I must be getting old. Remember being part of the field proving tests of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with the M242 25 MM Bushmaster. This was in 1977. We were still driving M113 APC’s.
I guess funding never happened for for the hvy units to trade out the 113 for the M2. But if something is in the pipe to replace the M2, they will likely end up as 113 replacements.
It looks like it can be - remember that part where it takes up only a few inches more space than the 25mm cannon? This is part of a larger program to replace the Bradley, but I do like being ready to upgrade legacy vehicles. I'm a little surprised the US didn't have a huge fleet of M60 tanks to upgrade.
@@recoil53 Sometimes it's better to offload slightly over the hill last generation "stuff" to poorer allies. Tons of M60 in Turkey, Jordan or Morocco improves your standing as a great power, but you can standardize your own ammo to 120mm which is really needed. You can spend money only once. A 50 or a Maxim are still great after decades, tanks - only if you need huge reserve units in the cold war or similar (Germany, South Korea etc.). Just my 2 cents.
@@Walterwaltraud Well there's truth in the political capital gained. But as Ukraine has shown, if war turns hot we just can't churn out modern tanks. M-60s have been upgraded to 120mm cannon with stabilization and computerized targeting. In this case the tank is just a chassis on which to mount stuff.
This is a 2 inch gun. As long as the gun itself takes up the same amount of space as the 1 inch, it will be easy to install. The feed ramp will need to be changed, though. If they install a new turret, though... it needs to fit on the same ring and weigh the same. The question is if they are recycling the hull, turret, or anything at all.
Sure you can´t wait to add some billions to the public debt so you will pay more in taxes and pay more inflation.🤣 People praise all these shitty armaments and don't realize what are the consequences for the taxpayers. The working class people will not obtain any benefit from this, they only will obtain the BILL. Only beneficiaries from this is the globalists and the government deep swamp.
Well, as i predicted - this is the future of tanks Up armored IFV's carrying a squad of 6 people with a 50mm autocannon. Enough to disable a tank and make it combat inneffective, while at the same time drastically more effective at supporting an offensive and suppresing an enemy without incuring too much of a cost if it's lost. Tanks have been shown to be obsolete in their current form in the Ukraine war. Guess this is why the US is decreasing it's tank fleet and making these.
@@RazorsharpLT Bro people been saying tanks are obsolete since the OCTOBER WAR of 1973. Tanks are not going ANYWHERE! Did you not here of the ABRAMSX? If so, then that tells you MBTs are not going anywhere no time soon. The Russians just don't know how to properly do combined arms warfare. Tanks in cities without proper infantry support to clear out enemy tank hunter teams is a recipe for complete disaster! They should've learned their lessons from the FIRST CHECHEN WAR.
I do hope that Northrop Grumman had the foresignt to Marinize the gun for use in nautical environments. The Army will not be the only user, and the Army is headed to the Archipelagic Pacific environment so they will be employed in salt air environments anyway.
We always think we know what the military will be doing but we are always surprised. Nobody expected we would need loads of desert gear and infantry in the early 2000s, and as we are preparing now to fight with ships and planes in the Pacific it will probably end up as a war of drones in the Arctic.
@@williamzk9083 The Navy has many Chain Gun installations on various platforms that range from 25mm to 30mm. My proposal is to make them all 50mm. Swarm drone attacks are in our future, and having something that can begin engagement further out with airburst programable ammo is important. Having a common weapons platform on most if not all naval vessels helps us with manning, training, maintenance and logistical support while improving lethality of the platforms.
@@ericconnor8419 Hey, we have folks in Hawaii that have ECW (Extreme Cold Weather) gear, and use it regularly in Alaska above the Arctic Circle. A capability is exactly that, and the National Guard and Reserve are specialized units with a single mission (mostly). Combat Gear can be acquired, stored, and issues to almost anyone. However, being trained and effective in combat with that gear is something entirely different. Particularly in JOINT operations which is a skill set in and of itself.
This was tested during the 2021 "Big Sandy" shoot, where privately owned, Cannons, artillery, tanks, etc, gather to shoot...Great place... Knob Creek Machine Gun shoot..RIP after 50 years..
I want to see a comparison between this 50mm chain gun and the European 40mm CTA cannon. The 50mm likely hits harder. But the 40mm has a lot of advantages. It's basically the same size as the 30mm Mk-44, and so it the cased telescoped ammunition. So from a vehicle design and logistical standpoint, the 40mm is better. And it hits hard enough. It's AP round will go though at least 5" of armor at 1000m. I don't know if an APC cannon needs to be more powerful than that.
The CTAS ammunition is not the same size as 30 mm. The British AJAX carries only 65 rounds of 40 mm CT ready to fire, that's comparable to the 35 mm version of the CV90 which has 70 rounds ready to fire. Modern 30 mm platforms have significantly higher ammo count, the 30 mm version of the CV90 and the Puma both have 200 rounds ready to fire at the gun. To note that that ammunition count is going to be split up into different ammo types aswell, so 65 rounds into 30 APFSDS and 35 HE/ABM. Compared to 100/100 or 120/80 on a 30 mm platform. The Germans had a 50 mm autocannon ready to field in 1987, the Rheinmetall Rh 503. Their newest IFV has a 30 mm autocannon because of the reasons stated above.
There's two things about bumping up a caliber while retaining the same case: 1 - The base of the projectile is larger, and acts as a larger "piston" for the gases to push against. This usually gives a boost to initial velocity. 2 - For the air-bursting rounds, a 50 mm is *way* bigger than a 40 mm for delivering an explosion downrange. Assuming both projectiles are the same length, the wider 50 mm will carry 56% more explosive material. The downside of a wider round is that penetration potentially suffers... BUT... not if it's firing sabot-rounds, in which case the dart in the middle is the same size whether it's a 50mm, a 40mm, or a 25mm. Bottle-necking the rounds -- which is what I believe the European ones do -- retains higher pressure behind the projectile for a longer period of time inside of the barrel. Straight-walled cartridges have pressure that tapers off more sharply than bottle-necked cartridges. 40 mm is probably less expensive to produce. There was a particular incident where a Bradley -- during the first Iraq War -- came upon an Iraqi tank, so the Bradley aimed it's gun down and started hitting the tank as the Bradley retreated. If that Bradley had been using the 50 mm versus the 25 mm, it probably would've been a very different result.
9:50 XM1203 - APFSDS-T, not APFSKS-T. And your picture shows not XM1203, but XM1202 - Target Practice with Trace. The XM1203 looks like a typical sub-caliber projectile (for example how 25mm M919), and has a black cap, not blue.
This to me makes a lot more sense on something like the MPV than the 105mm cannon. Given it's small size the MPV should've carried the 50mm and carried much more ammo with a higher rate of fire vs. the 105mm, which still can't penetrate frontal MBT armor in today's battle space. might as well get a smaller cannon that can still take out anything this side of a tank, including APC's & other support vehicles, along with a faster rate of fire.
It seems the main purpose of the weapons on the IFVs is 'theatrical' ie to create enough noise to force the enemy to take cover in trenches while the soldiers go around the sides and start throwing grenades. In that case a main gun that fires as fast as possible, ideally with some sort of explosive tip is ideal. You want a weapon that sounds like Armageddon and forces everybody within half a mile to hide so they don't notice the blokes creeping up on them. The job of the 105mm has been replaced by drones with mortar shells.
This is what I was thinking, guess it's not ready yet to get on the MPV and why they went 105mm. Ammo needs maybe. I don't know. This 50mm has been in development for quite some years now.
PROBLEM: The 50 mm auto cannon's ammo is so large far fewer rounds can be carried in an IFV v.s. the Bradley's current 25 mm auto cannon. But hey, the 50 mm round has many more types of warheads possible due to its larger size. i.e. "next generation ammunition".
Yeah this will be interesting to see how it pans out. One of the things Bradleys get tasked with is suppressive fire. With larger and fewer rounds this makes that task much more costly.
Offense isn't the problem. It's defense and detection. If it were me, I'd be experimenting with suspension spring padded curved armor plates. Acoustic resonance mine detection capabilities and an AT mine disarmament mechanism on the nose of its underbelly. A purely defensive recon vehicle with no turret. Just paints targets and relays the information to central command. Missles and artillery do the rest.
@@notreallydavid programable air burst 35mm rounds can be produced at around $50-$70 each. I doubt a 30mm or 25mm would be any more expensive. It’s probably the only way to get a drone. Would need software to track.
@@williamzk9083 It's really more about cost vs. effectiveness when it comes to airburst munitions. At a certain size munitions become too small to be practical simply because of limited explosive yield. So it makes far more sense to make programmable 35mm rounds than 25mm rounds for instance, since you might need 2 or 3 25mm to do the same job as one 35mm at roughly 3x the total price.
@@williamzk9083 Thanks! I should've been clearer - what I was wondering about was the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of guided rounds of this kind of calibre. Best regards.
But a 50mm bore would be a new caliber for the US, where the usual calibers were either the 40mm or the 57mm. And ammunition for both these would be in production & in inventory
Creo que esta perfecta la idea de aumentar el calibre de las piezas de los vci, pue ya el 25mm se está quedando rezagado en cuanto a capacidades, respecto a los blindajes de nueva generación utilizado por los rusos, este 50mm creo que significará una potencia de fuego respetable, para el apoyo de fuego a las tropas, en mi opinión ya se hacía necesario.
Russia is a bit like the kid who always boasted about his Karate Blackbelt. It's scary until someone actually fights him and it becomes clear that not only does he not have a Blackbelt but he doesn't even know how to throw a strike.
People forget one small thing with IFV's. They are "Small" as they must carry Troops. So bigger gun bigger ammunition, bigger ammunition, less ammunition. Gunner panics (Life is not a movie) accidentally fires more than needed in a extended battle and either misses or expends ammunition on less "Important" targets.
That's not necessarily true. The Namer APC is even larger and more heavily armored than a tank. So they don't necessarily have to be small or even need to be less armored. They can be as big as they need to be. Also this gun is not necessarily going to be mounted on a vehicle that has to carry troops, it can be mounted on any wheeled or tracked vehicle as needed.
@thuggeegaming659 The Namer would take up vast anounts of supplies of fuel and parts, and be too heavy to operate in many arras and transporting it to a combat zone would be difficult. The Americans take weeks to get tanks to a fight for this reason, theyre difficult to move. The Israeli Namer is based on them expecting to fight close to their supply bases, so it works for them. American vehicles need to be easy to transport and supply
@@jgw9990 I understand the advantages to having smaller vehicles, I'm just making the point that APCs don't necessarily have to be smaller. Mounting bigger autocannons is going to be more important in anti-drone warfare, so it's an advantage worth considering.
Yeah, that's the real issue, isn't it? Unless a real solution is found for drones and anti-tank missiles, it seems like big armored vehicles are a non-issue in near peer warfare.
Ten inches of additional protrusion into the turret, even if everything else is the same is a HUGE amount. I realize this is going to be on a new platform, but just some back-of-the-napkin math I would think the internal volume of the turret would spike by about 75%. I realize the Bradley replacement turret will be unmanned but you still have to think about maintenance. Servicing a manned turret is easier because access is easier. Even if removing the gun to service other components is straightforward, gun systems are HEAVY which complicates maintenance in the field.
Those cartridges are almost exactly the same volume or weight. The barrels are almost the same length as well. The 50mm will have an advantage due to larger caliber making it more efficient use the gas pressure while the 40mm being longer making it fit a longer penetrator. I think the performance will be close enough not to really matter, except for explosives where the 50mm will have a clear advantage.
Sexy! I like this Cannon. Dual cannon with airbrust rounds could work better as an air defense system integrated with heat seeking stingers missiles. It should be lot cheaper than c-ram and could make a bigger sharpnal cloud.
The air burst is intended for anti personnel use. Troops in trenches or in the open. I would say it may be useful for damaging the sensors and optics of a tank and predetonating APS and ERA. Yes it will likely be useful against drones.
No it hasn't! The US military went in unprepared for WW1 and had to borrow planes, machine guns and tanks from the British and the French. In WW2 they were almost as unprepared thats why in 1942 in the Philippines and on Guadalcanal our troops were fighting with gear from WW1
Well, a bit of that WW2 jackassery is due to the "hand-me-down" nature in which gear has been historically doled out to the USMC. Their whole angle is doing more while being given less.
@@dullahan7677 I thought their angle was to jump over the side of a ship and do battle on another ship? Then there's amphibious assaults, but we know who holds the world record for doing that, and it's not the Marines.
Powerful air burst programming ammunition. It is an important firepower in the future! The Ukrainian battlefield has fully proved this point. If the United States provides programmed ammunition on infantry fighting vehicles, then the Russian army hiding in the trenches will become a living target. The machine guns exploded above them can kill the bunkers on a large scale Russian Army
Nice try, but there's dozens of wrecked Bradleys around Ukraine right now, any of them still burning as we write. As for Russians dying in the trenches from ammo airbursts, Russia's answer to that in the form of the TOS thermobaric weapons systems is infinitely more effective, covering a vastly greater area in a fraction of the time. Besides, Carl Gustav rounds have had programmable airburst capacity for years.
@@dougbright8120 IFV and tanks will be lost to mines occasionally like those Leopard and Bradley. The burning is as a result of bombardment after the mines immobilized. It may even have been the Ukrainians that did this to prevent capture. The lancet strike was probably simply for propaganda purposes. It's expected. Attrition is normal and the losses are not beyond exceptional. The Western countries have been using Thermobaric Weapons for years. MOAB was thermobaric and so was the BLU-82 "daisy cutter" used in Vietnam. There is a variant of Hellfire with a thermobaric warhead designed to fire into bunker or caves. A Thermobaric Warhead could be built for MLRS missiles fired from HIMARS and M270.
Next round in progression is the PAK 40 75mm high velocity or the British 17 pdr quick firing round. It sounds like we are back to 1943 armorments. It seems like we have been down this path before.
More like, never. They've always spent the most money though, because they're incompetent and need 10x more time and resources to achieve what other armies achieve with far less. And they still end up with inferior equipment which is only decent when used against 50 year old outdated tech from 3rd world armies. Meeting other modern equipment, it becomes totally useless, which can be seen perfectly clearly in Ukraine now.
6:04 the XM913 Chain Gun does not have more than twice the range as the M242 Bushmaster. 1.8miles is over half of 2.5 miles so I’m confused about your arithmetic here. You may wanna check your hypotenuses dawg because your math is off.
What about the Mk44 Bushmaster 30mm gun? .... it and uses 70% of the same parts as the M242 while increasing the firepower by as much as 50% with the 20% increase in caliber size.
@@targetaps hard to say this kind of justification has been made time and time again to sell weapons army dont need and the bill as usual is paid for with tax payer money.
I think they said it has more velocity, so increasing velocity and at least doubling the mass is going to be huge as far as kinetic energy. Doubling the mass at the same velocity doubles the kinetic energy. By increasing the velocity on top of that it's going to really have a lot of power. If you double your velocity it quadruples your kinetic energy. So if they just add 10% more velocity with a larger projectile it should penetrate armor really well. Adding more mass also increases the momentum of the round, that should help with penetration as well. This will be a lot harder to stop, especially if they make some depleted uranium rounds for it.
@@mrbaab5932 Velocity is key but you also need enough mass. Along with a projectile that is hard and strong enough to hold its shape and not flatten out.
More than about 40mm is a waste on most vehicles. 40mm is about the practical limit for turn loaded systems that enable very high depression and elevation in a small turret space. Drones and missiles are the primary threats now which are most efficiently taken down by high rate and volume of fire more appropriate to 40mm or less.
Lowering down from programable ammunition. -> proximity sensor Is the most effective, therefore most efficient, in this case. Drones & missile are soft skin, it doesn't need 40mm solid bullets to takedown.
Saying _the Sun is 93-million miles away_ may as well be in another language; we won't remember it, because we can't understand it. We need things that are familiar enough of a concept to recall the concept; otherwise, we're only able to memorize arbitrary numbers. This is why it's far easier to memorize a sentence in a language you know than in one you don't. We have no frame of reference to understand that distance. Providing accessible metrics is fundamental to comprehension. It takes light just over 8 minutes (8:19) to reach the earth from the sun. That is comprehensible; and that is accessible. Saying a .308 has 2700 lb-ft of energy doesn't mean much unless someone's fired one. Because more people have fired a 9mm, telling someone a 9mm produces ~360 lb-ft of energy, and thus, a .308 has about 7.5x the energy of a 9mm helps to understand why a bullet "proof" vest is only bullet resistant until you get into full-powered rifle calibers. Or perhaps saying a .308 (7.62 NATO) is about double the energy of an AR-15's ~1300 lb-ft of energy. Just useful frames of reference we can then build on. With that in mind, here are some tables: A 12.7mm / 50-cal: ~ 13,500 lb-ft, The A-10's GAU-8: ~ 160,000 lb-ft (penetrate older tanks and 1/27th a tank's energy) The XM913 50mm: ~ 764,000 lb-ft! (1.54 kg @1,160 m/s or 1/5th of a tanks energy!) M1A2 Tank 120mm: ~ 4.1 million lb-ft (4kg DU penetrator at 1670m/s) That's the MAIN GUN of our tanks. That's to say that the XM913 50mm AUTOCANNON can put out more energy per second (and far more per minute) ... than a tank. And there are many angles from which the 50mm will be able to penetrate T90 armor. Certainly from the rear using 'sabot' rounds (which use a larger housing of a very narrow projectile at higher velocity, focusing the energy to penetrate armor). This cannon is reportedly going to fire between 200 and 600 rounds per minute. That's 6x the energy of an M1A2 at the minimum. Obviously, this isn't a weapon you'd use as 'suppressive fire.' But contextually, that's the kind of energy this thing can produce. And it's going to require both China and Russia re-evaluate some of their decisions.
So why does this video say it was recently published when it has references to 2021 being in the future? I would like to see the latest update on how the selection of this weapon is going. Is the Army going with this one or are they leaning more towards the 30mm cannon?
57mm thats been around for 100 years says Hello... This is literally reinventing the wheel for the sole purpose to get exclusive overpriced contracts. Literally everything they claim the 50mm brings or will bring has already been done better by the 57mm.
1977 hstv-l tank 75mm autocannon firing caseless in three round burst had the project not been axed it would have been using a 90mm auto cannon firing 3 round bursts .
I think maybe the shot for 'better armour penetration' should have been illustrated with something more substantial, my air rifle can go through that ply board. Presumably it does penetrate steel and concrete too.
I notice the cannon is significantly shorter than the front of the vehicle . It the barrel length was increased to the length of the bow of the Bradley, it would fit in the same footprint. But it would increase the cannons range l, decrease flight time (thereby improving hit probability on moving targets)and increase armor penetration. But then then there would be no need for a future upgrades
@@RobertLutece909 Ahh ... no. Miniscule is the word you are looking for, not substantial. The weight of the barrel on the 25 mm chain gun is like 250 pounds. The weight of a Bradley empty is about 55,000 pounds. So if you increase length by 25% . and increased and that weight by 75 % .your only talking about making a 55,000 pound vehicle weigh 190 pounds more. As for urban combat (always a bad idea to use Bradley s in urban combat)providing the barrel does not protrude longer than the vehicle is long, a long barreled Bradley would survive about as long as a short barrelled one in high intensity urban combat.
@@RobertLutece909 Try and remember that a 50 millimeter bore means a bigger whole down the center . Which means the hole down the center is bigger and filled with air not heavy metal metal . The 35 MIke Mike chain gun barrel weights the same as the 25 Mike Mike. With respect I say there cant be that much more weight to go from 35 mike mike to 50 mike mike. Perhaps someone else around here can teach us how much more 2-3-4 feet of 50 mike mike barrel will add to a 27+ ton machined . I can see how less elevation would be a problem.
@@RobertLutece909 Next time you are in a sporting goods store check out the weight of a 26 inch 12 gauge shotgun barrel . Compare that to to weight of a 18 inch .22 rifle barrel. It's be hard to deny the evidence in your own hand.
This seems more suited for smaller navel craft as a deck gun to me then a main gun on vehicles.. pair this with the mk34 system and you could fit some really small boats with a lot of firepower lol.. this would be way better then the normal m134, 50’s and mk19’s.. I can defiantly see this on some smaller coast guard ships
25mm system is much lighter making life in the mud a lot easier to get by. Plus, we don't really need direct line of sight to destroy the enemy nowadays. A civilian FPV drone strapped to an RPG warhead does all the tank hunting these days.
Oh god. All the way through this, I was thinking,"less ammunition", and, "less ammunition" and, "less ammunition" and, "these are not designed to take on hard targets". Oh heck.
It's a jack of all trades and master of none. However imagine using this thing on infantry. Something gives me a feeling it's gonna get a coax MG and end up looking like BMP-3.
I'm sure the cost per round of 50mm smart munitions is at last 5 times what a 25mm is. Even though the 50 has a better chance of a 1 round hit, there will be fewer of them available, due to their cost, which means the AFV will run out of ammo quicker than with the old gun. A tank with no ammo is just a scrap metal pile waiting to happen.
It makes sense that US wants to move up from the 25mm of the Bradley. But I don't really see the point in a slow firing 50mm instead of a fast 35mm. 50mm APDS rounds can not really engage any targets that a 35mm can not (You are not really engaging MBT's with either). And this 50mm seems to have little AA capacity, so a fast 35mm seems to be a better "anti-all except MBT's" kind of weapon.
This sounds promising,..But, in the interest of standardization and streamlining resources, would it be possible to mount the navel 57 mm gun to armored vehicles? This would allow a larger caliber weapon and reduce the type and numbers of different ammunition available to military forces. Just a thought.
A long time ago, around the time that the Marder IFV was under development, the Germans built a tracked, heavy reconnaissance vehicle called the Begleitpanzer 57, and it mounted a 57mm Bofors cannon. The Russians currently have a similar vehicle under development, but given their apparent inability to field T-14 Armata tanks in any real numbers, it seems unlikely that it will ever see the light of day.
Only the Army can take a $50,000 cannon and turn it into a 5 million dollar cannon
That's the American Way. At least in the military.
Could be worse, could be a 2 billion dollar couch of a camo pattern.
@@noobiplays8539 I just want my M81 back
@@noobiplays8539 UCP*
@@Falziron M81 woodland is fucking based
I must be getting old. Remember being part of the field proving tests of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with the M242 25 MM Bushmaster. This was in 1977. We were still driving M113 APC’s.
I guess funding never happened for for the hvy units to trade out the 113 for the M2. But if something is in the pipe to replace the M2, they will likely end up as 113 replacements.
@@Track_Tension M113’s are presently being replaced with AMPV’s. 3’rd Armored Div is being outfitted as we speak.
You need 2x M2s for the same passenger capacity as a single 113. I can only imagine what that must look like on a budget sheet.
@@redknight6077
well ones an ifv and ones an apc
@@bigk4755its a turret less Bradley.
1.8 times 2 is 3.6. 2.5 is not more than twice the range of 1.8. Otherwise, excellent review.
Glad im not the only one who immediately muttered "no its not" when he said that
@@JerryMau5 same. the entire video is just stating the obvious while also screwing that up for 12 minutes.
Could be to fool the competition 😅
We finally got access to all the information that exists in human history. Only problem is we have to trust other people to disseminate it XD
If they can't even do simple math correct how can you really trust any of the rest of the video?
if this works on Bradleys and can be retrofitted quickly that would be a huge upgrade
It can’t. That’s why it’s being replaced
It looks like it can be - remember that part where it takes up only a few inches more space than the 25mm cannon?
This is part of a larger program to replace the Bradley, but I do like being ready to upgrade legacy vehicles. I'm a little surprised the US didn't have a huge fleet of M60 tanks to upgrade.
@@recoil53 Sometimes it's better to offload slightly over the hill last generation "stuff" to poorer allies. Tons of M60 in Turkey, Jordan or Morocco improves your standing as a great power, but you can standardize your own ammo to 120mm which is really needed.
You can spend money only once. A 50 or a Maxim are still great after decades, tanks - only if you need huge reserve units in the cold war or similar (Germany, South Korea etc.). Just my 2 cents.
@@Walterwaltraud Well there's truth in the political capital gained.
But as Ukraine has shown, if war turns hot we just can't churn out modern tanks.
M-60s have been upgraded to 120mm cannon with stabilization and computerized targeting. In this case the tank is just a chassis on which to mount stuff.
This is a 2 inch gun. As long as the gun itself takes up the same amount of space as the 1 inch, it will be easy to install. The feed ramp will need to be changed, though. If they install a new turret, though... it needs to fit on the same ring and weigh the same. The question is if they are recycling the hull, turret, or anything at all.
Can't wait to see many prototype vehicles from this auto cannon.
It will be interesting to see what they slap that beast onto.
Sure you can´t wait to add some billions to the public debt so you will pay more in taxes and pay more inflation.🤣
People praise all these shitty armaments and don't realize what are the consequences for the taxpayers.
The working class people will not obtain any benefit from this, they only will obtain the BILL.
Only beneficiaries from this is the globalists and the government deep swamp.
@@aceadventure5812the omfv participants 😊
Well, as i predicted - this is the future of tanks
Up armored IFV's carrying a squad of 6 people with a 50mm autocannon. Enough to disable a tank and make it combat inneffective, while at the same time drastically more effective at supporting an offensive and suppresing an enemy without incuring too much of a cost if it's lost.
Tanks have been shown to be obsolete in their current form in the Ukraine war. Guess this is why the US is decreasing it's tank fleet and making these.
@@RazorsharpLT Bro people been saying tanks are obsolete since the OCTOBER WAR of 1973. Tanks are not going ANYWHERE! Did you not here of the ABRAMSX? If so, then that tells you MBTs are not going anywhere no time soon. The Russians just don't know how to properly do combined arms warfare. Tanks in cities without proper infantry support to clear out enemy tank hunter teams is a recipe for complete disaster! They should've learned their lessons from the FIRST CHECHEN WAR.
US Military: "I need an autocannon with the biggest round you can fire from it."
I do hope that Northrop Grumman had the foresignt to Marinize the gun for use in nautical environments. The Army will not be the only user, and the Army is headed to the Archipelagic Pacific environment so they will be employed in salt air environments anyway.
The navy and coast guard already has the Mk 110 boffors. Maybe the marines.
We always think we know what the military will be doing but we are always surprised. Nobody expected we would need loads of desert gear and infantry in the early 2000s, and as we are preparing now to fight with ships and planes in the Pacific it will probably end up as a war of drones in the Arctic.
@@ericconnor8419
Finally an optimist!
Enjoy the last day of Spring.
@@williamzk9083 The Navy has many Chain Gun installations on various platforms that range from 25mm to 30mm. My proposal is to make them all 50mm. Swarm drone attacks are in our future, and having something that can begin engagement further out with airburst programable ammo is important. Having a common weapons platform on most if not all naval vessels helps us with manning, training, maintenance and logistical support while improving lethality of the platforms.
@@ericconnor8419 Hey, we have folks in Hawaii that have ECW (Extreme Cold Weather) gear, and use it regularly in Alaska above the Arctic Circle. A capability is exactly that, and the National Guard and Reserve are specialized units with a single mission (mostly). Combat Gear can be acquired, stored, and issues to almost anyone. However, being trained and effective in combat with that gear is something entirely different. Particularly in JOINT operations which is a skill set in and of itself.
This was tested during the 2021 "Big Sandy" shoot, where privately owned, Cannons, artillery, tanks, etc, gather to shoot...Great place... Knob Creek Machine Gun shoot..RIP after 50 years..
I want to see a comparison between this 50mm chain gun and the European 40mm CTA cannon. The 50mm likely hits harder. But the 40mm has a lot of advantages. It's basically the same size as the 30mm Mk-44, and so it the cased telescoped ammunition. So from a vehicle design and logistical standpoint, the 40mm is better. And it hits hard enough. It's AP round will go though at least 5" of armor at 1000m. I don't know if an APC cannon needs to be more powerful than that.
CT40 is nice.
50mm is a 35mm case with no bottle necking down. So storage is efficient also.
Basically a necked out bushmaster III 35mm.
The CTAS ammunition is not the same size as 30 mm. The British AJAX carries only 65 rounds of 40 mm CT ready to fire, that's comparable to the 35 mm version of the CV90 which has 70 rounds ready to fire.
Modern 30 mm platforms have significantly higher ammo count, the 30 mm version of the CV90 and the Puma both have 200 rounds ready to fire at the gun.
To note that that ammunition count is going to be split up into different ammo types aswell, so 65 rounds into 30 APFSDS and 35 HE/ABM. Compared to 100/100 or 120/80 on a 30 mm platform.
The Germans had a 50 mm autocannon ready to field in 1987, the Rheinmetall Rh 503. Their newest IFV has a 30 mm autocannon because of the reasons stated above.
There's two things about bumping up a caliber while retaining the same case:
1 - The base of the projectile is larger, and acts as a larger "piston" for the gases to push against. This usually gives a boost to initial velocity.
2 - For the air-bursting rounds, a 50 mm is *way* bigger than a 40 mm for delivering an explosion downrange. Assuming both projectiles are the same length, the wider 50 mm will carry 56% more explosive material.
The downside of a wider round is that penetration potentially suffers... BUT... not if it's firing sabot-rounds, in which case the dart in the middle is the same size whether it's a 50mm, a 40mm, or a 25mm.
Bottle-necking the rounds -- which is what I believe the European ones do -- retains higher pressure behind the projectile for a longer period of time inside of the barrel. Straight-walled cartridges have pressure that tapers off more sharply than bottle-necked cartridges.
40 mm is probably less expensive to produce.
There was a particular incident where a Bradley -- during the first Iraq War -- came upon an Iraqi tank, so the Bradley aimed it's gun down and started hitting the tank as the Bradley retreated. If that Bradley had been using the 50 mm versus the 25 mm, it probably would've been a very different result.
Yeah, exactly what I was thinking. 😏
9:50 XM1203 - APFSDS-T, not APFSKS-T. And your picture shows not XM1203, but XM1202 - Target Practice with Trace.
The XM1203 looks like a typical sub-caliber projectile (for example how 25mm M919), and has a black cap, not blue.
There are a lot of subtle issues with this video that make me think the whole thing is actually AI generated...
The sabot round is black, and DU, That was definitely a training round.
6:24 - Holy shit! _That's _*_quarter-inch_*_ plywood!_
Pressure treated bro
This to me makes a lot more sense on something like the MPV than the 105mm cannon. Given it's small size the MPV should've carried the 50mm and carried much more ammo with a higher rate of fire vs. the 105mm, which still can't penetrate frontal MBT armor in today's battle space. might as well get a smaller cannon that can still take out anything this side of a tank, including APC's & other support vehicles, along with a faster rate of fire.
It seems the main purpose of the weapons on the IFVs is 'theatrical' ie to create enough noise to force the enemy to take cover in trenches while the soldiers go around the sides and start throwing grenades. In that case a main gun that fires as fast as possible, ideally with some sort of explosive tip is ideal. You want a weapon that sounds like Armageddon and forces everybody within half a mile to hide so they don't notice the blokes creeping up on them. The job of the 105mm has been replaced by drones with mortar shells.
This is what I was thinking, guess it's not ready yet to get on the MPV and why they went 105mm. Ammo needs maybe. I don't know. This 50mm has been in development for quite some years now.
Mpv? What specific vehicle are you referring to? The only thing I can think of is an MRAP, but I don't recall any of them having 105mm cannons.
@penskepc2374 He is talking about the new American light tank.
@@psychobeam99 oh, that's the MPF
Dude a Bradley with this thing would look like a Sherman had a one night stand with a tiger 1 lol
PROBLEM: The 50 mm auto cannon's ammo is so large far fewer rounds can be carried in an IFV v.s. the Bradley's current 25 mm auto cannon. But hey, the 50 mm round has many more types of warheads possible due to its larger size. i.e. "next generation ammunition".
Yeah this will be interesting to see how it pans out. One of the things Bradleys get tasked with is suppressive fire. With larger and fewer rounds this makes that task much more costly.
Offense isn't the problem. It's defense and detection. If it were me, I'd be experimenting with suspension spring padded curved armor plates. Acoustic resonance mine detection capabilities and an AT mine disarmament mechanism on the nose of its underbelly. A purely defensive recon vehicle with no turret. Just paints targets and relays the information to central command. Missles and artillery do the rest.
Note to self: Never end up on the business end of that weapon.
Yeah. Not completely sure, but I think such a scenario would suck badly.....
Well if someone did they would never have any problems again.
Army: Let’s put TWO on a Stryker!
@6:30 You already have plenty of tank-killing weapons. This is the MIC's favourite hobby: reinventing the wheel 😄
I deployed with the man on your cover photo. Good man!
Apart from programable airburst ammunition there is a possibility of guided munitions such as MAD FIRES
OH SHIT MAD FIRES BRO
Is that worthwhile or economic at this calibre? I don't know much - am just wondering.
@@notreallydavid programable air burst 35mm rounds can be produced at around $50-$70 each. I doubt a 30mm or 25mm would be any more expensive. It’s probably the only way to get a drone. Would need software to track.
@@williamzk9083 It's really more about cost vs. effectiveness when it comes to airburst munitions. At a certain size munitions become too small to be practical simply because of limited explosive yield. So it makes far more sense to make programmable 35mm rounds than 25mm rounds for instance, since you might need 2 or 3 25mm to do the same job as one 35mm at roughly 3x the total price.
@@williamzk9083 Thanks! I should've been clearer - what I was wondering about was the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of guided rounds of this kind of calibre. Best regards.
It'll be a nice upgrade from the Bushmaster...
This weapon system will be good for the Navy.
Won’t be used by the navy this is specifically for land operations and armored vehicles. Naval cannons are way bigger
If a 105mm could be retrofit onto a Stryker then this certainly could fit that chassis.
But a 50mm bore would be a new caliber for the US, where the usual calibers were either the 40mm or the 57mm. And ammunition for both these would be in production & in inventory
This would be a savage peice of kit.
This is like the Brits going from the Scorpion to the Scimitar but in reverse. 🤣😂
Creo que esta perfecta la idea de aumentar el calibre de las piezas de los vci, pue ya el 25mm se está quedando rezagado en cuanto a capacidades, respecto a los blindajes de nueva generación utilizado por los rusos, este 50mm creo que significará una potencia de fuego respetable, para el apoyo de fuego a las tropas, en mi opinión ya se hacía necesario.
Russia is a bit like the kid who always boasted about his Karate Blackbelt.
It's scary until someone actually fights him and it becomes clear that not only does he not have a Blackbelt but he doesn't even know how to throw a strike.
Interesting. Now I have to have a 20mm re-barrel for my 98 😊
The military brass seems to have an obsession with short guns. 😂😂
If it’s longer it might as well be a tank
whoa. that is impressive . finally a real high caliber chain gun.
You sound just like a reporter 😜 you really do excellent video brother 😎
twice the range ... 2,5 vs 1,8 miles..
People forget one small thing with IFV's.
They are "Small" as they must carry Troops.
So bigger gun bigger ammunition, bigger ammunition, less ammunition.
Gunner panics (Life is not a movie) accidentally fires more than needed in a extended battle and either misses or expends ammunition on less "Important" targets.
That's not necessarily true. The Namer APC is even larger and more heavily armored than a tank. So they don't necessarily have to be small or even need to be less armored. They can be as big as they need to be. Also this gun is not necessarily going to be mounted on a vehicle that has to carry troops, it can be mounted on any wheeled or tracked vehicle as needed.
@thuggeegaming659 The Namer would take up vast anounts of supplies of fuel and parts, and be too heavy to operate in many arras and transporting it to a combat zone would be difficult. The Americans take weeks to get tanks to a fight for this reason, theyre difficult to move. The Israeli Namer is based on them expecting to fight close to their supply bases, so it works for them. American vehicles need to be easy to transport and supply
@@jgw9990 I understand the advantages to having smaller vehicles, I'm just making the point that APCs don't necessarily have to be smaller. Mounting bigger autocannons is going to be more important in anti-drone warfare, so it's an advantage worth considering.
looks like just what we need as long as they develop the mountlet and FCS for UAS defense as well as direct fire at ground targets
As long as whichever combat vehicle it’s equipped on can survive drone attacks….
Yeah, that's the real issue, isn't it? Unless a real solution is found for drones and anti-tank missiles, it seems like big armored vehicles are a non-issue in near peer warfare.
@@maxjohnson1758and as we know, there is currently no way to harm a drone, they are literally impervious to every weapon in existence
This made my jaw drop within the first few seconds of the video. The rate of fire and caliber alone are bad as hell.
Ten inches of additional protrusion into the turret, even if everything else is the same is a HUGE amount. I realize this is going to be on a new platform, but just some back-of-the-napkin math I would think the internal volume of the turret would spike by about 75%. I realize the Bradley replacement turret will be unmanned but you still have to think about maintenance. Servicing a manned turret is easier because access is easier. Even if removing the gun to service other components is straightforward, gun systems are HEAVY which complicates maintenance in the field.
French say we build a new canon 40mm , USA we build a 50 mm canon , hold my beer .
Ah yes, the all important Jet Ski test.
2:35 They fired that thing at some Jet ski's. I guess those few RPG armed Jet Ski's were enough of a problem that they had to do some testing🤣😂🤣
The guy in the thumbnail is wearing a camo face diaper!!!!! 😝 😂
NICE...better than the M242 'Bushmaster' 25 mm p.o.s..
A comparison between thee 50mm and Bofors 40 mm would be nice.. The Cartridge for cv9040 is 40 × 365 mm and the 50mm is 50*228 mm ..
Those cartridges are almost exactly the same volume or weight. The barrels are almost the same length as well. The 50mm will have an advantage due to larger caliber making it more efficient use the gas pressure while the 40mm being longer making it fit a longer penetrator. I think the performance will be close enough not to really matter, except for explosives where the 50mm will have a clear advantage.
We need a larger IFV than the Bradley to cater for 50mm along the lines of CV90/Lynx/ASCOD2 derivatives.
Cv90 is comparatively small.... its quite low to the ground.
Expect an Ajax derivative as the new army IFV however.
Just like the new Light tank.....
Awesome
Sexy! I like this Cannon. Dual cannon with airbrust rounds could work better as an air defense system integrated with heat seeking stingers missiles. It should be lot cheaper than c-ram and could make a bigger sharpnal cloud.
i mean it can target helis but that is not the cannon main mission
Why not both lol
The air burst is intended for anti personnel use. Troops in trenches or in the open. I would say it may be useful for damaging the sensors and optics of a tank and predetonating APS and ERA. Yes it will likely be useful against drones.
There’s a decent chance we will need every vehicle to have anti drone capabilities.
No it hasn't! The US military went in unprepared for WW1 and had to borrow planes, machine guns and tanks from the British and the French. In WW2 they were almost as unprepared thats why in 1942 in the Philippines and on Guadalcanal our troops were fighting with gear from WW1
Looks like we've come a long way since the early nineteenth Century.. Can't really say the same for our adversaries
Honestly the first third of this video sounds like a middle schooler essay.
Well, a bit of that WW2 jackassery is due to the "hand-me-down" nature in which gear has been historically doled out to the USMC. Their whole angle is doing more while being given less.
@@dullahan7677 been there done that
@@dullahan7677 I thought their angle was to jump over the side of a ship and do battle on another ship?
Then there's amphibious assaults, but we know who holds the world record for doing that, and it's not the Marines.
50mm gatling gun would be nice
That XM1202 looks familiar...
In future Tanks will get autocannon which make Active Protection System useless.
Powerful air burst programming ammunition. It is an important firepower in the future! The Ukrainian battlefield has fully proved this point. If the United States provides programmed ammunition on infantry fighting vehicles, then the Russian army hiding in the trenches will become a living target. The machine guns exploded above them can kill the bunkers on a large scale Russian Army
Nice try, but there's dozens of wrecked Bradleys around Ukraine right now, any of them still burning as we write.
As for Russians dying in the trenches from ammo airbursts, Russia's answer to that in the form of the TOS thermobaric weapons systems is infinitely more effective, covering a vastly greater area in a fraction of the time.
Besides, Carl Gustav rounds have had programmable airburst capacity for years.
@@dougbright8120 IFV and tanks will be lost to mines occasionally like those Leopard and Bradley. The burning is as a result of bombardment after the mines immobilized. It may even have been the Ukrainians that did this to prevent capture. The lancet strike was probably simply for propaganda purposes. It's expected. Attrition is normal and the losses are not beyond exceptional. The Western countries have been using Thermobaric Weapons for years. MOAB was thermobaric and so was the BLU-82 "daisy cutter" used in Vietnam. There is a variant of Hellfire with a thermobaric warhead designed to fire into bunker or caves. A Thermobaric Warhead could be built for MLRS missiles fired from HIMARS and M270.
Good lord, gunners are going to have a fantastic time tearing that thing down for cleaning in the turret. I wonder how heavy the feeder is.
Next round in progression is the PAK 40 75mm high velocity or the British 17 pdr quick firing round. It sounds like we are back to 1943 armorments. It seems like we have been down this path before.
It's about time, the 25 mm is smaller than most used by it's competitors including Russia.
I have NEVER heard anyone pronounce Picatinny like that...
I'm buying one for my personal collection.
Right at the beginning : "The US military has always been at the forefront of technological advancement in warfare". *NO*
"The US military has always been at the forefront of technological advancements of warefare" ... always?
More like, never. They've always spent the most money though, because they're incompetent and need 10x more time and resources to achieve what other armies achieve with far less. And they still end up with inferior equipment which is only decent when used against 50 year old outdated tech from 3rd world armies. Meeting other modern equipment, it becomes totally useless, which can be seen perfectly clearly in Ukraine now.
6:04 the XM913 Chain Gun does not have more than twice the range as the M242 Bushmaster. 1.8miles is over half of 2.5 miles so I’m confused about your arithmetic here. You may wanna check your hypotenuses dawg because your math is off.
What about the Mk44 Bushmaster 30mm gun? .... it and uses 70% of the same parts as the M242 while increasing the firepower by as much as 50% with the 20% increase in caliber size.
50mm is 20mm better than 30mm. 😊
@@targetaps big is better , wait till army sees logistic bill they will start liking 30 mm back very quick , those 50mm rounds are not cheap
@@arnoldshmitt4969 Hell of a lot cheaper than a hellfire or javelin.
@@targetaps hard to say this kind of justification has been made time and time again to sell weapons army dont need and the bill as usual is paid for with tax payer money.
Because alot of possible opfor vehicles are uparmoring to protection from 30 mm cannons....
This will end up in another country's techtree first before the US in War Thunder knowing Gaijin
2.5 is more than twice 1.8? Must be new math.
50mm cannon is what i like to equip on my vehicles in Battlefield 2042
I think they said it has more velocity, so increasing velocity and at least doubling the mass is going to be huge as far as kinetic energy. Doubling the mass at the same velocity doubles the kinetic energy. By increasing the velocity on top of that it's going to really have a lot of power. If you double your velocity it quadruples your kinetic energy. So if they just add 10% more velocity with a larger projectile it should penetrate armor really well. Adding more mass also increases the momentum of the round, that should help with penetration as well. This will be a lot harder to stop, especially if they make some depleted uranium rounds for it.
Velocity is the key for kinetic anti armor rounds where diameter and weight are key for shaped charge anti armor rounds.
@@mrbaab5932 Velocity is key but you also need enough mass. Along with a projectile that is hard and strong enough to hold its shape and not flatten out.
More than about 40mm is a waste on most vehicles. 40mm is about the practical limit for turn loaded systems that enable very high depression and elevation in a small turret space. Drones and missiles are the primary threats now which are most efficiently taken down by high rate and volume of fire more appropriate to 40mm or less.
Leave the big guns to tanks and artillery.
What's the minimum cal. for programmable air burst ammunition?
Lasers
Lowering down from programable ammunition.
-> proximity sensor
Is the most effective, therefore most efficient, in this case.
Drones & missile are soft skin,
it doesn't need 40mm solid bullets to takedown.
@@RobertLutece909 Thank you.
This sort of information is what interest me.
They need to use this to replace the Bofors on our gunships
Saying _the Sun is 93-million miles away_ may as well be in another language; we won't remember it, because we can't understand it. We need things that are familiar enough of a concept to recall the concept; otherwise, we're only able to memorize arbitrary numbers. This is why it's far easier to memorize a sentence in a language you know than in one you don't. We have no frame of reference to understand that distance. Providing accessible metrics is fundamental to comprehension.
It takes light just over 8 minutes (8:19) to reach the earth from the sun. That is comprehensible; and that is accessible. Saying a .308 has 2700 lb-ft of energy doesn't mean much unless someone's fired one. Because more people have fired a 9mm, telling someone a 9mm produces ~360 lb-ft of energy, and thus, a .308 has about 7.5x the energy of a 9mm helps to understand why a bullet "proof" vest is only bullet resistant until you get into full-powered rifle calibers. Or perhaps saying a .308 (7.62 NATO) is about double the energy of an AR-15's ~1300 lb-ft of energy. Just useful frames of reference we can then build on.
With that in mind, here are some tables:
A 12.7mm / 50-cal: ~ 13,500 lb-ft,
The A-10's GAU-8: ~ 160,000 lb-ft (penetrate older tanks and 1/27th a tank's energy)
The XM913 50mm: ~ 764,000 lb-ft! (1.54 kg @1,160 m/s or 1/5th of a tanks energy!)
M1A2 Tank 120mm: ~ 4.1 million lb-ft (4kg DU penetrator at 1670m/s)
That's the MAIN GUN of our tanks.
That's to say that the XM913 50mm AUTOCANNON can put out more energy per second (and far more per minute) ... than a tank. And there are many angles from which the 50mm will be able to penetrate T90 armor. Certainly from the rear using 'sabot' rounds (which use a larger housing of a very narrow projectile at higher velocity, focusing the energy to penetrate armor). This cannon is reportedly going to fire between 200 and 600 rounds per minute. That's 6x the energy of an M1A2 at the minimum.
Obviously, this isn't a weapon you'd use as 'suppressive fire.' But contextually, that's the kind of energy this thing can produce. And it's going to require both China and Russia re-evaluate some of their decisions.
needs to be immediately mounted to an AC130 ;)
The most important question is whether the new cannon can shoot down drones and incoming missiles.
50mm vertical launch system would be the much better option.
So why does this video say it was recently published when it has references to 2021 being in the future? I would like to see the latest update on how the selection of this weapon is going. Is the Army going with this one or are they leaning more towards the 30mm cannon?
Exactly..... as soon as I heard that I rechecked the upload date. Why make a video that's 2 years behind 🤔
That's just the tip of the iceberg of things wrong with this video, lol. It feels like an AI put it together.
57mm thats been around for 100 years says Hello...
This is literally reinventing the wheel for the sole purpose to get exclusive overpriced contracts.
Literally everything they claim the 50mm brings or will bring has already been done better by the 57mm.
Impressive. 🇺🇸💪
TANK !!!!! Just saying.
1977 hstv-l tank 75mm autocannon firing caseless in three round burst had the project not been axed it would have been using a 90mm auto cannon firing 3 round bursts .
I think maybe the shot for 'better armour penetration' should have been illustrated with something more substantial, my air rifle can go through that ply board. Presumably it does penetrate steel and concrete too.
I notice the cannon is significantly shorter than the front of the vehicle . It the barrel length was increased to the length of the bow of the Bradley, it would fit in the same footprint. But it would increase the cannons range l, decrease flight time (thereby improving hit probability on moving targets)and increase armor penetration. But then then there would be no need for a future upgrades
@@RobertLutece909 Ahh ... no. Miniscule is the word you are looking for, not substantial.
The weight of the barrel on the 25 mm chain gun is like 250 pounds. The weight of a Bradley empty is about 55,000 pounds. So if you increase length by 25% . and increased and that weight by 75 % .your only talking about making a 55,000 pound vehicle weigh 190 pounds more.
As for urban combat (always a bad idea to use Bradley s in urban combat)providing the barrel does not protrude longer than the vehicle is long, a long barreled Bradley would survive about as long as a short barrelled one in high intensity urban combat.
@@RobertLutece909 Try and remember that a 50 millimeter bore means a bigger whole down the center . Which means the hole down the center is bigger and filled with air not heavy metal metal . The 35 MIke Mike chain gun barrel weights the same as the 25 Mike Mike. With respect I say there cant be that much more weight to go from 35 mike mike to 50 mike mike.
Perhaps someone else around here can teach us how much more 2-3-4 feet of 50 mike mike barrel will add to a 27+ ton machined .
I can see how less elevation would be a problem.
@@RobertLutece909 Next time you are in a sporting goods store check out the weight of a 26 inch 12 gauge shotgun barrel . Compare that to to weight of a 18 inch .22 rifle barrel. It's be hard to deny the evidence in your own hand.
So this will probably go on the Army's AMPV
Now let's put this on the Ripsaw M5 tanks as turret s...
This seems more suited for smaller navel craft as a deck gun to me then a main gun on vehicles.. pair this with the mk34 system and you could fit some really small boats with a lot of firepower lol.. this would be way better then the normal m134, 50’s and mk19’s.. I can defiantly see this on some smaller coast guard ships
Russia has so few T14/15 models, it'd be a miracle if you ever engaged one.
Why 50mm though?. Why not push it to 57mm and standardise with the standard Mk110/Bofors Mk3 naval mount.
Ammo capacity.
This is a cased, telescoped version of the oerlikon 35mm case.
Efficient storage too.
They should go back to the Electromagnetic Cannon which can fire projectiles at 5 times the speed of sound.
Ok so when are we making a rotatory barrel version?
2.5 miles is not twice the distance of 1.8 miles.Get your facts straight.
25mm system is much lighter making life in the mud a lot easier to get by. Plus, we don't really need direct line of sight to destroy the enemy nowadays. A civilian FPV drone strapped to an RPG warhead does all the tank hunting these days.
Why are these guys reviving the gun of the Panzerkampfwagen III? Why not make use of the Swedish 57mm Bofors gun instead?
Folks meet the Space Marine Bolter
Btw 50 mm is almost 2 inches. Like 1.968 inch. That's bigger than a golf ball and slightly smaller than a billiard ball.
Oh god. All the way through this, I was thinking,"less ammunition", and, "less ammunition" and, "less ammunition" and, "these are not designed to take on hard targets". Oh heck.
It's a jack of all trades and master of none. However imagine using this thing on infantry. Something gives me a feeling it's gonna get a coax MG and end up looking like BMP-3.
The army needs a much lower IFV then the Bradley imo
Cv90
Why lower? So that troops are forced to ride on top of the vehicle such as Russians do with their BMP thus negating the value of the Armour.,
I'm sure the cost per round of 50mm smart munitions is at last 5 times what a 25mm is. Even though the 50 has a better chance of a 1 round hit, there will be fewer of them available, due to their cost, which means the AFV will run out of ammo quicker than with the old gun.
A tank with no ammo is just a scrap metal pile waiting to happen.
I still want to know why seemingly all of these kinds of channels on TH-cam showing military stuff use digital voices.
It makes sense that US wants to move up from the 25mm of the Bradley.
But I don't really see the point in a slow firing 50mm instead of a fast 35mm.
50mm APDS rounds can not really engage any targets that a 35mm can not (You are not really engaging MBT's with either).
And this 50mm seems to have little AA capacity, so a fast 35mm seems to be a better "anti-all except MBT's" kind of weapon.
Cool.
Very cool like the russian 57MM 2s38
CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS IN UKRAINE, 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣!!!!!
This just reads like a press release.
6:35 T-14... I wouldnt worry about that they cant even make them in enough numbers to be a threat.
This sounds promising,..But, in the interest of standardization and streamlining resources, would it be possible to mount the navel 57 mm gun to armored vehicles? This would allow a larger caliber weapon and reduce the type and numbers of different ammunition available to military forces. Just a thought.
A long time ago, around the time that the Marder IFV was under development, the Germans built a tracked, heavy reconnaissance vehicle called the Begleitpanzer 57, and it mounted a 57mm Bofors cannon. The Russians currently have a similar vehicle under development, but given their apparent inability to field T-14 Armata tanks in any real numbers, it seems unlikely that it will ever see the light of day.