Thread: Russian Photos (updated on regular basis)

  1. #49576
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gafkiwi View Post
    Do they still airdrop these? I wonder if these upgrades would effect them in that role i.e. stress on the vehicle

    I haven't seen pictures of the current BMD-4M being airdropped. But that news report says it's been tested by being airdropped, etc. The new parachute system is able to handle weight at least up to 19 tons. The BMD-4M is not that heavy. 14 tons according to the news report, (probably closer to 14,5 ~ tons.). So...

    Quick question, as I am aware ERA could not be installed upon BMPs/BMDs easily due to the armor being too light to withstand its own detonation, with the addition of additional spaced and layered armor in the BMD-4M could we in theory expect to see something capable of withstanding even the lightest of ERA Bricks on atleast a few of these surfaces? Can someone better inform me of dynamic protection/ERA requirements?
    Those applique arrays would make a good buffer and mounting point for ERA i'd think.

  2. #49577

    Default

    It's just a speculation, but for a vehicle that acts as troop transportation, it's not dangerous have ERA type armor? I mean, if the BMD-4 are embarking infantry soldiers and ERA reacts to shots, I suppose that the infantry squad will sustain some injuries if ERA explode. In nowadays conflicts, normally you fight in urban environment, so it's not so unbelievable that the infantry squad will be engaged near his vehicle.

  3. #49578
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DasVivo View Post
    Quick question, as I am aware ERA could not be installed upon BMPs/BMDs easily due to the armor being too light to withstand its own detonation, with the addition of additional spaced and layered armor in the BMD-4M could we in theory expect to see something capable of withstanding even the lightest of ERA Bricks on atleast a few of these surfaces? Can someone better inform me of dynamic protection/ERA requirements?
    NII Stali had created and offered ERA for BMP-3M version. The only reason why BMD-4M to not wear ERA, imho, is weight restrictions. It would be nice if Russians would design a modular ERA for BMD, which would be able to be mounted or taken down in let's say 20-30 minutes, so they would be able to make appropriate decisions depending on situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by elleby View Post
    It's just a speculation, but for a vehicle that acts as troop transportation, it's not dangerous have ERA type armor? I mean, if the BMD-4 are embarking infantry soldiers and ERA reacts to shots, I suppose that the infantry squad will sustain some injuries if ERA explode. In nowadays conflicts, normally you fight in urban environment, so it's not so unbelievable that the infantry squad will be engaged near his vehicle.
    I always wonder why people keep saying this...

    If ERA can hurt infantry standing by next to it, that means that the infantry is from the side of incoming round. Let's say there is no ERA and one RPG hits the vehicle from a side where Infantry is standing. Won't that RPG cause casualties to infantrymen? Really?

    Why this isn't the issue for Bradley IFV or for Namer APC having ERA on their sides, but it always has to be an issue for Russian IFVs.

  4. #49579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    If ERA can hurt infantry standing by next to it, that means that the infantry is from the side of incoming round. Let's say there is no ERA and one RPG hits the vehicle from a side where Infantry is standing. Won't that RPG cause casualties to infantrymen? Really?
    I never said RPG shoots, simply shoots: from what I know the Era reacts also to multiple hits from small fire arms. So a volley of shoot from LMG or infantry squad with AK-47 can be dangerous even if it's not very accurate.

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    Why this isn't the issue for Bradley IFV or for Namer APC having ERA on their sides, but it always has to be an issue for Russian IFVs.
    Also I don't say nothing comparable to this. For me apply ERA in this way it's not the safest way, both for USA and Russian IFV.

  5. #49580
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elleby View Post
    I never said RPG shoots, simply shoots: from what I know the Era reacts also to multiple hits from small fire arms. So a volley of shoot from LMG or infantry squad with AK-47 can be dangerous even if it's not very accurate.
    That's not true. Besides that putting ERA on BMP is stupid and meaningless. BMD and BMP trunk is too thin for it.

  6. #49581
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elleby View Post
    I never said RPG shoots, simply shoots: from what I know the Era reacts also to multiple hits from small fire arms. So a volley of shoot from LMG or infantry squad with AK-47 can be dangerous even if it's not very accurate.


    Also I don't say nothing comparable to this. For me apply ERA in this way it's not the safest way, both for USA and Russian IFV.
    Well, sorry to tell you, but ERA doesn't detonate due to small firearms rounds, nor fragments of 20-30mm rounds. You need at least 20mm round for that.
    Neither it burns cause of incendiary rounds.
    Last edited by BitnikGr; 02-08-2013 at 10:15 AM.

  7. #49582
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    That's not true. Besides that putting ERA on BMP is stupid and meaningless. BMD and BMP trunk is too thin for it.
    BMP-3 and BMD-4 can hold it. Bradley holds it.

  8. #49583
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    BMP-3 and BMD-4 can hold it.
    Please find the Soviet research about it. WHY BMD and BMP aren't use reactive armor.

    BTW.

    http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/185294.html

  9. #49584
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    Please find the Soviet research about it. WHY BMD and BMP aren't use reactive armor.
    Well, first of all, you are referring to them with too broad term. BMD-4 is not BMD-1/2 and BMP-3 is not BMP-1/2.

    Russians offer BMP-3M version for export with ERA and Arena-E. If any buyer wants it, he can get it.

    Why Russian Army doesn't use ERA on BMP-3:
    - The first and main reason as always is a lack of funds after 90s.
    - ERA for BMP-3 weights 4.3 tons. Obviously the vehicle looses mobility characteristics and maybe even its amphibious capabilities. But that's not a problem in areas where they are not needed... see BMD-2D armor upgrade for Afghanistan, when the vehicle became heavier and couldn't swim any more.
    - BMD-4 wasn't even in service in serious numbers to consider installing ERA on it and again +4tons can deny air-drop capabilities from it. That's why I said, that it would be nice if Russians would come up with modular ERA.

    Bottom line: IFVs in class of 20-30tons can hold ERA detonation without ripping their own hulls. Bradley is an example in service.

  10. #49585
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    Well, first of all, you are referring to them with too broad term. BMD-4 is not BMD-1/2 and BMP-3 is not BMP-1/2.

    Russians offer BMP-3M version for export with ERA and Arena-E. If any buyer wants it, he can get it.

    Why Russian Army doesn't use ERA on BMP-3:
    - The first and main reason as always is a lack of funds after 90s.
    - ERA for BMP-3 weights 4.3 tons. Obviously the vehicle looses mobility characteristics and maybe even its amphibious capabilities. But that's not a problem in areas where they are not needed... see BMD-2D armor upgrade for Afghanistan, when the vehicle became heavier and couldn't swim any more.
    - BMD-4 wasn't even in service in serious numbers to consider installing ERA on it and again +4tons can deny air-drop capabilities from it. That's why I said, that it would be nice if Russians would come up with modular ERA.

    Bottom line: IFVs in class of 20-30tons can hold ERA detonation without ripping their own hulls. Bradley is an example in service.
    Sure, that's why reactive armor on such vehicles is [*******#333333]meaningless. It's better to build something like Israeli "Namer" then [/COLOR]cripple BMP and BMD for a totally different propouse.

  11. #49586
    Senior Member BitnikGr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    XII Detached Signals Company, Artillery Platoon, 1999-2000
    Posts
    1,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    Sure, that's why reactive armor on such vehicles is [*******#333333]meaningless. It's better to build something like Israeli "Namer" then [/COLOR]cripple BMP and BMD for a totally different propouse.
    ... which also features ERA.
    Since when denial of penetration at least to old non-tandem warheads even with probability of 50% became meaningless?

  12. #49587
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warsaw/Irkutsk
    Posts
    4,853

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BitnikGr View Post
    ... which also features ERA.
    Since when denial of penetration at least to old non-tandem warheads even with probability of 50% became meaningless?
    Since the same moment when BMP and BMD become a heavy IFV with additional 5 tones! In the same moment when they loose airborn/amphibious ability. Is that so hard to understand?? BMD and BMP have thin armor BECAUSE they SHOULD! For Christ's sake.

  13. #49588
    Banned user
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Screwing up and then blaiming others
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    I dont know if repost.
    Awesome video about the Mig-31 of the 764 IAP in PERM

  14. #49589
    Member Zvezda's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    We won't Forget Odessa.
    Age
    31
    Posts
    149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbody View Post
    Sure, that's why reactive armor on such vehicles is [*******#333333]meaningless. It's better to build something like Israeli "Namer" then [/COLOR]cripple BMP and BMD for a totally different propouse.
    I don't believe adding to either would be a "cripple", merely diminish some of it's advantages but it all depends on the situation, like Bitnik said being able to install ERA(airdropped separately) on BMD's in the field would be nice, especially since shortly after completing their first objective(attacking the rear or flank of an enemy) speed and maneuverability I would assume would become secondary to survivability.

  15. #49590
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a pit
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    Some KB Sokol UAV model that was shown to defense minister Shoigu



    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/02/08/sokol/

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •