Future of Russian IFV/AFVs

Like I said a 90mm or larger will do the job but the rounds are large and limit internal ammo capacity while not offering anyway.

A big leap in armour protection that would warrant such an increase, but to increase armour by that much would result in 40 ton IFVs which the west does not have and is not planning to have.
It does not need such a big propellent case for HE rounds as shown by the BMP-3M with its 100mm low velocity gun for delivering HE fire power to support troop operations.

30mm cannons lack HE power for heavier targets, but 57mm guns can carry quite a punch in HE, so the move from 30mm to 57mm means the 100mm is not so important, but an increase in enemy IFV armour will likely be met with Kornet-EM missiles rather than another increase in calibre.

The fundamentals are payload and trajectory. You need a combination of both. The Israelis use 60 mm mortars on their vehicles for this very reason. You need to be able to hit those you can see, and reach/suppress those you cannot hit directly, but know where they are. High velocity weapons attempt to do this with expensive and complex fusing (while failing to acknowledge that these targets are poor targets for laser range finders - needed to provide the data for the fusing). Lower velocity weapons can do this with simple fusing and a plunging trajectory. 90mm gives you payload, and if fired at typical HE velocities give you an useful trajectory to reach those you can't reach directly. UK Recce used to be equipped with a mix of 30mm and 76mm, which was a potent mix. Due to fume toxicity concerns the 76mm has been retired and has been missed. Back to the Israelis use of the 60 mm mortar, and the balance between primary and secondary target sets. The trouble is the secondary target set may be the highest threat (an atgw team), yet not be a high enough priority for combat support assets (who would unmask a battery of guns for a 3 man team). So, you need flexibility at the point of need (hence the mortar). Modern 40mm - cool if you can see what you are shooting at, 90mm provides more versatility but at a design cost. Personally, I like payload, but it is a subjective preference.

I mean payload and ability to vary trajectory to suit the target. This is not the same as direct and indirect. A 40mm AGL is normally used in the direct fire role, but it's low velocity means that has a high trajectory that enables you to reach men behind cover, in ditches etc. Payload clearly enhances the terminal effect. For me, it is about versatility - the Israelis achieve it with vehicle mounted mortars. For a medium canon equipped vehicle with MG secondary armament, you have 2 flat trajectory weapons, so if your target reacts to you and seeks cover, you cannot reach it.

The fundamentals are payload and trajectory. You need a combination of both. The Israelis use 60 mm mortars on their vehicles for this very reason. You need to be able to hit those you can see, and reach/suppress those you cannot hit directly, but know where they are.

The main reason for the Israelis to use 60mm mortars on their tanks is to maximise their firepower... they could of course use their 105 or 120mm main tank guns, but such ammo is large and they can only carry a limited amount of it at a time and in many cases the HE shells of the 105 and 120mm rounds are too big and too powerful... wasteful.

The solution is to have a light mortar on board that can lob HE over moderate distances. When fighting in built up areas having a very low velocity weapon can mean the difference between being able to hit enemy forces sheltering between buildings and not being able to hit them at all.

High velocity weapons attempt to do this with expensive and complex fusing (while failing to acknowledge that these targets are poor targets for laser range finders - needed to provide the data for the fusing).

Actually that is not true... a target that is hidden can be engaged with ANIET fused ammo... you just lase something that is the same distance away as the hidden target  and then aim above where the hidden target is.

If it has no top cover it will get an airburst above it...

Enemy troops known to be in dead ground (dead ground is out of sight ground), for instance if you are in an open field and 500m away there is a road up on raised ground and beyond the road the ground drops away again into a field... you might know there are lots of enemy troops in the field beyond the road but you can't see... your best option is to get a spotter in position so they can see over the road and into the field... they could be on high ground over looking the area or they could be a UAV. Fire a round and they can call in corrections... lower velocity rounds being more useful here.

Lower velocity weapons can do this with simple fusing and a plunging trajectory. 90mm gives you payload, and if fired at typical HE velocities give you an useful trajectory to reach those you can't reach directly.

Low velocity small shell case rounds are useless at anti armour, while high velocity large calibre rounds take up a lot of space which is largely wasted for HE rounds.

UK Recce used to be equipped with a mix of 30mm and 76mm, which was a potent mix. Due to fume toxicity concerns the 76mm has been retired and has been missed.

It was expected that the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 would be replaced by the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 when the BMP-1 got new ATGMs.

The original BMP-1 had the AT-3 Sagger which had a dead zone of about 400m where it couldn't hit anything reliably so to give the BMP-1 protection from enemy armour within 500m or so they fitted it with a 73mm gun.

By the time the BMP-2 entered service the minimum effective range of the AT-4/-5 was about 75 metres so the 73mm gun was no longer needed for the short range anti armour role and was replaced with a high velocity 30mm cannon.

The two different weapons were found to be complimentary... of the wide range of battlefield targets some were better engaged with a 30mm cannon (ie enemy IFVs, aircraft, light vehicles, significant bunkers etc), while other targets needed more HE power than the 30mm could manage.

In the end the replacement for the 73mm gun (rocket launcher) was a low velocity 100mm rifled gun while the 30mm calibre was retained.

The problem now is that the 30mm is no longer adequate for enemy IFV armour and an increase in calibre should allow more efficient HE rounds meaning less need for a separate HE calibre like the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3M.

The thing is that a high velocity 57mm round is actually rather large while the 100mm low pressure round is actually very compact.

It might sound silly but the 100mm round is not powerful enough for kinetic anti armour rounds, though it meets the HE needs, while the 57mm rounds meet the APFSDS round needs but is likely a little light in terms of HE.

Personally I think the best compromise is IFVs with 57mm/45mm high velocity guns plus APCs with 30mm cannon, and BMPT with 120mm rifled gun/mortars and light cannon and automatic grenade launchers.

It means plenty of firepower and high and low velocity rounds for a range of targets.

For a medium canon equipped vehicle with MG secondary armament, you have 2 flat trajectory weapons, so if your target reacts to you and seeks cover, you cannot reach it.

There is no reason why that vehicle cannot have an AGL to engage targets behind cover...

To fire at you they would need to break cover... when they move back to concealment you can simply switch weapons and start lobbing 40mm grenades where you suspect they are hiding.

The real key is velocity... if you want a truly dual purpose weapon it will need high velocity.

For instance the shift from the 76.2mm gun of the T-34-76 to the high velocity 85mm gun of the T-34-85 was not because the HE shell of the T-34 was inadequate... it was to increase the armour penetration of the main gun ammo... once you get to about 76.2mm the calibre is large enough for a useful HE round without requiring a separate calibre.

In fact with the 152mm calibre smoothbore I would think the HE round would be just too big for most targets so a 60mm mortar or 82mm Vasilek auto mortar might be carried to deliver HE rounds on target instead of using main gun tank rounds.

It is also important to keep in mind that calibres change and the 88mm round of the Tiger I was not the same as the 88mm of the Tiger II.

The Tiger I had an 88mm main gun that fired 88 x 571mm shells from an L56 88mm gun.

The Tiger I had an 88mm main gun too that fired 88 x 822mm shells from an 88mm L71 gun.

The Tiger I has shells that are 88mm in calibre and 571mm long, and are fired from a gun 88 x 56mm long or a 4.98 metre long barrel.

The Tiger II has shells that are 822mm long from a gun that is 71 calibres long.

The requirement for HE power didnt change, it was the need for better penetration which lead to a propellent increase...

Here are the two 88mm shells.. in the centre of a range of WWII weapons.

Most tanks really just need the highest velocity anti armour gun they can carry that will penetrate enemy armour. These days that automatically means a heavy HE payload.

For IFVS a mix of high velocity along with low velocity with high HE capacity makes the vehicle versatile.

BMP-3M got that with a low velocity 100mm main gun with good HE punch and a high velocity 30mm cannon.

The BMPT that I like best has a rifled 120mm gun/mortar plus 6 barrel 23mm cannon and 40mm grenade launcher.

The latter is ideal as it has a variety of velocity, rate of fire, flat and curved trajectory guided and unguided, light and heavy rounds.

The 120mm main gun in particular is not like a gun as it has variable charge propellent so you can have low recoil low velocity curved trajectory rounds for close targets so the rounds are still lofted over frontal cover but don't actually travel that far up because of the reduced propellent charge they can still be quite accurate.

Another good example of how calibres differ... the size of the 23 x 115mm round used in the 23mm 6 barrel GSh-23-4 gatling and the 30 x 165mm round used in the 2A42 and 2A72 30mm cannon is shown in this photo:



Note the huge round to the far right is the 30mm round, while the small round next to it is the 30mm cannon of the AH-64 Apache... the next round that just looks a little slimmer is the 23 x 115mm round.

Nice... thanks for posting.

Might be interesting addition to discussion

The relevance and prospects of creating 57 mm anti-aircraft artillery complex battlefield

Claimed to be called BTR-88.

Since this is IFV thread, I found this YouTube video that shows a BMP-3 variant firing Kornet missiles.

Hi

I've grown totally fond of those vehicules (i'm french btw), especially the cheap and light ERC-90

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERC_90_Sagaie



Basically, a cheap and heavily armed recon vehicle. Russia has the 2S25, but, it's, tracked, much heavier, and more expensive. BMP-3 has a similar role I guess, but it's also much more complex than a ERC-90.

ERC-90 90mm gun is a formidable weapon, it's smoothbore, high velocity. Chassis is fully amphibious, but litterally vulnerable to any weapon (probably 7.62 AP). In this regard, it's worse than a BMP or BTR-80

The ERC is our main tank de facto deployed overseas, actually it's our main firesuport weapon in any conflitc recently, and remain the sole "tank" available to our forces in africa for example. France never deployed any leclerc except in kosovo and lebanon.

I think russia would benefit a similar vehicle... Maybe already are planned 8x8 heavy vehicles boomerang with canon, but, I think a cheaper 4x4 or 6x6 like the ERC is a great idea. Mobility of the ERC is close to 100km/h on roads, and would be a great tool for a quick response brigade or such.

What guns can russia use on a light chassis with enough power? Or they need to built a new one? maybe revive a 85mm type gun, or, develop a 100mm lightweight gun using classic D-10 100x695mm shells?


And the AMX-10RC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC




Is another kind of beast, very expensive, it's litterally a wheeled tank, with fully stabilised and top notch FCS armament, 105mm rifled gun (like AMX-30). De facto it's our heaviest "tank" deployed overseas, but not as common as the ERC-90. Armour is much better, probably enough vs old HEAT warheads like PG-7, and vs 12.7 AP overall or 20mm APDS frontally.

This "tank" will probably have a direct equivalent in russia as the 8x8 gun boomerang (125mm?).

By the way, what do you think of the french VAB 6x6 APC? Basically it's like a BTR-80 with less armour, no real armament, and lighter.


I think french army really relies on wheeled armour, while the leclerc are basically useless.

It's challenging to tell how much emphasis Russia's going to put on these wheeled guns. These are primarily anti-armor vehicles, and Russia just prefers ATGM's for that roll.

That may change in the future, depending on how successful Boomerang is.

There will be four vehicle families... Armata in the 50 ton class, Kurganets in the 25 ton class, Boomerang in the 25 ton class and Typhoon in the 10-15 ton class.

Armata and Kurganets will be tracked, while Boomerang and Typhoon will be wheeled.

This suggests they will have a 25 ton wheeled MBT and a 10-15 ton wheeled MBT vehicle.

the Boomerang will likely have the same 125mm gun as the T-90AM and Armata, while the Typhoon might also have a 125mm gun or perhaps it might have a high velocity 57mm gun plus Kornet_M anti tank guided missiles.

Another option of course is that it could have the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3M plus a 30mm cannon to allow it to deal with a range of targets.

In each vehicle family there will be a range of vehicles including IFV, APC, MBT, mortar vehicle etc etc, so they will have a range of options in the light wheeled category.

GarryB wrote:There will be four vehicle families... Armata in the 50 ton class, Kurganets in the 25 ton class, Boomerang in the 25 ton class and Typhoon in the 10-15 ton class.

Armata and Kurganets will be tracked, while Boomerang and Typhoon will be wheeled.

This suggests they will have a 25 ton wheeled MBT and a 10-15 ton wheeled MBT vehicle.

the Boomerang will likely have the same 125mm gun as the T-90AM and Armata, while the  Typhoon might also have a 125mm gun or perhaps it might have a high velocity 57mm gun plus Kornet_M anti tank guided missiles.

Another option of course is that it could have the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3M plus a 30mm cannon to allow it to deal with a range of targets.

In each vehicle family there will be a range of vehicles including IFV, APC, MBT, mortar vehicle etc etc, so they will have a range of options in the light wheeled category.

That low-pressure, low-velocity 100mm cannon of the BMP-3?

Wouldn't do no good in the AT role. Well it can fire gun-launched missiles - but then you could have some Kornets on an external launcher anyway. Ofc it would be good for the HE capabilities - but that's what the IFVs and BMPTs are for.

The high-velocity 57mm + Kornet-M configuration sounds like the best one to me. Although - that might be the one given to the IFV - leaving the Typhoon MBT with the 100mm cannon indeed.

Too many options..

I think that for lightweight and fast chassis like Boomerang or Taifun, ATGM launching system is a more suitable choice.

Compared to tank ammunition, ATGM has far superior effective range. Abandoning the traditional bulky heavy tank cannon/turret can pave the way for other systems, add-ons and weapons, such as 12.7mm gun, 23/30mm autocannon, or else.

It is said that, this is the reason why the BMPT design like Terminator is going to be the future of tank. ATGM provides better anti-tank capability and limited AA capability. Abandoning the traditional tank turret paves way for 30mm autocannon and grenade launchers which is more suitable for dealing with light vehicles, soft target, and very close range anti-air (anti helicopter).

However, at the moment, ATGM still suffers from several technical issues, for example the ability to deal with ERA, countermeasures (jammer), etc. and that is the reason why BMPT is still serving in the secondary role, behind MBT.

Oops, I am sorry,

higurashihougi wrote:I think that for lightweight and fast chassis like Boomerang or Taifun, ATGM launching system is a more suitable choice.

Compared to tank ammunition, ATGM has far superior effective range. Abandoning the traditional bulky heavy tank cannon/turret can pave the way for other systems, add-ons and weapons, such as 12.7mm gun, 23/30mm autocannon, or else.

It is said that, this is the reason why the BMPT design like Terminator is going to be the future of tank. ATGM provides better anti-tank capability and limited AA capability. Abandoning the traditional tank turret paves way for 30mm autocannon and grenade launchers which is more suitable for dealing with light vehicles, soft target, and very close range anti-air (anti helicopter).

However, at the moment, ATGM still suffers from several technical issues, for example the ability to deal with ERA, countermeasures (jammer), etc. and that is the reason why BMPT is still serving in the secondary role, behind MBT.

Oops, I am sorry,

Na, AT missiles are a poor substitute for tank cannons; for all the reasons you listed and more.

But the tank cannon is very expensive in terms of design considerations - essentially any vehicle which has one, ends up being built around it.

ATGMs on the other hand are very cheap design considerations - you can even have it along with all of its mechanisms completely external to the rest of the vehicle, making it compatible with almost anything. Indeed they can, and are - carried around by ground troops too; even vehicles are not a necessity for them.

An MBT - is characterized by both its armour, and by its ultimate HE/AT firepower. If we're speaking about light-tanks or wheeled tanks - we're left with just the firepower as its defining characteristic.

So it should have enough firepower to differentiate it from the rest of the vehicles, and especially to be able to deal with any enemy ground threat no matter how well armoured. Otherwise what is the point of it? You could just skip the light, under-armed tank altogether and just go for more IFVs and BMPTs - which will be able to do all the same things and more; like carrying infantry around.

If you make such a tank - you could make it a missile-tank based around a large missile battery maybe; looking like a direct-fire mini-TOS-1 perhaps, with a mix of AT, thermobaric, fragmentation and other missiles. Could be done I suppose.
Or you could use the 57mm auto-cannon and ATGM configuration as GazB suggested.
But both of those would really just be alternate IFV configurations more than anything, optimized for the AT role - as they would still have room to carry infantry around. And as tank substitutes they would be poor; neither would be able to guarantee kills of enemy armour and the later configuration would also have a deficit of HE hitting power.

So the best option IMO is either the Sprut's 125mm cannon if it can be adapted with modern materials to reduce weight and so on.
If not - then a new, high-pressure, high-velocity 100mm smoothbore gun. Should definitely be compatible with a light wheeled chassis without unbalancing the vehicle, diminishing its amphibious capability or anything like that.

For me the 90mm or 105mm guns are useless and wrong thinking. Slow fire rate, overkill vs APC`s and can´t kill MBT`s.
Much better with either 30-57mm autocannon vs APC`s and atgm vs tanks, or 125mm vs everything.

runaway wrote:For me the 90mm or 105mm guns are useless and wrong thinking. Slow fire rate, overkill vs APC`s and can´t kill MBT`s.
Much better with either 30-57mm autocannon vs APC`s and atgm vs tanks, or 125mm vs everything.

Fair logic. In that case - either 125mm vs everything or nuthin', as the 57mm autocannon + ATGMs is really nothing that can't (and hasn't) be done on an IFV.

Lightweight chassis has its advantages in the agility and speed, with the prefeerable tactics of hit-and-run. I would prefer a design and combination which is as less bulky as possible.

I still like the ATGM/autocannon combination. Small caliber autocannon is cheap and cost-effective to deal with light vehicles and soft target, and helo, and you can carry more ammunition, and it does not suffer from jamming or whatever. Meanwhile ATGM will be reserved for dealing with tanks.

Or you can substitue a number of ATGM with thermobaric rockets.

That low-pressure, low-velocity 100mm cannon of the BMP-3?

With a powerful HE charge it would be effective against a wide range of soft targets... for armoured targets it could carry a quad launcher for Kornet-M.

Ofc it would be good for the HE capabilities - but that's what the IFVs and BMPTs are for.

depends on the situation of course... a very high mobility light wheeled vehicle would be able to deliver useful HE capability but wouldn't be that good against a well equipped enemy.

I would see it as a gun platform rather than a tank killer... is mobile direct fire support... 7km range HE rounds would be adequate there.

The high-velocity 57mm + Kornet-M configuration sounds like the best one to me. Although - that might be the one given to the IFV - leaving the Typhoon MBT with the 100mm cannon indeed.

A light unit expecting light enemies perhaps the MBT will have the high velocity 57mm gun and Kornet M, while the IFV might have a 30mm cannon and perhaps 30mm grenade launcher for high rate of fire and high fire power.

It is said that, this is the reason why the BMPT design like Terminator is going to be the future of tank.

BMPT does not replace tanks... it replaces vulnerable infantry that support tanks so the tanks and BMPT can go places where infantry in the open would be too exposed and vulnerable.

I do agree however that in some circumstances the BMPT might be a better choice to support an infantry unit than a MBT... like when there is no prospect of enemy MBTs which means 125mm main tank guns are not so necessary, but a nice powerful 120mm rifled gun/mortar or 100mm rifled main gun would be powerful direct fire support weapons.

So the best option IMO is either the Sprut's 125mm cannon if it can be adapted with modern materials to reduce weight and so on.
If not - then a new, high-pressure, high-velocity 100mm smoothbore gun. Should definitely be compatible with a light wheeled chassis without unbalancing the vehicle, diminishing its amphibious capability or anything like that.

It is an issue that has been grappled with for some time... and I prefer the Soviet answer... if you have a light recon type unit how do you give it the firepower to deal with enemy MBT level armour... the answer... you include MBTs with it.

In other words if you expect to encounter enemy MBTs then  send a medium unit or heavy unit and not a light one.

The 25 ton class Kurganets and Boomerang should easily be able to use the 125mm gun in the MBT role as the Sprut already carries such a weapon.

With the lighter Typhoon it just needs the fire power to deal with similar vehicles (ie light) or the speed to run away. Add extra artillery units and even if the Typhoon MBT with a high velocity 57mm gun can't deal with an M60A3 or T-72 it should be able to call in top attack 152mm artillery rounds that will obliterate anything that third world country can muster.[/quote]

@Garry: I do not think that at the moment, BMPT can replace tanks. But I think at the time when the technological level has reach the sufficient level, the ATGM can be reliable enough to be the main way for dealing with heavy armour instead of tank ammunition and at that time BMPT can be the main player.

For a number of people, ATGM is one of the most important element of a BMPT, and as you can see, they think this is the key for the future dominating role of BMPT instead of tank cannon + turret traditional MBT. They also see the families of unmanned turret vehicles is one step ahead for fulfilling that model.

The BMPT weapon combination of ATGM/Shmell + 30mm autocannon (HE and AP ammo) + grenade launcher, I think, provide superior capability in dealing with both hard and soft targets, and very close range AA tasks (anti helicopter, etc). Given if the ATGM is reliable enough.

Back to the lightweight chassis, I still prefer ATGM and small caliber auto-gun rather than a bulky cannon with big turret.

@Garry: I do not think that at the moment, BMPT can replace tanks. But I think at the time when the technological level has reach the sufficient level, the ATGM can be reliable enough to be the main way for dealing with heavy armour instead of tank ammunition and at that time BMPT can be the main player.

A tank has two primary uses... one is to fight enemy tanks for which its high velocity heavy calibre main gun is critical. The other is direct fire support for infantry on an armoured platform with very heavy armour... a sort of mobile bunker with heavy artillery gun fitted.

When the enemy does not have its own heavy armour then the heavy gun on a MBT is used for HE rather than anti armour use so in that case a 100mm rifled low pressure gun can do the job.

Keep in mind these vehicles will be net centric with data coming in from UAVs and satellites and aircraft and a range of ground platforms and will have excellent communications and sensors and also state of the art NERA and ceramic armour as well as the new replacement for Shtora and of course a new APS system that will probably deal with top attack weapons and APFSDS rounds too.

In addition to high mobility they should have good situational awareness and be able to choose when to fight and when to call in air or artillery.

In Iraq Abrams tanks were destroyed by IEDs as small as 50kgs exploding near them... imagine a 40kg 152mm guided artillery shell landing on its turret roof. Or a 130kg 240mm round from a Tulip...

For a number of people, ATGM is one of the most important element of a BMPT, and as you can see, they think this is the key for the future dominating role of BMPT instead of tank cannon + turret traditional MBT. They also see the families of unmanned turret vehicles is one step ahead for fulfilling that model.

Sorry but they are WRONG.

the ATGMs fitted to the BMPT wont be fitted with HEAT warheads... the BMPT is a tank support vehicle... it supports tanks. Tanks are excellent at fighting other tanks... that is their main purpose. The BMPT wont be fighting other tanks it will be fighting the enemy infantry supporting the enemy tanks.

The ATGMs on the BMPT will be for hitting point targets out to 5-6km range... including aircraft and ATGM missile teams.

There is enormous scope for remote unmanned vehicles but there will need to be unmanned MBTs, BMPTs, etc etc. Of course it would be stupid to have unmanned IFVs and unmanned APCs for obvious reasons, which is why you need unmanned BMPTs as they will deal with the enemy infantry and light armour, while the MBTs will deal with enemy heavy armour.

The BMPT weapon combination of ATGM/Shmell + 30mm autocannon (HE and AP ammo) + grenade launcher, I think, provide superior capability in dealing with both hard and soft targets, and very close range AA tasks (anti helicopter, etc). Given if the ATGM is reliable enough.

The BMPT supports tanks with 125mm smoothbore main guns... it has not capability against heavy armour.. the ATGMs will all have HE warheads.

I suspect the BMPT will change to Kornet-M missiles to extend its anti aircraft capability to 10km... a capability it was designed for and is being attached to Pantsir units as a cheap short range missile against UAVs etc.

Back to the lightweight chassis, I still prefer ATGM and small caliber auto-gun rather than a bulky cannon with big turret.

The 100mm gun of the BMP-3M is a powerful and fairly accurate weapon and the new missiles being developed for it appear to be the size of the standard HE rounds so instead of being limited to 8 missiles and 40 odd HE rounds ready to fire it should have the potential for perhaps 48 rounds ready to fire with up to 48 guided missiles or 48 cheap HE frag rounds.

Experience with the BMP-1 with its 73mm gun and the BMP-2 and its 30mm cannon has shown the Russians that it is useful to have light auto cannons and also heavier guns firing heavier more powerful HE rounds too. For a lot of targets the 30mm is ideal, but for other targets it lacks weight and impact while its rate of fire is of no use. A much heavier round makes sense, but lighter higher velocity rounds in an automatic weapon are also useful.

In many ways the BMP-3M was the BMPT in that it could support its infantry unit against enemy infantry forces but has some self defence capability against tanks it was not designed to fight tanks.

The BMPT on the other hand has no capability against enemy heavy armour... but it also doesn't need it because it is designed to operate with tanks which can deal with enemy tanks.

To put it in perspective I remember a photo in a British military magazine from the 1980s that showed a Bradley firing a TOW missile stating that it could kill a Soviet tank out to 3.75km. At the time they didn't realise that was not 100 percent likely, but they did comment that the enemy could be a T-80 firing back APFSDS rounds at 1.8km/s and that while launching the TOW and guiding it the Bradley would have to remain stationary while the T-80 could be moving and fire 2-3 rounds in the time it takes the TOW to reach it.

as far as i know, French army deploy these vehicles in overseas missions in african countries. It is like a light tank easy to be transferred by sea and air in long distances

And also in COIN type operations against enemies fairly lightly equipped.

Against a third world inexperienced T-55 tank crew in a typhoon with a 100mm rifled gun with tube launched 100mm HEAT missiles you would have a good chance of winning due to both better training and superior all weather day/night optics as well as better communications. In addition you could jam their comms or listen in and gain further advantage.

According to Gur Khan, 45 mm gun which was in competition against 57 mm gun, lost out because they had some difficulty creating telescopic 45 mm ammo:

The effectiveness of 57-mm automatic cannon

I need to find some further confirmation on this claim, and of course it could be a mis-translation.

Given the utter lack of new 57mm rounds, especially anti-armor ones....I find that curious.

I am not sure he is right that the 45mm has been sunk. Just because Epoha-lite has been shown with 2A42 does not mean it cannot be up-gunned when the gun is ready.

Just looks like Khlopotov musing, nothing more.

The question i have is, how will be the elevation of the gun of kurganetz25, effectivley enough to have some partial AA capability?