Russian army under equipped?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Is there any possibility they could be whopping great Claymore type directional mines do you think.....Keep the head-choppers at a distance even when it goes totally Pete Tong?

[Michael Emrys]

56 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Is there any possibility they could be whopping great Claymore type directional mines do you think.....Keep the head-choppers at a distance even when it goes totally Pete Tong?

Sure, why not? Claymores were used in Vietnam in that way. They were placed along the sides of trucks and APCs in convoys. If they were stopped in an ambush, the driver would detonate the mines to clear out the immediately adjacent brush and the grunts would hop out to deal with any remaining VC. Seems to have worked.

Michael

[Rinaldi]

It's ERA in a soft module. It's been seen before:

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by Rinaldi

[c3k]

8 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Sure, why not? Claymores were used in Vietnam in that way. They were placed along the sides of trucks and APCs in convoys. If they were stopped in an ambush, the driver would detonate the mines to clear out the immediately adjacent brush and the grunts would hop out to deal with any remaining VC. Seems to have worked.

Michael

The original Tiger I's had command detonated mines attached to the hull from the factory. (Four, I think.) Hmm...this gives me an excuse to look over my Jentz books.

Claymores (or other anti-personnel mines) on AFVs is nothing new. It's interesting that they're not on tanks in current use. I suppose the thought is that infantry anti-tank weapons have sufficient standoff range that any anti-personnel mines would have too short of a range to be effective. (Of course, similar thinking started stripping machineguns off of tanks, and telephones, and canister rounds, etc.)

The photos seem to me to clearly be some sort of easy add-on ERA.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 hours ago, c3k said:

The original Tiger I's had command detonated mines attached to the hull from the factory. (Four, I think.) Hmm...this gives me an excuse to look over my Jentz books.

Those would be S-Mines.....They were fitted to early Tigers:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-mine

IIRC later versions had the Nahverteidigungswaffe instead:  http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah.htm

Edited July 6, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[HUSKER2142]

Another interesting sample is being restored for the museum of tank troops.

In 1995, fighting began in Russia in the North Caucasus, and ChTZ was transformed into JSC "Ural-trak", the leadership of the new enterprise again returned to the idea of creating a BMPT. Work on the project was launched at the company's own expense on the initiative of the plant's CEO. In GSKB-2, which at that time was headed by A. V. Ermolin, they immediately began work on the creation of a combat vehicle based on the T-72 mass tank, which could effectively operate in mountainous woodlands and urban conditions.

In 1996, a combat vehicle that received the designation "Object 787" was ready. The experimental sample looked rather unusual. The tank T-72 was dismantled gun, and on the sides of the tower installed two 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72, paired with 7.62-mm machine guns. These installations, like the forked tongue of a viper, could deadly sting any enemy, so the company was called a "Viper" at the enterprise. Both guns were mounted on a single shaft, which passed through the tower of the tank. Control of the fire and aiming guns on the target was made by the gunner and the commander of the machine. In addition, on the new BMPT, along the sides of the tower, in addition to the guns, unguided aircraft missile (NAR) cassettes were mounted, along 6 rails from each side. All this was covered with special armor shields.

Particular attention was paid to the protection of the BMPT against anti-tank cumulative infantry, the whole body and the tower were covered with units of the DZ "Contact-1". In addition, a special container was mounted to the stern of the tower, which also served as an additional armor protection. A number of specialists believe that additional weapons could be installed in it, for example, large-caliber machine guns. Tests of this machine were conducted from 5 to 10 April 1997 with the participation of 38 officers of the Russian Defense Ministry. The car was tested with fire during the daytime. In July 1997, the tests were continued by shooting NARami. Test firing showed high efficiency of the BMPT, but personnel changes at the manufacturing plant put an end to this machine.

 

 

 

[John Kettler]

HUSKER2142,

Yet another proof of why I love the CM Forums! Where else would you get this sort of information? Thanks much for the videos. Wonder what was up with that MRL tank? also, what's under the intriguing tarp?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

'T-Zero'.....I love it, great stuff! 

[HUSKER2142]

John Kettler,

In backyard, tank landfill "Kubinka" can be found many rare specimens. Whereas a couple of years ago, each year began to pull out and restore the samples, which later fall into tank museum of park "Patriot" and tank museum in Nizhny Tagil.Perhaps in the future we will see the same tank with MLRS after restorations.

[John Kettler]

HUSKER2142,

When I was a boy, Dad worked for what used to be called Goodyear Aerospace, and nearby was the Navy aircraft boneyard. It was a place of wonder to behold, but was later consolidated into the gigantic Davis Monthan facility near Tucson, Arizona. It had planes and helos from all the services. Was heartboroken to see it gone.  Kubinka makes me drool every time I see a video. Am glad these AFV treasures are being rescued and refurbished. Frankly, I deem what's been done/not done here with all sorts of AFV wonders to practically be criminal and a disgrace. Broke my heart when potential runners were deliberately (apparently for environmental reasons) turned into sculpture. All sorts of goodies were left to rot outside.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt.Squarehead]

JK, don't forget that they cut big holes in them before leaving them outside to rot.....Fortunately Bovington can fix them for you (but it'll cost you). 

[John Kettler]

Andy,

Why would they do something so dreadfully stupid? Where was Gibbs?!

Guys,

Wanted to strongly recommend reading the Armament and Protection sections of the Tankograd BMP-2 article, together with a string of most informative comments. In trials, back when the BMP=2 was but an Objekt, at 1200 meters its 2A42 tore up a T-72 from the side so badly it caught fire in the fuel cells. This was after the 2A28 Grom being pushed by another OKB had hit the flexible side skirts and failed to detonate. As the writer notes, in battle, the BMP-2 gunner would stay on the target until it was nonfunctional. Also of considerable interest to me were discussions of the unexpected discovery by the Swedes the boronated anti-neutron liner on the T-72 are very good spall catchers, and the BMP-2 has something similar, though not as thick. The turret has it on the outside. The assessment of the protection levels  vs small caliber NATO projectiles is quite revealing, too. Be advised Tankograd is now blinding after switching to black on white. Was no fan of reverse type, but the huge field of screaming white, coupled with small pictures tends to see what's on the pictures.. The point I made before about BMPs carrying a dismountable launcher is made explicitly in the article, for it shows the folded up tripod and says it's provided to give the infantry the extra punch of having its own ATGM. As far as I'm concerned, this is something which ought to be doable in CMBS. Would make Russian MR Infantry much scarier.

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/bmp-2.html

Regards,

John Kettler
 

Edited July 22, 2017 by John Kettler

[IMHO]

R&D programs in unmanned military vehicles

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by IMHO

[John Kettler]

IMHO,

While I think some design licensing fees are due, Orion seems like a well-conceived UAV with considerable flexibility. Pretty slick the way various sensor packages can be handled as modules. Lots of capabilities there . Notable by its absence is hard kill weaponry. 

I find this hot news below massively disturbing. When Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Bill Gates are warning AI is an acute threat to humanity, Russia  is embarking upon what the US flatly decided it wouldn't do: a lethal robot under AI control only. Kalashnikov leads the way!

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2017/07/russian-weapons-maker-to-build-ai-directed-guns/

Regards,

John Kettler 

Edited July 26, 2017 by John Kettler

[HUSKER2142]

T-72B3 arr. 2016 closer.

 

http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2017/07/723-2016.html

[Armorgunner]

Below the turret ring, has a new post of the BMPT and T-90's 

http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.se/2017/07/more-t-90-and-bmpt-contracts.html

 

[HUSKER2142]

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

This is what the Russian units in CM:BS really need right now:

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[c3k]

20 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is what the Russian units in CM:BS really need right now:

 

What? You want to bring back the Soviet WWII anti-tank mine dogs? Woot! Or should it be "woof"?

[Jotte]

22 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

This is what the Russian units in CM:BS really need right now:

 

Apt tools to make up for SBK.... 

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's an emotional support animal. They add +1 to a unit's Moral rating. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Pantsir SM:

Is this thing going to replace Tunguska, or supplement it?

[HUSKER2142]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Pantsir SM:

Pantsir-S is a further development of Tunguska-S. It complements it more, Tunguska is at the forefront, if necessary. But the Pantsir is already more expensive and better machine in terms of equipment and weapons complex.

[Armorgunner]

23 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Pantsir-S is a further development of Tunguska-S. It complements it more, Tunguska is at the forefront, if necessary. But the Pantsir is already more expensive and better machine in terms of equipment and weapons complex.

The pantsir, the Lorry/truck version. Is on paper the most effective close air Defence in the world. But after the US cruisemissile strike at the syrian airbase a few months back. When there were pictures of destroyed pantsirs, got me woundering a bit of their irl effectivenes? Is it just a paper tiger? The US told them an hour or two, in advance. That there would be a strike. So the only reason to keep the Pantsirs there, and not moving them away. Should have been to test their effectiveness, and that was not very good. Since almost all cruisemissiles hit their torgets. And theese were slow moving Tomahawks, not supersonic ones.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Armorgunner

[DreDay]

45 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

The pantsir, the Lorry/truck version. Is on paper the most effective close air Defence in the world. But after the US cruisemissile strike at the syrian airbase a few months back. When there were pictures of destroyed pantsirs, got me woundering a bit of their irl effectivenes? Is it just a paper tiger? The US told them an hour or two, in advance. That there would be a strike. So the only reason to keep the Pantsirs there, and not moving them away. Should have been to test their effectiveness, and that was not very good. Since almost all cruisemissiles hit their torgets. And theese were slow moving Tomahawks, not supersonic ones.

Wait...what? Where did you see the pictures of destroyed Pantsirs? AFAIK, Russian Pantsirs are stationed in Hmeimim in support of Russian assets there. The Tomahawk strikes had targeted Syrian assets in Shirat (sp?); that's a completely different region. Did I miss something?