Does anyone actually use svir, refleks, or Kobra in Ukraine?

Does anyone actually use svir, refleks, or Kobra in Ukraine? Seems like a cool idea to shoot the ATGM out of the tank gun but I don’t think I have seen any videos of them

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    There was videos of a Wagner T-90M firing them at a church "allegedly" used by Ukrainians as a sniper position

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    In the tank combat videos we've seen they seem to be moving all the time, standing still for long enough to fire off an ATGM is also standing still long enough to be shot by an ATGM, so I'm not surprised

    I remember in March 2022 the combat loadout of captured Russian T72b3s and T80us was discussed, there were only 1 or 2 ATGMs or none encountered

    Another Soviet wunderwaffle...

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      We have seen some, the problem is that most tank combat is not filmed in this war, so we don't see this stuff get used.
      There was footage of a Ukrainian t-64 loading a GLATGM just the other day.

      They actually found tanks that had mostly ATGMs inside the autoloader last summer.
      They do get used in very long range engagements.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I remember that video. I think it was a T80.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeh they are used a shit ton. Refleks/Svir most used but you see Bastions used too. Its one of the VERY limited things Russia has thats moderately effective and doesnt really have a counter.
      When paired with the Catherine imagers they make a pretty lethal combo given they out range most if not all Ukrainian ATGMs (except captured Kornets) and Tank Sabots.

      >combat loadout of captured Russian T72b3s and T80us was discussed
      Kek i have a video somewhere of a captured T80bvm with ONLY Refleks loaded in the carousel, he stole the entire platoons worth of GLATGMs it was only until he was captured and interviewed at a later date it he admitted that he stole them all because interestingly they dont cook off anywhere near as fast as the regular Russian ammo.
      I can link you a shit ton of GLATGM footage if your interested anon, its all nitter links im too moronic to Webm.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >because interestingly they dont cook off anywhere near as fast as the regular Russian ammo.
        I'd believe it. The ATGMs have a reduced propelling charge and then the rest of it is missile body. In comparison to the sabots which have additional propellant and HEAT has a full charge.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          What are the two in the middle? That's way too much to be a launching charge for a tiny li'l missile.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those are for APFSDS, HEAT and HE-Frag. The post right after is the little charge they use to launch the missile.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/IcayTs0.jpg

          [...]
          The missiles use this little kick charge to punt them out of the barrel. Seeing they're not combustible case (metal pressure vessel instead) and also get ejected out the end I really can see his thinking.

          Its annoying me that i cant find the video and the post interview.
          Anyway heres some footage of GLATGMs
          >T90 9m119m at 6370m (!)
          https://nitter.net/wolski_jaros/status/1697966196992139677#m
          >T90 9m119m
          https://nitter.net/Hawkeye1745/status/1648222518019338240#m
          >T90 9m119m 5060m
          https://nitter.net/Zbiesu/status/1641105661508349954#m
          >T90 9m119m
          https://nitter.net/Roberto05246129/status/1628775988036308992#m
          >T80bvm 9m119m
          https://nitter.net/outofthehook/status/1622651367704625191#m
          >BMP3 9k116
          https://nitter.net/outofthehook/status/1596053256664272897#m
          >Ukrainian using captured BMP3 9k116
          https://nitter.net/8HWUu4uXy35QLXM/status/1547001954500759553#m
          >T90 9m119
          https://nitter.net/ashrafnsier/status/1697283414682902880#m
          Theres a shit ton more from both sides if anyones interested.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks archive anon

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              If you ever want to find a specific type of ATGM used heres a tip.
              >Find both Nato and Russian designation(s)
              >Search nitter for tweets containing said name
              >filter for videos
              Thats how i do it, you get some good stuff. I had no idea how used they were before i tried.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wait, how does the fifth one work? Does it use the charge from the first piece to ignite the propellant in the upper round?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. It burns through the end. Imagine the MACS charges for 155mm where it has the seal on the end. They have to add the additional propellant for APFSDS as it needs the energy for velocity while lobbing a HEAT or HE-Frag round a little slower doesn't hurt at all.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/sM7yuwX.jpg

        >because interestingly they dont cook off anywhere near as fast as the regular Russian ammo.
        I'd believe it. The ATGMs have a reduced propelling charge and then the rest of it is missile body. In comparison to the sabots which have additional propellant and HEAT has a full charge.

        The missiles use this little kick charge to punt them out of the barrel. Seeing they're not combustible case (metal pressure vessel instead) and also get ejected out the end I really can see his thinking.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't Stugna just a gun launched ATGM fired from a launcher?

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/16cl15t/92nd_separate_assault_brigade_of_the_afu_loads/

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looking at how bulky, ramshackle and dangerous that thing is i understand why the DPRK took one look at it and threw it in the trash when they started making 125mm guns.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looking at how bulky, ramshackle and dangerous that thing is i understand why the DPRK took one look at it and threw it in the trash when they started making 125mm guns.

      how often do the autoloaders break down?
      of all the (many) disadvantages of the carousel autoloader, you never seem to hear about them failing.
      the soviets seem to have really figured out a lot of mechanical 'clockwork' shit despite being absolutely ass at anything electronic.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are plenty of accounts of them breaking down not to mention ripping off arms and hands. Beyond that:

        >One less crew so harder to maintain the tank
        >Expensive
        >Requires turning your tank into a death trap due to ammo storage
        >Requires two piece ammo creating a hard limit on the type of APFDS you can use
        >Actually makes the tank more cramped with 2 people in the instead of 3
        >Slow, in combat can't switch ammo types without firing the gun so if you have HE and encounter enemy tanks you need to waste your first shot before loading AP

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Ripping limbs off
          That one's a myth or otherwise the turret crew has to be sticking their hands past the guards or fricking around during loading it
          >One less crew so harder to maintain the tank
          Yes and no, yes in that you don't have the loader with you but Soviet doctrine was to take the guy who normally would be a loader and shove him into a van with the other 3 which would serve as the mechanic pool.
          >Expensive
          I guess but the cost is relative to implementation and complexity.
          >Requires turning your tank into a death trap due to ammo storage
          Soviet designs most certainly. There's some really weird things that can be done for survivability improvement like on the M8 AGS and the MPF entry where they compartmentalize it and have blowout panels while somehow putting the ammo within the turret basket. Bustle loaders are leagues ahead for implementation on compartmentalization and survivability but there's the persistent worry that a HEAT round will go off while pointed into the crew compartment which has the flip implementation for the Abrams type proposals where the round is rotated 180 to bring the nose forward.
          >Requires two piece ammo creating a hard limit on the type of APFDS you can use
          Soviet choice and limitation
          >Actually makes the tank more cramped with 2 people in the instead of 3
          The various Abrams proposals would keep the loader in place and wouldn't take up much space internally.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Slow, in combat can't switch ammo types without firing the gun so if you have HE and encounter enemy tanks you need to waste your first shot before loading AP
          This isn't really an issue as the gun isn't immediately loaded unless commanded to. With Soviet designs unless the sequential mode is toggled on say the T-80 the gunner has to select the next round type to initiate loading. The sequential toggle may have been added to later tanks like the T-90 as it mostly is a programming (with electronics of the era) feature. Some of the autoloader proposals for US designs (Abrams included) have the ability to even retrieve the present round in the breech and re-stow it into the magazine as well.

          I'm neither for or against autoloaders but characterizing them as being on the path of Soviet mentality isn't fair.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ripping limbs off
            That one's a myth or otherwise the turret crew has to be sticking their hands past the guards or fricking around during loading it
            >One less crew so harder to maintain the tank
            Yes and no, yes in that you don't have the loader with you but Soviet doctrine was to take the guy who normally would be a loader and shove him into a van with the other 3 which would serve as the mechanic pool.
            >Expensive
            I guess but the cost is relative to implementation and complexity.
            >Requires turning your tank into a death trap due to ammo storage
            Soviet designs most certainly. There's some really weird things that can be done for survivability improvement like on the M8 AGS and the MPF entry where they compartmentalize it and have blowout panels while somehow putting the ammo within the turret basket. Bustle loaders are leagues ahead for implementation on compartmentalization and survivability but there's the persistent worry that a HEAT round will go off while pointed into the crew compartment which has the flip implementation for the Abrams type proposals where the round is rotated 180 to bring the nose forward.
            >Requires two piece ammo creating a hard limit on the type of APFDS you can use
            Soviet choice and limitation
            >Actually makes the tank more cramped with 2 people in the instead of 3
            The various Abrams proposals would keep the loader in place and wouldn't take up much space internally.

            All good points, the specific example was NK using the 125mm with manual loading and western ammo storage which seems to get rid of all the drawbacks of the Russian system.

            >The various Abrams proposals would keep the loader in place and wouldn't take up much space internally.

            In this case i think the internal space issue is easily solved; we are comparing the available space in a T-72 to a T-62 based design that has the ammo moved to a turret bustle. Just removing the ammo next to the driver, the firewall and floor in a T-62 there is enough space to fit two more crew if you had a reason to do so. Also the T-62 is just a bigger turret.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Just removing the ammo next to the driver
              There's fuel tanks that surround the hull ammo storage located there. Better compartmentalization of the tanks and consolidating hull storage in regards to displaced volume is an option, which would free up space near the engine.

              Of course you could apply the T-55AGM/Tifon 2a type upgrade package to the T-62, Kharkiv Morozov offered it apparently. It'd mean a bustle autoloader and the option to go a NATO 120mm gun with single piece ammo.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                The North Korean type 215/216 does that, they moved the drivers seat to the center hull and presumably just filled the space with armor. Since it has two more track wheels than a T-62 the ammo racks between the fighting compartment and engine were probably used for a bigger engine.

                >the option to go a NATO 120mm gun with single piece ammo.

                If it uses a bustle and no autoloader couldn't the Norks use single piece ammo in their 125mm? With a 125mm using one piece ammo with a APFDS recessed into the case like NATO 120mm on paper at least that should be the most powerful gun out there.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                125 vs 120mm is an academic difference like 155 vs 152. In practice the small difference in bore diameter doesn't matter as much as the chamber which can be elongated or hypothetically necked (ex: "155mm" class propellant capacity, 120mm bore). Single piece 125mm isn't really much of a thing short of homebrew development, not to say that the Norks couldn't. At best you'd save re-engineering on the sabot itself but your long rod is going to be fundamentally either the same design with a smaller diameter sabot or a new design that takes advantage of nesting it within the propellant casing. The kind of deep nesting found in the latter M829s (like the A3, A4) requires substantial development as the space taken up by the tail end of the penetrator is typically used as the priming/ignition tree.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Single piece 125mm isn't really much of a thing short of homebrew development,

                It would have to be 'homebrew' since no one else has the technical ability to load one.

                >In practice the small difference in bore diameter doesn't matter as much as the chamber which can be elongated

                So is that why there is such a huge leap from 115mm penetration to 120mm? Just a bigger chamber?

                >The kind of deep nesting found in the latter M829s (like the A3, A4) requires substantial development as the space taken up by the tail end of the penetrator is typically used as the priming/ignition tree.

                One would assume they would just steal the design, it is their signature move. For instance i am damn sure they don't have a license for producing French FCS systems to be sold in Syria.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                125 vs 120mm is an academic difference like 155 vs 152. In practice the small difference in bore diameter doesn't matter as much as the chamber which can be elongated or hypothetically necked (ex: "155mm" class propellant capacity, 120mm bore). Single piece 125mm isn't really much of a thing short of homebrew development, not to say that the Norks couldn't. At best you'd save re-engineering on the sabot itself but your long rod is going to be fundamentally either the same design with a smaller diameter sabot or a new design that takes advantage of nesting it within the propellant casing. The kind of deep nesting found in the latter M829s (like the A3, A4) requires substantial development as the space taken up by the tail end of the penetrator is typically used as the priming/ignition tree.

                >'homebrew'

                Step aside bubba, Kim will show you a real pissin' hot handload!

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So is that why there is such a huge leap from 115mm penetration to 120mm? Just a bigger chamber?
                Penetrator development is a big part of it. If you poured in the amount of R&D that went into 120mm and 125mm being the "standard" MBT calibers into say 75mm, you'd see 75mm guns shooting darts that penetrate in excess of 430mm RHAe with a reasonably sized chamber. That's effectively what would have happened if things like the HSTV-L had all the R&D money poured into it and the 75mm it had.

                If you look at the history of Soviet 125mm penetrators, it starts with the crappy by contemporary standards 3BM9 (1962) which does a measly >240mm of penetration flat @2km. Supposedly the 105mm M900 (1989) which is DU, which the penetrator doesn't even extend as far as M829A3 does into the shell, will do in excess of 500mm of penetration flat @2km. The M900 is a very modern (but not as modern as M829A3 (2003), A4) design. 3BM9 is an all steel penetrator, the immediate successors to it started to stick tungsten slug inside of them. By 3BM32 (1985) the Soviets figured out how to field a monolithic DU alloy penetrator and it achieved 500mm of penetration flat @2km. 3BM42 (1986) does a little less but is tungsten. Supposedly 3BM46 (1991) does even more than both of them as a DU penetrator.

                If you look at 152/155mm howitzers, chamber capacity increases are often tied to increasingly longer barrels and longer ranges. You could hypothetically do (not necessarily advisable) designs like a massive 180mm chamber bore with a necking down to 120/125mm and make the chamber stupid long to throw very, very heavy and long darts at equal (or greater) velocities to achieve more penetration at the trade off of having massive rounds to load with decreased capacity.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                What you are saying about penetrators makes sense. I know the standard 115mm is utter garbage by modern standards however the UK, Belgium, DPRK and probably Iran make ones with twice or more penetration. I think the UK and Belgan ones just use a 105mm dart with a 115mm shoe, the NK/Iran ones probably do the same thing.

                >f you look at 152/155mm howitzers, chamber capacity increases are often tied to increasingly longer barrels and longer ranges.

                Hence the 170mm Koksan with it's absurdly long barral and probably absurdly short barrel life.

                I just remembered that the tracked version is set up for direct fire and was occassionally used that way in Iran/Iraq, i'm now imagining that someone probably did work on a AP round for it before realizing the pointlessness.

                Yeah. It burns through the end. Imagine the MACS charges for 155mm where it has the seal on the end. They have to add the additional propellant for APFSDS as it needs the energy for velocity while lobbing a HEAT or HE-Frag round a little slower doesn't hurt at all.

                But the length is still limited by being two piece ammo that has to fit in the autoloader. It really seems like a fatal design flaw that can't be fixed while keeping two piece ammo.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But the length is still limited by being two piece ammo that has to fit in the autoloader. It really seems like a fatal design flaw that can't be fixed while keeping two piece ammo.
                Theoretically you could have the dart stick out the end (or have it wrapped as part of the casing) and have the propellant charge shaped like a cup to nestle into the tail but it obviously won't fit into the autoloader. Supposedly there was something done to the autoloader of the T-90 (and trickled down to T-72 modernizations that modify the autoloader) to accommodate a slightly longer APFSDS but there's no real growth potential left due to the design choices made half a century ago. IIRC the T-14 kept the 125mm but went with the ability to load much longer APFSDS with the autoloader design it has. Of course, parade prototype pony and all so caveat applies in that it isn't in numerous numbers to be relevant beyond theoretical and academic discussion.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So is that why there is such a huge leap from 115mm penetration to 120mm? Just a bigger chamber?
                Penetrator development is a big part of it. If you poured in the amount of R&D that went into 120mm and 125mm being the "standard" MBT calibers into say 75mm, you'd see 75mm guns shooting darts that penetrate in excess of 430mm RHAe with a reasonably sized chamber. That's effectively what would have happened if things like the HSTV-L had all the R&D money poured into it and the 75mm it had.

                If you look at the history of Soviet 125mm penetrators, it starts with the crappy by contemporary standards 3BM9 (1962) which does a measly >240mm of penetration flat @2km. Supposedly the 105mm M900 (1989) which is DU, which the penetrator doesn't even extend as far as M829A3 does into the shell, will do in excess of 500mm of penetration flat @2km. The M900 is a very modern (but not as modern as M829A3 (2003), A4) design. 3BM9 is an all steel penetrator, the immediate successors to it started to stick tungsten slug inside of them. By 3BM32 (1985) the Soviets figured out how to field a monolithic DU alloy penetrator and it achieved 500mm of penetration flat @2km. 3BM42 (1986) does a little less but is tungsten. Supposedly 3BM46 (1991) does even more than both of them as a DU penetrator.

                If you look at 152/155mm howitzers, chamber capacity increases are often tied to increasingly longer barrels and longer ranges. You could hypothetically do (not necessarily advisable) designs like a massive 180mm chamber bore with a necking down to 120/125mm and make the chamber stupid long to throw very, very heavy and long darts at equal (or greater) velocities to achieve more penetration at the trade off of having massive rounds to load with decreased capacity.

                What you are saying about penetrators makes sense. I know the standard 115mm is utter garbage by modern standards however the UK, Belgium, DPRK and probably Iran make ones with twice or more penetration. I think the UK and Belgan ones just use a 105mm dart with a 115mm shoe, the NK/Iran ones probably do the same thing.

                >f you look at 152/155mm howitzers, chamber capacity increases are often tied to increasingly longer barrels and longer ranges.

                Hence the 170mm Koksan with it's absurdly long barral and probably absurdly short barrel life.

                I just remembered that the tracked version is set up for direct fire and was occassionally used that way in Iran/Iraq, i'm now imagining that someone probably did work on a AP round for it before realizing the pointlessness.

                [...]
                But the length is still limited by being two piece ammo that has to fit in the autoloader. It really seems like a fatal design flaw that can't be fixed while keeping two piece ammo.

                Yeah. It burns through the end. Imagine the MACS charges for 155mm where it has the seal on the end. They have to add the additional propellant for APFSDS as it needs the energy for velocity while lobbing a HEAT or HE-Frag round a little slower doesn't hurt at all.

                I find it way more funny than i should that by sticking to the T-62 as their design base and it's slightly oversized turret (for future upgrades) North Korea of all fricking people somehow has made what is theoretically the worlds most powerful tank gun.

                It's hypothetical because they (probably) can't design the ammo to take advantage of it but if Russia starts showing off some captured 120mm Silver bullets all bets are off. It's just funny is all.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >theoretically the worlds most powerful tank gun
                That probably goes to the French and Germans with their larger than 120mm projects past and present (which are closer to production than prototypes of the past). IIRC late CW and post CW the US had several projects which involved "140mm" gun had alternative configurations necking down to a 120mm barrel and projectile, effectively having the chonk of Rheinmetall 140mm but still pushing existing 120mm projectiles.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well yeah but the Nork 125mm has actually been deployed for a while. Besides, i give you a prototype triple 14.5 inch armed T-62:

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                If that was on a M113 you'd be summoning Mike Sparks to go full traitor for the Norks on the knowledge alone.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is it treason to email the North Korean Embassy with the archive link to the '3000 lbs of 14.5mm Lazy Dogs hitting at 5-6 per square meter with 30+ mm of top penetration at 45 degrees with 1.5 million of them hitting a city with a whole battery" thread?

                Because i don't care if it sends me straight to hell, i just want to see it happen to a city.

                >Mike Sparks
                As an Aero Gavin variant by using massed LazyDog fire before landing it could sweep any enemy air assets from the area while prepping the LZ. In theory with a linked radar as well as a rotating turret it provides artillery, counter battery, anti armor, city shotgunning and anti air capability.

                Give it JATO packs and it's a intercepter, all it needs to do is get in the air and fire in the general direction of the enemy. You could also use the feature to extend the range of bombardments. kpyya

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                140mm? We can do better:

                >S-Tank plans hacked, historical display tank stolen and smuggled out in diplomatic briefcases
                >Plans adapted to a oversized T-62 hull somehow
                >2/3rds length smooth bore 170mm Koksan attached
                >3.5 meter long DU APFDS loaded
                >2026 Russia/Korean conflict aka 'where's my money b***h' incident
                >The last remaining Russian T-10 attempts to hide from Nork forces using a 8 mile long section of down town Vladivosk as cover
                >Round penetrates city, tank and the earths crust behind it
                >The spot where the round lands goes down to the water table and upper mantle
                >Impact location is renamed 'The Glorious Leader Kim Yo Jong victory hot spring'

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon at this point that becomes a Heavy Anti-tank Weapon, Disposable, Tank Fired.
                >Barrel erodes to turn into molten magma of hell after one shot

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                No no no.

                The tracked version of the Koksan has a historically proven AT role, it's somewhat limited travel and AT sights were used in the Iran/Iraq war in a anti tank role. They used 'bunker buster' rounds which were basically HESH with half propellant charges to snipe entrenched Iraqi tanks at long range. The pic shows the travel for the gun as a LOS AT gun.

                If the barrel was 2/3rd shorter (so it can fit on a rail car, the barrels are 10 meters long) and fitted to a tank destroyer chassis like the S-Tank while being smoothbore they would be great. While a '3.5 meter DU APFDS round ' going through a city is a obvious joke i don't think 2-3 meters of penetration would be technically impossible.

                A sabot out of 170mm would put a hole in damn near anything, however i can't think of many targets that wouldn't be obliterated by HE or HESH so the APFDS would be redundant. The Sabot would be not only redundant as the HESH alone would take out almost anything, at close range a 170mm lead slug would wreak any tank.

                >Barrel erodes to turn into molten magma of hell after one shot

                Koksans are not known for their long barrel life,
                about 400-1500 depending on the rounds they use and the charge. Since they are already inaccurate with conventional rounds and they use specialized rounds as a matter of policy they should just make them smoothbore and focus on guided or area effect rounds.

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fun Fact:

                That isn't a prepared firing position, the tracked version of the Koksan has such heavy recoil that it shatters slate and digs a hole in dried clay when it fires. It has a small dozer blade in front of it to dig out the position but it piles up. Half that pile dirt is the gun going off.

                Note the flash burns on the Iranians faces, while i have no proof i am quite sure most of them half life long hearing disabilities from being near it.

                You know you have a good gun when firing it makes the crew deaf and burns off a few layers of skin from their faces

              • 10 months ago
                Anonymous

                >necking

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >unreliable and ripping off arms
          already outed as a moron.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's probably a reliable system as it's mostly hydraulic. Most complaints I know of are the vulnerability and how difficult it is to load if the autoloader does fail.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Be intresting to see it compete against a crew without the loader in terms of loading time and time on target, just having the gunner looking out his sights at the battlefield instead of looking over to make sure it's up is probably worth alot.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *