bojan Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 (edited) Both methods are taught locally, which is why I wondered if the second one is an US influence from the '50s. Edited August 5, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Kotsch Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 (edited) An easy question, but my Google-fu is weak today, did Soviet training practice include the use of battlesight? and at which ranges?In the East German army the Soviet rules applied. And yes, we applied the "Distance of direct shot". The respective distances of direct shot have been firmly memorized. The distances are explicitly specified and issued separately in the firing table for target heights of 2 m, 2.7 m and 3 m. Edited August 5, 2020 by Stefan Kotsch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted August 5, 2020 Share Posted August 5, 2020 Due to possible misunderstandings when reading the firing table. The "distance of direct shot" is favored in the east. As far as I know, the French also use this method. The corresponding distance values differ then in both methods. If by "Direct shot" you mean aim base of target with a pre-determined range, and "Battlesight" you mean aim center mass of target with a pre-determined range, the US Armor community has used both methods and defined both methods as "Battlesight". When I first became a tanker in 1978 for the US Army on the M60A1, we were taught to utilize 1600 meter battlesight aiming base of target for APDS, and 1100 meter battle sight base of target for HEAT. Circa 1980 that all changed, apparently it was noticed that the ballistic solution for an APDS round meant the maximum ordinate occurred between 800-900 meters and it was higher than they typical "threat" tank Not to mention nothing was being hit at 1600 meters. The answer was to reduce the battlesight range to 1200 meters utilizing a center mass aiming point, 900 meters for HEAT. This meant that solid hits could be achieved out to 1400 meters (1100 meters for HEAT) with no "dead" zone at the range of maximum ordinate. Furthermore, commanders are allowed to change the pre-determined battlesight range mission dependent. Example, your unit is in a defensive blocking position guarding a kill zone between 1500 and 2000 meters from your position. The unit commander could order the unit to utilize 1800 meter battlesight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted September 16, 2020 Share Posted September 16, 2020 (edited) T-90A hit accidentally by "Konkurs" missile main source of fire i think is smoke grenades in smoke dischargers(maybe one exploded and other just burn off, you can see leaks on turret) like here during british trials Edited September 16, 2020 by Wiedzmin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przezdzieblo Posted September 16, 2020 Share Posted September 16, 2020 Maybe. But note that it looks like damages are not only because of fire. Both turret bins, right and central, are missing, mudguard is deformed under blown fuel tank. It should not be easy for training missile to remove both bins after hitting smoke grenades. I am not sure if steady fire could do such mess for mudguard. If it was live warhead, it would be easier to understand all those damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted September 17, 2020 Share Posted September 17, 2020 9 hours ago, Przezdzieblo said: Maybe. But note that it looks like damages are not only because of fire. Both turret bins, right and central, are missing, mudguard is deformed under blown fuel tank. It should not be easy for training missile to remove both bins after hitting smoke grenades. I am not sure if steady fire could do such mess for mudguard. If it was live warhead, it would be easier to understand all those damages. with 1 or 2 3D17 grenade explosion i think this will be more than enough to destroy aluminum external fuel tank maybe this was live warhead, but rocket itself only detonated on stowage box (and rocket itself is missed the tank but hited the box) and jet hit only bottom section of smoke dischargers which lead to grenade explosion and fires, don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted September 18, 2020 Share Posted September 18, 2020 Great video! Dear Santa....🤪 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Looks like a solution in search of a problem, lightly armored to take on tanks and IFVs, and with no range advantage vs ATGMs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 (edited) Looking at all other nations playing with light FS vehicle concept, in particular US (mGS and M8 saga) and Chinese (series of wheeled SP guns), i would say that idea has some merit. Is it really best bang for a buck... I don't think so. Edited September 19, 2020 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 It is about the best way to get effective CS and AT capability in a single airmobile and amphibious package. The only real alternative is a BMD-4 type vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 Looks like its meant for the expansive central Asia areas where its not worth moving MBTs and their respective logistical chains into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 1 hour ago, KV7 said: It is about the best way to get effective CS and AT capability in a single airmobile and amphibious package. The only real alternative is a BMD-4 type vehicle. But that as niche a role as can be devised. In open terrain this thing is toast, unless there's little to no opposition, which then makes it redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, RETAC21 said: But that as niche a role as can be devised. In open terrain this thing is toast, unless there's little to no opposition, which then makes it redundant. It really needs an APS if it is to tangle with infantry and their light vehicles when these will have ATGM. Even then it is still vulnerable to KE from anti tank guns (rarely encountered) and tank guns (a reasonable threat) though this is unavoidable for all but the best protected tanks. Against all but first tier tanks the gun is good enough for it to prevail if it gets the first hit, and this at least as good as can be achieved by missile based tank destroyers. And very many armies think there is a case for light ATGM armed tank destroyers. The only compelling argument for particular vulnerability is the fact that some medium weight IFVs will be considerably more resistant to cannon fire, but at the same time those IFV will be totally vulnerable to the 125mm gun. If you want some vehicle that can engage other light to medium IFV it is at least as good as most cannon + ATGM combos and in many cases superior. Edited September 20, 2020 by KV7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 21 hours ago, RETAC21 said: But that as niche a role as can be devised. In open terrain this thing is toast, unless there's little to no opposition, which then makes it redundant. Isn't that the case for any light armoured vehicle (be it an infantry carrier like a BMD/BMP/BTR or a fire support vehicle such as the Sprut or SK105)? China certainly seems to have quite an interest in lightly-armoured but mobile 6x6 and 8x8 fire support vehicles both for their own use and on the export markets. I'm not sure if any of those are designed to be air dropped like the Sprut is, but I can't see those being any better on the armour protection side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 It makes some sense if you view it as a self propelled antitank gun, which is one of the roles the Russians have proposed it for (they have proposed so many, from fire support for the Airborne forces and also the naval infantry) But its not as if they dont have that roled covered by some of their antitank missiles, like Kornet. Or parades or providing fire support for 'Green Men', it probably has something to commend it. Otherthan that, you have to view it as a project to provide work that got completely out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: It makes some sense if you view it as a self propelled antitank gun... Which is exactly what it is. 2S25 designation says it is an artillery weapon. Sprut - same family as Sprut-B AT gun S - self propelled D - airdropable IOW, it is a continuation of the ASU-57/85 series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptLuke Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: It makes some sense if you view it as a self propelled antitank gun, which is one of the roles the Russians have proposed it for (they have proposed so many, from fire support for the Airborne forces and also the naval infantry) But its not as if they dont have that roled covered by some of their antitank missiles, like Kornet. Ref "view it as as self-propelled anti-tank gun" I agree. It's analogous to the the US WWII tank destroyers and the first couple generations of German PanzerJager, e.g., the Marder. Both did very good work, including infantry support, but were terrible tank substitutes. Ref using ATGM in place of a large cannon, that's probably workable against point targets (e.g., the archetypical machine gun bunker) for any country that can afford enough ATGM. I think it may be less practical for suppressive work, e.g., putting multiple rounds into a building during an urban assault or supporting an attack on a trenchline. Whether a big gun is still worthwhile for this smaller niche is debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 2 hours ago, bojan said: Which is exactly what it is. 2S25 designation says it is an artillery weapon. Sprut - same family as Sprut-B AT gun S - self propelled D - airdropable IOW, it is a continuation of the ASU-57/85 series. Agreed, but that hasnt stop them proposing it in roles that imply they want it to replace tanks in some light roles also. The Airborne seem to be clingling to their T72's like death. They have put a lot of work into it, they even managed to keep going past the abortive first suspension on it (Which I think was BMD based?). But I cant see a role for it. Its too big to be a Scorpion, its too tracked to be an ags, and if they really want anitank, go Kornet. it falls between all the stools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 (edited) It is in basically in all aspects superior to SP-ATGM: more rounds stowable improved AT performance against targets with active and passive protection better close support capacity, and cheaper and more plentiful HE rounds (9M123F etc. are not a very good substitute) and a wider variety of ammunition. The only arguable downside is poorer long range firepower (e.g. 125mm HEAT < 152 mm HEAT), and the lack of the (marginal) secondary capacity of ATGM to engage slow moving helicopters. Edited September 21, 2020 by KV7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 But it still has ATGM, it is just gun fired one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 Wouldn't the engagement of low aircraft be better left to infantry (or vehicles) with MANPADS or ZPU/ZU-23? Although I'm no-where near an expert of any kind, I have to say I've always been quite sceptical concerning the idea of shooting down a slow-moving helicopter with either a tank's main gun round or indeed as in this case - a guided missile. I did that on routine on the Hind 95 PC simulator (including MiG-29's with an AT-6!) but is this idea just trying to gold-plate the 2S25 into a jack of all trades vehicle? I can certainly imagine the vehicle being a very useful direct fire asset and a general infantry support weapon, especially at longer ranges. For indirect fire, I suppose you always have whatever towed artillery is available (do the VDV use D-30 or something else?) and there's always the 2S9. Considering that the 2S25 is so expensive; I do wonder if this modernised vehicle will actually enter service in any meaningful numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Kotsch Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 (edited) I can't see any point in the SPRUT-SD. Airborne forces should not fight MBT. And SPRUT cannot duel against MBT. Against the occasional armored vehicle there is the BMD-4 or portable ATGM. There is also the BMD-4 for close artillery support. SPRUT-SD is a wet dream of gun fool's for me. Pure money burning. Edited September 20, 2020 by Stefan Kotsch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KV7 Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 6 hours ago, bojan said: But it still has ATGM, it is just gun fired one. Correct there is no real difference vs helicopters. But penetration is appreciably less than 152 mm ATGM. About all we can say is that heavy ATGM have a notable advantage over a 125mm tank gun vs armor at ~ 3000-5500 metres. But this is a not very common scenario. And even if it were common, a good solution is to just give more ATGM to the supporting infantry. In this respect there is an asymmetry - infantry can carry ATGM but not anything equivalent to a tank gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted September 21, 2020 Share Posted September 21, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said: I can't see any point in the SPRUT-SD. Airborne forces should not fight MBT. And SPRUT cannot duel against MBT. Against the occasional armored vehicle there is the BMD-4 or portable ATGM. There is also the BMD-4 for close artillery support. SPRUT-SD is a wet dream of gun fool's for me. Pure money burning. There will perhaps be occasions then they have to fight tanks. But as they are, even allowing for the Russian airbornes greater mechanization, going to be defensive actions, its difficult to see what the point of 2S25 is. Particularly as they have already fulfilled the role by getting T72's (which says something about how they envisage deploying Airborne into combat in the future I guess). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/flying-tanks-russias-airborne-troops-get-new-t-72b3-tank-84821 13 hours ago, KV7 said: It is in basically in all aspects superior to SP-ATGM: more rounds stowable improved AT performance against targets with active and passive protection better close support capacity, and cheaper and more plentiful HE rounds (9M123F etc. are not a very good substitute) and a wider variety of ammunition. The only arguable downside is poorer long range firepower (e.g. 125mm HEAT < 152 mm HEAT), and the lack of the (marginal) secondary capacity of ATGM to engage slow moving helicopters. 1 Buy a truck to carry the extra rounds? 2 Few Western vehicles mount active protection yet. And even if they do, are we really saying a light SP gun is going to prove superior to an MBT, particularly when the forces they intend to re-equip already have MBT's? In a nation with as many tanks as Russia does, it scarcely needs a cheaper alternative. Lighter, well perhaps, but its not as if they have the airlift capacity to deliver the BMD's they have. 3 Well in a force that is investing in better network capability, its difficult to conceive they need direct fire capablity,when they can get it elsewhere r. Even in the 1980's the Soviets reckoned the majority of their firepower would be air delivered. Even allowing for a smaller airforce, the investment in long range rocket artillery has to beg the question why they really need direct fire capablity. Particularly when they have companies of troops in every brigade equipped with these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel Its a very clever vehicle, I even admire it. Im damned if I can work out why they need it though. Edited September 21, 2020 by Stuart Galbraith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now