The Armored Vehicle Thread

Source? I'm genuinely curious. I know they're doing a few programs modernizing and repurposing old S-60 57mm anti-aircraft guns onto things like modernized PT-76 chassis for export/adoption but I've never heard of BTR's using them.

Here's one while I dig for the proper Russian article.

They're using the BTR-82 as the model and it's going to come with a remote turret design. No word on HEAT shells for it yet but presumably if the tests go well and it starts being adopted more shell types will follow.

The gun they seem to want to mount is a variant of what is now known as the S-60 which is a high velocity gun that can fire the UBR-281/281U projectiles which are APCBC projectiles. Translation a high velocity armor penetrating round which can potentially defeat 4" RHA at 0 degrees. Not something short of a MBT could really afford to take on the chin and even then there are several thin spots on most MBT's that would likely tear right through.

A similar modified gun is on the ATOM (IFV) which is that weird French/Russian collaborative IFV.

I wonder if they allow high-angle fire on it. Kinda like what they did with the BMP-2's 2A42 30mm autocannon so it can defend itself against helicopters.

Cuz despite their age, S-60 AA guns are still one of the more dangerous AA gun systems still in use. Partially because of its impressive range and firepower. Few aircraft can take a 57mm HE round to the chin and survive. (Helicopters would just fall apart if hit by it.)

edited 13th Jan '18 9:01:00 PM by MajorTom

That and increased angle is good for Urban Combat. Those rounds are not something I imagine any aircraft wants to be clipped by.

I recall an anecdote from WWII, when the Russians were moving into Berlin. Some combined infantry/armored unit would find themselves under fire from a sniper on a nearby rooftop, but their tanks' guns couldn't elevate enough to fire back directly at the sniper. So, they'd elevate as much as they could, and just blow away the building from underneath him.

^ Common tactic, even today. Buildings won't give you much protection if enemy tanks and other vehicles simply give no fucks about letting the local architecture remain standing. Or if you value your guys more than the building.

I was under the impression that ISU-152 would aim low and just bring down the whole building

The assault guns were meant to break buildings and hard points. The Germans as usual went a wee bit crazy and created some ghastly impractical but impressive looking kit. Like the Karl-Gerät siege mortar.

Personaly I prefer the Sturmtiger, slightly more practical on the surface, just as insane under the hood.

It had an interesting armament to say the least. Firing that big ass rocket projectile must of have been an impressive sight.

x4 and probably most of the block while it was at it.

And the Sturmtiger is one of those 'what were you THINKING' designs of the war. Like the Maus, only it actually saw some service.

edited 15th Jan '18 10:57:21 PM by math792d

It's not THAT powerful! An ISU-152 fires a 152mm (6 inch) howitzer, it's maybe cruiser armament, not blockbuster bombs or tactical nuclear warheads. It'll blow apart small buildings or most houses in one or two shots, but entire city/town blocks? I think not.

For perspective, modern 155mm howitzers in the US Army fire a 270 lb projectile, enough bang to flatten a two-story home with a well-placed hit but not enough to clear the rest of the block it's on. An ISU-152 has firepower kinda like that.

Right, but what if the gun is backed with the might of the Proletariat?

So it pretends to work as long as they pretend it was built with quality.

Soviet military in WWII in a nutshell.

Well, for WWII, you gotta remember being propped up by the American Bourgeoisie.

Shhhhh comrade, reminding them of that sends you to gulag.

And then to penal battalion where you run naked across field to eat up enemy artillery, mines and bullets so True Glorious Soviets do not die.

Speaking of the Soviets, today's the 75th anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad/ St. Petersburg.

7x It was a jokey reference to this here video that I should have included a link to, in hindsight.

edited 18th Jan '18 3:53:24 PM by math792d

Pardon the double post, but I was curious: does anyone know how many man-hours of skilled labor go into making an Abrams tank?

It's a bit awkward since there are no new build Abrams hulls anymore (hurray modularity), but at current pace and staffing at the Lima Tank Plant, it takes around a week to rebuild an old Abrams to current specs.

edited 23rd Jan '18 8:57:26 AM by Krieger22

To translate that into man hours you would need to know how many people work on each abrams, but that is a bit harder to find out.

Especially considering how much of it is likely automated

Chieftain made another presentation about the M4 Sherman during WWII, including Q&A from the audience. I still have to finish watching, it is fairly long but worth it video.