How effective is installing 57-millimetre rapid-fire cannon for for all light armoured vehicles (infantry fighting...

Are these 57mm telescoping?

>Those targets need to be destroyed at maximum range
What range?

still.. where ya gonna fit enought ammo to justify that cannon?

>a 57mm cannon can fire 57mm mortars
Some fag will say this at some point here.

First the side of a barn.
4m away

explain why it shouldnt be able to

Umm if standard Soviet 2A42 autocannon is any indicator, the 57mm armed IFV do not possess enough room for ammo to offset horrible accuracy.

A 50 mm one is in the works in the US.

Attached: OsbornLynx.jpg (1862x1048, 117K)

What if ammo is now telescoping and takes much less space? Why is accuracy horrible all of a sudden?

Modern IFVs and APCs are way bigger than BTRs and BMPs

Firing
Mechanism

Also size of mortar vs mortar tube
Mortar = 57mm
Mortar tube = eh lets call it 60mm prob less

Makes it a pretty fucking mean vehicle when combined with APS and MBT armor.

Needs more daka
daka made of explosives
Explosives on the outside of tank can kill troops.
.
Daka complete.....
Initiating....

>are you gonna put a 57mm on your mortar carrier too lol
Are you not?

This on Mortars

>every vehicle doesn't have one of these
>You want wheels next

MF want a Bofers

the 57mm is a very large and complex weapon, with much larger sized ammo

this will cause compromises in capacity, weight, reliability, or armor that may be unacceptable
so anything that is that well armed will need to be using it a lot on very hard targets to justify its expense

You lose a lot of ammunition capacity, troop space, or both

Silence! Let the cold war dick measuring contest begin!

Why?
Is not a 25mm / 30mm / 40mm not enough for IFV work?
Tanks or IFV-ATGM tubes are for bigger threats.

There was a post before that they wanted 57mm air bursts instead. Forgot where, probably gurkhan.

Old 57mm for AA is in a gray zone between demolishing cover and fragmentation. i.e. provides more than enough power for fragmentation but not enough to knock down buildings. But note I said old. A modern 57mm HE would probably have results similar to the old 76mm demolition guns. Also going to HE means don't need the velocity any more, could go to a 60mm grenade/charge launcher. So to answer your question: are you going to be shoot down aircraft? if so, use missiles.

They're literally the 57mm rounds from the 50+ year old ZSU-57.

>Are these 57mm telescoping?
lol no, same 1950s gun also used in the zsu-57. Still quite powerful but something like the CTA40 is more advanced.

Too slow kid.

If you're willing to give up troop space, that'd make for a mean IFV. 57mm of fuck you buildings and fuck you vehicles

No 57mm mortars though, that's very gay

Look closer. The gun is definitely not the same.

Larger autocannon projectiles chew up hard cover like walls much faster and more efficiently with less mass of ammo expended than smaller calibres. Throws projectiles further which is excellent for anti-air work.

Attached: screenshot-www-youtube-com-2018-08-23-19-57-44.jpg (759x427, 38K)

That's a terrible way to make a point; making a comparison between apples and oranges. They dont even have the same manufacturer or designer.

The turret on the T-15 incorporates an enlarged bustle for ammo stowage. It wont eat into the crew space nor impact the rest of the vehicle apart from maybe a slight weight increase.

unless you are an IFV who deliberately follows troops into combat, it sounds like a needless expense for most combat vehicles which only need to suppress tje enemy long enough to drop their cargo then go home

never over engineer
unless there is a very good reason a vehicle would need to stop and fight, then dont give it a gun bigger than what it strictly needs

Bump

Ideally, sure. But that is not the case in practise. Blurring of the frontlines means that vehicles like humvees and food trucks get in firefights with the enemy almost as much as the tip of the spear tanks and IFVs. If that happens its better to pack as much dakka as possible while still within limits. And that's the point - within limits. Modern firepower is almost invariably more powerful yet in a smaller package than predecessors that most vehicles can get away with more firepower than they ever did.

Attached: PaukJanez.jpg (846x467, 72K)

Why not just put a Gsh-6-30 on an unmanned ground vehicle and give a dozen or so of them new micro missiles?

Attached: X0XCJoQ.jpg (1491x1080, 152K)

Fifty years old ammo.. does Moscow even have ABM of that caliber

desu I think it would be fun as fuck to have an indirect fire weapon capable of rapid fire, to Hell with any hopes of realism or practicality

I don't think in a real war we can all sit and wait 2 hours for CAS to blow up a building before all the infantry can continue to advance.

One of the factors you need to factor when you're deciding on an ammunition size for your vehicles is a concept known as "Stowed Kills". It's pretty self explanatory, referring to the amount of targets you can kill with the amount of ammunition carried in the vehicle. Obviously, smaller rounds mean more of them can be carried, but smaller rounds generally pack less of an individual punch, requiring some multiples of larger rounds to achieve the same number of kills. Thus, it's a balancing game. In the specific case of the 57mm cartridge in question, it's too large. If you had a 30mm or 35mm gun with airbursting ammunition, you'd have a far larger amount of stowed kills for the same space given to ammunition stowage.

Blurring of frontlines is true to an extent, but only generally with irregular forces fighting guerrilla style. Counter insurgency. If that's the case, your food and ammunition trucks don't need an autocannon on them when an HMG will suffice. The autocannon requires a huge support structure to literally support the weight of the gun and the ammunition, whereas an HMG you can just bolt on and be good, while also retaining better performance from your trucks because they don't have all this weight.

Deep Battle presumes penetration of enemy forces into the strategic rear so even in a purely peer conflict you are looking at even food trucks fighting for their lives. But yeah normally supply vehicles are left unarmed or close to it but the escort vehicles definitely could use the additional firepower.

Have some perspective - the weapon system can easily cost more than the vehicle it is attached to.

Economy-wise, it makes no sense.

t.Russian here
Not very effective, i'ts just overpowered. The only reason this gun is made is because we couldnt develop 40mm airburst cartridge. So we chose larger one. Now we have enough competence and technology to develop 37mm airburst cartridges, so 57mm arty system becomes obsolete again.

Of course, nearly any modern military thinking has penetrations by maneuver forces eventually reaching enemy logistic trains, but it's less likely and, to be frank, even if you gave a supply truck an autocannon it's not going to do much good with it. The thinskinned convoy is going to be destroyed by the trained frontline soldiers in actually armored vehicles. If you're just facing dismounted infantry, an HMG is good enough, but you're probably still fucked anyways. With all that in mind, are you going to go to the expense to do so while in the process degrading the ability of your trucks to do their primary mission just for the off chance of killing a couple enemy APCs/IFVs before they are themselves destroyed int heir totality?