Then why is the accuracy demonstrably poor?
It’s not.
That is the jet produced by an RPG-7 detonation.
1 Like
Pencil thin barrels do not react well to fully automatic fire at high rates, why do you think it’s a myth that the autocannon has poor dispersion at max RPM? Proper recoil compensation systems are totally linear and do not have barrel movement in the axis perpendicular to the bore.
We have images of Ka-52s that have damaged themselves with their gun. We have videos of BMPTs firing that show the barrel whipping around and video of the dispersion in full auto.
We have proof that heavy barrels and low firerates are mechanically more accurate than pencil profile barrels and high fire rates. You cannot break established rules of physics. It is unreasonable that BMPT has dispersion of low firerate when firing at 550 rpm. NATO autocannons fire slower and are built heavier but their dispersion is worse despite being built for precision.
7 Likes
As an addition to this, if the accuracy was mysteriously just fine at max RPM, why even have the option to fire single rounds or at 200rpm? Why do it all the time?
3 Likes
Also shouldn’t forget that versions of that cannon or derivatives that are rebuilt for accuracy have lower firerates, heavy barrel reinforcement or both.
3 Likes
Because you decided so. I actually asked why the high mode is even there if a cannon can’t hit anything even when firing slow (by your own logic).
Then why is the accuracy demonstrably poor?
Oh look a wobbly cannon. I literally gave you a firing table for 2A42. Nuh uh is not an argument, if you have something factually significant then show it, please.
It’s not.
What is then, enlighten me please. Why tf dudes out there welding a goddamn mansions above their vehicles? Are they stupid?
Because the gun is not built for accuracy at long range and volume of fire is more than enough against an infantry threat.
Which is almost certainly for single shots are demonstrably incorrect, watch any footage of these things firing.
This is a long, long explanation with a significant amount of historical context but can be summed up to
- placebo, crews love thinking their armour is better. Same logic behind sandbag addon protection in WW2.
- obstructs the weak points. Drone pilots tend to be quite skilled these days and can effectively target weaker points in the vehicle. If the entire thing is a box it eliminates that capability.
1 Like
Yea, let’s refute an actual data, because you have a feeling. I’m not doubting that a heavy slower-firing etc. cannon will have better accuracy. My point is that 2A42 accuracy is good enough, not that it’s a death laser.
The accuracy in low firerate is fine. The problem is that it doesn’t get worse in high firerate mode.
We have no firing trials for 550 RPM mode of that gun? There should be ample documentation of that in Soviet archives.
if the accuracy was mysteriously just fine at max RPM
Half a metre at a kilometre (which is not a very big distance, btw) is good enough for most of its purposes, sure. But sometimes you need more control, to not overheat your cannon, to not waste an entire belt of ammunition and maybe, you even need to hit something more precise than a 1 metre circle at 1 km.
Because the gun is not built for accuracy at long range and volume of fire is more than enough against an infantry threat.
You know it still needs to hit pretty close to it’s target.
This is a long, long explanation with a significant amount of historical context but can be summed up to
Whatever dude, facts speak for themselves. It takes a lot to knock out a vehicle modified in such a way with an RPG-7V based drones, compared to it’s regular variant.
Which it does as far as infantry is concerned.
I literally listed the reasons right there.
1 Like
Sure is for a vehicle with no laser rangefinder.
1 Like
Also shouldn’t forget that versions of that cannon or derivatives that are rebuilt for accuracy have lower firerates, heavy barrel reinforcement or both.
Yea. You know the 2A72. It was surely built for better accuracy. Oh no, wait. It’s the fact that a BTR-82 weighs like half of what BMP-2 is. And that the BTR is a wheeled vehicle, it’s suspension doesn’t really like three times the recoil.
Is that why the BTR-90 which weighs about the same and is also wheeled uses 2A42? Your logic is flawed.
1 Like
We have no firing trials for 550 RPM mode of that gun? There should be ample documentation of that in Soviet archives.
Keep telling yourself that the user manual for automatic cannon that features two automatic modes contains ballistics info for only one of them.
Well you only provided one table and are yet to prove whether it’s for single, low, or high firerates. so clearly it is only for one of them.
1 Like
Is that why the BTR-90 which weighs about the same and is also wheeled uses 2A42? Your logic is flawed.
Is that why it was never adopted? Damn, what a great vehicle we lost(
2A72 has worse dispersion than the 2A42. In Ukrainian modifications to that cannon they clearly have significant barrel support to reduce that problem. Same is for the BMP-3 with that cannon, the barrel is jacketed inside a support tube welded directly to the 100mm barrel to reduce barrel movement on any axis not parallel to the recoil of the gun.
1 Like
They’re actually in use to the extent that at least one is known to have been lost in combat.
1 Like
Same is for the BMP-3 with that cannon, the barrel is jacketed inside a support tube welded directly to the 100mm barrel to reduce barrel movement on any axis not parallel to the recoil of the gun.
So maybe it won’t break itself or bend a pretty thin 100mm firing tube during a reload, which it is like 5 cm apart from?
