heretic88

I really don't like these kind of questionable discussions on World War 2 tanks, specifically not those bashing topics and "what if" scenarios with any set number of requirements and realistic look at the constraint and different doctrines. "Germany simply should have build more PzKpfW IV with sloped armor or more StuG IIIs!" is a useless statement and doesn't work. All this bashing of American/British/French/German/Soviet tanks using criteria from the respective other parties or modern day is silly. Obviously an American report will complain about the gunner/loader in other tanks not having enough optics, as in the American tank commanders - even in modern day - still love manning the turret-mounted MG to play Rambo (not the catious Oscar-worthy First Blood Rambo, but the Rambo from the later movies).
 
That is also why its silly to make any statements on the best tank - there are different ways to operate a tank, different requirements and different capacities. For the Brits the Panther might have been a bad tank (even though they copied the concept in some form to create the Centurion, but whatever...), but for a German or Soviet tank commander the M4 Sherman might have been a bad tank. That is why most such arguments are usually bullshit.
 
When the Brits tested the Leopard 1 in the 1960s, they came to the conclusion that it would offer less (or at best: comparable) mobilty when compared to the Chieftain, as the rubber-coating on the road wheels would overheat and thus limit maximum possible speed. This was obviously a false conclusion, thee rubber-coated road wheels never made issues and even faster tanks such as the Leclerc and Leopard 2 retained the concept. But this shows how silly it is to limit one's sources to a single side.
 
 
The hatch for the Panther's loader is too small? No, that is a matter of preference. The loader's hatch is not really smaller than those found on much modern tanks such as the Centurion, the Japanese Type 90 and the K1 tank. The loader of a Panther is lucky enough to have his own hatch (!) and not to be required to use the commander's hatch as in case with most early Sherman variants!
 

 
Certainly that is a good design, huh? Having gunner, loader and commander all escape from the same hatch onto which usually an machine gun was mounted.  Good luck getting out of this thing when it burns, but let me guess, its still "the best"? The Panther's loader also could escape the tank through the rear hatch of the turret, if necessary (which mean that he actually could exit the vehicle under cover...). The rear hatch might even have been the primary exit for the loader by design.
 
Just like having only a single optic for the loader isn't bad. This is a not a flaw, this is a different preference. It was good during WW2 and is still standard on many much more modern tanks just look at the Centurion, Chieftain, Challenger 1, Challenger 2 or at the T-54, T-55, T-62... they all have similar setups for the loader (but due to them being newer, these are better). On some of these tanks they are not fixed, on others they are fixed or effectively fixed (by not being usable outside of a very narrow field of view due to the interior or exterior layout).
 
The gunner had only a single optic? That's perfectly fine. How many modern MBTs provide the gunner with more than one primary and one back-up optic? Its just some bollock statement that is based on a different doctrine, not on actual short-comings.
 
The positions of (some) crew members are cramped? Well, this was a WW2 tank for fuck's sake. Pretty much all of them were cramped. The Panzerkampfwagen III and IV were more cramped, the M3 Lee/Grant, the Firefly variant of the M4 Sherman, etc. Every tank in WW2 was cramped if you apply modern ergonomic standards... even the Sherman. The Sherman however was also an incredible tall target. The gun wasn't awkward to load from a modern perspective, but by WW2 standards the huge size of the shells was uncommon and akward. I don't remember exactly if it was the Firefly or the Pershing, but in one of these tanks the loader had to rotate the round taken from the ready rack in both axis in order to load the gun. That was awkward.
 
 
Certainly the Panther was far from perfect - but it also was designed and produced in the middle of a war with an urgent need to rush tanks into service as fast as possible. The attempts to improve the Panzerkampfwagen IV (by reducing the amount of individual parts required for welding turret & hull, by replacing the commander's cupola and by implementing sloped armor) for example all failed due to the industry stating that it would introduce war-loosing delays into the delivery of further tanks.
 
The Panther's issues were known and several improvements were developed. The Panther II hulll had a completely new road wheel arrangement (that still wasn't optimal, but would reduce the amount of additional roadwheels that needed to be removed for replacement/maintenance significantly) and a new gearbox - but it didn't went into production due to the course of the war. New engines, stabilized optics, stabilizers for the gun, mechanical autoloaders and optical range finders are all upgrades that were in different stages of development at the end of the war. Meanwhile the M4 Sherman is "upgradable", because the US Army produced new and new variants every few months?
 
 
 
The reliability of the Panther certainly was bad, but its issues also seems to be massively exaggerated due to the French report on post-war use. It might have required some skill to drive, but that is also nothing unheard of for a WW2 tank. The Centurion had reliability issues well into the fifties, its specifications were massively affected by the British desire to have a Panther-equivalent tank, yet it somehow "the British got it right" with the Centurion?
Even the Sherman was not the reliability wonder that people love to make it seem. The M4A4 variant was rejected as lend-lease tank by the Soviet Red Army due to reliability concerns, and the US Army also only took a few hundred (with the bulk of the ~7,500 M4A4 tanks made being sent to the UK, who had issues making competent tank designs on their own). But hey, we only count reliable variants (for which there often is very limited data)...
 
 
The Panther was bad. The Sherman was bad. The Centurion was bad. The T-34 was bad. Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

Its quite sad that it became such a popular trend to bash the Panther. It wasnt a bad tank at all. Recently, more myths were created than in the past half decade. Like the infamous "final drive that lasted for 150 kilometers". Not a single source supports it. On the other hand there is a report of a Bergepanther, (Panzer Tracts 16-1, Jentz & Doyle) with 4200 kilometers in its clock, and with original final drives! Am I saying that the french assessment is useless, contains lies? No, not at all. In my opinion, the 150km is simply a typo. Should be 1500km. Other sources indicate that this is close to the truth. But dont get me wrong, 1500km is still BAD. 
Of course, the Panther had other problems, like being overengineered, costly and time consuming to build, requiring careful maintenance and skilled drivers. In tactical combat it had one design flaw that affected performance, is the lack of unity periscope for gunner. But still, it had many positives, and generally, performed well in combat.
Also, lots of people forget about a very, very important fact, when they talk about the "total unreliability" of the Panther: Sabotage. For example, during the restoration of Littlefield's Panther, it was discovered that the fuel or cooling lines (not remember which) were stuffed with cigarette butts and other junk. And it was a quite common thing. No wonder that things didnt work as expected... 
And frequently, when people bash the Panther, they forget that many other tanks suffered from similar, or even more serious problems. Like the mythical T-34, that is commonly believed to be the best tank of the war. It had its own share of serious defects: very low build quality (but not post ww2), debilitating reliability problems (extremely crude and bad transmission, no functioning air filters, bad cooling system). Its christie suspension is atrociously bad, provided a very rough ride (that I personally experienced. A T-55 is a luxury car compared to it), and took up lots of internal space. And finally, it was an ergonomic nightmare (85mm variants less so for commander and gunner), that greatly affected its performance in combat. 
 
 

Xmszeon nearly finished his Object 477 model:

 
 

Just some plain and simple pictures of one of the ROK BMP-3s from an Expo or Festival that I cannot remember.
 

 

Over the years, more and more modifications appear on these T-80Us. The army doesnt make the job easier for a scale model builder  I really want to build an 1/35 T-80 in korean colors, it looks incredibly good. 
A little bit back to T-80 reliability. If there is a lack of spare parts, why not produce them locally? I highly doubt it would be a challenge for such an advanced industry.

K1E1s and T-80Us of the 3rd Armored Brigade training at the KCTC
 
 

Sadly nothing...
 
Second part. 
 
T-55AM, BR-412M (actually, BR-412B. It was also known as 3UBR3, no idea where this "BR-412M" comes from...)
7 shots, 7 hits, 800m
 
1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 45mm deep gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights)
2, Front lower hull hit, at the lower edge. Shell torn out a chunk of metal, 50mm deep, and flew below the tank. Damage is only cosmetic, requires no repair. Tank fully operationa, crew unharmed.
3-4, Turret side hit, right side, center. Both shots landed about the same place. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Side hull hit, right side, in front of 3rd road wheel. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
6-7, Rear turret hit, one on lower, one on upper part. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret.
 
T-55AM, BR-412B
9 shots, 9 hits, 1200m
 
1, Front hull hit, center, no penetration. Shell left a 30mm deep, 22cm long gouge. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (headlights)
2, Target front turret, but gun barrel hit instead. The shell torn out an 50x200m long chunk of metal from the barrel, bending it, then hit the gun mantlet and exploding on it. The force of the impact was such that the turret ring mounting bolts sheared off, balls from the ring fell out.
Damage requires medium repairs, but actually no penetration, so the crew is unharmed. 
3, Hit on upper edge of front hull, near driver's periscopes. Shell left a 35mm deep gouge, no penetration. Driver's hatch opened, so large amounts of fragments entered the compartment. Driver received serious wounds. Rest of crew unharmed. Tank requires light repairs.
4, Side hull hit, right side, between 3rd and 4th road wheels. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Right side hull hit, on the rim of 4th road wheel. Wheel damaged, then penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
6, Left side hull "hit" (actually, I would consider this a miss), between 3rd and 4th wheels, on tracks on ground. Slight damage to wheels, track broke. Mobility kill, but otherwise tank and crew unharmed. Damage is so slight that even the crew can repair it quickly.
7-8, Rear turret hits. 8th was actually aimed at rear hull. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild, and needs a new turret.
9, Rear hull hit, center. Penetration, shell explodes inside engine compartment. Gearbox, water and oil radiators completely destroyed. Massive damage in other equipment. Engine rear cylinder bank also destroyed, and whole engine torn off its mountings, tilted towards firewall.
No damage in crew compartment, crew may receive negliglible injuries. Mobility kill. Devastation in engine compartment is so massive that even industrial rebuild is questionable due to warped hull and torn out engine mountings.
 
T-55AM, BR-412B
8 shots, 8 hits, 1600m
 
1, Front hull hit, right side. Shell left a 40mm deep, 25cm long gouge. Mudguard broke off. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (mudguard)
2, Hit on joining of turret and commander cupola. Cupola rim broke off, but no serious damage. Crew unharmed, maybe except commander with insignificant injuries. Tank operational, and needs only minor repairs.
3, Front turret hit, left side, in the level of gun barrel. Shell left a 45-50mm wide, 18cm long, 35mm deep gouge. No damage. Tank requires no repairs, crew unharmed.
4, Side hull hit, right side, above 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated at the firewall between crew and engine compartment. Shell fragments hit a rear ammo rack, damaged the transfer case, and stopped in the engine.
Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible. Even without ammo detonation, everybody dead. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
5, Hit at almost the same place as 4. Results same. 
6, Hit on right 4th road wheel. Shell penetrated the wheel, flew below the tank, penetrated the wheel on other side, and exploded 20 meters away from the tank. Crew unharmed, tank fully operational, needs only minor repairs (wheels).
7, Turret side hit, on joining of loader's cupola and turret. Penetration, shell explodes inside, causing massive devastation in both equipment and crew. Ammo detonation, tank burned and destroyed, no repair possible.
Even without ammo detonation, only driver has a slight chance of survival. Damage inside is huge, tank requires industrial level rebuild.
8, Turret side hit, 15cm above lower rim. No penetration. Shell left a 70mm deep crater of 200mm diameter. Crew unharmed, tank operational. Minor damage to outside equipment, nothing serious.
 
GYATA-64 anti-personnel mine. (4 explosions)
This type of mine is infamous for containing huge (in fact, record) amount of explosives for an anti personnel mine. (300g) It was actually designed to damage wheeled vehicles too.
1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Caused absolutely no damage.
2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion lifted the plow, but caused absolutely no damage.
3, mine placed below track, between two roadwheels. Explosion blew off a small part of the track, and bent the track pin. This damage does not affect the tank's mobility, and can be repaired by the crew.
4, mine placed below the 4th road wheel. Explosion lifted the wheel, and caused totally insignificant damage on tire. Requires no repairs, mobility unaffected.
 
UKA-63 anti tank mine.
UKA means universal cumulative mine. Can be fitted with conventional or tilt rod fuse. Explosive mass is 6kg.
 
1, mine placed below the roller of KMT-5. Explosion threw up the arm of the trawl up to hard stops. Some components broke off. Of the 3 segments on the roller, the middle suffered damage. Tank also suffered a bit, left mudguard and the ZIP case broke off.
Tank operational, but the trawl requires light repairs.
2, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off the plow, totally deforming it. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing.
3, mine placed below the 3rd road wheel. Explosion dislodged 3rd and 4th wheel, tire destroyed, track broke. Fender above is seriously damaged. Belly plate slightly warped, so tank requires industrial level rebuild. Crew suffers light injuries.
4, mine exploded below the driver's seat. Seat along with driver completely destroyed, torsion bar bent upwards to compartment. Fragments also destroyed the batteries, and holed the fuel tank. Only loader survives. Chance of tank burning is high.
Repair impossible due to seriously warped belly plate.
5, mine exploded below the engine compartment. Jet made a 6x8cm hole, cut the engine crankshaft in half, and stopped by a cylinder head. Engine was also torn off its mountings. Belly plate bent upwards by 5cm. This kind of damage is unrepairable, tank total loss.
Crew suffers light to moderate injuries.
6, explosion under drive sprocket, imitating a tilt rod fuse. Track broke, sprocket and its shaft damaged. Crew unharmed, tank requires only light repairs.
 
crazy experiment No1: mine placed on top turret, next to night sight. Explosion warped top plate, jet damaged gun breech. Crew seriously wounded. Tank needs new turret.
crazy experiment No2: mine  set up like a MON-200 directional mine, 20 meters away from the side of the tank. Jet almost completely dissipated, causing no damage. On some periscopes glass cracked.
 
TM-62P3 shaped charge anti tank mine.
Explosive mass 7.5kg. We acquired more than 70 thousand pieces from Bulgaria.
 
1, mine placed in front of the blade of mine plow. Explosion broke off part of the plow. No damage in tank, but mine plow needs replacing.
2, mine placed below 2nd road wheel. Explosion torn off the wheel along with the suspension arm. Track broke in many places. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible.
Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration.
3, mine placed between 3rd and 4th wheels, below track. Track broke in many places, serious damage on wheels. Suspension needs at least medium repairs, but if hull also warped, repair impossible.
Crew suffers injuries due to huge acceleration.
4, mine placed below left drive sprocket. Track broke, some damage on sprocket. Damage is light, easily repairable. If explosion also damages the final drive casing, tank total loss, repair impossible.
5-6, one mine below front of tank, one in back. Front explosion split open the belly plate, torsion bars deformed. Front fuel cell/ammo rack hit, causing ammo detonation. Rear mine damaged the engine and water radiator, and also warped the hull.
Damage is unrepairable in both cases.
 
MON-200 directional mine.
It was placed 30 meters away from the tank, at 150cm height. Warhead contains 12kg of explosives and 900 pieces of fragments. Stuff on left side suffers considerable damage, the worst is 3rd road wheel, where tire was separated, and bearing cap destroyed.
Periscopes also suffered damage. Still, overall damage is light. Crew unharmed if buttoned, but if not, exposed members surely die.
 
LPO-50 flamethrower.
Tank was attacked by a team of 2 soldiers, each with flamers. They blasted the tank from the front, side and rear. Only the cover of the gun mantlet, and the rubber seal between turret and hull caught fire.
Basically, the flamer was useless. The little fire on the turret seal was easily extinguished by the PPO system or by the crew. However, the crew would be forced to leave the tank to avoid breathing in the extinguisher agent.
 
"Napalm field".
2 shallow trenches were dug in front of the tank, 100 meter long. Trenches were filled with plastic bags, containing napalm. Tank was controlled remotely without driver, in 1st gear. Tank was supplied with only 5 liters of fuel, for safety reasons, so it could drive for 100-150 meters.
Crew was simulated by temperature sensors. When the tank rolled over the trenches, napalm was ignited. Absolutely nothing caught fire, tank survived the test without any damage. Temperature sensors detected no temp increase.
 
"Napalm bomb".
A hole was dug below the tank, and filled with 300 liters of incendiary. This time, there was a glitch in the test. Somebody forgot to close the escape hatch in the belly, so the tank totally burned out.
 
Conclusions:
Training:
- RPG and SPG gunner training needs more emphasis on countering crosswind
- Enemy tanks need to be studied more, to identify weak points.
- Hits on fenders and stuff stored on them cause no damage that affect the capabilities of the tank
Effects of AT weapons:
- All AT weapon was able to destroy the T-54, even from the front.
- Hull front, where the fuel cell/ammo rack is mounted, is very vulnerable. Penetration here is likely to cause ammo detonation.
- Side hull of any type of tank is very vulnerable, surface to be attacked is much bigger, and also armor is weaker.
- Most vulnerable part is rear of the tank. Rear turrt hits were always fatal, but hull hits arent, engine and other components absorbed most hits.
- HEAT shells of MT-12, and especially of the 2S1 and 2S3 have a huge secondary effect of fragmentation. This is devastating for any external components. Also seriously damaging for running gear.
Additionally, the results obtained on firing at T-54 tanks cannot be applied to NATO tanks in service (I think they mean Abrams and Leopard-2), but M-48A2 and M-60A3 may be similar, although ther was no data on
the chemical composition and quality of their armor material. Compared to previous live firings on T-34 tanks, the behavior of shaped charge jet was different. On T-34, the penetration channel was conical, exit hole was larger.
On T-54, the entry and exit holes were similar, thanks to its harder armor.
Effects of mines:
-GYATA-64 anti personnel mine is able to damage wheeled vehicles, and may able to damage tracks too. (WTF???)
-UKA-63 and TM-62P2 mines met the expectations, very effective
Incendiaries:
- LPO-50 flamer is good vs infantry, and useless vs tanks, unless hatches are opened.
- "napalm field" and "napalm bomb" are ineffective, but for crews is important to close all hatches.
To be tested in future:
- more tests for behind armor effects on crews, primarily shaped charges.
- results of live firins should be shared (for tank crews?)
- need a firing range where APFSDS can be tested.
- existing tanks need uparmor kits
- SPG-9 as "light artillery"

 

Yep, this is a crazy good vehicle! I read about it a while ago in an article, if I remember well, it said only a few were built. These are very very useful vehicles. It has one disadvantage, it needs a trailer to quickly transport it to the site, but this is countered by its speed and maneuverability offroad. SPOT-55 proved its capabilities many times. In my opinion, it is much better to transform old and obsolete tanks to such vehicles than to scrap them. ARVs, and even bridgelayers are also especially useful in civilian roles.
 
A private firm here in hungary also operates some ex military vehicles, among them a quite exotic one, a BAT-M. It is actually the last of its kind here in working condition. Back then in 2014, it was waiting its fate of scrapping, when someone from the firm noticed it on a scrapyard. They bought the vehicle and totally restored it.


 
 

Yep, this is a crazy good vehicle! I read about it a while ago in an article, if I remember well, it said only a few were built. These are very very useful vehicles. It has one disadvantage, it needs a trailer to quickly transport it to the site, but this is countered by its speed and maneuverability offroad. SPOT-55 proved its capabilities many times. In my opinion, it is much better to transform old and obsolete tanks to such vehicles than to scrap them. ARVs, and even bridgelayers are also especially useful in civilian roles.
 
A private firm here in hungary also operates some ex military vehicles, among them a quite exotic one, a BAT-M. It is actually the last of its kind here in working condition. Back then in 2014, it was waiting its fate of scrapping, when someone from the firm noticed it on a scrapyard. They bought the vehicle and totally restored it.


 
 

Yep, this is a crazy good vehicle! I read about it a while ago in an article, if I remember well, it said only a few were built. These are very very useful vehicles. It has one disadvantage, it needs a trailer to quickly transport it to the site, but this is countered by its speed and maneuverability offroad. SPOT-55 proved its capabilities many times. In my opinion, it is much better to transform old and obsolete tanks to such vehicles than to scrap them. ARVs, and even bridgelayers are also especially useful in civilian roles.
 
A private firm here in hungary also operates some ex military vehicles, among them a quite exotic one, a BAT-M. It is actually the last of its kind here in working condition. Back then in 2014, it was waiting its fate of scrapping, when someone from the firm noticed it on a scrapyard. They bought the vehicle and totally restored it.


 
 

Sheremetevo airport received a brand new ARV, which is actually the civilian version of the BREM-80U. Very nice!

 

Sheremetevo airport received a brand new ARV, which is actually the civilian version of the BREM-80U. Very nice!

 

Sheremetevo airport received a brand new ARV, which is actually the civilian version of the BREM-80U. Very nice!

 

Sheremetevo airport received a brand new ARV, which is actually the civilian version of the BREM-80U. Very nice!

 

Yes, that would be awesome! 
Also I heard some gossip that the T-80 was rated better ergonomically than the K1, being a bit roomier inside. Would be good to know about this too.  

I really haven't heard too much from the tankers of the 3rd Armored Bigrade themselves but from what I have seen I err more on the side of mixed as far as how the T-80Us are received by the soldiers. Reason being the shortage of parts (though not complete lack of parts) and relatively high amount of mechanical issues probably in response to not being maintained as much as they should.
 
Sorry that I can't give a more definitive answer, though maybe if I can chat with someone in the 3rd Armored Bigrade we can revisit this.

Excellent pictures! 
Do you have any information about how korean soldiers like the T-80U? I read opinions that they really like these tanks, others say that the T-80 is an unreliable piece of junk... But sadly, these are barely more than gossip. What do you think, which is closer to the truth? 

ROK T-80Us of the 3rd Armored Bigrade conducting live fire training at a firing range in Yangpyeong. The album these pictures were uploaded to is dated sometime around 2019.
 

 

This is horrible. Never seen such poorly designed platform.
First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities.
Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief. Yes the missile has high maneuverability. But even if it needs a 90 degree turn, it already wastes lots of propellant, severely limiting its range. Absolutely moronic idea. 

This is horrible. Never seen such poorly designed platform.
First, the base vehicle has relatively limited offroad capabilities.
Second, and this is the main problem, the fixed launcher. Its idiotic beyond belief. Yes the missile has high maneuverability. But even if it needs a 90 degree turn, it already wastes lots of propellant, severely limiting its range. Absolutely moronic idea. 

This is idiotic... Never put a muffler on a good sounding diesel! Never!  

Damn, this english word "battery" is so problematic... For both the S-3/400 and Patriot. Or all kinds of SAM system actually.
Partriot organisation structure is like this: You have a battalion hq, with an ICC (information and coordination center). This ICC commands 6 firing units (FU), and is linked to other battalions, AWACS, or radiotechnical units, but it has no radars on its own.
The FU is what we can call a "battery", it has an ECS (engagement control station), generators, launchers and a single MPQ-53 radar, for both target acquistion and tracking. If this single radar is lost, then the FU is useless. No redundancy here.
 
For the S-300P, it is a bit more complicated. Regimental hq has two main vehicles, a PBU(command post) and an RLO(main EW radar). RLO is the only such radar in the whole regiment! This Hq controls 4 divisions, all of which consist of an RPN fire control radar, a specialized NVO low altitude EW radar*, and 4 fire sections with 3 launchers each. We may call the division as "battery".
So basically this means, that the loss of the RLO means that the whole regiment loses its own general EW capability! Yes there are 4 NVO radars, but they are exclusively used for low altitude scanning, they have no other role. The RPN has an emergency scan mode, but it is extremely inefficient, and slow. And again, loss of an RPN means the loss of the whole division, no redundancy. The other RPNs of the regiment cant take its place.
* it is often mentioned that the S-300 is capable of "shoot and scoot" in 5 minutes. While it is true for most of the elements of the system, the NVO has a set up time measured in hours! 
 
S-300V has similar problems, but lets not get into it, thats an army air defense system.

I agree, but not entirely. As you surely know, of the 3 Objekt-781 prototypes, one was different, and had a turret with similar armament to the BMP-3 (2A70+2A72+PKT). Still, this was rejected, and the twin 30mm turret version was selected for service in the army. Sadly I do not know why, but Im sure there were reasons for that. 
But all in all, both Objekt-781 versions were superior to UVZ's BMPT, especially in terms of firepower. My opinion, is that the whole point of such specialized vehicle is to be able to engage as many targets as possible in urban combat, and in a wide arc around it. The BMPT is not very good in this regard, it can engage 3 targets at the same time, and only one with its main armament. The Objekt-781 can engage 5, (6 for the rejected version!) and it can deal with two totally separate targets with the autocannons. Much harder to lure it into an ambush or trap.
Just imagine, the vehicle travels along a street, the autocannon turrets can fire at the buildings to the left and right at the same time (even high elevations), the two grenade launchers can do the same, or look for enemies appearing in front, and finally, the rear NSVT turret can watch the rear (obviously this is much less useful, but not a bad thing to have)
UVZ probably liked the idea of the two autocannons, but they totally failed to understand the reason why they were in separate turrets in the 781. I even dare to say that they failed to understand the whole concept, proof is the export BMPT-72, which is a totally useless miserable piece of junk. An upgraded T-55 has far, far higher combat value than that, in any imaginable situation. 
 

 

We already had some of those in the past (used by SOG in Iraq and Afghanistan)  
 
Check this link with jihadomobile development in Czech army. 
https://www.valka.cz/CZE-JPN-Toyota-Hilux-SCV-vozidlo-specialnich-sil-t103322

 

Yep, this was definitely a trap I fell into  But the T-28 was just too attractive compared to the rest, so couldnt resist! Anyway, well deserved victory for N-L-M, his design is really brilliant, especially the armor upgrade!
I had two problems with this competition: 
1, that there were only 3 of us. It would have been good to see some T-26, Panzer II or french tank upgrades
2, now I want to buy Zvezda's new 1/35 T-28 model kit, and want to build both my design and the Carro Armato P.35/105