Jump to content

BTR

Members
  • Posts

    745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by BTR

  1. What welded turret exactly? Switching to a unified turret with the T-90M would require a complete rework of the ammo storage, ammo loading mechanism and hull floor. At that point you are better off just getting a refurbished T-72 or two. Getting a diesel into the old hull requires about the same amount of rework from the hull, to a complete change of key components like transmission. T-80UD and T-80 hulls are not compatible because the former's chassis is derived from object 476 and is essentially a T-64 hull with T-80 suspension setup. This means you can't just rip leftover 80UD hulls and install a V-46-based engine in them.
  2. The turbines are built more robust and they can operate without breaking for longer, but when they do break it's a lot tougher to repair. In brief other disadvantages of GTDs include - Higher sensitivity to poor-quality fuel. High sensitivity to water in fuel thus requiring extra attention to how water tight the whole system is. There is even a dedicated sensor for this on the 80s. Moreover extreme sensitivity to dust of the whole powerplant, resulting power-loss and the subsequent maintenance nightmare. The whole VZU intake on the back of the 80U is rather telling of how problematic dirty air is. Other more esoteric disadvantages are - Lower power output on lower revs; Slower acceleration up to 15kph; APU as a requirement. You need it for proper operation and sensible fuel consumption which adds another crucial element to take care of. With loss of malfunction you can end up with problems like the 80BV had in Chechnya where a formation ran out of fuel before even getting to the fight. Granted it was a special circumstance, but still a bad outcome. Most of the traditional comparative shortcomings of diesel engines have been solved and the power outputs per volume of serial diesel engines has approached serial turbines.
  3. Yea, I got you. It's supposed to be this I think, but migrated to the butt area.
  4. Wearing full NBC gear and spraying vehicles. My definition of a **** day.
  5. I haven't seen one like that, but it's SI in 6Sh117-type of load bearing system just not worn exactly on the butt.
  6. Dynamic "exposition" part of the exercises.
  7. Because there is no particular need for a slightly steadier 545 platform in the squad if you have a proper MG. RPK replacement is nothing new. It is a trend that started some decades ago that has accelerated with the 2008 reform. Seeing RPKs in their regular role is an anomaly, they are relegated to security detachments and marines.
  8. Yes. I counted seven vehicles which is a bit non-standard as each para-regiment gets issued a battery of six.
  9. Doesn't that depend entirely on what you want the MLRS to do? If you need it to follow in or behind the assaulting formation it makes sense to share the chassis hull protection. PS - to add value to the topic, impressive flaunting of support elements.
  10. Standard issued stuff. All TOS-1A built on T-90 chassis have this, export and domestic. Most of domestic TOS fleet is T-72A based however, which is why you have more pics like these - Instead of these -
  11. As of beginning of 2018 we had 182 BMD-4Ms delivered in five line battalions and two training companies and 92 BTR-MDMs (includes MDM based vehicles) in five line battalions and one training company. Further 132 BMD-4Ms with 58 BTR-MDMs have been ordered with delivery until 2020. That should cover VDV para formations completely.
  12. I'm not sure what you are talking about, but it sounds like TZM-T ammo carrier for the TOS complex.
  13. Right, there aren't enough T-72Bs left over from post dissolution to fill the 90+ btn. requirement even in the most optimistic scenario (around 4.1K T-72B left to RSFSR post dissolution by my calc). At the same time, I think the desire to expand the ground element was premature. One major boon of the 80BV is the full relikt installation on the UFP and turret, but the underlying passive armor is arguably a worst package on the 80BV. In any case, there isn't much one tank can do that the other one can't therefore a completely different vehicle type with extremely low part commonality is unnecessary in my eyes.
  14. The BVM is a mistake out of expansionist views on the army and the desire to meet AFV numbers "here and now". Also the turbine lobby refuses to die at our MoD.
  15. And it's on. Well, on from yesterday, but it still counts.
  16. There is a limited 9P163-2 element in the army at the moment, but I am not sure about its future.
  17. They could be used, depending on what configuration these vehicles had. Certainly as ММГ .
  18. So, we know that MoD ordered 132 Armata-based vehicles. Previously we knew that they were to sign a contract of two tank and one IFV battalions which was to be "more than a hundred" vehicles so these two things match. Under regular ToE this would mean the following - 41x2 Т-14 + 2x Т-16 = 84 44x1 Т-15 + 1x Т-16 = 45 If we count an IFV battalion with AGL support platoon. This comes to 129 vehicles. If we include organic battalion recon platoon of three T-15s which were planned in 2008 but never realized we get the 132 vehicles we need.
  19. There hasn't really been any confirmation that UAs were procured or used in any capacity. Most of the exercises are handled with T-80UE-1s or slightly refurbished T-80Us with PL-1s.
  20. Slightly hotter, completely assembled expo version.
  21. That smoke is rather hot and dense. It should probably mask fairly well from thermals.
  22. It is possible to equip regular vehicles with quick air-burst grenades from Shtora. So in fact you can mix the deployment groups which you can control from the switchbox inside the vehicle. Would be a cool feature to have player have control over long-distance smoke, but have crews automatically deploy defensive smoke when they are spotted.
×
×
  • Create New...