Could a pair of BMP-2s take down a M1 Abrams from close range?
but genuinely I don't think so. the side skirts on the Abrams are a lot more stout than on the T-72. and would likely give it enough protection to dispatch both.
possibly, the side hull is much thinner than the front hull or side turret
a lucky hit to the turret could at least jam it and force the crew to bail
the ATGM could also cause damage if it hits
but not likely, since the M1 has much better visibility than the BMP-2 and can see and fire before the BMP-2 could
Yes. At least mission kill it. There is barely any difference between performance of 30x165mm Soviet and 30x173mm NATO ammunition if those use same western made sabot rounds. Belgian part of Nexter makes ammo for both calibers. AFAIK Finnish army kinda uses same ammunition from same supplier on both BMP-2 and CV-9030.
Basically put the slavs in the Abrams and the mutts in the bmps
Abrams can be kinda blind if their radio traffic full of pointless small talk and wild CV90 appears behind them. This shit that has happened in exercise. It has happened. Like almost a decade ago when US Army was completely absorbed into COIN shit and only staff officers and higher ranking NCO's had any idea how to deal with conventional opponent. As in lieutenant colonels were lieutenants and colonel was captain when they dealt with that shit and sgt with too many chevrons was pvt frick face. From what I have heard things have gotten better since then in 'murrican side of things. Some of the shit from 2015 to like 2019 has been hilarious. Like that 'muhreen combat engineers being better infantry than US Army infantry and sole USMC tank platoon in Europe getting fricked by single IFV because their comms were full pointless small talk that they didn't even get the message that there is enemy ambush until combat simulator tells 'em they are dead... due to comms being full pointless shit talk.
>they could shred all of the optics and disable the barrel >spend several minutes trying to pixel hunt the optics on an M1 using autocannon >enemy M1 spends a few seconds firing its main gun and K-killing the BMP
We could be saying the exact same thing about the T90. What did the Bradleys do to it besides blind it? Why didn't it just shoot the Bradley in front of it with its main gun? The Abrams would be in the same situation, albeit with a crew nationality advantage
>What did the Bradleys do to it besides blind it
either kill the gunner or commander or destroy the turret control mechanism (the turret did the spinny spin on its own).
We saw all three members of the crew jump out alive, so, I guess there's some sweet spot where you can shoot a T90 with 20mm and make the turret spin. When will they add it to War Thunder???
If you watch the version of the video that has the drone footage at the end, you'll see that there's a lot of wrecked buidings, rubble, trees, and snowdrifts that can easily block line-of-sight. Plus the Ukrainians are defending in this area (Stepove) so presumably have better options for positioning along with having drone recon available to pass along information on enemy movement.
It also helps that Russian training is pretty bad these days and the Russians seem to be using the same moronic tactics that keep getting their attack groups obliterated.
I read an interview with one of the Bradley crewmen and he said he knew he has to frick up his optics and sensors because he can't pen it from the front because he plays a shitton of warthunder
4 months ago
Anonymous
God I hate this timeline. You would think he would know that from his training or the fricking manual for the Bradley.
It either broke something or knocked the crew silly so that the turret went into spin cycle mode.
The Abrams also has far, far superior optics than the T90, especially a current year T90 suffering from electronics shortages, so it'd have a significant advantage in locating and tracking the BMPs.
>Why didn't it just shoot the Bradley in front of it with its main gun?
What gave you the idea they knew it was there before that was no longer an option? That tank should reasonably have had a decent crew but here we are, and its mates ran off leaving it die.
The M1 could still simply run over the BMPs and squash their outdated 20s era 12mm "armour."
No, the BMP-2 wants to try and get up behind the M1 and completely kill the engine.
What miserable conscript behavior. They set the gun to the high rate of fire which results in awful accuracy and then just spray a bunch of trees over 2km away where they think maybe the Ukrainians have infantry? Where is the Red Army's vast amount of artillery? Those Soviet generals who were actually competent would be spinning in their graves at this shitshow.
That was just some range firing exercise. In general the 2A42 has a troubled development. Do I need to post the development history of the BMP-2 again?
>Those Soviet generals who were actually competent would be spinning in their graves at this shitshow.
Unironically they were the ones being demoted over political reasons or not towing the party line hard enough or just being too eccentric. Some autist posted a bunch of summarized Soviet remarks from the last year of the USSR when they watched Gulf War unfold:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59670745/#59672851
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59670745/#59671738
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59670745/#59672771
>Slipchenko >-ko in last name
CryptoUkrianian providing some of the brains for the Russians there.
>The issues with Bradley development are generally well-known thanks to the Hollywood take on the entire development – in 1998, the movie Pentagon Wars came out, describing the development that in the end took practically 20 years and around 14 billion USD as of 1986. The movie is – as it usually happens in Hollywood - not entirely correct as some issues were vastly overblown for satirical purposes while others, specifically the Israeli involvement, were simply misinterpreted. >In the end however, the US Army got its fighting vehicle to a reasonable state and used it with various degrees of success in Iraq. While sources vary, it’s possible that over 100 of the Bradley vehicles were destroyed in the war, mostly due to RPG ambushes and improvised explosive devices (IED’s). >Unlike the American side, the Soviet IFV development is not as well-known. There is a certain myth going around about the efficiency of the Soviet military industry (in contrast to the allegedly „corrupt” private military equipment producers of the western countries). Nothing could however be further from the truth and the BMP-2 serves as a perfect example of what the Soviet development looked like in some cases. But to start the story, we have to look back at the BMP-1.
>The issues with Bradley development are generally well-known thanks to the Hollywood take on the entire development – in 1998, the movie Pentagon Wars came out, describing the development that in the end took practically 20 years and around 14 billion USD as of 1986. The movie is – as it usually happens in Hollywood - not entirely correct as some issues were vastly overblown for satirical purposes while others, specifically the Israeli involvement, were simply misinterpreted. >In the end however, the US Army got its fighting vehicle to a reasonable state and used it with various degrees of success in Iraq. While sources vary, it’s possible that over 100 of the Bradley vehicles were destroyed in the war, mostly due to RPG ambushes and improvised explosive devices (IED’s). >Unlike the American side, the Soviet IFV development is not as well-known. There is a certain myth going around about the efficiency of the Soviet military industry (in contrast to the allegedly „corrupt” private military equipment producers of the western countries). Nothing could however be further from the truth and the BMP-2 serves as a perfect example of what the Soviet development looked like in some cases. But to start the story, we have to look back at the BMP-1.
>The ubiquitous BMP-1 is – quite correctly – regarded as one of the symbols of the Soviet military power, the fears of the western militaries embodied in endless streams of Russian vehicles, thrust from the cities of East Germany, plains of Poland and mountains of Czechoslovakia as an armored spear into the heart of the NATO forces in Europe. >The reality, as it usually happens, was far less glorious and first combat operations of the BMP-1 in the conflict of Soviet-backed Arab nations versus Israel have shown the weaknesses of this light IFV, specifically the insufficient armament, cramped compartment and poor crew placement. While the issues in the middle-eastern wars were largely attributed to the improper use of the exported vehicles along with wrong tactics, admitting the problems of the vehicle on its home ground – in Soviet Russia – proved out to be much longer and arduous process, especially since it had to include certain influential parties admitting being wrong.
[...] >The ubiquitous BMP-1 is – quite correctly – regarded as one of the symbols of the Soviet military power, the fears of the western militaries embodied in endless streams of Russian vehicles, thrust from the cities of East Germany, plains of Poland and mountains of Czechoslovakia as an armored spear into the heart of the NATO forces in Europe. >The reality, as it usually happens, was far less glorious and first combat operations of the BMP-1 in the conflict of Soviet-backed Arab nations versus Israel have shown the weaknesses of this light IFV, specifically the insufficient armament, cramped compartment and poor crew placement. While the issues in the middle-eastern wars were largely attributed to the improper use of the exported vehicles along with wrong tactics, admitting the problems of the vehicle on its home ground – in Soviet Russia – proved out to be much longer and arduous process, especially since it had to include certain influential parties admitting being wrong.
>Insufficient Armament >One of the things never really decided for the BMP-1 was the official proper tactical use. In the beginning, the vehicle was – like the BTR class vehicles (BTR – „bronetransporter“ is a Russian word for an APC) – intended only for the infantry transport and support role. In this however, the BMP-1 was even worse than the older BTR’s, as it had no other suitable weapon than a single PKT machinegun – its main weapon, the 2A28 Grom – was only theoretically useful in fighting enemy armored forces. >The 2A28 Grom is a 73mm smoothbore low-pressure gun, its primary purpose firing HEAT shells at enemy armored targets (HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s). It was not selected as the best weapon for the future Soviet IFV, it was chosen simply because no other gun was available. This unfortunate situation was partially caused by the overseer of the BMP-1 development, GRAU (Main Missile and Artillery Directorate), as opposed to the „usual“ armor development overseer, GBTU (Main Armor Directorate). From the names of these Soviet institutions, their line of thought is not that hard to fathom. GRAU was heavily influenced by Khruschev government’s incompetence and placed their bet on a losing horse: early missiles. When this line of thought turned out to be wrong, they naturally did not want to be the ones to be held responsible and continued to refuse any blame. >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s) >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s) >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s) >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s)
[...] >Insufficient Armament >One of the things never really decided for the BMP-1 was the official proper tactical use. In the beginning, the vehicle was – like the BTR class vehicles (BTR – „bronetransporter“ is a Russian word for an APC) – intended only for the infantry transport and support role. In this however, the BMP-1 was even worse than the older BTR’s, as it had no other suitable weapon than a single PKT machinegun – its main weapon, the 2A28 Grom – was only theoretically useful in fighting enemy armored forces. >The 2A28 Grom is a 73mm smoothbore low-pressure gun, its primary purpose firing HEAT shells at enemy armored targets (HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s). It was not selected as the best weapon for the future Soviet IFV, it was chosen simply because no other gun was available. This unfortunate situation was partially caused by the overseer of the BMP-1 development, GRAU (Main Missile and Artillery Directorate), as opposed to the „usual“ armor development overseer, GBTU (Main Armor Directorate). From the names of these Soviet institutions, their line of thought is not that hard to fathom. GRAU was heavily influenced by Khruschev government’s incompetence and placed their bet on a losing horse: early missiles. When this line of thought turned out to be wrong, they naturally did not want to be the ones to be held responsible and continued to refuse any blame. >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s) >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s) >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s) >(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s)
>Picrel thing not frequently seen
>GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds. A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
>What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. >When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug.
[...] >GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds. A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
>What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. >When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug.
>34% hit rate with wind tossing the rounds around >Couldn't penetrate old T-55
>The Birth of the BMP-2 >This particular trial finally caused a scandal in Soviet ranks and the ministry of defense immediately ordered the vehicle to be modified in order to increase its firepower. As a part of this initiative, it was to be fitted with a dual-axis stabilizer and with the newest generation of anti-tank missiles. What followed however was to be the proof of the fact that strange IFV development process filled with blunders was by no means exclusive to the Americans. >For one, a serious flaw of this initiative proved to be the demand for a one-man turret. A single crewmember turret was proven to be ineffective many times in history, making the decision to use it once again quite strange. But that was not to be the last issue – two Soviet design bureaus and plants were tasked with cooperating on the BMP vehicle improvement and with building a prototype of the said vehicle – ChTZ (Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant) and KMZ (Kurgan Mashine Construction Plant). In the past, ChTZ did win the BMP-1 design competition, but the contract actually went to KMZ (citing ChTZ’s „lacking production capacities“) creating bitter rivalry amongst the two bureaus. How well that „cooperation“ went is anyone’s guess – nevertheless, both design bureaus were merged into one temporary bureau, called OKB Bosk (OKB means „experimental design bureau“ in Russian).
[...] >34% hit rate with wind tossing the rounds around >Couldn't penetrate old T-55
>The Birth of the BMP-2 >This particular trial finally caused a scandal in Soviet ranks and the ministry of defense immediately ordered the vehicle to be modified in order to increase its firepower. As a part of this initiative, it was to be fitted with a dual-axis stabilizer and with the newest generation of anti-tank missiles. What followed however was to be the proof of the fact that strange IFV development process filled with blunders was by no means exclusive to the Americans. >For one, a serious flaw of this initiative proved to be the demand for a one-man turret. A single crewmember turret was proven to be ineffective many times in history, making the decision to use it once again quite strange. But that was not to be the last issue – two Soviet design bureaus and plants were tasked with cooperating on the BMP vehicle improvement and with building a prototype of the said vehicle – ChTZ (Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant) and KMZ (Kurgan Mashine Construction Plant). In the past, ChTZ did win the BMP-1 design competition, but the contract actually went to KMZ (citing ChTZ’s „lacking production capacities“) creating bitter rivalry amongst the two bureaus. How well that „cooperation“ went is anyone’s guess – nevertheless, both design bureaus were merged into one temporary bureau, called OKB Bosk (OKB means „experimental design bureau“ in Russian).
>At first, ChKZ tried to use the fact favor of GRAU and decided to improve the Grom gun. The result was an experimental vehicle designated Object 768 with a one-man turret and an improved 73mm gun, designation „Zarnitsa“. This weapon used the same ammunition as the Grom, but its barrel was longer, resulting in improved accuracy and range. To silence the cries of Soviet soldiers for a better infantry support weapon, they paired the gun with one 12,7mm NSVT machinegun. Since both guns did not fit the original turret and additional space for the stabilizer mechanism was required as well, ChKZ reworked the turret and increased its size. This turned out to be a problem as well, since the increased weight of the weapons and turret caused the vehicle to lose its amphibious capability. This in turn was „solved“ by making the hull longer and adding the seventh roadwheel while the turret was shifted to the back. This „modification“ did not bother the ChKZ designers at all – after all, they wouldn’t have to actually produce the hull, as it was to be manufactured by their competitor, KMZ.
[...] >At first, ChKZ tried to use the fact favor of GRAU and decided to improve the Grom gun. The result was an experimental vehicle designated Object 768 with a one-man turret and an improved 73mm gun, designation „Zarnitsa“. This weapon used the same ammunition as the Grom, but its barrel was longer, resulting in improved accuracy and range. To silence the cries of Soviet soldiers for a better infantry support weapon, they paired the gun with one 12,7mm NSVT machinegun. Since both guns did not fit the original turret and additional space for the stabilizer mechanism was required as well, ChKZ reworked the turret and increased its size. This turned out to be a problem as well, since the increased weight of the weapons and turret caused the vehicle to lose its amphibious capability. This in turn was „solved“ by making the hull longer and adding the seventh roadwheel while the turret was shifted to the back. This „modification“ did not bother the ChKZ designers at all – after all, they wouldn’t have to actually produce the hull, as it was to be manufactured by their competitor, KMZ.
>In the end, the weight was increased to 13.5 tons and despite the fact the hull was now 83 centimeters longer, only six infantrymen could fit inside this vehicle. This issue in turn caused notable lack of enthusiasm in GBTU (to put it mildly) but despite the objections the Object 768 was finished and ready for trials by the end of 1972. In the end however, the project was significantly delayed by the „competition“ – the KMZ representatives in the OKB were adamant: the vehicle has to be based on the current, existing BMP hull, as the „modifications“ ChKZ proposed would require a complete overhaul of the entire assembly line. And so the „cooperation“ was de-facto over before it even began. The KMZ designers then decided to comply with the army requests and proposed a vehicle equipped with an effective automatic gun, capable of infantry support role (at this point, the 73mm guns were still firing HEAT shells only, HE-Frag would come only two years later) and of fighting enemy soft targets, slower aircraft and – most notably – helicopters, that were becoming very popular with NATO at that point.
[...] >In the end, the weight was increased to 13.5 tons and despite the fact the hull was now 83 centimeters longer, only six infantrymen could fit inside this vehicle. This issue in turn caused notable lack of enthusiasm in GBTU (to put it mildly) but despite the objections the Object 768 was finished and ready for trials by the end of 1972. In the end however, the project was significantly delayed by the „competition“ – the KMZ representatives in the OKB were adamant: the vehicle has to be based on the current, existing BMP hull, as the „modifications“ ChKZ proposed would require a complete overhaul of the entire assembly line. And so the „cooperation“ was de-facto over before it even began. The KMZ designers then decided to comply with the army requests and proposed a vehicle equipped with an effective automatic gun, capable of infantry support role (at this point, the 73mm guns were still firing HEAT shells only, HE-Frag would come only two years later) and of fighting enemy soft targets, slower aircraft and – most notably – helicopters, that were becoming very popular with NATO at that point.
>The KMZ BMP-1 successor design came to be under the leadership of B.N.Yakovlev. His proposal, designated Object 675, was to be equipped with a two-man turret and an automatic 30mm cannon paired with a 7,62mm machinegun. In order to knock out enemy armored targets, the vehicle was to be also armed with one 9K111 „gayot“ anti-tank guided missile launcher (NATO codename: AT-4 Spigot) or with the 9M113 „Konkurs“ (NATO codename: AT-5 Spandrel) system. The guidance system for the missiles was to be – unlike in the improved BMP-1P (Object 765) - located inside the hull so the operator wouldn’t have to be unprotected while controlling the missile. >The work on the design began in 1972 and the deadline was practically impossible: three months. This was caused again by GRAU stating that it’s more than enough time since technically the entire project is just a „modernization“ and not an entirely new armored vehicle project (which it – in reality – practically was due to the amount of required modifications). The prototype was to be built within a year – and while the preliminary project was indeed ready on time, to actually build the vehicle was another matter entirely.
>the deadline was practically impossible: three months
Unwanted red headed step child tier
[...] >The KMZ BMP-1 successor design came to be under the leadership of B.N.Yakovlev. His proposal, designated Object 675, was to be equipped with a two-man turret and an automatic 30mm cannon paired with a 7,62mm machinegun. In order to knock out enemy armored targets, the vehicle was to be also armed with one 9K111 „gayot“ anti-tank guided missile launcher (NATO codename: AT-4 Spigot) or with the 9M113 „Konkurs“ (NATO codename: AT-5 Spandrel) system. The guidance system for the missiles was to be – unlike in the improved BMP-1P (Object 765) - located inside the hull so the operator wouldn’t have to be unprotected while controlling the missile. >The work on the design began in 1972 and the deadline was practically impossible: three months. This was caused again by GRAU stating that it’s more than enough time since technically the entire project is just a „modernization“ and not an entirely new armored vehicle project (which it – in reality – practically was due to the amount of required modifications). The prototype was to be built within a year – and while the preliminary project was indeed ready on time, to actually build the vehicle was another matter entirely.
>the deadline was practically impossible: three months
Unwanted red headed step child tier
>Since GRAU was still insisting on their preferred weapon (the 73mm Zarnitsa) and wanted to have nothing to do with the development of a new 30mm cannon in order not to have to admit their own mistake, B.N.Yakovlev was forced to look for help elsewhere, contacting the air force design bureau CKB-14 commanded by A.G.Shipunov and V.P.Gryazev and asking them whether they’d develop the automatic gun for him. In order to keep the deadline for the project, the gun would have to be ready in six months – this deadline was met with very negative reaction, V.P.Gryazev stated that developing a gun that fast was unheard of and with proper testing it would take at least five years. In the end however, Yakovlev managed to convince him since there was an ongoing rivalry between Gryazov and GRAU from the time when GRAU engineers proposed to remove all the guns from the airplanes and use only missiles instead, which was something he as a gun designer did not like for obvious reasons. Needless to say, by turning to Gryazov instead of complying with the use of the Zarnitsa gun, KMZ did not make any new friends in GRAU either >In order to design the new gun for the BMP, Gryazov took the GSh-6-30 rotary aircraft cannon that used the powerful 30x165mm round, propelling the 400g projectile to 800 m/s. He basically removed one of the six guns along with the chamber and breech system and used it as a single-barrel weapon. While the solution was viable, GRAU interfered yet again with the development – the gun was fired electrically, but the chief of GRAU technical department, A.A.Grigoriev, insisted on mechanical firing mechanism. The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.
> The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.
[...] >Since GRAU was still insisting on their preferred weapon (the 73mm Zarnitsa) and wanted to have nothing to do with the development of a new 30mm cannon in order not to have to admit their own mistake, B.N.Yakovlev was forced to look for help elsewhere, contacting the air force design bureau CKB-14 commanded by A.G.Shipunov and V.P.Gryazev and asking them whether they’d develop the automatic gun for him. In order to keep the deadline for the project, the gun would have to be ready in six months – this deadline was met with very negative reaction, V.P.Gryazev stated that developing a gun that fast was unheard of and with proper testing it would take at least five years. In the end however, Yakovlev managed to convince him since there was an ongoing rivalry between Gryazov and GRAU from the time when GRAU engineers proposed to remove all the guns from the airplanes and use only missiles instead, which was something he as a gun designer did not like for obvious reasons. Needless to say, by turning to Gryazov instead of complying with the use of the Zarnitsa gun, KMZ did not make any new friends in GRAU either >In order to design the new gun for the BMP, Gryazov took the GSh-6-30 rotary aircraft cannon that used the powerful 30x165mm round, propelling the 400g projectile to 800 m/s. He basically removed one of the six guns along with the chamber and breech system and used it as a single-barrel weapon. While the solution was viable, GRAU interfered yet again with the development – the gun was fired electrically, but the chief of GRAU technical department, A.A.Grigoriev, insisted on mechanical firing mechanism. The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.
> The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.
>As a result of this demand the breech had to be redesigned. While at it, GRAU demanded yet another modification of the gun – it had to have variable rate of fire (specifically for the soldiers to be able to fire only at half RPM – 300 instead of 600) „in order to conserve the ammunition“ This request completely ignored the fact that the gun rate of fire was limited by 8 round bursts anyway and the real reason for it was not as much ammo conservation as it was an attempt to bury – or at least delay – the development. Even without the GRAU interference the development was problematic as it was with the mechanical firing mechanism quite unreliable and the gun overheating. GRAU officers frequently joked: „What’s the rate of fire of that gun? 600 rounds per minute, but only once a month“ >Another issue with the gun was its low accuracy. The gun, installed in the BMP turret, was simply incapable of hitting anything. It took three design bureaus and several GBTU experts to finally figure out in the end that the gun was completely fine, the real problem was in the stabilization of the entire turret: the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer. This problem was finally fixed by certain modifications to the stabilizer itself (non-linear stabilizing).
>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
Unironically fixed but that didn't stop the gun from being still a stinky pile of shit in the high RoF setting.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
lmao I know the general gist of the story but I must have missed this bit the last time it was posted (by you?)
[...] >As a result of this demand the breech had to be redesigned. While at it, GRAU demanded yet another modification of the gun – it had to have variable rate of fire (specifically for the soldiers to be able to fire only at half RPM – 300 instead of 600) „in order to conserve the ammunition“ This request completely ignored the fact that the gun rate of fire was limited by 8 round bursts anyway and the real reason for it was not as much ammo conservation as it was an attempt to bury – or at least delay – the development. Even without the GRAU interference the development was problematic as it was with the mechanical firing mechanism quite unreliable and the gun overheating. GRAU officers frequently joked: „What’s the rate of fire of that gun? 600 rounds per minute, but only once a month“ >Another issue with the gun was its low accuracy. The gun, installed in the BMP turret, was simply incapable of hitting anything. It took three design bureaus and several GBTU experts to finally figure out in the end that the gun was completely fine, the real problem was in the stabilization of the entire turret: the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer. This problem was finally fixed by certain modifications to the stabilizer itself (non-linear stabilizing).
>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
Unironically fixed but that didn't stop the gun from being still a stinky pile of shit in the high RoF setting.
>The final – and most annoying – issue with the gun came from an unexpected source: the ammunition. Simply put, it was creating too much gunpowder residue and the gasses quickly filled the crew compartment. When the vehicle was trialed in front of a GRAU committee, the KZM testers switched the compartment ventilators off in order to try to prevent vehicle power grid fluctuations that could interfere with turret controls. As a result, the soldiers present had to drag them out of the vehicle half-suffocated to death from the fumes and had to take them to a local hospital, much to the cynical amusement of the GRAU officials overseeing the tests. The gun designers proposed to use a mechanism that would use secondary burn of the gunpowder fumes after each shot. The only result of this initiative was that after the mechanism was implemented, backfire blasts were coming from the breech after every shot, covering half of the combat compartment in flames – the testing crews were not amused a single bit.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>backfire blasts were coming from the breech after every shot, covering half of the combat compartment in flames – the testing crews were not amused a single bit.
[...] >The final – and most annoying – issue with the gun came from an unexpected source: the ammunition. Simply put, it was creating too much gunpowder residue and the gasses quickly filled the crew compartment. When the vehicle was trialed in front of a GRAU committee, the KZM testers switched the compartment ventilators off in order to try to prevent vehicle power grid fluctuations that could interfere with turret controls. As a result, the soldiers present had to drag them out of the vehicle half-suffocated to death from the fumes and had to take them to a local hospital, much to the cynical amusement of the GRAU officials overseeing the tests. The gun designers proposed to use a mechanism that would use secondary burn of the gunpowder fumes after each shot. The only result of this initiative was that after the mechanism was implemented, backfire blasts were coming from the breech after every shot, covering half of the combat compartment in flames – the testing crews were not amused a single bit.
>New Solutions >In the end, the situation was so bad that the developers actually considered mounting the gun externally, creating a vehicle called Object 680, which had a very flat turret with the gun mounted on the rear part of the turret roof. The ammunition feed was located inside the turret. This solution had to be scrapped as well, as the turret could not be protected from WMD’s due to the leaky ammunition feed shaft and it was also not possible to run a powerful ventilator, required to keep the fumes from firing the gun from suffocating the crew, as it interfered with the compartment overpressure and the vehicle was no longer gas-protected. In the end, a rather complicated solution was invented, involving the ventilator running only when the gun was firing, but this caused more delays and the development ran well into 1975. >The gun was by no means the only sore point. With the modifications and the new turret, the vehicle was 1370kg heavier, which caused it to lose the amphibious capability (the Americans ran into the same issues with Bradley, which was – theoretically – capable of swimming). The designers tried to lose some weight by using better steel (that could be thinner, providing the same amount of ballistic protection), different tracks and modified suspension, but the savings of roughly 400 kg were not enough. In the end, the issue was solved by adding floaters filled with foam to the extended side mudguards of the vehicle.
[...] >New Solutions >In the end, the situation was so bad that the developers actually considered mounting the gun externally, creating a vehicle called Object 680, which had a very flat turret with the gun mounted on the rear part of the turret roof. The ammunition feed was located inside the turret. This solution had to be scrapped as well, as the turret could not be protected from WMD’s due to the leaky ammunition feed shaft and it was also not possible to run a powerful ventilator, required to keep the fumes from firing the gun from suffocating the crew, as it interfered with the compartment overpressure and the vehicle was no longer gas-protected. In the end, a rather complicated solution was invented, involving the ventilator running only when the gun was firing, but this caused more delays and the development ran well into 1975. >The gun was by no means the only sore point. With the modifications and the new turret, the vehicle was 1370kg heavier, which caused it to lose the amphibious capability (the Americans ran into the same issues with Bradley, which was – theoretically – capable of swimming). The designers tried to lose some weight by using better steel (that could be thinner, providing the same amount of ballistic protection), different tracks and modified suspension, but the savings of roughly 400 kg were not enough. In the end, the issue was solved by adding floaters filled with foam to the extended side mudguards of the vehicle.
>Trials >Finally, in October 1975, Object 768 and Object 675 were to be trialed in front of the minister of defense, Marshal A.Grechko at Kubinka (along with another Soviet light tank prototype). >The ChKZ proposal with its prolonged hull was not considered a good solution by the officers, since the BMP-1 production was expensive and requiring as it was and A.Grechko was not keen on requesting more money for a complete assembly line overhaul for a project that took so long to develop. Furthermore, there were issues with the one-man turret and the suspension. >Another issue was the armament - GRAU traditionally supported the ChKZ prototype with the 73mm Zarnitsa gun but in the end, the 30mm 2A42 gun was supported by the minister of industry Bachirev and the deputy chief of GABTU, lieutenant-general Ryabov. The result of this discussion was effectively a stalemate. Annoyed by this standoff, Grechko ordered KMZ to build their own prototype with the 73mm gun – this design was named Object 681 and the work and trials took three more years. On the other hand, ChKZ - slowly losing the fight - realized that if they wanted to win, they’d have to design a vehicle equipped with an automatic cannon as well. In the end, they designed a vehicle with the same armament as the KMZ prototype (30mm) combined with their own prolonged hull. This project failed for the same reason the original ChKZ prototype did – low suspension reliability and price.
https://i.imgur.com/36yQDeH.jpg
>>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
lmao I know the general gist of the story but I must have missed this bit the last time it was posted (by you?)
It only gets better from more being posted. Pentagon Wars has nothing with all asspulls it had compared to the real struggle that is being a BMP.
Don't worry she can be 2A42'd for the spitroast vibe check [...]
[...]
[...] >In the meanwhile, more discussions took place about the future of the BMP. At one point, there was an idea to actually produce both the 30mm and 73mm versions, which was scrapped due to the issues with logistics. The lines were drawn – GRAU insisted on 73mm, GBTU insisted on 30mm and neither side was ready to back down even a bit. >After years of pointless bickering, Grechko’s patience ran out and he ordered full set of comparative trials to finally find the answer to the future of the BMP program armament. These tests took place by the end of 1978 at Alabino proving grounds near Moscow and everyone important to the program was there. The vehicle crews were provided by the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division „Tamanskaya“. Participating were the KMZ prototypes with both 30mm and 73mm armament. >The tests showed once for all that the 30mm gun was more suitable than the 73mm one when it came to accuracy and GRAU was practically defeated, but they had one last trump card to play: the penetration tests. GRAU managed to convince the commander of the army, general Pavlovsky, to perform shooting tests against real targets, hoping that the 73mm Zarnitsa would prove its worth by penetrating enemy armor. With all the other positions and arguments lost, it was all or nothing for GRAU.
>The tests took place against two worn-out T-72 tanks and once and for all have shown the dominance of the 30mm gun. While neither of the guns was able to knock out any of the tanks completely (something the Zarnitsa supporters claimed to be possible), the 30mm gun caused significant external damage by destroying optics, external fuel tanks and one small 30mm shell even jammed one of the turrets. With these results, GRAU was forced to concede defeat. 30mm Object 675 would finally be accepted in service later on as the BMP-2. As a last act of defiance however, GRAU representatives decided that the BMP-2 production would not exceed 10 percent of the total BMP-1 production.
>decided that the BMP-2 production would not exceed 10 percent of the total BMP-1 production.
final cuckening
>Conclusion >With these results, in the end, both sides – NATO and the Warsaw Pact - finally got their IFV’s in the early 80’s, reaching the same conclusion through a relatively different (yet bumpy) development process. The fates of both vehicles – the Bradley and the BMP-2 could have not been more different though: one remained with the US Army for the most part, while the other was widely exported and, like its predecessor, turned up one way or the other practically all over the world. Currently, many private companies are offering BMP-2 upgrade solutions to various standards and the Soviet BMP’s will keep on appearing in armed conflicts all over the world for years to come, while the Bradley will likely never be exported en-masse - not only for strategic reasons, but also due to the prohibitive costs and upkeep of this IFV. In this sense, the Soviets „won“ the race after all, creating a rugged and affordable vehicle despite all the issues with its development. >Of course, the actual BMP-2 combat record is another topic, but that is a story for another time…
t. March 2015
4 months ago
Anonymous
BMP-2: Second to Last!
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Better than being First to Last (BMP-1 with the useless Grom)
4 months ago
Anonymous
Grim.
At least it would be very quick and painless.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>quick >painless
Unlike a BMP-3 detonating like the average Soviet MBT it isn't either of those. There's probably some better BMP fireball videos of the fuel tanks erupting and setting off the ammo that I can encode to webms.
4 months ago
Anonymous
I worked with WWII vets who were still plentiful in the US workforce during my youth. They mentioned the stench of burning men is quite memorable. While war outside combat zones smells like shit and diesel/JP-4 (or 8 depending on your war, my last was Desert Storm since fewer forces deployed for the invasion of Iraq) I expect combat zones stink of decay and fire as well.
How similar is dead human to rotting pig?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Rotting flesh all stinks the same.
4 months ago
Anonymous
All rotting things are equally unpleasant.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Tries to climb out of turret >Does >Falls back into burning rear
4 months ago
Anonymous
frickin grim
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Neither quick nor painless
4 months ago
Anonymous
don't forget the missile it's armed with, anon
4 months ago
Anonymous
>MRE >use a rock or something >Sagger >use a stick or something
4 months ago
Anonymous
Oh dear lord. Imagine the motor igniting when the door is open.
4 months ago
Anonymous
anon, i've been dying to know what's the source ever since i read this gem years ago
4 months ago
Anonymous
It's probably himself. I doubt this would have passed through any publishing house as queerly written as it is. Not terrible and I enjoyed the read, but certainly not professional
>General Slipchenko added that there would be "no front lines or flanks" in future wars and that enemy territory would instead be divided "into targets and nontargets. War will involve the massive use of technology and will be over quickly, the political structure will destroy itself, and there will be no need to occupy enemy territory
The historical mirror image of how they assumed ww1 would be a mobile war judging by how the franco-prussian war was fought
Don't worry she can be 2A42'd for the spitroast vibe check
https://i.imgur.com/EcO6Irv.jpg
[...] >As a result of this demand the breech had to be redesigned. While at it, GRAU demanded yet another modification of the gun – it had to have variable rate of fire (specifically for the soldiers to be able to fire only at half RPM – 300 instead of 600) „in order to conserve the ammunition“ This request completely ignored the fact that the gun rate of fire was limited by 8 round bursts anyway and the real reason for it was not as much ammo conservation as it was an attempt to bury – or at least delay – the development. Even without the GRAU interference the development was problematic as it was with the mechanical firing mechanism quite unreliable and the gun overheating. GRAU officers frequently joked: „What’s the rate of fire of that gun? 600 rounds per minute, but only once a month“ >Another issue with the gun was its low accuracy. The gun, installed in the BMP turret, was simply incapable of hitting anything. It took three design bureaus and several GBTU experts to finally figure out in the end that the gun was completely fine, the real problem was in the stabilization of the entire turret: the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer. This problem was finally fixed by certain modifications to the stabilizer itself (non-linear stabilizing).
>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
Unironically fixed but that didn't stop the gun from being still a stinky pile of shit in the high RoF setting.
>Do I need to post the development history of the BMP-2 again?
I never get tired of reading it.
https://i.imgur.com/nUIJNNM.png
[...] >Trials >Finally, in October 1975, Object 768 and Object 675 were to be trialed in front of the minister of defense, Marshal A.Grechko at Kubinka (along with another Soviet light tank prototype). >The ChKZ proposal with its prolonged hull was not considered a good solution by the officers, since the BMP-1 production was expensive and requiring as it was and A.Grechko was not keen on requesting more money for a complete assembly line overhaul for a project that took so long to develop. Furthermore, there were issues with the one-man turret and the suspension. >Another issue was the armament - GRAU traditionally supported the ChKZ prototype with the 73mm Zarnitsa gun but in the end, the 30mm 2A42 gun was supported by the minister of industry Bachirev and the deputy chief of GABTU, lieutenant-general Ryabov. The result of this discussion was effectively a stalemate. Annoyed by this standoff, Grechko ordered KMZ to build their own prototype with the 73mm gun – this design was named Object 681 and the work and trials took three more years. On the other hand, ChKZ - slowly losing the fight - realized that if they wanted to win, they’d have to design a vehicle equipped with an automatic cannon as well. In the end, they designed a vehicle with the same armament as the KMZ prototype (30mm) combined with their own prolonged hull. This project failed for the same reason the original ChKZ prototype did – low suspension reliability and price.
[...]
It only gets better from more being posted. Pentagon Wars has nothing with all asspulls it had compared to the real struggle that is being a BMP.
>In the meanwhile, more discussions took place about the future of the BMP. At one point, there was an idea to actually produce both the 30mm and 73mm versions, which was scrapped due to the issues with logistics. The lines were drawn – GRAU insisted on 73mm, GBTU insisted on 30mm and neither side was ready to back down even a bit. >After years of pointless bickering, Grechko’s patience ran out and he ordered full set of comparative trials to finally find the answer to the future of the BMP program armament. These tests took place by the end of 1978 at Alabino proving grounds near Moscow and everyone important to the program was there. The vehicle crews were provided by the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division „Tamanskaya“. Participating were the KMZ prototypes with both 30mm and 73mm armament. >The tests showed once for all that the 30mm gun was more suitable than the 73mm one when it came to accuracy and GRAU was practically defeated, but they had one last trump card to play: the penetration tests. GRAU managed to convince the commander of the army, general Pavlovsky, to perform shooting tests against real targets, hoping that the 73mm Zarnitsa would prove its worth by penetrating enemy armor. With all the other positions and arguments lost, it was all or nothing for GRAU.
>Tries to hit >1 shot lands in general vicinity of the Abrams, even at close range
Tremendous cope and seething over the 25mm Bushmaster being accurate
All it takes is a little smoke, no amount of muh fancy smoke suppression systems is going to suppress your body from instinctively GTFOing a metal box getting filled with smoke.
>The original 9M113 with a single-charge warhead can penetrate 600 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA).
if they get the first shots off, probably although it depends on the exact model of abrams
an m1a2 is probably going to ignore the bmp-2's atgm from the frontal aspect
i know we all like to pretend that the real world is some stupid popularity contest but there is basically zero chance an abrams crew, even if a complete penetration doesn't happen, won't back the frick up after being hit by two 600mm penetration atgms.
I mean the scenario is meh. It's basically. Did the bmps set up an ambush and hit Abrams in the side or not. Which is gonna deal with a lot of other stuff like their position and how well they are camouflaged. Vs how aware is the Abrams as it patrols or whatever the frick is going on. In theory yes a bmp 2 can kill an Abrams.
>Jesus Christ what is that homies frontal RHA equivalent
unknown and probably classified
though when dealing with composite armor, RHAe should only be treated as a rough ballpark estimate, an accurate estimate would require knowing how much the armor segment weights and the mass-efficiency of the armor,
the original M1 abrams was believed to have a mass efficiency of about 2x steel, so its NERA + steel backing and frontal plate would have been twice as good as a solid block of steel of the same weight, but i dont think anyone weighted the full armor array
protection on a thickness basis is less precise, but most estimates vary from 0.9 to 1.2x as good as steel of the same thickness
armor depth on the baseline M1 was about 700mm from edge to armor weld, so assuming a worst case estimate it would provide equal protection as a monolithic steel plate of 630mm
keep in mind this is a very rough estimate, as stated above steel and composites dont necessarily behave the same way when struck
so it wouldnt necessarily always protect against a 600mm penetration projectile, but it would provide reliable protection
the M1 IP increased protection with a thicker array
the M1A2 didnt increase armor thickness, but did add DU armor somewhere on the inside
Oh. So that turret really is pretty bad ass. That's the old shit too, they have add on applique and shit on the a3/sep 4 or whatever new thing they are doing. No wonder all that top attack stuff happened.
i know we all like to pretend that the real world is some stupid popularity contest but there is basically zero chance an abrams crew, even if a complete penetration doesn't happen, won't back the frick up after being hit by two 600mm penetration atgms.
Theres a vid of a Leo 2a6 being hit by two kornet atgms (~1200mm pen) frontally and it literally just shrugged it off and then proceeded to smoke and reverse out of the ambush zone
>leopard 2a6
that's a quite late model tank. i hope you understand that i was talking mostly about an m1/m1a1 abrams against bmp-2s. i would not want to frick with a 2a6 without basically an artillery regiment on call.
The M1 could still simply run over the BMPs and squash their outdated 20s era 12mm "armour."
No, the BMP-2 wants to try and get up behind the M1 and completely kill the engine.
considering the bmp-2 isn't meant to stop tank guns at all, or even really chain guns, that amount of armor is fine. you're going to get fricked up by its main gun as infantry.
Yeah, theroetically anyways. MBTs are weak from the sides and rear, an M1A2 has 60mm on the hull sides and and they could knock out the optics and possibly damage the barrel and tracks frontally. But something would have to have gone seriously wrong for it to be in that position, which isnt impossible when slavs are using things.
>Jesus Christ what is that homies frontal RHA equivalent
unknown and probably classified
though when dealing with composite armor, RHAe should only be treated as a rough ballpark estimate, an accurate estimate would require knowing how much the armor segment weights and the mass-efficiency of the armor,
the original M1 abrams was believed to have a mass efficiency of about 2x steel, so its NERA + steel backing and frontal plate would have been twice as good as a solid block of steel of the same weight, but i dont think anyone weighted the full armor array
protection on a thickness basis is less precise, but most estimates vary from 0.9 to 1.2x as good as steel of the same thickness
armor depth on the baseline M1 was about 700mm from edge to armor weld, so assuming a worst case estimate it would provide equal protection as a monolithic steel plate of 630mm
keep in mind this is a very rough estimate, as stated above steel and composites dont necessarily behave the same way when struck
so it wouldnt necessarily always protect against a 600mm penetration projectile, but it would provide reliable protection
the M1 IP increased protection with a thicker array
the M1A2 didnt increase armor thickness, but did add DU armor somewhere on the inside
The M1A2's frontal protection is known from the Swedish tank trials. The M1A2 retains the hull of the M1A1, but adds DU (similar to the very expensive tungsten-a very dense and heavy metal, except free due to the US's gigantic nuclear programme-of which its a waste material) to the array in the turret. Against Ke, it's frontal protection on the turret cheeks is around 500-600mm RHA equivalent. Against CE its protection on the turret cheeks is about 800-1,000mm RHA equivalent. Its protection on the mantlet is around 400mm vs KE and 800 vs CE. From a frontal aspect the turrets of most NATO tanks are immune to most threats, excepting the mantlet, turret ring, and parts of the roof. Except the leclerc, which is 430mm vs KE over a 20* frontal arc, and is vulnerable to all 125mm APFSDS from 3BM42 onwards.
The hull armour remained the same as on the M1A1, which remained the same as on the M1. The upper glacis is 38mm HHA @82*, which only gives around 270mm vs KE and CE, but is past the critical angle of apfsds below 120mm. The Lower glacis used BRL (chobham), which gave around 325mm vs KE, which we know from the UK chieftain replacement trials and associated RARDE reports.
The M1 had around 340mm on the turret
The M1IP increased the turret thickness, the weight of which required new suspension, which brought it up to 380-400mm. The production version was the M1A1.
The M1A1 HA received HAP-1 DU in the turret.
The M1A2 and M1A1 HC received HAP-2 DU in the turret.
You must be a War Thunder dev because you ignored all of the information which does point to the M1's hull armor having been upgraded since the original variant. You'd think the photographs of the M1E1 with a plate of steel welded to the front hull to simulate some sort of weight increase there would be a clue.
at least according to gaijin, the hull armor never significantly increased in physical thickness, so thicker NERA is not likely
the weight increase also wasnt proportional to having extremely heavy metal slabs on the front
so only the very latest M1A2 SEP3s are confirmed to have much thicker armor
though the armor might have improved as a function of composite armor being re-arranged, allowing for greater protection in the same physical space and weight constraints
this cant really be proven or measured, and probably wouldnt be as effective as thickening the armor
That added weight to the hull of the M1E1 probably wasn't indicative of any increased thickness but could very well have meant a different and slightly heavier composite layout. Their notion that the later M1A1HA upgrade didn't include any changes to the hull armor is even more crazy.
The optics on an M1 are vulnerable to autocannon fragmentation. Places on the side and rear could be penetrated by 3UBR11 and maybe earlier AP rounds. Turret ring can be damaged. So yes, a BMP-2 getting close enough could potentially disable or even mission-kill an Abrams.
>he doesn’t have intimate knowledge about Sabot’s, Kinetic Penetrators and APFSDS >NGMI
But seriously look into because it is kino of the highest order, especially DU Penetrators, also Frangible Sabots because they are based as well.
>he doesn’t have intimate knowledge about Sabot’s, Kinetic Penetrators and APFSDS >NGMI
But seriously look into because it is kino of the highest order, especially DU Penetrators, also Frangible Sabots because they are based as well.
And I just read the auto cannon bit so now I realise that I’m moronic and cannot read.
>The optics on an M1 are vulnerable to autocannon fragmentation
only with a direct hit to the cameras
they are protected on all sides but the front with armor steel
>Places on the side and rear could be penetrated by 3UBR11 and maybe earlier AP rounds
really only the lower side hull
>ed. So yes, a BMP-2 getting close enough could potentially disable or even mission-kill an Abrams.
if it was really lucky
The turret bustle of the Abrams is very thinly armoured. Hitting that will most likely detonate the ammo. The blowout panels will obviously save the crew but they will have no shells left besides the one loaded in the gun.
turret bustle is literally the safest place to put ammo
its the least likely place to get hit and its easier to install blowout panels like you said
hull floor storage is worse in every way because it guarantees it will be what the enemy aims for and makes sure that the only easy way out for the explosion is through the crew
>Do tankers actually aim for shit like that?
if you are viewing a tank head on, then any shot will have to pass through the thick frontal armor, the spall shield, the gunners shoulder, and the blast door before it can detonate the ammo
the turret, being capable of rotation, can also turn to view their attacker even when being attacked from an angle
if attacked from the side, you might be able to hit the turret bustle if you aimed for it, but RNG says you are more likely to hit the side of the turret or side hull not the turret bustle since those areas are larger
if WAR THUNDER is anything to go by, you have an idea of where the weak areas are on the enemy tank (even the tiny pixel ones), and you vaguely aim towards those areas if you're fast enough and the adrenaline hasn't made you stupid. it's easier with an autocannon than a main gun too. >t. i play video games and therefore know what live tank combat is like and totally know what i'm talking about
Any competent tank crew will actually stare at what they could expect to find on the field and where the best place to hit them is. Now the odds of them pulling it off is circumstantial and sometimes just praying to the RNG gods and launching as fast as possible is the right way. But if given a chance most crews will try and aim at something weak.
>turret bustle is literally the safest place to put ammo
Well, yes, but also no. It all depends. Fighting from a hull down position or from a berm, the safest place for the ammo is in the hull behind the thickest parts of the armor plate.
Although I agree with you in principle, it's the safest for the crew in case of penetration. Leopard 2 combines both actually, which is interesting.
Well based off that one Turkish wreck, hull storage absolutely has its weaknesses. Especially when you don't have the advantage of fighting from a hulk down position
The Abrams has this extreme slope at the front but the armor plate is actually pretty fricking thin. I always wondered how deadly would it be for the driver to be shot at from an elevated position somewhat negating that slope. Being a tank driver probably sucks balls.
>Am I missing something?
when viewed head on, the upper frontal plate make up less than 10% of the visible area
and the driver is behind only a tiny portion of that area
so its basically never going to be hit unless you are going downhill or the enemy got extremely lucky
If they land lucky ATGM hits on the ass or downward through the engine compartment there's a good chance they're gonna mission kill it outright.
If we're talking the guns, its murkier. But hot take: Taking concentrated autocannon fire is going to basically render any tank combat ineffective even if it isn't penned. Repeated violent impacts, surface explosions, etc are going to frick up sights, tracks, and viewports eventually, possibly even turret functionality if a few lucky shots hit the ring. Not to mention the crew stress from eating successive hits taking it's toll. Mind you this is considering an optimal scenario, M1 doesn't have a gun visual on them at the start, BMP's are in a flanking position and have the ability to initiate the engagement at will, etc.
Most realistic outcome is the M1 is damaged to the point it's immobile but recoverable, and the crew bails, but not before juicing both BMPs.
Can anyone actually verify it was a Bradley that killed a T-90M? The footage is too pixelated to make out the IFV, and the rate of fire is honestly indicative of a BMP-2
>the rate of fire is ..
.. clearly a signature fingerprint of a Bradley unloading fricktons of pinpoint, 25 mm distilled frick you. With prejudice. A BMP would be spamming a hundred rounds into an area about 100 feet across at that distance. The Bradley missed once (or twice) out of about 50 rounds; no BMP ever built can do that. More likely the BMP would dump 50 rounds and score two hits.
I remember reading some anecdote about an Apache stumbling across an Iraqi tank in the Gulf War after expending all of its ATGMs and just pounding it with the 30mm chaingun until the crew managed to bail out and surrender after having been similarly debilitated. Doesn't sound that unbelievable now.
What type of armor is the Abrahams wearing? The sooper sekrit depleted uranium/ceramic/composite shit is not allowed outside of the U.S. military for classified reasons. A BMP would have to expend a huge amount of ammo over an extended assault and get lucky hits on unusually sensitive/vulnerable spots.
The conditional "could" means "Is there even a remote possibility?" So, Yes. It is *remotely* possible under a long list of unusual conditions. Under about 99.9% of most normal engagement conditions, the BMPs would get shrek'd long before they even saw what was shooting them.
even the earliest M1 without DU was armored against 115mm sub-caliber rounds within a 45-degree frontal arc
the M1A2, without DU armor, as trialed by the swedes could resist RPG-7s within a 90-degree frontal arc on the hull and the 125mm gun within a 50-degree frontal arc at long range
the turret could resist a 125mm gun within a 60-degree arc at long range and a 50-degree frontal arc at close range
so even without DU, which is primarily designed to stop monolithic 125mm rounds because the base NERA could already stop composite 115mm rounds, an autocannon would basically need to be flanking and aiming at the side hull to fully penetrate
>even the earliest M1 without DU was armored against 115mm sub-caliber rounds within a 45-degree frontal arc
While this was the design requirement the spaced armor worked just as well against the similarly constructed 125mm APFSDS soviets were using at the time. The hull was also armored along the 50 degree arc while the turret along the 60 degree arc from the start. >could resist RPG-7s within a 90-degree frontal arc
Even the baseline M1 was designed to resist RPG-7s from the sides at 90 degree angles, not just the front. It could resist much bigger ATGMs frontally from the same angles as APFSDS.
Are the Russians using APDS or APFSDS for their 30mm autocannons or are they pretty much all using that old 70s era APCR? I know they show off the newer ammo at defense trade shows but I'd bet all of their forces are still using that old shit that can't even match the 25mm M791 APDS the Bradley first entered service with.
>APCs kill tanks in videogames all the time, why do you think its impossible irl?
Because games are the same thing where I’m able to get a girl to fall in love with me, and that is sure as hell not happening irl.
Never give up anon there's a woman out there for every man.
Yours has probably ridden the wiener carousel at an Atlanta amusement park, but she's out there waiting to destroy whatever soul you have left.
Absolutely.
The only Challenger 2 lost to direct fire was done so by a HESH round from another Challenger 2.
Conventionally, there is nowhere a HESH round can penetrate a Challenger 2. However, in this particular instance, the commander had the hatch open and the round struck the hatch lid and filled the fighting compartment with shrapnel.
A similar turn of events could occur with the autocannon of the BMP-2 and the hatch of the Abrams.
The pair of BMPs in this scenario could definitely score a mobility kill by shooting the engine and tracks. As far as a crew kill, that is possible if they shoot the side hull (dependent on what round or using a missile). Damaging the gun/optics is a possibility too. RU-Ukraine conflict has shown that no vehicle is immune to anything. Even a few close hits with artillery would be enough to mobility kill an Abrams.
Just for clarification, since we're riding this meme into reddit onions tier territory:
The Bradley isn't what killed the T90, it's sustained fire just caused the crew of scared vatniks to retreat their tank backwards. What then killed the tank was a nearby FPV drone.
While it raises additional questions ("Why are russian tankers not at least trained on spotting the difference between an APC and an MBT?"), we should try and not goon about cringe ass wunderwaffle fantasies.
The bradley is good at what it does in Ukraine, the T90 is... I guess mostly untested, unmaintained, overhyped and it's crews are even worse, but the kill goes to the drone pilot here.
Assuming what I saw in the video was a drone and the tank didnt just drive over just another AT mine buried in the mud.
Yeah I'm sure the dozens of M919 rounds being fired into the hull side had nothing to do with it. Typical that the dronegays would want to claim they got the kill.
In this alternate universe do the BMP-2's have competent and motivated crews?
and are supplied and maintained competently.
but genuinely I don't think so. the side skirts on the Abrams are a lot more stout than on the T-72. and would likely give it enough protection to dispatch both.
possibly, the side hull is much thinner than the front hull or side turret
a lucky hit to the turret could at least jam it and force the crew to bail
the ATGM could also cause damage if it hits
but not likely, since the M1 has much better visibility than the BMP-2 and can see and fire before the BMP-2 could
If everyone on the Abrams was blind, missing a couple limbs and unable to produce the brain power to work a radio then yes
>If everyone on the Abrams was blind, missing a couple limbs and unable to produce the brain power to work a radio then yes
/thread
Basically put the slavs in the Abrams and the mutts in the bmps
Yes. At least mission kill it. There is barely any difference between performance of 30x165mm Soviet and 30x173mm NATO ammunition if those use same western made sabot rounds. Belgian part of Nexter makes ammo for both calibers. AFAIK Finnish army kinda uses same ammunition from same supplier on both BMP-2 and CV-9030.
Abrams can be kinda blind if their radio traffic full of pointless small talk and wild CV90 appears behind them. This shit that has happened in exercise. It has happened. Like almost a decade ago when US Army was completely absorbed into COIN shit and only staff officers and higher ranking NCO's had any idea how to deal with conventional opponent. As in lieutenant colonels were lieutenants and colonel was captain when they dealt with that shit and sgt with too many chevrons was pvt frick face. From what I have heard things have gotten better since then in 'murrican side of things. Some of the shit from 2015 to like 2019 has been hilarious. Like that 'muhreen combat engineers being better infantry than US Army infantry and sole USMC tank platoon in Europe getting fricked by single IFV because their comms were full pointless small talk that they didn't even get the message that there is enemy ambush until combat simulator tells 'em they are dead... due to comms being full pointless shit talk.
so diversity hires?
If used as kinetic weapons, possibly.
they could shred all of the optics and disable the barrel and the crew would eventually bail after running out of food and water
>they could shred all of the optics and disable the barrel
>spend several minutes trying to pixel hunt the optics on an M1 using autocannon
>enemy M1 spends a few seconds firing its main gun and K-killing the BMP
We could be saying the exact same thing about the T90. What did the Bradleys do to it besides blind it? Why didn't it just shoot the Bradley in front of it with its main gun? The Abrams would be in the same situation, albeit with a crew nationality advantage
>What did the Bradleys do to it besides blind it
either kill the gunner or commander or destroy the turret control mechanism (the turret did the spinny spin on its own).
We saw all three members of the crew jump out alive, so, I guess there's some sweet spot where you can shoot a T90 with 20mm and make the turret spin. When will they add it to War Thunder???
That 20mm isn't going to penetrate the crew compartment. But it will damage all the optics.
>war thunder adding features that disadvantage russians lol
There's visible holes in the armor in the aftermath picture so the crew could have died.
I saw the spin vid but not this. Crazy that just the 25mm fricked it up enough for them to bail. Brad is way better than I thought.
I don't understand how the frick they got that close to each other to begin with
If you watch the version of the video that has the drone footage at the end, you'll see that there's a lot of wrecked buidings, rubble, trees, and snowdrifts that can easily block line-of-sight. Plus the Ukrainians are defending in this area (Stepove) so presumably have better options for positioning along with having drone recon available to pass along information on enemy movement.
It also helps that Russian training is pretty bad these days and the Russians seem to be using the same moronic tactics that keep getting their attack groups obliterated.
they don't have 3rd person view.
this is a better view of a portion of the spin vid.
No penetration. Just destroyed a bunch of external equipment and maybe damaged the turret drive.
>maybe damaged the turret drive
It definitely damaged it. The turret went out of control and then stopped moving entirely not long after
There are holes in the armor in the aftermath drone picture.
I suppose next it returned to base under its own power?
I read an interview with one of the Bradley crewmen and he said he knew he has to frick up his optics and sensors because he can't pen it from the front because he plays a shitton of warthunder
God I hate this timeline. You would think he would know that from his training or the fricking manual for the Bradley.
It either broke something or knocked the crew silly so that the turret went into spin cycle mode.
The Abrams also has far, far superior optics than the T90, especially a current year T90 suffering from electronics shortages, so it'd have a significant advantage in locating and tracking the BMPs.
>What did the Bradleys do to it besides blind it?
Russian vehicles are blind rolling off the factory floor, the Bradley didn't have to do anything.
>Why didn't it just shoot the Bradley in front of it with its main gun?
What gave you the idea they knew it was there before that was no longer an option? That tank should reasonably have had a decent crew but here we are, and its mates ran off leaving it die.
The M1 could still simply run over the BMPs and squash their outdated 20s era 12mm "armour."
No, the BMP-2 wants to try and get up behind the M1 and completely kill the engine.
>Misses half of shots at close range
Use the Konkurs (if not a 2M) or Kornet first dipshit.
What miserable conscript behavior. They set the gun to the high rate of fire which results in awful accuracy and then just spray a bunch of trees over 2km away where they think maybe the Ukrainians have infantry? Where is the Red Army's vast amount of artillery? Those Soviet generals who were actually competent would be spinning in their graves at this shitshow.
That was just some range firing exercise. In general the 2A42 has a troubled development. Do I need to post the development history of the BMP-2 again?
>Those Soviet generals who were actually competent would be spinning in their graves at this shitshow.
Unironically they were the ones being demoted over political reasons or not towing the party line hard enough or just being too eccentric. Some autist posted a bunch of summarized Soviet remarks from the last year of the USSR when they watched Gulf War unfold:
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59670745/#59672851
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59670745/#59671738
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/59670745/#59672771
>Slipchenko
>-ko in last name
CryptoUkrianian providing some of the brains for the Russians there.
>Do I need to post the development history of the BMP-2 again?
I never get tired of reading it.
>The issues with Bradley development are generally well-known thanks to the Hollywood take on the entire development – in 1998, the movie Pentagon Wars came out, describing the development that in the end took practically 20 years and around 14 billion USD as of 1986. The movie is – as it usually happens in Hollywood - not entirely correct as some issues were vastly overblown for satirical purposes while others, specifically the Israeli involvement, were simply misinterpreted.
>In the end however, the US Army got its fighting vehicle to a reasonable state and used it with various degrees of success in Iraq. While sources vary, it’s possible that over 100 of the Bradley vehicles were destroyed in the war, mostly due to RPG ambushes and improvised explosive devices (IED’s).
>Unlike the American side, the Soviet IFV development is not as well-known. There is a certain myth going around about the efficiency of the Soviet military industry (in contrast to the allegedly „corrupt” private military equipment producers of the western countries). Nothing could however be further from the truth and the BMP-2 serves as a perfect example of what the Soviet development looked like in some cases. But to start the story, we have to look back at the BMP-1.
>The ubiquitous BMP-1 is – quite correctly – regarded as one of the symbols of the Soviet military power, the fears of the western militaries embodied in endless streams of Russian vehicles, thrust from the cities of East Germany, plains of Poland and mountains of Czechoslovakia as an armored spear into the heart of the NATO forces in Europe.
>The reality, as it usually happens, was far less glorious and first combat operations of the BMP-1 in the conflict of Soviet-backed Arab nations versus Israel have shown the weaknesses of this light IFV, specifically the insufficient armament, cramped compartment and poor crew placement. While the issues in the middle-eastern wars were largely attributed to the improper use of the exported vehicles along with wrong tactics, admitting the problems of the vehicle on its home ground – in Soviet Russia – proved out to be much longer and arduous process, especially since it had to include certain influential parties admitting being wrong.
>Insufficient Armament
>One of the things never really decided for the BMP-1 was the official proper tactical use. In the beginning, the vehicle was – like the BTR class vehicles (BTR – „bronetransporter“ is a Russian word for an APC) – intended only for the infantry transport and support role. In this however, the BMP-1 was even worse than the older BTR’s, as it had no other suitable weapon than a single PKT machinegun – its main weapon, the 2A28 Grom – was only theoretically useful in fighting enemy armored forces.
>The 2A28 Grom is a 73mm smoothbore low-pressure gun, its primary purpose firing HEAT shells at enemy armored targets (HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s). It was not selected as the best weapon for the future Soviet IFV, it was chosen simply because no other gun was available. This unfortunate situation was partially caused by the overseer of the BMP-1 development, GRAU (Main Missile and Artillery Directorate), as opposed to the „usual“ armor development overseer, GBTU (Main Armor Directorate). From the names of these Soviet institutions, their line of thought is not that hard to fathom. GRAU was heavily influenced by Khruschev government’s incompetence and placed their bet on a losing horse: early missiles. When this line of thought turned out to be wrong, they naturally did not want to be the ones to be held responsible and continued to refuse any blame.
>(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s)
>(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s)
>(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s)
>(HE-Frag shells were only introduced later on in mid-70’s)
>Picrel thing not frequently seen
>GRAU in turn had no lighter, automatic cannon available and did not oversee any institute or bureau that would be capable of designing one, as most were disbanded in the early 60’s. Automatic guns were only developed by the Soviet air force and the navy, but those fell under different government officials, not affiliated with GRAU. What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“. When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug. But the rumors slowly made their way up the Soviet ranks and in the end, GBTU forced the issue by organizing official shooting trials at Kubinka proving grounds. A BMP-1 was to fire against an obsolete T-55 tank at 800 meters (the target was not moving). And the result of the trials? Of 50 shots, only 17 did hit the tank - others were carried off their trajectory by the wind. The shells that did hit made their impacts under different angles – some ricocheted, some did not, but in the end, not a single shell managed to penetrate the vehicle. After the trials, a driver just drove off with the undamaged tank – a fitting testament to the inefficiency of the Grom gun.
>What made the matter even worse was the fact that certain GRAU generals „fell in love“ with the 2A28 caliber, promoting it as „the most powerful gun ever mounted on an IFV“.
>When actual officers in charge of these vehicles complained about the gun’s poor performance and accuracy, they were accused of poor maintenance and insufficient training with all the complaints being silently swept under the rug.
>34% hit rate with wind tossing the rounds around
>Couldn't penetrate old T-55
>The Birth of the BMP-2
>This particular trial finally caused a scandal in Soviet ranks and the ministry of defense immediately ordered the vehicle to be modified in order to increase its firepower. As a part of this initiative, it was to be fitted with a dual-axis stabilizer and with the newest generation of anti-tank missiles. What followed however was to be the proof of the fact that strange IFV development process filled with blunders was by no means exclusive to the Americans.
>For one, a serious flaw of this initiative proved to be the demand for a one-man turret. A single crewmember turret was proven to be ineffective many times in history, making the decision to use it once again quite strange. But that was not to be the last issue – two Soviet design bureaus and plants were tasked with cooperating on the BMP vehicle improvement and with building a prototype of the said vehicle – ChTZ (Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant) and KMZ (Kurgan Mashine Construction Plant). In the past, ChTZ did win the BMP-1 design competition, but the contract actually went to KMZ (citing ChTZ’s „lacking production capacities“) creating bitter rivalry amongst the two bureaus. How well that „cooperation“ went is anyone’s guess – nevertheless, both design bureaus were merged into one temporary bureau, called OKB Bosk (OKB means „experimental design bureau“ in Russian).
>At first, ChKZ tried to use the fact favor of GRAU and decided to improve the Grom gun. The result was an experimental vehicle designated Object 768 with a one-man turret and an improved 73mm gun, designation „Zarnitsa“. This weapon used the same ammunition as the Grom, but its barrel was longer, resulting in improved accuracy and range. To silence the cries of Soviet soldiers for a better infantry support weapon, they paired the gun with one 12,7mm NSVT machinegun. Since both guns did not fit the original turret and additional space for the stabilizer mechanism was required as well, ChKZ reworked the turret and increased its size. This turned out to be a problem as well, since the increased weight of the weapons and turret caused the vehicle to lose its amphibious capability. This in turn was „solved“ by making the hull longer and adding the seventh roadwheel while the turret was shifted to the back. This „modification“ did not bother the ChKZ designers at all – after all, they wouldn’t have to actually produce the hull, as it was to be manufactured by their competitor, KMZ.
>In the end, the weight was increased to 13.5 tons and despite the fact the hull was now 83 centimeters longer, only six infantrymen could fit inside this vehicle. This issue in turn caused notable lack of enthusiasm in GBTU (to put it mildly) but despite the objections the Object 768 was finished and ready for trials by the end of 1972. In the end however, the project was significantly delayed by the „competition“ – the KMZ representatives in the OKB were adamant: the vehicle has to be based on the current, existing BMP hull, as the „modifications“ ChKZ proposed would require a complete overhaul of the entire assembly line. And so the „cooperation“ was de-facto over before it even began. The KMZ designers then decided to comply with the army requests and proposed a vehicle equipped with an effective automatic gun, capable of infantry support role (at this point, the 73mm guns were still firing HEAT shells only, HE-Frag would come only two years later) and of fighting enemy soft targets, slower aircraft and – most notably – helicopters, that were becoming very popular with NATO at that point.
>The KMZ BMP-1 successor design came to be under the leadership of B.N.Yakovlev. His proposal, designated Object 675, was to be equipped with a two-man turret and an automatic 30mm cannon paired with a 7,62mm machinegun. In order to knock out enemy armored targets, the vehicle was to be also armed with one 9K111 „gayot“ anti-tank guided missile launcher (NATO codename: AT-4 Spigot) or with the 9M113 „Konkurs“ (NATO codename: AT-5 Spandrel) system. The guidance system for the missiles was to be – unlike in the improved BMP-1P (Object 765) - located inside the hull so the operator wouldn’t have to be unprotected while controlling the missile.
>The work on the design began in 1972 and the deadline was practically impossible: three months. This was caused again by GRAU stating that it’s more than enough time since technically the entire project is just a „modernization“ and not an entirely new armored vehicle project (which it – in reality – practically was due to the amount of required modifications). The prototype was to be built within a year – and while the preliminary project was indeed ready on time, to actually build the vehicle was another matter entirely.
>the deadline was practically impossible: three months
Unwanted red headed step child tier
>Since GRAU was still insisting on their preferred weapon (the 73mm Zarnitsa) and wanted to have nothing to do with the development of a new 30mm cannon in order not to have to admit their own mistake, B.N.Yakovlev was forced to look for help elsewhere, contacting the air force design bureau CKB-14 commanded by A.G.Shipunov and V.P.Gryazev and asking them whether they’d develop the automatic gun for him. In order to keep the deadline for the project, the gun would have to be ready in six months – this deadline was met with very negative reaction, V.P.Gryazev stated that developing a gun that fast was unheard of and with proper testing it would take at least five years. In the end however, Yakovlev managed to convince him since there was an ongoing rivalry between Gryazov and GRAU from the time when GRAU engineers proposed to remove all the guns from the airplanes and use only missiles instead, which was something he as a gun designer did not like for obvious reasons. Needless to say, by turning to Gryazov instead of complying with the use of the Zarnitsa gun, KMZ did not make any new friends in GRAU either
>In order to design the new gun for the BMP, Gryazov took the GSh-6-30 rotary aircraft cannon that used the powerful 30x165mm round, propelling the 400g projectile to 800 m/s. He basically removed one of the six guns along with the chamber and breech system and used it as a single-barrel weapon. While the solution was viable, GRAU interfered yet again with the development – the gun was fired electrically, but the chief of GRAU technical department, A.A.Grigoriev, insisted on mechanical firing mechanism. The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.
> The argument for this was that the gun „must be possible to be fired even if there is one last man alive in the vehicle with nothing left but his bare hands“.
>As a result of this demand the breech had to be redesigned. While at it, GRAU demanded yet another modification of the gun – it had to have variable rate of fire (specifically for the soldiers to be able to fire only at half RPM – 300 instead of 600) „in order to conserve the ammunition“ This request completely ignored the fact that the gun rate of fire was limited by 8 round bursts anyway and the real reason for it was not as much ammo conservation as it was an attempt to bury – or at least delay – the development. Even without the GRAU interference the development was problematic as it was with the mechanical firing mechanism quite unreliable and the gun overheating. GRAU officers frequently joked: „What’s the rate of fire of that gun? 600 rounds per minute, but only once a month“
>Another issue with the gun was its low accuracy. The gun, installed in the BMP turret, was simply incapable of hitting anything. It took three design bureaus and several GBTU experts to finally figure out in the end that the gun was completely fine, the real problem was in the stabilization of the entire turret: the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer. This problem was finally fixed by certain modifications to the stabilizer itself (non-linear stabilizing).
>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
Unironically fixed but that didn't stop the gun from being still a stinky pile of shit in the high RoF setting.
>>the stabilizing mechanism was incorrectly calibrated and the gun oscillation – instead of being negated by the stabilizer – actually added to it, causing abysmal loss of accuracy when using the stabilizer.
lmao I know the general gist of the story but I must have missed this bit the last time it was posted (by you?)
>The final – and most annoying – issue with the gun came from an unexpected source: the ammunition. Simply put, it was creating too much gunpowder residue and the gasses quickly filled the crew compartment. When the vehicle was trialed in front of a GRAU committee, the KZM testers switched the compartment ventilators off in order to try to prevent vehicle power grid fluctuations that could interfere with turret controls. As a result, the soldiers present had to drag them out of the vehicle half-suffocated to death from the fumes and had to take them to a local hospital, much to the cynical amusement of the GRAU officials overseeing the tests. The gun designers proposed to use a mechanism that would use secondary burn of the gunpowder fumes after each shot. The only result of this initiative was that after the mechanism was implemented, backfire blasts were coming from the breech after every shot, covering half of the combat compartment in flames – the testing crews were not amused a single bit.
>backfire blasts were coming from the breech after every shot, covering half of the combat compartment in flames – the testing crews were not amused a single bit.
>New Solutions
>In the end, the situation was so bad that the developers actually considered mounting the gun externally, creating a vehicle called Object 680, which had a very flat turret with the gun mounted on the rear part of the turret roof. The ammunition feed was located inside the turret. This solution had to be scrapped as well, as the turret could not be protected from WMD’s due to the leaky ammunition feed shaft and it was also not possible to run a powerful ventilator, required to keep the fumes from firing the gun from suffocating the crew, as it interfered with the compartment overpressure and the vehicle was no longer gas-protected. In the end, a rather complicated solution was invented, involving the ventilator running only when the gun was firing, but this caused more delays and the development ran well into 1975.
>The gun was by no means the only sore point. With the modifications and the new turret, the vehicle was 1370kg heavier, which caused it to lose the amphibious capability (the Americans ran into the same issues with Bradley, which was – theoretically – capable of swimming). The designers tried to lose some weight by using better steel (that could be thinner, providing the same amount of ballistic protection), different tracks and modified suspension, but the savings of roughly 400 kg were not enough. In the end, the issue was solved by adding floaters filled with foam to the extended side mudguards of the vehicle.
>Trials
>Finally, in October 1975, Object 768 and Object 675 were to be trialed in front of the minister of defense, Marshal A.Grechko at Kubinka (along with another Soviet light tank prototype).
>The ChKZ proposal with its prolonged hull was not considered a good solution by the officers, since the BMP-1 production was expensive and requiring as it was and A.Grechko was not keen on requesting more money for a complete assembly line overhaul for a project that took so long to develop. Furthermore, there were issues with the one-man turret and the suspension.
>Another issue was the armament - GRAU traditionally supported the ChKZ prototype with the 73mm Zarnitsa gun but in the end, the 30mm 2A42 gun was supported by the minister of industry Bachirev and the deputy chief of GABTU, lieutenant-general Ryabov. The result of this discussion was effectively a stalemate. Annoyed by this standoff, Grechko ordered KMZ to build their own prototype with the 73mm gun – this design was named Object 681 and the work and trials took three more years. On the other hand, ChKZ - slowly losing the fight - realized that if they wanted to win, they’d have to design a vehicle equipped with an automatic cannon as well. In the end, they designed a vehicle with the same armament as the KMZ prototype (30mm) combined with their own prolonged hull. This project failed for the same reason the original ChKZ prototype did – low suspension reliability and price.
It only gets better from more being posted. Pentagon Wars has nothing with all asspulls it had compared to the real struggle that is being a BMP.
>The tests took place against two worn-out T-72 tanks and once and for all have shown the dominance of the 30mm gun. While neither of the guns was able to knock out any of the tanks completely (something the Zarnitsa supporters claimed to be possible), the 30mm gun caused significant external damage by destroying optics, external fuel tanks and one small 30mm shell even jammed one of the turrets. With these results, GRAU was forced to concede defeat. 30mm Object 675 would finally be accepted in service later on as the BMP-2. As a last act of defiance however, GRAU representatives decided that the BMP-2 production would not exceed 10 percent of the total BMP-1 production.
>decided that the BMP-2 production would not exceed 10 percent of the total BMP-1 production.
final cuckening
>Conclusion
>With these results, in the end, both sides – NATO and the Warsaw Pact - finally got their IFV’s in the early 80’s, reaching the same conclusion through a relatively different (yet bumpy) development process. The fates of both vehicles – the Bradley and the BMP-2 could have not been more different though: one remained with the US Army for the most part, while the other was widely exported and, like its predecessor, turned up one way or the other practically all over the world. Currently, many private companies are offering BMP-2 upgrade solutions to various standards and the Soviet BMP’s will keep on appearing in armed conflicts all over the world for years to come, while the Bradley will likely never be exported en-masse - not only for strategic reasons, but also due to the prohibitive costs and upkeep of this IFV. In this sense, the Soviets „won“ the race after all, creating a rugged and affordable vehicle despite all the issues with its development.
>Of course, the actual BMP-2 combat record is another topic, but that is a story for another time…
t. March 2015
BMP-2: Second to Last!
>Better than being First to Last (BMP-1 with the useless Grom)
Grim.
At least it would be very quick and painless.
>quick
>painless
Unlike a BMP-3 detonating like the average Soviet MBT it isn't either of those. There's probably some better BMP fireball videos of the fuel tanks erupting and setting off the ammo that I can encode to webms.
I worked with WWII vets who were still plentiful in the US workforce during my youth. They mentioned the stench of burning men is quite memorable. While war outside combat zones smells like shit and diesel/JP-4 (or 8 depending on your war, my last was Desert Storm since fewer forces deployed for the invasion of Iraq) I expect combat zones stink of decay and fire as well.
How similar is dead human to rotting pig?
Rotting flesh all stinks the same.
All rotting things are equally unpleasant.
>Tries to climb out of turret
>Does
>Falls back into burning rear
frickin grim
>Neither quick nor painless
don't forget the missile it's armed with, anon
>MRE
>use a rock or something
>Sagger
>use a stick or something
Oh dear lord. Imagine the motor igniting when the door is open.
anon, i've been dying to know what's the source ever since i read this gem years ago
It's probably himself. I doubt this would have passed through any publishing house as queerly written as it is. Not terrible and I enjoyed the read, but certainly not professional
>General Slipchenko added that there would be "no front lines or flanks" in future wars and that enemy territory would instead be divided "into targets and nontargets. War will involve the massive use of technology and will be over quickly, the political structure will destroy itself, and there will be no need to occupy enemy territory
The historical mirror image of how they assumed ww1 would be a mobile war judging by how the franco-prussian war was fought
Wobbles more than a KA52
Don't worry she can be 2A42'd for the spitroast vibe check
>In the meanwhile, more discussions took place about the future of the BMP. At one point, there was an idea to actually produce both the 30mm and 73mm versions, which was scrapped due to the issues with logistics. The lines were drawn – GRAU insisted on 73mm, GBTU insisted on 30mm and neither side was ready to back down even a bit.
>After years of pointless bickering, Grechko’s patience ran out and he ordered full set of comparative trials to finally find the answer to the future of the BMP program armament. These tests took place by the end of 1978 at Alabino proving grounds near Moscow and everyone important to the program was there. The vehicle crews were provided by the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division „Tamanskaya“. Participating were the KMZ prototypes with both 30mm and 73mm armament.
>The tests showed once for all that the 30mm gun was more suitable than the 73mm one when it came to accuracy and GRAU was practically defeated, but they had one last trump card to play: the penetration tests. GRAU managed to convince the commander of the army, general Pavlovsky, to perform shooting tests against real targets, hoping that the 73mm Zarnitsa would prove its worth by penetrating enemy armor. With all the other positions and arguments lost, it was all or nothing for GRAU.
>Of course, the actual BMP-2 combat record is another topic, but that is a story for another time…
is this an actual photo?
Yes. Soviet Afghan war.
It's from a film
>Tries to hit
>1 shot lands in general vicinity of the Abrams, even at close range
Tremendous cope and seething over the 25mm Bushmaster being accurate
That's basically what happened to this Leopard 2. First HE shell they took ruptured the fuel tank, crew bailed.
Replace Leopard with Abrams and the outcome would have been the same.
This was from artillery though, wasn't it? No way is 30mm HE going to hole the fuel tank of a leopard 2
There's a lot of ways 30mm can mission kill a Leopard or Abrams.
Then why post an example of definitely not a 30mm?
All it takes is a little smoke, no amount of muh fancy smoke suppression systems is going to suppress your body from instinctively GTFOing a metal box getting filled with smoke.
Yes if the Abrams was crewed by Russians
>The original 9M113 with a single-charge warhead can penetrate 600 mm of rolled homogeneous armor (RHA).
if they get the first shots off, probably although it depends on the exact model of abrams
an m1a2 is probably going to ignore the bmp-2's atgm from the frontal aspect
Jesus Christ what is that homies frontal RHA equivalent? Bruh 600mm pen just pissed it off. What do we do now?
i know we all like to pretend that the real world is some stupid popularity contest but there is basically zero chance an abrams crew, even if a complete penetration doesn't happen, won't back the frick up after being hit by two 600mm penetration atgms.
I mean the scenario is meh. It's basically. Did the bmps set up an ambush and hit Abrams in the side or not. Which is gonna deal with a lot of other stuff like their position and how well they are camouflaged. Vs how aware is the Abrams as it patrols or whatever the frick is going on. In theory yes a bmp 2 can kill an Abrams.
>Jesus Christ what is that homies frontal RHA equivalent
unknown and probably classified
though when dealing with composite armor, RHAe should only be treated as a rough ballpark estimate, an accurate estimate would require knowing how much the armor segment weights and the mass-efficiency of the armor,
the original M1 abrams was believed to have a mass efficiency of about 2x steel, so its NERA + steel backing and frontal plate would have been twice as good as a solid block of steel of the same weight, but i dont think anyone weighted the full armor array
protection on a thickness basis is less precise, but most estimates vary from 0.9 to 1.2x as good as steel of the same thickness
armor depth on the baseline M1 was about 700mm from edge to armor weld, so assuming a worst case estimate it would provide equal protection as a monolithic steel plate of 630mm
keep in mind this is a very rough estimate, as stated above steel and composites dont necessarily behave the same way when struck
so it wouldnt necessarily always protect against a 600mm penetration projectile, but it would provide reliable protection
the M1 IP increased protection with a thicker array
the M1A2 didnt increase armor thickness, but did add DU armor somewhere on the inside
Oh. So that turret really is pretty bad ass. That's the old shit too, they have add on applique and shit on the a3/sep 4 or whatever new thing they are doing. No wonder all that top attack stuff happened.
Theres a vid of a Leo 2a6 being hit by two kornet atgms (~1200mm pen) frontally and it literally just shrugged it off and then proceeded to smoke and reverse out of the ambush zone
>leopard 2a6
that's a quite late model tank. i hope you understand that i was talking mostly about an m1/m1a1 abrams against bmp-2s. i would not want to frick with a 2a6 without basically an artillery regiment on call.
considering the bmp-2 isn't meant to stop tank guns at all, or even really chain guns, that amount of armor is fine. you're going to get fricked up by its main gun as infantry.
12.7 can reliably penetrate that. You may recall the videos from early in the war of destroyed bmd-3's. Those were from small(er) arms fire
Yeah, theroetically anyways. MBTs are weak from the sides and rear, an M1A2 has 60mm on the hull sides and and they could knock out the optics and possibly damage the barrel and tracks frontally. But something would have to have gone seriously wrong for it to be in that position, which isnt impossible when slavs are using things.
The M1A2's frontal protection is known from the Swedish tank trials. The M1A2 retains the hull of the M1A1, but adds DU (similar to the very expensive tungsten-a very dense and heavy metal, except free due to the US's gigantic nuclear programme-of which its a waste material) to the array in the turret. Against Ke, it's frontal protection on the turret cheeks is around 500-600mm RHA equivalent. Against CE its protection on the turret cheeks is about 800-1,000mm RHA equivalent. Its protection on the mantlet is around 400mm vs KE and 800 vs CE. From a frontal aspect the turrets of most NATO tanks are immune to most threats, excepting the mantlet, turret ring, and parts of the roof. Except the leclerc, which is 430mm vs KE over a 20* frontal arc, and is vulnerable to all 125mm APFSDS from 3BM42 onwards.
The hull armour remained the same as on the M1A1, which remained the same as on the M1. The upper glacis is 38mm HHA @82*, which only gives around 270mm vs KE and CE, but is past the critical angle of apfsds below 120mm. The Lower glacis used BRL (chobham), which gave around 325mm vs KE, which we know from the UK chieftain replacement trials and associated RARDE reports.
The M1 had around 340mm on the turret
The M1IP increased the turret thickness, the weight of which required new suspension, which brought it up to 380-400mm. The production version was the M1A1.
The M1A1 HA received HAP-1 DU in the turret.
The M1A2 and M1A1 HC received HAP-2 DU in the turret.
You must be a War Thunder dev because you ignored all of the information which does point to the M1's hull armor having been upgraded since the original variant. You'd think the photographs of the M1E1 with a plate of steel welded to the front hull to simulate some sort of weight increase there would be a clue.
at least according to gaijin, the hull armor never significantly increased in physical thickness, so thicker NERA is not likely
the weight increase also wasnt proportional to having extremely heavy metal slabs on the front
so only the very latest M1A2 SEP3s are confirmed to have much thicker armor
though the armor might have improved as a function of composite armor being re-arranged, allowing for greater protection in the same physical space and weight constraints
this cant really be proven or measured, and probably wouldnt be as effective as thickening the armor
That added weight to the hull of the M1E1 probably wasn't indicative of any increased thickness but could very well have meant a different and slightly heavier composite layout. Their notion that the later M1A1HA upgrade didn't include any changes to the hull armor is even more crazy.
The optics on an M1 are vulnerable to autocannon fragmentation. Places on the side and rear could be penetrated by 3UBR11 and maybe earlier AP rounds. Turret ring can be damaged. So yes, a BMP-2 getting close enough could potentially disable or even mission-kill an Abrams.
They put darts in auto cannon rounds? Based.
>he doesn’t have intimate knowledge about Sabot’s, Kinetic Penetrators and APFSDS
>NGMI
But seriously look into because it is kino of the highest order, especially DU Penetrators, also Frangible Sabots because they are based as well.
And I just read the auto cannon bit so now I realise that I’m moronic and cannot read.
It's ok. I think you are the guy that posted the m1 armor composition kino. You already dun good.
Unfortunately that’s not me, too moronic to understand armour composition or how much it takes to pierce it. All I know is DU dart go fast
>The optics on an M1 are vulnerable to autocannon fragmentation
only with a direct hit to the cameras
they are protected on all sides but the front with armor steel
>Places on the side and rear could be penetrated by 3UBR11 and maybe earlier AP rounds
really only the lower side hull
>ed. So yes, a BMP-2 getting close enough could potentially disable or even mission-kill an Abrams.
if it was really lucky
>mission-kill
The cope never stops
Anything is possible when you have a soviet shitbox and a dream.
But i wouldn't put the BMP's chances over 5%.
They have the penetrative capability, yes.
The turret bustle of the Abrams is very thinly armoured. Hitting that will most likely detonate the ammo. The blowout panels will obviously save the crew but they will have no shells left besides the one loaded in the gun.
turret bustle is literally the safest place to put ammo
its the least likely place to get hit and its easier to install blowout panels like you said
hull floor storage is worse in every way because it guarantees it will be what the enemy aims for and makes sure that the only easy way out for the explosion is through the crew
Do tankers actually aim for shit like that? I thought you just lased them and sent it and the ring gods decide what happens after.
>Do tankers actually aim for shit like that?
if you are viewing a tank head on, then any shot will have to pass through the thick frontal armor, the spall shield, the gunners shoulder, and the blast door before it can detonate the ammo
the turret, being capable of rotation, can also turn to view their attacker even when being attacked from an angle
if attacked from the side, you might be able to hit the turret bustle if you aimed for it, but RNG says you are more likely to hit the side of the turret or side hull not the turret bustle since those areas are larger
put it this way i've read accounts of soviet and german tank gunners in ww2 aiming for weak spots. not necessarily hitting, but aiming for.
if WAR THUNDER is anything to go by, you have an idea of where the weak areas are on the enemy tank (even the tiny pixel ones), and you vaguely aim towards those areas if you're fast enough and the adrenaline hasn't made you stupid. it's easier with an autocannon than a main gun too.
>t. i play video games and therefore know what live tank combat is like and totally know what i'm talking about
you should be embarrassed for this comment.
>t. 2S38
Any competent tank crew will actually stare at what they could expect to find on the field and where the best place to hit them is. Now the odds of them pulling it off is circumstantial and sometimes just praying to the RNG gods and launching as fast as possible is the right way. But if given a chance most crews will try and aim at something weak.
>turret bustle is literally the safest place to put ammo
Well, yes, but also no. It all depends. Fighting from a hull down position or from a berm, the safest place for the ammo is in the hull behind the thickest parts of the armor plate.
Although I agree with you in principle, it's the safest for the crew in case of penetration. Leopard 2 combines both actually, which is interesting.
Well based off that one Turkish wreck, hull storage absolutely has its weaknesses. Especially when you don't have the advantage of fighting from a hulk down position
The Abrams has this extreme slope at the front but the armor plate is actually pretty fricking thin. I always wondered how deadly would it be for the driver to be shot at from an elevated position somewhat negating that slope. Being a tank driver probably sucks balls.
Am I missing something?
>Am I missing something?
when viewed head on, the upper frontal plate make up less than 10% of the visible area
and the driver is behind only a tiny portion of that area
so its basically never going to be hit unless you are going downhill or the enemy got extremely lucky
Define "take down".
If they land lucky ATGM hits on the ass or downward through the engine compartment there's a good chance they're gonna mission kill it outright.
If we're talking the guns, its murkier. But hot take: Taking concentrated autocannon fire is going to basically render any tank combat ineffective even if it isn't penned. Repeated violent impacts, surface explosions, etc are going to frick up sights, tracks, and viewports eventually, possibly even turret functionality if a few lucky shots hit the ring. Not to mention the crew stress from eating successive hits taking it's toll. Mind you this is considering an optimal scenario, M1 doesn't have a gun visual on them at the start, BMP's are in a flanking position and have the ability to initiate the engagement at will, etc.
Most realistic outcome is the M1 is damaged to the point it's immobile but recoverable, and the crew bails, but not before juicing both BMPs.
Can anyone actually verify it was a Bradley that killed a T-90M? The footage is too pixelated to make out the IFV, and the rate of fire is honestly indicative of a BMP-2
>the rate of fire is ..
.. clearly a signature fingerprint of a Bradley unloading fricktons of pinpoint, 25 mm distilled frick you. With prejudice. A BMP would be spamming a hundred rounds into an area about 100 feet across at that distance. The Bradley missed once (or twice) out of about 50 rounds; no BMP ever built can do that. More likely the BMP would dump 50 rounds and score two hits.
>video spliced right before explosion
kinda disingenious senpai
What explosion? Did that Bradley get got? I don't think I ever saw more than that
surprisingly it didn't kill the t-90, the crew made it out, though probably with hilarious CTEs
I remember reading some anecdote about an Apache stumbling across an Iraqi tank in the Gulf War after expending all of its ATGMs and just pounding it with the 30mm chaingun until the crew managed to bail out and surrender after having been similarly debilitated. Doesn't sound that unbelievable now.
I hope one of the t90 crew had a gopro on
The crew that did it was interviewed. The gunner said he learned where to shoot the t-90 from war thunder (paraphrased)
What type of armor is the Abrahams wearing? The sooper sekrit depleted uranium/ceramic/composite shit is not allowed outside of the U.S. military for classified reasons. A BMP would have to expend a huge amount of ammo over an extended assault and get lucky hits on unusually sensitive/vulnerable spots.
The conditional "could" means "Is there even a remote possibility?" So, Yes. It is *remotely* possible under a long list of unusual conditions. Under about 99.9% of most normal engagement conditions, the BMPs would get shrek'd long before they even saw what was shooting them.
even the earliest M1 without DU was armored against 115mm sub-caliber rounds within a 45-degree frontal arc
the M1A2, without DU armor, as trialed by the swedes could resist RPG-7s within a 90-degree frontal arc on the hull and the 125mm gun within a 50-degree frontal arc at long range
the turret could resist a 125mm gun within a 60-degree arc at long range and a 50-degree frontal arc at close range
so even without DU, which is primarily designed to stop monolithic 125mm rounds because the base NERA could already stop composite 115mm rounds, an autocannon would basically need to be flanking and aiming at the side hull to fully penetrate
>even the earliest M1 without DU was armored against 115mm sub-caliber rounds within a 45-degree frontal arc
While this was the design requirement the spaced armor worked just as well against the similarly constructed 125mm APFSDS soviets were using at the time. The hull was also armored along the 50 degree arc while the turret along the 60 degree arc from the start.
>could resist RPG-7s within a 90-degree frontal arc
Even the baseline M1 was designed to resist RPG-7s from the sides at 90 degree angles, not just the front. It could resist much bigger ATGMs frontally from the same angles as APFSDS.
In this alternate universe is the M1 crewed by conscripts with less than a week of training?
Are the Russians using APDS or APFSDS for their 30mm autocannons or are they pretty much all using that old 70s era APCR? I know they show off the newer ammo at defense trade shows but I'd bet all of their forces are still using that old shit that can't even match the 25mm M791 APDS the Bradley first entered service with.
I sincerely doubt anyone is using the new shit. Even tanks are lacking new ammunition if the captured conscripts are to be believed
APCs kill tanks in videogames all the time, why do you think its impossible irl?
>APCs kill tanks in videogames all the time, why do you think its impossible irl?
Because games are the same thing where I’m able to get a girl to fall in love with me, and that is sure as hell not happening irl.
Never give up anon there's a woman out there for every man.
Yours has probably ridden the wiener carousel at an Atlanta amusement park, but she's out there waiting to destroy whatever soul you have left.
Absolutely.
The only Challenger 2 lost to direct fire was done so by a HESH round from another Challenger 2.
Conventionally, there is nowhere a HESH round can penetrate a Challenger 2. However, in this particular instance, the commander had the hatch open and the round struck the hatch lid and filled the fighting compartment with shrapnel.
A similar turn of events could occur with the autocannon of the BMP-2 and the hatch of the Abrams.
Doesn't the operating principle of HESH ignore penetration completely?
The pair of BMPs in this scenario could definitely score a mobility kill by shooting the engine and tracks. As far as a crew kill, that is possible if they shoot the side hull (dependent on what round or using a missile). Damaging the gun/optics is a possibility too. RU-Ukraine conflict has shown that no vehicle is immune to anything. Even a few close hits with artillery would be enough to mobility kill an Abrams.
But /misc/ told me the video isn't real, it's CIA propaganda and that the gloves are really coming out in two more weeks
the gloves will be out of the ass and the impact will understand everything.
So you mean to tell me that they won't take Berlin in two weeks ?
with guns? probably
with missiles? yes
They'd have to get the drop on the Abrams, but bmp-2 has shit visibility so that's not likely.
if it could happen not if it was likely
Yes.
>Could a pair of BMP-2s take down a M1 Abrams from close range?
Yes they could.
Next question?
Is their an after action on that?
That slide is part of the AAR I believe
Should the M1A3 get better ass protection?
Probably they could, if they were in that configuration you posted, the Berezhok turret.
Just for clarification, since we're riding this meme into reddit onions tier territory:
The Bradley isn't what killed the T90, it's sustained fire just caused the crew of scared vatniks to retreat their tank backwards. What then killed the tank was a nearby FPV drone.
While it raises additional questions ("Why are russian tankers not at least trained on spotting the difference between an APC and an MBT?"), we should try and not goon about cringe ass wunderwaffle fantasies.
The bradley is good at what it does in Ukraine, the T90 is... I guess mostly untested, unmaintained, overhyped and it's crews are even worse, but the kill goes to the drone pilot here.
Assuming what I saw in the video was a drone and the tank didnt just drive over just another AT mine buried in the mud.
Yeah I'm sure the dozens of M919 rounds being fired into the hull side had nothing to do with it. Typical that the dronegays would want to claim they got the kill.
I went back through my browser history just to post the aftermath picture to show that you're wrong.
how would know those are actually through holes?
I can't imagine what that must sound like inside the turret. Perhaps even some light spelling if the liner wore down. Enough to make the crew panic.