LoooSeR Posted December 3, 2018 Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 Type 16 MCV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 The question is "what is a tank destroyer"? Light tanks like Sprut-SD are not "tank destroyers" - they are not effective against MBTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 35 minutes ago, VPZ said: The question is "what is a tank destroyer"? Light tanks like Sprut-SD are not "tank destroyers" - they are not effective against MBTs. The Sprut has a 125 mm gun. Pretty sure it's effective against most MBTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Belesarius said: The Sprut has a 125 mm gun. Pretty sure it's effective against most MBTs. No, Sprut is not effective. It can't use long APFSDS like ZBM-44M (probably due to autoloader's restriction). And even if it could, this would not give it advantage over MBTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 Несмотря на то, что самоходная пушка 2С25 относится к классу противотанковых САУ, по своим возможностям и спектру решаемых задач «Спрут-СД» является лёгким танком. Причина, по которой САУ 2С25 изначально классифицирована как противотанковая пушка, состояла в том, что заказывающим управлением опытно-конструкторских работ являлось ГРАУ, не имевшее полномочий для разработки танков. Google Translate: Despite the fact that the 2S25 self-propelled gun belongs to the class of anti-tank SAU, the Sprut-SD is a light tank in its capabilities and range of tasks to be solved. The reason for which the SAU 2S25 was originally classified as an anti-tank gun was that the ordering management of the development work was the GRAU, which did not have the authority to develop tanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 If I'm a member of the Naval infantry and the choice is a Sprut or nothing? I'll take the Sprut. It can also fire the 125mm GLATGMs that the Russians have. I don't really know how effective they are against tanks, but a 125mm diameter HEAT warhead is nothing to sneeze at. I'm hardly saying it's the be all and end all, but it gives you a bit more punch than a BMD-3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, Belesarius said: If I'm a member of the Naval infantry and the choice is a Sprut or nothing? I'll take the Sprut. It can also fire the 125mm GLATGMs that the Russians have. I don't really know how effective they are against tanks, but a 125mm diameter HEAT warhead is nothing to sneeze at. I'm hardly saying it's the be all and end all, but it gives you a bit more punch than a BMD-3 GLATGMs are ineffective against most targets when compared with standard HEAT, APFSDS, or HE-MP shells, unless they are 3rd gen or above, or otherwise have any form of NLOS capability. Since Russia does not yet have any 3rd gen ATGMs, it makes little sense to use current ones. The Sprut can fire standard APFSDS used in MBTs, but from what I've heard so far, it does so with a great risk of cracking its hull and turret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 5 hours ago, VPZ said: No, Sprut is not effective. It can't use long APFSDS like ZBM-44M (probably due to autoloader's restriction). And even if it could, this would not give it advantage over MBTs. Do you have any source on whether the Sprut has the older or newer autoloader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 7 hours ago, VPZ said: The question is "what is a tank destroyer"? Light tanks like Sprut-SD are not "tank destroyers" - they are not effective against MBTs. Thats why thread is called Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers, as sometimes a line between TD and tank/GC is not too obvious. Sprut-SD is designated as airborne self-propelled anti-tank gun, so we can call it TD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Ramlaen said: Do you have any source on whether the Sprut has the older or newer autoloader? According to Wikipedia it can't use relatevly modern APFSDS. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2С25 14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said: Thats why thread is called Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers, as sometimes a line between TD and tank/GC is not too obvious. Sprut-SD is designated as airborne self-propelled anti-tank gun, so we can call it TD. But Sprut can't destroy any modern tank, it has no advantages over them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FORMATOSE Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 MOWAG Taifun : 5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: The Sprut can fire standard APFSDS used in MBTs, but from what I've heard so far, it does so with a great risk of cracking its hull and turret. Source ? Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, VPZ said: According to Wikipedia it can't use relatevly modern APFSDS. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2С25 I'm not seeing anything about whether the autoloader can handle the newer ammunition, and most of the citations for ammunition are over a decade old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, VPZ said: According to Wikipedia it can't use relatevly modern APFSDS. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2С25 2S25 production was started in 2006, during which there were no 125 mm APFSDS shells in serial production that could not fit into autoloader, IIRC. Question about being able to fire newer shells is more relevant to 2S25M. 10 minutes ago, VPZ said: But Sprut can't destroy any modern tank, it has no advantages over them. It can, question is how reliably and from which projection/range, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TokyoMorose Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 I would be quite frankly astonished if the current Sprut 2S25M had ammo restrictions - autoloaders capable of handling the longer ammo have been around for far longer than the Sprut's development program, and there's no other possible technical reason it couldn't fire any 2A46M compatible ammo (just comparing the 2A75 to the other 2A46M derivatives)... the worst that may happen IMHO is it getting knocked back a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 hours ago, Sovngard said: Source ? I take back my earlier statement. I've been talking from memory, and I remember hearing about possible issues of cracks as an issue to be solved in the development phase, which was indeed supposedly solved via longer recoil and improved suspension (hydropneumatic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 12 hours ago, LoooSeR said: 2S25 production was started in 2006, during which there were no 125 mm APFSDS shells in serial production that could not fit into autoloader, IIRC. Question about being able to fire newer shells is more relevant to 2S25M. There are no relatively new Russian APFSDS in the list. Maybe this information is false, but we know that some Russian tanks (actually, all tanks except T-90A) have restrictions on shells length. Quote It can, question is how reliably and from which projection/range Any modern MBT surpasses Sprut in all aspects except mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, VPZ said: There are no relatively new Russian APFSDS in the list. Maybe this information is false, but we know that some Russian tanks (actually, all tanks except T-90A) have restrictions on shells length. Not only T-90A. 1 hour ago, VPZ said: Any modern MBT surpasses Sprut in all aspects except mobility. Yes, same with King Tiger vs M10 or SU-100, for example. Lord_James and Belesarius 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, LoooSeR said: Not only T-90A. Maybe some new modifications of T-72 can. But we know nothing about Sprut - what types of shells does it use? Even most Russian MBTs can't use Lekalo. And Sprut is just a light tank - it shouldn't fight with MBTs, as it said in the article I quoted. The real "tank destroyers" are ATGM-carriers, or maybe Sheridan (at least, it had 152-mm gun). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 3 hours ago, VPZ said: The real "tank destroyers" are ATGM-carriers, or maybe Sheridan (at least, it had 152-mm gun). And all real “MBTs” have turrets, right? The Swedes classified their Strv 103 as an “MBT”, but it has no turret. Different nations can have different classifications for their tanks, regardless of form or function. If the Russians want to classify the 2S25(M) as a tank destroyer, or a gun carrier, or a light amphibious tank, or a god damn attack helicopter with tracks, they can do that. It can LOOK LIKE a vehicle that we would classify as something else, but to the nation that uses said vehicle, it is whatever they classify it. 18 hours ago, LoooSeR said: 2S25 production was started in 2006, during which there were no 125 mm APFSDS shells in serial production that could not fit into autoloader, IIRC. Question about being able to fire newer shells is more relevant to 2S25M. The original 2S25s were created before the T-90A entered production (from what I’ve read), so they probably use the old loader. The 2S25M was made after the T-90A, so it wouldn’t be impossible that it has the updated loader. Of course, with the Russian military budget cuts, it wouldn’t be too crazy to assume they didn’t update the loader. Belesarius and Zyklon 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 5 hours ago, Lord_James said: Different nations can have different classifications for their tanks, regardless of form or function. If the Russians want to classify the 2S25(M) as a tank destroyer, or a gun carrier, or a light amphibious tank, or a god damn attack helicopter with tracks, they can do that. It can LOOK LIKE a vehicle that we would classify as something else, but to the nation that uses said vehicle, it is whatever they classify it. It's good that in other countries light tanks are not called "tank destroyers". The thing is that some people believe that Sprut was made for destroying MBTs, but it wasn't (this fact is mentioned in the article I quoted). Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 30 minutes ago, VPZ said: /.../ The thing is that some people believe that Sprut was made for destroying MBTs, but it wasn't (this fact is mentioned in the article I quoted). Umm.. it was created to engage tanks. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 1 hour ago, VPZ said: It's good that in other countries light tanks are not called "tank destroyers". The thing is that some people believe that Sprut was made for destroying MBTs, but it wasn't (this fact is mentioned in the article I quoted). I have to disagree; the Sprut (as stated above, by Loooser) was created to be an amphibious (and air dropped?) vehicle that can engage and defeat enemy structures and vehicles... vehicles being anything from a Toyota Hilux with an M2HB, to a fully fitted M1A2C. Also, “made to do X” and “it can actually do X” are 2 totally different things; see Afghanit APS (the T-14 as a whole is kinda weird, but I do hope they can get it to work). The Sprut was made to engage enemy tanks (and anything the infantry couldn’t do already), and it most likely can attack 3rd gen MBTs effectively (Challenger 2, Leopard 2A4, M1A2, etc.), especially if the M version has the T-90A loader, and this is due to tactics. Just as the M18 and M36 have less armor and (at least the M18) had a weaker gun than the biggest opponents they faced, they were still highly effective due to how they were used. This could be a similar situation to the Sprut, though I know very little about Russian military doctrine. And again, if the Russians want to call the 2S25(M) a “tracked attack helicopter”, then it’s a damn tracked attack helicopter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted February 26, 2019 Report Share Posted February 26, 2019 Lord_James 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VPZ Posted February 27, 2019 Report Share Posted February 27, 2019 What are these round things on the turret? Radars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.