T-55AM, BR-412M (actually, BR-412B. It was also known as 3UBR3, no idea where this "BR-412M" comes from...) 7 shots, 7 hits, 800m
1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 45mm deep gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights)
2, Front lower hull hit, at the lower edge. Shell torn out a chunk of metal, 50mm deep, and flew below the tank. Damage is only cosmetic, requires no repair. Tank fully operationa, crew unharmed.
3-4, Turret side hit, right side, center. Both shots landed about the same place. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Side hull hit, right side, in front of 3rd road wheel. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
6-7, Rear turret hit, one on lower, one on upper part. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret.
T-55AM, BR-412B
9 shots, 9 hits, 1200m
1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 30mm deep, 22cm long gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights)
2, Target front turret, but gun barrel hit instead. The shell torn out an 50x200m long chunk of metal from the barrel, bending it, then hit the gun mantlet and exploding on it. The force of the impact was such that the turret ring mounting bolts sheared off, balls from the ring fell out.
Damage requires medium repairs, but actually no penetration, so the crew is unharmed.
3, Hit on upper edge of front hull, near driver's periscopes. Shell left a 35mm deep gouge, no penetration. Driver's hatch opened, so large amounts of fragments entered the compartment. Driver received serious wounds. Rest of crew unharmed. Tank requires light repairs.
4, Side hull hit, right side, between 3rd and 4th road wheels. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Right side hull hit, on the rim of 4th road wheel. Wheel damaged, then penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
6, Left side hull "hit" (actually, I would consider this a miss), between 3rd and 4th wheels, on tracks on ground. Slight damage to wheels, track broke. Mobility kill, but otherwise tank and crew unharmed. Damage is so slight that even the crew can repair it quickly.
7-8, Rear turret hits. 8th was actually aimed at rear hull. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret.
9, Rear hull hit, center. Penetration, shell explodes inside engine compartment. Gearbox, water and oil radiators completely destroyed. Massive damage in other equipment. Engine rear cylinder bank also destroyed, and whole engine torn off its mountings, tilted towards firewall.
No damage in crew compartment, crew may receive negliglible injuries. Mobility kill. Devastation in engine compartment is so massive that even industrial rebuild is questionable due to warped hull and torn out engine mountings.
T-55AM, BR-412B
8 shots, 8 hits, 1600m
1, Front hull hit, right side. Shell left a 40mm deep, 25cm long gouge. Mudguard broke off. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (mudguard)
2, Hit on joining of turret and commander cupola. Cupola rim broke off, but no serious damage. Crew unharmed, maybe except commander with insignificant injuries. Tank operational, and needs only minor repairs.
3, Front turret hit, left side, in the level of gun barrel. Shell left a 45-50mm wide, 18cm long, 35mm deep gouge. No damage. Tank requires no repairs, crew unharmed.
4, Side hull hit, right side, above 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated at the firewall between crew and engine compartment. Shell fragments hit a rear ammo rack, damaged the transfer case, and stopped in the engine.
Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Hit at almost the same place as 4. Results same.
6, Hit on right 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated the wheel, flew below the tank, penetrated the wheel on other side, and exploded 20 meters away from the tank. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (wheels).
7, Turret side hit, on joining of loader's cupola and turret. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
8, Turret side hit, 15cm above lower rim. No penetration. Shell left a 70mm deep crater of 200mm diameter. Crew unharmed, tank operational. Minor damage to outside equipment, nothing serious.
GYATA-64 anti-personnel mine. (4 explosions)
This type of mine is infamous for containing huge (in fact, record) amount of explosives for an anti personnel mine. (300g) It was actually designed to damage wheeled vehicles too.
1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Caused absolutely no damage.
2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion lifted the plow, but caused absolutely no damage.
3, mine placed below track, between two roadwheels. Explosion blew off a small part of the track, and bent the track pin. This damage does not affect the tank's mobility, and can be repaired by the crew.
4, mine placed below the 4th road wheel. Explosion lifted the wheel, and caused totally insignificant damage on tire. Requires no repairs, mobility unaffected.
UKA-63 anti tank mine.
UKA means universal cumulative mine. Can be fitted with conventional or tilt rod fuse. Explosive mass is 6kg.
1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Explosion threw up the arm of the trawl up to hard stops. Some components broke off. Of the 3 segments on the roller, the middle suffered damage. Tank also suffered a bit, left mudguard and the ZIP case broke off.
Tank operational, but the trawl requires light repairs.
2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off the plow, totally deforming it. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing.
3, mine placed below the 3rd road wheel. Explosion dislodged 3rd and 4th wheel, tire destroyed, track broke. Fender above is seriously damaged. Belly plate slightly warped, so tank requires industrial level rebuild. Crew suffers light injuries.
4, mine exploded below the driver's seat. Seat along with driver completely destroyed, torsion bar bent upwards to compartment. Fragments also destroyed the batteries, and holed the fuel tank. Only loader survives. Chance of tank burning is high.
Repair impossible due to seriously warped belly plate.
5, mine exploded below the engine compartment. Jet made a 6x8cm hole, cut the engine crankshaft in half, and stopped by a cylinder head. Engine was also torn off its mountings. Belly plate bent upwards by 5cm. This kind of damage is unrepairable, tank total loss.
Crew suffers light to moderate injuries.
6, explosion under drive sprocket, imitating a tilt rod fuse. Track broke, sprocket and its shaft damaged. Crew unharmed, tank requires only light repairs.
crazy experiment No1: mine placed on top turret, next to night sight. Explosion warped top plate, jet damaged gun breech. Crew seriously wounded. Tank needs new turret.
crazy experiment No2: mine set up like a MON-200 directional mine, 20 meters away from the side of the tank. Jet almost completely dissipated, causing no damage. On some periscopes glass cracked.
TM-62P3 shaped charge anti tank mine.
Explosive mass 7.5kg. We acquired more than 70 thousand pieces from Bulgaria.
1, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off part of the plow. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing.
2, mine placed below 2nd road wheel. Explosion torn off the wheel along with the suspension arm. Track broke in many places. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible.
Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration.
3, mine placed between 3rd and 4th wheels, below track. Track broke in many places, serious damage on wheels. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible.
Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration.
4, mine placed below left drive sprocket. Track broke, some damage on sprocket. Damage is light, easily repairable. If explosion also damages the final drive casing, tank total loss, repair impossible.
5-6, one mine below front of tank, one in back. Front explosion split open the belly plate, torsion bars deformed. Front fuel cell/ammo rack hit, causing ammo detonation. Rear mine damaged the engine and water radiator, and also warped the hull.
Damage is unrepairable in both cases.
MON-200 directional mine.
It was placed 30 meters away from the tank, at 150cm height. Warhead contains 12kg of explosives and 900 pieces of fragments. Stuff on left side suffers considerable damage, the worst is 3rd road wheel, where tire was separated, and bearing cap destroyed.
Periscopes also suffered damage. Still, overall damage is light. Crew unharmed if buttoned, but if not, exposed members surely die.
LPO-50 flamethrower.
Tank was attacked by a team of 2 soldiers, each with flamers. They blasted the tank from the front, side and rear. Only the cover of the gun mantlet, and the rubber seal between turret and hull caught fire.
Basically, the flamer was useless. The little fire on the turret seal was easily extinguished by the PPO system or by the crew. However, the crew would be forced to leave the tank to avoid breathing in the extinguisher agent.
"Napalm field".
2 shallow trenches were dug in front of the tank, 100 meter long. Trenches were filled with plastic bags, containing napalm. Tank was controlled remotely without driver, in 1st gear. Tank was supplied with only 5 liters of fuel, for safety reasons, so it could drive for 100-150 meters.
Crew was simulated by temperature sensors. When the tank rolled over the trenches, napalm was ignited. Absolutely nothing caught fire, tank survived the test without any damage. Temperature sensors detected no temp increase.
"Napalm bomb".
A hole was dug below the tank, and filled with 300 liters of incendiary. This time, there was a glitch in the test. Somebody forgot to close the escape hatch in the belly, so the tank totally burned out.
Conclusions:
Training:
- RPG and SPG gunner training needs more emphasis on countering crosswind
- Enemy tanks need to be studied more, to identify weak points.
- Hits on fenders and stuff stored on them cause no damage that affect the capabilities of the tank
Effects of AT weapons:
- All AT weapon was able to destroy the T-54, even from the front.
- Hull front, where the fuel cell/ammo rack is mounted, is very vulnerable. Penetration here is likely to cause ammo detonation.
- Side hull of any type of tank is very vulnerable, surface to be attacked is much bigger, and also armor is weaker.
- Most vulnerable part is rear of the tank. Rear turrt hits were always fatal, but hull hits arent, engine and other components absorbed most hits.
- HEAT shells of MT-12, and especially of the 2S1 and 2S3 have a huge secondary effect of fragmentation. This is devastating for any external components. Also seriously damaging for running gear.
Additionally, the results obtained on firing at T-54 tanks cannot be applied to NATO tanks in service (I think they mean Abrams and Leopard-2), but M-48A2 and M-60A3 may be similar, although ther was no data on
the chemical composition and quality of their armor material. Compared to previous live firings on T-34 tanks, the behavior of shaped charge jet was different. On T-34, the penetration channel was conical, exit hole was larger.
On T-54, the entry and exit holes were similar, thanks to its harder armor.
Effects of mines:
-GYATA-64 anti personnel mine is able to damage wheeled vehicles, and may able to damage tracks too. (WTF???)
-UKA-63 and TM-62P2 mines met the expectations, very effective
Incendiaries:
- LPO-50 flamer is good vs infantry, and useless vs tanks, unless hatches are opened.
- "napalm field" and "napalm bomb" are ineffective, but for crews is important to close all hatches.
To be tested in future:
- more tests for behind armor effects on crews, primarily shaped charges.
- results of live firins should be shared (for tank crews?)
- need a firing range where APFSDS can be tested.
- existing tanks need uparmor kits
- SPG-9 as "light artillery"
2S25M Sprut-SDM-1, claimed that Indonesia is interested in it.
https://rg.ru/2018/08/21/novyj-legkij-tank-sverhzashchishchennyj-sprut-pokazali-na-armii-2018.html
Model at Army 2018
Also claimed that it can still swim even with that add-on armor.
i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)
a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples
what do you think of this news?
BMPT that is offered by UVZ isn't even most optimised designs of BMPT-like vehicles (some of Soviet prototypes made more sense that UVZ creation for claimed job).
1) BMPT inflate manpower of the unit. For 2 BMPTs you need 10 people to train and support in the field. Russian tanks and current/future IFVs allow you to have 3 vehicles per 9 people. Army is saving money on every fucking bolt (T-72B3 pic should be here for no apperent reason), inflating number of people needed to crew a unit of vehicles isn't best decision from economical POV (salaries, social benefits and so on in peacetime, increased pay rates during local conflicts).
Moreover, vehicle carry 5 people into battle, and simple logic speaks that this will increase chances of higher casualties per vehicle, especially because they are intended for urban warfare. One critical mistake done by single vehicle - more people would be at risk that in a 3-man tank. Best decision would be decrease number of humans in unit that you send on a frontline to risk their lifes, to decrease overall casualties.
I wouldn't mind higher number of soldiers (per vehicle) send to place where they have high chance of being killed if that vehicle provided serious increase in chances to win fight.
2) BMPT from UVZ isn't usefull in open fields. Everything what BMPT can do in field, tanks can do better. BMPT's autocannons have inferior range and firepower than 125 mm gun, 125mm cannons also can be used to suppress enemies from max 12 km range using HEs with indirect fire. In open fields using ATGMs such as Ataka (which cost more than your usual Fagot or Konkurs that you got from free from Soviet Union) against infantry isn't best idea either (on top of each vehicle having less than 4 HE Atakas to use). Instead of bying BMPTs designers could upgrade existing T-72B3s by installing programmable HEs and problem would be more or less solved.
3) In urban-ish conditions tank gun is still more usefull than 2 30 mm autocannons - for example in Syria militants in Eastern Ghouta created serious defensive lines with hardened MG nest, observation points and so on. 30 mm would have hard time to punch through it, thats why tanks or even 152 mm SPG like Akatsiya in direct fire are used to break through. Only useful role that BMPT can occupy is suppression, that is currently occupied by Shilka. But you don't need 5 guys to do this job.
4) In big cities with tall buildings ("true" urban warfare) tanks could be supported by infantry moving through buildings around it. Soviets in late part of WW2 developed and used rather effective tactics to do that. I don't think that problem of not being able to aim at enemies is frequent, but problem of spotting their movement and positions first - is. Moreover, enemies are usually trying to not engage targets from tall structures and keep themselfs closer to the ground so they will have higher maneuverability, ability to move through multiply buildings is easier to achive on ground/underground levels. The more they stay in same place, the higher is a chance to get smacked by something more serious than autocannons or tank cannon.
So AFAIK main problem with enemy infantry in urban fights is ability to detect enemies first, before RPG gunner or other AT weapon team will engage you. After they fire it is either too late, or they are already running away, as fire from RPGs and ATGMs are not particularly noiseless and unnoticeable events, they will draw fire from every other vehicle/infatryman that saw that anyway.
BMPT doesn't have anything more in that aspect than modern tank have. Thermal imagers and panoramic sights are not locked to BMPTs only. And problem of firing at targets beyond main gun elevation can be solved by RCWS with AGL in it, like Turkish upgrade of M60T apprently have, or Chinese RCWS. In fact our tanks already were tested with 30 mm autocannon in RCWS, they could just put AGS instead and problem with high recoil of 30 mm AC will be solved.
So instead of buying BMPTs engineers could put RCWS with AGS and add more sophisticated 360 degrees observation system with cameras/thermal imagers with software to detect movement, probably even intergrate it into digital battlefield management system.
UVZ's BMPT simply doesn't have any aspect that can't be intergrated on existing systems without bloating human count per army unit. If they want BMPT/BMOP anyway, they should change design.
What would i like to see instead of current vehicle is 2-3 man AFV with tank level of armor (including sides and rear, higher level protection of roof), armed with 40-60 mm autocannon with medium-high velocity shells and programmable HE-frags in unmanned turret. Vehicle will be able to engage infantry in trenches/cover with fragmentation (OICW on tracks, basically), can detect and destroy drones, and even ATGMs (like Pantsir claimed to be able to do), so it will have a place on open field combat of frontline SPAAG/APS with ability to suppress and kill lower priority targets like infantry (non AT teams), light AFVs, technicals and so on at same distances as tanks in direct contact to leave more important targets for tanks.
Moreover, lower number of people inside of this vehicle will allow to decrease internal volume and this "BMPT" could be made smaller, and weight savings could be used to put more armor on this thing. That AFV needs serious protection from tandem HEAT from sides. Rear and roof also should be able to hold direct hits from mortar rounds and light AT at considerable angles. Unmanned turret also should be able to hold well against 23 - 40 mm autocannons and maybe RPG/ATGMs. Some sort of short range APS will be usefull.
Vehicle should have serious package of passive sensors that are able to detect small drones at distance (including suicide drones) and ATGMs (incl. top attack) and destroy them with high probability. Same package of sensors will be usefull to detect and destroy infantry in fields/forested areas/villages/towns.
Combination of weapon and sensors will make this "BMPT" capable to do things that no other AFV can do - tanks can't engage drones and ATGMs, Pantsir (or other SPAAGs) can't be deployed to frontline to cover them either without high risk to a crews. In urban warfare high caliber autocannon can deal with VBIEDs, technicals, an destroy infantry in protected areas (thanks to higher penetration of AP rounds than 30 mm and programmable HE-frags) and not just suppress them.
Syrian Army T-90s. Tanks are worn out, 2 years of combat are behind their tracks, dirt of North-Western Syria and sands of Syrian Badia. Would be interesting to see combat use results and analysis, if it will be ever avaliable.
MrMartin reacted to heretic88 in The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines
MrMartin got a reaction from LoooSeR in Syrian tanks at war. Some pictures and words between them.
