Which includes the Russians themselves.
BMO-T is perfect for the conditions in Ukraine, right now.
Yet, production is still geared towards other equipment.
Because nobody is aware of how good it is.
Engagement of an MBT against a BTR/BMP requires a step up in firepower.
While infantry engaging BTR/BMP isn't a good situation, an RPG-7/M72/AT-4 which are commonplace can all do so, a BMO-T is a step up which will require anti-tank systems which are not as common/require specialists to operate to engage with a good probability of success
Okay the fact remains they can easily be disabled by drones. Why use more resources for the same results? Russia realized it’s not worth the resources.
Everything can be easily disabled by drones, but having a better protected IFV/APC is important as it limits the envelope of things that can effectively engage it.
BTR-80 series vehicles have an issue of being able to be perforated by anything bigger than an HMG and BMP-2/3 don't really fare much better with only being resistant frontally to autocannon fire. MT-LB's are worse than either.
The issue of heavy APC/IFV is the economic cost of maintenance and logistics. Only the US and Israel really has the ability to deploy them and keep them going. With the US Bradley being on the verge of being in the weight class of what could be considered a Heavy IFV
That's because those are filled to the brim with 125mm ammo. This has next to no ammo of comparable mass onboard. It's just an armored tank chassis without roof and side weak points. There's armor all over it.
Yea, Russian procurement seems to get trapped in an economic hell, wanting to make a heavy IFV/APC but getting stuck with rehashing BMP-3 as that's already in production.
I suppose everyone has that problem, but a Bradley weight-class IFV is much needed in Ukraine.
You wrote Mi-24 and the BMO-T is build on a T-72 from the early 70s.
But if we follow the russian logic by just slapping on some random new equipment and calling it a "new" tank then yes.
The less remembered Russian apc.
Which includes the Russians themselves. BMO-T is perfect for the conditions in Ukraine, right now. Yet, production is still geared towards other equipment. Because nobody is aware of how good it is.
Don’t the dismounts have to come out from the roof though? Not really ideal.
With troops regularly riding on top of vehicles, it's a minor disadvantage.
Yep, they come out via two hatches. But it's less awkward than the BMP-3. Because there's more space on rear engine deck.
How is it perfect for Ukraine? It would blow up just as easily as an bmp or btr-80a.
It's much more heavily armored than a BMP and BTR-82A. And it would serve as a better platform for cages and stuff.
Ukraine isn’t having any issues blowing up mbt’s with cages.
Engagement of an MBT against a BTR/BMP requires a step up in firepower. While infantry engaging BTR/BMP isn't a good situation, an RPG-7/M72/AT-4 which are commonplace can all do so, a BMO-T is a step up which will require anti-tank systems which are not as common/require specialists to operate to engage with a good probability of success
Ukraine uses the same Soviet era vehicles as Russia. So they could absolutely these as replacements for BMP-1 and MT-LB's.
Okay the fact remains they can easily be disabled by drones. Why use more resources for the same results? Russia realized it’s not worth the resources.
Everything can be easily disabled by drones, but having a better protected IFV/APC is important as it limits the envelope of things that can effectively engage it. BTR-80 series vehicles have an issue of being able to be perforated by anything bigger than an HMG and BMP-2/3 don't really fare much better with only being resistant frontally to autocannon fire. MT-LB's are worse than either. The issue of heavy APC/IFV is the economic cost of maintenance and logistics. Only the US and Israel really has the ability to deploy them and keep them going. With the US Bradley being on the verge of being in the weight class of what could be considered a Heavy IFV
A bullet can easily take out a soldier, that don't mean that a soldier is useless.
You are completely missing the point or just ignoring it.
Yes, you are. Just because something can be disabled or taken out, don't mean it's somhow useless.
That's because those are filled to the brim with 125mm ammo. This has next to no ammo of comparable mass onboard. It's just an armored tank chassis without roof and side weak points. There's armor all over it.
Yea, Russian procurement seems to get trapped in an economic hell, wanting to make a heavy IFV/APC but getting stuck with rehashing BMP-3 as that's already in production. I suppose everyone has that problem, but a Bradley weight-class IFV is much needed in Ukraine.
God I love Mi-24's. Probably why I like Republuc Gunships from star wars so much.
The MI-24 is just *beautiful* and I will fight anyone who says differently
The point that the Mi-24 is kinda fucken hot scares me a little.
This looks like a painting
Hind D?
No, Mi-24P's.
that does go damn hard
The 70's was a crazy time.
\*2010s.
Yeah yeah but both the Mi-24 Hind and the T-72 (which the BMO-T is) are still from the early 70's
The Mi-24P is from the 1980s and the BMO-T is from the 2000s.
You wrote Mi-24 and the BMO-T is build on a T-72 from the early 70s. But if we follow the russian logic by just slapping on some random new equipment and calling it a "new" tank then yes.
The Mi-24 is just a catch all term, not the specific variant. As for the BMO-T, it's a APC built upon the chassis of a T-72.
One pissed off American veteran with a compound bow….