The BMP-3 had some pretty notorious quality issues. It got so bad the Russian Mo D started refusing to take delivery of them in 2010.
They should have sent a poet.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Quality issues yes, design issues I'd say not that many.
Which is pretty much par for the course for modern Russian materiel.
The point is that it fits the requirements of light, amphibious, mobile, and extremely heavily armed infantry support vehicle almost perfectly.
That then Russians are in too bad a way to make the thing is a different issue.
Edited by LeGarcon on Dec 24th 2018 at 2:46:47 PM
Oh really when?
In this case the two are much the same thing. The interior layout has been the single persistent issue for the vehicle, even through all the upgrades.
Quality control issues are a given for any Russian hardware, the BMP just happens to have some design issues on top of it.
Edited by archonspeaks on Dec 24th 2018 at 11:49:56 AM
They should have sent a poet.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
It's a big improvement over the older BM Ps but yeah, it's definitely got some design issues that can't be resolved without a new hull.
I just think its definitely something to look at when you're thinking about new IFV type ideas because its managed to bring a pretty impressive amount of firepower to bear for being such a light vehicle.
The new BMD too for that matter
Oh really when?
Well I mean it’s not like upgunning an AFV is some brand new idea the Russians had. The BMP isn’t even the best example these days with offerings from Patria floating around.
I think Russian designers are given far too much credit sometimes. They’ve got some good ideas, but the execution is consistently lacking.
They should have sent a poet.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
What's going on with the Patria? I know it had that neat double mortar option thing going on but I wasn't aware of anything else fancy beyond the usual autocannon/ATGM loadout
Oh really when?
Going back to the fuel tank doors on the BMP series, as I understand, that was rarely an issue on the battlefield. Evidently the doctrine was to use the door fuel tanks for long range drives (typically mobilizing the BMP out to the battlefield or bringing it back home), but for actual operational use, they'd disconnect the door hoses and just fill them with something inert like water or sand. The vehicle would end up with shorter range, but nothing that really hindered it for patrols.
That said, I recall the same series featuring a large fuel tank inside the passenger compartment which was a very serious problem for the passengers if anything breached the armor.
Even loaded up with diesel or gas it still had uses. The fuel doors on the BMP when fully loaded were a pretty good radiation shield if traveling through a nuclear wasteland as it was expected to do in a Cold War gone hot.
Same logic behind the ginormous external fuel tanks on the T-55 and T-62. Both were good radiation inhibitors.
There really was a method to the madness.
It's also worth noting that gasoline and diesel are not exactly super easy to light off. Usually it would be a problem after something catastrophic had already happened, like the APC being hit by something hard enough to penetrate the passenger cabin, which meant more than a few folks already regretted not joining the Red Navy instead.
It's just that, "Catastrophic" is already pretty bad without "oh hey the room is now filled with burning gasoline" adding that extra dash of character-building.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Hot splinters from AP rounds and HEAT shells are definitely capable of turning spilled fuels into bonfire night. The real fun begins when any of the exposed stowed ammo is hit.
Who watches the watchmen?
As I said, "already catastrophic." It is totally understandable that many folks balk at the idea of designs that allow "Catastrophic" to become "Extra Catastrophic." How a design functions in a SHTF situation, such as any Abandon Ship scenario, is very much worth considering (which is why hatch placement is such a popular discussion topic for armored vehicles).
Edited by AFP on Dec 25th 2018 at 4:05:02 AM
And when it comes to the BMP family of vehicles, worrying about the fuel in the rear doors was some of the least of your worries when dealing with things like mines or anti-tank missiles. (Or in the case of BMP-1's, even a "measly" .50 cal M2.)
In short, plenty of things will wreck a BMP and kill everybody inside WITHOUT hitting the rear fuel tanks. The Yom Kippur War, Soviet Afghanistan, Desert Storm, Chechnya 1 and 2 and Iraqi Freedom all offer plenty of examples of that.
Edited by MajorTom on Dec 25th 2018 at 3:12:50 AM
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
A bit of fun for you folks today.
An M-60 tank fires 105mm shell into the engine compartment of a Land Rover and they finish it off by smashing the shit out of it with the backblast of what looks to be a variant of 105mm Recoilless Rifle. They have some great slow-mo capture.
HVAP ammo? If that were firing HE, HEAT or HESH it would've damn near atomized that Land Rover. (And the projectile was far too large to be APFSDS.)
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Yeah, I noticed it wasn't sabot ammo either. I was watching for the petals or carrier case at the muzzle. I think they just selected a different kind of solid shot for undisclosed reasons.
Still, it smacked the shit out of that vehicle.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jan 25th 2019 at 7:55:28 AM
Who watches the watchmen?
France Tests Huge 140mm Tank Gun As It Pushes Ahead With Germany On A New Tank Design.
Apparently, Armata is being taken seriously regardless of however many are actually fielded. Otherwise, there would be no talk or tests of such weapons.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Eh. Not the first time any of the Western powers have tinkered with larger bore tank guns. They will run into the exact same issues they did last time.
Who watches the watchmen?
This isn't the first time they've toyed with such weapons. Armata may be a factor, but 140mm guns have been kicked around for decades as the possibile next stage of tank firepower.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
There were rumors of the Russians developing an upgunned version of the T-14 with 152mm gun back in the day.
I don't think they ended up going for it though.
Oh really when?
rollin' on dubs
The trouble is that while the gun is 140mm, they shortened the barrel. Reality Ensues - the damn thing has to fit on existing transports and the total weight of the tank has to meet current rail, airlift and sea lift.
The reason a lot of US DOD rolling stock is kinda flimsy - they have to travel on US roads or the roads of the host nation. A lot of aluminum is used to keep the weight down, when other metals are used they are stamped sheet metal and only riveted when welds won't do.
The M1 is a big bitch, at her current weight a USMC LCAC can't load and unload one unless the sea is really calm. The C-17 can carry one, the C-5 two (or one M1 and a Bradley).
The barrel the French are toying with had to be cut down because a longer barrel isn't going to fit.
This ain't PornHub, bigger isn't always better.
The Ruskies were toying with 142/152mm guns ever since the Wall Came down.
The US did that during WWII, an 80 ton monster even. note Canceled due to being expensive and to big to move.
The Warzone Article does bend to reality:
A longer barrel might require higher-pressure ammunition to ensure the shell reaches a consistent peak speed before leaving the muzzle, which would put more strain on the entire gun. The extended proboscis would also increase the tank’s physical footprint, potentially making it more difficult to transport. The U.S. military has had to contend with similar issues in the development of its extended-range 155mm howitzers, which also feature significantly longer barrels than their predecessors.
IF the Ruskies can get enough T-14's to count (not just a few elite regiments, but at least a division), we may see a 130mm in NATO service. But not 140mm. Again, it has to fit on existing rolling stock and transports.
The Ruskies toyed with two tanks that could have had a 152mm, but then they ran out of money.
If they up gun the Armata, I wonder how they are going to fit in on their railroads, aircraft and tank transporters? How will they go down roads with a 152mm pecker threatening to poke holes in buildings?
Edited by TairaMai on Jan 27th 2019 at 7:23:42 PM
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
That was probably one of the reasons why.
Ultimately the 152mm Armata didn't come to be because they determined that further ammo upgrades and the new 125mm gun made for it would be sufficient for now.
Also money.
Oh really when?
Lets be honest.
Mostly Money.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The larger caliber gun has other issues as well. It takes up more room, requires a new turret, and ultimately you carry less ammo.
Who watches the watchmen?
In the name of being honest
Speaking of weight, isn't it kind of weird that the Armata is supposed to weight the same as the T-90 despite its larger dimensions?
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
Those things are death traps if a round hits something sensitive inside. The ammo is stowed in the turret and turret ring area and its fuel tanks are in a bad place.
The only version of the Griffin that might make the cut is the stripped down version that has less armor and a smaller gun than the one that is being pushed for a possible M2 Bradley replacement.
Who watches the watchmen?