Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About bojan

  • Birthday 01/14/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests
    Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Recent Profile Visitors

16,870 profile views

bojan's Achievements

Hierophant Lord

Hierophant Lord (3/3)



  1. IIRC ATM all 155/52 barrel blanks in Europe are made in Slovakia. Fine machining ability from those blanks exists in Germany, France, Slovakia, Serbia and Poland. Capacity for blanks is unknown to me and would be most probably main chokepoint.
  2. Crown irony being that that most often so called "AI guidance" is simple target lock based on photo/IR contrast, something that was used since 1969. and AGM-65A, and "AI target recognition" is basic combined magnetic + IR contrast based and available since early'80s.
  3. All fine in theory, but most current infantry AT weapons have similar performances to that 50y/o PG-7VL, or 40y/o PG-7VR, IOW 500-650mm penetration with or w/o leading charge and use 40+ y/o techniques of manufacture. Why did we not see any of those advances applied? Because they give relatively marginal increase in performances over those designs, as they are more suitable to larger diameter shaped charges, and that is ATGM territory. Infantry AT weapons stay about same place because they work reasonably well (as noted there are very few tanks that can stand PG-7VL level of penetration from the side, and none that can stand PG-7VR level of penetration), are cheap enough and 10-15% increase in penetration is not worth the cost of the more exotic manufacturing process or liner materials for weapons that are supposed to be made in large numbers and used by soldiers not just vs tanks, but vs lighter armored vehicles, bunkers etc. So yeah, you could make "better" warhead for a drone, at the cost of either - a) reduced performances, b) increased weight, c) significantly increased cost in order to keep same performaces and reduce weight by relatively small amount. And all that for a weapon that is supposed to be mass used and issued, almost at the level of the infantry AT launchers. MZ is right, there is no real benefit to that over using already existing warhead except to line up pocket of the defense industry shareholders.
  4. Then why all charges of approximately same performances in the last 30+ years weight about the same?
  5. Let me repeat it more clearly - high performance shaped charger require metal outer casing. If you don't want metal outer casing you can either accept lowered performances or make it larger, which would negate any weight gain.
  6. Outer casing of the shaped charge influences explosion formation so no, it can not be made from lighter, non-metallic material w/o it affecting performances. IOW, warhead with PG-7VL performances will weight ~same as PG-7VL. While remote fusing of shaped charge increases penetration, it also reduces after-armor effect of it. Tiny precursors are ineffective vs multilayered ERA arrays like BRAT or Russian one for BMP-3.
  7. With ATACMS body keeps going on original path and most of the original speed while submunition is slowed down by spread. That is same way with Iskander and reverse of Tochka, where body will start to tumble after dispersal of submunition as it loses aerodynamic stability.
  8. Why would it be lighter if purpose designed for drone? PG-7VL warhead weights about as any other warhead of comparable caliber and performances. Only potential saving could be lighter front outer casing, saving maybe 100g at best.
  9. IMO, protection of sides vs tandem RPGs can only come to be by seriously sacrificing front armor. So you might get your PG-7VR protection from ~240 deg, but cost will probably be that front armor will also be only on that level (provided you want to keep same weight, and most manufacturers do). While it fares better comparison is not correct as it does not face even 5% of firepower that IFVs face in Ukraine. No drones, no heavy ATGM presence, no artillery, no... nothing substantial over cloned (to unknown degree of quality) PG-7VR... that penetrates them from the sides, as evidenced by more than one video. It is not that I think it would not fare better in Ukraine then BMP, it is that I think that no AFV existing ATM would fare significantly better in Ukraine, as threats faced are very lethal to practically any AFV.
  10. Why do you think AI would be able to cope with hitting weak spots better than human? If anything, humans are better in determination those when vehicles have additional improvised protection that often makes every vehicle different from other, even if they are same type of vehicle. What is improvised about PG-7VL warhead, most common payload for Russian AT drones?
  11. FWIW, Russian drone operators claim that M2 is most difficuly IFV to stop, due the ERA covered sides and front and decent base armor (well, base + steel add-on).
  12. VIU-55 Munja was concept engineer vehicle, not HAPC as such. VIU stands for "Vehicle, Engineer, Universal". It had transport capacity, but idea was not to make universal HAPC, but a specific solution for mechanized pioneer companies of the Engineer Bn of the Mech/Armored Bdes (they have previously used M-60P APC). It's protection was relatively light (superstructure was 25mm @ 60deg and 15mm @ 75deg front and 25mm @ 0 deg sides, enough to protect vs 20mm from the front and 12.7mm from the sides) , point in use of the tank chassis was to have enough mass and carrying capacity to enable use of the standard mine plows, rollers and dozer blades, as a wartime experience showed that there is not enough mine cleaning capability in the Mech/Armored Bdes, and that using regular tanks as a dedicated mine clearing platforms was suboptimal solution. Best solution was considered to be dedicated vehicle operated by engineers (and not a tankers), but compromise MC vehicle/APC for pioneers was considered acceptable. That also had a benefit of providing each brigade with 24 or 26 mine clearing vehicles (depending on org, either 10+14 or 13+13 vehicles in the two Cos) with plows/rollers/dozer blades, instead of 6 (Mech Bde) or 9 (Armored Bde) mine plows/rollers available previously. Project got good marks from army testing, some upgrades were required (780hp engine) but in the end it was killed due the lack of funds and reorganization of the army.
  13. Plenty of Germans teaching others what is civilized behavior on this forum also.
  14. Guess this would fit here best... Albanian corps, mid-80s: Corps HQ - 87 men Recce Bn - 220 men 3-5 x Infantry Brigade (see bellow) - 3458 men Hill Brigade (only in 7th Corps) - 2700 men Infantry coastad defense brigade - 3 in 11th corps, 2 in 4th corps 1-3 tank brigades - 5th and 7th corps had no tank brigades - 1787 or 1956 men, 63 or 94 tanks and 20 or 30 x APC 2-3 x Tank Bn - 31 tank, 10 x APC Mixed artillery regiment - 900 men 122mm howitzer Bn - 232 men, 12 x 122mm howitzer 85mm gun Bn - 232 men, 12 x 85mm gun 160mm mortar Bn - 220 men, 12 x 160mm mortar 120mm mortar Bn - 216 men, 12 x 120mm mortar MRL Bn - 850 men, 12 x MRL - caliber or type not specified Anti-tank Bn - 195 men, 12 x ATG, 12 x ATGM - 2 x ATG battery - 6 x ATG - 2 x ATGM battery - 6 x ATGM Anti-aircraft artillery regiment - 440 men, 32 x AAG Flamethrower Bn - 150 men Engineer Bn - 400 men Signal Bn - 250 men NBC defense Bn - 230 men Logistic units - 900 men Infantry Brigade Bde HQ - 43 men 4 x Infantry Bn (see bellow) - 610 men, 53 horses Mixed artillery Bn - 249 men, 6 x 122mm howitzer, 6 x 76mm gun, 6 x 120mm mortar 122mm howitzer battery - 80 men, 6 x 122mm howitzer 76mm gun battery - 79 men, 6 x 76mm gun 120mm mortar battery - 75 men, 6 x 120mm mortar Light anti-aircraft artillery Bn - 195 men HQ - 8 men Light anti-aircraft artillery battery x 2 - 65 men, 6 x 37mm gun AAMG Company - 57 men, 6 x 14.5mm AAMG (not specified if single, double of quad barrel) Anti-tank battery - 62 men, 6 x 76mm gun Recce Co - 69 men Engineer Co - 66 men NBC defense Co - 66 men Logistical units - 185 men Medical Co - 59 men Transport Co - 61 men, 40 pack horses Supply and technical maintenance Co - 65 men Total - 3458 men, 462 x pistol, 799 x SMG, 2315 x SAR/AR, 143 x LMG, 36 x MG, 12 x 82mm RCL, 24 x AT launchers, 36 x flamethrower, 48 x 82mm mortar, 6 x 120mm mortar, 6 x 122mm howitzer, 6 x 76mm field gun, 6 x 76mm ATG, 6 x 14.5mm AAMG, 12 x 37mm AAG, 130 motor vehicles, 12 x command vehicle, 36 x various towed equipment on trailer, 60 horse wagons, 252 horses, 44 medical vehicles, 301 telephone, 6 x telephone relay, 160 x radio Infantry Bn Bn HQ - 7 men, 7 x SMG, 6 x P, 1 x command vehicle Infantry Co x 3 - 96 men, 5 x pistol, 15 x SMG, 72 x SAR/AR, 9 x LMG Co HQ - 3 men, 3 x SMG, 2 x pistol Rifle Platoon x 3 - 31 men, 1 x pistol, 4 x SMG, 24 x SAR/AR, 3 x LMG MG Co - 42 men, 5 x pistol, 15 x SMG, 18 x SAR/AR, 9 x MG, 9 x horse Co HQ - 3 men, 2 x pistol, 3 x SMG MG Platoon x 3 - 13 men, 1 x pistol, 4 x SMG, 6 x SAR/AR, 3 x MG, 3 x horse Mortar Co - 60 men, 17 x pistol, 12 x SMG, 35 x SAR/AR, 12 x 82mm mortar, 14 x horse Co HQ - 3 men, 2 x pistol, 3 x SMG, 2 x horse Mortar Plt x 3 - 19 men, 5 x pistol, 3 x SMG, 12 x SAR/AR, 4 x 82mm mortar, 4 x horse Recce Plt - 22 men, 1 x pistol, 19 x SMG, 3 x LMG RCL Platoon - 16 men, 4 x pistol, 9 x SAR/AR, 3 x 82mm RCL, 6 x horse AT launcher Plt - 16 men, 7 x pistol, 4 x SMG, 6 x SAR/AR, 6 x AT launcher, 3 x horse Flamethrower Plt - 22 men, 10 x pistol, 4 x SMG, 9 x SAR/AR, 9 x FT Signal Plt - 25 men, 1 x pistol, 4 x SMG, 21 x SAR/AR, 1 x horse Engineer Plt - 21 men, 1 x pistol, 3 x SMG, 18 x SAR/AR NBC defense Plt - 22 men, 1 x pistol, 4 x SMG, 18 x SAR/AR Logistical units - 54 men, 2 x pistol, 9 x SMG, 45 x SAR/AR, 6 x motor vehicle, 10 x horse wagon, 20 x horse, 5 x stretchers Protection Plt - 15 men, 1 x pistol, 3 x SMG, 10 x SAR/AR, 2 x LMG Total - 610 men, 71 x pistol, 133 x SMG, 406 x SAR/AR, 32 x LMG, 9 x MG, 3 x 82mm RCL, 6 x AT launcher, 9 x flamethrower, 12 x 82mm mortar, 6 x motor vehicle, 10 x horse wagon, 23 x horse, 5 x stretchers, 1 x command vehicle Ukupno u pjesadijskom bataljonu: ljudi 610, 71 pi, 133 a, 406 ppu i apu, 32 pm, 9 m, 3 BsT 82 mm, 6 RB, 9 PlB, 12 MB 82 mm, 6 m/v, 10 zapr. voz., 53 konja, 5 sn. nos., 1 st. voz. Hill Brigade - 2700 men Bde HQ Hill Bn x 4 Bn HQ Hill Co x 3 Support Co - MG Plt - 3 x MG - AT launcher Plt - 6 x AT launcher - Mortar plt - 4 x 82mm mortar Recce Co Mixed artillery Bn - 12 x 76mm gun, 6 x 120mm mortar, 6 x 82mm RCL Bn HQ 76mm gun battery x 2 - 6 x 76mm gun 120mm mortar battery - 6 x 120mm mortar 82mm RCL battery - 6 x 82mm RCL Anti-aircraft battery - 6 x AAG Engineer Co Signal Co Flamethrower Plt NBC defense Plt Logistic units
  15. What RPGs? Monoblock ones can be stopped with current generation of IFVs if equipped with ERA. Dual charge PG-7VR - good luck about that, that one will penetrate sides of any current tank, no matter their armor (since none has enough to stop that much penetration) let alone IFV. HIFV/tanks can be made to be frontally protected vs it, and certain degree of the side protection can be made, probably from frontal 60deg. More than that would require serious rethinking of current "all or (almost) nothing" armor schemes that every AFV ATM uses. IMO investment in heavy IFV is worth it, but it is not magical solution to all aspect RPG protection
  • Create New...