protection it provided.

Back then there were light, medium, and heavy tanks... light tanks tended to have machine guns and were really infantry support vehicles. Medium tanks were general purpose tanks that took ground and fought other tanks, while heavy tanks were to slog it out against heavy fortifications or attack enemy tanks at long range. They often had heavier guns so they were better against fortifications.

In practise most were eventually replaced with one tank that gradually got special armour structures to keep weight to an average and a really big powerful gun.... in the Soviet Army the light tank was largely replaced by the IFV and APC with its  own organic firepower, while the heavy tank tended to be replaced by the long range ATGM vehicle.

Currently the term MBT means the one heavy gun platform designed to take out any enemy vehicle, though western vehicles could be termed heavy tanks and therefore not Main Battle Tanks.

The future structure of the Russian military involves the use of vehicle families so the return of light, medium, and heavy tanks, though in truth it will be medium tanks in the form of the Armata tank, and light tank in the form of the Kurganets tank vehicle, with the Boomerang and Typhoon best being described as light gun platforms.

Also, I will bet Russian Army has no plans to buy such a vehicle in any case.

The purpose of the introduction of the vehicle families is to reduce the different types of vehicles within one unit to one type to reduce the logistics tail and simplify support.

Having an Armata based tank in a Kurganets unit full of IFVs with Typhoon scout cars totally defeats the whole concept.

Having an Armata based tank in an armata unit full of armata based IFVs and armata based recon vehicles and scout cars is what they are aiming for.

And if Afghanistan can stop APFSDS rounds then in practical terms the Kurganets tank will be a very formidable vehicle.

The galcis is all wrong too for an MBT and obviously
does not conform to any previous Soviet or Russian MBT design.

the Glacis is the Glacis of the Kurganets vehicle family.

the two middle vehicles in the photo you posted again show the IFV turrets on the Boomerang and Kurganets platforms with 57mm guns.

In fact the turret is similar to this one shown for the APC version:



And will be fitted to all the vehicle families APC variants as it does not penetrate into the vehicle and therefore maximises the troop compartment size.

Note as an APC turret it is optimised for dealing with threats that infantry will come across in combat.

In comparison the IFV turret has the 57mm gun for dealing with enemy IFVs as well as other threats the infantry will come across.

i 2nd what TR1 said, russia unlikely to buy such vehicle now, it has no use with the armament range of todays russian AFV's nor see i much future for it.

Russia has been planning this for some time and we have seen lots of articles on the unification of sensors and weapons to create light, medium, and heavy units with vehicle families in each weight category.

The problem posed was that in Chechnya a standard division had well protected tanks that lacked main gun elevation to deal with threats in upper floors of buildings and basement floors in buidings. IFVs had the elevation but their lighter protection meant they could be picked off leaving the MBTs vulnerable.

Two solutions really... one is to make all Russian armour based on tank chassis... which would work but would be enormously expensive and slow down movement/mobility.

the solution they chose was to develop units for different situations and environments.

In the flat open steppe where targets can be detected at long range and engaged at long range you don't need so much armour... you just need good communications and coordination to detect and engage enemy targets rapidly and efficiently.

In close up environments like hedge rows and forests and urban areas heavier armour is needed.

they have selected 4 different vehicle platforms with 4 different engines and transmissions, but in terms of weapons and sensors they are developing suites like aircraft suites. With aircraft electronics they are called avionics. For armoured vehicles they will develop avionics for a MBT and those sensors and weapons and systems will be unifed between the four vehicle families.

The crew stations will already be standard and the same across the different vehicles, so there will be three crew stations from which you can drive, command, or be gunner without shifting seat.

the gunners controls will turn the turret and raise and lower the gun... push a button and those controls now drive the vehicle, or operate the commanders cuppola and perhaps even fly a small UAV or ground based unmanned vehicle.

To repeat this is NOT a case that the Armata will be the MBT, Kurganets will be the new BMP, Boomerang will be the new BTR and the Typhoon will be the new BRDM... these are vehicle families and mixing them into one unit will defeat the entire purpose of using vehicle families to reduce the logistics tail.

It is just Kurganetz plattform which is unnecessary and is everything but a tank and it would be already inferior to todays IFV's if this model on the table represents the weaponary it supposed to have without any additional armement that the model does not show.

The MBT model of the Kurganets has a 125mm smoothbore main gun and can be considered the next gen Sprut. It will operate with IFVs and APC versions and indeed artillery and air defence versions that fill out the fire power and make the unit mobile and powerful.

Add on new NERA and of course the next gen Nakidka and Shtora-2 or 3 and Standard APS and modern ceramic modular armour and you will have a very capable little vehicle in the 25 ton class.

My bad, I thought BMPT stood for some glorified BMP. The only BMPT I could find is the "terminator" which uses a regular tank chassis. It looks
nothing like the model picture I posted.

BMPT is an armoured vehicle that supports tanks in places where infantry in the open are too vulnerable to enemy fire. It is basically to a tank what infantry would normally be... protection from enemy infantry.

The BTRT is a tank based APC, which would be armed with a 30mm cannon as I have pictured above with a non hull penetrating turret to maximise the troop compartment size.

The IFV version in the model pic above has 57mm main guns and an as yet unseen turret.

The left most vehicle in that photo had a stubby little mortar carrier turret, though I would expect only Typhoon will have a small mortar like that... perhaps an 82mm auto mortar?

Heavier vehicles will have the 120mm gun/mortar with much better range and power.

The Kurganets with the big gun is something like the CV-90 with a 120mm gun.

Or more accurately it is an upgraded Sprut.

For use in situations where the enemy has no MBTs or old ones like T-55s then you could get away with a light tank using communication and modern ammo and new thermals they wont know what hit them... and even if they get a shot off that is what APS is for.

These vehicles will be in service before 2017 am I correct? What GarryB wrote is a great way of explaining these vehicles. In Chechnya my uncle was in and although he did not go to Grozny he has seen urban combat, They would bring in Shilkas to take out terrorist teams in high buildings. BMPs and BTRs would be obliterated and after a while the officers took their heads out their bums and finally found out that you don't send poorly trained troops with huge amounts and attack a big city sadly, I mean those guys were barely equipped with maps. Shilkas were great but they were sitting ducks, The terrorists quickly found new tactics such as IED the hell out of a certain area where Russian forces are bound to come from, Or the usual 3 to 4 AT teams engage from multiple sides. Im not sure about the tactics put to use in the 2nd war but I know for sure what happened in the first war is not acceptable.

I make huge sense of the Armata series, And Im sure NATO will not have a counterpart for a while. I'm looking forward to a new 57MM gun on a IFV would be great for Urban warfare, As it would just need to fire one or 2 HE rounds and you basically took out a whole room.
Can't wait to see these tanks, Been waiting for Armata for a while now.

These vehicles will be in service before 2017 am I correct?

2015 was the deadline for development AFAIK, with the next few years getting them into service and the bugs worked out.

I would suspect the lighter vehicles would be fastest produced and would get into service first, though all the various modifications of each base vehicle will be developed together so work on the command vehicle in the armata unit will be related and likely coordinated with the work on the command vehicle in the Typhoon, Boomerang, and Kurganets units too.

Some alterations will need to be made for the different weight class vehicles... for instance the Typhoon class in the 10-18 ton range with 4 and 6 wheel vehicles might be a bit light for 125mm smoothbore main guns and 152mm SPAs, so instead their gun platform vehicle (formerly known as MBT) might carry a long barrel 120mm gun/mortar, or perhaps even the 57mm high velocity gun, while their artillery units might have 120mm gun/mortars.

It depends... they might say the light units are for use in COIN type operations and recon so engaging enemy tanks will be left to missile vehicles or artillery and CAS aircraft so the main gun platform might carry a 120mm gun/mortar to maximise its ability at direct fire support.

It is going to be very interesting...

Shilkas were great but they were sitting ducks,

And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

Or the usual 3 to 4 AT teams engage from multiple sides.

One tactic in an urban environment was to have teams with 5-6 RPGs and ammo carriers plus PKM MGs and SVD rifles. First the RPG teams would take out the light vehicles while the PKM and SVDs took care of any troops in the open. The MBTs were unable to engage enemy in upper floors of buildings or depress the guns to engage threats in basements except with their external 50 cals which had a max of 300 rounds or so. Once all the support light vehicles were taken out the tanks could be repeatedly hit from the sides and the rear and above till they cracked.

In the first campaign the rebels were assisted greatly with the tanks not having explosive in their ERA arrays and the lack of training. I think they suspected the rebels weren't really up to much and the show of force of them rolling in in parade formation would sort them all out.

I'm looking forward to a new 57MM gun on a IFV would be great for Urban warfare, As it would just need to fire one or 2 HE rounds and you basically took out a whole room.

Actually I am thinking NATO will have to rethink its attack helicopter choices because a 57mm shell with laser beam riding should be able to hit targets at 10-12km, which is outside the range of western ATGMs currently used on their helos.

In terms of taking out a room with an IFVs gun the Russians have had that 100mm rifled gun on the BMP-3 which is rather powerful and accurate too.

I am surprised the west has resisted that little addition as direct fire HE power would seem to be very useful... even in COIN operations. Often a tank unit would need to be added to an infantry unit to add direct fire heavy HE fire power in a western unit, while the Russians already have direct fire HE fire power with their troops.

I am quite looking forward to seeing the new vehicles too...

higurashihougi wrote:

GarryB wrote:And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand.

BMPT is not an air defense vehicle, BMPT = Боевая машина поддержки танков literally translated "Fighting Vehicle for Tank Support" either Garry is confused or he judges it by its 57mm and Gsh-6-23 Gattling based on the model that was shown, then yes it would have quite serious AD capabilities, not dedicated tho.

Werewolf wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:

GarryB wrote:And that is the important thing... the BMPT is not a BMP based on a tank, it is an air defence vehicle that is used in the ground to ground role against enemy infantry and ground targets in a devastating anti ambush role... the main difference being that the BMPT has tank level armour so it wont be as easy to take out as a Shilka which wont stop much more than small arms fire with its light armour.

That is not to say the BMPT is an air defence vehicle... tank units already have air defence vehicles too.

BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand.

BMPT is not an air defense vehicle, BMPT = Боевая машина поддержки танков literally translated "Fighting Vehicle for Tank Support" either Garry is confused or he judges it by its 57mm and Gsh-6-23 Gattling based on the model that was shown, then yes it would have quite serious AD capabilities, not dedicated tho.

BMPT was designed on experiences with effectiveness of AA guns in ground battles with their high elevation and high rate of fire. Problem of AA guns was in their weak armor and in expensive dedicated electronics (radars). BMPT improve exactly this. It have tank level armor and it doesn't have radars.

BMPT is an air defence vehicle... and not to say BMPT is an air defence vehicle... honestly I do not understand

Sorry, I did not explain myself well... the BMPT is a replacement vehicle... it does not replace air defence vehicles being used in the role of air defence... it replaces air defence vehicles being used in the role of ground support.

Much like air defence vehicles in the past have been used for convoy escort to suppress enemy activity... in the East the ZSU-23-4 and BTR-40 with twin 14.5mm HMG and indeed twin barrel 23mm ZU-23 towed AAGs mounted on the back of trucks or BMDs are used against ground targets... in the US the Vulcan air defence vehicle (20mm gatling on an M113) and also the older Duster air defence vehicle (40mm twin guns in an open turret) were also used in the ground support role.

In other words instead of tunguskas being for air defence and ZSU-23-4 vehicles firing on enemy ground forces you will have tunguskas being for air defence and BMPTs firing on enemy ground forces.

either Garry is confused or he judges it by its 57mm and Gsh-6-23 Gattling based on the model that was shown, then yes it would have quite serious AD capabilities, not dedicated tho.

based on the scale of the model that 57mm gun (if it is 57mm and not 40mm) is a very short low velocity weapon. It is likely a grenade launcher.

the 23mm gatling uses 23 x 115mm rounds with a very low muzzle velocity... about 700m/s.

that would make it a fairly limited range weapon... probably 2.5-3km against ground targets and less for aerial targets. It would however be able to deliver a cluster of explosive rounds rapidly... more like a shotgun blast of rounds than a stream like a single barrel cannon.

As such it would be effective against area ground targets in the open like ATGM teams or indeed light vehicles.

that 57mm gun could even be an 82mm automatic mortar like Vasilek for heavier targets that 23mm rounds will just splatter against but don't justify 120mm main gun rounds.

Note Israeli tanks often carry 60mm mortars to engage targets that don't warrant larger shells.

You can carry rather more 82mm rounds than 120mm rounds.

BMPT was designed on experiences with effectiveness of AA guns in ground battles with their high elevation and high rate of fire. Problem of AA guns was in their weak armor and in expensive dedicated electronics (radars). BMPT improve exactly this. It have tank level armor and it doesn't have radars.

X2

We had a discussion thread on the BMPT a while back in which I argued for the replacement of the two single barrel 30mm guns with a much higher rate of fire twin barrel 30mm cannon and to increase the number of targets it could engage with HE the addition of the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3.

This model however has a 120mm rifled gun plus some sort of grenade launcher and a 6 barrel gatling which ticks all the boxes.

the 23mm gatling has a devastating rate of fire, but the ammo is relatively compact being not much bigger than HMG ammo. the projectiles are taken directly from the Shilkas rounds so they have a heavy projectile for their calibre. the gatling has a very high rate of fire so in effect very short bursts will act like shotgun blasts that will bracket the area around the target and compensate for any manouver the target might perform between the shells being fired and impact.

the 120mm gun/mortar offers more range and a heavier shell than the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and also uses in service standard ammo including laser guided artillery shells and mortar rounds and retains the high elevation capability and exceeds the heavy hitting HE shell power of the other weapon.

the grenade launcher offers an alternative to the heavier gun/mortar and lighter cannon with a high elevation low velocity round able to drop over cover and hit dead ground.