Mighty_Zuk

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.

At DEFEXPO 2018 (Indian defense expo) RAFAEL showed mockups of a T-90 tank with a Trophy system, as well as a Bradley.

It should be noted that RAFAEL also offers a version of its Samson turret with the Trophy integrated into it, rather than mounted on the hull.

Here is how a turret with APS looks like:

India also showed its WhAP with a BMP-2 turret:

Here it is with an Elbit UT-30 Mark 2 turret:

Hydro-pneumatic suspension system on the WhAP but they kinda forgot to cover the wires again...

I believe this is the most suitable place to debate autoloader designs. I personally believe it should be as minimalistic as possible.  What I envision is a tank powered by a hybrid engine, with the bulk of the powerpack sitting at the front-middle, crew capsule in the middle-rear, a rear access hatch, and an unmanned turret being completely overhead, positioned in a way that protects the crew from top attack munitions. For a turret to be designed this way, it will need a very compact autoloader.

Are they sure it's even powered?

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

Apparently the frontal turret armor modules fitted to the Leopard 2A4M CAN are empty and consists of a single armor plate (might be NERA, but I don't see any of the bolts as usually found on the Leopard 2A5's frontal heavy NERA sandwich plates). The description of these photos claims that additional armor can be internally mounted, however there are no signs of attachment points for this.

 

 

Leopard 2A5DK damaged by an IED in Afghanistan:

 

As I previously wrote, he said "not equal", which doesn't mean that the frontal armor protecttion is lower; given that the Abrams has more side armor (more area is covered by the heavy side skirt modules and the turret bustle is fitted with thick composite armor), the quote from Spielberger doesn't need to have any relation to frontal armor protection. I don't see this quote disagreeing with what I wrote earlier.

 

The documents in the Swiss archives are not available to the public yet, see the column "Zugänglichkeit gemäss BGA: In Schutzfrist". However the titles of the document also confirm that the AMX-32, Merkava and the Challenger 1 were considered as optiopns at one point of time.

So that's how they keep a lower weight... Still, the AMAP should provide rather substantial protection according to its advertisement, so even if there are no attachment points we can see, it's probably not just that empty shell.

And since the writer says the Leopard 2 is superior in firepower and mobility to contemporary designs, if it really was better in its protection then it would be said to be superior in that department as well. Saying "not entirely equal" in that context infers slightly worse.

2 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

   I saw that video, but i have doubts about it, could be from previous strikes (like Shayrat). Also, 7 missiles with max reported 14 dead means 2 killed per missile? From photos 2-3 impacts were noticed.  

 

They are not "militants", they were official IRGC\Army personal.

 

Assad is not ruthless dictator and not somebody that can prevent any uprising, which is evidend by previous 6-7 years.

 

Toppling Bashar will not make things harder for Iran, probably even easier.

In some of the flashes we saw some repeated explosions, and the camera tilted frequently so it's very likely some targets were hit more than once to confirm destruction and breach of the air defense.

2-3 per missile is not necessarily bad. In Gaza in 2014 for example, there was a total of 1 person (both civilian and militant) per more than 10 missiles, aerial bombs, and HE artillery shells. Sometimes hitting their infrastructure is more important.

Assad can prevent further major uprisings. He didnt know better back in 2011 and neglected his population, but I'm confident he learned his lesson already.

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.

The good old "senior officials" telling stuff. But they wouldn't be talking to the press if they weren't delivering some message that the establishment wanted to deliver so...

Basically they're saying that if Iran makes a move against Israel, they'll topple Assad. It won't be enough to bring down the whole regime, but it will create new dynamics between the new president and Iran, as well as between them both and Israel. 

To better understand this, it comes under the context of Iran threatening Israel with reaction over the recent bombing of the T4 airbase, where several Iranian militants died.

Quote

If the Iranians act against Israel from Syrian territory, Syrian President Bashar Assad and his regime will be those that pay the price." 
That is the clear message from senior officials in the Israeli defense establishment and IDF after the top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei called a strike on the Syrian T4 airbase "Israel's crime" and said the alleged act would "not remain without response."

 

"Assad's regime and Assad himself will disappear from the map and the world if the Iranians do try to harm Israel or its interests from Syrian territory," said senior officials in the defense establishment. 

"No matter what the price, we will not allow Iran to have a permanent [military] foothold in Syria. We have no other choice," said Liberman.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Senior-security-officials-If-Iran-acts-against-Israel-well-topple-Assad-549457

I can't say I approve of this. Syria still needs some ruthless dictator to prevent any uprising and maintain a level of stability. Instability aids none in this region. But maybe they know better than me on whether this will destabilize Syria too far or not.

2 hours ago, Serge said:

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

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

2 hours ago, Serge said:

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

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

2 hours ago, Serge said:

Which one ?

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

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

2 hours ago, Serge said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Serge said:

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Serge said:

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

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

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

2 hours ago, Serge said:

No, definitely NO. 

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

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

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

3 BMPTs are equal to 5 MBTs or 5 IFVs. 

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

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

Probably not Delilah but Popeye, or at least some of them were Popeye (due to the damage done to the hangar, as the Popeye's warhead is more than 10 times larger!), and although we hear many 'bangs' that may not have been caught on camera, we definitely see 7 flashes there. It's night time and barely visible, but by looking at the flashes we can tell they're not in the sky but on the ground (hemisphere and flat at the bottom). So the Syrian claim of 100% of the missiles being shot down is wrong, and Russia's claim of only 3 missiles getting through is also wrong. 

Shouldn't an hypersonic missile have some form of air intakes?

Anyway, After selling 12 aircraft to Croatia for $500 million, Israel seems to aim for Colombia as well, for a sale of a roughly similar number of aircraft to replace the IAI Kfir aircraft.

http://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/33778

The Eitan has finished a comprehensive series of mobility trials conducted by MANTAK in pair with the Nahal infantry brigade. The trials have included driving in all types of terrain that exist in Israel, from the northernmost Golan heights with its boulders and deep mud, to the open deserts and dunes of the southern Negev desert. Road tests were also made. This means the baseline version is now almost ready, and the next milestones include testing of the turret, helmet systems, and operational trials. I assume that since the Nahal brigade has been involved for quite a long time now, at least several milestones in the operational trials were also met already, which just shows the merits of concurrency. 

Just a reminder, the Eitan is due to enter service in its finalized version with a turret, APS, and HMDs in the year 2020, and the government has recently approved a program to acquire several hundred vehicles of this type.

Youtube has a higher quality footage now:

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

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

How can AGLs ever be unnecessary? 

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

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

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

Yeah those AGLs are completely unnecessary.

3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

So which do we think there are currently more of in existence.....T-14 Armatas or BM Oplots? 

 

Just curious.

T-14 Armata. Although the Oplot is the only one actually in service, though only in Thailand and not Ukraine.

4 hours ago, Laviduce said:

 source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: https://web.archive.org/web/20070208043716/http://collinsj.tripod.com/protect.htm#13   

How did they even make up these numbers? Some of them seem to be correct, or at least not too far fetched, but many seem to be exaggerated intentionally.

15 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Well, we will see

 

2-Most likely #Israel used the Dolphin Class submarine in this strike, to get safe/ensured results especially after the Syrian air defense managed to down an Israeli F-16 during it last engagement with #Syria.

3-the Dolphin class is capable of launching cruise missile form its torpedo tubes including the tomahawk missile and the Israeli made cruise missiles.
And judging by the numbers of missiles that Syria managed to shot down and the missile that hit its targets
They used 2 subs

4- #Israel used this tactic back in 2013, when they tried to hit a Syrian anti-ship missiles depot (Yakhont) somewhere near #Latakia
Back then Israel used the Dolphin subs to attack.

5- tonight the Syrian Air Defense Forces managed to down 8 missiles as the Syrian state TV stated.
The interception was done by the BUK-Pantsir system.
And I’m waiting for the wreckage images to identify what kind of missile #Israel used (most likely Popeye Turbo SLCM)

2)The number of sorties in Syria hasn't declined since the shooting down of that F-16. In fact, I live in the north (between Haifa and Acre) and I've heard quite a lot of aerial activity today. Unusual amount, that is. Note that at least most of the flights into Syria take off from southern air bases, especially Nevatim, and proceed into Lebanon which means they have to go above the city I live in.

3)8 missiles were said, by the Russian Federation (which is a far more reliable source than Syrian news agencies), to be fired at the T4 base. The Dolphin class submarine has a total capacity of 10 Popeye Turbo missiles - 6 in 533mm tubes, which is its original diameter, and an additional 4 can be stored inside 650mm tubes, and these are stretched and longer range, higher payload variants. Russia said 5 were intercepted, and Syria said 8 were intercepted. So if Syria is right, no missile has landed on the T4 base, which means no casualties and no damage. So no reason to say there was damage if they're right.

4)That is true, however Latakia is closer, and T4 is farther, so the Dolphins probably had to get closer than before to fire the 533mm variant Popeye. And Syria claims to have sunk a Dolphin class submarine in the 2013 incident, so why not now?

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

 Please, this is laughable. Israel never striked any Al-Mukowama personal or Iranian army personal in Syria. "Keeping such arms away from Hezbollah"... when chlorine became such a rare chemical that you can track it? It's like as viable as tracking mortar rounds trafficking from Turkey. It is not that hard to get, in Eastern Ghouta you can find it without much of problems:

Not the actual substance. That would be impossible unless you're talking about something really high profile like Sarin. 

I'm talking about this incident. The site was holding large quantities of long range rockets and it was about to be transferred to Hezbollah control. It was also widely believed to be an R&D facility for chemical weapons, and the existence of rockets in there suggests they were supposed to integrate these long range rockets with chemical warheads in a proper way. Not half assed like the example below.

Iranian personnel, at least, were reported to have been killed in the February strike on the T4 base as well, when the IAF targeted the drones that came from there, as well as the control room.

Quote

 ANNA news in 2013 did a report speaking about militants using tube bombs filled with chlorine, militants during Aleppo liberation used it in their mortar shells, ISIS used it against Iraqis and Syrians on number of occasions.

ISIS-made launcher for shells filled with toxic chemicals.

It is possible to do, but these are mortars after all, and short range rockets. Integration with longer range rockets is the main concern here.

Quote

 I am not speaking about how Iranians managed to sneak ATGMs like Toophans, SPG-armed jeeps, or Iranian T-72S with Kataib Hezbollah and so on to Islamic Resistance through such great Israeli intelligence service that can track couple of bottles of Chlorine. I am not even speaking much about Armored vehicles corps in Quseir that Al-Mukowama use for training their AFV crews for several years, and not far from Israel.

These are all very unimportant weapons. When Israeli army officials talk about the threat that Hezbollah poses, they don't talk about tanks or other combat vehicles, or ATGMs. These are insignificant. So they got a couple more ATGMs. Big deal. They'll probably have to direct them at infantry anyway because most of the ground combat vehicles that participate in offensives are equipped with an APS. So it doesn't matter if they have Kornets, Toophans, and Milans, or older less capable Sagger missiles.

The tanks and AFVs will be easy prey for the air force and armored corps. As well as their cannon artillery.

Their ability, however, to launch thousands of long range rockets deep into Israel, and tens of thousands of short to medium ranged ones, reaching a total of 150,000 rockets of all sorts, thus being able to paralyze the entirety of Israel for a long time, and massively overwhelm the air defense systems, and cause billions of dollars in damage, if not more, is the real threat. And if they'll have chemical weapons, then that just adds a whole new layer of strategic capabilities for Hezbollah.

Tanks, AFVs, ATGMs, assault rifles, ammo etc etc are all low priority because of that. 

Dude what the fuck

I think it's just a coincidence the attack on the T4 airbase was in such proximity to the gas attack.

That airbase was already attacked in February this year.

Russian news report 5 interceptions, Syrians report 8 interceptions. Either way, something hit them and killed numerous Iranians, including an estimated 3 senior commanders or high ranking officers.

On the gas attacks, it's important to note that on this topic a lot of intel comes from Israel, who has a clear policy of keeping such arms away from Hezbollah and preventing Iranian entrenchment in the region, but an unclear but definitely hinted interest of keeping Assad in power while negotiating with Russia to apply leverage to meet its interests. Israel has also acted on its own against Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons in at least one ocassion I remember.

And if we look at the past gas attack, the reaction from the west, and the US in particular, was almost immediate. In this one - they say they dont know yet.

It raises my suspicion that the previous attack was indeed perpetrated by Assad, but this one not.

Though what's the logic behind Jaish gassing themselves and then asking for truce?

Because the Ariete screams "boring".

Also, whomst dareth defend the CR?

Been watching local news (Israel) as per my evening routine and they have mentioned that shortly after the chemical attack the rebel bois or terrorists or whatever, in Douma, asked for a ceasefire or a truce. Cant remember exactly what. So it appears to be quite effective.

They also speculated that he's trying to get deterrence before new assaults into Idlib and Golan which kinda shows this war is coming to an end. Not so much is left to retake now.

To be fair, what are their chances of even acquiring full NBC suits? 

With or without a gas attack, there isn't much room now for a US policy shift in Syria. They've already determined they are going to exit. Not immediately, but soon enough. And in the meantime, they hold ,like, 2 small and almost meaningless outposts in Syria that are more of a political tripmine than anything. Whatever interests they have in the middle east, they can protect them from any of the bases they have in the region, and Syria is just a lost cause for them.

Political clashes and tensions with Russia are not a US interest either. They're just a byproduct of both parties having different interests in the region. It makes absolutely no sense for the US to stage an attack either. 

So even if we assume that Russia and USA, along with their respective proxies on the ground were not responsible or related to the incident in any way, which makes sense to me, why even publicize the whole thing? Only a small portion of the gas attacks in Syria and Iraq have actually made headlines anywhere. I assume only when there were clear interests in doing so.

EDIT: Another way to look at it is that due to Trump's withdrawal announcement, such an attack could force him to make a decision that would either make him appear strong (attack in a way similar to last time) but also inconsistent and unreliable (not actually withdrawing troops and extending their stay), or appear consistent but weak (withdrawal but no attack) and somewhat supportive of a regime that is considered, in the west, to be too brutal. Trump could really use a withdrawal from Afghanistan AND Syria to appease the crowd that doesn't seem very favorable towards him. Russia has either nothing to lose on this one, or a lot, if it would push Assad to do it. I can't really determine which one of them. Either way, the first scenario seems most plausible to me - none of the major parties is responsible.

An Elbit systems' light recoil mortar in a US base in Syria. They call it the XM905.