alanch90

2 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Oh, I know *a superstructure* is required for the crew working space, but that poorly thought out thin steel box with basically no sloping (which results in the step) is a sad excuse for the design. At the very least, they could have fitted large composite blocks on the front of the step to at least attempt to provide protection.

Fully agree, for starters it is based on a tank with no composite armor so protection could not be relevant anyway. However now knowing the background of the company it is clear to me that this vehicle is just a statement to get into the spotlight and get the public talking about them, and in that evidently they succeded.  Because its not like the PLA is preparing for a "Grozni scenario".

1 minute ago, TokyoMorose said:

I actually do like the turret of that, as far as BMPT-type turrets go, and the idea of having a large amount of small missiles for precision shots on targets that don't justify the big ATGMs also seems like a good idea. But that turret belongs on a VT-5 (maybe the older, heavier, but cheaper VT-2 if they really want to save money...) chassis, and needs to ditch that silly superstructure design.

When you check the interior layout you realize that superstructure is necesary for the crew working space (lots of big screens and stuff to manage all the drones and smart weapons). Still, it weakens the already low protection of the vehicle.

22 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

 

I don't think you can count the Carmel until it actually exists.

True. However we have that horribly animated video from some months ago, showing the concept of a vehicle specialized in assymetrical warfare.

This "QN-506" is now the third "assymetrical combat specialized" vehicle together with the BMP-T and the future "Carmel".

Although this chinese vehicle being based on a T-54 derivative chassis i wonder about its protection capabilities while its weapon systems suggest a direct combat role against enemy infantry. The design seems contradictory.

But on the other side, it is equipped with technology (surveliance drones, for example) that the BMP-T should have.

The concept behind this new vehicle class is making its way to armies with close to no experience in hardcore urban combat. Interesting.

Well, doing guestimates is ususally the best we can do about modern systems. But we have some data.

When it comes to protection analysis, hull armor is secondary to turret armor. As we all know, most of the shots in tank-tank engagement impact the turret. According to this guy

The tank has new armor on the hull. It doesnt mean thats to counter 125mm apfsds though.  But on the other hand, this upgraded armor package is the first one in almost 2 decades, im sure that they managed to make armor thats either more weight efficient (for the claimed protection against IEDs, for example) or more effective vs conventional threats, or both. To what extent is up for guessing. 

 

Both the Svinets 1-2 and Relikt have been introduced recently thats true, but that introduction was way long overdue. They were designed around the early 2000´s. While some improvements can be made, i would expect them to be negligible. Those designs are so old that there is data about their performance.
For the APFSDS rounds we have this table, supposedly from Tula which claims a penetration at a 60º target from 2km of 370mm RHA for Svinets 1 and 330mm RHA for Svinets 2, and at minimum double those figures for non-sloped targets (for some reason im unable to attach the table in the post). Both figures imply that they can defeat the original M1A2, but we dont know how effective would they be against the first SEP, let alone the SEPv3. However lets say that both Svinets would penetrate a maximum of 800mm, for the Abrams, having its armor upgraded up to that figure wouldn´t be much of a stretch after 2 armor upgrades and almost 3 decades for research and development (since the introduction of M1A2 armor package).

About the Relikt, usually its claimed to be twice as effective vs KE than Kontakt 5, so around 40 percent decrease in APFSDS penetration. Said ERA is so good that it renders M829A3 useless, and thats something admitted by ATK in the brochure about the new round while also claiming the capability to defeat Relikt with the A4:
 

19 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

Given the changes made from M1A2 SEP v2 to M1A2C (SEP v3), how does it counter the T-90M? Aside of the unknown armor improvements, nothing in the upgrade seems to be focused on tank-vs-tank combat.

In terms of armor i think its likely that it can resist Svinets 1-2. Those rounds are not a new design and given their date and also their reported performance i think that they were meant to counter the armor in the original M1A2 (600mm vs KE) or the first SEP upgrade. I find it likely that the newest abrams armor was designed to counter these rounds.

However i was referring more on the M829A4 which is claimed by ATK to be able to defeat Relikt protected tanks.

Overall, seems to me that the SEPv3 as a whole was meant to not loose overmatch to the newest russian tanks in service.

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

T-90M is very nice I think, and not inferior at all to any Leopard-2 variant, Challenger-2, or M1A2 SEPv2. The most recent Abrams upgrade is better though.

Dont get me wrong, T-90M is indeed a very nice tank. But SEPv3 already counters it (and that tank is alrady available in larger numbers) and so will future Leo 2 with improved 120mm gun and APFSDS. If the russians would have adopted the T-90M back in 2012 when the T-90MS was announced that investment would have been more valuable in time. 

However, the russian army standard is the T-72B3, well inferior to T-90M. 

In all fairness, mounting the 152mm gun onto the T-14 only will make sense once we see what type of tanks come out of current western development. And that´s not gonna happen at least for a decade away from now. For the time being, new 125mm ammo will do againts 3rd gen tanks.  Anyhow, the current situation is that the bulk of russian tank fleet is qualitatively overmatched by everything west of the Ukraine-Poland frontier. The russian goverment already decided that this situation is not desirable and hence they took the ambitious goal of replacing most of their tank fleet with T-14 and now we now that they can´t achieve that. On the other hand, their "Plan B" (modernization of current tanks) is a short-sighted one, it does not solve the qualitive inferiority and in a few years the gap with western tanks will again increase. Thats why i see as increasingly likely that in the coming years we will see an "intermediate tank" between 3rd gen and Armata platform, an overhauled T-90 mounting downgraded of simplified Armata  features ,which will be cleared for export and most likely will be a  (much needed) commercial success. Something similar happened with the adoption of T-62 and later the T-72, also both UVZ tanks. 
 
The russians have the very big advantage that much of the developmental work they would need to do for this hipothetic new tank has already been done in the last of the soviet days. Much of the aspects that would need redisigning in a T-90 chassis to create a new "T-X2" tank have already been realized in the Object 187: It had a redisigned hull armor, mounted the 2A82 and also could use the engines in service with T-72 and T-90 as well as the engine in use with the T-14. In my opinion its a no-brainer.
 

i think that announcement on the part of UVZ has to be read as a commercial pitch and not as a critique of the T-14 itself. As an argentinian this smells to me as a cheap trick on the part of UVZ to get more money. Why? Ill explain:

- UVZ was expecting big contracts for T-14. That didn´t happen and the MOD argued that aquiring the T-14  en masse wasn´t worth because they can get things done with current tank fleet. In other words, the T-14 capabilities werent superior enough compared to other 125mm armed tanks to justify the price tag. On the other hand, arming the T-14 with 125mm had other economic and logistical advantages and should have been easier for the transitional period until the new tank was adopted by the majority of units.

- Having been a commercial letdown, i expect that UVZ would have it be pretty difficult to export the T-14 (because its brand new technology, etc.), hence they are not making any money out of the design. The only solution from their point of view would be to offer the tank again to the  russian MOD.  For that, they have to make something to answer to MOD arguments to reject the tank in the first place, making it distinctively different from 125mm tanks in service so installing a new gun is an obvious choice. In addition, to secure even more funds for development from the government, UVZ is promoting this as the creation of a "new tank" instead of a modification of the already developed Armata.

Finally im surprised that UVZ hasn´t created a T-72/90 tank with the T-14 turret, like they did with Koalitsiya-SV. That should be way more attractive in terms of price for the government and also easier to get clearance for export.

That interview is just gold

On 6/18/2018 at 11:21 AM, LoooSeR said:

Module and some stats:

  Hide contents

 

Interesting, they are just giving out the system reaction time. BTW is there a way to translate?

I remember that some months ago in this forum we had a debate in the russian BMP-T. Everyone agreed that a vehicle designed to operate in assymetrical contexts should have a specialized FCS/sensor system, seems that with the Barak the IDF is answering that very issue.

3 hours ago, asaf said:

would appreciate if someone would translate this article from hebrew to english

 

https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5312859,00.html#autoplay

 

about the new Merkava 4 barak that suppose to be ready in 2021

IDF uploaded this on its spanish youtube channel
 

Ask me what you want translated to english


Also an interview with a commander about Gaza and the new tank, i will translate from 0:39
"At the same time we are developing a new Merkava model which will enter service in the Armored Corps within the next 3 years called (Merkava) Tank 4 Barak.
This tank will bring many advanced characteristics and will introduce the most advanced technologies a tank can be equipped with. This way the tank will function better on the ground. This enables the crew to operate it during changing situations, be even more lethal and contribute significantly to the Grond Forces of the IDF.
We´ve been working to incorporate this new technologies and adapt our techniques and practices to them. I´m convinced that in case we have to use our Ground Forces, we´ll know how to do it in a focused, pragmatic manner  and we´ll be successful."

All in all seems that the Merkava development heads even more in towards asymmetric warfare and further away from "tank dueling". 

10 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Still in action.

You cant kill a classic i guess

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.

8 minutes ago, Xlucine said:

 

The turret base does protrude by about 6-12" or so above the roofline (don't be fooled by the fake roof that's stood off the hull, this is visible on the bow gunners hatches), which would save a small but significant amount of weight. Holding a ruler up the screen I figure it's about 0.3-0.6 m^2, so something on the order of a tonne for a 2.4 t/m^2 armour array (random number, corresponds to 30cm solid steel so around the right ballpark). This is just a ballpark for the frontal armour, the upper row of side armour could also probably be dispensed with for a flatter turret saving further weight.

Right. Lets call it a "low profile turret", a lower tech solution that saves more money than weight. 

Consider this metaphor: Pres. Trump´s bodyguards to perform their tasks need to be not only as agile or fast as he is, but rather much more since they are not just to take a walk in the park with him but have a different purpose. Thats why a TSFV in a given environment needs to be as mobile as the units it is escorting but that is just the MINIMUM requirement (whe could also arge that BMPT should be as mobile as a BMP 3 too, since i believe it can go very fast in reverse). Also, i don´t think that the TSFV mission will consist only of escorting MBTs. Remember that american tank destroyers in WWII  were used in a variety of tasks that were in hand, not only hunting down incoming german panzers (actually in very few instances they played that specific role). An armored unit commander in combat will use the BMPTs (or whatever tools he has in hand) in the most practical way possible. Imagine that you are a BMPT platoon commander in a "Grozni" or "Black Hawk Down" scenario: you begin your day with the mission of escorting tanks from A to B. Then you get the emergency assignment of supporting an infantry unit that is being ambushed at C, after that  go rescue a downed helicopter crew at D, and so on. That would be a hellish  but feasible scenario which requires the most flexibility built into the design of the vehicle, meaning among other things to be able to move perhaps to places that MBTs  where not designed to go. Thats why i stand on my opinon of the BMPT needing to have neutral turn and good reverse speed (although i do recognize that maximizing parts commonality with existing MBTs is also a huge plus ). 
 

I´m not so sure about that. The only kind off important disadvantage of T-14 layout is that the commander can´t get an unrestricted top view  of the battlefield when he pops out of his hatch. That is not a big deal in open field battlefields but in urban environment seems to me thats a different case. On the BMPT itself, the layout would not benefit much from having a fully unmanned weapons stations in terms of weight saving since the commander and gunner are already placed under the hull roof, there is no armor "wasted" in protecting the weapons themselves. So its kind off in the middle situation where you get top vision for the commander and also a lightweight weapons station. 
About the 2 "extra" crewmembers they are usefull or not depending  on what you use them for. Granted, everyone agrees that the grenade launchers being forward  fixed, and the lack of fully rotating vision devices represent a lot of wasted potental. But still you have 2 more pairs of eyes, arms and legs that in a dynamic and unpredictable battlefield such as a city may come really handy, provided you have the creativity to make full use of them. For startes, during extended and utterly extenuating "working hours" either in combat, patrolling or even providing area security it would be very nice if you could make the bow gunners rotate with the driver and main gunner so that they can have a little rest: a fresh crewman is a much more useful crewman for whatever task he may have. In another example that i just came up, you can order the bow gunners to dismount for various reasons (go peep around the street corner, go help evacuate a damaged vehicles crew, etc.)  and the BMPT would still be fully functional. Heck, a platoon of BMPTs could produce its own organic squad of dismounts.

Sorry for this, i wanted to delete this post but im kind off a noob when in comes to forums.

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.

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.

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.