I’m a firm believer in 20-30mm for an IFV. An infantry fighting vehicle needs to be able to have staying power to fight alongside its troops. Once you start getting into the 35mm range the ammo capacity gets to be too small. An IFV should be able to carry hundreds of rounds at the ready with a few hundred more in cans stowed away.
In this video we can see a Bradley covering its own advance by suppressing a treeline
?si=waK8adPAfWE4-qlg
Here we see one covering troops on the ground by laying into multiple structures
?si=winSDbvLDpOhgIAK
As far as the recon vehicle I believe 40-60mm is perfect. Enough punch to deal with any LAV targets of opportunity and with airbursting shells in the future they would have utility against drones.
CUAS is better dealt with by dedicated vehicles. Electronic warfare suites coupled with proximity fused autocannons would make short work of drones, but is unnecessarily expensive to put on every IFV
30mm used to be the sweet spot - big ammunition capacity, heavy hitting power, turret footprint/weight not too significant.
40mm CTA appears to be the next big boy on the block. Carries over the small footprint, and even larger ammunition capacity while having the explosive power of 50mm.
Source it from an official source. It's being rolled out to multiple French and British vehicles. It'll likely be exported but it's only just been adopted so it's still early days.
Is there a source for this other than warriortard tier twitter posting? All I can find is fags online saying “my anonymous source says trust me bro it’s only 500-700 rounds of barrel life”
The MIC is keeping it close to the best but the troops who’ve used it are badmouthing it on social media. That and the fact that no one is buying them other than France and third worlders
I think 14.5mm is a good choice. Has good penetration and can carry more ammunition than all these other choices. These 20-30mm really don’t have much explosive filler
The problem with purely kinetic 14.5 is that it has limited utility that has to be compensated for with multiple rounds, either to hit the target or make sure it's dead. 20mm is still sort of in the same boat but the larger 30-40mm can fit in electronics for airbursting or additional mass for penetrating armor/cover. In the end you are using multiple kinetic rounds to properly engage a target which negates the 14.5's size/mass advantage vs one or two large caliber airbursting or armor piercing rounds. Not to mention the additional time necessary which can get deadly very fast. The best way to win a war is to kill asap and get moving again, not screwing around and cheaping out. In many ways the high tech solution allows for quicker and more successful engagements and may ultimately be cheaper than the alternative.
Even if your 14.5 has perfect accuracy to be used as a sniper rifle, any target isn't worth using a 30mm on can be engaged by the similarly accurate and even cheaper to fire 7.62 coax MG. If you're engaging infantry at past coax range it's probably because they're dangerous and need to die. If they're that important, you can spare a few cannon rounds. There's a reason M1 Abrams are loaded with ten times as many 7.62 rounds as .50.
To speak true heresy, HMGs as a whole don't really have a place on the modern battlefield anymore. Maybe on light vehicles like buggies or base security vehicles that can't be fitted with anything bigger and maybe HMGs would be useful in an urban environment. The main weapon of any modern vehicle has to be capable of firing explosive rounds for it to have any sort of notable utility.
The problem with purely kinetic 14.5 is that it has limited utility that has to be compensated for with multiple rounds, either to hit the target or make sure it's dead. 20mm is still sort of in the same boat but the larger 30-40mm can fit in electronics for airbursting or additional mass for penetrating armor/cover. In the end you are using multiple kinetic rounds to properly engage a target which negates the 14.5's size/mass advantage vs one or two large caliber airbursting or armor piercing rounds. Not to mention the additional time necessary which can get deadly very fast. The best way to win a war is to kill asap and get moving again, not screwing around and cheaping out. In many ways the high tech solution allows for quicker and more successful engagements and may ultimately be cheaper than the alternative.
Even if your 14.5 has perfect accuracy to be used as a sniper rifle, any target isn't worth using a 30mm on can be engaged by the similarly accurate and even cheaper to fire 7.62 coax MG. If you're engaging infantry at past coax range it's probably because they're dangerous and need to die. If they're that important, you can spare a few cannon rounds. There's a reason M1 Abrams are loaded with ten times as many 7.62 rounds as .50.
To speak true heresy, HMGs as a whole don't really have a place on the modern battlefield anymore. Maybe on light vehicles like buggies or base security vehicles that can't be fitted with anything bigger and maybe HMGs would be useful in an urban environment. The main weapon of any modern vehicle has to be capable of firing explosive rounds for it to have any sort of notable utility.
There is no 14.5mm that is purely a kinetic weapon, all of them (any non specialty round) have a incediary component. They are a great mid range between heavy machineguns and autocannons and are cheap, plentiful and readily available. 14.5mm also exists in man portable, dual, quad and rotary cannon forms that are quite compact.
No one up to and including a Abrams tank wants to get shot at with a 14.5mm, it is a serious threat to anything short of a heavily armed IFV and even MBTs don't want to put up with that for long. BMPs, M113s even Bradlys will get chewed up pretty quickly by one.
14.5mm AA quad guns or rotary cannons will wreak anything short of a MBT and i have reservations about a MBT surviving a field battery of them unloading on it, the only thing you do in that siduation is pop smoke and get the fuck out of there while calling in as much artillery as possible to cover your retreat.
14.5 didn't do shit in iraq and afghanistan because almost every vehicle in us inventory that is proof to 12.7 is also protected against 14.5 because it isn't a significant enough jump in firepower to justify, especially with dated ammunition. It's just a cope poverty 20mm equivalent that lacks effect because instead of 10 or so grams of high explosive which will also burst the shell for fragmentation, it's only a few grams of aluminum powder or equivalent. there's a very good reason only the North Koreans use it over autocannons meanwhile Russia and China moved on from it as soon as they could because for practically the same size autocannons are far more versatile and effective against practically any target.
[...]
So at most engagment ranges a 14.5mm gattling gun would work just as well, better if it had higher elavation, more ammo anda higher rate of fire?
Assuming of course that the 14.5mm gattling gun weighed less, consume alot less electricity and has twice the ammo which it does?
Any vehicle that has room for both a 14.5mm rotary gun and the ammo to feed it for any serious amount of firing time has the capacity to fit a much more effective weapon.
The 14.5 vehicle needs more time to shower the enemy vehicle with bullets, leaving it more vulnerable to return fire. Sure it may wreck light vehicles but so does a single AT rocket. You need the spread? HE shells. All of which will take less time to use.
Shoot the enemy in the flank? What you shoot a flanked enemy with is mostly irrelevant, you've already established a superior position. In that case a speedy kill and maneuvering into safety is even more important.
If you need an entire battery of 14.5 vehicles to beat back an MBT, that just means you're wasting time and money on ineffective vehicles. And MBTs never operate alone. Shoot one, reveal your position because you need to blast away for multiple seconds. A dozen MBTs, IFVs, and other assets shoot back.
The 14.5 vehicles aren't alone either? Then why the fuck is the low-altitude AA shooting at the enemy MBT?
Also Bradleys are armored against 14.5 API from all sides. Forget about the M1.
Both will kill the 14.5 vehicle before it can shoot out the optics.
14.5mm rotary guns can be very small, especially if they have back up manual operation. They will utterly wreak anything that isn't a MBT with a few seconds of fire.
It is also worth noting that the only people who use them have an obsession with AT/ATGM missiles so your MBT better back the fuck up.
>Bradleys are armored against 14.5 API from all sides
Pic related, the reaction of the KPLA and every Bradely operator who has ever seen real combat:
>CIWS >With open sights >Only just upgraded from hand cranked traverse
https://i.imgur.com/sgiORSm.jpg
14.5mm rotary guns can be very small, especially if they have back up manual operation. They will utterly wreak anything that isn't a MBT with a few seconds of fire.
It is also worth noting that the only people who use them have an obsession with AT/ATGM missiles so your MBT better back the fuck up.
>Bradleys are armored against 14.5 API from all sides
Pic related, the reaction of the KPLA and every Bradely operator who has ever seen real combat:
pic related should be on every IFV > "small" 30mm round mean more amo while still shredding any soft target > still fire at 600 rpm > chain gun so can be put on completely remote turret > battle proven reliability
doesn't matter, not it's job just put a tow next to in on the turret to deal with immediate threat and withdraw, IFV job is not to engage armor
you will never have a decent anti armor gun that's light enough to not disturb troop carrying capacity
but far worst at dealing with entrenched troops 30mm are far more effective and all around weapons
splashing any modern vehicle with 30mm HE will destroy any optics or even tracks and wheels making them combat ineffective
there is a reason Apaches used it instead of a 50 cal, it's just a better compromise for any situation
>even tracks
do steel tracks really get rekt by he 30mm?
I also know they do get rent by arty and mortar close hits, but I've never found any pics, does someone here have them?
It is not really a problem anymore I would argue. The 30mmx113 round will fuck everything under a tank/IFV nowadays but because most IFVs have been up armoured they are resistant to the bigger 25mm/30mm rounds anyway which means you either need to either go with a bigger 35/40mm round (which
I’m a firm believer in 20-30mm for an IFV. An infantry fighting vehicle needs to be able to have staying power to fight alongside its troops. Once you start getting into the 35mm range the ammo capacity gets to be too small. An IFV should be able to carry hundreds of rounds at the ready with a few hundred more in cans stowed away.
In this video we can see a Bradley covering its own advance by suppressing a treeline
?si=waK8adPAfWE4-qlg
Here we see one covering troops on the ground by laying into multiple structures
?si=winSDbvLDpOhgIAK
As far as the recon vehicle I believe 40-60mm is perfect. Enough punch to deal with any LAV targets of opportunity and with airbursting shells in the future they would have utility against drones.
pointed out is a problem) or just use ATGMs.
I think 14.5mm is a good choice. Has good penetration and can carry more ammunition than all these other choices. These 20-30mm really don’t have much explosive filler
The problem with 14.5mm is that it performs similarly to .50cal/12.7mm in the real world and for the similar size/weight you could just switch to a 20mm round like the 20mm x 102:
I think 14.5mm is a good choice. Has good penetration and can carry more ammunition than all these other choices. These 20-30mm really don’t have much explosive filler
14.5mm is significantly better than 12.7mm, almost every performance comparison you will see cherrypicks ancient 14.5mm rounds and the latest specialized 12.7mm loadings. You can get the same performance gap with 12.7mm from WW2 compared with modern 12.7mm loads.
14.5mm can fit into pretty small enclosed turrets, a great example being the little thing the DPRK puts on all their light armor. The thing not only has 2 14.5mms but there is also a 7.62 in there.
Personally given their love of dual 14.5mm and dual 30mm AGLs i am shocked they haven't made a turret with one of each, add a kornet launcher and they could make their AFV fleet alot more flexable.
For an IFV bigger is better, the more explosive weight you can fit in your HE shells the better it can fuck up structures, light vehicles, and entrenched infantry. 30-40mm is currently the best but it looks like the US will go to a 50mm gigacannon for the Bradley replacement like the Germans intended with the RH503, we'll see if everyone else follows suit.
OR
You go the Soviet way and have an autocannon alongside a low pressure HE lobber, it's really an excellent compromise.
Of course it is but you need a gun that can do the job before you worry about ammo capacity, and 20/25mms have been proven insufficient, there's a reason everyone is moving up to 35/40+mm
Yes everyone wants to be the cool kid swatting drones out of the sky on paper. In reality brads will be around for another 50 years
1 month ago
Anonymous
Of course they will, just like walker Bulldogs and M24s are around today, that doesn't make them the optimal choice and it's been obvious for a decade, bigger guns=bigger HE=better infantry support.
At typical ranges what does anything above 30mm do against infantry that a automatic gernade launcher can't also do with a much smaller package, more ammo and indirect fire ability?
You're contradicting yourself, an automatic grenade launcher cannot reach the typical range an IFV would be using its autocannon at, they're intended to stay out of shoulder launched anti tank range.
1 month ago
Anonymous
A typical AGL can reach 1500 meters and target things beyond LOS which no AC can really do.
Most autocannon use we have seen from Ukraine is at a few hundred meters at most, half of it is done at less than 100. No AC is going to shoot farther than it can see or identify a target, even most tank gun use we have seen is within small arms range. Hell, Ukraine likes to use cannons at hand gernade range.
1 month ago
Anonymous
At 1500 meters it's an area weapon, that's not good enough for the primary weapon of a 40 ton IFV, 40mm L/70 Bofors has a max range of 10,000 meters, they're so far from the same league it's not even close.
>seen from Ukraine
No one is watching a video of an autocannon unloading at a treeline 2 km away, the reason you see point blank videos is because that's what gets views, the vast majority of vehicle combat happens at ranges that you can only see with the high power optics those vehicles carry, where an AGL is useless.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Cope
1 month ago
Anonymous
>40mm L/70 Bofors has a max range of 10,000 meters, they're so far from the same league it's not even close.
Please show me proof of regular 10K engagments against ground targets in a real world context, i'll wait.
>At 1500 meters it's an area weapon, that's not good enough for the primary weapon of a 40 ton IFV, >Area weapon >compares a area weapon toa point weapon
bro of course it is a area weapon, it's a fucking automatic gernade launcher. IFVs don't need point weapons at that range, it's why they have missile launchers and machineguns. If a 30mm AGL ain't fucking up your area target enough then use two of them you half witted Eastern Dwarf.
Ya'll bros need the Respected Comrade to give you some serious Field Guidance.....
1 month ago
Anonymous
Confusing max range and max effective range
1 month ago
Anonymous
No I'm not, max range of the Mk19 is 2250m, max range of the Bofors L/70 is 12500m, that's genuinely how massive the difference in range is.
1 month ago
Anonymous
And the typical range of engagement of a 40mm Bofors against a ground target is how far? The maxium range doesn't matter for general use if it cannot engage to that range, a Bofors is a line of sight weapon as are all autocannons.1500 meters is overkill for any anti infantry or even most light AT actions.
You sound like Hitler ranting that all infantry weapons must be sighted to 1000-3000 meters when most engagements were happening at less than a quarter of that range.
>garden gnome vehicle design >having any relevance to the Western world
Israel makes vehicles for Israel, no one else, taking lessons from them is a recipe for disaster unless you happen to be in the same situation as them.
High-pressure shells require both a sturdier firing platform and a shell with thicker walls to endure the stress of firing. This will impact such things as HE filler capacity and HEAT performance
Smaller, lighter gun able to fire lighter shells with more HE filler, it's low pressure because it doesn't need to be high pressure if it isn't firing kinetic AP, instead its used as a tube for gun launched ATGMs
Hear me out: the Mk 108 Nazi Germany aircraft cannon. It's lightweight, reliable, compact, has 85 grams HE fill, 600 RPM, and a weird muzzle velocity of about 550m/s.
It's not a true long-range low-lag autocannon for use against armor or drones, but the improved HE, machinegun level ROF and high velocity make it an amazing replacement for automatic grenade launchers on light vehicles with a linkless feed on one side of a manned turret for high ammo capacity.
pic related should be on every IFV > "small" 30mm round mean more amo while still shredding any soft target > still fire at 600 rpm > chain gun so can be put on completely remote turret > battle proven reliability
30mm - performs well against soft and lightly armored targets, big enough to carry non-meme quantity of HE filling but small enough for your average IFV to carry hundreds of rounds, big enough for airbust rounds (however on the lower side of the spectrum), effective range below the capabilities of light AT wepons.
If you need an economical solution with well rounded characteristics go for 30mm.
If you're preparing for conflict against technologically advance enemy, skip the 35 and 40mm, go for 50 or above.
Wider variety of more effective ammo, bigger HE to counter better armored infantry in better dug in and designed positions, more effective and longer range APFSDS for use against IFVs, APCs, and the like with add on composites. Plus anti drone proximity fuzed rounds and other goofy high tech shit. And on top of that combat endurance and ammo capacity will be less important due to higher casualties and the need to have those capabilities.
At typical ranges what does anything above 30mm do against infantry that a automatic gernade launcher can't also do with a much smaller package, more ammo and indirect fire ability?
>Swedes were ahead of the curve as usual.
To be fair this had nothing to do with any great forward thinking or genius design, they just love the bofors 40mm and have since pre WWII
30 mm is the smallest economical caliber for programmable-fuzed rounds and flak shells. If you go lower you lose a shitton of internal shell volume (square cube law, as one anon pointed out in another thread) and fuze miniaturization becomes too expensive.
50 mm is the smallest economical caliber for smart guided shells, for roughly the same reasons.
A mix of large caliber and medium caliber. That’s what the US is doing. There going to retain their Bradley fleet and adopt a next generation IFV with a larger caliber gun
>When it comes to armored fighting vehicles, there is always a tradeoff between vehicle size, weight, ammunition, gun calibre and armor protection.
This is really important when it comes to medium calibre guns and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs): armor penetration, lethality against infantry, rate of fire, ammunition load and the availability of a large amount of ammunition at the gun are indispensable factors for a well performing IFV.
>he Combat Vehicle 90 (CV90) is a great example for the positive and negative impacts of larger calibre ammunition, due to the larger amount of different guns adopted on it.
The CV9040 uses the 40 milimetre Bofors L70 gun, the CV9035 the 35 milimetre Bushmaster III autocannon, the CV9030 the 30 mm Bushmaster II autocanon, the CV90105 prototype light tank a M68E tank gun and the CV90120 with a 120 mm Compact Tank Gun from RUAG.
>The CV9040 has a total of 24 rounds available at the gun (three rows of eight rounds) with a further 24 rounds being located in a carousel magazine used as ready racks.
The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.
The CV9030 has a total of 160 rounds available at the Bushmaster II gun.
While the CV9040 has only 24 rounds directly available at the gun, just by using the slightly less powerful 35 x 228 milimetres calibre the amount of rounds available at the gun is nearly tripled. The 30 x 173 mm calibre still more than doubles the ready ammunition compared to the 35 mm calibre! Given that the 40 mm Bofors gun currently does not offer more armor penetration possibilities, the Bofors compares unfavourably to the Bushmaster guns. While the actual armor penetration of the 40 mm Bofors with APFSDS ammunition is higher, the added armor penetration does not allow engaging heavier armored targets: all three claibres can defeat current generation IFVs frontally and MBTs from the side - the only advantage gained by the larger calibres is additional ranges, which only matters under limited circumstances.
In a similar manner the total ammunition load is affected by the calibre of the main gun:
>When it comes to armored fighting vehicles, there is always a tradeoff between vehicle size, weight, ammunition, gun calibre and armor protection.
This is really important when it comes to medium calibre guns and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs): armor penetration, lethality against infantry, rate of fire, ammunition load and the availability of a large amount of ammunition at the gun are indispensable factors for a well performing IFV.
>he Combat Vehicle 90 (CV90) is a great example for the positive and negative impacts of larger calibre ammunition, due to the larger amount of different guns adopted on it.
The CV9040 uses the 40 milimetre Bofors L70 gun, the CV9035 the 35 milimetre Bushmaster III autocannon, the CV9030 the 30 mm Bushmaster II autocanon, the CV90105 prototype light tank a M68E tank gun and the CV90120 with a 120 mm Compact Tank Gun from RUAG.
>The CV9040 has a total of 24 rounds available at the gun (three rows of eight rounds) with a further 24 rounds being located in a carousel magazine used as ready racks.
The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.
The CV9030 has a total of 160 rounds available at the Bushmaster II gun.
>The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.
The CV9030 has a total of 160 rounds available at the Bushmaster II gun.
The quote left out that those are ready-rounds, and that the amount of total on-board ammo stored underneath the turret brings it up to around 230 rounds for the 35mm and 400 rounds for the 30mm.
That being said, the dutch and danish users see the 35mm ammo as needlessly expensive and maintenance intensive compared to what it gives in return
For further reference here is a small listing of AFVs and stored ammunition:
Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 - 2000 x 20 mm rounds
Marder 1A3 - 1250 x 20 mm rounds (503 rounds ready to use), 4 MILAN ATGMs (1 ready to use)
Marder 2 prototype - 287 x 35 mm rounds (177 available at gun)
Bradley - 900 x 25 mm rounds (300 available at gun), 7 TOW ATGMs (2 ready to use)
Warrior - 300 x 30 mm rounds (2 clips of 3 rounds at the gun)
Puma - 400 x 30 mm rounds (200 available at the gun), unkown number of missiles (2 ready to use)
BMP-1 - 40 x 73 mm rounds, 4 missiles (1 ready to use)
BMP-2 - 300 x 30 mm rounds, 4 missiles (1 ready to use)
BMP-3 - 500 x 30 mm rounds, 40 x 100 mm rounds/missiles
AMX-10P - 760 x 20 mm rounds (325 ready at gun), 10 MILAN ATGMs (1 ready to use)
U.S. army evaluating found that 25mm was more effective at killing infantry than 35mm at ranges less than 1 mile. Fascinating >
Figures from the US Army Research Laboratoy on investigating the adoption of a 35 mm gun on the Bradley come to the results pictured above: While a standard 35 mm point-detonating high explosive (HE) round has a higher lethality per round than a 25 mm HE round, the actually amount of stowed kills is considered to be worse at short to medium combat ranges, where the smaller fragmenting effect of the 25 mm HE round doesn't matter as much, because the accuracy is still very respectable. Only at longer ranges - i.e. above 1500 metres/one mile - the 35 mm point-detonating HE ammunition is favourable. Depending on terrain and combat scenario this can be satisifactory or not - during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation.
Interesting to hear the reasoning behind the decision to stick with the 25mm on the Bradley. That’s why I think a mix of 25mm armed Bradleys and 50mm OMFVs will be fielded.
U.S. army evaluating found that 25mm was more effective at killing infantry than 35mm at ranges less than 1 mile. Fascinating >
Figures from the US Army Research Laboratoy on investigating the adoption of a 35 mm gun on the Bradley come to the results pictured above: While a standard 35 mm point-detonating high explosive (HE) round has a higher lethality per round than a 25 mm HE round, the actually amount of stowed kills is considered to be worse at short to medium combat ranges, where the smaller fragmenting effect of the 25 mm HE round doesn't matter as much, because the accuracy is still very respectable. Only at longer ranges - i.e. above 1500 metres/one mile - the 35 mm point-detonating HE ammunition is favourable. Depending on terrain and combat scenario this can be satisifactory or not - during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation.
So at most engagment ranges a 14.5mm gattling gun would work just as well, better if it had higher elavation, more ammo anda higher rate of fire?
Assuming of course that the 14.5mm gattling gun weighed less, consume alot less electricity and has twice the ammo which it does?
That was some quite subtle cherry-picking.
They compared impact fuzed HE for both, but 35 mm isn't restricted to only impact fuzing like 25 mm is. 35 mm has AB rounds (and you can even use AHEAD shells in canister mode, though it's expensive as fuck to use flak against squishies), which are quite a bit more effective than whatever amount of HE an impact fuzed 25 mm round has.
Seems like they were pulling a classic case of military drag-ass, to paper themselves up as to why they don't want to do something.
If it has a coax MG you can get away with a lower fire rate and a bigger HE and "AP" shell. It should have ATGMs or at least carry infantry with ATGMs.
Overall it is a base of fire to support your infantry.
40mm, like god intended.
I’m a firm believer in 20-30mm for an IFV. An infantry fighting vehicle needs to be able to have staying power to fight alongside its troops. Once you start getting into the 35mm range the ammo capacity gets to be too small. An IFV should be able to carry hundreds of rounds at the ready with a few hundred more in cans stowed away.
In this video we can see a Bradley covering its own advance by suppressing a treeline
?si=waK8adPAfWE4-qlg
Here we see one covering troops on the ground by laying into multiple structures
?si=winSDbvLDpOhgIAK
As far as the recon vehicle I believe 40-60mm is perfect. Enough punch to deal with any LAV targets of opportunity and with airbursting shells in the future they would have utility against drones.
25 for me. M919 has more armor penetration than 30mm APFSDS
>Implying the 2A42 is well made
i kinda doubt that, modern 30x173 APFSDS-T will get >100mm at 1000m
Why are there so many different 30mm rounds, thoughsoever?
Why wouldn't there be? Not like rifle ammo was any different.
I know what you're up to.
50mm straight walled cased telescoping
30-40mm, that way the vehicle can double as CUAS with ABM and still carry enough ammo for prolonged combat.
CUAS is better dealt with by dedicated vehicles. Electronic warfare suites coupled with proximity fused autocannons would make short work of drones, but is unnecessarily expensive to put on every IFV
Not its intended role. Plus it would be more effective to stick a drone jammer on the vehicle instead of kinetic killing drones
No land based gun EVER needs to go past 12.7mm. There, I said it, now you can all go home. BMG WILL PAVE THE WAY FOR GOD’S RETURN.
25 and 30 are right in the sweet spot
30mm used to be the sweet spot - big ammunition capacity, heavy hitting power, turret footprint/weight not too significant.
40mm CTA appears to be the next big boy on the block. Carries over the small footprint, and even larger ammunition capacity while having the explosive power of 50mm.
Too many problems with barrel life that haven’t been fixed. Unacceptable for an infantry fighting vehicle
Not an issue with the round (also still has less wear than 50mm).
It’s a well known problem. It’s why almost no one is adopting it
Source it from an official source. It's being rolled out to multiple French and British vehicles. It'll likely be exported but it's only just been adopted so it's still early days.
The barrel wear story was BS that has no source btw. It'll do 10,000 rounds.
Is the issue with barrel life due to the CTA or something else?
Yes
Is there a source for this other than warriortard tier twitter posting? All I can find is fags online saying “my anonymous source says trust me bro it’s only 500-700 rounds of barrel life”
There is no source for it.
The MIC is keeping it close to the best but the troops who’ve used it are badmouthing it on social media. That and the fact that no one is buying them other than France and third worlders
Which one is it?
The one you listed
76mm
I think 14.5mm is a good choice. Has good penetration and can carry more ammunition than all these other choices. These 20-30mm really don’t have much explosive filler
The problem with purely kinetic 14.5 is that it has limited utility that has to be compensated for with multiple rounds, either to hit the target or make sure it's dead. 20mm is still sort of in the same boat but the larger 30-40mm can fit in electronics for airbursting or additional mass for penetrating armor/cover. In the end you are using multiple kinetic rounds to properly engage a target which negates the 14.5's size/mass advantage vs one or two large caliber airbursting or armor piercing rounds. Not to mention the additional time necessary which can get deadly very fast. The best way to win a war is to kill asap and get moving again, not screwing around and cheaping out. In many ways the high tech solution allows for quicker and more successful engagements and may ultimately be cheaper than the alternative.
Even if your 14.5 has perfect accuracy to be used as a sniper rifle, any target isn't worth using a 30mm on can be engaged by the similarly accurate and even cheaper to fire 7.62 coax MG. If you're engaging infantry at past coax range it's probably because they're dangerous and need to die. If they're that important, you can spare a few cannon rounds. There's a reason M1 Abrams are loaded with ten times as many 7.62 rounds as .50.
To speak true heresy, HMGs as a whole don't really have a place on the modern battlefield anymore. Maybe on light vehicles like buggies or base security vehicles that can't be fitted with anything bigger and maybe HMGs would be useful in an urban environment. The main weapon of any modern vehicle has to be capable of firing explosive rounds for it to have any sort of notable utility.
There is no 14.5mm that is purely a kinetic weapon, all of them (any non specialty round) have a incediary component. They are a great mid range between heavy machineguns and autocannons and are cheap, plentiful and readily available. 14.5mm also exists in man portable, dual, quad and rotary cannon forms that are quite compact.
No one up to and including a Abrams tank wants to get shot at with a 14.5mm, it is a serious threat to anything short of a heavily armed IFV and even MBTs don't want to put up with that for long. BMPs, M113s even Bradlys will get chewed up pretty quickly by one.
14.5mm AA quad guns or rotary cannons will wreak anything short of a MBT and i have reservations about a MBT surviving a field battery of them unloading on it, the only thing you do in that siduation is pop smoke and get the fuck out of there while calling in as much artillery as possible to cover your retreat.
14.5 didn't do shit in iraq and afghanistan because almost every vehicle in us inventory that is proof to 12.7 is also protected against 14.5 because it isn't a significant enough jump in firepower to justify, especially with dated ammunition. It's just a cope poverty 20mm equivalent that lacks effect because instead of 10 or so grams of high explosive which will also burst the shell for fragmentation, it's only a few grams of aluminum powder or equivalent. there's a very good reason only the North Koreans use it over autocannons meanwhile Russia and China moved on from it as soon as they could because for practically the same size autocannons are far more versatile and effective against practically any target.
Any vehicle that has room for both a 14.5mm rotary gun and the ammo to feed it for any serious amount of firing time has the capacity to fit a much more effective weapon.
The 14.5 vehicle needs more time to shower the enemy vehicle with bullets, leaving it more vulnerable to return fire. Sure it may wreck light vehicles but so does a single AT rocket. You need the spread? HE shells. All of which will take less time to use.
Shoot the enemy in the flank? What you shoot a flanked enemy with is mostly irrelevant, you've already established a superior position. In that case a speedy kill and maneuvering into safety is even more important.
If you need an entire battery of 14.5 vehicles to beat back an MBT, that just means you're wasting time and money on ineffective vehicles. And MBTs never operate alone. Shoot one, reveal your position because you need to blast away for multiple seconds. A dozen MBTs, IFVs, and other assets shoot back.
The 14.5 vehicles aren't alone either? Then why the fuck is the low-altitude AA shooting at the enemy MBT?
Also Bradleys are armored against 14.5 API from all sides. Forget about the M1.
Both will kill the 14.5 vehicle before it can shoot out the optics.
14.5mm rotary guns can be very small, especially if they have back up manual operation. They will utterly wreak anything that isn't a MBT with a few seconds of fire.
It is also worth noting that the only people who use them have an obsession with AT/ATGM missiles so your MBT better back the fuck up.
>Bradleys are armored against 14.5 API from all sides
Pic related, the reaction of the KPLA and every Bradely operator who has ever seen real combat:
>room for both a 14.5mm rotary gun and the ammo to feed it for any serious amount of firing time
The room needed is pretty damn small, you can fit two 14.5mm rotary CIWS on a 40 foot tugboat: :
>CIWS
>With open sights
>Only just upgraded from hand cranked traverse
Even a Stryker can resist 14.5mm all around
>open sights
My child......We are way past that........
pic related should be on every IFV
> "small" 30mm round mean more amo while still shredding any soft target
> still fire at 600 rpm
> chain gun so can be put on completely remote turret
> battle proven reliability
It can only penetrate 25mm of armour...
doesn't matter, not it's job just put a tow next to in on the turret to deal with immediate threat and withdraw, IFV job is not to engage armor
you will never have a decent anti armor gun that's light enough to not disturb troop carrying capacity
A 50 cal would be enough to deal with BTRs, BMPs and trucks while being lighter
but far worst at dealing with entrenched troops 30mm are far more effective and all around weapons
splashing any modern vehicle with 30mm HE will destroy any optics or even tracks and wheels making them combat ineffective
there is a reason Apaches used it instead of a 50 cal, it's just a better compromise for any situation
>even tracks
do steel tracks really get rekt by he 30mm?
I also know they do get rent by arty and mortar close hits, but I've never found any pics, does someone here have them?
It is not really a problem anymore I would argue. The 30mmx113 round will fuck everything under a tank/IFV nowadays but because most IFVs have been up armoured they are resistant to the bigger 25mm/30mm rounds anyway which means you either need to either go with a bigger 35/40mm round (which
pointed out is a problem) or just use ATGMs.
The problem with 14.5mm is that it performs similarly to .50cal/12.7mm in the real world and for the similar size/weight you could just switch to a 20mm round like the 20mm x 102:
?si=BHLuxNUe2cWNMT8T
Also Taiwan is crazy for slapping 20mms on their humvees.
20 mm revolver cannons at that. IIRC those are copies of the gun of the F-5 jet.
Lotta BRRRRP.
>tfw you will never brrrrrt gommie hordes from a 20mm mount while your buddy is blasting away next to you
why even live
14.5mm is significantly better than 12.7mm, almost every performance comparison you will see cherrypicks ancient 14.5mm rounds and the latest specialized 12.7mm loadings. You can get the same performance gap with 12.7mm from WW2 compared with modern 12.7mm loads.
14.5mm can fit into pretty small enclosed turrets, a great example being the little thing the DPRK puts on all their light armor. The thing not only has 2 14.5mms but there is also a 7.62 in there.
Personally given their love of dual 14.5mm and dual 30mm AGLs i am shocked they haven't made a turret with one of each, add a kornet launcher and they could make their AFV fleet alot more flexable.
Doesn't that thing spray in cones?
800mm
For an IFV bigger is better, the more explosive weight you can fit in your HE shells the better it can fuck up structures, light vehicles, and entrenched infantry. 30-40mm is currently the best but it looks like the US will go to a 50mm gigacannon for the Bradley replacement like the Germans intended with the RH503, we'll see if everyone else follows suit.
OR
You go the Soviet way and have an autocannon alongside a low pressure HE lobber, it's really an excellent compromise.
Wrong. Ammo capacity is very important
Of course it is but you need a gun that can do the job before you worry about ammo capacity, and 20/25mms have been proven insufficient, there's a reason everyone is moving up to 35/40+mm
>and 20/25mms have been proven insufficient
Oh really? How confident for you. May I see this proof
>May I see this proof
Yes, the PUMA, AJAX, CV9035 MK IV, and Bradley replacement, every single one of which is using a >30mm cannon
Yes everyone wants to be the cool kid swatting drones out of the sky on paper. In reality brads will be around for another 50 years
Of course they will, just like walker Bulldogs and M24s are around today, that doesn't make them the optimal choice and it's been obvious for a decade, bigger guns=bigger HE=better infantry support.
You're contradicting yourself, an automatic grenade launcher cannot reach the typical range an IFV would be using its autocannon at, they're intended to stay out of shoulder launched anti tank range.
A typical AGL can reach 1500 meters and target things beyond LOS which no AC can really do.
Most autocannon use we have seen from Ukraine is at a few hundred meters at most, half of it is done at less than 100. No AC is going to shoot farther than it can see or identify a target, even most tank gun use we have seen is within small arms range. Hell, Ukraine likes to use cannons at hand gernade range.
At 1500 meters it's an area weapon, that's not good enough for the primary weapon of a 40 ton IFV, 40mm L/70 Bofors has a max range of 10,000 meters, they're so far from the same league it's not even close.
>seen from Ukraine
No one is watching a video of an autocannon unloading at a treeline 2 km away, the reason you see point blank videos is because that's what gets views, the vast majority of vehicle combat happens at ranges that you can only see with the high power optics those vehicles carry, where an AGL is useless.
Cope
>40mm L/70 Bofors has a max range of 10,000 meters, they're so far from the same league it's not even close.
Please show me proof of regular 10K engagments against ground targets in a real world context, i'll wait.
>At 1500 meters it's an area weapon, that's not good enough for the primary weapon of a 40 ton IFV,
>Area weapon
>compares a area weapon toa point weapon
bro of course it is a area weapon, it's a fucking automatic gernade launcher. IFVs don't need point weapons at that range, it's why they have missile launchers and machineguns. If a 30mm AGL ain't fucking up your area target enough then use two of them you half witted Eastern Dwarf.
Ya'll bros need the Respected Comrade to give you some serious Field Guidance.....
Confusing max range and max effective range
No I'm not, max range of the Mk19 is 2250m, max range of the Bofors L/70 is 12500m, that's genuinely how massive the difference in range is.
And the typical range of engagement of a 40mm Bofors against a ground target is how far? The maxium range doesn't matter for general use if it cannot engage to that range, a Bofors is a line of sight weapon as are all autocannons.1500 meters is overkill for any anti infantry or even most light AT actions.
You sound like Hitler ranting that all infantry weapons must be sighted to 1000-3000 meters when most engagements were happening at less than a quarter of that range.
Namer just tested a bunch of guns out and settled on 25mm
>garden gnome vehicle design
>having any relevance to the Western world
Israel makes vehicles for Israel, no one else, taking lessons from them is a recipe for disaster unless you happen to be in the same situation as them.
>low pressure HE lobber,
what's the point of it?
high trajectory to hit defeilade targets?
High-pressure shells require both a sturdier firing platform and a shell with thicker walls to endure the stress of firing. This will impact such things as HE filler capacity and HEAT performance
Smaller, lighter gun able to fire lighter shells with more HE filler, it's low pressure because it doesn't need to be high pressure if it isn't firing kinetic AP, instead its used as a tube for gun launched ATGMs
Hear me out: the Mk 108 Nazi Germany aircraft cannon. It's lightweight, reliable, compact, has 85 grams HE fill, 600 RPM, and a weird muzzle velocity of about 550m/s.
It's not a true long-range low-lag autocannon for use against armor or drones, but the improved HE, machinegun level ROF and high velocity make it an amazing replacement for automatic grenade launchers on light vehicles with a linkless feed on one side of a manned turret for high ammo capacity.
literally this
minus the jamming
Yes M230 is the modern version. But it has a lot less HE, more velocity, and HEDP ability.
Low velocity doesn't work any more
76mm HEDP autocannon with a muzzle velocity of 600 m/s and a RPM of 120
30mm - performs well against soft and lightly armored targets, big enough to carry non-meme quantity of HE filling but small enough for your average IFV to carry hundreds of rounds, big enough for airbust rounds (however on the lower side of the spectrum), effective range below the capabilities of light AT wepons.
If you need an economical solution with well rounded characteristics go for 30mm.
If you're preparing for conflict against technologically advance enemy, skip the 35 and 40mm, go for 50 or above.
*above
Got distracted by the cat attacking my foot.
>If you're preparing for conflict against technologically advance enemy, skip the 35 and 40mm, go for 50 or above.
why
Wider variety of more effective ammo, bigger HE to counter better armored infantry in better dug in and designed positions, more effective and longer range APFSDS for use against IFVs, APCs, and the like with add on composites. Plus anti drone proximity fuzed rounds and other goofy high tech shit. And on top of that combat endurance and ammo capacity will be less important due to higher casualties and the need to have those capabilities.
How do these things headspace? Is it the rim towards the base just before the extraction groove?
Yep, its called a belt.
You might have heard the term 'belted' to describe rifle chamberings with the same feature.
50mm airburst
woops that a 30mm
That's a 30mm airburst anon. Source: you can compare the muzzle brake to the barrel dia if you couldn't tell from the explosion lmao.
At typical ranges what does anything above 30mm do against infantry that a automatic gernade launcher can't also do with a much smaller package, more ammo and indirect fire ability?
35-50mm is the standard these days, with 30mm being the bare minimum. Programmable HE is the future.
Swedes were ahead of the curve as usual.
>Swedes were ahead of the curve as usual.
To be fair this had nothing to do with any great forward thinking or genius design, they just love the bofors 40mm and have since pre WWII
30 mm is the smallest economical caliber for programmable-fuzed rounds and flak shells. If you go lower you lose a shitton of internal shell volume (square cube law, as one anon pointed out in another thread) and fuze miniaturization becomes too expensive.
50 mm is the smallest economical caliber for smart guided shells, for roughly the same reasons.
So 35mm, comfy airburst, not on the extreme end. Not as much ammo on board, but much more bang per shell than 25 or 30.
Mad option: 57mm naval gun.
Dakka option: Twin RMK30 recoilless autocannons.
50x228 is the best of both worlds. same capacity as 35x228 but biggerized HE
30mm if not USA
40mm if USA
it's kind of funny how NATO has a standardization boner on everything but IFVs
Is the HE in those shells really doing anything? They are relatively small and a hand grenade has a much bigger internal volume
>Is the HE in those shells really doing anything?
that's why the calibers keep getting bigger.
soon we will return to this simple perfection
>950 fps
of course it can be improved. it does make a big BOOM though. just give it a coax 14.5 or something
>Is the HE in those shells really doing anything
ask the iraqis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICsujYpRI8A&ab_channel=KingRaptor223
those were direct hits tho
A mix of large caliber and medium caliber. That’s what the US is doing. There going to retain their Bradley fleet and adopt a next generation IFV with a larger caliber gun
>When it comes to armored fighting vehicles, there is always a tradeoff between vehicle size, weight, ammunition, gun calibre and armor protection.
This is really important when it comes to medium calibre guns and infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs): armor penetration, lethality against infantry, rate of fire, ammunition load and the availability of a large amount of ammunition at the gun are indispensable factors for a well performing IFV.
>he Combat Vehicle 90 (CV90) is a great example for the positive and negative impacts of larger calibre ammunition, due to the larger amount of different guns adopted on it.
The CV9040 uses the 40 milimetre Bofors L70 gun, the CV9035 the 35 milimetre Bushmaster III autocannon, the CV9030 the 30 mm Bushmaster II autocanon, the CV90105 prototype light tank a M68E tank gun and the CV90120 with a 120 mm Compact Tank Gun from RUAG.
>The CV9040 has a total of 24 rounds available at the gun (three rows of eight rounds) with a further 24 rounds being located in a carousel magazine used as ready racks.
The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.
The CV9030 has a total of 160 rounds available at the Bushmaster II gun.
https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/04/bigger-guns-are-not-always-better.html?m=1
While the CV9040 has only 24 rounds directly available at the gun, just by using the slightly less powerful 35 x 228 milimetres calibre the amount of rounds available at the gun is nearly tripled. The 30 x 173 mm calibre still more than doubles the ready ammunition compared to the 35 mm calibre! Given that the 40 mm Bofors gun currently does not offer more armor penetration possibilities, the Bofors compares unfavourably to the Bushmaster guns. While the actual armor penetration of the 40 mm Bofors with APFSDS ammunition is higher, the added armor penetration does not allow engaging heavier armored targets: all three claibres can defeat current generation IFVs frontally and MBTs from the side - the only advantage gained by the larger calibres is additional ranges, which only matters under limited circumstances.
In a similar manner the total ammunition load is affected by the calibre of the main gun:
>The CV9035 has a total of 70 rounds available at the gun, consisting of two belts a 35 rounds.
The CV9030 has a total of 160 rounds available at the Bushmaster II gun.
The quote left out that those are ready-rounds, and that the amount of total on-board ammo stored underneath the turret brings it up to around 230 rounds for the 35mm and 400 rounds for the 30mm.
That being said, the dutch and danish users see the 35mm ammo as needlessly expensive and maintenance intensive compared to what it gives in return
For further reference here is a small listing of AFVs and stored ammunition:
Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 - 2000 x 20 mm rounds
Marder 1A3 - 1250 x 20 mm rounds (503 rounds ready to use), 4 MILAN ATGMs (1 ready to use)
Marder 2 prototype - 287 x 35 mm rounds (177 available at gun)
Bradley - 900 x 25 mm rounds (300 available at gun), 7 TOW ATGMs (2 ready to use)
Warrior - 300 x 30 mm rounds (2 clips of 3 rounds at the gun)
Puma - 400 x 30 mm rounds (200 available at the gun), unkown number of missiles (2 ready to use)
BMP-1 - 40 x 73 mm rounds, 4 missiles (1 ready to use)
BMP-2 - 300 x 30 mm rounds, 4 missiles (1 ready to use)
BMP-3 - 500 x 30 mm rounds, 40 x 100 mm rounds/missiles
AMX-10P - 760 x 20 mm rounds (325 ready at gun), 10 MILAN ATGMs (1 ready to use)
U.S. army evaluating found that 25mm was more effective at killing infantry than 35mm at ranges less than 1 mile. Fascinating
>
Figures from the US Army Research Laboratoy on investigating the adoption of a 35 mm gun on the Bradley come to the results pictured above: While a standard 35 mm point-detonating high explosive (HE) round has a higher lethality per round than a 25 mm HE round, the actually amount of stowed kills is considered to be worse at short to medium combat ranges, where the smaller fragmenting effect of the 25 mm HE round doesn't matter as much, because the accuracy is still very respectable. Only at longer ranges - i.e. above 1500 metres/one mile - the 35 mm point-detonating HE ammunition is favourable. Depending on terrain and combat scenario this can be satisifactory or not - during the Cold War the average combat distance in Central Europe was considered to be less than 1500 m, which means that a 35 mm Oerlikon or Bushmaster gun does not offer more lethality against infantry in this situation.
Interesting to hear the reasoning behind the decision to stick with the 25mm on the Bradley. That’s why I think a mix of 25mm armed Bradleys and 50mm OMFVs will be fielded.
So at most engagment ranges a 14.5mm gattling gun would work just as well, better if it had higher elavation, more ammo anda higher rate of fire?
Assuming of course that the 14.5mm gattling gun weighed less, consume alot less electricity and has twice the ammo which it does?
That was some quite subtle cherry-picking.
They compared impact fuzed HE for both, but 35 mm isn't restricted to only impact fuzing like 25 mm is. 35 mm has AB rounds (and you can even use AHEAD shells in canister mode, though it's expensive as fuck to use flak against squishies), which are quite a bit more effective than whatever amount of HE an impact fuzed 25 mm round has.
Seems like they were pulling a classic case of military drag-ass, to paper themselves up as to why they don't want to do something.
If it has a coax MG you can get away with a lower fire rate and a bigger HE and "AP" shell. It should have ATGMs or at least carry infantry with ATGMs.
Overall it is a base of fire to support your infantry.