User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:10:14 PM EDT
Looks like a BMP-3 derivative, but with a bigg-ass gun.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:12:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Looks like an MBT to me. Consider this a tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:19:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Nah, not an MBT. Look how narrow the tracks are. Plus I think it's a BMP-3 hull, but I've never seen the turret. That's one damn big caliber gun for a light AFV....and no muzzle brake, either.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:21:55 PM EDT
[#3]
It reminds me of the large gun version of the Stryker they were working on. Same concept at least. Convert an IFV into a heavy support weapon.
The Army armor guys here will probably know a heck of a lot more about it though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:30:08 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm not sure about it being a bmp-3 hull. I know there are variations but I have never seen a front end like that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:31:38 PM EDT
[#5]
BMP running gear though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:32:45 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:33:06 PM EDT
[#7]
2S25 Sprut-SD airborne tank.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm ETA: Neither a BMP-3 or PT-76 chassis. The 2S25 uses a BMD-3 chassis. -Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:35:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Too bad it isn't a PT-76 though.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:41:53 PM EDT
[#9]
It looks suspiciously like a BMD-4, Airborne Combat Vehicle. Look here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:45:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
2S25 Sprut-SD airborne tank. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm ETA: Neither a BMP-3 or PT-76 chassis. The 2S25 uses a BMD-3 chassis. -Mark i think we have a winner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:48:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Bah, I was close.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:52:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Looks like the chick in the picture is checking it out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 8:57:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Too bad it isn't a PT-76 though.
Shoot, I give it to you... I almost had it, I could'a swore it was a PT-76 from looking at the front end. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2009 9:07:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: Too bad it isn't a PT-76 though. Shoot, I give it to you... I almost had it, I could'a swore it was a PT-76 from looking at the front end. It definitely is a close relative and fills the same role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 6:49:53 AM EDT
[#15]
Not really. PT-76 is an amphibious recon vehicle. Sprut-D is a tank destroyer. (The earlier Spruts are towed 125mm guns)
NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 1:28:07 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Not really. PT-76 is an amphibious recon vehicle. Sprut-D is a tank destroyer. (The earlier Spruts are towed 125mm guns) NTM The Russians still have dedicated TDs? And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 1:38:04 PM EDT
[#17]
SPRUT light tank / tank destroyer.
Sometimes I wish we would just buy some Russian equipment, rather than spending 100 billion dollars and canceling a program. It ain't great, but it ain't that bad, either. Besides, as long as we don't have to fight ourselves, it would be good enough and a lot of it is just unlicensed copies of our own gear anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 1:47:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
2S25 Sprut-SD airborne tank. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm ETA: Neither a BMP-3 or PT-76 chassis. The 2S25 uses a BMD-3 chassis. -Mark Yep, that was an easy one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 2:25:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really. PT-76 is an amphibious recon vehicle. Sprut-D is a tank destroyer. (The earlier Spruts are towed 125mm guns) NTM The Russians still have dedicated TDs? And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory? Lots of tank destroyers in Europe. As for towed AT guns, I don't know about Russia, but plenty of former East-Bloc nations still have them in service. Georgia had quite a few in action during the Russian invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 2:28:29 PM EDT
[#20]
I don't know why, but I've always like light tanks like the Stingray.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 2:31:37 PM EDT
[#21]
TankNet has a couple of threads running about the Russian Victory Day Parade on 09May. Let's steal some Russian bandwidth and look at some hi-res photos of the practice sessions.
Bet this sounds seriously cool with all this hardware on the move 
Say what you want about the Russians, they put on a bad ass parade! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 2:35:23 PM EDT
[#22]
isnt this in the same class as the other NATO IFVs/APCs with a 105/120mm cannons? they dont consider them tank destroyers i dont think...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:06:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
2S25 Sprut-SD airborne tank. http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm ETA: Neither a BMP-3 or PT-76 chassis. The 2S25 uses a BMD-3 chassis. -Mark Hmmm....18 tonnes, as compared to 43 tonnes for a T-80....that lil' tank destroyer is gonna rock when it fires that 125mmm.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:14:59 PM EDT
[#24]
It's a target.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:16:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Looking at the treads and the hull, it looks like it's one of the BMD-3 variants used by airborne forces.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:20:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really. PT-76 is an amphibious recon vehicle. Sprut-D is a tank destroyer. (The earlier Spruts are towed 125mm guns) NTM The Russians still have dedicated TDs? And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory? They still have them in inventory. The Russians keep EVERYTHING. Hell, they'll still pull out their T-34s and T-55s and use em in military operations because the stuff still works well. The reasoning is, if they have it they should use it and use up as much ammo and parts because it's just sitting around unused.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:20:42 PM EDT
[#27]
I have always wondered why the Russians keep their missiles exposed to the weather.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:25:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
I have always wondered why the Russians keep their missiles exposed to the weather. The Russians will keep everything exposed to the weather if they can get away with it. Hell, for decades their jet fighters used to be stored OUTSIDE in all kinds of weather. They didn't care and they'd practically just jump inside and then go for a flight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:25:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
The Russians still have dedicated TDs? Something often missed in the ritual "Our tank is better than their tank" discussion is the fact that Russian doctrine still considers the tank to be a general purpose weapon with an emphasis on infantry support. The doctrinal anti-tank system is the tank destroyer, usually armed with missiles, but the 125mm does well as well. People seemed to have often learned the wrong lesson from the Tank Destroyer corps of the US Army in WWII. It was actually very successful. The problem was that the tanks couldn't hold their own, but if you have the ability to have both capable tanks and TDs, then the concept works perfectly well. The related one is the Chinese Type-89. Sortof a Cold War hold-over, they only have two regiments of the things. But interestingly, the gun is a NATO-standard 120mm smoothbore. 
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles. 
NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:26:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really. PT-76 is an amphibious recon vehicle. Sprut-D is a tank destroyer. (The earlier Spruts are towed 125mm guns) NTM The Russians still have dedicated TDs? And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory? Lots of tank destroyers in Europe. As for towed AT guns, I don't know about Russia, but plenty of former East-Bloc nations still have them in service. Georgia had quite a few in action during the Russian invasion. So how well would these "tank destroyers" do against an Abrams? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 4:39:16 PM EDT
[#31]
So how well would these "tank destroyers" do against an Abrams? Almost as well as a proper Russian tank, given they have the same gun and ammo. Good side is they are more moble, and thus more likely to get to a dangerous position. They're cheaper, so you can buy more of them. Fire control system may be a little degraded, but I'd need to check. NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:05:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles. http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/sprut102.jpg NTM Wow. When did we retire towed AT Guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:14:19 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
I don't know why, but I've always like light tanks like the Stingray. http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Pre-Rifts-Vehicles/Stingray_Light_Tank.jpg I as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:17:34 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
So how well would these "tank destroyers" do against an Abrams? Almost as well as a proper Russian tank, given they have the same gun and ammo. Good side is they are more moble, and thus more likely to get to a dangerous position. They're cheaper, so you can buy more of them. Fire control system may be a little degraded, but I'd need to check. NTM They don't have any reactive armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:19:51 PM EDT
[#35]
You can bolt reactive armour to anything, to include a Bradley. They probably just don't think it's worth it. Adding tons of extra weight will degrade its mobility, for in effect limited bonus.
NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:27:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles. http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/sprut102.jpg NTM Wow. When did we retire towed AT Guns? Utilized properly it could be an ugly opponent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:32:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles. http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/sprut102.jpg NTM Wow. When did we retire towed AT Guns? Utilized properly it could be an ugly opponent. Weren't Bradleys designed to deal with them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 5:48:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles. http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/sprut102.jpg NTM Wow. When did we retire towed AT Guns? Utilized properly it could be an ugly opponent. Weren't Bradleys designed to deal with them? It's probably not a good idea to be inside a metal box getting shot by 125mm AT guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 7:29:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles. http://www.enemyforces.net/artillery/sprut102.jpg NTM Wow. When did we retire towed AT Guns? Utilized properly it could be an ugly opponent. Is it true that the Germans recorded more tank kills with AT Artillery than SP Guns/Tanks? I always thought Towed AT went out in WWII, once Tanks got big enough to carry the really big guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 8:26:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
TankNet has a couple of threads running about the Russian Victory Day Parade on 09May. Let's steal some Russian bandwidth and look at some hi-res photos of the practice sessions
That is the one we have to be afraid of. Especially since The One is scrapping our balisstic missile defense systems as fast as he can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2009 9:18:40 PM EDT
[#41]
kickass. I was hoping for a good Dyen Pobyedi pics thread. Now change the title and add more pics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 6:06:56 AM EDT
[#42]
The problem with the towed AT guns at the end of WWII was that they were getting too big to move in a hurry. Back in the day when the typical AT gun was a 37mm, it was easy. Pop a couple of shots off, then manhandle the gun out of line of sight. That started getting a little more difficult when dealing with cannons the size of 17lbrs and 90mm. When properly emplaced, they were lethal for the first few volleys, but if they didn't kill everything, they were vulnerable.
The current generation such as the Sprut B have motors on them to move small distances on their own. Not to the level of a true self-propelled gun, but we now have something with a very small visual signature (It's only six foot high, after all) with the hitting power of a tank, which can retreat out of line of sight in a reasonably quick time. If oyu have the manpower to spare to man them, they certainly still have a place. NTM |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 6:26:14 AM EDT
[#43]
Is there a tank round out there that will penetrate our front line Abrams armor? I think I remember reading reports of our Sabots not even penetrating.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 6:34:58 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
TankNet has a couple of threads running about the Russian Victory Day Parade on 09May. Let's steal some Russian bandwidth and look at some hi-res photos of the practice sessions http://tankdriver.users.photofile.ru/photo/tankdriver/115366635/126740914.jpg That is the one we have to be afraid of. Especially since The One is scrapping our balisstic missile defense systems as fast as he can. Yeah. Anyone notice that the back of this looks like an ENORMOUS forward assist? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 6:37:21 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how long did they keep Towed AT Guns in inventory?
Not in widespread service, but Sprut B is still officially in production. Same 125mm gun as a T-80, with the same range of ammo to include the missiles.
NTM Wow. A towed AT gun that shoots missiles. I guess the gun can't have too much recoil, if it can be shot like that without 30 tons of armor around it to hold it in place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 9:47:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Is there a tank round out there that will penetrate our front line Abrams armor? I think I remember reading reports of our Sabots not even penetrating. There are different kinds of rounds that can penetrate or at least kill an Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 12:16:55 PM EDT
[#47]
Youtube vid of the parade today. This is the land portion. Others have air and other parts of parade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-04HxZWvtU&feature=channel |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2009 12:47:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Youtube vid of the parade today. This is the land portion. Others have air and other parts of parade. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-04HxZWvtU&feature=channel Also from the parade: 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
