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

The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

T___A

By T___A
in Mechanized Warfare

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Toxn
Toxn

I made a model of the T-34M: Astute viewers will notice that the commander's cupola is wrong - it's supposed to be a T-50 cupola rather than the T-34/85 model I stuck on.  

EnsignExpendable
EnsignExpendable

Supremacy of glorious T-72 over filthy Kharkovite tractor  

Andrei_bt
Andrei_bt

Development of future Soviet tank in 80-s and was a continuation of works started in 1970-s under designation “Project 101”. Necessity for development was grounded by the development of next generatio

alanch90 Advanced Member

alanch90

Posted
Posted
Spoiler
On 4/23/2018 at 5:29 PM, Serge said:

If the BMPT’s task is to support T90 squadrons, it’s not a problem. 

It would have been a problem if it was suppose to support a more mobile tank. 


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 ). 
 

Spoiler

5 man crew was dropped during and/or shortly after WW2 and nobody is making any tank or IFV with 5-6-7+ man crew. I guess there were reasons for this and any "advantage" was outweighed by disadvantages. Instead every major AFV developing country designers tried to minimize number of crewmembers inside of single vehicle. Nobody today produce T-35-alikes, other than this BMPT thing.

   Bow gunners are fucking WH40K-level of tank design, good for killing hordes of imaginary aliens, not so useful in real combat.

 

Spoiler

'facepalm'

 

Why didn't I think of this earlier: Since the BMPT can carry 3 people up in the front, couldn't they put all 3 crew up there and make the turret unmanned, similar to the Koalitsiya? Could probably just place the Uran-9's turret on top without having to put a hole in the roof, so you have plenty of room for the crew and their equipment. 


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Xlucine Newbie

Xlucine

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, alanch90 said:

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alanch90 Advanced Member

alanch90

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...