Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

useless against AT-4 or Carl Gustav grenades, and 50/50 vs RPG-7 grenades so...only good part about it, it distancing explosion force away from thin armor 

 

Cage armor is in principe 'probability' armor , if the warhead is damaged so that shaped charge is not correctly formed or doesnt go of at all then it worked , if shaped charge went of upon hitting  it will not help much as shaped charge penetration is not that much effected from the stand off distance at which slat armors stand particulary as the penetration of even basic RPG 7 is a huge overkill against anything short of MBT . There is no difference in RPG or AT-4 or Carl Gustav effectiveness against slat armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mr.T said:

 

Cage armor is in principe 'probability' armor , if the warhead is damaged so that shaped charge is not correctly formed or doesnt go of at all then it worked , if shaped charge went of upon hitting  it will not help much as shaped charge penetration is not that much effected from the stand off distance at which slat armors stand particulary as the penetration of even basic RPG 7 is a huge overkill against anything short of MBT . There is no difference in RPG or AT-4 or Carl Gustav effectiveness against slat armor.

 

I believe the difference is in the fuse design, i.e. AT-4 or Carl Gustav fuses can't be cut by slats unlike those of RPG-7/SPG-9 and some other old weapons. The stand-off distance (as you said) doesn't change much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mr.T said:

There is no difference in RPG or AT-4 or Carl Gustav effectiveness against slat armor.

there is difference between RPG-7 and AT-4/CG - fuse + AT-4 has support ring in nose part, so you can't shortcut fuse and damage cone, grenade will simply work

 

6JDPIwuKB4o.jpg?size=1280x665&quality=96mplLIseMy94.jpg?size=756x1008&quality=96

NgUqemi3UMo.jpg?size=770x994&quality=96&

 

tXqDn_PHIy4.jpg?size=1280x720&quality=96

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMO-T, ANNA news reporter:

Quote

   BMO-T is my choice for moving along the front line. Before that, we drove BMP-2 and BMP-3. These are reliable vehicles with powerful weapons, but weak armor makes you feel uncomfortable under enemy fire.

   Tank armor of BMO-T easily withstands close hits of 120 mm mines. If vehicles of this class were mass delivered to the troops, then it would be much easier to supply units and evacuate the wounded.

   In urban battles, where a burst from the “Kord” can be fired at you from a neighboring house, such a machine is simply irreplaceable. The Syrians near Damascus pulled out their wounded soldiers on the BREM. I have no idea how they managed to put the wounded in there, but the fact remains.

 

   I hope that soon heavy infantry fighting vehicles will still go to the troops. The infantry will say a huge thanks for them.

 

image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/30/2022 at 6:19 AM, watch_your_fire said:

These are both cheap to produce and apparently fairly useful, and yet very few built.

Extremely inconvenient(low roof, weird dismounting) APC with just 7 dismounts and old gimmics of tank chassis(i.e. requires tank transporter and tank repair/evacuation).

 

Highly specialized vehicle.

Though troops can be understood - after BMP-1/2(which sometimes can't even stop mortar splinters properly) it gives a whole lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ainen said:

Extremely inconvenient(low roof, weird dismounting) APC with just 7 dismounts and old gimmics of tank chassis(i.e. requires tank transporter and tank repair/evacuation).

 

Highly specialized vehicle.

Though troops can be understood - after BMP-1/2(which sometimes can't even stop mortar splinters properly) it gives a whole lot.

How exactly low roof is an inconvenience? IF you already have force saturated with tanks and support equipment, you can get some number of HAPCs without much of problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The updated multi-purpose armored car VPK-590951 "VPK-Ural" for the RF Armed Forces, the exposition of the RF Ministry of Defense, on the eve of the "Army-2022" expo.

image

 

image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ainen said:

It's inconvenience for a reason that Russia doesn't employ child soldiers. 

The hull in the infantry section is higher, and together with the absence of the autoloader should make for a relatively comfortable seating positions, at least better than what you can get on BMP-2 and the like. 

 

Actually, BMO-T is a great starting point if you wanted to develop an IFV based on the T-72 platform. They could just remove the front fuel tanks, as they did with the BMP-T and Koalitzia, and place there a dedicated gunner and the vehicle/squad cmdr, at the right and left to the driver respectively. That should free up space in the infantry section for at least an 8th dismount (making a full traditional 9 men squad counting the cmdr). For weapons, just put one of those unmanned turrets we´ve been seeing for Kurganets or T-15 with a 57mm gun and to top things of, integrate an APS to the thing, like Arena-M. Oh and replace the Kontakt 5 with Relikt/light ERA combo and there you go, a perfectly serviceable, top of the line heavy IFV that you can build out of some of the thousands of T-72 hulls the russians have over there rusting. Should work very well within tank brigades and regiments until the Armata platform takes over some time in the coming centuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the whole point of an IFV was a vehicle that could carry infantry into combat and fight along side , and if  .50bmg is already a threat to BMP1 and 2 then its hard pressed as and IFV , BMO can probably handle all the HMG and even some cannon plus basic RPG ,making up for poor troop enty/exit (note number of early israeli HAFV built on tanks had similar over the top exit)

 

BMO-T is not much different than BMP in roof height 

ENEF0RgXsAsSykk?format=jpg&name=small

 

While front entry exit is not the most practical , its still better than not having a heavy APC at all. Frontal exit was the easiest to make on a tank chassis

1566572403_nakpadon-pilon.jpg

 

 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...