Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

VPZ

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    293

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

 Content Type 

Posts posted by VPZ

  3. Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Lord_James said:

    Different nations can have different classifications for their tanks, regardless of form or function. If the Russians want to classify the 2S25(M) as a tank destroyer, or a gun carrier, or a light amphibious tank, or a god damn attack helicopter with tracks, they can do that. It can LOOK LIKE a vehicle that we would classify as something else, but to the nation that uses said vehicle, it is whatever they classify it. 

     

    It's good that in other countries light tanks are not called "tank destroyers".

    The thing is that some people believe that Sprut was made for destroying MBTs, but it wasn't (this fact is mentioned in the article I quoted).

  4. Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

    Not only T-90A.

     

     

    Maybe some new modifications of T-72 can. But we know nothing about Sprut - what types of shells does it use? Even most Russian MBTs can't use Lekalo. And Sprut is just a light tank - it shouldn't fight with MBTs, as it said in the article I quoted. The real "tank destroyers" are ATGM-carriers, or maybe Sheridan (at least, it had 152-mm gun).

  5. Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    12 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

       2S25 production was started in 2006, during which there were no 125 mm APFSDS shells in serial production that could not fit into autoloader, IIRC. Question about being able to fire newer shells is more relevant to 2S25M.

     

     

    There are no relatively new Russian APFSDS in the list. Maybe this information is false, but we know that some Russian tanks (actually, all tanks except T-90A) have restrictions on shells length.

     

    Quote

     It can, question is how reliably and from which projection/range

     

    Any modern MBT surpasses Sprut in all aspects except mobility.

  6. Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Ramlaen said:

     

    Do you have any source on whether the Sprut has the older or newer autoloader?

     

    According to Wikipedia it can't use relatevly modern APFSDS.

    https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2С25

     

    14 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

       Thats why thread is called Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers, as sometimes a line between TD and tank/GC is not too obvious. Sprut-SD is designated as airborne self-propelled anti-tank gun, so we can call it TD.

     

    But Sprut can't destroy any modern tank, it has no advantages over them.

  7. Modern Tank Destroyers / Gun Carriers

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    Несмотря на то, что самоходная пушка 2С25 относится к классу противотанковых САУ, по своим возможностям и спектру решаемых задач «Спрут-СД» является лёгким танком. Причина, по которой САУ 2С25 изначально классифицирована как противотанковая пушка, состояла в том, что заказывающим управлением опытно-конструкторских работ являлось ГРАУ, не имевшее полномочий для разработки танков. 

     

    Google Translate:

     

    Despite the fact that the 2S25 self-propelled gun belongs to the class of anti-tank SAU, the Sprut-SD is a light tank in its capabilities and range of tasks to be solved. The reason for which the SAU 2S25 was originally classified as an anti-tank gun was that the ordering management of the development work was the GRAU, which did not have the authority to develop tanks.

  10. Israeli AFVs

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    2 hours ago, MRose said:

     

    You don't think the two independent RCWS are significant? From where I'm sitting it looks like the IDF wants something along the lines of the Terminator's ability to fight in an urban and mountainous environment for the Carmel program. Why else the focus on suppressing multiple targets?

     

    A was talking about chassis. But this vehicle concept is quite strange (for now). Maybe it will be a light/medium tank (to replace Merkava).

  12. Israeli AFVs

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    36 minutes ago, Adraste said:

    The following news should warm the hearts of every IDF armor's enthusiasts:

     

    According to the latest bulletin of the DSGA Agency, the US has approved Namer engine sale to Israel, 270 "APC-MT883" without transmission for $238 million. 

    https://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/israel-namer-armored-personnel-carrier-apc-mt883-power-packs-less-transmissions

     

    If the DSCA is correct (and I bet they are) , that would mean the Namer will benefit from the same powerpack as the Merkava MK4. The smaller and more powerful MTU engine will allow the Namer to keep the pace with the Merkava mk4 and could possibly lengthen the crew compartment to allow more available seats for the dismounted infantrymen from 9 to 10-12?

     

    PS: Jane's is also reporting the news

     

     

    Transmissions are probably produced in Israel (at least, it was so in the past).

  15. Israeli AFVs

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    31 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

    It sure does seem like it could be related to the APS, but it isn't. It's part of the vision block. Notice how there are 2 identical vision blocks placed at the front and sides of the vehicle, but nothing to cover the sides. The lower circle shows what is supposed to give vision for the sides.

     

    It's APS, in the video this thing launches interceptor to destroy RPG (2:30)

×
×
  • Create New...