Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

@Collimatrix

@Serge

Even Viktor Murakhovskiy said basically same thing i said about BMPT

Quote

.../

   "In order to timely detect tank-dangerous targets, primarily anti-tank systems - both man portable and mobile [vehicle-mounted] - the BMPT must have reconnaissance means with better characteristics than tanks" explained the editor-in-chief of the journal Arsenal of the Fatherland, Victor Murakhovsky.

   But today, according to the expert, for its reconnaissance capabilities, the BMPT does not exceed the means of monitoring and controlling the fire of the tanks.
"That is, we get the same vehicle with the same capabilities - a panoramic sight, thermal imaging module and so on, as the main battle tank," Murakhovsky said.

 

   But the firepower of the tank significantly exceeds the BMPT, emphasizes the specialist. It has a 125-mm gun with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile and an GL-ATGM launched through the barrel, and the missile is inside the protected internal space, unlike the BMPT, where these ATGMs are placed openly.

 

   In the BMPT the crew is 5 people, in the tank - 3, and this can not be attributed to the advantages of the BMPT, the interlocutor stresses.

   According to Murakhovsky, this is a bit too much for a AFV, which in general is considered not even the main combat unit, but a support vehicle. Moreover, now the crews of armored combat vehicles are equipped with contract servicemen, and this ultimately leads to an increase in the cost of operating machinery.

 

He also added this point against BMPT:

Quote

   "Finally, a very important factor is that the BMPT is more expensive than a tank today," Viktor Murakhovsky emphasizes. As a result, it becomes clear why the Ministry of Defense could not decide on the role and place of the BMPT.

 

and about BMPTs smashing some dirt in Syria and suddenly becoming "combat prooven"

Quote

   "If we talk about a real battle in the course of local conflicts, then in this conflict vast majority of cases is used not our organizational and staff structures, not our servicemen, or our combat command and control systems, so the results of the combat use of technology in the course of local conflicts must be treated critically. That is, there is experience, but it is very limited, "notes Murakhovsky.

   "Therefore, before the full study of all the circumstances to the issues of combat use of BMPT should be approached with a certain degree of caution," the expert believes.

 

Source:

http://discussio.ru/technologies/dorozhe-tanka-chto-ne-tak-s-bmpt-terminator?utm_source=warfiles.ru

I also want to point out that this article was posted 30.05.2018, so i didn't took my points from it.

Share this post


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

Even Viktor Murakhovskiy said basically same thing i said about BMPT

 

He also added this point against BMPT:

 

and about BMPTs smashing some dirt in Syria and suddenly becoming "combat prooven"

 

Source:

http://discussio.ru/technologies/dorozhe-tanka-chto-ne-tak-s-bmpt-terminator?utm_source=warfiles.ru

It seems like in this article Murakhovskiy basically repeats what he said about BMPT back in late 2000s on Otvaga forum - there http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=20&p=13#p4615 and in other threads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats is really old posts, from 2009. Well, UVZ BMPT didn't changed from those times until now, so his points are valid even 10 years later.

 

Also, here is translation of his post, linked above:

Quote

   We need machines for fire support on both light and heavy chassis. I do not mind the BMPT in principle. I do not understand its role (in its current form) in the existing system of weapons and in combat order. As a machine of fire support for tanks, it is defective due to the same restrictions on reconnaissance abilities as tanks, but significantly lower capability to defeat typical targets. It does not replace infantry with any parameter. The system turned out to have a very limited functionality (completely overlapping with the tank), unclear tasks, high cost, requiring significant resources to operate.
   The road to tanks is cleared by artillery and aviation, the infantry directly supports them. The infantry itself needs direct fire support on the battlefield. Modern tanks, sharpened to fight with their own kind, do not fully have such an ability. In addition, they can not always be in the right place at the right time. The infantry needs a fire support machine integrated into its organizational structures at the unit level, designed to combat targets that are dangerous primarily for the infantry itself: fire points [MG nests] and structures, infantry in cover, etc. Functionally, such a machine (in the variant on a heavy chassis) is an approximate analogue of the German Sturmgeshutze of the WWII period. On a lightweight chassis, it is possible to create a fire support vehicle with high fire performance for low-intensity conflicts, reconnaissance and raid operations, amphibious operations, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Thats is really old posts, from 2009. Well, UVZ BMPT didn't changed from those times until now, so his points are valid even 10 years later.

 

Also, here is translation of his post, linked above:

 

Ironically, the BMP-3 with its 100mm fits that fire support role very well. And now they are going to replace that with the 57mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Ironically, the BMP-3 with its 100mm fits that fire support role very well. And now they are going to replace that with the 57mm.

Well, he was speaking about 2 versions of BMPT - on a heavy and on light chassis. BMP-3 turret/Bakhcha-U - like systems was installed on one of Soviet prototypes of BMPT, after all. 

Share this post


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

BMP-3 turret/Bakhcha-U - like systems was installed on one of Soviet prototypes of BMPT, after all. 

 

Pic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

bmpt%20var.A.jpg

 

Here it is with the other two.

image003.jpg

 

Ohh, Obj. 781 and 787. I thought he was talking about a T-72/90 hull with a Bakhcha turret. 

 

Thanks anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BMP-1 modernisation program - Basurmanin.

tAnHF.jpg

 

Quote

Vehicle was equipped with a modern FCS, automatic target tracking and a thermal imager.

/.../

Combat unit is equipped with a combined sight TKN-4GA with a thermal imager. The gun can use programmable shells.

Not as terrible as i thought, if thermal imager, better FCS and programmable shells will be presented on actual modernized vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But no AT missiles!!!! Because every upgrade of the BMP1 (and the original) has a missile!!! That’s what’s missing.  I wish they would go for the Kluiver turret.  

Is there any missile option for the BTR-82 turret?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

But no AT missiles!!!! Because every upgrade of the BMP1 (and the original) has a missile!!! That’s what’s missing.  I wish they would go for the Kluiver turret.  

Is there any missile option for the BTR-82 turret?

I heard that ATGM launcher is planned for Basurmanin, but no official info that I saw.

 

I don't like Kliver turret, all missiles are exposed. If it was modernized, than maybe yes. Although it could become heavier that this turret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the heavy point you are right, but from the looks of it and that the 30mm gun in the Kluiver turret is “reninforced” are things I like about it. 

Another option could be the modernised BMD-2 turret. 

From some BTR-82 shooting videos I watched the big gun wasn’t quite accurate! 

There was too much  dispersion. 

Perhaps BTR is wheeled, but that’ not the main cause for not so accuracy I guess?

There was also a BTR turret with the reinforcement for the main gun some years ago, but nothing new about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

From the heavy point you are right, but from the looks of it and that the 30mm gun in the Kluiver turret is “reninforced” are things I like about it. 

Another option could be the modernised BMD-2 turret. 

From some BTR-82 shooting videos I watched the big gun wasn’t quite accurate! 

There was too much  dispersion. 

Perhaps BTR is wheeled, but that’ not the main cause for not so accuracy I guess?

There was also a BTR turret with the reinforcement for the main gun some years ago, but nothing new about it. 

I posted a photo of that BTR in this thread, AFAIK no noticeable results of additional metal structure around gun were measured.

Yeah, 2A72 isn't that accurate in a BTR-82 turret. BMD-2 turret was considered in 90s for BMP-1, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, T___A said:

5f0RxLT.jpg

 

The SU-122-54 is a very interesting vehicle...one of my favorites. It was a big deal back in the 1960s and was almost completely missed by the US/NATO intel agencies. Had it been given a chance, it could have been a very important weapon for the Soviet Army during the Cold War. 

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 LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • 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.
       
×