Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Why low bar, the bar is set high when you consider the lancet.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the Lancet when writing that, my mistake.


Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I had a quick look but TBH it was a long time ago, probably 6 months, might even have been last year

It was go pro footage of one opening up. It sprayed a forest basically and loads of branches and tree chunks fell down. Actually thinking of the forest it was probably late 22.
If effective means bombing the opposition with deforestation its certainly effective ;)
Click to expand...
You always have to be careful when watching videos of military hardware of the context involved. I.E there's a long running myth that the T-14 broke down during it's first parade (in reality an inexperienced driver had engaged the electric handbrake without noticing) and due to that a thousand memes regarding it's reliability had been spawned before it was ever deployed anywhere.

In this case, just because you see footage of something spraying it's ammo like a fire extinguisher doesn't mean it's normal or that it wasn't intentional, I.E most automatic sniper rifles have a full auto setting, you just wouldn't normally see anyone use it unless they were in a dire situation. Obviously I can't link any of the actually useful videos of targets being hit accurately here, but if you search YouTube for videos of 2A42 you can find a lot of videos showing how accurate they are when they're actually trying to hit something and not just spam an area with explosive frag shells. Basically they can consistently shoot into an apartment building window from multiple football fields away.

The reason most sources are so sure about the cannons having stabilisation isn't just because Russia say so, but because although Russia like to give the impression that the BMPT is a bleeding edge machine built from scratch to dominate the modern battlefield it's all lies. In reality it's an amalgamation of tried and tested technology borrowed from other platforms.

The hull is (in most cases) from a T-72, the optics and electronics come from a variety of tanks/etc, the anti-tank guided missiles it carries have been used on gunships and AFVs since the 80s, it's automatic grenade launchers are a 90s modernisation of a design from the 70s which have been used on gunships and AFVs. Finally it's autocannons are a design from the 80s that have featured on many BTR and BMP vehicles, they're not an unknown quantity. The only real difference on the BMPT is there's two of them.


Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I suspect they are in the same warehouse as the also very effective T14s ;)
Click to expand...
I believe they have actually built a lot more BMPT than T-14 (which is obviously relative, numbers wise), in fact they now have a variant of BMPT that uses a T-14 hull instead of a T-72 hull. My guess would be that once they realised their tank support vehicle was literally better in every way than the tanks it was supposed to be supporting they said "less tanks, more of these, please".
 
ubersonic said:
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about the Lancet when writing that, my mistake.



You always have to be careful when watching videos of military hardware of the context involved. I.E there's a long running myth that the T-14 broke down during it's first parade (in reality an inexperienced driver had engaged the electric handbrake without noticing) and due to that a thousand memes regarding it's reliability had been spawned before it was ever deployed anywhere.

In this case, just because you see footage of something spraying it's ammo like a fire extinguisher doesn't mean it's normal or that it wasn't intentional, I.E most automatic sniper rifles have a full auto setting, you just wouldn't normally see anyone use it unless they were in a dire situation. Obviously I can't link any of the actually useful videos of targets being hit accurately here, but if you search YouTube for videos of 2A42 you can find a lot of videos showing how accurate they are when they're actually trying to hit something and not just spam an area with explosive frag shells. Basically they can consistently shoot into an apartment building window from multiple football fields away.

The reason most sources are so sure about the cannons having stabilisation isn't just because Russia say so, but because although Russia like to give the impression that the BMPT is a bleeding edge machine built from scratch to dominate the modern battlefield it's all lies. In reality it's an amalgamation of tried and tested technology borrowed from other platforms.

The hull is (in most cases) from a T-72, the optics and electronics come from a variety of tanks/etc, the anti-tank guided missiles it carries have been used on gunships and AFVs since the 80s, it's automatic grenade launchers are a 90s modernisation of a design from the 70s which have been used on gunships and AFVs. Finally it's autocannons are a design from the 80s that have featured on many BTR and BMP vehicles, they're not an unknown quantity. The only real difference on the BMPT is there's two of them.



I believe they have actually built a lot more BMPT than T-14 (which is obviously relative, numbers wise), in fact they now have a variant of BMPT that uses a T-14 hull instead of a T-72 hull. My guess would be that once they realised their tank support vehicle was literally better in every way than the tanks it was supposed to be supporting they said "less tanks, more of these, please".
Click to expand...

I am sure its going to be looked at with interest in regards if the western forces consider a requirement to copy, suspect not. I means its kind of like an upscaled version of Bradley or the Swedish one that has a similar autocannon, but can fire on the move.
The only footage I have seen of the BMPT its been stationary...

Last recorded estimates were they had produced 9. As export demos. I am sure they have trotted a few more out. Distinct lack of Russian coverage of their super weapon though. As we see when they do something of note they go well OTT on ot, like the bradley, leo, chally2 destruction footage.
They are not going to make a world of difference. Ukraine has confirmed kills on 2 or maybe 3 of them I have seen. Arty in one of them.

I agree in regards being better than MBTs, but thats the theatre. If the theatre changes then a modern MBT is going to wreck it. Its just one of them rock/paper/scissors things like always.

Yes the T14 in the parade is the one people mock but the more interesting one is the one on a range that sounds like the engine is filled with a box of grenades. Which iirc then just expires and stops.
The general concensus was the engine wasn't up to the task (weight) and as such was just over stressed.

There is always a case for the ability to "throw more lead" downrange, always been the case. An autocannon is perfect for urban warfare to pound the hell out of buildings etc.
Very Russian in its logic.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I am sure its going to be looked at with interest in regards if the western forces consider a requirement to copy, suspect not. I means its kind of like an upscaled version of Bradley or the Swedish one that has a similar autocannon, but can fire on the move.
The only footage I have seen of the BMPT its been stationary...

Last recorded estimates were they had produced 9. As export demos. I am sure they have trotted a few more out. Distinct lack of Russian coverage of their super weapon though. As we see when they do something of note they go well OTT on ot, like the bradley, leo, chally2 destruction footage.
They are not going to make a world of difference. Ukraine has confirmed kills on 2 or maybe 3 of them I have seen. Arty in one of them.

I agree in regards being better than MBTs, but thats the theatre. If the theatre changes then a modern MBT is going to wreck it. Its just one of them rock/paper/scissors things like always.

Yes the T14 in the parade is the one people mock but the more interesting one is the one on a range that sounds like the engine is filled with a box of grenades. Which iirc then just expires and stops.
The general concensus was the engine wasn't up to the task (weight) and as such was just over stressed.

There is always a case for the ability to "throw more lead" downrange, always been the case. An autocannon is perfect for urban warfare to pound the hell out of buildings etc.
Very Russian in its logic.
Click to expand...
The gun is the shipunov 2a42 and is used on many vehicles, including the Bumerang. Watch is firing on the move, there is no way it is stabilised, and thats a 2015 vehicle
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Last recorded estimates were they had produced 9. As export demos. I am sure they have trotted a few more out. Distinct lack of Russian coverage of their super weapon though. As we see when they do something of note they go well OTT on ot, like the bradley, leo, chally2 destruction footage.
They are not going to make a world of difference. Ukraine has confirmed kills on 2 or maybe 3 of them I have seen. Arty in one of them.
Click to expand...

12 possibly 13 BMPTs seen in Ukraine so far, last I looked there was 1 confirmed destroyed, 1 damaged. There are at least 2 different videos of them being damaged though including artillery hit which was almost certainly a hull loss though not the one on Oryx and separately to that at least 2 were damaged which caused them to pull them back to defensive use shortly after they were first used in Ukraine but there is a recent video of one taking a hit while fighting on the frontlines.
 
Minstadave said:
30 with another 100 planned I think.
Click to expand...

The UK back in 2015 originally wanted to buy 138 F-35s (which I think was never going to happen) and since then dropped that number to a more realistic 74 (well 73 with 1 crashed) as the deputy Head of the RAF Air Marshall Rich Knighton (who just attempted suicide a few weeks ago) mentioned last year -

On 26 April 2022, Air Marshal Knighton told the Defence Committee the MOD are "on contract to deliver 48 F-35B aircraft" and, following the Integrated Review, they have "assumed an increase of a further 26 F-35B aircraft", taking the total fleet to 74.

Air Marshal Knighton, who is Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Financial and Military Capability) at the MOD, remarked that all 74 aircraft would be operational, but that "about 20%" of them would be "in maintenance at one time".

He added that they expect to build up three operational squadrons consisting of between 12 and 16 aircraft each.
Click to expand...

Since them the, IMHO, pipe-dream of 138 has quietly been put to bed and now even hitting 74 is under further examination due to rising costs but far more importantly the lack of pilots & engineers which is reaching seriously critical numbers (I even expect to see something hit the news by the end of the year or possibly very early next year about plummeting RAF engineer numbers and the award of a huge pay bump to try and retain them).
 
Last edited:
Because of sanctions they don't have the parts to maintain planes - they run a skeleton service and swap parts from the planes left on the ground
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom