gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3349
    MEMBERS
  • 190098
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24/2/22 by gatnerd; 159998 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

29-May

Those two cannons can also eat the ammo at twice the rate so would expect 1000rds minimum and more ATGMs , considering it carries no reloads 

BMPT cost is probably down to it being small series, and build being on an extensively modified tank platform with more systems and optics (4 mayor sights)  than a tank vs BMPT2 that looked like a turret swap was limited to prototypes as it lost the whole engaging multiple targets at once capabilty. Next terminator if this one works out seems to be with 57mm canon and 4 atgms.

Like said Ataka has some advantages over Kornet , but it seems that was more the case 20y ago when BMPT was being developed, in the meantime Kornet  received a longer range and out penetrates Ataka, warhead diameter is very important to armor penetration of the shaped charges, while Ataka is much heavier armor penetration behind reactive armor is stated as 800-950mm vs Kornet 1000-1300mm  ,

Kornet also added fire and forget in EM versions that has thus much higher hit probability over extended ranges vs SALCOS Ataka . Am somewhat surprised they didn't end up with chrisantema that enables simutaneus multi target engagement with atgms

Yes BMPT crew is well protected, but so far the main gain i see in the BMPT concept is the situational awareness over a tank or a IFV as basically it has 3 gunners with their sights and a panoramic commander's sight high up

Pre-historic BMPT prototype had 1 cannon an 4 Kornets . but lacked a real panoramic sight.

Ukraine played with similar concept as the Algerians BMP turret on obsolte T55 chassis

And these days there are Unmanned Turrets like an Epoch that could be used on old tank hulls ,if the concept proves viable, lack of T72 turret at -12tons frees of add on capacity for protection kits 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

29-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Those two cannons can also eat the ammo at twice the rate so would expect 1000rds minimum and more ATGMs , considering it carries no reloads

This would only be the case if they fire both in long bursts all the time. As far as I know the two guns are mostly for redundancy. Secondary to be able to fire them alternating to get supression over longer time. Only in a pinch the two guns are supposed to fire at the same time.

The ATGMs are the secondary weapon. To knock out field fortifications at long range and for self defense against AFVs. Since the BMPT is supposed to work close with tanks more ATGMs don't seem that important.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but it seems that was more than case 20y ago when BMPT was being developed

What makes you think Ataka has not been improved?
A modernised version has a range of 10.000 m for example. The warhead also is improved and has better penetration.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

warhead diameter is very important to armor penetration of the shaped charges,

No its not. That has been true in the '40 and '50. Its only somewhat true if all other things are equal today. The warhead of the Ataka is allmost twice the weight so things are obviously not equal.
But by putting more explosive behind a thicker liner the penetration of smaller diameters can be increased significantly. Tandem warheads also have this effect. The current Ataka tandem warhead has penetration in the 1000 mm RHAe range behind ERA. That is comparable to Kornet. Because of the larger and heavier warhead its blast and fragmentation will be better. Resulting in an overall more effective warhead.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Kornet also added fire and forget in EM versions has a much higher hit probability over extended ranges vs SALCOS Ataka

Fire and forget does not automatically have a higher hit propability compared to SACLOS. Actually often the oposit is true.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Ukraine played with similar concept as the Algerians BMP turret on obsolte T55 chassis

On the picture is a modified T-64.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Yes BMPT crew is well protected, but so far the main gain i see in the BMPT concept is the situational awareness over a tank or a IFV as basically has 3 gunners with their sights and a panoramic comanders sight high up

The use of the BMPT is to have a weapons suite that suplements that of tanks with a similar level of protection. The BMPT is supposed to quickly supress AT teams and deliver overvelming rapid fire against area targets. Something tanks are notoriously bad at. Its also better at short range fighting (< 500 m) again somthing tanks are notoriously bad at. Simplied it closes a capability gap and covers blind spots.
Which is actually the mission on an IFV. But since the Soviet/Russian legacy IFV are extremly bad protected they can not perform this mission in a modern environment anymore. The BMPT is a stopgap to adress this.
Once or better if the Russians roll out the T-15 in serious numbers the BMPT might not be needed anymore.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

30-May

Both sides seem to be using the grenade launchers also in indirect fire capacity,with third party spotting fires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXsuHmwtk4

FNH70s under fire

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/14175

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

31-May

More Buggy Busters, this time using Chinese ATV's similar to the Polaris in concept:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/ukrainian_soldiers_use_all-terrain_vehicle_geon_strike_1000_armed_with_skif_anti-tank_missile.html

I just love these little things. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

31-May

Man i would love to get one of these 

nincomp

From: nincomp

31-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Man i would love to get one of these 

My Wife saw this photo agreed with you.  I have the suspicion that in her case, she meant the guy in the foreground, though.scream

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

1-Jun

Ukraine to reportedly receive HIMARS along with guided rockets (as well as possibly unguided rockets.) Will not receive the ATACMS short range ballistic missiles that can also be fired from the truck.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-to-get-guided-rockets-but-not-ones-able-to-reach-far-into-russia

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

1-Jun

Point of order: ATACMS is very specifically not ballistic. It has a “300” km range and is powered all the way, in order to not breach the MCTR & INF treaty.

TOP