Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates

[bdique]

More photos from different angles. Note the rear facing APS tubes and radar panels, and the upwards pointed grenade launchers, different from the forward pointed ones. Not sure what exactly the difference is.

Берлога Бронемедведа - Вид Ñверху
Берлога Бронемедведа - Еще наÑчет размеров
Берлога Бронемедведа - Т-14 / Т-15: Ñ„Ð°Ñ Ð¸ профиль
Берлога Бронемедведа - "Курганец" вокруг

For the Armatas, I suspect the upward facing grenades are 'soft-kill' systems i.e. smoke, maybe even chaff?

 

[wittmanace]

Given the tiered protection options, I assume this applies for the turret too.

The problem with deductions based on what we see now is that we know emphasis was on modularity also, so we don't know what modules are missing. Should there be a metallic shell, as speculated, covering basic turret shape, it is nigh on impossible to tell much now other than that it has APS in soft kill and hard kill form, panoramic view atop the turret, etc.

Though there has been less speculation about it, I think that is true for the chassis too. We have no idea what heavy era modules exist for it, what nera module options there are, etc.

The historical transport weight issues and thresholds and the weight range given for the armata suggest there is a wide range in terms of module sizes and armour types in those modules.

 

[wittmanace]

One thing I really wonder is what the transport solution is for the heaviest options....are heavy modules added where needed, so module and tank are transported separately? By this I mean longer (strategic) transport occurring in broken down form, addressing the weight issues, whereas tactical (and maybe operational) transport can be done for full heavy option all assembled?


A critical issue I am interested in, is what absolute length limit is imposed by the auto loaded dimensions in this, if any. The obvious issue in legacy t's was of course the limit imposed on apfsds munitions where the loader limited length, and the clear rule regarding thickness versus length ratio for apfsds penetration capabilities.

 

[Feanor]

By the way, regarding the coax, the slot doesn't seem right - I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to allow the same angles of elevation that the main gun can achieve. The slot may have another function i.e. air intake for cooling some of the systems? I'm really just guessing here...

So you think they went from a 30mm coax on object 195, to no coax whatsoever on the object 148? Seems a little unlikely.

@Feanor,

Are there any safeguards on the T-14 to prevent the remote weapon system MG from shooting off the active protection system sensor/antenna? Sorry...I know it sounds stupid...but hey, you only learn if you ask right?

Sometimes I read questions people on here ask me, and I'm truly amazed. I mean, this is a secret tank prototype that's just now being revealed, and you're asking me questions like I've operated the thing personally for years...

I have no idea whether there are such safeguards. I would assume there are, but I don't actually know.

Also, it seems like the Armata, the Kuragnets, Bumerang...despite have two different turret configurations, the turrets seem optimised for urban operations i.e. high angle of elevation.

Do both types of turrets have active protection system? Any idea why there are two turret designs instead of a single one?

Sorry guys, I asked a lot of questions...long day for me, had to get all the questions out of my mind before I can sleep peacefully

I think the Bumerang-BM module has an APS, while the 12.7mm RCWS does not. But I could be wrong, there are some strange looking objects on the bottom of that turret. They might be a simplified version of Shtora. Or just cameras.

As for two turrets, one of the turrets is a full-on combat module, the other a basic self-defense suite. The difference is pretty obvious in price tag and complexity. I'm not sure what units will have what module, since lately even regular infantry btlns have been getting 30mm autocannons on their BTR-82s. The 12.7mm module may be meant for special vehicles, like engineer unit command APCs, or artillery-recon variants (look at the PRP-4, it's only got a machinegun, despite being a BMP-1/2 based vehicle). Or they may be planning a return to more traditional APCs for motor-rifle units. Though I personally would be disappointed.

 

[Feanor]

Some more news. First, predictably, we have an AK-74M variant with rails, forward broomstick grip, and flashlight, with the ability to mount all kinds of optics. The OKR is called Obves.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - Шифр "ОбвеÑ"

Second off the VDV is getting tanks, but of what types is unclear. Although there were news earlier of a light tank being developed on the BMD-4M chassis, and I even speculated that we would be looking at an upgraded and reworked Sprut-SD (which uses the iirc BMD-3 chassis) like vehicle.

Although given Shamanov's ambitions, I wouldn't put it past him to get a T-72 unit transferred to VDV command.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - ВДВ получат танки

 

[Feanor]

Some more news. First, predictably, we have an AK-74M variant with rails, forward broomstick grip, and flashlight, with the ability to mount all kinds of optics. The OKR is called Obves.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - Шифр "ОбвеÑ"

Second off the VDV is getting tanks, but of what types is unclear. Although there were news earlier of a light tank being developed on the BMD-4M chassis, and I even speculated that we would be looking at an upgraded and reworked Sprut-SD (which uses the iirc BMD-3 chassis) like vehicle.

Although given Shamanov's ambitions, I wouldn't put it past him to get a T-72 unit transferred to VDV command.

Ð”ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐœÐ¾ÐºÑ€ÑƒÑˆÐ¸Ð½ - ВДВ получат танки

 

[bdique]

So you think they went from a 30mm coax on object 195, to no coax whatsoever on the object 148? Seems a little unlikely.

Oh, yes, this is embarrassing, but in my excitement I forgot the existence of Object 195. Damn...

Sometimes I read questions people on here ask me, and I'm truly amazed. I mean, this is a secret tank prototype that's just now being revealed, and you're asking me questions like I've operated the thing personally for years...

I have no idea whether there are such safeguards. I would assume there are, but I don't actually know.

And yes, in my excitement I think I have some really crazy ideas...well I must admit on hindsight its a silly question but I guess being an armoured infantry trooper (you guys here call it mech infantry), you start getting really excited seeing new armoured platforms. Yes, I did try imagining myself in the position of the various crew members, and how it MIGHT be like to be operating the vehicle. This is not trying to be a fanboy, but rather that's just how I evaluate platforms, and it seems to work for me. Some innovative design features can only be appreciated if you are in the gunner's seat, for example. Similarly, from that same perspective, you start seeing things that SEEM innovative...but really might not be that great.

So it is from that angle that I made that comment, sorry if it seemed like it came out of nowhere.

I think the Bumerang-BM module has an APS, while the 12.7mm RCWS does not. But I could be wrong, there are some strange looking objects on the bottom of that turret. They might be a simplified version of Shtora. Or just cameras.

As for two turrets, one of the turrets is a full-on combat module, the other a basic self-defense suite. The difference is pretty obvious in price tag and complexity. I'm not sure what units will have what module, since lately even regular infantry btlns have been getting 30mm autocannons on their BTR-82s. The 12.7mm module may be meant for special vehicles, like engineer unit command APCs, or artillery-recon variants (look at the PRP-4, it's only got a machinegun, despite being a BMP-1/2 based vehicle). Or they may be planning a return to more traditional APCs for motor-rifle units. Though I personally would be disappointed.

I see, thank you so much Feanor. Yeah, it makes sense to have a 'lighter' turret for non-direct combat roles. I am confident they are cameras, but I'll wait for more news. No matter how, it is quite obvious that these 'light' and 'heavy' turrets should improve the survivability and combat ability of the vehicles in an urban environment.

 

[Feanor]

A closer look at that upgraded AK-74M. They finally integrated the suppressor. Before this, SpetzNaz used AKMs because the compensator on the AK-74 didn't allow a suppressor to be attached. I like the PEQ-15 style laser sight. The reflex sight is probably the Krechet.

ÐлекÑандр ÐфанаÑьев - ÐК-74Ðœ ОбвÐÑ

 

[wittmanace]

Is there any info on the auto loader at all? Or news of any new rounds?

 

[Feanor]

Is there any info on the auto loader at all? Or news of any new rounds?

Nothing reliable or consistent, as far as I know.

Walkaround of the Kurganets and Armata platforms. Note the opening on the left of the turret in the front. It looks like it might be a secondary optic. And the hole in the left of the turret side looks like an ejection port of some sort.

Блог "ВеÑтника ПВО" - Парад Победы. "Ðрмата": Т-14 и Т-15 на Ñтатике
Блог "Ветника ПВО" - Парад Победы. "Курганец-25"

 

[STURM]

Apologies for going off-topic. Is the carousel atu-loader on the T-72, T-90 and KDMB T-84 of the same design or was it progressively modified/improved in any way?

What the main rationale in doing away with a human loader and replacing him with a carousel auto-loader? Did Soviet designers feel that an auto-loader was a faster and more practical way of doing things?

Which company or design bureau designed the carousel auto-loader?

Something else in very curious about. The T-90 (not sure about the T-72,T-80 and T-84) have a turret mounted MG that can be fired from inside. How does the commander aim actually the MG from inside and why are there no fittings on the MG to indicate that it is power operated?

 

[alexkvaskov]

Note the opening on the left of the turret in the front. It looks like it might be a secondary optic.

That's the gunner's sight.

What the main rationale in doing away with a human loader and replacing him with a carousel auto-loader? Did Soviet designers feel that an auto-loader was a faster and more practical way of doing things?

I heard that was done to reduce manpower requirements. My personal intuition tells me it might also have been done to reduce turret size and consequently overall tank silhouette.

 

[STURM]

My personal intuition tells me it might also have been done to reduce turret size and consequently overall tank silhouette.

Not disputing what you're saying, you're probably right but I personally can't see how doing away with a gunner would reduce the silhouette as the turret would still have to be wide and high enough to accommodate a gunner and commander.

Does anyone know how the Soviets stockpiled replacement ERA for units in the field, i.e. were they kept at brigade level for immediate distribution?

 

[Feanor]

That's the gunner's sight.

There's two of them. The bigger one next to the gun is clearly the gunner's sight, but the second smaller one has a latch covering it. We thought earlier it was space for a coaxial autocannon, but it may be another optic.

I heard that was done to reduce manpower requirements. My personal intuition tells me it might also have been done to reduce turret size and consequently overall tank silhouette.

It was probably all of the above, and the expectation of a higher effective RoF in longer engagements and operations.

Apologies for going off-topic. Is the carousel atu-loader on the T-72, T-90 and KDMB T-84 of the same design or was it progressively modified/improved in any way?

A quick look through the relevant wiki entries tells us that the T-84 had a new autoloader starting with the Oplot variant, from the T-80. The turret bustle would necessitate that.

 

[Feanor]

BMP-3 purchases are being resumed while the MoD waits for the Kurganets. They're talking about hundreds of armored vehicles. I hope they go for the BMP-3M, with the up-armored side skirts, and modern optics.

bmpd - Ðовый контракт МиниÑтерÑтва обороны на БМП-3
Gur Khan attacks!: МиноборонÑРФ заказало неÑколько Ñотен БМП-3

 

[Feanor]

BMP-3 purchases are being resumed while the MoD waits for the Kurganets. They're talking about hundreds of armored vehicles. I hope they go for the BMP-3M, with the up-armored side skirts, and modern optics.

bmpd - Ðовый контракт МиниÑтерÑтва обороны на БМП-3
Gur Khan attacks!: МиноборонÑРФ заказало неÑколько Ñотен БМП-3

 

[alexkvaskov]

What shape is KMZ in? Can they produce a hundred or so vehicles a year? Are there any BMP-1 still in service? Reportedly 250 BMD-4M and MDM ordered.

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1964716

 

[Feanor]

What shape is KMZ in? Can they produce a hundred or so vehicles a year? Are there any BMP-1 still in service? Reportedly 250 BMD-4M and MDM ordered.

ТÐСС: ÐÑ€Ð¼Ð¸Ñ Ð¸ ОПК - Минобороны РФ получит Ñвыше 250 БМД-4Ðœ и БТР "Ракушка"

BMP-1s are left in the training vehicle groups of some units that use the BMP-2. KMZ is in pretty good shape, they produced BMP-3s for the MoD in the 2006-2012 timeframe in decent numbers, they also filled a few export contracts. They also produced quite a few vehicles on the same chassis (mainly the ATGM carriers Khrizantema and Kornet, as well as a few Vena SP mortars).

What I really hope is that they get the M variants, with the new FCS and modern optics. As is the BMP-3 is getting quite old. They recently sold the BMP-3M variant to Azerbaijan, so the production line should open. Although Indonesia recently took deliveries of basic BMP-3s (and reportedly intends to order more).

 

[Feanor]

More vehicles for the ground forces.

An upgraded Sprut-SD is in the works, probably on a BMD-4M chassis, and with a new FCS "better then that of the T-90 tank". Which of course could mean anything.

Gur Khan attacks!: ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð²ÐµÑ€ÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¸Ð²Ð¾Ñ‚Ð°Ð½ÐºÐ¾Ð²Ð¾Ð¹ Ñамоходной пушки "Спрут-СД" Ð´Ð»Ñ Ð’Ð”Ð’ поÑвитÑÑ Ð² 2015 году
Берлога Бронемедведа - МегаСПÐ*УТ

An electric transmission for BMPs is being tested right now. Earlier it was being tested on the BTR-90 chassis, now it's headed for the BMP-3.

Gur Khan attacks!: Ð*азработчик: прототип ÑлектротранÑмиÑÑии Ð´Ð»Ñ Ñ€Ð¾ÑÑийÑких БМП предÑтавÑÑ‚ до конца года

The Armata may be getting a new 152mm gun later on. It looks like they're planning on combat module upgrades for all the vehicles, eventually.

gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/05/blog-post_14.html
Берлога Бронемедведа - MOAR!!!

A closer look at the Coalition-SV, which apparently has a 2-man crew, in an isolated control module. The entire turret is unmanned, along with most of the chassis.

Блог "ВеÑтника ПВО" - Парад Победы. СÐУ "КоалициÑ-СВ"

And a 3 year contract for BMD-4M and BTR-MDM vehicles, 250 total.

http://twower.livejournal.com/1663389.html

EDIT: More news, it seems to be that time of the year.

Experiments on using the unmanned light armor vehicles, as part of a unit, to locate, identify, and destroy enemy positions.

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/359959.html

More sources on the 2A83 152mm gun planned for the Armata in the future. Apparently with depleted uranium rounds.

http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/2604568.html
http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/2604229.html

Bumerang APC from different sides. And Bumerang and Kurganets from behind.

http://saidpvo.livejournal.com/407536.html
http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/2606124.html

Kurganets without side screens, prepared to ship.

http://panzerbar.livejournal.com/2605655.html

 

[alexkvaskov]

Have to say, the Bumerang sits really high up; seems like a V-shaped counter IED hull too.

Both Kurganets and Bumerang seem to be amphibious, which raises the question of weight. Generally, above what tonnage are vehicles no longer amphibious?