ok so im changing my mind on this thing after i saw a video of a russian soldier using the 100mm cannon for indirect fire using a drone for correction...

ok so im changing my mind on this thing after i saw a video of a russian soldier using the 100mm cannon for indirect fire using a drone for correction, given the fact the cannon has a 60° elevation it seems it would be relatively useful for this role in a pitch

having a proper cannon in an IFV seems to be fairly useful, what do you think?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not to crazy of a thing. Pretty much everyone comes up with tables for their tanks in the off chance that they might need to be used for some form of indirect fire. Highly doubt its something that is ever trained so this seems like some ingenuity on the part of the Russian crew.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Afaik it was a big part for why the BMP-3 was built with the 100mm. Back then the Soviets basically planned to have the whole damn battalion interlinked and able to provide indirect fire the moment any one platoon ran into resistance.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I read biographies from the Korean war where they had some sort of tables or guide for the 50 cal to guide the main gun in indirect fire.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like big guns on IFVs. I wish we would take the low pressure 105mm pill with barrel launched LAHATs. Best we'll get though is the upcoming 50mm round.

      https://i.imgur.com/zE1LF2m.jpg

      ok so im changing my mind on this thing after i saw a video of a russian soldier using the 100mm cannon for indirect fire using a drone for correction, given the fact the cannon has a 60° elevation it seems it would be relatively useful for this role in a pitch

      having a proper cannon in an IFV seems to be fairly useful, what do you think?

      Real the emmagees by the same man who wrote one of the more important books on sniping a a rifleman went to war. In it he describes the use of machine guns in ww1 for indirect fire such as hitting supply road junctions behind enemy trenches. By the way, sections of rifle were just fine at this two, you just need a spotter and a communication means of walking the fire in

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >emmagees

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.gutenberg.org/files/20655/20655-h/20655-h.htm

          The machine gun officer of the outgoing Surreys had begun to develop some ideas of his own as to the feasibility of strafing enemy transports and dumps at night and had selected a tentative position behind a slight crest, about one hundred and fifty yards N. E. of "In den Kraatenberg Cabaret" and immediately adjacent to a disused communication trench called "Plum Avenue." Now I had been a crank on long range, indirect fire in England, so I had no difficulty in persuading our M. G. officer to turn this job over to me. We improved the position and also established another one, about one hundred yards down the trench for daylight work against aircraft. In those days the planes would come over at altitudes of two thousand feet and less and we had some splendid opportunities to practise on them. We succeeded in bringing one down with his petrol tank on fire, and we turned back a good many more until they began to fly so high that we could not reach them. At night, by using information obtained from our artillery and our own forward observers, we were able to cut up a lot of their transports. At first they would drive down to a place called the Barricade, but after we caught them there two or three times they came only to the top of the hill, to "Cooker's Halt." We soon chased them out of that, however, and then I guess poor Fritz had to carry his stuff all the way from behind the Ridge. On two occasions we caught large working parties, in broad daylight, and cut them up and dispersed them. Our position in front of the group of buildings (In den Kraatenberg) naturally led the enemy to believe that we were using the building for cover, so he shelled the poor inoffensive houses and barns most industriously but never put anything close enough to our real position to do any damage. This taught me a lesson which I put into operation, later on, at Sniper's Barn, with the best of results.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every foot of ground in France, Belgium and Germany has been so thoroughly and accurately mapped that there need be no such thing as estimating ranges. You know the range; you do not have to depend on mental or mechanical estimates. And, as machine-gun fire is almost entirely indirect fire, the guns must be laid by using map, compass, protractor and clinometer (quadrant), in exactly the same manner as artillery fire is directed. The average machine gunner will probably go through the whole war without ever seeing a live enemy--excepting prisoners. The various methods of controlling indirect fire by resection, base lines and observation from two or more points are, like the use of an auxiliary aiming point, useless in trench warfare. They are fine in theory and afford much interesting diversion on the training ranges, but when you go to war, why, it can't be done, that's all.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      Real the emmagees by the same man who wrote one of the more important books on sniping a a rifleman went to war. In it he describes the use of machine guns in ww1 for indirect fire such as hitting supply road junctions behind enemy trenches. By the way, sections of rifle were just fine at this two, you just need a spotter and a communication means of walking the fire in

      Behold, the "Sight, Dial, M.G." in all its brass gloriousness. Perfect for laying indirect fire down on any grid coordinates in need of a good .303 barrage.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Better pic

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/0iqJ1xZ.jpg

      [...]
      Behold, the "Sight, Dial, M.G." in all its brass gloriousness. Perfect for laying indirect fire down on any grid coordinates in need of a good .303 barrage.

      Is this what the British do with their version of the M240? I've seen lots of images of them with the stock removed in a rig set up for indirect fire with a sight like your picture.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like big guns on IFVs. I wish we would take the low pressure 105mm pill with barrel launched LAHATs. Best we'll get though is the upcoming 50mm round.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's one of the only good things about the BMP3. I think it would be an excellent idea if future western IFVs had a 40mm or 50mm main gun for general work and AA duty and then a secondary larger caliber gun-mortar for anti-structure or NLOS work. Something like a breech loaded low recoil 84mm gun or that cool HIWS 76 thing the French came up with. Vehicles like the CV90 have modular turrets so fitting it while retaining the main armament would be possible.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The newer CV90 turrets can house a 40mm or 50mm main gun at center and still have space for ATGMs, either Eurospike or Akeron MP and still have room for a third weapon, typically a .50 or a 40mm GMG. This is not even counting the 7.62 coax and whatever is one the roof.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >having a proper cannon in an IFV seems to be fairly useful, what do you think?
    For inderect fire there are mortars.
    IFV is assault AFV first and filling it with 100mm HE shells is just makes IFV explode into pieces like Russian tanks. Not smart and doesn't inspire troops riding these IFV. Classic IFV weapon of autocanonn has big advantage that such ammo is not so volatile.

    Using everything for long range fire, like those SU-25 with FFARa is admission Russians hit the wall and doesn't know how to assault positions anymore.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A gun mortar should be standard on modern IFVs along with the autocannon. Something in the 70mm-90mm range, specifically for NLOS support and for use against hard structures. There are smart munitions that small now. We have 105mm Hawkeye howitzers that can fire from Humvees with minimal recoil, so a 81mm gun mortar loaded from the rear with very low recoil is totally possible especially if they're only loaded with enough propellant to be fired sub 1km. This would only be a secondary armament but an important one. It would be completely possible for just 10 or so rounds to be carried in some sort of armored bulkhead at turret rear with blow out panels.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm thinking a top mounted remote 80mm mortar station with a revolving drum would be the most efficient. You'd have reload it manually and externally, but it'd be very modular and lightweight for what it could do. With electric drum cycling and a decent fire control system you could have some dumb smoke rounds in there as well with the smart munitions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The BMP-3 is already overtaxed with explosive weapon systems, and anything that gets through its Level IV vest level of protection is going to cause it to brew it up.
      The best protection for it is to be nowhere near direct fire while it supports the soldiers it taxied.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But the BMP-3 already has an autocannon

      The turret has a machinegun, a 30mm autocannon and a 100mm autocannon

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >100mm autocannon

        Fuck i meant 100mm cannon

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Point is it also has 100mm HE ammo that can lead to catastrophic explosions unlike 30mm ammo.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok but what if you rearrange the interior to make catasthropic explosions less likely, blowout panels and all that

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Dude, 30mm HE going off inside is going to turn everyone into hamburger already. All 100mm going off does at that point is make a bigger fireball. And 30mm is no less volatile, either.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Single 30mm HE going off inside closed ammo box has no power to kill/wound everyone. Also 30mm HE has no power to detonate another 30mm rounds.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >itt, sweet summer children actually believe this

              When the 30mm box starts cooking off, all of it cooks off. And a single 30mm He deotnating inside the crew spsace means everyone is dead already.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That sounds like a much better doctrine for the use of what is in essence a boat on tracks with way too many guns than trying to drive it directly into the line of fire.
    Still won't get anybody actually riding in it like an IFV.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The chink BMP-3 (ZBD-04) have been shown to do indirect fire in their training exercise

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That'll be extremely useful for all of the engagements they get into on training ranges.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The ZBD04 is actually pretty interesting. The have the engine in front like some of the prototype variants of the BMP3 which allows for more troop space. They also have a lot more armor than the Russian BMP3 but are still amphibious. Unironically it seems like a decent vehicle. Engines in early versions were crap apparently though. IIRC some South American countries are looking at buying them due to their weight to performance metrics even though they're more expensive than Russian vehicles. Great for use in mountains and jungles. The upgraded models kind of remind me of the CV90.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >More Armored
        >Amphibious
        >doubt
        Though this is not a dinging of this vehicle specifically, as while it might be amphibious it may require such preparations to be made to make them ready that it may not be worth it to deploy them that way 90% of the time.
        My bigger concern with these kinds of AFVs is the logistics- they can't be pretty. It might be fine if they're attached to regular ground forces in small numbers as support vehicles, but to me the BMP-3 specifically never made any damn sense.
        It is an airborne vehicle, with 3, possibly 4 weapons on it, and different ammunition types for the main gun, with very limited space because it's also supposed to carry guys on it too. If used as an airborne vehicle, supply is going to be really limited. And for thunder runs the fucking armor is nonexistent, because it was meant to be airborne.

        What gun does the ZBD04 have? Is it more just meant to be a more heavily armed IFV, or did the chinese fall into the trap of trying to make it airborne too?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The BMP-3 is not an airborne vehicle, it's light solely because of amphibious capability.
          The BMD-4 is the airborne equivalent of the BMP-3, it's right there in the name, BMP = IFV, BMD = Airborne vehicle.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in either case making the vehicles light for either the sake of airborne or amphib when they are meant to be used as fire support in actual fighting (like anything that isn't an APC would) is dumb.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There's some merit to both, but when there hasn't been a single IFV ever designed that doesn't frequently sink, it's time to give it up.
              The future is 60t+ IFVs.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The ZBD04 is different enough from the BMP3 that they should be considered fully different vehicles, even though the BMP3 was the basis for the ZBD04. More armored doesn't automatically mean it can't be amphibious. It uses more composites and is also longer. An oil tanker doesn't float less than a canoe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >More armored doesn't automatically mean it can't be amphibious
            No, but my frame of reference is Bradley, which is amphibious, if you take the time to attach the floats and float curtains, which takes a lot of time and effort and means that in combat it can't just seamlessly go into amphib mode.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Bradley can't swim when you attach extra armor because it wasn't engineered to float with all that extra shit on it to begin with. The ZBD-04A was extensively reengineered from the base model ZBD-04 specifically to be amphibious with add on armor. Pic related was the original ZBD04 which was more closely related to the basic BMP3. It had a crappy Chinese built clone of a Russian engine and paper thin armor. The ZBD04A is the subsequent improved vehicle which has new composite armor, better electronics, reengineered hull, and a better engine believed to be based on a German commercial design.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The BMP3 isn't airborne, that's the BMD which has proven to be a total piece of shit. IIRC, Mexico was offered some and they had less protection than their fucking basic bitch armored general utility vehicles.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, BMDs are basically slightly bigger Wiesel-equivalents. Good for giving paras a bit of extra mobility and heavy firepower, but definitely not good for turning them into a full-blown Mech formation.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Russians were absolutely retarded and were using them for head on urban assaults like proper armor. There were some videos of them being shredded by fucking squad level MGs lmao

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, sure. That's about the definition of user error, tho.

                Like, if you used a Wiesel that way, it'd get turned into confetti, too. Things are at best comparable to an up-armored Humvee.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >up-armored Humvee.
                a Humvee probably has more armor

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>More Armored

          Do you think aircraft carriers are too heavy to float too?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A boat is the same thing as a land AFV
            >not reading the whole statement about needing to be prepared to be amphibious
            >"Time to write a witty post, let me open up my gif folder"
            Again

            >More armored doesn't automatically mean it can't be amphibious
            No, but my frame of reference is Bradley, which is amphibious, if you take the time to attach the floats and float curtains, which takes a lot of time and effort and means that in combat it can't just seamlessly go into amphib mode.

            Bradley is amphibious but requires you to stop and set it up to be amphibious before driving it into the water, then taken down to actually have full combat ability again. If you want to make an IFV amphibious without additional preparations, you need to make a bunch of design concessions, like a different shape, or ballast tanks, or less armor.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Not all amphibious IFVs need that the BMP and ZBD can just straight up go in the water after the trim vane is extended which takes about 5 seconds. Same with the Borsuk and Turkish amphbious IFVs. Others, like the K21 need to inflate air bags. IIRC, the additional spaced composite armor blocks on the ZBD04A are hollow and add buoyancy. The ZBD04 was capable of being used in the sea for amphibious landings but the ZBD04A which is heavier has an amphibious capability that is just meant for river crossings and that sort of stuff so it is not limited by bridges and bridging vehicles. There is also an even heavier derivative called the VN50 that is not amphibious at all.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Though this is not a dinging of this vehicle specifically, as while it might be amphibious it may require such preparations to be made to make them ready that it may not be worth it to deploy them that way 90% of the time.

          That's basically any amphibious APC/IFV outside those made specifically for amphib ops foremost. Amphibious in their case basically means they can cross rivers within certain limitations (width, flow rate, state of the ambankments etc.), not that they're good for getting dumped off a boat and swimming ashore.

          >It is an airborne vehicle

          Erm, no? BMP-3 was never airbone afaik. That's the BMD series. Not even the guys from Rosoboronexport try to claim that it's airborne in their freakin' sales brochure.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Low velocity guns with a big HE load are massively superior to auto cannons for an IFV and I won't be persuaded otherwise.

Your email address will not be published.