@tbilisicentral Bump that to 76mm and you have a pretty good description of the PT-76. Except it offers better protection (i.e. very little).
Put a modernized version of the gun in a proper turret with modern sensors and fire control systems, give it an APFSDS round and you have a competitor for Oto Melara's 60mm system.
@SAsgarters true that .. although OTO Melara has that new 76mm AAA autocanon with a radar and optical detection sensors. and it can be mounted on virtually any tracked chasis and some wheeled ones, if it has a required load capacity..as far as PT analogy, nothing of that sort can beat a sustained fire of 57mm - its freaking devastating :))) especialy with ready clips
@tbilisicentral OTO's 60mm is the 76mm casing necked down to that diameter. I forget the rate of fire, though. It should be about the same as the 57mm's. The 60mm is mounted on the BWP-2000.
Either way, the smaller the diameter, the less effective it is. The 57mm loses to the 76mm both in penetration and the amount of explosives it carries.
You almost described the ZSU-57-2 earlier, minus one gun. They cost practically nothing these days.
@SAsgarters agree, but it depends on what type of 76mm we are talking about, i was refering to the PT-76s main gun. the S60 can combat most of 2nd generation tanks (up to 1000 meters) and all of the APC+IFVs on todays battlefield, and has a higher combat rate of fire.
@tbilisicentral None of the S-60's rounds even come close to the level of penetration as the 76's BK-350M round. Even a high rate of fire doesn't compensate. The first hit is the one that counts. Stowed kills count, too.
@SAsgarters but thats a HEAT round, with only 6-8 rpm.ok,lets take the tanks out,high cyclic rate of S60 gives it a potential to destroy more lightly armored targets at shorter time interval before it gets noticed/destroyed.and there were incidents where the S60 has killed T55, tore up its tracks and destroyed sights, and then switched to another target pouring dow the hate. my point is - its a cheap and effective weapon.if u have one that is. if not, buy a better system :)
@tbilisicentral The 76mm has a higher probability of penetrating with the first hit and switching targets takes longer than reloading a 76mm gun. As for the rare of fire, those usually only apply to automatic guns, because there are very different means of determining it. The rpm is rarely given as the highest rate of fire possible, but as a maximum sustained rate of fire.
Modern amored vehicles are more heavily armored than the T-55, which have even been killed with guns as small as 25mm.
@SAsgarters continued. For example, many WWII 76-90mm guns were capable of firining up to 20-25 rounds per minute, but could only fire a handful of rounds per minute continuously. Believe it or not, 57mm guns also have a maximum sustained rate of fire. The cyclic rate doesn't matter that much, unless you are trying to hit something small or fast-moving.
@SAsgarters yea, of course, technical cyclic rate is different from the actual. AK can empty a mag in 2.5 seconds, 5-7 seconds to change the mag, but that doesnt mean that the soldier will run out of ammo during the first minute of the engagement. it all depends on situation. for quick suppression, sure, but positional fighting is a different thing. btw, check out the 100mm KS19 AAA modified by iranians with an autoloader, nifty friekin gadget they got there.
@tbilisicentral The AK is a fairly bad example for what I was thinking of. I'd prefer to use the MG-42 as an example. Despite its very high cyclic rate of fire, the barrel needed to be changed and let cool down. If you didn't do that, it would overheat, begin to warp significantly and you'd risk having rounds cook off in the chamber. Cannon that can be fired fairly rapidly are very susceptible to the same problem.
The new Iranian KS19 is very impressive, if it can do what they say it does.
@SAsgarters we mainly agree on things...there is one documentary from war in Georgia in '92-93, where S60 provided continuous fire support for the soldiers advancing on one village,firing one-two rounds per houseand swithcing to next, and rpm is as good as a loader can change clips, lets say 50rpm for a well diciplined crew, not for long but still..dont forget, even without hydro or electro servos, its essentially a AAA gun that is meant to shoot down air targets traveling at 200-300m/sec.
By the way, have you heard of the AU-220M 57mm turret upgrade the Russians are selling for the PT-76? :D Based on the S-60, same cyclic rate of fire. Carries 90 rounds of ammunition total (20 ready + 70 stowed), compared to the original 40 rounds of 76mm. Features stabilization, modern sights, rangefinders etc. Now THAT'S how you put obsolete equipment to good use. :)
@SAsgarters yea i read about this some time ago,just forgot about it.deffinatelly a good "upgrade" for countries with existing inventories of PT-76 and S60.to think about it,one could mount a similar set-up on virtually any AFV.low cost-high utility update for your circa '50-60s inventory :) speaking of larger caliber cannons,i like that new case telescopic system,slow to catch on, given proliferation of existing systems,but surely a way to go. before we reach the age of electromagnetic guns
@tbilisicentral They do seem promising, especially in tests, where they've achieved penetration very close to that of conventional cartridges of the same caliber. IIRC, the 40mm telescopic is about on the same level as the conventional 35x228, but takes up significantly less space. It's still no match for the 40x364, though.
I don't think electromagnetic guns will ever catch on. Power generation will still be a problem for several decades and by then there may be more efficient propellants.
@SAsgarters i guess so far its a most optimal solution btwn ammo capacity and effect on target.the bofors round is proven though.it all boils down to the philosophy of use of IFVs,cause with the rate its going soon there will see something like an MBT with infantry carrying capacity,Merkava for example,or Ukrainian T72 concept with a small compartment btwn fighing and power unit compartments.Merkava weights only 20 tons more than Puma,with excellent AT/direct fire support capacity,why not
@tbilisicentral I doubt that MBTs with infantry carrying capacity will ever replace the IFV. There might be some other niche for them though. For light tanks, too.
The Merkava is more than twice the weight of the Puma (roughly 33t difference, assuming we're talking about the same Puma) and the mobility of IFVs has always been far superior to MBTs and I don't think any army is willing to trade away the benefits of dedicated personnel carriers.
@SAsgarters i was just pointing out the tendency in beefing up the armor packages of modern IFVs. latests Bradleys weigh about 35t, Warrior about the same, Puma is stated at 43tons with level III armor package, witch is almost the same as the base T-72. and i dont think anybodys that suicidal to run "naked" (without reactive and passive armor packages) IFVs through the modern, assymetric, RPG saturated battlefields.still,Israelis have a Namer for pure APC role, witch is Merkava minus the turret
place this on a MTLB , weld some shields around it and u got an awesome and low budget close range fire support weapon system.
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral Bump that to 76mm and you have a pretty good description of the PT-76. Except it offers better protection (i.e. very little).
Put a modernized version of the gun in a proper turret with modern sensors and fire control systems, give it an APFSDS round and you have a competitor for Oto Melara's 60mm system.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters true that .. although OTO Melara has that new 76mm AAA autocanon with a radar and optical detection sensors. and it can be mounted on virtually any tracked chasis and some wheeled ones, if it has a required load capacity..as far as PT analogy, nothing of that sort can beat a sustained fire of 57mm - its freaking devastating :))) especialy with ready clips
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral OTO's 60mm is the 76mm casing necked down to that diameter. I forget the rate of fire, though. It should be about the same as the 57mm's. The 60mm is mounted on the BWP-2000.
Either way, the smaller the diameter, the less effective it is. The 57mm loses to the 76mm both in penetration and the amount of explosives it carries.
You almost described the ZSU-57-2 earlier, minus one gun. They cost practically nothing these days.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters agree, but it depends on what type of 76mm we are talking about, i was refering to the PT-76s main gun. the S60 can combat most of 2nd generation tanks (up to 1000 meters) and all of the APC+IFVs on todays battlefield, and has a higher combat rate of fire.
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral None of the S-60's rounds even come close to the level of penetration as the 76's BK-350M round. Even a high rate of fire doesn't compensate. The first hit is the one that counts. Stowed kills count, too.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters but thats a HEAT round, with only 6-8 rpm.ok,lets take the tanks out,high cyclic rate of S60 gives it a potential to destroy more lightly armored targets at shorter time interval before it gets noticed/destroyed.and there were incidents where the S60 has killed T55, tore up its tracks and destroyed sights, and then switched to another target pouring dow the hate. my point is - its a cheap and effective weapon.if u have one that is. if not, buy a better system :)
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral The 76mm has a higher probability of penetrating with the first hit and switching targets takes longer than reloading a 76mm gun. As for the rare of fire, those usually only apply to automatic guns, because there are very different means of determining it. The rpm is rarely given as the highest rate of fire possible, but as a maximum sustained rate of fire.
Modern amored vehicles are more heavily armored than the T-55, which have even been killed with guns as small as 25mm.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters continued. For example, many WWII 76-90mm guns were capable of firining up to 20-25 rounds per minute, but could only fire a handful of rounds per minute continuously. Believe it or not, 57mm guns also have a maximum sustained rate of fire. The cyclic rate doesn't matter that much, unless you are trying to hit something small or fast-moving.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters yea, of course, technical cyclic rate is different from the actual. AK can empty a mag in 2.5 seconds, 5-7 seconds to change the mag, but that doesnt mean that the soldier will run out of ammo during the first minute of the engagement. it all depends on situation. for quick suppression, sure, but positional fighting is a different thing. btw, check out the 100mm KS19 AAA modified by iranians with an autoloader, nifty friekin gadget they got there.
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral The AK is a fairly bad example for what I was thinking of. I'd prefer to use the MG-42 as an example. Despite its very high cyclic rate of fire, the barrel needed to be changed and let cool down. If you didn't do that, it would overheat, begin to warp significantly and you'd risk having rounds cook off in the chamber. Cannon that can be fired fairly rapidly are very susceptible to the same problem.
The new Iranian KS19 is very impressive, if it can do what they say it does.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters we mainly agree on things...there is one documentary from war in Georgia in '92-93, where S60 provided continuous fire support for the soldiers advancing on one village,firing one-two rounds per houseand swithcing to next, and rpm is as good as a loader can change clips, lets say 50rpm for a well diciplined crew, not for long but still..dont forget, even without hydro or electro servos, its essentially a AAA gun that is meant to shoot down air targets traveling at 200-300m/sec.
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral We do agree on many things.
By the way, have you heard of the AU-220M 57mm turret upgrade the Russians are selling for the PT-76? :D Based on the S-60, same cyclic rate of fire. Carries 90 rounds of ammunition total (20 ready + 70 stowed), compared to the original 40 rounds of 76mm. Features stabilization, modern sights, rangefinders etc. Now THAT'S how you put obsolete equipment to good use. :)
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters yea i read about this some time ago,just forgot about it.deffinatelly a good "upgrade" for countries with existing inventories of PT-76 and S60.to think about it,one could mount a similar set-up on virtually any AFV.low cost-high utility update for your circa '50-60s inventory :) speaking of larger caliber cannons,i like that new case telescopic system,slow to catch on, given proliferation of existing systems,but surely a way to go. before we reach the age of electromagnetic guns
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral They do seem promising, especially in tests, where they've achieved penetration very close to that of conventional cartridges of the same caliber. IIRC, the 40mm telescopic is about on the same level as the conventional 35x228, but takes up significantly less space. It's still no match for the 40x364, though.
I don't think electromagnetic guns will ever catch on. Power generation will still be a problem for several decades and by then there may be more efficient propellants.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters i guess so far its a most optimal solution btwn ammo capacity and effect on target.the bofors round is proven though.it all boils down to the philosophy of use of IFVs,cause with the rate its going soon there will see something like an MBT with infantry carrying capacity,Merkava for example,or Ukrainian T72 concept with a small compartment btwn fighing and power unit compartments.Merkava weights only 20 tons more than Puma,with excellent AT/direct fire support capacity,why not
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
@tbilisicentral I doubt that MBTs with infantry carrying capacity will ever replace the IFV. There might be some other niche for them though. For light tanks, too.
The Merkava is more than twice the weight of the Puma (roughly 33t difference, assuming we're talking about the same Puma) and the mobility of IFVs has always been far superior to MBTs and I don't think any army is willing to trade away the benefits of dedicated personnel carriers.
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@SAsgarters i was just pointing out the tendency in beefing up the armor packages of modern IFVs. latests Bradleys weigh about 35t, Warrior about the same, Puma is stated at 43tons with level III armor package, witch is almost the same as the base T-72. and i dont think anybodys that suicidal to run "naked" (without reactive and passive armor packages) IFVs through the modern, assymetric, RPG saturated battlefields.still,Israelis have a Namer for pure APC role, witch is Merkava minus the turret
tbilisicentral 1 year ago
dane sie nie zgadzają ale i tak fajnie u nas wojsko szkolą "prawdopodobnie" na filmach które mają po 30 lat
tomekkijno 2 years ago 2