T-72, T-80, T-90, T-95 Black Eagle family of vehicles

[Rick Lowe]

There's a fairly recent issue of Military Modelling (UK) which has a couple of conversions into IFV/Engineers vehicles; like what the Israelis did to theirs, but Russian-made.

Makes sense, from an economic- and resource-based point of view; why build something new, when you have a mountain of surplus chassis?

Cheers

Rick

[dy031101]

That Infantry T-72 is fascinating.  

I wonder if the engine can be rotated (with appropriate change of gearing scheme as it still has to drive the sprockets) such that its compartment can be offset to one side, leaving the other side dedicated to the troop compartment equipped with a rear door (like the Achzarit) and therefore allowing for the use of T-72-120 turret.

Might need an even more compact engine for the baseline T-72-120 first though.  And the infantry cannot just lean out of some roof hatch (the turret bustle autoloader could get in the way, making any roof hatch rather less meaningful in the first place) to function; they will have to dismount when they are needed in any way.

EDIT: It seems the BTMP-84 is already to use a rear door.

[Weaver]

Remember that the Achzarit doesn't just have a rear door, it also has a long elevating roof panel so that the infantry can get enough head clearance to get over the gearbox casing at the back. That might cause a problem with a big overhaning turret.

[rickshaw]

You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you?   

[Logan Hartke]

You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you?   

That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

Remember that the Achzarit doesn't just have a rear door, it also has a long elevating roof panel so that the infantry can get enough head clearance to get over the gearbox casing at the back. That might cause a problem with a big overhaning turret.

So I can be a slow thinker at times- that could explain why the Ukrainian ideas either raise the aft hull roof or use hull roof hatches for access altogether......  

[dy031101]

Is this an Oplot or a Yatagan?

There seem to be some space between the box structure (which would likely house an autoloader if the tank is a Yatagan) of the turret rear and the hull top...... not that I'm sure if it'd offer enough of a clearance for the raised aft hull roof.

[rickshaw]

You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you?   

That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.

Cheers,

Logan

Even the Israelis with their Acharet make it real hard to get out of the vehicle.  I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.

[Logan Hartke]

You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you?   

That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.

Even the Israelis with their Acharet make it real hard to get out of the vehicle.  I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.

Sure, but at least the Israeli HAPCs were tough and well-protected.  Before that they tended to favor the lightly armored, but easily disembarked APCs like the M3 Halftrack and M113.  The Cold War Red Army APCs and IFVs were generally that deadly combination of lightly armored and tough to get out of.  You had the BTR-50 that required you to go "over the side" Tarawa-style.  You had the revolutionary BMP that at least had doors at the back, but no ramp and the doors were filled with fuel.  Then you had the wheeled BTR-60/70/80 that just had hatches on the sides...little ones.  The infantry always seemed to be an afterthought.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.

Temsah has its chassis adjusted for a layout more traditional of a Western APC...... actually, I found it almost like a Merkava without the tank turret.

[Sauragnmon]

The BMP's doors were not always filled with fuel - they were auxiliary tanks used for range extension, and if you consider, they could in theory add some degree of protection against chemical-energy warheads due to the large space within to disperse blast energy while empty.  The lack of a ramp is seriously not that bad, the rise is only a couple of feet anyways.  As to the BTR's, only the 60 had the top exit hatches - the 70 had low-mounted access hatches between the second and third axles, and the 80 has a two-piece hatch in that position.  The 70 had firing ports on the upper side.

[Logan Hartke]

The BMP's doors were not always filled with fuel - they were auxiliary tanks used for range extension, and if you consider, they could in theory add some degree of protection against chemical-energy warheads due to the large space within to disperse blast energy while empty.  The lack of a ramp is seriously not that bad, the rise is only a couple of feet anyways.  As to the BTR's, only the 60 had the top exit hatches - the 70 had low-mounted access hatches between the second and third axles, and the 80 has a two-piece hatch in that position.  The 70 had firing ports on the upper side.

Well aware of all these things, but that space was typically filled with fuel, and certainly would have been in any Cold War gone hot scenario, as the BMPs were part of a mechanized force designed for breakthroughs.  Furthermore, the main tank is between you and your buddy at your back--right in the middle of the troop compartment.  Add to all that the fact that it is incredibly cramped, and you can see that the infantry stuffed inside of those coffins were not in a great position.

With the BTRs, the BTR-70/80's hatches aren't much better.  I'd rather be in the back of a Saracen or OT-64 any day.  Again, the Red Army didn't place the same value on the individual infantryman that other armies did and it's reflected in their AFV design.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

Furthermore, the main tank is between you and your buddy at your back--right in the middle of the troop compartment.  Add to all that the fact that it is incredibly cramped, and you can see that the infantry stuffed inside of those coffins were not in a great position.

I've come under the impression that most IFVs have their turret located right next to the fighting compartment and that the problem lies as to their armours being sufficient or not to begin with.

Of course the cramped interiors of the BMPs made the problem worse since they'd hamper passangers' ability to bail out when the vehicles are in danger of exploding.

[dy031101]

A good picture of the Soviet Heavy Tank in C&C: Red Alert.

Looks kinda based on hull of the T-80 hull and turret of the predecessor T-64, but since the game manual speaks of the equivalent firepower of two 105mm guns, that's in real-life terms two 115mm?

[rickshaw]

You people really do dislike infantrymen, don't you?   

That was always my distinct impression when studying Soviet and Russian APCs and IFVs.

Even the Israelis with their Acharet make it real hard to get out of the vehicle.  I still think that the Jordanian Temsah is the best adaptation of an MBT to a HAPC.

Sure, but at least the Israeli HAPCs were tough and well-protected.  Before that they tended to favor the lightly armored, but easily disembarked APCs like the M3 Halftrack and M113.  The Cold War Red Army APCs and IFVs were generally that deadly combination of lightly armored and tough to get out of.  You had the BTR-50 that required you to go "over the side" Tarawa-style.  You had the revolutionary BMP that at least had doors at the back, but no ramp and the doors were filled with fuel.  Then you had the wheeled BTR-60/70/80 that just had hatches on the sides...little ones.  The infantry always seemed to be an afterthought.

Cheers,

Logan

Remember, the requirements have changed.  Originally an APC was merely a battlefield taxi, designed to move infantry around and offer light protection against small arms and shell fragments. The infantry dismounted before the objective and were supported onto it by the APC's (usually) MMG/HMG and other armour.  Then the Soviets decided to introduce the MICV with the BMP-1 which was designed to carry the infantry onto and if necessary past the objective and they were to fight mounted, protected against NBC environments.  Neither was intended to be able to survive an MBT or ATGM.  Then came the need for a HAPC - something that could keep up with the tanks (afterall, they were suddenly more mobile than the MICVs) and offer similar levels of protection.   So, it really is a bit much to try and compare an early APC to a HAPC or even an MICV.

The infantry weren't an afterthought, they were the purpose and each and every design though was a compromise like all AFVs.  The BMP-1 was small and cramped but it was a revolutionary leap over the APC which preceded it.  The HAPC similarly is a revolutionary leap over the MICV.