BMP-3 main cannon(s)

[Scrapper_511]

The BMP-3 is an awesome IFV and I admire the unique capability of its dual-purpose 100mm cannon. However, I'm curious about why a 100mm cannon was fitted instead of just using a dedicated ATGM launcher. What can the low-velocity 100mm defeat, that the 30mm gun cannot? Whatever the case, it's an awesome package.

[Ssnake]

Given that the 100mm barrel can also fire missiles, it's a "two in one" package. Whether an amphibious, missile-capable, 100mm HE shell lobbing, 30mm autocannon-plus-coax MG firing IFV may be a tad ambitious in the system complexity (and crew training) department is open for debate.

Clearly, the 100mm gun is an assault gun revival, particularly against infantry in fortifed positions. The missile capability is essentially a "survivability must" on today's battlefield. For light and medium sized targets (trucks, etc) the 30mm is a good choice, also against infantry where the coax is no longer sufficient.

Each and every weapon has its place. Throwing all into one unified package reminds me of the results of "design by committee". Every member has his own pet project, so the compromise is to let everybody have his way, thus avoiding the hard decisions. In the end you get a very complex weapon system that must be pure joy to train and to maintain; whether the actual combat utility value is as high (or better) as the sum of all the components suggests, I don't know.

My gut feeling suggests that a four-vehicle platoon with two (or three) 30mm and (one or) two 100mm gun vehicles based on the same chassis might actually work better. But then you have two different systems, and the next question is whether it isn't prudent to cross-train crews of one type on the other, so you don't really save in training costs. And of course you could just as well set up an assault gun company per mech battalion, and then hand one assault gun platoon to each mech company. Or... well, beef up the mech battalion with a tank company.

Oops.

[Hedgehog]

Given that the 100mm barrel can also fire missiles, it's a "two in one" package. Whether an amphibious, missile-capable, 100mm HE shell lobbing, 30mm autocannon-plus-coax MG firing IFV may be a tad ambitious in the system complexity (and crew training) department is open for debate.

Clearly, the 100mm gun is an assault gun revival, particularly against infantry in fortifed positions. The missile capability is essentially a "survivability must" on today's battlefield. For light and medium sized targets (trucks, etc) the 30mm is a good choice, also against infantry where the coax is no longer sufficient.

Each and every weapon has its place. Throwing all into one unified package reminds me of the results of "design by committee". Every member has his own pet project, so the compromise is to let everybody have his way, thus avoiding the hard decisions. In the end you get a very complex weapon system that must be pure joy to train and to maintain; whether the actual combat utility value is as high (or better) as the sum of all the components suggests, I don't know.

My gut feeling suggests that a four-vehicle platoon with two (or three) 30mm and (one or) two 100mm gun vehicles based on the same chassis might actually work better. But then you have two different systems, and the next question is whether it isn't prudent to cross-train crews of one type on the other, so you don't really save in training costs. And of course you could just as well set up an assault gun company per mech battalion, and then hand one assault gun platoon to each mech company. Or... well, beef up the mech battalion with a tank company.

Oops.

Or put a 100mm ATGM / HE Shell Lobbing gun on each vehicle in the Platoon.

Simples.

[Marko]

Given that the 100mm barrel can also fire missiles, it's a "two in one" package. Whether an amphibious, missile-capable, 100mm HE shell lobbing, 30mm autocannon-plus-coax MG firing IFV may be a tad ambitious in the system complexity (and crew training) department is open for debate.

Clearly, the 100mm gun is an assault gun revival, particularly against infantry in fortifed positions. The missile capability is essentially a "survivability must" on today's battlefield. For light and medium sized targets (trucks, etc) the 30mm is a good choice, also against infantry where the coax is no longer sufficient.

Each and every weapon has its place. Throwing all into one unified package reminds me of the results of "design by committee". Every member has his own pet project, so the compromise is to let everybody have his way, thus avoiding the hard decisions. In the end you get a very complex weapon system that must be pure joy to train and to maintain; whether the actual combat utility value is as high (or better) as the sum of all the components suggests, I don't know.

My gut feeling suggests that a four-vehicle platoon with two (or three) 30mm and (one or) two 100mm gun vehicles based on the same chassis might actually work better. But then you have two different systems, and the next question is whether it isn't prudent to cross-train crews of one type on the other, so you don't really save in training costs. And of course you could just as well set up an assault gun company per mech battalion, and then hand one assault gun platoon to each mech company. Or... well, beef up the mech battalion with a tank company.

Oops.

If you mix different capability's in a single platoon the vehicle perceived to be the most potent threat will be attacked first. just like the firefly in WW2, it was a round magnet when Ever it appeared because it was seen as more dangerous then a standard M4 Sherman.

[Scrapper_511]

Thanks for the feedback, folks!

[Captain_Colossus]

It seems to be good to sell abroad. If you look at countries operating them, they all have a coast to defend or seem to have a need to conduct maritime operations.

So, they get an amphibious IFV with the firepower of a tank. It may not have been the original reason in the design, maybe the Russians then were thinking they needed to impress NATO with a vehicle that has a lot of tools for any kind of contingency.

My biggest single request for Steel Beasts is do something about the terrain at the shores and waterlines, because the amphibious vehicles are underutilized when they can't climb out of the water and manage the steep banks.

[Damian90]

The primary idea was that BMP-3 will provide fire support for infantry during attacks, however a 100mm ATGM fired from main gun, will have very low penetration capabilities compared to ATGM like Kornet fired from launcher. So there is something for something.

Russians right now perceive this concept rather as unsuccesfull, this is why Kurganets IFV as well as heavy IFV T-15 have unmanned turret with 30mm autocannon, coax 7,62mm MG and conventional Kornet ATGM launchers.

Also BMP-3 (as well as BMD-4/BMD-4M) weapon system, makes this vehicle less safe, as it's more vurnable to ammo cook off of these 100mm rounds and ATGM's stored in autoloader around turret basket.

[Captain_Colossus]

The primary idea was that BMP-3 will provide fire support for infantry during attacks, however a 100mm ATGM fired from main gun, will have very low penetration capabilities compared to ATGM like Kornet fired from launcher. So there is something for something.

But looking at the threats during the Cold War 1980s, it's still respectable.

Russian tanks like the T-72 weren't so much intended to take on NATO armor one versus one and destroy every NATO soldier to the last man. Rather, the strategy in WW3 would prefer to bypass strong resistance wherever possible and as fast as possible go deep into NATO's third echelons, HQ units, supply trains and so on. They didn't want to repeat the experiences of WW2 and their horrific losses, nor did they want NATO to regain composure and reinforce by wasting time getting into protracted fights. When you look at the loadout of HE shells versus AP rounds in their tanks, the Russians appeared to expect that the objectives were the soft, important targets in the rear. Attack and destroy those to end the fight sooner.

An IFV with an autocannon + heavy gun that fires slow moving, HE rounds, and an ATGM if and it came to that when confronted against armor seems to fit. The ATGM isn't the first choice since it's not really the intended scenario to purposefully confront an enemy MBT, but a just in case scenario.

In Steel Beasts, the BMP-3 missiles are very fast and accurate, dangerous to the best Western tanks when they can target weak areas even frontally. While a gun fired missile is smaller, they reload missiles much faster without exposing the crews, so that is a gain to really keep in mind if find yourself going against them in a tank.

[Marko]

One of the main things i wish for in the upcoming update is they get 100mm cannon on the BMP-3 working. A palyable version would be a big ask but it would be intersting if they get it working even if its AI controlled. the cannon would be a real threat to older IFV's/PC's house clearing in urban combat situations and general fire support.

[mpow66m]

BMP-3 and ZSU 23-4 would be an awesome MOUT team.

[Marko]

BMP-3 and ZSU 23-4 would be an awesome MOUT team.

The Russians used the ZSU 23-4 in the Chechen Wars.

To supress ATGM teams and snipers seemingly to good effect

Its not what it was designed for. But if the shoe fits

[Jartsev]

I will just leave this here :clin: