This is a good concept BUT it should be more modular. It doesn't seem to be worth the cost just to have a tank with missiles and 30mm guns. Its like a big IFV.
What it needs is some capability to mount weapons modules on the turret for something like Buratino rockets, other types of MLRS, Engineering/Sapper style equipment. I would also try to mount some RCWS that would be able to cover the entire 360 arc and deliver anti-infantry counter fire quickly.
Why only 2 missiles on each side of the turret ? Use a rotary launcher with 6 to 8 on each side (antiarmor/antiair/thermobaric). Couple with an active defense system. Then you got something. Also, I would ditch the 30mm for twin 23 mm mounts off a Shilka. Let the missiles deal with armor, let the 23 mm deal with concealed infantry. Key to armor in the future: active defense/sensors/night vision/firepower/range of fire/cost.
the greater number of missiles is a good idea. but 30mm is a good choice- they are more powerful, and even with a large amount of missiles, even with the ideal ratio of 1 missile per 1 kill, you would need cannons to deal with some vehicles. for infantry, on the other hand, there are machine guns and twin 30mm auto nade launchers. i think it is fine.
30mm rounds have almost twice the charge as 23mm and better penetrating abilities when using APFSDS rounds. Using a gun with the same rate of fire as the Shilka cannons is an overkill. BMPT is not meant to fight tanks, it is meant to fight IFVs and most importantly - anti tank squads in urban areas.
BMPT (BMP-T is the wrong designation) has a really good weapons loadout, all it needs is an APS.
The biggest problem of all to the American Economy is its current policy of the military industrial complex. This policy dominates the US Economy and it is also slow economic suicide.
What this means is not only would the U.S. economy tank (its current growth rate of 2.5% over the past 8 years compares to 12% in China and 7% in Russia), but the Pentagon wouldn't be able to finance any of its new toys. Watch what happens to America's military might when the defense budget falls from $600 billion to $300 billion. More to the point, the America cannot possible finance its $53 trillion in future obligations for medicare/social security etc.
It's hilarious to read this. As long as Russia can deliver a Topol M anywhere on earth, they are militarily untouchable. America's achilles heel isn't military power, it's economics. Unfortunately, for America, she requires 1 trillion dollars a year in foreign capital inflows to support her current account deficit. Who pays this bill ? 1) China 2) Japan 3)Russia !If China wanted to "pull the plug" on the U.S. economy, they could do it in a heartbeat.
last thing,now although im a large armor fan that is true (going into army as tanker after college), but it don't matter if ur using SHUAWHRAOQW armor or *(YU@Q()$U*HIOAW reflex missle. Crews is where its all at and America's men are actually "ready" for russia (have been even after cold war). Also the guns on the tread idea..kick ass but still not invincible. Nothing ever was or will be
Have they put this new vehicle thru its paces yet? I recovered those vehicles from Gulf one BMP1's and 2's and BMD's.. The interior is too cramped for starters..Also the damn diesel fumes will either kill you or give you one hell of a headache. A fifty cal will tear it to shreds. It was a great design in the late sixties and early seventies, but this carrier hasnt a chance on the modern battlefield.
Are those explosive reactive armor, slapped on the sides? That should provide an extra level of protection. Troops exiting BMP-1,2& 3's should stay away from the sides though during combat. You know how it reacts when a shell hits it. Good design though.
Yes americans suck. Thats why everyone is trying to catch up to them. Right. Because they suck. Last super power and all. Sour grapes much? Or just ignorance? Yes? No?
American yes. But not so much of an idiot to bash another people based solely on popular culture. Everyone else hates america so you do to right? No real opinion or experience of your own? No american friends? No interaction with the culture? Thought so. Your a close minded sheep. Enjoy the little box you live in. Im sure its much simpler than the truth.
No problem, you also got to remember that at 800 mm RHA penetration it can still slice through M1A2 Abrams side and back armor, might even go through front depending on the angle.
Give up on what? An internet fight with someone who firstly has no idea what he is talking about and secondly who's insult skills are still stuck on the elementary school level? That pretty much describes you, in any case, I destroyer your absence of argument that last time I "debated" you, all you could do was flame and now you're trolling. Grow up already.
Not all Americans are jerks like this guy...like you said, still in elementary school. Seems like so many of the UTubers can't express themselves without using some derivative of Fuck, Bitch, asshole, your mother etc. Remember the planet has 5 to 7 billion people and the UTubers are only a few thousand elementary kids or twenty something year old 10 year olds.
Eh? This is not a tank its a tank supporting vehicle first of all, second of all the range of the Reflex missile that the T-90 can fire from its main gun has twice the range of the furthest hitting Abrams munition.
First of all, this is not a tank, but a multipurpose vehicle that can be used as anti-tank weapon. Second of all, 2 miles = 3.2 Km. BMP-T has a range of 5 Km. And T-72, T-80 and T-90 each have max shooting range of 9 Km, so M1 Abrams is shit!!!
No it can penetrate probably more than 80cm, more like 1 meter. Yes, 1 meter RHA. But modern tanks have upwards of 1.5m meter or more of RHA equivalency.
Russian army needs to make a new chasis for their armor, tanks in particular, the T-72 body is getting fucking old, Black Eagle will be at a disadvantage even with its powerfull turret, because of the old ass body.
Why would you not want to modernize something that old? If you're Russian I think you're stupid for saying keep T-72 chasis. It will only be better for the Russian army. T-34's work too, maybe you should write a note to Ivanov telling him to use horses instead of tanks since they work too. You have to understand modernization is the key to successfuly compete with US, a 34 year old chasi isn't
Thanks for your Cambodian army tips. When it comes to new US stuff that shit has so much hydraulics and electronics, and it's so hard to main especially the new EFV's that it probably will be impossible to fix them on the field. I was a marine mechanic.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with T-72 chassis. It's very reliable, quick, and fairly well protected. Coupled with ERA, Shtora + Arena, it's as good as any other platform.
It's reliable... but that doesn't make the tank good, if you don't know things about tanks just don't post. Russian tanks are old, T-72 is something I would be proud of if I lived in the 70's but now T-90 is just that same T-72 onlly modernized. Let's see a tank that was designed 35 years ago... We don't live in the dark ages and I'm pretty sure that thing was outdated even before the break up of CCCP
They are saying that because tanks didn't do very well in the urban war theater, they needed to develop a support vehicle (this one). It has 4 missiles, 2 cannons, 1 machine gun and i think 3,000 rounds of mortar. It also comes with a very heavy armor (both passive and active). It's designed as a support vehicle while tanks concentrate on their objective. They are also saying that 2 of these vehicles per tank in the city and 1 per 2 tanks in the open.
@nunchuck19
I dont think you know what your talking about.
powmful 5 months ago
Comment removed
VVUULDTUURRM 1 year ago
Через 20 лет 10 единиц поступят на вооружение . К тому времени человек высадится на Марс.
PavelNT 1 year ago
russia made another peice of crap. the thing cant even fire at full speed
nunchuck19 1 year ago
80 см т.е.0.8 метров гомогенной брони...это относительная величина, просто коэфициент.
arkadyaminev 1 year ago
Very very nice system.
211Alucard 1 year ago 2
adopting the merkava concept what chassis is it using T55 ????
TURKSTA19 2 years ago
An interesting vehicle with promising potential, though how it acts under sustained field conditions will be the deciding factor.
Logistical and maintenance requirements, and survivability in mout environments.
tzebra 2 years ago
This is a good concept BUT it should be more modular. It doesn't seem to be worth the cost just to have a tank with missiles and 30mm guns. Its like a big IFV.
What it needs is some capability to mount weapons modules on the turret for something like Buratino rockets, other types of MLRS, Engineering/Sapper style equipment. I would also try to mount some RCWS that would be able to cover the entire 360 arc and deliver anti-infantry counter fire quickly.
gosciu555 2 years ago
this is more powerfull then bradley. its too bad it can carry troops but this is great for urban warfare and tankassit
umiumi12 2 years ago
It is no analogous vehicle to Bradley. He has others surrendered.
Bradley is to be compared to BMP-3.
The BMPT is made for tank support.
For fight against antitank infantrymen, slightly armoured vehicles and helicopters.
He Is heavier armour-plated (than tank) and can fight At the same time against 4 targets all at once.
Alex1983demo 2 years ago
those 30mm cannons shouuld be able to aim lower.
SaMyVaiS 2 years ago
Why only 2 missiles on each side of the turret ? Use a rotary launcher with 6 to 8 on each side (antiarmor/antiair/thermobaric). Couple with an active defense system. Then you got something. Also, I would ditch the 30mm for twin 23 mm mounts off a Shilka. Let the missiles deal with armor, let the 23 mm deal with concealed infantry. Key to armor in the future: active defense/sensors/night vision/firepower/range of fire/cost.
calripson 3 years ago 2
the greater number of missiles is a good idea. but 30mm is a good choice- they are more powerful, and even with a large amount of missiles, even with the ideal ratio of 1 missile per 1 kill, you would need cannons to deal with some vehicles. for infantry, on the other hand, there are machine guns and twin 30mm auto nade launchers. i think it is fine.
vumpsh 3 years ago
Also, the BMP-T is a IFV for Urban Combat, the best probably, not a anti-tank vehicle.
It got the missiles only for self defense against heavy armour and attack infantary in heavy defenses.
If the enemy infantary got medium/light defenses, 30mm canon on them... And if the target is a enemy light armour it still useful.
RdClZn 2 years ago
30mm rounds have almost twice the charge as 23mm and better penetrating abilities when using APFSDS rounds. Using a gun with the same rate of fire as the Shilka cannons is an overkill. BMPT is not meant to fight tanks, it is meant to fight IFVs and most importantly - anti tank squads in urban areas.
BMPT (BMP-T is the wrong designation) has a really good weapons loadout, all it needs is an APS.
Iggy82xl 2 years ago
The biggest problem of all to the American Economy is its current policy of the military industrial complex. This policy dominates the US Economy and it is also slow economic suicide.
admiralprestoncole 3 years ago
What this means is not only would the U.S. economy tank (its current growth rate of 2.5% over the past 8 years compares to 12% in China and 7% in Russia), but the Pentagon wouldn't be able to finance any of its new toys. Watch what happens to America's military might when the defense budget falls from $600 billion to $300 billion. More to the point, the America cannot possible finance its $53 trillion in future obligations for medicare/social security etc.
calripson 3 years ago 7
Good points
Buxxby 3 years ago
dont worry for US economy. they will be far better than russia evan US total collapse.
catalinux007leiro 2 years ago
@catalinux007leiro whatever....
Cnupoc 1 year ago
@calripson at least america can make decent equipmemt
nunchuck19 1 year ago
It's hilarious to read this. As long as Russia can deliver a Topol M anywhere on earth, they are militarily untouchable. America's achilles heel isn't military power, it's economics. Unfortunately, for America, she requires 1 trillion dollars a year in foreign capital inflows to support her current account deficit. Who pays this bill ? 1) China 2) Japan 3)Russia !If China wanted to "pull the plug" on the U.S. economy, they could do it in a heartbeat.
calripson 3 years ago
last thing,now although im a large armor fan that is true (going into army as tanker after college), but it don't matter if ur using SHUAWHRAOQW armor or *(YU@Q()$U*HIOAW reflex missle. Crews is where its all at and America's men are actually "ready" for russia (have been even after cold war). Also the guns on the tread idea..kick ass but still not invincible. Nothing ever was or will be
poonjoo 4 years ago
it can be said that our vehcs can be destroyed, this is true. But you wont see on a russian vehicle is 2 or more guys coming out of it alive
poonjoo 4 years ago
Have they put this new vehicle thru its paces yet? I recovered those vehicles from Gulf one BMP1's and 2's and BMD's.. The interior is too cramped for starters..Also the damn diesel fumes will either kill you or give you one hell of a headache. A fifty cal will tear it to shreds. It was a great design in the late sixties and early seventies, but this carrier hasnt a chance on the modern battlefield.
Paladin1441 4 years ago
Are those explosive reactive armor, slapped on the sides? That should provide an extra level of protection. Troops exiting BMP-1,2& 3's should stay away from the sides though during combat. You know how it reacts when a shell hits it. Good design though.
albertkc2007 4 years ago
BMP is the best transporter, if you modernized bvp you get the supermachine. Greetings from Czech republic, americans are craps :)
Megerazwei 4 years ago 9
Yes americans suck. Thats why everyone is trying to catch up to them. Right. Because they suck. Last super power and all. Sour grapes much? Or just ignorance? Yes? No?
Lukos0036 4 years ago
Super Power :-))) you are american idiot to...
Megerazwei 4 years ago 4
American yes. But not so much of an idiot to bash another people based solely on popular culture. Everyone else hates america so you do to right? No real opinion or experience of your own? No american friends? No interaction with the culture? Thought so. Your a close minded sheep. Enjoy the little box you live in. Im sure its much simpler than the truth.
Lukos0036 4 years ago
I do not want talk with americans. So shut up !
Megerazwei 4 years ago 4
Thats what i thought. Prejudice slav asshat. I hope some day you reincarnate as something other than a close minded redneck.
Lukos0036 4 years ago
so.. thats a T-80 Hull with 2x 30mm and 4 reflexs launchers???
you can say what you want about the russians,, but they do make them beautifull :D
russian military equipment just looks great.
Iamnottheyeti 4 years ago
No a all. :)
It's T-90 hull with additional armour (also strong back&side armour) and advanced reactive armour.
2x30mm guns, 2x30 independent automated grenade launchers... And not Reflex, but Ataka missiles.
vollirik 4 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
<b> World's largest sex and swinger personals with over
20,000,000 members looking to hook up with someone just like you!
Enter [_SexDating4Free.com_] to Join for FREE
</b>
marianetSaw 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
<b>
Enter XXXodour.com_ to Play Full Length XXX Videos 4 FREE
</b>
Kustorizzzza 4 years ago
Nice!!!
ColonelRus 4 years ago
pffft the abrams a1 will PWN dat shit.
KingOfHaze420 4 years ago
You are retarded, the anti-tank missiles this thing has will rip Abrams apart before it knows whats going on.
ruskie18 4 years ago
This is a tank killer. M1 Abrams will get it's uranium plating ripped to bits before it gets close enough to shoot back.
SS27TopolM 4 years ago
who says we're gonna get "close"
poonjoo 4 years ago
your Abrams can eat shit !!
Jushniykray 4 years ago
where can i find clear still photo's of this for a model build
rcnpthfndr 4 years ago
ruskie.i need 500 pice for argentinian i pay wuit oil.i need for inglan
ricardomacgiver29 4 years ago
Eh...get a life troll.
ruskie18 4 years ago
The guy made a mistake, he said Ataka can penetrate 80 cm of RHA, in reality its only 8 cm which is still a lot.
ruskie18 5 years ago
Thanks Ruskie!
mav333 5 years ago
No problem, you also got to remember that at 800 mm RHA penetration it can still slice through M1A2 Abrams side and back armor, might even go through front depending on the angle.
ruskie18 5 years ago
Also hell of a good video, post more.
ruskie18 5 years ago
ruskie is a fag18, gives up too easy. He gives up like the little bitch he really is.
jetman1984 4 years ago
Give up on what? An internet fight with someone who firstly has no idea what he is talking about and secondly who's insult skills are still stuck on the elementary school level? That pretty much describes you, in any case, I destroyer your absence of argument that last time I "debated" you, all you could do was flame and now you're trolling. Grow up already.
ruskie18 4 years ago
I did, then after I fucked your mother I got on an Airplane and headed back to America.
jetman1984 4 years ago
:)
jetman1984 4 years ago
Not all Americans are jerks like this guy...like you said, still in elementary school. Seems like so many of the UTubers can't express themselves without using some derivative of Fuck, Bitch, asshole, your mother etc. Remember the planet has 5 to 7 billion people and the UTubers are only a few thousand elementary kids or twenty something year old 10 year olds.
contributor34 4 years ago
this tank also can break in Baghdad
undead02 4 years ago
u also got to remember the 2 mile range the abrams has unlike many of these tanks. i mean maybe a rocket lol das about it
KingOfHaze420 4 years ago
Eh? This is not a tank its a tank supporting vehicle first of all, second of all the range of the Reflex missile that the T-90 can fire from its main gun has twice the range of the furthest hitting Abrams munition.
ruskie18 4 years ago
First of all, this is not a tank, but a multipurpose vehicle that can be used as anti-tank weapon. Second of all, 2 miles = 3.2 Km. BMP-T has a range of 5 Km. And T-72, T-80 and T-90 each have max shooting range of 9 Km, so M1 Abrams is shit!!!
SS27TopolM 4 years ago
yes, yes you´re right! M1 Abrams can eat shit!!
Jushniykray 4 years ago
@ruskie18
No it can penetrate probably more than 80cm, more like 1 meter. Yes, 1 meter RHA. But modern tanks have upwards of 1.5m meter or more of RHA equivalency.
gosciu555 1 year ago
Comment removed
KomCheg 1 year ago
@ruskie18
This guy's right. Ataka can penetrate 800 mm of RHA (at 90*) while using missile with hollow-charge warhead.
KomCheg 1 year ago
@ruskie18 no its 80 cm...or 800mm
krazzed101 1 year ago
@ruskie18 it is 80 cm of RHA ,not 8 cm
coolstuffplus 10 months ago
they can use t-72 and t-90 chassis!
krokodilgena 5 years ago
Russian army needs to make a new chasis for their armor, tanks in particular, the T-72 body is getting fucking old, Black Eagle will be at a disadvantage even with its powerfull turret, because of the old ass body.
corvino2l 5 years ago
If it works dont fix it ;)
mav333 5 years ago 2
Why would you not want to modernize something that old? If you're Russian I think you're stupid for saying keep T-72 chasis. It will only be better for the Russian army. T-34's work too, maybe you should write a note to Ivanov telling him to use horses instead of tanks since they work too. You have to understand modernization is the key to successfuly compete with US, a 34 year old chasi isn't
corvino2l 5 years ago
Thanks for your Cambodian army tips. When it comes to new US stuff that shit has so much hydraulics and electronics, and it's so hard to main especially the new EFV's that it probably will be impossible to fix them on the field. I was a marine mechanic.
jpdavid777 5 years ago
There's absolutely nothing wrong with T-72 chassis. It's very reliable, quick, and fairly well protected. Coupled with ERA, Shtora + Arena, it's as good as any other platform.
prikhod 5 years ago
It's reliable... but that doesn't make the tank good, if you don't know things about tanks just don't post. Russian tanks are old, T-72 is something I would be proud of if I lived in the 70's but now T-90 is just that same T-72 onlly modernized. Let's see a tank that was designed 35 years ago... We don't live in the dark ages and I'm pretty sure that thing was outdated even before the break up of CCCP
comradrami88 5 years ago
Black Eagle is based of the T-80 chassis dumbass.
ruskie18 5 years ago
Thats why black eagle designation is T-80U2
ruskie18 5 years ago
@corvino2l its old but f**king awesome chassis , why create the wheel if its created ;)
3dimon3 5 months ago
do you have any live firing vidoes of this tank. Any interior clips of this machine.
insightdubai 5 years ago
cool video pricolno
berkut2006 5 years ago
Tank Support Vehicle
MaximilianBeers9825 5 years ago
Love it, where do you find these videos?
chrlin05 5 years ago
Thanks guys.Also the first part of the video can be viewed.
Enjoy and feel free to register for the latest videos.
Thanks :)
mav333 5 years ago
can you translate this into english, i cant understnad a word fo it. great clip awaiting to see more. thanks
insightdubai 5 years ago
Secret place ;)
mav333 5 years ago
wish i knew what they where saying
JoeBoy6209 5 years ago
Me to....Any Russians help us out?
mav333 5 years ago
They are saying that because tanks didn't do very well in the urban war theater, they needed to develop a support vehicle (this one). It has 4 missiles, 2 cannons, 1 machine gun and i think 3,000 rounds of mortar. It also comes with a very heavy armor (both passive and active). It's designed as a support vehicle while tanks concentrate on their objective. They are also saying that 2 of these vehicles per tank in the city and 1 per 2 tanks in the open.
prikhod 5 years ago