Jump to content

Polish Armoured Vehicles And Their Modernizations.


Damian

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

BTW, not lot of Soviet weapons and equipment left in Polish inventory. Aside from 300k AKM.

I would not be so certain at this point how many AKM/AKMS are left in reserve stock. All 7,62mm AK's are being replaced in reserve stocks by wz.96 Beryl 5,56mm AK's. While Grot A2 and soon A3 slowly replace Beryl in active service.

3 hours ago, sunday said:

Still, no one thinks that the inventory of night vision systems is a bit low?

These are probably numbers taken from some contracts. This might not be, and IMHO it is not the full list of NVG's. As I said, Polish Army like to keep some procurement hush hush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 minutes ago, Damian said:

I would not be so certain at this point how many AKM/AKMS are left in reserve stock. All 7,62mm AK's are being replaced in reserve stocks by wz.96 Beryl 5,56mm AK's. While Grot A2 and soon A3 slowly replace Beryl in active service.

What can be done with the AKM? Is the Middle East still buying them despite the AK 103 or are they sold elsewhere? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

What can be done with the AKM? Is the Middle East still buying them despite the AK 103 or are they sold elsewhere? 

They are probably gradually sent to Ukraine, when more Beryl's go to reserve stock being replaced by new Grot A2's.

Keep in mind that Polish MoD and Armed Forces keep the true size of military help for Ukraine in secret, and for a good reasons.

What I can say is that, older weapon systems with soviet heritage, are becoming less and less numerous in the Army.

Heck, there is a lot of talk among enthusiasts to keep some vehicles for museums before they will be completely gone in next few years.

I will also remind, that some time ago, Army General Staff and MoD made a decision to gradually retire all weapon systems and equipment of WarPact/soviet heritage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

...But if it's much easier to install M2s into western AFV than NSV...

Why would it be so? It is not that it is used as a coax, but in OWSs and pintle mounts, and in both cases those installations are often marketed as being compatible with both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Damian said:

They are probably gradually sent to Ukraine, when more Beryl's go to reserve stock being replaced by new Grot A2's.

....

I will also remind, that some time ago, Army General Staff and MoD made a decision to gradually retire all weapon systems and equipment of WarPact/soviet heritage.

Ukraine is reportedly flush in AKM itself. 

Rules are supposed to be proven by exceptions. If the WP/SU heritage system is better, adaptable and you make it: Don't get all general principles like Germans. Just saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Ukraine is reportedly flush in AKM itself. 

7.62x39 AKs are rarity on the front, 90% of frontline rifles are AK-74s, rest are western 5.56. 7.62x51 rifles (G3, M14, FALs) and 7.62x39 AKs (original Soviet, Polish, Chinese, Romanian and Yugo) are used by territorial defense.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

Question: How realistic would it be to resume production of the PT-91 within a reasonable period (a year or two) to ship to Ukraine?

Totally unrealistic, PT-91 hasn't been produced since 2009 (Malaysian contract). We don't produce the V-46 engine anymore, the company that did doesn't exist anymore and reportedly the technical documentation necessary to produce it has... disappeared. :D 

Our MIC is up to its earlobes in orders and planned acquisitions just for domestic needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bojan said:

7.62x39 AKs are rarity on the front, 90% of frontline rifles are AK-74s, rest are western 5.56. 7.62x51 rifles (G3, M14, FALs) and 7.62x39 AKs (original Soviet, Polish, Chinese, Romanian and Yugo) are used by territorial defense.

Yes, i meant they have a ton of these in depots or REMF hands, so why would they need more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT getting rid of WP stuff on general principles:

Getting rid of Soviet legacy systems that you don't make makes sense.

Getting rid of Soviet legacy systems that you make but who are inferior to western ones makes sense too.

Getting rid of Soviet legacy systems that you make but who are superior to western ones and now in western calibers makes... Well if everyone in Nato can use a different 5.56 rifle, what's so bad about different .50 cal machine guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Markus Becker said:

Well if everyone in Nato can use a different 5.56 rifle, what's so bad about different .50 cal machine guns?

There are problems with mounting them in western vehicles. Believe me there were experimental attempts, results are, meh.

For example there was idea to install UKM-2000C as a coaxial gun in Leopard 2's, after tests, Army just gave up and decided to stay with MG3.

In general, while UKM-2000 in newest versions can stay as infantry weapon, all western vehicles receive western machine guns.

17 minutes ago, mandeb48 said:

Question: How realistic would it be to resume production of the PT-91 within a reasonable period (a year or two) to ship to Ukraine?

It is a no go. We never produced all major components. As @urbanoid said, completely unrealistic today. It's better to focus on procuring license and produce on licence a foreign design, either K2 or M1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

WRT getting rid of WP stuff on general principles:

Getting rid of Soviet legacy systems that you don't make makes sense.

Getting rid of Soviet legacy systems that you make but who are inferior to western ones makes sense too.

Getting rid of Soviet legacy systems that you make but who are superior to western ones and now in western calibers makes... Well if everyone in Nato can use a different 5.56 rifle, what's so bad about different .50 cal machine guns?

Well, I don't think we're getting rid of locally produced PKMs in 7.62 NATO as far as infantry use is concerned. ZU-23-2s in original caliber will stay as well, as it's an element of Pilica. 

All in all there aren't that many legacy systems that we still produce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Damian said:

There are problems with mounting them in western vehicles. Believe me there were experimental attempts, results are, meh.

For example there was idea to install UKM-2000C as a coaxial gun in Leopard 2's, after tests, Army just gave up and decided to stay with MG3.

In general, while UKM-2000 in newest versions can stay as infantry weapon, all western vehicles receive western machine guns.

It is a no go. We never produced all major components. As @urbanoid said, completely unrealistic today. It's better to focus on procuring license and produce on licence a foreign design, either K2 or M1.

Different MGs for AFVs isn't as big a deal as it sounds.  The British used both Besa (7.92 mm) and Brownings (.30-06) in their AFVs while the rest of the army was using Brens and Vickers (.303) and post war they kept the .30-06 Brownings while the rest used L4s and L7s in 7.62 mm NATO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, R011 said:

Different MGs for AFVs isn't as big a deal as it sounds.  The British used both Besa (7.92 mm) and Brownings (.30-06) in their AFVs while the rest of the army was using Brens and Vickers (.303) and post war they kept the .30-06 Brownings while the rest used L4s and L7s in 7.62 mm NATO.

Considering that all Soviet heritage vehicles are meant to be withdrawn from service, it means that we will stay only with 7,62x51mm NATO ammunition and weapons used on these vehicles, same goes with 12,7x99mm NATO ammunition and weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Damian said:

Considering that all Soviet heritage vehicles are meant to be withdrawn from service, it means that we will stay only with 7,62x51mm NATO ammunition and weapons used on these vehicles, same goes with 12,7x99mm NATO ammunition and weapons.

Yeah.  That some Polish tanks will use MG3 and M240/MAG machine guns while the rest of the army has something different won't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, R011 said:

Different MGs for AFVs isn't as big a deal as it sounds.  The British used both Besa (7.92 mm) and Brownings (.30-06) in their AFVs while the rest of the army was using Brens and Vickers (.303) and post war they kept the .30-06 Brownings while the rest used L4s and L7s in 7.62 mm NATO.

A dedicated rifle caliber MG for vehicle use, would't be a bad idea. Ideally with a substantial barrel, selective rate of fire (with a very high rate of fire being potentially useful for self defence vs. drones and ATGM's), a short reciever that can be folded och swinged away to the side, and a barrel, that can be pulled backwards out of the trunnion for easy barrel change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Damian said:

There are problems with mounting them in western vehicles. Believe me there were experimental attempts, results are, meh.

For example there was idea to install UKM-2000C as a coaxial gun in Leopard 2's, after tests, Army just gave up and decided to stay with MG3.

But we are talking about .50 call and they are not coax but externally mounted as Bojan reminded us. Or do certain new AFV have them as coax or internally mounted main guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

A dedicated rifle caliber MG for vehicle use, would't be a bad idea. Ideally with a substantial barrel, selective rate of fire (with a very high rate of fire being potentially useful for self defence vs. drones and ATGM's), a short reciever that can be folded och swinged away to the side, and a barrel, that can be pulled backwards out of the trunnion for easy barrel change.

Tanks could heavily benefit from purpose designed MG and ammo, alas none is going to mess with logistics, even if it is perfectly doable and sustainable (as noted by @R011 previously).

Other than what you have described for tank tank MG it could also have following features:

- externally driven, this enables easy RoF adjustment, gets rid of the piston, making hole in the armor for barrel smaller, 

- forced air circulation through barrel when not shooting

- slightly larger caliber (about 9-10mm), with more-less fully cylindrical case and telescoped ammo would offer quite a few benefits in effective range, more compact ammo storage and enabling shorter receiver on the gun

Still, only ones that use non-standard MG for AFVs seem to be Brits, with Hughes EX-34 chaingun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Tanks could heavily benefit from purpose designed MG and ammo, alas none is going to mess with logistics, even if it is perfectly doable and sustainable (as noted by @R011 previously).

Other than what you have described for tank tank MG it could also have following features:

- externally driven, this enables easy RoF adjustment, gets rid of the piston, making hole in the armor for barrel smaller, 

- forced air circulation through barrel when not shooting

- slightly larger caliber (about 9-10mm), with more-less fully cylindrical case and telescoped ammo would offer quite a few benefits in effective range, more compact ammo storage and enabling shorter receiver on the gun

Still, only ones that use non-standard MG for AFVs seem to be Brits, with Hughes EX-34 chaingun.

Plenty of nations have different machineguns for infantry and tanks. There are quite a few nations where the infantry uses M60, FN MAG, FN Minimi, MG4, MG5 and so on, while the tanks uses MG3. In Sweden we used to have FN MAG, FN Minimi, PKT, MG3 and our domestic version of the M1919 at the same time, and the only real issue, seems to have been the different calibers and different belts. The infantry and infantry using different machine guns is likely only to become more common, if lightweight 7,62mm machineguns like the FN EVOLYS, Negev NG7, MG5 and the SIG XM250 gets more traction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

But we are talking about .50 call and they are not coax but externally mounted as Bojan reminded us. Or do certain new AFV have them as coax or internally mounted main guns?

In Polish Army all vehicles coaxial machine guns are 7,62mm. However 12,7mm machine guns mounted on the turret roof are also not interchangable. Simply WKM-B will most likely not fit in to SCWS or CROWS-LP mount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Damian said:

In Polish Army all vehicles coaxial machine guns are 7,62mm. However 12,7mm machine guns mounted on the turret roof are also not interchangable. Simply WKM-B will most likely not fit in to SCWS or CROWS-LP mount.

Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station. I begin to see the problem. I had the classic WW2/Vietnam mount in mind.

If this new high tech mount is designed around a rather old machine gun, it dictates your choices just like the Leo does for the coax machine gun. 🤷🏻

Edited by Markus Becker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station. I begin to see the problem. I had the classic WW2/Vietnam mount in mind.

If this new high tech mount is designed around a rather old machine gun, it dictates your choices just like the Leo does for the coax machine gun. 🤷🏻

CROWS allows you to mount M249, M240, M2 and Mk19, and any other weapon with the same mounting points. I doubt it was ever designed for soviet style weapons. Same goes for SCWS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

NSV can have same mounting points as can M2, it is literary two holes for pins. Local version does have ability to be mounted on any M2 or NSV mount.

Told you before, your industry specialists just want money for retooling.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...