Talk:2A28 Grom

I am confused

"The autoloader has a rate of fire of 6-8 rounds per minute..." appears in the "Description" section. Does this mean that the autoloader has this rate of fire, or the gun ?

Similarly, "The gun is electrically elevated..." I pity the gunner if he can only traverse the turret manually.

RASAM (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NO IT CAN'T

"The HEAT warhead can penetrate between 280 millimetres (0.31 yd) and 350 millimetres (0.38 yd) of steel armor - more than enough to penetrate the frontal armor of NATO main battle tanks (MBT)s of the 1970s, like the US M60A1, the British Chieftain or the German Leopard 1. The modernised PG-9 shell is able to penetrate up to 400 millimetres (16 in) of steel armour."

NO IT CANNOT! SIXTEEN INCHES OF STEEL ARMOUR? Whoever posted this manure is out of their mind. A 73mm low pressure gun like this would have been absolutely useless against a Chieftan or a Leopard 1. Worse that useless in fact, as it would serve only to alert the NATO tank to the presence and location of the soon to be non-existent BMP.

Utter, utter rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.5.154 (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a source which is better than the normally authoritative Zaloga? (Zaloga, Steven (1995). BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle 1967-94. Reading: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 9781855324336. page 22) Hohum (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia, the 120mm APFSDS shell developed for use by the modern Rheinmetall weapon has an armour penetration capability of 22 inches at optimum range. It simply defies logic that a 73mm shell fired from a 1950's vintage low velocity infantry support weapon could possibly have a penetrative capacity of a mere six inches less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.95.63 (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - WP:V

Also, it's a HEAT warhead, which relies on a directed jet of metal for penetration, not kinetic energy. Hohum (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...User talk:217.75.5.154 has a point. The claim here might be accurate under strictly optimal circumstances -if the weapon is fired at optimal range, against a target made purely of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA), with a zero degree incidence angle, etc. etc. Even if it could penetrate the frontal armor, it almost certainly wouldn't disable the tank. In general chemical energy AT weapons are much less effective then their "advertised" performance because of these considerations. The claim isn't strictly speaking wrong, it's just highly misleading. Lexington50 (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. I expect the penetration figures for other weapons are under ideal circumstances too. Yes, penetration doesn't mean destruction, and the article doesn't say it is. It also doesn't go on to specifically point out that the range of this weapon is very short and of low accuracy compared to an MBT - presumably because nobody has found a reliable source that specifically says this. Comparing ranges for ourselves is Original Research, and we don't do that. (Hohum ^@) 11:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a "reliable source" that says a BMP-1 equipped with a 2A28 gun has a snowballs chance in hell of going head to head with a Leopard I or Chieftain and winning? If so please provide it. The article doesn't actually say that, but it implies it, and the implication is obviously highly misleading. There's something called "common sense". People with it realize that a vehicle weighting 56 tons with 120mm maximum armor and 120mm gun is probably going to win a fight with a vehicle weighing 13 tons and 33mm maximum armor, armored with 76mm rocket launcher (essentially a bazooka). Then there are people with no common sense, who insist nothing is knowable until we have a "reliable source" (whatever that is). I'll leave it at this: the Soviets themselves had so little faith in the ability of the 2A28 to defeat an MBT that they provided the BMP-1 with a dedicated ATGM for this purpose. Lexington50 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I intended to indicate I believe the opposite. I don't have a reliable source that judges its overall combat effectiveness against an MBT, if I did, I would include it. The article only presents ranges and penetrative capability for the weapon the article is about, and they are reliably sourced. There is no suggestion it would win against an MBT. It specifically says the effective combat range of the gun is only 500 m, and that the round shuttlecocks in crosswinds. Hopefully someone with common sense can figure out that is suicide against modern MBT's which can get first shot hits in the high percentiles at over two kilometers. (Hohum ^@) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

PKT Fire Rate

The fire rate of the PKT sounds a little low at 250 rounds per minute. I don't know if this is a typo or a modification to conserve ammo for the BMP. The usual rate of fire for this machine gun is 800 rounds per minute, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.75.54 (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Gun or Recoiless Rifle?

Unless I'm missing something this weapon is actually a recoiless rifle -or if you want to be really technical a "recoiless gun"- (which btw explains it's light weight and simple construction) rather than a gun as conventionally understood. Indeed the SP-9 on which the 2A28 is based is undoubtedly such a weapon. This should be specified in the article, since a light steel tube that fires a rocket (like the SP-9 / 2A28) has completely different characteristics from a conventional gun. Lexington50 (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source calling it a recoilless gun would be required. I don't think it is; I think it is a low pressure gun. (Hohum ^@) 11:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What you think it is would be "original research" -and we can't have that!

It's obviously a recoiless rifle. You may need a "reliable source" (however you define that), but some of us can compare the definition of the recoiless rifle (provided in the Wiki link I reference) to the description of the 2A28 and realize they are the same thing.

If there's still any doubt however the article already says the 2A28 was based on the SP-9 which, as I've already said, unquestionably *IS* a recoiless rifle. Lexington50 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you need to take a snide tone. Reliable sources are explained here: WP:RELIABLE, original research and synthesis here: WP:OR. Find a reliable source which calls it a recoilless rifle, and it can go in the aricle. Simple as that. It's a core policy of wikipedia. (Hohum ^@) 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out to ol' Lex that whatever this thing might be, as a smoothbore weapon it most certainly is not a recoilless rifle.--172.191.4.172 (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Gun or rocket launcher?

The above discussion about it possibly being a recoilless gun completely fails on a major point - recoilless guns by definition have open breeches, which would be inconceivable on an internal turret-mounted weapon. However, the nature of the projectiles - effectively a type of RPG, suggests that it could/should be characterised as a rocket launcher, albeit with a closed breech, rather than a gun. In a gun the propellant does not travel with the projectile after departing the muzzle, wheras with a rocket the propellant is integral to the projectile. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2A28 Grom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080401063239/http://www.wp.mil.pl/pl/strona/205/LG_59_150 to http://www.wp.mil.pl/pl/strona/205/LG_59_150

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Groms being used outside of any turret or vehicle

https://x.com/trip_to_valkiri/status/1781978899540291897 D1d2d3d29 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)