Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, That_Baka said:

Anything BMPT can do in conventional conflict upgraded BMP-2/3 loaded with infantry can do better,cheaper and more realible.

 

How about take a hit from a RPG-29?

 

I'll take the BMP-T every time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

How about take a hit from a RPG-29?

 

I'll take the BMP-T every time.

 

A BMPT cannot take an RPG-29 anywhere but the front. Want something that also has frontal protection vs RPG-29 and still is far better for the role than BMPT? Take a T-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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, especially 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. Instead of bying BMPTs designers could upgrade existing T-72B3s by installing programmable HEs and probem 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 intergrate it into digital battlefield management system on top of that.

 

   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 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.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

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 mm autocannons and 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.     

 

In this context what do you think of the depiction of a T-15 with a 57mm gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

In this context what do you think of the depiction of a T-15 with a 57mm gun?

It is close, but it is still an IFV. Real BMPTs don't like to work at 2 jobs because they are to cool for that.  

   BMPTs like to take all your money on a smallest but most expensive shot in a bar and claim that they are your true best friends. 

 

   Speaking a bit more serious, sensors and 57mm AC version of unmanned turret for T-15 is yet to be seen, so I can't judge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2018 at 6:34 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

A BMPT cannot take an RPG-29 anywhere but the front. Want something that also has frontal protection vs RPG-29 and still is far better for the role than BMPT? Take a T-15.

Which Russian AFV can deal with RPG-29 today ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2018 at 12:28 PM, LoooSeR said:

1) BMPT inflate manpower of the unit. For 2 BMPTs you need 10 people to train and support in the field.

No. This is the contrary. It’s easier to train because tasks are easier. 

Did you train tank crew ? I did. 

Quote

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, especially during local conflicts).

This is why Merkava is a 4 men crew in an outnumbered country ?

It make me laugh to read such a thing when talking about Russian AFV. 

Quote

   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.

Russian tanks are 3 men crew and... are zippo too. With a big ammo rack in the middle of the crew compartment. 

So, your analyses are funny. When a Txx is hit, it’s « earth, wind and fire ». 

 

BMPT have no big ammos in the crew compartment. It’s far safer than any other Russian AFV today. 

So, survivability of its crew is better, far better. 

 

Quote

Best decision would be decrease number of humans in unit that you send on a frontline to risk their lifes, to decrease overall casualties.

Decreasing the crew increases tiring. 

Did you fight in urban area ? I was trained to and I trained too. Your logic is an internet one. 

Quote

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.

BMPT was designed for this purpose and, considering Russian standards, it works. 

Quote

 

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. Instead of bying BMPTs designers could upgrade existing T-72B3s by installing programmable HEs and probem more or less solved. 

No. 

BMPTs are complementary to tanks. They are no supposed to replace them. 

Quote

 

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.

How Shilkas performed in Grozny ?

Just a question. 

Quote

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.

This is is not the question here. 

Because BMPTs with tanks can manœuvre with infantry too. 

 

Quote

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.

BMPTs are the only AFV to watch in 5 directions and to fire at 3 of them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Serge said:

Which Russian AFV can deal with RPG-29 today ?

Dude I literally said it in the sentence you quoted. A T-15.

And whatever its side armor is, I bet it's a whole lot better than what the BMPT affords, because judging by the position of the grenade launchers, there is physically not enough room for any meaningful amount of armor.

 

28 minutes ago, Serge said:

This is why Merkava is a 4 men crew in an outnumbered country ?

It make me laugh to read such a thing when talking about Russian AFV. 

No, this is why a Carmel, a future AFV that will set the parameters for the IDF for what the next generation of MBTs, IFVs, APCs etc etc will have, has only a crew of 2. Also why the future howitzer may have a crew of 3 in total as well, instead of the current 9.

Here are a few things to consider:

1)Israel is not that outnumbered. With a population of 8.5 million it can very well staff its military and still have frequent debates about what to do with the many surplus servicemen that it has nowhere to assign to.

2)There are many considerations to take into account before even talking about population - cost of having a larger crew (more salaries), cost of having to provide services to more men (food, water, personal equipment), cost of enlarging the supply chain to accommodate to the manpower growth (more trucks, more drivers for these trucks, more guards for larger convoy protection). Social benefits as well. In the IDF, we have special grants for every servicemen that he can spend on acquiring higher education, or something to live off before he could find a decent job, or cut a small piece off the mortgage on a house. Combat soldiers get even more funding in that they have special subsidies on top of that, for higher education. It could amount to them practically getting twice that grant. That's a substantial amount of money, you know. They also get LOTS of subsidies during service for a LOT of private businesses. Now imagine Russia also has some form of subsidies for its servicemen. Again, it costs a great deal of money.

 

39 minutes ago, Serge said:

Russian tanks are 3 men crew and... are zippo too. With a big ammo rack in the middle of the crew compartment. 

So, your analyses are funny. When a Txx is hit, it’s « earth, wind and fire ». 

That just proves Looser's point more, you know. If a tank is highly vulnerable to any form of penetration, and say, all crew is lost, then whenever a tank is penetrated and lost you lose 3 men instead of 5.

You know, let me just go back to the previous point. Russia, after WW2, had a HUGE deficit in men. Doubling the crew is a great way to repeat that.

Also, with higher rates of mortality in the armored corps, it's going to be hard to convince new servicemen to choose armor. You could force them, but then they wouldn't perform nearly as well as motivated men.

 

42 minutes ago, Serge said:

So, survivability of its crew is better, far better. 

Shoot anything larger than a 14.5mm bullet at its side armor and one of the grenade launcher operators loses his ball catch partner.

 

44 minutes ago, Serge said:

Decreasing the crew increases tiring. 

But replacing 2 grenade launcher operators with 6 to 9 infantrymen will really help reducing strain off the crew.

 

46 minutes ago, Serge said:

BMPT was designed for this purpose and, considering Russian standards, it works. 

And for this purpose it doesn't need the AGLs at all.

 

48 minutes ago, Serge said:

BMPTs are the only AFV to watch in 5 directions and to fire at 3 of them. 

The 2 AGL operators have only a very limited view and can only see what's directly in front of them. The driver can only look forward through periscopes, but look to the rear through cameras. So unless it's reversing, the driver and 2 AGL operators are looking at the same direction.

Gunner is looking at where the barrels are pointing, and commander can observe through panoramic sight. So that's observation in 3 directions, and when reversing in 4 direction. 

The commander has no weapons of his own, but the gunners do. If the gunner is firing the autocannons in the frontal direction, then the BMPT can only fire in 1 direction simultaneously. If he's firing somewhere to the side or rear, then the BMPT is only capable of firing in 2 directions.

 

If there really is such insistence on 5 crewmen, I don't see why not make the BMPT a 3-man crew vehicle, and have the other 2 transported via a truck or a light armored vehicle, and do rotations with the original crew. That way, they can also be trained in gunner and driver roles, so they can actually replace a downed crewman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:
2 hours ago, Serge said:

 

Dude I literally said it in the sentence you quoted. A T-15.

And whatever its side armor is, I bet it's a whole lot better than what the BMPT affords, because judging by the position of the grenade launchers, there is physically not enough room for any meaningful amount of armor.

 

The grenade launchers appear to be unconnected to the crew compartment, their box is above the hull roofline. Any side armour protecting the crew will be completely underneath the grenade launchers, not outboard of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Serge said:

No. This is the contrary. It’s easier to train because tasks are easier. 

Did you train tank crew ? I did.

   I was speaking about number of crew from economical POV. 5 is bigger number than 3, and obviously cost more. Or you want to get those additional 2 guys without paying them anything? I am not speaking about logistical chain. Infantry will be deployed in warzone anyway, BMPT can't clear rooms deep inside of buildings and is not as mobile inside of ruined urban areas as infantry can be. 

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

This is why Merkava is a 4 men crew in an outnumbered country ?

It make me laugh to read such a thing when talking about Russian AFV.

   I was not speaking about outnumbering enemies. My words, that you quoted, never even mentions that. It would be easier to discuss things if you would respond to points made in a post.

   You can laugh as much as you want, but my point still stands as you did not put any arguments against it.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Russian tanks are 3 men crew and... are zippo too. With a big ammo rack in the middle of the crew compartment. 

So, your analyses are funny. When a Txx is hit, it’s « earth, wind and fire ». 

   Point was that in case of penetration of the BMPT 5 people are at risk, in case of penetration of the T-72/80/90 - 3 people are at risk. Level of risk can be managed in a tank can by loading only autoloader, modification of tanks like T-72B3 UBKh and so on. 

   Also, in BMPT HEAT jet can hit 3 people, as there are plenty of trajectories that allow to line 3 humans, while in a tank HEAT jet will not be able to directly hit all 3 crewmembers because HEAT jets are not traveling in triangles. Which means that even if HEAT jet penetrate and not hit other crewmembers with shrapnel/spalling, chances of higher number of crew members being injured or killed are still higher than in similar event inside of the 3 man crew tank.

   But you still can laugh, i guess. 

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Decreasing the crew increases tiring. 

Did you fight in urban area ? I was trained to and I trained too. Your logic is an internet one. 

   I want to decrease crew to the level of normal Soviet/Russian tank, i don't think they will be so overworked than 2 nearly useless gunners will help much. And if command put not enough manpower to deal with a planned work, than a vehicle design will not be able to solve that.

   I don't know what you were training to do, but as the Chieftain said "it doesn't matter" if we speak about vehicle design. Point still stand - 5 crew members inside of the vehicle increase internal volume that needs to be armored, in urban conditions on a modern battlefield with powerfull tandem HEAT warheads on everything (RPGs, ATGMS, top attack ATGMs, and so on) additional armor will not be useless. By deleting 2 barelly usefull gunners internal volume can be decreased, leaving saved weight to be used for additional protection. Instead of soft bags ERA that BMPT had in Syria (on photos at least), they could attach something much more serious, increase protection of roof and mine protection of hull.

   My internet logic is based on simple math and you didn't addressed points made. "I am d'Artagnan and you are not" is not exactly helps to understand your position any better. 

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

BMPT was designed for this purpose and, considering Russian standards, it works.

   It is great that it was designed for this purpose, point was that what we see isn't worth all downsides/cost/price it brings with it. "Russian standarts" are not very high by your own words describing Russian tanks as "zippos" just 2 quotes above. But in case of BMPT those standards should become much better all of the sudden?

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

No. 

BMPTs are complementary to tanks. They are no supposed to replace them. 

   Exactly. We introduce another vehicle that will put additional work on ligistics to be supported, while this BMPT is nearly useless in open fields compared to a tank.

   So, if we will bring X number of tanks and Y number of BMPTs in open fields fight, and put logistical support (fuel, ammunition) for X+Y number of vehicles (i guess supporting BMPT will be nearly same logistical work as support a tank, as chassis, weight and so on are similar) anyway, why not to change Y number of BMPTs to Y number of additional tanks and get better firewpower with lower manpower used in the end? Or just modify current vehicles with better FCS and programmable HEs, so you don't need that Y number of tank-level logistical hungry vehicles in the field in the first place? Sounds more effective use of resources for me.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

How Shilkas performed in Grozny ?

Just a question. 

   I don't know, never researched that. I was speaking about SAA operations in urban areas, where they used Shilka to suppress targets, and i said that BMPT can be used in same role, but 5 man crew isn't needed to do that (although additional armor was needed) either.

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

This is is not the question here. 

Because BMPTs with tanks can manœuvre with infantry too. 

Tanks can work with infantry and with proper RCWS supported by better observation system will not need BMPTs - that was my point. 

 

2 hours ago, Serge said:

BMPTs are the only AFV to watch in 5 directions and to fire at 3 of them. 

   Ability to detect enemies first doesn't directly correlate with ability to look in more directions. Thermal imagers increase chances to see target way more that just what human eye can see with low-magnification optics. Having working recon forces, drones to spot, system that allow to detect enemies through their attempts to mask their forces and conceal movement + digital battlefield managment system to quickly exchange info will be more usefull that dude looking into piece of glass in limited arc ever be. Especailly because both AGS gunners in BMPT in same direct as gunner usually look, they can be easily suppressed in effectivness by good thermal imager and big screen in convenient place + commander have big panoramic sight. 

   And those 2 AGS gunners will be nearly useless in open fields, again, as they have inferior systems to detect concealed targets that high-mounted commander panoramic sight with thermal imager. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Serge said:

Before answering, read the subject.

T15 is just parading on the Krasnaya ploshad. Like 57mm, it does not exist yet.

So far I've only seen the BMPT parading there as well. Not in any active unit. So what's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Serge said:

This turret is in active service today in the Russian AFV fleet ?

Do you have photos ?

It is already adobted by Russian Navy.And BMP-3 Dragoon turret and Derivatsiya SPAAG is proceeding testing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating debate gents.....It does seem that moving at least one GL to a a RWS slaved (or attached) to the commander's panoramic sight would be a good idea, maybe backed up with a HMG. 

 

The driver could presumably control a forward mounted weapon when not driving, so two of the current crew could be removed for an overall slight increase in firepower and protection.....Maybe someone should sketch it up, would be a cool weapon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Fascinating debate gents.....It does seem that moving at least one GL to a a RWS slaved (or attached) to the commander's panoramic sight would be a good idea, maybe backed up with a HMG. 

 

The driver could presumably control a forward mounted weapon when not driving, so two of the current crew could be removed for an overall slight increase in firepower and protection.....Maybe someone should sketch it up, would be a cool weapon?

Or just create a whole tower, with the dual 30mm guns at the bottom with ATGMs to the side, on top of it 2 AGLs attached in the same manner as the autocannons, and on top of them 2 HMGs again in the same manner. A panoramic sight at the very top, one former AGL operator sitting on the sight, with the other sitting on his head (both, of course, protected with the best Blyatnik-3 gear), acting as one majestic periscope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles.  These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire.  While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new.  In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time.

      Earliest Origins


      Animated diagram of the AK-107/108
       
      Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier.  The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion.  This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions.  But more on that later.

      Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions.  Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit.  Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet.  These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion.
       

      The French St. Etienne Machine Gun
       

      The Danish Bang rifle
       
      At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses.  The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens:


       
      More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker.
       
      Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s.  This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74.
       

      The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s
       
      The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible.  Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74.

      A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced.  The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever.  This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear.

      There are three BARS designs of note from Russia:

      AK-107/AK-108
       


      The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively.  These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern.  Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group.


       

      Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies

      This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s.  Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers.  The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight.
       
      The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun.
       

       
      AEK-971

      The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept.  Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s.



      Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971.  The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it.  This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing.


       

      Moving parts group of the AEK-971

      The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle.



      In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition.  Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau.

      After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec.



      The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years.  In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle.  The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver.


       
      Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight.  The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous.  The handguard was changed a few times.



      Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm.  The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup.  The numbers bought are likely to be very low.  A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist.  The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545.

      AKB and AKB-1


      AKB-1


      AKB


      AKB, closeup of the receiver

      The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son.  The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild.

      Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass.  That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back!  This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM.  Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added.  The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto.

      The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS.  In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971.

      Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Something I haven't seen discussed on this site before; Soviet/Russian efforts to domesticate foxes by breeding for domesticated behavior. Article in Scientific American here; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
       
      Interesting that there were physical changes correlated with the behavioral changes the Russians bred for.

       
      Buy one for only $7,000! https://domesticatedsilverfox.weebly.com/aquiring-a-tame-fox.html
       

      (not entirely unlike a dog I guess)
       
       
      It seems like a pretty cool idea to drunk me, though I don't have a spare 7,000 dollars laying around (thanks student loans!). Also, I don't think my cat would approve.
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Intro
       

      The MiG-3. All flying aircraft today have been re-engined with the V1710, and look slightly different.
       
      The MiG-3 was one of the first fighters developed by the famous Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau. An improvement on the troubled MiG-1, the MiG-3 was designed for combat at high altitude. Introduced in 1941, it gained less fame than its contemporaries like the Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters. Germany's virtually nonexistent strategic bomber force, and the low-altitude nature of combat on the Eastern Front meant the MiG-3 was forced out of its element, and its performance suffered. Combined with the MiG's difficult flight characteristics and the horrible strategic situation for the Soviets in 1941, this meant the MiG-3 achieved little success.
       
      While the MiG-3 did not spawn a successful series of fighters (like the Yak-1, Yak-9, and Yak-3, for instance), numerous variants were considered, and many of them were built in at least prototype form. However, for many reasons, such as lack of need or nTheonavailability of suitable engines, none of these variants entered large scale production.
       
       
       
       
      I-230/MiG-3U
       

      The resemblance to the baseline MiG-3 is easily seen. via aviastar
       
      The I-230 was one of the more straightforward developments of the MiG-3. Development on the I-230 (also known as the MiG-3U) began in late 1941, with the objective to correct numerous flaws identified in the MiG-3. First was the armament; the MiG-3 had only two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns and a single 12.7 Berezen (BS) machine gun, firing through the propeller. On the I-230, these were replaced with two 20mm ShVAK cannons (again synchronized to fire through the propeller).
       
      Outwardly, the I-230 looked very similar to the production MiG-3, although the new aircraft was made mostly of wood instead of steel tubing and duralumin. The wing area and wingspan were increased (to 18 m^2 and 11 meters, versus 17.4 m^2 and 10.2 meters for the production MiG-3), and the fuselage was lengthened by .37 meters.
       
      Soviet engineers originally intended to fit the I-230 with the AM-39 engine. However, by the time the I-230 airframe was completed in early 1942, the AM-39 was not yet available. As a result, the first I-230 was forced to use an engine built from both AM-38 and AM-35 parts (designated AM-35A). This engine was roughly 40 kilograms heavier than the intended engine, but produced a respectable 1350 horsepower. Even with such an odd engine, the I-230 flew by the end of 1942, achieving a top speed of over 650 km/hr at altitude. (Some sources say the I-230 first flew in May 1943, this is likely for the machines with AM-35A engines). Four more prototypes were built with AM-35A engines. These aircraft would serve in defense of the Moscow region while undergoing flight testing. While the design showed promise, by this point the AM-35 was obsolete and out of production. Additionally, some other deficiencies were identified. The I-230 was found to be difficult to land (a flaw shared with the MiG-3), and the engine tended to leak oil into the rest of the aircraft at high altitudes. As a result, the I-230 was not built.
       
      I-231
       
      The I-231 was a further evolution of the I-230, using the AM-39 engine that had originally been intended for use in the I-230. One of the I-230 aircraft had its engine replaced with the more powerful AM-39. This required modification of the cooling system; the radiator was enlarged, with another secondary radiator installed. There were also a few other modifications, such as moving the horizontal tail surfaces downward slightly, the fuselage fuel tank was enlarged and some modifications to the radios. Armament was the same as the I-230; two 20mm ShVAK cannons.
       
      First flight of the I-231 was in October 1943. However, in early November, the prototype was forced to make an emergency landing after the supercharger failed at high altitude. Two weeks later, flight testing of the repaired I-231 resumed. The prototype, with the more powerful AM-39 (1800 horsepower), reached a top speed of 707 km/hr at an altitude of about 7000 meters. It also climbed to 5000 meters in under 5 minutes. Flight testing continued in early 1944, and in March, the I-231 was damaged after overrunning the runway during landing. The program suffered another setback when the repaired I-231 suffered an engine failure, damaging the precious AM-39 engine. Following this last mishap, work on the I-231 was discontinued.
       
       

      The similarities between the radial and inline engined models are still visible. via airvectors
       
      I-210/MiG-9 M-82
       

      I-210 with radial engine. via airpages.ru
       
      The I-210 was a more substantial modification of the MiG-3 which began in the summer of 1941. Production of the Shvestsov M-82 radial engine had recently begun, and many design bureaus, including MiG, were instructed to find ways to incorporate the engine into their designs. In the case of the MiG-3, this was especially important, as the Soviet government sought to discontinue the AM-35 to free up production space for the AM-38 used by the all-important Il-2.
       
      In theory, the M-82, with 1700 horsepower, would provide a significant performance increase over the AM-35. Soviet engineers projected that the M-82 equipped MiG-3 (now known as the I-210) would reach nearly 650 km/hr at altitude. It was also projected that performance would be massively improved at low altitude, important for combat on the Eastern Front. The new aircraft was received the designation “MiG-9 M-82”, denoting that it was a substantially new type (this designation would later be reused for a twin-jet fighter in the late 1940s).
       
      In addition to fitting of the M-82, there were several other differences between the MiG-3 and the I-210. Armament was increased to three 12.7mm UBS machine guns (two 7.62mm ShKAS were fitted initially, but soon removed). Several systems related to the engine, including the oil coolers and fuel system were also updated. The fuselage was widened slightly to accommodate the new engine.
       
      The I-210 first flew in July 1941. However, it became quickly apparent that it was not meeting its performance targets. The top speed at an altitude of 5000 meters was a mere 540 km/hr, far inferior to to projects (as well as the production MiG-3!). Part of this was due to having a different model of propeller installed than what was intended. However, wind tunnel testing and inspection showed that the engine cowling was poorly designed and sealed to the rest of the airframe, causing significant drag.
       
      Several months were required to correct the various defects, and it was not until June 1942 that three I-210s were ready for trails. During testing, the three aircraft were assigned to the PVO for use on the front. State trials began in September, and the I-210 fared poorly. Maximum speed was still only 565 km/hr, far inferior to existing types. Overall, the I-210 was judged to be unsatisfactory and inferior to the La-5 and Yak-7. The aircraft did not enter production, although the three completed prototypes would serve in Karelia until 1944.
       
      I-211/MiG-9E
       
      The failure of the I-210 was not the end of efforts to install a radial engine into the MiG-3 airframe. In late 1942, work on the I-211 began. A new Ash-82 engine, an improved variant of the M-82 installed on the I-210, was fitted. With the help of the Shvetsov bureau, the aerodynamics of the engine and its cowling were substantially improved. Further modifications reduced the empty weight of the “MiG-9E” by 170 kg. The three 12.7mm machine guns were replaced by two 20mm ShVAK cannons.
       
      Testing of the I-211 began in August 1942 (other sources variously say that testing did not begin until early 1943, my interpretation is that this is when state trials officially happened). Performance was markedly superior to the I-210; the I-211 reached a top speed of 670 km/hr, and was able to climb to altitudes in excess of 11000 meters. However, the La-5, which was already in production using the M-82 engine, had similar performance. Moreover, the La-7 was in development, and was felt to have better potential. In all, only ten I-211s were built.
       
      Interestingly, at least one source claims that a variant of the I-211 equipped with a Lend-Lease R-2800 engine was considered. There is no evidence that such an aircraft was actually built.
       
       
      I-220/MiG-11
       
      The I-220 (and the rest of its series up to the I-225) were substantially different from the production MiG-3, sharing little aside from the basic design and concept. These aircraft took the original mission of the MiG-3, interception of targets at high altitude, to the ultimate extreme.
       
      The initial request that led to development of the I-220 was issued in July 1941, in response to high-altitude overflights by Ju-86P reconnaissance aircraft. These aircraft, capable of operating at over 13000 meters, were outside the reach of almost any Soviet fighter. A few Ju-86Ps at slightly lower altitude were intercepted by MiG-3s before the start of the war, so the MiG-3 was a natural starting point for a high-altitude interceptor.
       
      Work on the I-220 prototype began in late 1942. Originally, it had been planned to install the AM-39 engine, but it was not ready at the time construction began on the prototype. Instead, one source (OKB MiG, Page 48) states anAM-38F engine was installed, which still provided more power (1700 hp) than the AM-35 on the MiG-3. However, it had the drawback of losing power at high-altitudes; the AM-38F would be an interim installation at best. A different source reports that an AM-37 was the first engine installed.
       
      In addition to the new engine, the wingspan was lengthened by .80 meters, with a slight sweep added to the outer portion of the leading edge. The radiator was relocated from the belly of the aircraft to inside the wing center section, with new air intakes added at the wing roots. Armament was increased to four ShVAKs, making the I-220 one of the heaviest armed Soviet fighters.
       
      The I-220 first flew in January 1943. Testing of the aircraft proceeded, as the AM-39 was still not yet ready. Despite being handicapped by the AM-38F engine, the I-220 prototype was still able to reach 650 km/hr during testing in January 1944. It was agreed that the aircraft had potential, but would need the AM-39 to reach its maximum performance. The second I-220 prototype was eventually fitted with the AM-39, but by that point it had been decided to substantially redesign the aircraft.
       
       
       

      I-220 vs. I-221
       
      I-221/MiG-7
       
      While the I-220 had done well, it had not been able to reach the altitudes its designers had hoped for. Numerous changes would be required to get the best possible performance out of the airframe.
       
      The most obvious area for improvement was the engine. Rather than the AM-38F, an AM-39A with a turbocharger was installed. Not only was the AM-39 more powerful than the AM-38, but the twin turbocharger would allow the engine to continue developing power at altitude. Additionally, the wingspan was increased further, to 13 meters. Armament was reduced to two ShVAK cannons, to save weight. Significantly, the I-221 was fitted with a pressurized cockpit, to allow the pilot to survive at extreme altitude.
       
      By the time the I-221 made its first flight in December 1943, the Ju-86 threat had disappeared. One of the high-altitude intruders had been intercepted by a Yak-9PD (a high-altitude version of the Yak-9 designed and built in three weeks), though it had not been destroyed, overflights ceased. Nevertheless, the Yak-9PD was very much an interim solution, armed with only one ShVAK and requiring 25 minutes to climb to 12000 meters. So, development of the I-221 continued.
       
      The test program of the I-221 was cut very short. On the eighth flight of the aircraft, in February 1944, the pilot bailed out at altitude, after seeing flames coming from the turbocharger and smoke in the cockpit. The pilot survived unharmed, but obviously the I-221 was completely destroyed.
       
      I-222/MiG-7
       
       

      Side view of I-222. via ruslet.webnode.cz
       
      The I-222 was a continued development of the I-221. Not only did it have several additional performance improvements, but it was the closest of MiG's high altitude fighters to a “production ready” aircraft. The AM-39A engine was replaced with a more powerful AM-39B, with twin turbo-superchargers, plus a new four-bladed propeller. An improved intercooler was also installed (clearly visible under the central fuselage). To improve the I-222's potential utility as a combat aircraft, 64mm of armored glass was installed in the windscreen, and the cockpit pressure bulkheads were reinforced with armor plate. The fuselage contours were also modified to give the pilot better rearward visibility. Armament was two B-20 cannons, replacing the ShVAKs.
       
      The I-222 made its first flight in May 1944. Relatively little testing was done before the aircraft went to the TSAGI wind tunnel for further refinement. It emerged in September and underwent further testing. Test flights proved that the I-222 had truly exceptional performance. A speed of 691 km/hr was reached, quite respectable for a piston-powered aircraft. The truly astonishing performance figure was the ceiling of 14500 meters, well in excess of any German aircraft (save for the rare and latecoming Ta-152H).
       
      Though the I-222 could likely have been put into production, Soviet authorities assessed (correctly) that by late 1944 there was little threat from high-altitude German aircraft. Nuisance flights by Ju-86s were of little consequence, and German bomber programs such as the He-274 universally failed to bear fruit. Testing of the I-222 continued through late 1945, when the program was cancelled.
       
       
      I-224/Mig-7
       

      As can be seen the I-224 is similar to the I-222. From OKB MiG by Butowski and Miller
       
      The I-224 was a development of the I-222 with an improved AM-39FB engine. Several other minor improvements, such as an improved propeller and modified cooling system. The new aircraft first flew in September 1944. After five flights, it was heavily damaged in an emergency landing. Difficulties continued after the aircraft was repaired in December; the engine had to be replaced in February due to the presence of metal particles in the oil.
       
      Like the I-222, the I-224 demonstrated very good performance at altitude, also climbing to over 14000 meters and recording speeds over 690 km/hr. But by now, it was October 1945, and the war was over. It was decided to fit the I-224 with a fuel-injected AM-44 engine. This was not completed until July of 1946, and by then the time of the piston-engine fighter had passed. Both the I-222 and I-224 programs were shut down in November.
       
      I-225/MiG-11
       

      From OKB MiG by Butowski & Miller
       
      The I-225 was born from the second I-220 prototype. Although the I-225 was still designed for operation at high-altitude, it was decided not to optimize the aircraft for such extreme heights as the I-222 and I-224. It was hoped that this would allow for a higher top speed and heavier armament, among other improvements.
       
      A turbocharged variant of the AM-42 engine (similar to that used on the Il-10 ground attack aircraft) was fitted, providing 2200 horsepower at takeoff. The pressurized cabin was deleted to save weight, and allow the cockpit to be optimized for better visibility. Armament was the same as the I-220; four ShVAK cannons. Armor was added to the windscreen, as well as the pilot's headrest. Improved instrumentation and a new radio system was also added.
       
      As predicted, the I-225 had exceptional performance. The aircraft was capable of speeds in excess of 720 km/hr, and demonstrated good handling characteristics. Unfortunately, the first I-225 prototype was lost after only 15 flights, due to an engine fire.
       
      A second prototype was completed with an AM-42FB engine, and first flew in March 1945. This second prototype was fitted with four B-20 cannons instead of ShVAKs, This prototype was also reported to be capable of over 720 km/hr, as well as able to climb to 5000 meters in under 4 minutes. However, due to continued vibrations, the AM-42 was replaced with an AM-44 in January 1946. This did not solve the issues though, and the I-225, like its predecessors, was not selected for production. All work on the I-225 was shut down in March 1947.
       
       
       
      Remarks
       
      While none of the advanced MiG-3 variants entered production, they did provide the Mikoyan-Gurevich bureau with valuable engineering and design experience. In a different world, one might imagine that some of their designs could have found a niche. The I-210/1 and I-230/1 would have little reason to be built in a world where Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters exist in the way they did. However, if Germany or another enemy had a developed strategic bombing arm, then the I-220 series fighters could have found a use. Either way, by 1945, it was clear that jet aircraft were the future. Even the Soviets, who had a relatively late start on jet engines, quickly developed aircraft like the MiG-9 and Yak-15 whose performance exceeded any of the MiG-3 variants.
       
       
       
      Sources:
       
      OKB MiG, a History of the Design Bureau and its Aircraft, by Piotr Butowski and Jay Miller
       
      http://www.airvectors.net/avmig3.html
       
      http://www.aviastar.org/air/russia/a_mikoyan-gurevich.php
       
      https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/ 
      (I-230, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages)
       
      http://www.airwar.ru/fighterww2.html
      (I-230, I-231, I-210, I-211, I-220, I-221, I-222, I-224, and I-225 pages)
       
      http://soviethammer.blogspot.com/2015/02/mig-fighter-aircraft-development-wwii.html
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
×