The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[LoooSeR]

Quote

KAMAZ-53949 Typhoon-K 4x4 with RP-377VM1 jammer mounted on roof now in Syria, Ghouta.

 

[SuperComrade]

There is a very brief clip here of T-54 obr. 1949 g. tanks operating from a railway platform car that I've never seen before
 

 

[alanch90]

Hi im new to this forum and i found the debate on the BMPT very interesting. I think that in this debate there are two levels or aspects that should be discussed separatedly. From now on i will refer to BMPT concept as Tank Support Fighting Vehicle (TSFV).

Firstly, the theoretical need for such a dedicated vehicle and the economical and logistical cost of it. So far, two armies have recognized the need for a specialized tank support vehicle which are Russia and Israel based on their experiences in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza in asymmetrical type warfare. In that sense a TSFV should provide defense primarily against enemy infantry in the same way a SPAAG provides air defense, i like to think about it as a "bodyguard" for tanks. It has been said that Infantry and their IFVs can fulfill this role very efficiently, which is true (BTW, in the conflicts aforementioned, tanks  suffered casualties when they were in poor and often non existent coordination with infantry), by definition infantry is one of the most multipurpose units for ground warfare.  However, mechanized infantry also has its limitations: in case of an ambush the moment  infantry dismounts they instantly become easier targets to enemy than tanks, in case the infantry doesn't dismount and chooses to fight from within their IFV  they can´t be nowhere near as effective with their weapons and also IFVs have lesser protection levels than tanks. In both  theoretical cases, we would end up with 3-4 tank crewmen, 7-9 infantry dismounts  plus 3 IFV crewmen in danger for a total of  13-16 possible cassualties.  If you replace the IFV with a TSFV you get not only less people involved but also better protected and with superior firepower. From that perspective and for that specific mission, a TSFV makes sense and is preferable over mechanized infantry.  

Secondly, about the specific BMPT to be adopted for Russian army. In general, i like it but i think that its far from perfect, i´ll make a list of the things i would change and/or improve:
 

- To navigate either urban or mountainous  terrain you need high maneuverability as well to be able to escape ambushes. This means to be able to NEUTRAL TURN and GOOD REVERSE SPEED, which are two things that T-72/90 can´t do. So BMPT should have had a different transmission system to allow this.

- APS with 360 degree protection. ARENA APS (or a modernized variant) could have been perfect for this and its already available. Can´t believe the russians didn´t equip the BMPT with it. 

- Sensors to locate enemy snipers and ATGM teams. Its not a new technology and could be integrated into the APS.

 

- Better stations for bow gunners. I think that having bigger crews is a good idea, 5 pairs of eyes see a much more than 3 provided the have the correct tools and the right crew layout. In this case, the  bow gunners hatches should have have been rotatable (like old school commanders cuppola) and/or the grenade launchers should have been mounted differently on fully rotatable RCWS. I can imagine several simple solutions to this. Currently the bow gunners and grenade launchers in the BMPT are mostly wasted potential. 

- At last i would have made a slight modifications to the ATGM mounts: perhaps some sort of hard point mounts (like on the wings of attack helicopters and airplanes) to mount not only ATGMs but also MANPADS, rocket pods, flamethrowers, recoiless guns, etc depending on the mission. This way you can give the vehicle much greater flexibility and utility in any scenario outside its specific purpose of providing defense against enemy infantry using guerrilla type tactics. 

About the discussion of main armament: I think that 30mm autocannons are currently the best compromise. Firstly you have logistics commonality with the rest of the armored fleet. Secondly, you can fire up to four types of ammunition. Thirdly, you can carry much more ammo than, lets say a 57mm autocannon. Fourth and very important: the 30mm autocannons don´t protrude much from the vehicle which is a VERY important aspect for urban warfare often overlooked, actually one of the reasons the israelis kept the 120mm L44 gun is because it almost doesn´t protrude much from the Merkava and doesnt hinder as much its ability to take sharp corners in dense cities (or traverse its turret to actually use the gun). 

TLDR: I think that the concept behind the BMPT has solid foundations but the actual BMPT to be adopted, while overall good, can be improved a lot.

Sorry for my english, its clear that it isn´t my mother language.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

You wouldn't want your infantry too close to a 120mm+ gun when it fires either.

[alanch90]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You wouldn't want your infantry too close to a 120mm+ gun when it fires either.

True. And also its easier for infantry to work in proximity with 30mm than 57mm BTW.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

T-62 still going strong(ish):

 

[Scolopax]

14 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

T-62 still going strong(ish):

 

Image doesn't work for me, but if it is this one, it is quite an old model.  No add-on armor for turret or hull, and no MG placement apparent.

 

 

[LoooSeR]

11 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Hi im new to this forum and i found the debate on the BMPT very interesting. I think that in this debate there are two levels or aspects that should be discussed separatedly. From now on i will refer to BMPT concept as Tank Support Fighting Vehicle (TSFV).

Firstly, the theoretical need for such a dedicated vehicle and the economical and logistical cost of it. So far, two armies have recognized the need for a specialized tank support vehicle which are Russia and Israel based on their experiences in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Lebanon and Gaza in asymmetrical type warfare. In that sense a TSFV should provide defense primarily against enemy infantry in the same way a SPAAG provides air defense, i like to think about it as a "bodyguard" for tanks. It has been said that Infantry and their IFVs can fulfill this role very efficiently, which is true (BTW, in the conflicts aforementioned, tanks  suffered casualties when they were in poor and often non existent coordination with infantry), by definition infantry is one of the most multipurpose units for ground warfare.  However, mechanized infantry also has its limitations: in case of an ambush the moment  infantry dismounts they instantly become easier targets to enemy than tanks, in case the infantry doesn't dismount and chooses to fight from within their IFV  they can´t be nowhere near as effective with their weapons and also IFVs have lesser protection levels than tanks. In both  theoretical cases, we would end up with 3-4 tank crewmen, 7-9 infantry dismounts  plus 3 IFV crewmen in danger for a total of  13-16 possible cassualties.  If you replace the IFV with a TSFV you get not only less people involved but also better protected and with superior firepower. From that perspective and for that specific mission, a TSFV makes sense and is preferable over mechanized infantry.  

Secondly, about the specific BMPT to be adopted for Russian army. In general, i like it but i think that its far from perfect, i´ll make a list of the things i would change and/or improve:
 

- To navigate either urban or mountainous  terrain you need high maneuverability as well to be able to escape ambushes. This means to be able to NEUTRAL TURN and GOOD REVERSE SPEED, which are two things that T-72/90 can´t do. So BMPT should have had a different transmission system to allow this.

- APS with 360 degree protection. ARENA APS (or a modernized variant) could have been perfect for this and its already available. Can´t believe the russians didn´t equip the BMPT with it. 

- Sensors to locate enemy snipers and ATGM teams. Its not a new technology and could be integrated into the APS.

 

- Better stations for bow gunners. I think that having bigger crews is a good idea, 5 pairs of eyes see a much more than 3 provided the have the correct tools and the right crew layout. In this case, the  bow gunners hatches should have have been rotatable (like old school commanders cuppola) and/or the grenade launchers should have been mounted differently on fully rotatable RCWS. I can imagine several simple solutions to this. Currently the bow gunners and grenade launchers in the BMPT are mostly wasted potential. 

- At last i would have made a slight modifications to the ATGM mounts: perhaps some sort of hard point mounts (like on the wings of attack helicopters and airplanes) to mount not only ATGMs but also MANPADS, rocket pods, flamethrowers, recoiless guns, etc depending on the mission. This way you can give the vehicle much greater flexibility and utility in any scenario outside its specific purpose of providing defense against enemy infantry using guerrilla type tactics. 

About the discussion of main armament: I think that 30mm autocannons are currently the best compromise. Firstly you have logistics commonality with the rest of the armored fleet. Secondly, you can fire up to four types of ammunition. Thirdly, you can carry much more ammo than, lets say a 57mm autocannon. Fourth and very important: the 30mm autocannons don´t protrude much from the vehicle which is a VERY important aspect for urban warfare often overlooked, actually one of the reasons the israelis kept the 120mm L44 gun is because it almost doesn´t protrude much from the Merkava and doesnt hinder as much its ability to take sharp corners in dense cities (or traverse its turret to actually use the gun). 

TLDR: I think that the concept behind the BMPT has solid foundations but the actual BMPT to be adopted, while overall good, can be improved a lot.

Sorry for my english, its clear that it isn´t my mother language.  

   Welcome to SH!

• Agree on reverse speed/turning.
• Arena have limitations, specifically vertical angles from which it can hit incoming ATGMs. It also creates a rather big "cloud" of fragments
• Well, i covered this - new 360 degr. observation system, thermal imagers, maybe some sort of software to spot movements (one member of otvaga claimed that Armatas have that software) and few others. Changes in FCS, integration in digital battlefield managment system and so on.
• Bow gunners are questinable decision in a first place. I guess i can live with 1 such gunner with control of AGS in RCWS in frontal part of BMPT with ~200 degrees arc. But having for example commander equipped with RCWS would make that additional gunner kind of less usefull.
• Also considered this, Uran-9-style mounts that can elevate above turret and fire above walls or debris, so BMPT can be in cover.

Spoiler

 

 

 

And those mounts can be equipped with ATGMs, RPGs, etc.

 

• 57 cannon i was speaking about can be medium velocity gun (wich will limit it's ability to penetrate with AP rounds) like LShO, mounted in Epokha turret:

 

Although 57 mm high velocity AC isn't that bad vs tank guns length.

[LoooSeR]

Speaking about Uran-9 - apperently it will be shown during Victory Parade

 

[LoooSeR]

 

[LoooSeR]

https://477768.livejournal.com/5489414.html

T-34-85s in the service in the Austrian army

 

Quote

   In 1955, 27 T-34-85 + one towing vehicle without a turret were transferred to Austrian army. In 1956, the first formed tank unit of the Bundeskhir - the 1st training tank battalion of the school of tank forces (1. Panzerschulabteilung der Panzertruppenschule) in Horshing got those tanks. The battalion had two companies - all T-34-85s were in the 1st, and 46 M24 tanks were transferred to the 2nd. In 1957, the 2nd company on the M24 was divided into two - the 2nd and 3rd . In 1958-1959, all T-34-85 and M24 were replaced in the battalion by M47, and in 1960 the battalion was reorganized into the 33rd Tank Battalion of the 9th Tank Brigade.
   17 serviceable T-34-85 were transferred in 1958 from there to the formation of the 1st Panzer Company (Panzerkompanie 1) of the 10th Infantry Battalion of the 3rd Motorized Brigade. In 1960, the brigade was reorganized into the 3rd Panzer Battalion, and its 10th Infantry Battalion was reorganized into the 10th Tank Battalion and in 1960-1961 fully armed M47. On this, as you can understand the actual T-34-85 service in the Bundesheer was over, and all T-34-85 were in storage until formal withdrawal from service in 1964.
   The Austrians write that the T-34-85 were transferred with considerable wear, there there was not enough spare parts, and generally complains about unreliability and small comfort for the crews.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[alanch90]

Spoiler

 

Seems to me that most likely the BMPTs will be organized as a sort of independent battalions in the russian army, to be attached to larger formations only when they need it. Thats why the BMPTs would add work for the "mother formation´s" maintenance units. If thats the case, then the best design choices would be for BMPTs to have maximum commonality with the rest of the armored vehicles present in said formation. Hence, its better to use the ubiquitous 30mm intead of exotic or unique caliber (57mm) and also automotive parts (essentiallly the same as T-90s). 

One aspect that hasn´t been discussed is the training for the BMPT crews. I don´t know if Russia has the specialized facilities  (for example, "fake cities" for urban training) to train such specialized units.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 6:48 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

A tower of guns on tracks.....Sounds good to me! 

 

 

Bugger me.....They actually built it! 

 

But being the crafty blighters they are, they took the men out of the picture, so nobody has to sit on anyone else's head! 

[Walter_Sobchak]

[LoooSeR]

[LoooSeR]

Quote

On the "Uniform day of military acceptance" on April 18, 2018, the general director of OOO VPK, Alexander Krasovitsky, reported on the early transfer of the next batch of BTR-82A armored personnel carriers to MoD.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

Hecking Jewish Kibbutznik farmers reviving a T-34 for the 2nd time. 

They had 2 T-34 tanks captured from the Syrians. One was confiscated by the police, and when they came for the 2nd tank, the Chief of Staff Refael "Raful" Eitan gave them a letter that says "Have fun with this shitty tank".

It was turned into an agricultural tank, and they toyed around with it in all sorts of places.

This time they revive it for the 2nd time, in celebration of Israel's 70th birthday.

The turret is laying somewhere in a playground.

 

 

[Serge]

5 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Lovely 

A tool which worth a fil of its own. 

[LoooSeR]

KAMAZ-53949 Typhoon-K, used for some shopping (photos stolen from otvaga):

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord_James]

Geez this was a long thread to read through, though interesting none the less. 3 things: 

 

1. Relating to the BMPT argument: weren’t there fuel tanks in the hull sides next to the driver? Wouldn’t the extra AGL gunners necessitate the removal of those fuel tank, reducing the range of the vehicle (as there’s no where else you can put the fuel tanks)? 

 

2. Also relating to the BMPT: why not just slave the AGL or MG to the commander’s sight like on the newest T-90M and T-14? Now the commander has a weapon to fight with, which is an advantage in urban combat (multiple weapon systems firing in multiple directions). 

 

2.5 Since urban combat requires different weapons firing in many directions, wouldn’t something like a T-28/T-35 be somewhat effective for urban combat? I mean, don’t use those tanks specifically, but the concept is somewhat sound... right? 

 

3. What ever happened with that T-series identification guide @LoooSeR? I didn’t see it anywhere on the forum, unless I missed it (which is a real possibility). If you forgot about it, I could help make it: 2 of my classes end this week so I will have some more free time, and I will be finished on May 3rd, which will totally free up my schedule until summer courses start (May 18th I believe). 

[Scolopax]

22 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

3. What ever happened with that T-series identification guide @LoooSeR? I didn’t see it anywhere on the forum, unless I missed it (which is a real possibility). If you forgot about it, I could help make it: 2 of my classes end this week so I will have some more free time, and I will be finished on May 3rd, which will totally free up my schedule until summer courses start (May 18th I believe). 

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/961-communist-tracked-boxes-with-pancake-turrets-dont-you-dare-to-confuse-glorious-t-80-battle-tank-with-kharkovite-t-64-tractor-that-doesnt-work/

[Lord_James]

25 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/topic/961-communist-tracked-boxes-with-pancake-turrets-dont-you-dare-to-confuse-glorious-t-80-battle-tank-with-kharkovite-t-64-tractor-that-doesnt-work/

 

Oh, forgot about that thread, I took it more of as a joke/shitpost thread. Though the T-64 post is still WiP... I was thinking of doing something similar for the warthunder forums, as they’re moving into modern territory. Could educate some people at least, since Gaijin seems to have boarded the “quantity” and “screw sources” trains. But let’s drop that topic. 

[Scolopax]

I'm not sure if LoooSer had much intent or interest in finishing the rest of them.  He was hung up on the T-72B obr. 89 last I recall.  There wasn't much to write of.

[Walter_Sobchak]

Some lend lease fun.

 

[LoooSeR]

19 hours ago, Lord_James said:

Geez this was a long thread to read through, though interesting none the less. 3 things: 

 

1. Relating to the BMPT argument: weren’t there fuel tanks in the hull sides next to the driver? Wouldn’t the extra AGL gunners necessitate the removal of those fuel tank, reducing the range of the vehicle (as there’s no where else you can put the fuel tanks)? 

 

2. Also relating to the BMPT: why not just slave the AGL or MG to the commander’s sight like on the newest T-90M and T-14? Now the commander has a weapon to fight with, which is an advantage in urban combat (multiple weapon systems firing in multiple directions). 

 

2.5 Since urban combat requires different weapons firing in many directions, wouldn’t something like a T-28/T-35 be somewhat effective for urban combat? I mean, don’t use those tanks specifically, but the concept is somewhat sound... right? 

 

3. What ever happened with that T-series identification guide @LoooSeR? I didn’t see it anywhere on the forum, unless I missed it (which is a real possibility). If you forgot about it, I could help make it: 2 of my classes end this week so I will have some more free time, and I will be finished on May 3rd, which will totally free up my schedule until summer courses start (May 18th I believe). 

1. No.

 

2. I proposed this in my previous posts. Or RCWS similar to 30 mm AC mount on one of test tanks, but with AGS instead of 2A42.

Spoiler

 

Or another proposals from Slovenian company

 

 

2.5. Emm.. this is debatable IMO. Don't have time to write wall of text.

 

3. Nothing, i still have plans but not enough of will. T-72B obr 1989 is kind of lame for that thread. And i still want it to be shitposting-ish/joke thread. Although if you look at waht we are playing thread in Fiction subforum, you will see what is eating my free forum posting time.