Russian Weapons are really Tuff . Oh , Can you tell me the name of the track/song 4:40 - 4:54 PLEASE . Such nice Tranz . Its like after Good Himalayan Gold and Salvia . You know . Thanks Guys !!!
@darkon112 Nah. I'm not gonna believe it since I'm on the middle, not American. not Russian. I have also seen propaganda between the two. I found it rare when Americans (and other Western countries) make propaganda that compare their weapons to their Russian counterparts.
Since Soviet Union doesn't allow freedom of speech, so as propaganda but;
@LtNomad120mm dude, watch military channel. They have 2 types of shows there, the one that praise american weaponry, and the ones that say how shitty Russian tanks are.
@darkon112 That is not actually a propaganda since there are vintage and modern masterpieces in there, like how the T-34 got no.1 and the Abrams got No.2.
Another thing was I'm talking about Russian propaganda not Military Channel so if you still continue with it, I won't bother.
@LtNomad120mm Right, the amount of utter lies they told for example about the T-72 tank. was fucking lol worthy. A country that gave us red dawn and Rambo 3 and spoon fed it's it people the amount of lies daily about commies back in the cold war especially the 50's and 60's and again later in the 80's courtesy of Reagan easily wins the top spot. Heck look at the amount Fud and lies their media and government still spreads to this day ... see Iraq as example.
@LtNomad120mm why not? this world full of muslims,anglosaxons,jews scum,mother Russia need more nukes,biological and chemical weapons to kill all dirty shit
! Have you thought about intellectus 424 diet (just google it)? Ive heard some incredible things about it and my friend lost crazy amounts of weight with it.
@hotrod4you2 What do you expect for a light air-droppable vehicle. Pretty much all AFV and IFV can only provide maximum protection against 30mm. Strykers can only provide maximum protection against 14.7mm only and they are planning to use the 105mm equipped version in a asimilar fashion to this tank.
Its a good vehicle for it's airborne role, but it's too lightly armoured for extended survival behind enemy lines. That is, if the carrier planes aren't shot down miles from their targets. Airborne operations always carry the greatest risk of massive casualties.
Why the fuck all of you are trying to think this as a MBT, as a normal tank that fights in heavy combat !!! it's not.. It's a air droppable tank, meant for rear use by the VDV, to destroy hard nucleus of ennemy, if used properly it doesn't have to face AT positions nor group of tanks ! It's a perfect light tank, with a T90M armament. It's amphibious, it's just a plus to add to the BMD familly, and replacing previous ASU-85/
I think this will go down as the tank fail of the decade. It might be flexible, but what's it's armor like? I very much doubt it can survive a hit from any main battle tank. Infantry support?
@Wolfenion You idiot, this is not a tank, and armor from him easily, it is designed to attack troops and not for warfare. Shoots from far away. Pierces any armor, even the most sophisticated
First of all I resent you calling me an idiot. You don't know me, so don't be stupid and go judge me.
I know what this vehicle is, it is a type of tank, no matter how much you try and say otherwise. If a war had to break out, and this tank used in any situation, it will eventually encounter enemy main battle tanks. "It is designed to attack troops and not for warfare" Do you even know what you are saying?
@Wolfenion Its not supposed to go toe-toe with a main battle tank in a battle. Its not exactly intended as a support vehicle either, that is for the BMD-3/4 this is more of a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Engage APC/IFV head on, but ambush MBT's or shoot and run seeing as it can travel 70km off-road.
@ww2footage yes but still the sprut gun has far more range than any IFV autocannon, and with the SVIR it can outrange many MBT, not that it matters, i think the russians cancelled this vehicle, after all something was bad with it i guess. Still the BMD family of vehicles gives the russian paratroopers very good firepower
It's not cancelled as in abandoned project or abandoned production, it's officialy accepted into VDV, but after buying 25 or so vehicles, further orders of Sprut-SD stopped. That doesn't mean that more will not be built in the future.
I think the idea behind this mix of powerful antitank gun with a light chassis.. is to have a cheap system to destroy tanks, thinking that with heavy or light armor it is going to be destroyed sooner or later then... at least die destroying other tanks without spending too much.
@Scorpac shut the fuck up about the usa, no one gives a shit this is about a russian tank mmmkay not a usa v the world thread fucking arrogant bastards!
@darksergent - Nobody give true answer ... - it is confidential information. Opened information - Sprut a long ago passed tests and it is supplied with him paratroopers.
@Savta1234 Это какая новая техника которую сбивают и уничтожают оружием 60-70 годов????? Ну тогда лучше поздно чем никогда!!!!!!)))) Браво америка, так держать
Ti naverno idiot! Kakaya Yugoslaviya? Chto ti hochesh' skazat'? Dumaesh' esli amerikantsam prizhmet oni ne zadumivayas' razdolbyat Rossiyu s eyo moral'no i fizicheski ustarevshey tehnikoy!
у меня самооценка повышается, когда с долбоёбами беседу веду. нечего сказать из-за скудного словарного запаса? читай книги, развивайся, деточка. у тебя две ошибки в слове высокоинтеллектуальный.
@darkon112 actually M8 came from a 1980's tanket with a 70mm hyper velocity gun. It needed more armor. Others questioned the prototype gun so they went 105mm. Everything comes from something. The only good thing with the Russian tank is its amphibious and airdrop-able other wise its too light.
@darkon112 Well, not ENTIRELY correct. The M8 AGS's progenitor is the Cadillac Gage Stingray, which began development back in 1983. As for astrialkil's assertion of it's lineage to the old LAV-75/ARES RDF tank, that I am less sure of.
Sheridan was not classified as a tank, but as a recoinnesance vehicle. Bt-7 could be considered a medium tank during time of it's development. Stuart during it's devlopment had a greater weight than most of the tanks exploited by all sides of WWII 1939-40 conflicts. And so on, With it's extremely low protection and high firepower, Sprut meets the definition of a tank destoyer much better.
Sprut-SD is a tracked lightly armoured fire support vehicle, Stryker is wheeled, with all the cons that come with it. Calling Sprut a tank is a bit of exxageration.
That is to say, throwing these light armored vehicles in zone where even Abrams could be disabled, and we saw the sad result : dozens of AFVs destroyed, hundreds disabled, hundreds KIA and WIA GI's...
This vehicle is very fragile, and must be used ONLY for what it is intended for : destroying heavy targets at secure ranges. It is a tank killer, but don't fit the guerrilla warfare. I assume its armor is made of alluminium, with a maw thickness of 30mm in the front (very inclined, so hard to penetrate), but 20 mm on the sides, at 90° its an easy target for AP machineguns rounds, or RPGs.
I hope russians won't do the same errors in future, as USA does with bradley and strykers now.
Used to? Still do actually, This Light tank is quite amazing, and with a 120mm cannon it can take out mbt's after being droped behind lines with paratroopers, and I believe the troopers would enjoy armor support than some shitty humvees.
Russian use to produce some of the best weapons in the world and the american use to say the russian copied it when the reality was that the american were eager to get hands on them for mig 15 mig 25,29 and many more but after the break up of soviet union their production and quality had gone down very badly
The only air-droppable & float-able tank in the world? Ever heard of the M551 Sheridan, or the Pt-76? Hell, the M551's gun was 155 mm, largest gun ever used on a conventional tank (starting with the soviet KV-2 heavy tank). The only big problem with it was it's armor was too thin.
They need to give the chassis a lower profile. It looks WAY too high to be good in a tactical sense. Despite the hydropneumatic suspension, it looks like it needs a bit of a rework, but that's just my opinion.
I would still bet on the Abrams in a stand up fight. Completely invincible in a duel. Even if the Sprut hits from further away and hits first it wouldn't get a kill, The Abrams armor is just that good. The Challenger 2's is even better. The only MBT's this would be stopping is older MBTs. Leopard A1, M60a3, MAYBE a new lelerc.
I'm not saying it's bad, but it's nowhere as lethal or battlefield changing as this video implies. It'd have to hover to do that. xD
@peepeevagi Keep in mind a lot of the armor protection on modern tanks is on the front arc. Flanking shots could prove devastating. Luckily for the US Iraq showed the need for better all around armor so the urban survival upgrades were added. That could change my above statement but I simply don't know enough about it.
That's where the Abrams shines, it's thick hide isn't just on the front. It can sustain multiple hits from all angles, much like the Challenger 2. It's only real weakness is it's tracks. It was never meant for Urban warfare though. That's why some derkas with a few RPG's can take it out, but 40 T72s cant even stop eight M1s on open ground.
true MBT's are not susceptible to light, air dropped tanks whatsoever. IFV's maybe.
@peepeevagi Doesn't your comment: "...it's only real weakness is it's tracks. It was never meant for Urban warfare though. That's why some derkas with a few RPG's can take it out... " undermine your comment about "all angle" protection? The 125mm AP rounds are much more powerful than RPG-7 rockets.
There is no single tank in existance that you cannot get a mobility kill on by aiming for the tracks. Yeah there's bullet proof and run-flat tires, even some with sophisticated constant inflation systems, but that fancy tire aint worth shit when it's blown off the rim or has disintegrated. Our tracks are actually some of the strongest, but you could probably take one off with rifle fire or a grenade.
It's not undermining, it's just a common weakness.
This is NOT a tank. This is self-propelled anti-tank cannon mounted on BMD-3 chasis. Main advantage is high mobility and bigger distance than MBT. Classic tactics for this baby - "hit and run".
nice little sneaky bit of weaponry .. a surprise intervention can and does make all the difference ... each bit of battlefield weaponry has it s place ... as has been said before ,, its not designed to take larger tanks on head to head .....
Actually, considering it was inducted into the Russian Army as a Tank Destroyer, that's exactly what its supposed to do.
Unfortunately, this concept has been dead since the introduction of anti-tank missiles, 40 years ago and anything with more firepower than a .50 will kill a BMD (which this uses the chassis of).
Really, a light tank (that's another dead concept)? If you could speak or read Russian you'd know it is doctrinally a tank destroyer.
More over the Russian BMD chassis isn't protected against .50BMG or above. Any crew serve weapon in the US Army larger than a 240B will light this thing up. You are a moron.
@Tasitblue Gun itself isn't as powerful as the gun on the T-90 despite being the same caliber 125mm. Not sure of the specifics, but it's a low recoil version of the T-90's gun. The armor is very weak as well. It's not meant to engage tanks head on, and mostly suited for fire support destroying hard targets for troops. If engaging MBTs it has to rely heavily on evasive action such as discharging smoke grenades using hit & run tactics. Airborne launch operations avoiding enemy heavy firepower.
It looks like an excellent design with its big gun and small size. I would guess that if the terrain was suitable with a lot of good cover for it to fire from ambush it would be very effective. Does anyone know if it has seen any action?
It's nice little support vehicle, and again makes me wish the US Army had not cancelled the M8 Armored Gun System program. Especially as it was right on the cusp of being adopted.
It is designed to hit enemy MBTs and other defences HARD (125mm canon) and with surprise (air droped behind enemy lines or amphibous assault) and with great speed before they can react (light wight for excellent maneuverability and speed).
Thats why it has such a light weight, its actually an advantage for this vechile's role if used properly.
IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO HEAD TO HEAD OPENLY AGAINST OTHER TANKS.
IDIOTS!!!! YEAHHH JAVELIN CAN DESTROY SPRUT BUT KORNET M CAN DESTROY WARRIOR, BRADLEY, STRYKER..... IT ALL DEPENDS OF SITUATION.....THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL VEHLICE THAT YOU CANNOT DESTRY -.- That mean if you say: Yeah Jvelin can blow this...i can say...yeah Kornet M and RPG29 can Destroy Bradley... Just watch without stupid comments .... -.-
@TheATheme самохлдка - это оружия находящееся на базе танка, без башни. Чтобы развернуть орудие, нужно повернуть сам "танк". А если есть башня то это уже не самоходка какой её было принято щитать, а что то типо артилерийского комплекса...
it fills the problem of getting armour into areas quickly with troops like paratroopers, but a commander who uses these against MBTs is a very stupid commander indeed.
@PKSnsk yeah actually rusian tanks are sturdy and well build, there are some russian articles pointing several design flaws in "protected" western tanks, T72 proved very effective against chieftain and m60 tanks in iraq iran war. gulf war and 2003 invasion of iraq show nothing, battling t55 and t62 vs M1 its like battling m4 sherman vs M60. western tanks havent faced a modern russian MBT yet and if they do im sure we will hear a lot of "friendly fire" incidents
This concept of an air-dropped tank is not new. The american did possess a similar vehicle; the sheridan. It was eventually phased out of service and for gd reasons. while the sheridan had adequate firepower, it had (as with all Air dropped tanks) thin armor that leaves it incredibly vulnerable to mines and rpgs.
the srput-sd's 125mm cannon might give its' screw a fighting chance against modern MBTs and but its' survivability is questionable.
Sheridan's firepower was deemed inadequate actually. Too big gun with massive recoil problem, an overkill for most targets, but ineffective against enemy armor. They should have thought of Bradley-like arrangement.
"This concept of an air-dropped tank is not new."
The concept predates WW2, but this one is one of a kind. Unlike BMD-4, Nona-S or Sheridan, that have massive firepower, Sprut-SD has exactly the same firepower as an MBT.
@melvinthedeathless You lie, americans never have had air-born armoured vehicles. In fact, only russians managed to create such armoured vehicles, no other army in the world have such vehicles. French engineers tried to create something similar, but during tests they killed a few people during drops from air (they used criminals for that) and program was stopped. Americans are stupid to create something sophisticated. I repeat, they have never had any armoured vehicle dropped from planes
One of the reasons is because they couldn't see any usefulness in them. The French didn't want to put them into production because they didn't need a airborne force with light armoured vehicles (they could have continued if they wanted to) , the BMDs offered almost zero protection and were great targets on the battlefield, and if they were filled with soldiers those soldiers would be hit pretty quick. The Soviet Army always wanted to prove what they could do, it was a mistake.
mmm guys also the mbt of western countries can be defeated by a 120mm cannon, the didference is that western crewmen have btter chance to survive cuz their tanks are morebig and heavy comprated with a bm3, but is not an anti-tank vehicle this bm3, andi t can be a nightamre forall ground vehicles.also seems like you forget it the suberb fexibility of this APC in combat. mbt gives more problems.
why is it stupid to point out that it's eferior to any MBT? it's an anti-tank self propelled canon. MBTs are it's main enemys/targets so it is fair and smart to to point out its dissadvantages over against an MBT.
it looks like a tank. But its destiny not direct fight in build with tanks . air-droppable in a rear opponents and leadthrough of diversionary operations. Creation of diversion and care from the field or employment of place of arms to approach of basic forces. And it does not need serious reserving.
what other tank that can do like Sprut-SD ? 125m Gun, Air Drop, Swim?
hadith04 2 months ago
Hey Army Mates can some body tell me the name of the track starting from 4:38 PLEASE ??? Thanks allot .
2012ageoflight 2 months ago
Russian Weapons are really Tuff . Oh , Can you tell me the name of the track/song 4:40 - 4:54 PLEASE . Such nice Tranz . Its like after Good Himalayan Gold and Salvia . You know . Thanks Guys !!!
2012ageoflight 7 months ago
Out topic,
Most Pro-Russians complain in American or other Western propaganda....
Nevertheless....
Russian propaganda was actually more intense.
LtNomad120mm 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm As someone who lived in SU ..believe me it wasn't.
darkon112 7 months ago
@darkon112 Nah. I'm not gonna believe it since I'm on the middle, not American. not Russian. I have also seen propaganda between the two. I found it rare when Americans (and other Western countries) make propaganda that compare their weapons to their Russian counterparts.
Since Soviet Union doesn't allow freedom of speech, so as propaganda but;
Propaganda in this video is between:
3:54 to 4:38
What I should suppose to call it?
LtNomad120mm 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm dude, watch military channel. They have 2 types of shows there, the one that praise american weaponry, and the ones that say how shitty Russian tanks are.
Avatarass 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm Lol, Every goddamn show on the military channel is a propoganda piece for example see their Top 10 Best show.
And were exactly is there propaganda in that piece ?
darkon112 7 months ago
@darkon112 That is not actually a propaganda since there are vintage and modern masterpieces in there, like how the T-34 got no.1 and the Abrams got No.2.
Another thing was I'm talking about Russian propaganda not Military Channel so if you still continue with it, I won't bother.
LtNomad120mm 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm Right, the amount of utter lies they told for example about the T-72 tank. was fucking lol worthy. A country that gave us red dawn and Rambo 3 and spoon fed it's it people the amount of lies daily about commies back in the cold war especially the 50's and 60's and again later in the 80's courtesy of Reagan easily wins the top spot. Heck look at the amount Fud and lies their media and government still spreads to this day ... see Iraq as example.
darkon112 7 months ago
@darkon112 That is government-related propaganda not weapon-related which was obviously what I'm talking about, and also watch your mouth.
End of foolishness.
LtNomad120mm 7 months ago
@darkon112 And also this video is a weapon propaganda and so as their weapon propaganda I meant.
LtNomad120mm 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm First you say you didn't mean weapons related propaganda and no you say you do ?
Make up your mind. ....and were exactly is in this propoganda ?
darkon112 7 months ago
@darkon112 I'm sorry I was lost at myself at that time.
LtNomad120mm 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm It's fine. Take care.
darkon112 7 months ago
@LtNomad120mm why not? this world full of muslims,anglosaxons,jews scum,mother Russia need more nukes,biological and chemical weapons to kill all dirty shit
SlavaSvarogu 3 months ago
@SlavaSvarogu Dude... I'm not a racist.
LtNomad120mm 3 months ago
@SlavaSvarogu
How bout hispanics??
sovietamerican2 2 months ago
@SlavaSvarogu I know u just talk shit an u don't mean this u said
glavonjagrob 2 months ago
! Have you thought about intellectus 424 diet (just google it)? Ive heard some incredible things about it and my friend lost crazy amounts of weight with it.
justforfun277 7 months ago
These were made for invasions lol
GModPlaya 8 months ago
i wonder how it takes in anti tank missles the bradley tank carrys or the a10s and anti tank helicopters
gergar121 8 months ago
Russian propaganda...lol
sdmessenger10 8 months ago
25-30mm swiss cheesed
hotrod4you2 9 months ago
@hotrod4you2 What do you expect for a light air-droppable vehicle. Pretty much all AFV and IFV can only provide maximum protection against 30mm. Strykers can only provide maximum protection against 14.7mm only and they are planning to use the 105mm equipped version in a asimilar fashion to this tank.
randomusernamemygod 8 months ago
@hotrod4you2 any apc will get swiss cheesed even by 7.62 armour piercing rounds. lol
OSETINKAVKAZ12INCHES 7 months ago
They are eager to try their tanks against western tanks,
helmetBETTY 9 months ago
the only chance to defeat other MBT is to shot first.
xenomorphelv426 9 months ago
Its a good vehicle for it's airborne role, but it's too lightly armoured for extended survival behind enemy lines. That is, if the carrier planes aren't shot down miles from their targets. Airborne operations always carry the greatest risk of massive casualties.
TheDragonlegion 9 months ago
Why the fuck all of you are trying to think this as a MBT, as a normal tank that fights in heavy combat !!! it's not.. It's a air droppable tank, meant for rear use by the VDV, to destroy hard nucleus of ennemy, if used properly it doesn't have to face AT positions nor group of tanks ! It's a perfect light tank, with a T90M armament. It's amphibious, it's just a plus to add to the BMD familly, and replacing previous ASU-85/
PATRONSKiii 9 months ago
I think this will go down as the tank fail of the decade. It might be flexible, but what's it's armor like? I very much doubt it can survive a hit from any main battle tank. Infantry support?
Wolfenion 10 months ago
@Wolfenion You idiot, this is not a tank, and armor from him easily, it is designed to attack troops and not for warfare. Shoots from far away. Pierces any armor, even the most sophisticated
Turbodiesel117 10 months ago
@Turbodiesel117
First of all I resent you calling me an idiot. You don't know me, so don't be stupid and go judge me.
I know what this vehicle is, it is a type of tank, no matter how much you try and say otherwise. If a war had to break out, and this tank used in any situation, it will eventually encounter enemy main battle tanks. "It is designed to attack troops and not for warfare" Do you even know what you are saying?
Wolfenion 10 months ago
@Wolfenion Its not supposed to go toe-toe with a main battle tank in a battle. Its not exactly intended as a support vehicle either, that is for the BMD-3/4 this is more of a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Engage APC/IFV head on, but ambush MBT's or shoot and run seeing as it can travel 70km off-road.
randomusernamemygod 8 months ago
interesting weapon but it will burn very soon on battlefield beacuse it can withstand only 23mm rounds while most of armies use 25-30mm autocannons
ww2footage 10 months ago
@ww2footage
yes! if thease cannons can shoot far than 6 Km.. (against AC-130 = Tunguska, Pantsir)
1980friend 10 months ago
@ww2footage yes but still the sprut gun has far more range than any IFV autocannon, and with the SVIR it can outrange many MBT, not that it matters, i think the russians cancelled this vehicle, after all something was bad with it i guess. Still the BMD family of vehicles gives the russian paratroopers very good firepower
Pcordero87 7 months ago
@Pcordero87
It's not cancelled as in abandoned project or abandoned production, it's officialy accepted into VDV, but after buying 25 or so vehicles, further orders of Sprut-SD stopped. That doesn't mean that more will not be built in the future.
Iggy82xl 7 months ago
I think the idea behind this mix of powerful antitank gun with a light chassis.. is to have a cheap system to destroy tanks, thinking that with heavy or light armor it is going to be destroyed sooner or later then... at least die destroying other tanks without spending too much.
Starscream2040 10 months ago
When he said that NONA can operate as a howitzer and as a mortar, it means that the soldier can put a bomb from any of the sides of this weapon?
Starscream2040 10 months ago
Comment removed
Starscream2040 10 months ago
es lamavas mos katas patolas singkamas at talong
jophil031908 11 months ago
it still has no chance against the GPS artillery round of the USA
Scorpac 11 months ago
@Scorpac shut the fuck up about the usa, no one gives a shit this is about a russian tank mmmkay not a usa v the world thread fucking arrogant bastards!
sambuka1989 11 months ago
@sambuka1989 He seems to be afraid... :)
DaSurot 11 months ago
I note with interest that the Russian commander STILL considers that his main opponents will be NATO tanks.
tac
tacfoley 1 year ago
One Hell of a party at 6:06!
bossesstruik 1 year ago
Did production stop or what's future of this light tank?
darksergent 1 year ago
@darksergent Russia produce this "Sprut" - find victory parade "Техника на Красной площади 9 мая 2008 года" 7,01
11F35 1 year ago
@11F35
i mean is it still in production or not. I heard that it stopped
darksergent 1 year ago
@darksergent - Nobody give true answer ... - it is confidential information. Opened information - Sprut a long ago passed tests and it is supplied with him paratroopers.
11F35 1 year ago
Дойдет до войск где-то в 2055 как и вся остальная ерунда что выдумывают каждый день в России.
А в Америке новая техника входит в войска каждый год.
Savta1234 1 year ago
@Savta1234 Это какая новая техника которую сбивают и уничтожают оружием 60-70 годов????? Ну тогда лучше поздно чем никогда!!!!!!)))) Браво америка, так держать
YaVepr 1 year ago
@YaVepr
Ага, много посбивали, аж жуть.
Savta1234 1 year ago
@Savta1234 Вот поэтому они к нам и не суются. Им Югославии достаточно было
YaVepr 1 year ago
@YaVepr
Ага, не суются из за загнивших Т-55 которыми еще половина армии пользуется.
Счастье что есть "атомная дубинка".
Насчет Югославии - даже не смеши.
Savta1234 1 year ago
@Savta1234 Ну-ну)))))))))))))))))
YaVepr 1 year ago
@Savta1234 т 55 как бы стоят на консервации
barbozz 1 year ago
@YaVepr
Ti naverno idiot! Kakaya Yugoslaviya? Chto ti hochesh' skazat'? Dumaesh' esli amerikantsam prizhmet oni ne zadumivayas' razdolbyat Rossiyu s eyo moral'no i fizicheski ustarevshey tehnikoy!
zzz181085 11 months ago
@zzz181085
отсоси, псевдо-пиндос
Revaldi 11 months ago
@Revaldi visoko-intelektul'niy otvet:))) nechego skazat':)
zzz181085 11 months ago
@zzz181085
у меня самооценка повышается, когда с долбоёбами беседу веду. нечего сказать из-за скудного словарного запаса? читай книги, развивайся, деточка. у тебя две ошибки в слове высокоинтеллектуальный.
Revaldi 11 months ago
this thing is giant, for a air dropped vehicle..
longer than a BMD-3 and has a 125mm tank gun found on a t80u, i wonder if this thing will cause a earthquick when itès landed on the ground.
fancczf 1 year ago
a Challenger I or II could rip this thing in half!
yuri60014 1 year ago
@yuri60014 as well as the inverse.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
@yuri6014 This can do the same to the challenger II, or any other present tank with it's 125mm monster, so your point is?
Ome99 1 year ago
@yuri60014 LOL a T-34 could rip this this thing in half!
astrialkil 1 year ago
@astrialkil it would have to hit it first
KHfreak7526 1 year ago
Geee doesn't this look a lot like a knock off of the M8 Buford Armored Gun System ,only its amphibious.
astrialkil 1 year ago
@astrialkil Geee, except Sprut-SD was in the pipelines in the late 80's. M8 wasn't even on blueprints yet.
darkon112 1 year ago
@darkon112 actually M8 came from a 1980's tanket with a 70mm hyper velocity gun. It needed more armor. Others questioned the prototype gun so they went 105mm. Everything comes from something. The only good thing with the Russian tank is its amphibious and airdrop-able other wise its too light.
astrialkil 1 year ago
@astrialkil First i've ever heard of that. No shit it's light it's meant to be air droppable. It's not meant to replace MBT and the same goes for M8.
darkon112 1 year ago
@darkon112 Well, not ENTIRELY correct. The M8 AGS's progenitor is the Cadillac Gage Stingray, which began development back in 1983. As for astrialkil's assertion of it's lineage to the old LAV-75/ARES RDF tank, that I am less sure of.
MorganKeyes 1 year ago
Who cares? What kind of retarded ad-hominem are those? Who you imply I am, and how does it defy my argumentation, moron?
phunkracy 1 year ago
Пермь рулез
1aaassd 1 year ago
Sheridan was not classified as a tank, but as a recoinnesance vehicle. Bt-7 could be considered a medium tank during time of it's development. Stuart during it's devlopment had a greater weight than most of the tanks exploited by all sides of WWII 1939-40 conflicts. And so on, With it's extremely low protection and high firepower, Sprut meets the definition of a tank destoyer much better.
phunkracy 1 year ago
That video is a bit misleading as well. Sprut-SD is not a competitor to CV90-120.
phunkracy 1 year ago
@phunkracy Sprut is not a tank!!!
14DNS 1 year ago
@phunkracy says who?
OrwellTrumbo 1 year ago
@patrikasLTL
at least Stryker isn't called a tank :P
Sprut-SD is a tracked lightly armoured fire support vehicle, Stryker is wheeled, with all the cons that come with it. Calling Sprut a tank is a bit of exxageration.
phunkracy 1 year ago
@phunkracy your delusions are apparent
OrwellTrumbo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrwellTrumbo Who cares? What kind of retarded ad-hominem are those? Who you imply I am, and how does it defy my argumentation, moron?
phunkracy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OrwellTrumbo What delusions? What kind of retarded ad-hominem are those? Who you imply I am, and how does it defy my argumentation, moron?
phunkracy 1 year ago
Don't need tanks that drop from the sky, only bombs and missiles.
marine1849 1 year ago
This tank's armour can be penetrated by a machine gun...
phunkracy 1 year ago
Отличная пртивотанковая САУ. Надеюсь десантники закупят в достаточных количествах.
thinkerv 1 year ago
@thinkerv от них вроде как отказались еще в 2009 году
andreyRUS17 1 year ago
ахринеть, врагу подарочки пришлют)))
moskvichrus 1 year ago
That is to say, throwing these light armored vehicles in zone where even Abrams could be disabled, and we saw the sad result : dozens of AFVs destroyed, hundreds disabled, hundreds KIA and WIA GI's...
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
This vehicle is very fragile, and must be used ONLY for what it is intended for : destroying heavy targets at secure ranges. It is a tank killer, but don't fit the guerrilla warfare. I assume its armor is made of alluminium, with a maw thickness of 30mm in the front (very inclined, so hard to penetrate), but 20 mm on the sides, at 90° its an easy target for AP machineguns rounds, or RPGs.
I hope russians won't do the same errors in future, as USA does with bradley and strykers now.
PATRONSKiii 1 year ago
"Sprut" means "Booze" (alcohol) in Danish slang! :-P
BigAndTall666 1 year ago
It is Russian...what a suprise!
mfilip62 1 year ago
Used to? Still do actually, This Light tank is quite amazing, and with a 120mm cannon it can take out mbt's after being droped behind lines with paratroopers, and I believe the troopers would enjoy armor support than some shitty humvees.
WarAuthority 1 year ago
Russian use to produce some of the best weapons in the world and the american use to say the russian copied it when the reality was that the american were eager to get hands on them for mig 15 mig 25,29 and many more but after the break up of soviet union their production and quality had gone down very badly
sidahmedabad 1 year ago
Designed for 21st century blitzkrieg. O.O
jonnyboy2181994 1 year ago
i hope they are not trading this crap for the T-90 or the project for future tank black eagle.
MTotenkopf 1 year ago
They mast chek it in realy combat conditions.until now--propoganda...
smehist 1 year ago
The only air-droppable & float-able tank in the world? Ever heard of the M551 Sheridan, or the Pt-76? Hell, the M551's gun was 155 mm, largest gun ever used on a conventional tank (starting with the soviet KV-2 heavy tank). The only big problem with it was it's armor was too thin.
ModelbuildingTANKS 1 year ago
Bad english subtitles. Like the tank though.
kertaspaper94 1 year ago
почему с безопасной дистанции-5км?
вон у челленжер поразил цель на расстоянии 7 км.
это надо спруту незаметно 2 км проехать,а потом только стрелять
andreyRUS17 1 year ago
@andreyRUS17 Видимо он неподвижную поразил. Прикинь время полёта снаряда на 7 км. Около 4 с.
Очень подозреваю что это был осколочно-фугасный. Хотя Спруту и такого хватит.
GenaMatogen 1 year ago
И снова мы утёрли нос NATOвцам!Как говорил Бисмарк ни когда не воюйте с РОССИЕЙ!!!
horn410 1 year ago
@horn410 Я согласен с тем никогда не нападет на Россию!
spartan5536 1 year ago
this is russian tank.......usa tank max is 120mm
quangluu96 1 year ago
They need to give the chassis a lower profile. It looks WAY too high to be good in a tactical sense. Despite the hydropneumatic suspension, it looks like it needs a bit of a rework, but that's just my opinion.
TheJojo45678 1 year ago
I would still bet on the Abrams in a stand up fight. Completely invincible in a duel. Even if the Sprut hits from further away and hits first it wouldn't get a kill, The Abrams armor is just that good. The Challenger 2's is even better. The only MBT's this would be stopping is older MBTs. Leopard A1, M60a3, MAYBE a new lelerc.
I'm not saying it's bad, but it's nowhere as lethal or battlefield changing as this video implies. It'd have to hover to do that. xD
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Keep in mind a lot of the armor protection on modern tanks is on the front arc. Flanking shots could prove devastating. Luckily for the US Iraq showed the need for better all around armor so the urban survival upgrades were added. That could change my above statement but I simply don't know enough about it.
colddrake80 1 year ago
That's where the Abrams shines, it's thick hide isn't just on the front. It can sustain multiple hits from all angles, much like the Challenger 2. It's only real weakness is it's tracks. It was never meant for Urban warfare though. That's why some derkas with a few RPG's can take it out, but 40 T72s cant even stop eight M1s on open ground.
true MBT's are not susceptible to light, air dropped tanks whatsoever. IFV's maybe.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
@peepeevagi Doesn't your comment: "...it's only real weakness is it's tracks. It was never meant for Urban warfare though. That's why some derkas with a few RPG's can take it out... " undermine your comment about "all angle" protection? The 125mm AP rounds are much more powerful than RPG-7 rockets.
colddrake80 1 year ago
There is no single tank in existance that you cannot get a mobility kill on by aiming for the tracks. Yeah there's bullet proof and run-flat tires, even some with sophisticated constant inflation systems, but that fancy tire aint worth shit when it's blown off the rim or has disintegrated. Our tracks are actually some of the strongest, but you could probably take one off with rifle fire or a grenade.
It's not undermining, it's just a common weakness.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@peepeevagi "it's thick hide isn't just on the front. It can sustain multiple hits from all angles, much like the Challenger 2."
ORLY?
It's something new about abrams.
Side armour of abrams is much weaker then frontal.
GenaMatogen 1 year ago
Good work russia
lepricoun 1 year ago
They just don't look the same without the Red Star on the side.
RedNProud 1 year ago
ее крупнокалиберной винтовкой подбить милое дело...
zigamatik 1 year ago
Enough to send some fucking Mujahideen to hell with all their fundamentalistic shit!
SovjetPhoenix 1 year ago
This is NOT a tank. This is self-propelled anti-tank cannon mounted on BMD-3 chasis. Main advantage is high mobility and bigger distance than MBT. Classic tactics for this baby - "hit and run".
1SidIcarus1 1 year ago
I think i seen J.Jonah Jameson at 4:37
shawnshawn426 1 year ago
it looks primitive........ well the top half does
louiscarr899 1 year ago
nice little sneaky bit of weaponry .. a surprise intervention can and does make all the difference ... each bit of battlefield weaponry has it s place ... as has been said before ,, its not designed to take larger tanks on head to head .....
MrVoodooWhoDo 2 years ago
Actually, considering it was inducted into the Russian Army as a Tank Destroyer, that's exactly what its supposed to do.
Unfortunately, this concept has been dead since the introduction of anti-tank missiles, 40 years ago and anything with more firepower than a .50 will kill a BMD (which this uses the chassis of).
Tasitblue 2 years ago
@Tasitblue
Umm, first of all its not a "tank-killer" but an all purpose light tank. Have you ever heard of HE? How much does a ATGM cost vs a cannon round?
gosciu555 1 year ago
Really, a light tank (that's another dead concept)? If you could speak or read Russian you'd know it is doctrinally a tank destroyer.
More over the Russian BMD chassis isn't protected against .50BMG or above. Any crew serve weapon in the US Army larger than a 240B will light this thing up. You are a moron.
Tasitblue 1 year ago
Except that the BMP-3, BMD-4 and Sprut SD have upgraded armor due to their frontline functions.
They had to show they could resist CV90 40mm Bofors rounds on the front and 30mm Bushmaster on sides and back.
It was a program requirement for all frontline (tracked) IFVs started during Yeltsin.
Hell, BMP-3 has almost as much armor as an MBT and BMPT has MORE armor than most MBTs!
Maybe you're thinking of the wheeled IFV variants like BDRM? They always carried about as much armor as a Bradley.
adrastea99 1 year ago
@adrastea99 There is so much wrong in this post I just cannot contemplate how excessively you have shown towards Russian equipment.
NorthPlum 1 year ago
Cool story bro
adrastea99 1 year ago
@adrastea99 Yeh boi.
NorthPlum 1 year ago
@Tasitblue Gun itself isn't as powerful as the gun on the T-90 despite being the same caliber 125mm. Not sure of the specifics, but it's a low recoil version of the T-90's gun. The armor is very weak as well. It's not meant to engage tanks head on, and mostly suited for fire support destroying hard targets for troops. If engaging MBTs it has to rely heavily on evasive action such as discharging smoke grenades using hit & run tactics. Airborne launch operations avoiding enemy heavy firepower.
SamuelMoralesJr 1 year ago
@SamuelMoralesJr Это с чего ты решил что не такая-же мощная ,на себе проверял чо-ли.
megawolthaus 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it is a crap , because whole concept of "light tank" is a crap
ww2footage 2 years ago
it can be dropped on your head....
vimpel360 2 years ago 49
its not a tank ....
Alexei55555 2 years ago 5
this light tank can be dropped from air,
it was special developmented for it
andreyRUS17 2 years ago 4
It looks like an excellent design with its big gun and small size. I would guess that if the terrain was suitable with a lot of good cover for it to fire from ambush it would be very effective. Does anyone know if it has seen any action?
Saxe333 2 years ago
airdroped in the right place and the right time it can make all the difference
aag005 2 years ago 2
It's nice little support vehicle, and again makes me wish the US Army had not cancelled the M8 Armored Gun System program. Especially as it was right on the cusp of being adopted.
MorganKeyes 2 years ago
It is designed to hit enemy MBTs and other defences HARD (125mm canon) and with surprise (air droped behind enemy lines or amphibous assault) and with great speed before they can react (light wight for excellent maneuverability and speed).
Thats why it has such a light weight, its actually an advantage for this vechile's role if used properly.
IT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO HEAD TO HEAD OPENLY AGAINST OTHER TANKS.
Ome99 2 years ago 3
IDIOTS!!!! YEAHHH JAVELIN CAN DESTROY SPRUT BUT KORNET M CAN DESTROY WARRIOR, BRADLEY, STRYKER..... IT ALL DEPENDS OF SITUATION.....THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL VEHLICE THAT YOU CANNOT DESTRY -.- That mean if you say: Yeah Jvelin can blow this...i can say...yeah Kornet M and RPG29 can Destroy Bradley... Just watch without stupid comments .... -.-
nedeljko031 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OH my god!!! isn't it obvious that this isn't a tank, but airborne self-moving artillery system
DanLapko 2 years ago
DanLapko ты дебил, весь ролик говорится о том что это не танк!!!
Yuroslav1990 2 years ago 2
Yuroslav1990
Сам, блять, дебил. посмотри на название виделклипа! и все иностранцы ну просто во всех комментах называют его танком.
DanLapko 2 years ago
тога на какой хуй им и тебе нужны субтитры??!!
Yuroslav1990 2 years ago
@Yuroslav1990
А вот это х3. Позырь коментарии ниже. Не хочу в говне копаться.
DanLapko 2 years ago
@DanLapko У них других слов нету. Они все бронированные машиы на гусенницах танками называют
KiLLeR12007SerJo 2 years ago
@KiLLeR12007SerJo Вообще-то эту помесь называют самоходкой .. .
TheATheme 1 year ago
@TheATheme самохлдка - это оружия находящееся на базе танка, без башни. Чтобы развернуть орудие, нужно повернуть сам "танк". А если есть башня то это уже не самоходка какой её было принято щитать, а что то типо артилерийского комплекса...
KiLLeR12007SerJo 1 year ago
@KiLLeR12007SerJo Ок ! Сойдемся на том, что это легкий десантный танк с мощным вооружением . . . )
TheATheme 1 year ago
@TheATheme угу =)
KiLLeR12007SerJo 1 year ago
it fills the problem of getting armour into areas quickly with troops like paratroopers, but a commander who uses these against MBTs is a very stupid commander indeed.
odengodofwar 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
javelin missile would probably do more than this...
ganarzon 2 years ago
russians are actually cutting cost productions they resort to cheaper tanks compromising crew safety and survivability.
ganarzon 2 years ago
You're thoughtlessly repeating imaginary "flaws" of russian tanks, originating from the minds of western TV "tank experts".
Russian tanks are cheaper, because there are no money-grubbing tank-producing corporations and their lobby in Russia. It's just that.
PKSnsk 2 years ago 22
no, materials make MBT expensive. let us see if SPRUT-SD can stand against MBT in a real battle.
i also agree flying and swimming is its advantage but to assume its armor can withstand MTBs firepower id love to see it be destroyed in real action.
ganarzon 2 years ago
Are you really saying that T-80, T-90, T-95 are not MBTs, or that they gonna be replaced by Sprut-SD?
ROFL, Exxxpert detected !
PKSnsk 2 years ago 2
@PKSnsk Nah, its because Russian tanks have shown themselves to be weak in combat. I would stick to making tractors if I were you comrade LOL!
Saxe333 1 year ago
@Saxe333
Name where and when they "shown themselves weak in combat".
Don't even think about reposting childish crap about Gulf War etc.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@PKSnsk yeah actually rusian tanks are sturdy and well build, there are some russian articles pointing several design flaws in "protected" western tanks, T72 proved very effective against chieftain and m60 tanks in iraq iran war. gulf war and 2003 invasion of iraq show nothing, battling t55 and t62 vs M1 its like battling m4 sherman vs M60. western tanks havent faced a modern russian MBT yet and if they do im sure we will hear a lot of "friendly fire" incidents
TheWWWdotFRAUDS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Saxe333
"Nah, its because Russian tanks have shown themselves to be weak in combat. I would stick to making tractors if I were you comrade LOL! "
Whan?! where?! What combats you talking about? If you talking about Iraq company, thay had old tanks constucted in 60th)))
ThatGreatJacob 1 year ago
@Saxe333
LOL on you.
rusbp 1 year ago
@PKSnsk
This concept of an air-dropped tank is not new. The american did possess a similar vehicle; the sheridan. It was eventually phased out of service and for gd reasons. while the sheridan had adequate firepower, it had (as with all Air dropped tanks) thin armor that leaves it incredibly vulnerable to mines and rpgs.
the srput-sd's 125mm cannon might give its' screw a fighting chance against modern MBTs and but its' survivability is questionable.
melvinthedeathless 1 year ago
@melvinthedeathless
"sheridan had adequate firepower"
Sheridan's firepower was deemed inadequate actually. Too big gun with massive recoil problem, an overkill for most targets, but ineffective against enemy armor. They should have thought of Bradley-like arrangement.
"This concept of an air-dropped tank is not new."
The concept predates WW2, but this one is one of a kind. Unlike BMD-4, Nona-S or Sheridan, that have massive firepower, Sprut-SD has exactly the same firepower as an MBT.
PKSnsk 1 year ago
@melvinthedeathless You lie, americans never have had air-born armoured vehicles. In fact, only russians managed to create such armoured vehicles, no other army in the world have such vehicles. French engineers tried to create something similar, but during tests they killed a few people during drops from air (they used criminals for that) and program was stopped. Americans are stupid to create something sophisticated. I repeat, they have never had any armoured vehicle dropped from planes
AlexanderTch 1 year ago
@AlexanderTch
One of the reasons is because they couldn't see any usefulness in them. The French didn't want to put them into production because they didn't need a airborne force with light armoured vehicles (they could have continued if they wanted to) , the BMDs offered almost zero protection and were great targets on the battlefield, and if they were filled with soldiers those soldiers would be hit pretty quick. The Soviet Army always wanted to prove what they could do, it was a mistake.
zaco21 1 year ago
mmm guys also the mbt of western countries can be defeated by a 120mm cannon, the didference is that western crewmen have btter chance to survive cuz their tanks are morebig and heavy comprated with a bm3, but is not an anti-tank vehicle this bm3, andi t can be a nightamre forall ground vehicles.also seems like you forget it the suberb fexibility of this APC in combat. mbt gives more problems.
M1lko01 2 years ago
It has firepower of an MBT and superior mobility (it "flies" and floats), but it was never meant to replace an MBT on a battlefield.
Pointing out its inferiority to an MBT because of its lack of heavy armor is either stupid or biased.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
why is it stupid to point out that it's eferior to any MBT? it's an anti-tank self propelled canon. MBTs are it's main enemys/targets so it is fair and smart to to point out its dissadvantages over against an MBT.
xXturbo86Xx 2 years ago
Because its "disadvantages" are part of specifications and restrictions for that class.
It's same as comparing an MBT to an RPG or a landmine.
PKSnsk 2 years ago
it looks like a tank. But its destiny not direct fight in build with tanks . air-droppable in a rear opponents and leadthrough of diversionary operations. Creation of diversion and care from the field or employment of place of arms to approach of basic forces. And it does not need serious reserving.
Dom10908060 2 years ago
It is not a tank!!!!!!!
It is self-propelled air-droppable and floatable artillery system!!!
Dom10908060 2 years ago
looks like a tank to me
username4396 2 years ago