Kurganets & Boomerang Discussions Thread #1

"Kurganmashzavod" started making BMP " Kurganets -25 " for the parade May 9, 2015

etaepsilonk wrote:
You do realise of course that armor is meant to protect not only the crew, right?
If a shell hits unarmored turret, then it's a mission-kill for the tank. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

And falcon was only an example, that it doesn't have any crew above hull too, yet the turret is armored. So what makes you think, that the same isn't applied to T-95 or Armata for that matter?

Well, if the turret w/ heavy armor gets hit its most likely f-kill too since all those nice calibrations will be thrown out of whack by a substantial impact. Best to have something with only autocannon proof armor to limit internal damage since the projectile will just more or less pass through not shatter inside and with system redundancies to continue despite damages.
And Falcon turret I think has a turret bustle plus no crew separation at all, so armor is needed there.
BTW that model really looks like sh!t, to me at least.    They should put a tarp on the turret  

etaepsilonk wrote:

Zivo wrote:

This isn't falcon, nor is it official. Debating any details on this specific model is pointless.

Like 195, there's nothing above the hull worth protecting from anything more than autocannon fire. The armor surplus they gain from cutting the turret will go towards protecting the hull.

You do realise of course that armor is meant to protect not only the crew, right?
If a shell hits unarmored turret, then it's a mission-kill for the tank. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

And falcon was only an example, that it doesn't have any crew above hull too, yet the turret is armored. So what makes you think, that the same isn't applied to T-95 or Armata for that matter?

What kind of "shell" are you referring to? Mortar, RPG-7, RPG-29, maybe 120mm APSFDS? The problem is, weapons evolve faster than AFV's. Trying to play this game wastes resources. No matter how much armor you have, a Javelin is going to kill you, an ATGM is going to kill you, or an RPG is going to kill you.  If they cannot kill you from the front, they will kill you from the side.  Realistically, those little strips of armor on either side of the Falcon's mantlet don't do much. If they want to disable the gun, the mantlet itself is a huge weak spot.

Designing MBT's is a game of tradeoffs. The Russian's are trying to design an AFV with better protection than its western rivals, while remaining 20 tons lighter. To do this requires radical solutions. By removing heavy armor from the turret and reducing its size, they can add the resources they save to protecting the hull and installing Active Protection Systems.

Armata may be the first tank ever produced that can take a 120mm APFSDS to the flank and keep on going, and you're complaining about a tiny strip of frontal turret armor? How about the gun sight? Would a loss of that also result in a mission kill?

TW that model really looks like sh!t, to me at least.  pale  They should put a tarp on the turret

I know it's ugly. Keep in mind that when it enters production, conformal storage bins and other crap will make the shaping more palatable. 195 was also ugly as sin, but war isn't a beauty contest.


EDIT: Answering this question

And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

Yes, on the Cold War era battlefield.

Zivo wrote:
I know it's ugly. Keep in mind that when it enters production, conformal storage bins and other crap will make the shaping more palatable. 195 was also ugly as sin, but war isn't a beauty contest.

I know too that looks dont count for sh!t in war and that the real thing may not even look like the model, but whats with the turret. I mean theres this huge empty space on one side and then huge optics glass on the side with stuff. Also the mantlet looks unarmored.

collegeboy16 wrote:

Zivo wrote:
I know it's ugly. Keep in mind that when it enters production, conformal storage bins and other crap will make the shaping more palatable. 195 was also ugly as sin, but war isn't a beauty contest.

I know too that looks dont count for sh!t in war and that the real thing may not even look like the model, but whats with the turret. I mean theres this huge empty space on one side and then huge optics glass on the side with stuff. Also the mantlet looks unarmored.

This is an artist's interpretation. It must be considered as such when discussing the details of it.

I'm assuming the artist wanted to standardize the gunner and commanders optics. This specific model appears to be modeled after this:





As I've stated before, I believe UVZ will propose something similar to this, KBTM may propose something more like the BMPT model but with a 125mm gun.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Is there complete confirmation that the kurganets IFVs will have ramp door and front engine? Does the BMP-3 config have any major disadvantages compared to the classic solution? I heard that the upper opening passenger hatches of the BMP 3 give much less fire cover doors at the back.

Sorry your question got buried in the off topic discussion.

Front engine is a certainty.



Dismounting obviously isn't ideal on the BMP-3. The extra room upfront does allow two additional PKT's though.

Of course it would need to be armored. Keep in mind, that armor protects not only the crew, but also key components of the vehicle. And dunno about external weapon mounting, but in the case of stryker MGS, it was quite unsuccessful. We also know, that external cannon was rejected for objekt 195 tank. So, I think it's safe to assume, that such configuration has quite a number of drawbacks isn't it?

Of course it needs to be armoured, but there is no need for it to be heavily armoured. The only things above the turret ring will be the main gun and sensors... plus of course the APS will be reducing the effectiveness of any enemy tank ammo like APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds... the main threat will be cannon shells which can be dealt with using sloped armour and shaping.
'

Do you know what is the main difference between tanks and artillery?
Tanks are more of a direct fire weapons, while artillery- more of an indirect fire weapons, and their design reflects exactly that.

Do you know what the ISU-152 and ISU-122 from WWII were used for in the Soviet military... and it was not indirect fire.

The reason the Soviets went for a medium pressure 76.2mm gun for the T-34 instead of a high velocity 57mm gun?

Tanks are more of a direct fire weapons, while artillery- more of an indirect fire weapons, and their design reflects exactly that.

The BMPT concept evolved from the situation where tanks driving down streets can't elevate their main guns to engage targets on roof tops or in basements... the purpose of the BMPT is to be able to engage targets tanks can't engage... generally not hard armoured targets but sometimes concrete reinforced.

This means elevation is critical for the BMPT.

If that happens, such "BMPT" would be inferior to 2S9 in affordability, and also inferior to tanks in armor protection.

The BMPT will have the same level of armour as the MBT vehicle it is based upon.

By far, the best option for BMPT is 57 mm cannon, something like this:

Sorry, but I disagree. A 57mm gun is largely optimised for anti armour use and its primary use will be against enemy IFVs at 2km range.

It would be a very potent weapon against infantry, but would lack the raw HE power needed to take out a sandbagged position half way up a building.

The reason for that is that BMPT's exact purpose is not to replace tanks in any particular battle environment, but to supplement them, work together and mutually protect each other.

It is supposed to compliment the MBT by being able to engage targets the MBT has trouble hitting... ie infantry.

That's why I think, that BMPTs shouldn't duplicate tanks' armament, and that leaves pretty much 2 choices:

A 120mm rifled gun/mortar is no MBT gun.

1. IFV's cannons (30 ,57mm and whatnot)

All the IFVs in the armata unit will have 57mm guns and Kornet-EM missiles no doubt.

2. Cannons of the assault guns (such as M728 like I suggested).

120mm gun carries more ammo, has a higher rate of fire, and is standard ammo used widely in the Russian and NATO armies.

Now, having arty at your disposal is ,of course, very useful too, but that should be left to dedicated platforms, IMO.

It could be argued that the integration of a net centric comms system, with artillery using guided shells of exceptional range and accuracy and also the introduction of IFVs based on tank chassis (in many ways the best BMPT armament is that of the BMP-3 so having an IFV based on the armata chassis kinda makes the concept a little redundant) means the requirement for the BMPT could be said to be reduced or even eliminated, but I suspect the BMPT could be a useful vehicle in high threat regions where a MBT is not needed because the enemy has no armour to speak of but that a gun platform is needed to support infantry and protect things like convoys or fixed targets like airfields.

I think, that having lightly armored turret would require quite a change in tank battle doctrine in the first place, for example, hull-down position would become much less effective, and so on. Just not worth it.

Having a hull down position means the enemy has to penetrate several metres of dirt and stone before they get anywhere near your armour makes it ideal. The turret doesn't need heavy armour because there is little there that would need protecting.

And besides, I think that the turret of your picture is actually armored, those stripes on both sides of the gun looks like armor to me

Of course they are armoured, but they don't need the 1 + metre armour protection that modern tank turrets have.

Is there complete confirmation that the kurganets IFVs will have ramp door and front engine?

Yes.

Does the BMP-3 config have any major disadvantages compared to the classic solution? I heard that the upper opening passenger hatches of the BMP 3 give much less fire cover doors at the back.

The BMP-3 design means troops are more exposed when exiting the vehicle to the rear. It also means the rear mounted engine means a heavier turret and much heavier frontal armour can be used in the design while still retaining amphibious capability... something most western IFVs lack.

If a shell hits unarmored turret, then it's a mission-kill for the tank. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

Why is it a mission kill if the turret is penetrated?

It the turret is even hit then it would need to hit something important to get a mission kill... unless it hits and damages the main gun there is not much else it can hit to cause a mission kill in the otherwise largely empty turret... in comparison about 270 degrees of the sides and rear of most tank turrets are vulnerable to even light anti armour weapons because of their thin armour and vulnerable troop and ammo storage positions.

It could be argued that the integration of a net centric comms system, with artillery using guided shells of exceptional range and accuracy and also the introduction of IFVs based on tank chassis (in many ways the best BMPT armament is that of the BMP-3 so having an IFV based on the armata chassis kinda makes the concept a little redundant) means the requirement for the BMPT could be said to be reduced or even eliminated, but I suspect the BMPT could be a useful vehicle in high threat regions where a MBT is not needed because the enemy has no armour to speak of but that a gun platform is needed to support infantry and protect things like convoys or fixed targets like airfields.

I've been thinking about this same issue.

1) The problem is IFV's need to dismount infantry to be completely effective. The dismounted infantry have a different level of mobility than an MBT.

2) In an urban battlefield, the IFV's would deploy troops across a front. The IFV's would work closely with their dismounted infantry to slowly and systematically clear sectors. Teams of 2 MBT's and 1 BMPT would move from hotspot to hotspot helping the infantry bust fortified positions. Fortified position's would be multiple floor concrete/cinder block buildings with sandbagged firing ports. Tunnels may connect multiple buildings forming complex defensive networks. Even if you hammer one room with a 57mm gun, the garrison will just move after the initial loses, then return or even flank the dismounted infantry when they try to move in to clear the building. MBT's have the firepower to destroy the positions in short order, but MBT's still need to be protected from ambush during transit after each engagement.

3) A general purpose vehicle is needed to support front line Armata-level logistics. Dismounted troops are going to take casualties, and these casualties need to be handled. Likely a few Armata BTR's will be converted to the MEV roll. The Armata MEV would be either unarmed, or protected with a 12.7mm HMG. A single BMPT could effectively protect the MEV as it runs back and forth from the front. The IMR engineering vehicle would also benefit from protection as they preform their tasks. It doesn't make sense to use either a BMP or a MBT for this important escort roll.

If you want to see exactly how these rolls are preformed with conventional vehicles, look no further than Syria.

Finally i have get some time  

etaepsilonk wrote:To Mindstorm:
"Anyone can easily point out to the almost daily instances, in the tough battles in Vietnam's hills and jungle, where North Vietnamese "insurgents" whas shooting ,from multiple directions and with very short exposure, ATGMs and RPGs from the upper floors or an "half window" or directly from the basements of buildings against enemy armored/IFV vehicles in the streets"

That's pretty much the exact environment of the Vietnam war, just replace ATGMs with RRs.  

What ?

Battles in Vietnam jungles, villages and hills the exact environment of a COIN operation in an urbanized area where vehicles are self-channeled and oriented by the streets between buildings and where enemy infantry can shot, from very close range , aspect and angle of incidence (mostly from basements or upper floor and very often even from the rear !)  completely unachievable in classical large scale warfare ?

etaepsilonk wrote:"M728 was obviously never employed to independently and/or directly confront NVA defensive positions and at very good reasons."

If you claim, that M-728 was never used in direct combat, then maybe you have some link to prove it?
Because the link I had provided, states the exact opposite.  

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/eng/M728.html

Here, even a citation for your convenience:
"During the Vietnam war, the M728 was used in fire support, base security, counterambush fire, direct assault of fortified positions, and limited reconnaissance by fire. During Operation Desert Storm, M728s were used to augment M1A1s equipped with mine rollers and mine plows."

Well?

Are you kidding me ?

What you have cited up here is NOT a source .
The source of the supposed notion, reported in this site, is  L.T. General John H. Hay Jr.'s  book "Tactical and Material Innovations" where , in chapter IX , it report generally speaking that M728 has been employed also in this role by the 29th Infantry "Americal" , that had received some armor and M728 CEV as reinforcement from other regiment (11th ACR).
It say in particular :

"It even spearheaded  an infantry-cavalry charge in the village of Tap Al Bac on 19 June of 1969, when division elements came at the defense of two bulldozers and a work party from the 26th Engineer Battallion. The day-long was won in the final assault"  

This unique mission in the Tap Al Bac village , a very well known war event (and representing, anyhow, a very rare exception over the usual CONOP of M728) is anything except a good example of the typical assault mission to entrenched and fortified and hidden infantry typical of the deadly urban environment where BMPT would be required to operate.  


Even more interesting of similar unspecified statements on M-728 is  ,instead, to learn (from formerly classified documents) what was the real opinion of the main operators of M-728 (command of 11th ACR) on the specific subject in debate here : value of the 165 mm HEP as a viable operative weapon for direct combat.

In this document :



http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/500745.pdf


at pag 51 you can read the opinion of the command on the features of M728 .
On the specific value of the 165 mm main gun, particularly,  it read :

"d. The 165mm gun is much more specialized than the 90mm M4.8 gun.
To date it has yet to be proven in combat.
The loading time at a minimum is two minutes which would be too time consuming in a firefight.
The HEP round is also limited in application due to the 750 meter safety radius.
Cannister rounds for and a range finder on the main gun would
be definite assets."

As previously sustained and perfectly confirmed in this formerly classified document the 165mm HEP gun of M728 was not considered a viable weapon for mount direct combat already since Vietnam conflict !
It was instead nothing more than an highly specialized mean for demolition engineering.

collegeboy16 wrote:

etaepsilonk wrote:
You do realise of course that armor is meant to protect not only the crew, right?
If a shell hits unarmored turret, then it's a mission-kill for the tank. And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

And falcon was only an example, that it doesn't have any crew above hull too, yet the turret is armored. So what makes you think, that the same isn't applied to T-95 or Armata for that matter?

Well, if the turret w/ heavy armor gets hit its most likely f-kill too since all those nice calibrations will be thrown out of whack by a substantial impact. Best to have something with only autocannon proof armor to limit internal damage since the projectile will just more or less pass through not shatter inside and with system redundancies to continue despite damages.
And Falcon turret I think has a turret bustle plus no crew separation at all, so armor is needed there.
BTW that model really looks like sh!t, to me at least.    They should put a tarp on the turret  

Judging by the intended size of the turret its unlikely there will be any empty space there so if something penetrates it will destroy the laoding system or something else if not the electronics.Keep in mind there will be a bustle because without it you cant have good APSFDS anymore . The ammo there also needs armor.


Also why isn't it also an M-kill when a shell hits a manned turret? Leaving the turret unarmoured is a stupid gamble IMO.

And Just because the tank will have a crew doesn't mean everything except the front has to be protected like shit. Systems protection, salvagability and equipment protection also have to be considered.

The turret will NOT be UNarmored.
An unmanned turret has no wasted space for seats and switches and so on for the crew, meaning it has much less space to becovered with armor, it will need much less armor to be protected than any turret before that doesn't make it weak or unarmored.

The crew isn't the ONLY THING to be protected in a tank turret. Your theory is incredibly short-sighted . As I said what about the loading system, gun, electronics, bustle etc. Theyre not exactly invincible when a 120mm sabot smashes into them.  And  no wasted  space for the crew means NO EMPTY SPACE in the turret so the " penetrate and fly away" gamble doesn't work here.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:The crew isn't the ONLY THING to be protected in a tank turret. Your theory is incredibly short-sighted . As I said what about the loading system, gun, electronics, bustle etc. Theyre not exactly invincible when a 120mm sabot smashes into them.  And  no wasted  space for the crew means NO EMPTY SPACE in the turret so the " penetrate and fly away" +gamble doesn't work here.

You don't get it?

An Unmanned turret has much less space that needs to be covered regardless if you count in autoloader or not, meaning you don't need a turret weighting 9-25tones like it is today the case of any 3rd generation MBT. The only thing that will need is armor is the armor around the autoloader behind the gun and sights, that's it. It could even look some similiar like a striped Merkawa, which is totally ugly btw.

I agree with you as long as the mentioned armor can protect against penetration by tank shells and and shock that would damage the electronics.

To Mindstorm:
"Battles in Vietnam jungles, villages and hills the exact environment of a COIN operation in an urbanized area where vehicles are self-channeled and oriented by the streets between buildings and where enemy infantry can shot, from very close range , aspect and angle of incidence (mostly from basements or upper floor and very often even from the rear !)?"

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hu%E1%BA%BF





"This unique mission in the Tap Al Bac village , a very well known war event (and representing, anyhow, a very rare exception over the usual CONOP of M728) is anything except a good example of the typical assault mission to entrenched and fortified and hidden infantry typical of the deadly urban environment where BMPT would be required to operate."

So you're presenting a single example of m728 usage as it's whole operational history?    Well, if you're so biased that you choose to ignore any argument that doesn't suit your agenda, then I don't see a point in this debate.
Both John H. Hay Jr. and Mike Sparks, claim that M728 proved to be pretty useful in Vietnam (all the while, not saying, that they're some all destroying wunderwaffe, after all, only 291 of them was made in the first place). Or do you think they're just making this up?

And you try to counter their arguments by presenting a report from one US cavalry regiment covering a timeframe of only several months   
Moreover, your link itself states, that the formation in which two m728 took part, was never meant to participate in full fledged combined arms assault in the first place.

"Both CEV's are used extensively for security. The only drawback to this use is the fact that often the engineers travel alone- violating the theory of employing tanks together."

And huh, what's this? A heavily armored vehicle, that's supposed to operate together with tanks? Isn't this is exactly what BMPT supposed to do?

Now about those "lessons" of 11th ACR:
"The 165mm gun is much more specialized than the 90mm M4.8 gun."
Absolutely. But so is BMPT vehicle as well. It's role is almost entirely limited to escort of other armed formations or convoys.




"To date it has yet to be proven in combat."
Geez, it wasn't used in whole 3 months, IT'S USELESS   





"The loading time at a minimum is two minutes which would be too time consuming in a firefight."
I take this with a grain of salt, because there's no elaboration. Maybe the crew was inexperienced? Cramped compartment? Flawed rounds storage? The gun didn't have ejector? There's no information to back that up really.




"The HEP round is also limited in application due to the 750 meter safety radius."
What?   What's not possible, even from simple physics point of view.


"Cannister rounds for and a range finder on the main gun would
be definite assets."
Easily accomplishable, if needed. And, in fact, the canister rounds of the 165 mm caliber would hold much more cartridges than M1028 120mm canister shot round, currently used by US army.


To sum up, if you want to draw any conclusions, you should really not limit yourself to 1 regiment experience in the limited timeframe. Because any particular experience may vary greatly depending on different units and missions they're performing.  





"As previously sustained and perfectly confirmed in this formerly classified document the 165mm HEP gun of M728 was not considered a viable weapon for mount direct combat already since Vietnam conflict !"
Oh?   I may remind you that firstly you stated that m728 was generically useless. But now, it's "since Vietnam conflict"  

And yes, on this rare occasion you're somewhat right.
I'm too lazy to search for another source, but wiki sums it up nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M728_Combat_Engineer_Vehicle
Quote:
"During Operation Desert Storm, the M728 CEV proved unable to keep pace due to the inability of the M60 chassis and power train to keep up with the M1A1 Abrams in the armored formations and spearheads. Many maneuver units simply left the M728 CEV behind rather than let it slow their advance."

So, limitation of M728 was precicely due to obsolete M60 chassis, rather than system as a whole.

And there's more:
" In the post-war assessment, many armored unit commanders were in agreement that the engineers needed an M1 Abrams based chassis for heavy breaching and gap crossing equipment to keep pace with the Abrams. As a result of this, the M728 was no longer used by active duty units from 2000 onward"

So, M728 was so "useless", that it was even planned to mount the system on M1 abrams chassis  


To Kommisar:
Yes, I agree with you completely. Even with no crew in the turret, there are still vital parts, that needs protection (electronics, loading, gun elevation mechanisms, breech).


To Zivo:
Cold war or not, silouettes of tanks are still similar.
And about IFVs. Pardon if I haven't noticed that part, but I think you forget to mention that many IFVs have firing ports for mounted combat.

To Garry:
"Of course it needs to be armoured, but there is no need for it to be heavily armoured. The only things above the turret ring will be the main gun and sensors... plus of course the APS will be reducing the effectiveness of any enemy tank ammo like APFSDS rounds and HEAT rounds... the main threat will be cannon shells which can be dealt with using sloped armour and shaping."

Yes, and ERA too. But you see, even if the turret has the same protection levels as conventional design, it's STILL gonna be lighter, because it's more compact.






"Do you know what the ISU-152 and ISU-122 from WWII were used for in the Soviet military... and it was not indirect fire.
The reason the Soviets went for a medium pressure 76.2mm gun for the T-34 instead of a high velocity 57mm gun?"

Actually, SU-152 and the like serves as a fine example to my point. Their armor sacrificed internal space and, as a result, their ammo capacity, gun elevation and rate of fire were poor. And even all this is with casemate configuration, which tends to be roomier, than turrets.

Those assault guns were ,in fact, closer to tanks, than true SPHs.






"The BMPT concept evolved from the situation where tanks driving down streets can't elevate their main guns to engage targets on roof tops or in basements... the purpose of the BMPT is to be able to engage targets tanks can't engage... generally not hard armoured targets but sometimes concrete reinforced.
This means elevation is critical for the BMPT."

Yes, absolutely, but armor for BMPT is very important too.
Example. I've read that on at least one occasion, Msta-S (with great elevation and all that) was used in very close ranges in Grozny, 1995... Needless to say, it was destroyed very quickly   
So you see, the qualities of tank and artillery vehicles are often directly opposite of each other.
So, you can have the vehicle that will perform greatly at direct or indirect combat, but not at both at the same time.




"The BMPT will have the same level of armour as the MBT vehicle it is based upon."

With hull, I agree. But with turret, that really depends on weapons it will be carrying.





"Sorry, but I disagree. A 57mm gun is largely optimised for anti armour use and its primary use will be against enemy IFVs at 2km range.
It would be a very potent weapon against infantry, but would lack the raw HE power needed to take out a sandbagged position half way up a building."

That's what tanks are for.



"It is supposed to compliment the MBT by being able to engage targets the MBT has trouble hitting... ie infantry."
Yes, absolutely. And guess what else has that role?
IFVs. No you see the exact point of BMPT type vehicles? 

They're meant to at least partially replace IFVs in combat roles, while being much more survivable. And I argue (and, in fact, have always argued), that weapon type for BMPT is suitable only if it's suitable for IFV as well. Don't you agree?

Armata may be the first tank ever produced that can take a 120mm APFSDS to the flank and keep on going, and you're complaining about a tiny strip of frontal turret armor? How about the gun sight? Would a loss of that also result in a mission kill?

Exactly... you could put the heaviest armour on the turret, but a single hit to the barrel could make it a mobile bunker with no functioning main gun. Or the opposite... blow off both tracks with HMG fire and it is a pill box.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some studies made which came to conclusion that tank turret and not the hull has the biggest probability of being hit?

Experience has shown that the most common place for a knocked out tank to be hit in combat is the turret front... so eliminating the turret front from the equation makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

1) The problem is IFV's need to dismount infantry to be completely effective. The dismounted infantry have a different level of mobility than an MBT.

Which suggests the BMPT could be used instead of troops to support tank operations where the risk to troops in the open is just too high... somewhere exposed or conversely somewhere where the enemy is able to make effective use of the terrain... is a Finnish forest with finnish troops with sniper rifles.

Judging by the intended size of the turret its unlikely there will be any empty space there so if something penetrates it will destroy the laoding system or something else if not the electronics.Keep in mind there will be a bustle because without it you cant have good APSFDS anymore . The ammo there also needs armor.

Judging?

The ammo will be stored below the turret ring and therefore will be protected by hull armour. The area above the turret ring will need an empty space for the mechanism to raise ammo from below the turret ring into the chamber. The mechanism only needs to occupy that space while it is reloading so the only danger of ammo or the loading mechanism being damaged would be if it was hit while it was reloading. Otherwise it will just be an empty space that does not need protection.

A penetration by APFSDS rounds or HEAT rounds will create a hole about 4-5cm in diameter... all essential systems can be designed to be duplicated and at least this distance apart so a single penetration cannot knock out a primary system and its backup system with one shot. This means the vehicle will be likely able to resist several direct hits and still perform its mission.

Leaving the turret unarmoured is a stupid gamble IMO.

Armour takes up space and adds weight and costs money.

think of a truck and trailer... if you wanted to protect it you would add armour to the cabin to protect the driver and the engine and the fuel tanks. You would also protect the wheels too. But if you want to put heavy armour over the entire trailer suddenly the weight has increased exponentially and you will need a much bigger truck to carry all that armour and a useful payload. If the truck is transporting rations then why bother with armour plating the sides? A few penetrations will not damage that many boxes...

The cost benefit evaluation means unless you are carrying fuel or explosives or people then it makes no sense to have heavy armour over the cargo area.

And Just because the tank will have a crew doesn't mean everything except the front has to be protected like shit.

If the entire crew were in a capsule above the turret where would it make sense to put the heaviest armour? The turret? The Hull? The capsule with the crew?

You would still armour the hull and the turret to protect the engine and the gun, but the armour has to protect the people, the fuel and the ammo... the latter two to prevent them being targeted to take out the crew.

Your priorities are crew first, which includes the crew directly and the ammo and fuel to prevent the crew being indirectly harmed, then the engine and gun because that is your mobility and primary weapon.

You can put sheets of armour 40mm thick to stop small arms, 200mm thick to stop autocannon fire or 1.5m + for enemy tank main gun cannon fire. As you can guess your enemy has a range of weapons with specific performances so there if 40mm of armour will stop enemy small arms then putting 80mm of armour is extra weight and cost without offering protection from the next level of weapon performance... ie autocannon. Equally if 200mm stops autocannon fire then it makes no sense to fit 500mm of armour because while it still stops autocannon it also still will not stop MBT main gun ammo so again the extra weight offers no advantage.

With no crew and no ammo and no fuel in the tank turret a penetration by a 120mm APFSDS is going to make a 5cm hole... the chance of it going through something critical can be minimised by duplication and spacing... which is far cheaper than putting 1.5+ m worth of armour there...

As I said what about the loading system, gun, electronics, bustle etc. Theyre not exactly invincible when a 120mm sabot smashes into them. And no wasted space for the crew means NO EMPTY SPACE in the turret so the " penetrate and fly away" gamble doesn't work here.

Why on earth do you think they will put critical electronics systems into a turret exposed to enemy fire?

Do you think they are idiots?

There will be plenty of space behind the turret ring in front of the engine for electronic boxes... even the electronic sensor windows on the turret will likely only have fibre optic cables a few mms thick leading down to the electronic boxes in the hull... with a few more leads taking power to the various areas that need it. They will more than likely have multiple data and power leads to ensure redundancy in case of a hit too.

Example. I've read that on at least one occasion, Msta-S (with great elevation and all that) was used in very close ranges in Grozny, 1995... Needless to say, it was destroyed very quickly

Would be a desperate measure as MSTA has no line of sight sights... the closest target it can aim at using the sighting system is 6km distant. Of course such a vehicle would be targeted by the enemy.

So you see, the qualities of tank and artillery vehicles are often directly opposite of each other.
So, you can have the vehicle that will perform greatly at direct or indirect combat, but not at both at the same time.

And you are ignoring the fact that a BMPT vehicle is a new type of vehicle there have been no exact examples used previously to use as examples. Artillery and MBTs are very different, but not all fire support vehicles are Artillery or MBTs... The ISU-152 was not a tank, nor was it artillery in the accepted sense.

The best example of a BMPT would be a Shilka or Tunguska.... which are not artillery either... they are vehicles used because of their enormous fire power to suppress enemy infantry and keep them off of the tanks.

With hull, I agree. But with turret, that really depends on weapons it will be carrying.

No it doesn't. The BMPT will have tank level armour and an unmanned turret... they are not going to fit a MSTA turret to an ARMATA tank hull and call it a BMPT. The turret will be well armoured and shaped to maximise gun elevation and performance while making penetrating hits ineffective.

That's what tanks are for.

A tank can't elevate its main gun to hit targets in buildings.

Yes, absolutely. And guess what else has that role?
IFVs. No you see the exact point of BMPT type vehicles?

I know the point of BMPT... do you?

They're meant to at least partially replace IFVs in combat roles, while being much more survivable. And I argue (and, in fact, have always argued), that weapon type for BMPT is suitable only if it's suitable for IFV as well. Don't you agree?

A Soviet/Russian IFV with auto cannon, and artillery weapons is suitably armed but the troop compartment is a waste of space and of course it must be built on a MBT level of protection and mobility.

An IFV can't be used as a BMPT... an IFV is designed to engage enemy infantry and its troop carrying vehicles (APC and IFV) to support its own troops. A BMPT is supposed to do something similar but to support its own tanks.

So, M728 was so "useless", that it was even planned to mount the system on M1 abrams chassis

M728 would be useless as a BMPT... something it was never designed for anyway. The fact that they are replacing it with an engineer vehicle based on an Abrams suggests the US continues to have engineer units that need engineer vehicles... no real surprises here.

Their goal is to make a tank in the T-90's weight class and surpass their western rivals in survivability, cuts have to be made somewhere.

Those giant blocks of turret armor are gone.

@garry I didn't know electronics for the targeting systems work just as well when they're placed on the hull  . I agree with you about the laoding system but you don't understand me I'm not saying the turret should get massive protection I'm just saying the vital non duplicatable systems like the gun breach should have heavy armor only in the places most likely to be hit like the strips on the turret front and around 1/2 of the side.

IMO heavily armoring the pital top parts of the turret and hull is also a good idea given how sophisticated top attack cluster munitions have become.

Are there any tank FCS systems created or about to be built that can hit something as small as a dinner plate at 2-3km? If these are developed then the whole "make the tank smaller" thing will be a complete waste since it will still be easy to target vital spots no matter how low or narror the tank is.

I would like to give one hint regarding BMPT and IFV. BMPT is in the first line together with tanks, while IFV is in the second line carrying infantry and support them in battle. They are not excluding each other. BMPT is free to fight with helicopters and other targets, which tank could not engage, while IFV have to coordinate and protect the action of its infantry.

I think we should make a list of post nos for every answered question.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:@garry I didn't know electronics for the targeting systems work just as well when they're placed on the hull  . I agree with you about the laoding system but you don't understand me I'm not saying the turret should get massive protection I'm just saying the vital non duplicatable systems like the gun breach should have heavy armor  only in the places most likely to be hit like the strips on the turret front and around 1/2 of the side.

Protecting the gun shouldnt be priority, besides they can design it to be easy to replace entirely and to calibrate too. And I think it was GarryB who said that making the enemy resort to weakening you first by shooting your gun is a neat idea since while it happens you are shooting back.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
IMO heavily armoring the pital top parts of the turret and hull is also a good idea given how sophisticated top attack cluster munitions have become.

Object 195s protection is adequate enough imo for top attack munitions unless its something like Hermes size warhead. As Zivo pointed out,
it has a mildly thick armor plate disk on top of the huge turret ring plus the turret roof armor and the space between.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Are there any tank  FCS systems created or about to be built that can hit something as small as a dinner plate  at 2-3km? If these are developed then the whole "make the tank smaller" thing will be a complete waste since it will still be easy to target vital spots no matter how low or narror the tank is.

modern FCS should already allow that, but only for static targets. I believe Mindstorm already busted this myth of uber FCS against small moving targets.

To Garry:
"Why on earth do you think they will put critical electronics systems into a turret exposed to enemy fire?
Do you think they are idiots?"

So, all current tank designers are idiots, because LWR, wind sensors, sights, comm antennas, APU, are mounted in the turret  







"Experience has shown that the most common place for a knocked out tank to be hit in combat is the turret front... so eliminating the turret front from the equation makes a lot of sense doesn't it?"

Turret front isn't eliminated, it has it's area reduced.






"A penetration by APFSDS rounds or HEAT rounds will create a hole about 4-5cm in diameter... all essential systems can be designed to be duplicated and at least this distance apart so a single penetration cannot knock out a primary system and its backup system with one shot. This means the vehicle will be likely able to resist several direct hits and still perform its mission."

If Heat round hits lightly armored turret, the damage for internal space will be great.






"If the entire crew were in a capsule above the turret where would it make sense to put the heaviest armour? The turret? The Hull? The capsule with the crew?"

You know, if crew protection is such a priority, that turret armor is irrelevant, then why don't go for casemate design? It would save weight even more, and would add extra space too 



"A tank can't elevate its main gun to hit targets in buildings."

Then placed correctly, yes it can.  




"I know the point of BMPT... do you?"

I don't know the point precicely.




"A Soviet/Russian IFV with auto cannon, and artillery weapons is suitably armed but the troop compartment is a waste of space and of course it must be built on a MBT level of protection and mobility."

You seem to forget that IFVs are more spacious, than tanks. Add BMP-3 turret to T-72, and you will hardly notice any difference, volume-wise.





"Would be a desperate measure as MSTA has no line of sight sights... the closest target it can aim at using the sighting system is 6km distant. Of course such a vehicle would be targeted by the enemy."

Oh? Then, what's this, near the gun?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/2S19_Msta-S_in_service_with_the_Ukrainian_Army.jpg

To Zivo:
You do realise, of course that turret, even if it's armored, will still be lighter, due to smaller dimensions?

MSTA-S http://www.npzoptics.com/catalog/devices_for_sau_and_szo/1p22/
So LOS and NLOS fire is covered by same sighting system. 

etaepsilonk, can You provide source of MSTA being used in such manner?  I know First war was total clusterfuck, but sheesh.

etaepsilonk wrote:So, all current tank designers are idiots, because LWR, wind sensors, sights, comm antennas, APU, are mounted in the turret  

Sensors will definitely be mounted on the turret, but some crucial systems can be stored inside of the hull if of course they will be willing to sacrifice precious room. I hope it won't be even more cramped than T-90.

"A tank can't elevate its main gun to hit targets in buildings."

Then placed correctly, yes it can. 

Who placed correctly? Tank or main gun? Tanks in urban warfare unsupported by infantry squads are no go, no matter they have BMPT or Shilka. Tall buildings have to be fought floor by floor.

So, all current tank designers are idiots, because LWR, wind sensors, sights, comm antennas, APU, are mounted in the turret

Apparently yes, because on practically all MBT's these sensors are vulnerable to even small arms fire. On a few MBT's, the gunner's sight actually compromises the frontal turret armor from certain angles.   

Turret front isn't eliminated, it has it's area reduced.

Reduced to a mantlet and maybe eight or nine inches of autocannon resistant armor on the side. If you think about it, it has the same level of protection as a standard MBT turret against HEAT and APFSDS from a 0° azimuth from the center line.

You know, if crew protection is such a priority, that turret armor is irrelevant, then why don't go for casemate design? It would save weight even more, and would add extra space too

Because then you wouldn't have a vehicle that could fulfill the MBT roll.

Sensors will definitely be mounted on the turret, but some crucial systems can be stored inside of the hull if of course they will be willing to sacrifice precious room. I hope it won't be even more cramped than T-90.

Keep in mind that Armata will be all digital, the electronics are significantly smaller. Object 195 was controlled via a joystick and a large LCD screen per crew station, Armata will be the same. I'm assuming they're going to stuff the main computer and the other important electronic systems in the crew capsule. Components like the fire suppression system will also reduce space available to the crew.

It'll be cramped with three people, but I don't think it'll be too terrible.



On this model, you can see that the crew actually sit behind the hatches. There will be plenty of legroom and the seats likely recline.  

They will probably even have an armrest on the right side of each seat for the joystick.

@garry I didn't know electronics for the targeting systems work just as well when they're placed on the hull Rolling Eyes.

The electronics could be mounted anywhere you want... the electronics for a ballistics computer are not that different from the electronics in a palm top computer... the video processing and thermal imaging hardware is bigger but does not need to be fitted in optics ports on top of a turret to work.

I agree with you about the laoding system but you don't understand me I'm not saying the turret should get massive protection I'm just saying the vital non duplicatable systems like the gun breach should have heavy armor only in the places most likely to be hit like the strips on the turret front and around 1/2 of the side.

Why?

If most tanks get hit on their turret front then the autoloader will be completely safe as it is behind the main gun.

Why add weight?

IMO heavily armoring the pital top parts of the turret and hull is also a good idea given how sophisticated top attack cluster munitions have become.

Top attack cluster munitions have gotten no more sophisticated since about 1996 when the Russians added IR sensors to the MMW radar sensors on their cluster munitions.

Are there any tank FCS systems created or about to be built that can hit something as small as a dinner plate at 2-3km? If these are developed then the whole "make the tank smaller" thing will be a complete waste since it will still be easy to target vital spots no matter how low or narror the tank is.

When the target is moving then nothing can guarantee hitting anything unless it uses a guided munition.

Otherwise all western tanks are dead because despite having 1.5+ metres of frontal armour according to their marketing departments if Russian tanks can hit dinner plates at 2-3km then they can just hit a western tank in its main gun with their first shot and the vehicle is neutralised.

So, all current tank designers are idiots, because LWR, wind sensors, sights, comm antennas, APU, are mounted in the turret

Hahaha... that is weak. First of all I would not class wind sensors, comm antennas, and APUs as critical sensors.

Second if all tank designers put CRITICAL components in an exposed position vulnerable to enemy fire, then yes they are idiots.

And that is the point... they don't put critical components sitting outside the hull armour on the glacis plate vulnerable to even small arms fire...

I think we should make a list of post nos for every answered question.

I have more respect for people who seriously want to discuss this to at least have had a read through a lot of these issues that keep coming up...

Turret front isn't eliminated, it has it's area reduced.

Based on what? The MBT Armata could just be an external gun and no turret at all. The BMPT could simply be an externally mounted 120mm rifled gun/mortar able to elevate more.

If Heat round hits lightly armored turret, the damage for internal space will be great.

Combat experience has shown that with lightly armoured targets a HEAT round that penetrates both sides of the vehicle would do very little internal damage except the penetration path. If it does not hit crew or ammo or fuel it can pass right through and do very little damage at all... would be the same with a largely empty turret space.

You know, if crew protection is such a priority, that turret armor is irrelevant, then why don't go for casemate design? It would save weight even more, and would add extra space too

A case mate design would not reduce weight very much but would significantly reduce the ability to engage targets that can appear from any direction with very little notice.

Then placed correctly, yes it can.

When placed correctly of course it can, but in the real world when you have a column of tanks rolling down down town Grozny where are you going to find those nicely sloped elevated mounts that will allow your tank crews to drive partially up and elevate their guns more than 20 degrees to hit targets within 50m 4 floors up a building?

You seem to forget that IFVs are more spacious, than tanks. Add BMP-3 turret to T-72, and you will hardly notice any difference, volume-wise.

I don't follow your point... we are talking about the BMPT so neither the T-72 nor BMP-3 turret is relevant as both of these are manned.

Oh? Then, what's this, near the gun?

You might want to contact the makers and tell them that their specs are wrong and that they shouldn't tell people that the minimum engagement range is 6.5km.

etaepsilonk wrote:So you're presenting a single example of m728 usage as it's whole operational history?  Laughing  Well, if you're so biased that you choose to ignore any argument that doesn't suit your agenda, then I don't see a point in this debate.

Oh not , i am presenting the unique instance ,in over four years of M728 operative service in Vietnam (half of 1969), where that highly specialized demolition vehicles has been employed as a spearhead units in a combined arms assault with elements of an infantry brigade.
I know it is very difficult to attempt to present an engineering vehicle with its purposely designed short barrel M135 demolition gun ,with its literally abysmal engagement range, lethality, accuracy and rate of fire, as a viable weapon of choice as a BMPT-like design.


I am sure that you don't ......"see a point in this debate"...... because you have a very, very hard time in twist factual specifications and CONOPS with "armchair general" kind of phantasy.   

etaepsilonk wrote:"To date it has yet to be proven in combat."
Geez, it wasn't used in whole 3 months, IT'S USELESS  Rolling Eyes

You are quickly falling in the ridiculous : that formerly classified document clearly specify that, in the same time window, the M728 was extensively used in all its intended roles , for a "strange chance" just......engineering and demolition tasks  ..... and ,equally "strangely", it employed repeatedly in combat all its other weaponry.

Try to guess WHY operators of 11 ACR's M728 employed repeatedly against enemy M85 and M73 machine guns but not one time the short-barrel 165mm demolition gun.
What a difficult question..... 

etaepsilonk wrote:Both John H. Hay Jr. and Mike Sparks, claim that M728 proved to be pretty useful in Vietnam

1) You wasn't even aware of the real origin of the notion portrayed in that ridiculous site (from John H. Hay Jr's book ) up to mine post   
2) No operative at world ,those two included, will ever get the iron face to sustain the absurdity that the M135 demolition gun has been employed as a successful anti-infantry weapon (very likely them will barely "fight" to let it pass even only as an improvised weapon for some limit instances ).
 

etaepsilonk wrote: "The loading time at a minimum is two minutes which would be too time consuming in a firefight."
I take this with a grain of salt, because there's no elaboration. Maybe the crew was inexperienced? Cramped compartment? Flawed rounds storage? The gun didn't have ejector? There's no information to back that up really.

You ? YOU.... take that with a grain of salt ?    

That notion ,sent in a classified document, to US Army CENTCOM and coming directly from fist hand operative experience of the M728's crew , is used to operate eventual technical modifications to the system or to even modify its CONOPS and YOU want to take that with a grain of salt ?
Actually performance of 11 ACR M728's loaders in Vietnam was above the specifications and production requirement of the gun ; directly from M135 operative and maintenance manual Chap 2 p 76 :

" average reloading time : about 160 seconds"  

etaepsilonk wrote:"The HEP round is also limited in application due to the 750 meter safety radius."
What?  Laughing What's not possible, even from simple physics point of view.

Oh yes ,what laughs .....  

Directly from M135 ammunition tactical manual :

"Precautions in Firing

1) Before 165 mm M135 main gun is fired assure all hatches are closed and all personnel outside the vehicle are under available cover at least 600 meters from target and should exercise caution to 1000 meters"

etaepsilonk wrote:"Cannister rounds for and a range finder on the main gun would
be definite assets."
Easily accomplishable, if needed. And, in fact, the canister rounds of the 165 mm caliber would hold much more cartridges than M1028 120mm canister shot round, currently used by US army.

You don't modify barrell's lenght ,electric actuators and breech's design only to integrate a cannister round in a short barrel gun not expected to be used in any task except demolition one.....in fact a similar modification to implement a cannister round for M135 was never even only proposed or attempted