The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

[Lord_James]

23 minutes ago, Scolopax said:

Which is why I suggested it as a joke, hence the /s sarcasm tag.  Guide rails sound like they would help, but I think we both agree that something greater than two 30mms would be more desirable.

They did just make that new 57mm for the BMP derivatsiya. I doubt it would fit in the current terminator turret, and the derivatsiya probably won’t fit on a T-72, but it’s the only auto cannon I know they have that’s more powerful than the 2A42 or 72 (unless the navy will give some of their old AK-230s, if it still exists in stock). 

[alanch90]

1 hour ago, Scolopax said:

Which is why I suggested it as a joke, hence the /s sarcasm tag.  Guide rails sound like they would help, but I think we both agree that something greater than two 30mms would be more desirable.

 

1 hour ago, Lord_James said:

They did just make that new 57mm for the BMP derivatsiya. I doubt it would fit in the current terminator turret, and the derivatsiya probably won’t fit on a T-72, but it’s the only auto cannon I know they have that’s more powerful than the 2A42 or 72 (unless the navy will give some of their old AK-230s, if it still exists in stock). 

 

Why would anyone want 57mm for cutting infantry in half in close quarters? In any case, the 30mm guns are the least problematic among the many BMPT drawbacks.

[heretic88]

2 hours ago, Scolopax said:

Which is why I suggested it as a joke, hence the /s sarcasm tag.  Guide rails sound like they would help, but I think we both agree that something greater than two 30mms would be more desirable.

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. 

 

 

[ADC411]

Question: Couldn't the T-15 with that Bulat 57mm turret fulfill basically the same role as the whole BMPT concept and more?

 

57mm offers much better accuracy and suppression than those awful twin 30s at least, + it would be cheaper/easier to produce airburst munitions for. It's armor protection should be even better, and a dismounted squad of infantry offers way better situational awareness and can cover more zones of fire than any one vehicle, instead of trying to do that whole multi-turret/hull mounted emplacements thing that was already proven to be a bad idea almost a century ago.

 

Because really, who would want to operate tanks in a city without infantry support? 

...

[Scolopax]

11 minutes ago, ADC411 said:

Question: Couldn't the T-15 with that Bulat 57mm turret fulfill basically the same role as the whole BMPT concept and more?

 

57mm offers much better accuracy and suppression than those awful twin 30s at least, it's armor protection should be even better, and a dismounted squad of infantry offers way better situationan awareness and can cover more zones of fire than any one vehicle, instead of trying to do that whole multi-turret/hull mounted emplacements thing that was already proven to be a bad idea almost a century ago.

 

Because really, who would want to operate tanks in a city without infantry support? 

...

This is the same thinking I have.  I do not claim any real expertise in my opinions though.

 

 

 

Related to the topic, I didn't realize before that there were two Object 781's produced, with slightly different armament.  One has a turreted MG in place of one of the sponson grenade launchers.

 

 

[LoooSeR]

3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Why would anyone want 57mm for cutting infantry in half in close quarters?

   Because there are times when infantry is not nearby and doesn't want to get out of their trenches and run up into close quarters combat.

 

3 hours ago, alanch90 said:

In any case, the 30mm guns are the least problematic among the many BMPT drawbacks.

   They are one of main problems. Tank chassis brings all negative costs (logistical, price, maintenance) but BMPT doesn't have an ooomph that require tank chassis to be used in the first place. And add here gap in range and firepower between a tank and BMPT, on top of lack of any other role that BMPT can occupy in situations when BMPT can't reach targets that tanks are working on.

 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

/.../

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.

/.../

   Syria shown pretty well that ability to shoot in X amount of targets in the same time doesn't play any role as main problem is actually seeing your enemies. Main bottleneck for urban fighting for vehicles is spotting exact enemy location, not an inability to fire at them. And rare situations when enemies were firing from places that AFVs couldn't reach could be solved with RCWS with AGL.

 

   This was shown many times, i already covered some of them in this very thread when we discussed BMPT earlier. One of several that i can bring up is when SAA was assaulting Artillery academy during Battle for Aleppo and several tanks and BMPs were parked in very small space, several vehicles were hit in their rear arc by ATGM team firing rockets over a building from apperently roof of another high-rise building at long range. Same ATGM team was firing from the same place on next day, after SAA lost 2 tanks and IIRC BMP in one spot. According to position of vehicles, ATGM team was in reach of their guns, crews couldn't see them. 

 

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

/.../

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. 

   As i understand, Soviet BMPTs were born from experience in Afghanistan with it's terrain and type of enemy/their preffered way to do combat. Those BMPTs were more like convoy protection from ambush armored vehicles. Not exactly a frontline vehicle. In those situation detection of enemy isn't a problem, as you already got yourself into their ambush. 

 

   And your description of vehicle moving along the street is something out of WH40K, rather than reality.

 

   Here is another example of how tanks are eating RPGs. This is an old ANNA news video from Deraya combat, they filmed tank getting hit with RPG-29, and same event was filmed with akbars POV.

   3-4 tanks and 2-3 BMP-2s participated in operation and all of them were actively firing in all possible directions with main guns and coax. Didn't helped, T-72 was blown into pieces. This is probably best illustration of what is a main problem for AFVs in fighting with enemy infantry in urban enviroment.  

 

   Another example - tanks driving through streets being filmed by rebels/militants. Tanks are moving directly towards cameramans and doesn't see them (video is from multiply POV, but from same direction) and get into firefight from different direction, then proceed to fire in random directions for the most part. At 7:30 you can see RPG shot into T-72, from the front. A lot of unaimed suppressing fire from vehicles.

   At 11:10 and 21:20 rare example of enemies being very close to AFV and most likely outside of elevation limit of tanks main gun. Still, AFVs have no clue that enemies are there. At 12:20 is why you need an APS. Note how during whole video tanks gunners are very active with turning their tank turrets around, they are actively scanning, not just sitting in one place starring in nothingness.

 

   All those videos have 2 things in common - there is never lack of firepower and cannons to fire in multiply directions and in all videos vehicles show no knowledge of exact positions of enemies, only that in some buildings there was movement spotted before operation started or that everything further than a frontline is under enemy control. If you replace all tanks with BMPTs, result would be a bit more liberal use of suppressing fire.

[LoooSeR]

   BMP-3s (at least one of them with Sodema sight) during tranining session

 

[AndreyKryuchenko]

MT-LB top view.

[Beer]

16 hours ago, Lord_James said:

They did just make that new 57mm for the BMP derivatsiya. I doubt it would fit in the current terminator turret, and the derivatsiya probably won’t fit on a T-72, but it’s the only auto cannon I know they have that’s more powerful than the 2A42 or 72 (unless the navy will give some of their old AK-230s, if it still exists in stock). 

 

There is the lower pressure 57 mm in Epokha turret for Kurganets (and possibly BMP-3). That one is much smaller than the high pressure 57 from Derivatsya or T-15. See previous page where a video of BMP-3 with Epokha is posted.

[FORMATOSE]

T-90M Proryv documentary :

 

 

[LoooSeR]

Was already posted here, no major info, only some of it contain interesting footage.

[AndreyKryuchenko]

Photogrammetry of the BTR-70

 

[LoooSeR]

   A bit of BMP-3 footage during mechanised infantry training

 

[heretic88]

8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

A bit of BMP-3 footage during mechanised infantry training

Just at the start of the video: look at the muzzle of the gun when firing. Vibrates far less than an unsupported 2A72. That is why I think that the rumor about the 2A72 in a BMP-3 is more accurate than in other platforms, is true.

[LoooSeR]

   2 T-34-85s during recent battles in Yemen

 

Spoiler

 

[Wiedzmin]

 

[LoooSeR]

   Sprut SDM1 footage

 

   Also

Quote

   The Sprut-SDM1 tank has been successfully tested at sea and in the subtropics.

 

   The Sprut-SDM1 light amphibious tank for the airborne troops, in the creation of which the specialists of the Volgograd machine-building company VgTZ and Kurganmashzavod, which are part of the High-Precision Complexes holding of the Rostec State Corporation, have successfully passed state tests. During the check, the military equipment demonstrated high navigability in the Black Sea and proved its reliability afloat.

 

   “Given its purpose, the machine must meet very serious requirements. During state tests, the light tank underwent extreme tests at sea, in central Russia and the subtropics, where the air temperature reached +40 degrees, and passed them successfully. Low temperature tests are scheduled for early next year. Sprut-SDM1 is primarily intended for Russian paratroopers. It can be expected that the capabilities shown by Sprut will interest foreign customers as well, ”said Bekkhan Ozdoev, industrial director of the armaments complex of the State Corporation Rostec.

 

   Each stage of trials in different conditions also was conducted with shooting tests. According to the results of state tests of design documentation, the letter "O1" should be assigned, which allows to start serial production of new AFV.

 

[LoooSeR]

   Cool photo of uncool thing during Kavkaz-2020

[Jim Warford]

On 4/24/2020 at 10:37 AM, Jim Warford said:

It's true that not everyone can successfully use stereoscopic rangefinders...but they were still used around the world (M48, M103, Type 61, etc.), and selected for the SU-122-54. It still gave the vehicle a significant accuracy advantage...

 

You're also right about the interior of the Krasnodar SU-122-54 (see photos below); but for me, it's still better than nothing. I'm still hoping that one or two more SU-122-54s will be uncovered some day...             

 

 

 

 

Here's a new video covering the SU-122-54 on YouTube from Sofilein...

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

   BMP-3 FCS, first part of footage is with Vesna-K sight AFAIK at 1.5 km range, according to Marinir from otvaga it was first time firing for a crew. Later one with thermal imager footage are possibly Namut sight.

 

[heretic88]

52 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

   BMP-3 FCS (first with Vesna-K sight, AFAIK and later one with thermal imager footage are possibly Namut sight)

 

In my opinion: 2A72 has significantly less dispersion compared to BTR-82. It is especially noticeable when firing 2-3 round bursts. In case of the BTR, first round lands near the target, but the second is usually wildly off. 

[LoooSeR]

   Parade in Iraq, screenshots of T-72, T-90S, BMP-3:

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[SH_MM]

 

[LoooSeR]

   Iraq, T-90S

[LoooSeR]

   AFV storage areas.

   Somewhere in Siberia:

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

   Far East:

 

Spoiler