The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

Stolen from Gurkhan, who stole it from Faceplant, but page doesn't open for me. Pics for those who are not familiar with BMPT

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

On 31.03.2018 at 5:59 PM, LoooSeR said:

DPR BMP-2 with ERA and turret bustle

 

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5a71a0a5482677aa1214fc1d/kachestvennaia-modernizaciia-bmp2-v-doneckoi-narodnoi-respublike-5ac714c7a936f460c0271833

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

UFP

 

Turret bustle

 

 

LFP is almost completely covered

 

BMP-2BV, 

 

[LoooSeR]

Rosgvardia Patrul'-As

 

Ural-VV, Jihad UAZs behind, Tigr with Arbalet RCWS futher away and BMPT on a background.

[LoooSeR]

Typhoon-K

 

Gorets-M in Iraq

[LoooSeR]

Laos delegation was shown this T-72s (similar model to what Nicaragua bought). Again, 61st BTRZ, you also can see T-80BVs.

 

 

Spoiler

 

[LoooSeR]

 

 

Spoiler

 

[LoooSeR]

Quote

AMN 233114 Tigr-M with remote weapon station Arbalet-DM

 

Quote

Kornet-D1 ATGM system on VPK-233116 Tigr-M chassis

 

Quote

Typhoon K-53949 / KAMAZ-53949 Typhoon-K 4x4

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Quote

KAMAZ-63968 Typhoon-K

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

Modernized T-72B3 with additional armor, also referred to as T-72B3 mod. 2016

Also saw UBKh designation for this T-72B3 (T-72B3 UBKh)

 

Spoiler

 

BMPTs

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

BTR-MDM "Rakushka", APC for VDV

 

Spoiler

 

Quote

BMD-4M

 

Spoiler

 

Quote

Patrul KAMAZ-43509 armored vehicle

 

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

Ural-432009-0020-73 \ Ural-VV armored vehicle

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 12:35 PM, LoooSeR said:

Stolen from Gurkhan, who stole it from Faceplant, but page doesn't open for me. Pics for those who are not familiar with BMPT

 

Is it just me, or has it changed again.....That kinda looks like a tweaked version of the original hull (it still has the AGLs), but the turret is more like that of the second version.

 

You lot will have the kit manufacturers pulling their hair out! 

[Mighty_Zuk]

Yeah those AGLs are completely unnecessary.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

How can AGLs ever be unnecessary? 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

How can AGLs ever be unnecessary? 

Well, for one, they are only forward-facing, and barely elevate. So you've already ruled out their employment in many types of scenarios.

Second, they're manned, each by a single person who has no other duty. So if the thing is stuck in an ambush with its tracks torn off, or is in an urban area (which ironically is what the BMPT was first built for), you got almost half the crew sitting and doing absolutely nothing. At best they're just another pair of eyes but new technologies that are already entering service are nullifying that advantage. It would be better to just add another RCWS with a dual AGL and MG mount. Or even better, give up the AGL because you already have autocannons. 2 of them!

The BMPT is the embodiment of overkill in terms of firepower, but very poor management of it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

47 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The BMPT is the embodiment of overkill in terms of firepower, but very poor management of it.

 

ie: it's Russian? 

 

 

[Scolopax]

I suppose it's worth noting that the Russians have continued to put bow machine guns in modern AFVs, such as the BMP-3, the BMD-3/4, and the BTR-MD.  BTR-80/82 has a bow firing port too.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Which is an outdated concept that hurts the armor profile of the vehicle and was superseded by the coaxial gun mount on the turret, and the RCWS.

[LoooSeR]

Quote

The 102nd motorized rifle regiment of the 150th motorized rifle division received BMP-3

   The video footage made on April 7, 2018 in the village of Petrovka of the Rostov Oblast (40 km from the border with Ukraine - in fact, with the DNR), and demonstrating BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, presumably from the 102nd Motorized Infantry the regiment of the new 150th Motorized Rifle Idritsko-Berlin Order of Kutuzov of the division of the 8th Guards Combined-Arms Army of the Southern Military District (dislocation of the regiment - the village of Persianovsky of the Rostov Region).

 

 

 

Quote

   Video shows the BMP-3 ... is equipped with B03S03 Sodema with a thermal imaging channel (the manufacturer of the sight is JSC Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant, part of the Schwabe holding company).

 

[LoooSeR]

Count errors in this video

 

 

[LoooSeR]

@EnsignExpendable soft torture

 

[EnsignExpendable]

Tag your favourite part of the video, mine is the footage of a T-26, BA-10, and something that looks like a T-40 or T-60.

[Serge]

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Well,

 

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

for one, they are only forward-facing, and barely elevate.

Can you propose a simple design which won’t interfere with turret and RWS ?

What is the most important sector for an AFV ? What are you doing with this sector in the fight, even in defensive manœuvre ?

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

So you've already ruled out their employment in many types of scenarios.

Which one ?

Remind : AFV are working at least as pair team, a « patrol » for some of us.

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Second, they're manned, each by a single person who has no other duty.

Which is very good because they can work faster and better when it comes to resuply, to watch at night, to repair, to rescue a wonded crewman...

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

So if the thing is stuck in an ambush with its tracks torn off, or is in an urban area (which ironically is what the BMPT was first built for),

Which is worst with a classical MBT. It don’t have 2 grenades launchers keeping a 120deg arc under suppressive fire. 

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

you got almost half the crew sitting and doing absolutely nothing. At best they're just another pair of eyes but new technologies that are already entering service are nullifying that advantage. It would be better to just add another RCWS with a dual AGL and MG mount. Or even better, give up the AGL because you already have autocannons. 2 of them!

Can you describe the fight in Grozny Russians lived ? Did you heard about where anti-tank firing where coming from ?

When you are on the left of the hull, are-you keeping the left field of the tank ? Is there a trick in the streets ?

On 09/04/2018 at 8:54 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

The BMPT is the embodiment of overkill in terms of firepower, but very poor management of it.

No, definitely NO. 

BMPT is maybe the most important innovation for the Russian armored units. 

[Serge]

On 09/04/2018 at 7:11 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yeah those AGLs are completely unnecessary.

AGS are dedicated to cope with infantry from 5m to more than 800m. This is a very good choice. 

[Serge]

On 09/04/2018 at 10:24 PM, Scolopax said:

I suppose it's worth noting that the Russians have continued to put bow machine guns in modern AFVs, such as the BMP-3, the BMD-3/4, and the BTR-MD.  BTR-80/82 has a bow firing port too.

The Soviet/Russian view considers it’s important to have suppressive fire-power on the front arc of any AFV. 

But, in the real world, this is a lure because fire-power is only achieved when you can hit what you want to hit. 

 

So, considering BMP-3, BTR, BMD, there bow machine guns are useless. They will spray in the wild.  They are even sources of problem because they’re :

- balistic weakness for low protected vehicles, 

- complexity for a no result tactical capability ;

- consuming precious storage space. 

 

BMPT-1 and 2 are quite another story. Bow gunners have :

- dedicated observation assets ;

- a dedicated sight ;

- a dedicated FCS ;

- a dedicated AGS launchers which are outside the crew cell and so, protecting it ;

- a large ammo band. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Can you propose a simple design which won’t interfere with turret and RWS ?

It doesn't have an RCWS, so what I propose is to have a dual weapon station that includes a machine gun of their choice, and an AGL. That may be a problem because they use an oscillating turret, so it won't be level, but it's not a very serious problem. Certainly nowhere near as invasive as adding 2 crew stations.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

What is the most important sector for an AFV ? What are you doing with this sector in the fight, even in defensive manœuvre ?

I didn't quite understand this question. In terms of protection? All sectors are important in any type of terrain I can imagine other than plains. In plains - the front. In terms of firepower? Every sector to which the turret points.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Which one ?

Remind : AFV are working at least as pair team, a « patrol » for some of us.

Consider places like urban environment with buildings higher than simple 2-story ones, valleys where there isn't much place to maneuver, or maybe even in cases when the vehicle loses its mobility due to an IED/mine or anything else hitting the track. The AGL will only be useful when you can guarantee that you will always face the enemy. Even in such cases, their ability to engage targets will be limited because their range is limited. AGL are only really useful against infantry, and some lightly armored vehicles, at relatively very close range. The ATGMs can engage at over 6km. The cannons at over 2km. The AGL at several hundred meters, unless the target is completely stationary and you want to waste a bunch of ammunition, though I admit I haven't really researched much into how effective the AGL is at range. What I know is its low velocity doesn't mean well for its accuracy, doubly so against moving targets.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Which is very good because they can work faster and better when it comes to resuply, to watch at night, to repair, to rescue a wonded crewman...

And that's where their advantage pretty much ends. The disadvantages however, of having another crewman, IMO outweigh the advantages. This is why a reduction of manpower is now a trend in armor of all sorts.

When you use an IFV for the job you can have the dismounts help you with resupply and overwatch. And even if they're not nearby, a 3-man crew is plenty enough.

With a crew of 2-3, you can reinvest a portion of that manpower then in maintenance crews that will offer more efficient maintenance of the vehicles and deeper repair on the field, and still save on money from having less manpower, and reduce the logistical footprint as well (manpower-heavy units are logistics-heavy in attrition warfare).

 

Similarly, in many countries a crew of 3 was decided to be enough. Some wanted to keep a 4th crewman because he can be an extra pair of eyes but modern technology nullifies his benefits.

Now some are even going for a crew of 2 with enhanced situational awareness. Whatever they can't do in terms of maintenance, larger and better staffed logistical units will do for them, and better.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Which is worst with a classical MBT. It don’t have 2 grenades launchers keeping a 120deg arc under suppressive fire. 

Pretty sure if an MBT is stuck in an ambush and its convoy halts, making it hardly able to move, the guys who ambush it won't rush to hit its most well armored place - the front. The sides are a far more attractive area. That's the thing about ambushes - you're off guard, or you are on guard but in a not so optimal position to retaliate.

Can you honestly make an argument to add even 2 more crewmen, for a total of 7, so they could cover 240° of the tank? But don't forget, the 2 AGL overlap in some areas, so they don't really cover 120°. I doubt they cover even 90° but when you're trying to only engage close range soft targets at the front, you don't need more.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Can you describe the fight in Grozny Russians lived ? Did you heard about where anti-tank firing where coming from ?

When you are on the left of the hull, are-you keeping the left field of the tank ? Is there a trick in the streets ?

Enlighten me then. If the ATGMs were fired from such a close range for the AGLs to be able to hit them, why not just use the autocannon? If they were fired from a little bit further though, all the AGL operators would be able to do is ditch the thing and run away, because with so many crewmen in such a cramped vehicle there's no way you can put any decent amount of armor while staying as light as it is. Keep in mind it's supposed to be an urban fighter among other things. It needs side armor. 

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

No, definitely NO. 

BMPT is maybe the most important innovation for the Russian armored units. 

Which is why they're still pushing for the T-15 instead, which is superior in literally every parameter to it?

 

The manpower has to come from somewhere. Either they reduce the amount of infantry they bring in, or they reduce the amount of tanks. If they add them without cutting elsewhere, they're going to just pay a heck lot more on manpower AND vehicle maintenance.

3 BMPTs are equal to 5 MBTs or 5 IFVs. 

BMPT vs MBT - Able to hit targets at high angle, able to reduce collateral damage and friendly fire incidents in urban environment. Lower capability to engage longer range targets, limited firepower against MBTs. Overall may argue that in some units a 1 on 1 replacement is acceptable, but a ratio of just a tad more than half a BMPT per 1 MBT isn't really a good thing.

BMPT vs IFV - same firepower against elevated targets and MBTs, BMPT has an additional ability to hit more soft targets at close to medium range compared with IFV. BMPT cannot deploy infantry. Even 1 on 1 ratio wouldn't be acceptable. 

[That_Baka]

BMPT is solution looking for problem and UVZ brainchild .Anything BMPT can do in conventional conflict upgraded BMP-2/3 loaded with infantry can do better,cheaper and more realible.