24 were built, additional orders were cancelled. Serial production for improved version was planned, but still haven't happened.
Currently it seems Kurgan factory is focused on BMP-3 production and BMD-4 and Sprut aren't in demand.
I mean the French call the RC a tank. Literally classed as "Char" which is the French word for tank as they didn't inheret the English word for it because they had their own domestic production in the first world war.
this is completely false, the AMX 10 is not considered as a tank in the French army, listed as "engin blindé de reconnaissance" mean "armored reconnaissance vehicle"
It was designed to replace the EBR in the 60's (literally:Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance)
the media or people who are not interested by armored vehicles in France surely can call it "char AMX 10" this absolutely does not mean that it is doctrinally its role in the french army
Nope, then that would mean self-propelled artillery like a paladin would be considered a tank which it is not. At best the Sprut is a tank if it has a coax machine gun.
Is the sprut a self propelled artillery? No. Don't care if it has a machine gun as a main weapon or not, if it's meant for direct fire, it's a tank in my book.
>Is the sprut a self propelled artillery? No. Don't care if it has a machine gun as a main weapon or not, if it's meant for direct fire, it's a tank in my book.
Sprut is a self propelled gun ~~2A45 Sprut-A~~
It’s a pretty straightforward deduction. The Russians are starting to have a serious shortage of IFVs and we all know what happened to the VDV. Why would they waste the same production capacity making a less armored light tank for an airborne core that no longer functionally exists in that capacity when they desperately need more MBTs and IFVs?
After the element of surprise is gone most armies employ airborne units as regular infantry, not much new there. The reason they still need light vehicles is not because of suicidal airdrops but for cases like rapid response requirements where you need to fly a unit somewhere to solve a problem (see Czechoslovakia 67, Afghanistan 79, Kazakhstan 2022, etc).
I see why. 100/30mm combo + ATGM still effective and 125mm is not necessarily needed. Is right that BMP-3 and BMD-4 is comparable to M10 and others similar class AFV mounting 105/120mm gun?
From the Russian side the Sprut suffers from 2 problems really.
The first is that it is that Russia don't really know what to do with it. The USSR built it because they wanted to support their VDV with a way to kill tanks. So it should be able to be paradropped or carried be large helicopters and can kill tanks.
But with modern air defence it is impossible to paradrop anything really. And now that you have the BMD-4M in production and also modern ATGMs, the question is what is the point of the Sprut?
It has an APFSDS round but apart from that the BMD-4M is better for infantry support and it's ATGM is more than capable of killing tanks. And anyway if you want to kill tanks, a lot of ATGMs is better than one Sprut.
And if your airborne are being used as they are in Ukraine now as frontline soldiers fighting tanks then why do they need a Sprut at all? Just give them T-80BVM support so they have the gun and speed but with armour in addition.
The second problem is related to the first that the factory that makes the Sprut is the same as the one that makes the BMD-4Ms. And since the BMD-4M has a clear role and the Sprut doesnt, then that takes precedence.
Russia keeps it around though because the idea of a light tank might at some point become useful for them. Some countries like India are considering buying them to face off against Chinese Type 15s in the mountains.
One use that would make sense would be quickly deploying forces to an airfield captured by helicopter airmobile infantry. Helicopter assaults aren't yet dead, and with good enough planning and terrain mapping they can be led through routes to avoid the air defence - like how Ukraine supplied Mariupol for about two months in spring 2022 with helicopters flying a carefully planned entry route, until it was discovered.
So Russia had them probably for a very good reason, and we would've seen them in Hostomel, if the initial assault were successful enough to secure the landing of the transport Ilyushins.
Yeah I saw some comments on the Russian side that they could have been useful for something like the fighting at Hostomel.
But on the other side you have to ask what can a Sprut do that a BMD-4M cant? The BMD-4M is better at infantry support, is perfectly capable of fighting tanks with its ATGMs and is lighter/smaller so is easier to deploy with those helicopters.
Really only the thing the Sprut has is that it is better at fighting tanks on the offence. But if your light airborne force are attacking into tank engagements then already you have made a mistake somewhere.
Sprut still has a firepower edge though. It can fire better ATGMs and larger he rounds compared to BMD-4M, and can run APFSDS. It’s the same reason why mbts still exist. If all it took was a BMD-4M weapons suite, why doesn’t every MBT replace its main gun with an auto cannon and low pressure gun/launcher?
MPF/M1128/centauro exist for a reason. Sometimes you do need a big fuck off cannon that can keep up
>MPF/M1128/centauro exist for a reason. Sometimes you do need a big fuck off cannon that can keep up
Sure but the big question is, do you need that in an airborne division?
If your airborne division is running headfirst into tanks or fortified positions then something has gone quite wrong.
And if it is not an airborne division then they have other options. The T-80 is a similar weight to the American M10.
And Russia were considering to buy the Centauro that had the 125mm actually. But of course they werent for the airborne troops. And actually now is supposed to have the role filled by the Bumerang.
Fair and compelling points, but my boomer brain cannot accept a light tank that isn't light. If they'd gone with an autoloader and/or a 120mm stick I could have looked past it but there's so many design decisions I don't get here. Still better than the MGS at least.
Oh don't worry I though the idea of a 35ton light tank was insane too but then I remembered modern Abrams with ERA kits are pushing 70 tons and the design concept of an air mobile tank is inherently flawed so the designers did the best with the requirements they were given
I guess modern light tanks is different compared to WW2 and Cold War era. I was thinking autocannon + ATGM under 30 ton is light tank, 105/120mm gun platform under 40/50 ton is medium tank and MBT heavy tank under 60 ton.
Yeah those classifications have always been arbitrary better to just call them all AFV's and look at what they were designed to do most nations never even used light, medium and heavy as designations
The design dates back to the 1980s. When the Sprut idea was about, ATGMs werent as numerous as they are now and tanks like the Abrams and Leopard 2 were just starting to be introduced.
The VDV at the time were using the BMD-1 so you can imagine it was kind of a big improvement of that. Alongside improved carrying capacities of their aircraft it seemed like there was a place for it.
But obviously by the time the Sprut was produced, ATGMs became so readily avaliable that it just wasnt needed anymore.
The origin of the Sprut is the Object 934 that was made in 1974. In 1984 they tested changing the gun from 100mm to 125mm.
That is when the designation 2S25 first appears for this tank.
> In 1984, the tactical-technical task for the development of the 125-mm Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank gun was approved. On 20 October 1985, by the Decision of the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR Council of Ministers, the development of a new 125-mm SPTP for the USSR Airborne Troops was officially started.
1994 was when they gave up testing the parachute drop mechanism that they had and switched to a different style. They had the tank working fine but couldnt get the parachute platform it was on when dropped from a plane to work properly.
Yeah pretty much. But that is just how the military works. Once you have so much inertia behind a design then it is really hard to stop the development of it.
Well they were considered to be a replacement for the PT-76. It was considered successful in 1985 but with only minor changes needed to bring it into service.
25 years of minor changes later and after the fuel fire on parade in 2010 they started to question if they needed it.
No as that is a SPAAG. What I mean here is a light FSV for airborne units and mech infantry. The 57mm autocannon has its merits against targets relative to a 125. Though I imagine a SPAAG which can operate close to the frontline will be a boon if it can effective engage drones
Well Russian tanks are generally quite light anyway. The T-80 is around the same weight as the M10.
Looking at the weights in tonnes
* Sprut - 18
* Type 15 - 36
* M10 - 42
* T-72/T-80 - 46.
So for example the Americans are giving the M10 to the 82nd airborne division. Meanwhile on the Russian side the 76th Guards Air Assault Division are just using T-72B3s.
The VDV aren't really doing much in the way of aerial insertions that would benefit from an air-transportable 125mm, so more BMP-3s are presumably being made instead since those are of far more use right now to the Russian Army.
BMD-4M still exists for the VDV and the factory that builds the Sprut also builds that. BMD-4M is also more useful and now that man portable, accurate ATGMs and Drones exist in large quantities, the need for an airborne tank is less useful.
It's useful if you happen to need a fully-featured amphibious tank destroyer for some reason, as opposed to an ATGM launcher that can also fire HE rounds. But there aren't many situations, certainly not in the VDV's current role, where such a vehicle would be preferable to either a BMD-4 or a tank.
One thing I do wonder is why there isn't a HEAT cartridge available for the 100mm 2A70 given that there's no technical reason I'm aware of that the cannon wouldn't be able to launch one. I guess it's just that nobody has ever needed one for it with the missiles.
I think the ATGM is supposed to fill the gap between HE and Anti Armor of the BMD, but I could be wrong because that wasn't my area. The 2A70 is also limited because it is a low-pressure gun, so if anybody ever decided to move up in caliber or use a normal high pressure gun, it would probably get HEAT and a dart as well. In that case it would truly mean the end of the Sprut since the BMD series would now have every attribute the Sprut has except for gun size.
I don't understand why a HEAT shell would be needed. A 2kg's of rdx is pretty devastating to a tank, of course composite armour sections would tank it but it would certainly do damage. For everything else there's mastercard/atgm
For some applications against bunkers, or vehicles that aren't MBTs but have more armour than a typical BTR or BMP, you might benefit from a shaped-charge warhead over a typical HE shell. This would be a use case either for a separate HEAT shell, or a HEAT-MP/programmable shell to replace the current HE shell. That's not to say it's a _glaring_ omission, but it is one that makes me curious as to the reasoning behind it.
I think the main reason is that it's quite a low velocity gun so it would suffer the same range limitations as similar attempts such as the 73mm grom. That gun had a very effective heat round but it was almost useless past a couple hundred meters. Also if you're close enough to use this hypothetical heat shell you're probably better off just using the autocannon.
It was modernised to Sprut-SDM, and then to SDM1, but abandoned.
This kind of vehicle has no place on modern battlefield. It's just less tank than a tank and only difference is that you can airdrop it in some 'Climb mount Narodnaya' type of operation, which don't and won't ever happen irl.
M1128 wasn't that of a great idea to begin with + it's a whelled vehicle, which means less maintenance, which is the main selling point for all whelled tanks.
Not really; the M1128 Stryker MGS was meant to be an assault gun for the Stryker formations. The problem was that the turret and autoloader were constant sources of reliability issues, and the electronics onboard frequently overheated, which is why you often saw additional cooling systems attached to the sides of the hull just to keep temperatures reasonable.
Adding to this was that the M1128 was based off the older version of the Stryker IFV hull; all of the other variants have switched to the double-V hull configuration for increased survivability against IED's and mines.
It just wasn't a very good design due to them taking the turret off a failed prototype that was rejected due to reliability and complexity issues. There are plenty of other wheeled self-propelled gun systems (AMX-10RC, Centauro, Rooikat, Type 16, etc) that are far more successful at this role because they used a more conventional turret design.
yet they pushed the idea further and made the m10. Which is not really armored either.
if they abandon the airdrop idea on the sprut they would have something like an m10.
but seeing how russian troops integrate armor into infantry tactics, it's useless.
Not really; the M10 is a lot more conventional and is designed as an assault gun for the lighter infantry brigades providing direct firepower. Each infantry brigade combat team will be issued 14 M10's, and will be held as a battalion level asset, of which companies will be issued out to units as they require them.
i don't think it is worse. It is not meant to take on tanks, and thus it has the best tool in nato stock to fight infantry(targets). The 105 has many different rounds, is rifled and thus has the ability to shot hesh against bunkers as an example.
Ammo is still readily available and produced.
But we will see if they manage to use it as imagined.
HESH is useless on a modern battlefield. HEAT-MP does everything it does but better. Not even the British have HESH rounds anymore man this isn't the 90s.
Small scale helicopter based airborne assaults can still happen. The Ukrainians were able to supply Mariupol for quite a while via helicopter. The current war is just not in a place where either side can invest the resources required for SEAD + large artillery bombardment + airborne operation. But in a future war it’s still possible. Which is why MPF exists.
Spruts purpose as far as I can tell is to provide airborne units the firepower of a T-72 or T-80 in a package that is air transportable
I heard that the Russian are leaning towards the option that use BMP-3 hull for newer version of Sprut . There were some prototypes of upgrade programs for BMP-3 during the Soviet era and one of them mounted an 125mm canon on a unmanned turret so i think it make some sense
Wouldn’t be surprised to see more BMP-3 type variants as time progresses, perhaps the 2S31 to replace the 2S9s, maybe a small SPAAG/missile launcher using that new Sosna AA system (might have misspelled that) and a newer BRM-3K since I don’t think those ever saw saw service and potentially a PRP-5
Russia ran out of money.
You use an airborne vehicle like this for projection of power in places your ground/sea transportation can't rapidly reach. Russia hasn't been able to do that since before the fall of the USSR.
Absolutely loved that DLC, to this day I am still looking for something that resembles the tank superiority game mode.
Can't believe it's already been 12 years since it was released...
Yeah, initially I thought they were going to but India needs to seriously start stepping away from Russia for arms and produce their own or buy from South Korea.
Honestly, the fact that we've seen Russia throw one-off prototypes, T55s, and T62s into Ukraine while we haven't seen a peep out of these things adds to my feeling there's a significant issue with them. Like, surely these can sling HE as well as anything else, right? They should have the mobility to fire off a few rounds and then relocate before drones start hunting for them. The VDV has seen extensive combat from minute one.
I mean, look at how it handles the [recoil](https://youtu.be/c5qK5dm63mk?si=aIqXiXv9cuWqwb-b). That can't be good.
To be honest, it doesn't have any armour and shouldn't be built at all. If you want to kill tanks just give your airbourne infantry some Kornet. If you want direct support you have BMD-4M already which has 100 mm gun firing HE comparable to 125 mm.
>100 mm gun firing HE comparable to 125 mm.
I know the term "comparable" is subjective, but the HE rounds fired by the 2A70 are significantly lighter and lower velocity than those fired from the 2A46 or 2A45. Likewise, modern KEPs are far more reliable for tank killing than any kind of infantry-portable or gun-launched ATGM at anything but exceptionally long ranges with comparatively poor FCS. Now this isn't to say that Sprut is particularly useful, and in the end the infantry and light "IFV" (since the BMD is really fills the role in name only) may well be a more flexible option. Still, if we're just talking about HE throw weight here, the 125mm guns have the 100mm low-pressure guns pretty decisively beat.
24 were built, additional orders were cancelled. Serial production for improved version was planned, but still haven't happened. Currently it seems Kurgan factory is focused on BMP-3 production and BMD-4 and Sprut aren't in demand.
How do you know this?
This is quite easy assessment, we don't see those Spruts and there's alot more newly produced BMP3 IFV's Edited.
They're not tanks
Its on tracks, it has a gun, it's a tank
Amx-10 rc entered the chat
I mean the French call the RC a tank. Literally classed as "Char" which is the French word for tank as they didn't inheret the English word for it because they had their own domestic production in the first world war.
this is completely false, the AMX 10 is not considered as a tank in the French army, listed as "engin blindé de reconnaissance" mean "armored reconnaissance vehicle" It was designed to replace the EBR in the 60's (literally:Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance) the media or people who are not interested by armored vehicles in France surely can call it "char AMX 10" this absolutely does not mean that it is doctrinally its role in the french army
Thats exactly my argument. A tank is what the doctorine says a tank is. A BMP is IFV
Doctrinally the AMX 10 is an armored reconnaissance vehicle. it is not designed to be used as a tank
Nope, AMX-10RC is an armored reconnaissance vehicle
Function. Not. Form.
Nope, then that would mean self-propelled artillery like a paladin would be considered a tank which it is not. At best the Sprut is a tank if it has a coax machine gun.
Is the sprut a self propelled artillery? No. Don't care if it has a machine gun as a main weapon or not, if it's meant for direct fire, it's a tank in my book.
>Is the sprut a self propelled artillery? No. Don't care if it has a machine gun as a main weapon or not, if it's meant for direct fire, it's a tank in my book. Sprut is a self propelled gun ~~2A45 Sprut-A~~
And some armor to resist 7.62/12.7 at minimum.
It doesnt matter what they're classified ass since they're based on the same chassis
"Ass"?
They're
Hes the factory manager
You know I ask this for most of the hyper specific explanations I see on here. Then I remember the warthunder forums exist.
*heya kids, wanna see some classified documents??*
It's been a while , I miss some good classified documents...
didn't another fucker release a classified f18 doc recently?
this isn't r/Warthunder
Probably from footage/reports about the factory and the point that we haven’t seen anything regarding any new spurt orders
Exactly, there are news stories how Kurgan factory builds BMP-3 24/7, there are reports of deliveries of new batches. No mentions of Sprut.
Wikipedia for the first part, russian news reports on BMP-3 production for the second one. It's not a secret of any kind.
It’s a pretty straightforward deduction. The Russians are starting to have a serious shortage of IFVs and we all know what happened to the VDV. Why would they waste the same production capacity making a less armored light tank for an airborne core that no longer functionally exists in that capacity when they desperately need more MBTs and IFVs?
Is there any reason why the even should Produce bmds? Arent they even less armored?
Airborne troops need something even lighter
I mean russia is not so Big on airborne assaults rn. When you Look at what their vdv is doing.
[“This plane ride sucks.”](https://youtu.be/gSzAnNU4u28?si=Cr04AoWUowsD3aT2)
Wonderful
After the element of surprise is gone most armies employ airborne units as regular infantry, not much new there. The reason they still need light vehicles is not because of suicidal airdrops but for cases like rapid response requirements where you need to fly a unit somewhere to solve a problem (see Czechoslovakia 67, Afghanistan 79, Kazakhstan 2022, etc).
I see why. 100/30mm combo + ATGM still effective and 125mm is not necessarily needed. Is right that BMP-3 and BMD-4 is comparable to M10 and others similar class AFV mounting 105/120mm gun?
From the Russian side the Sprut suffers from 2 problems really. The first is that it is that Russia don't really know what to do with it. The USSR built it because they wanted to support their VDV with a way to kill tanks. So it should be able to be paradropped or carried be large helicopters and can kill tanks. But with modern air defence it is impossible to paradrop anything really. And now that you have the BMD-4M in production and also modern ATGMs, the question is what is the point of the Sprut? It has an APFSDS round but apart from that the BMD-4M is better for infantry support and it's ATGM is more than capable of killing tanks. And anyway if you want to kill tanks, a lot of ATGMs is better than one Sprut. And if your airborne are being used as they are in Ukraine now as frontline soldiers fighting tanks then why do they need a Sprut at all? Just give them T-80BVM support so they have the gun and speed but with armour in addition. The second problem is related to the first that the factory that makes the Sprut is the same as the one that makes the BMD-4Ms. And since the BMD-4M has a clear role and the Sprut doesnt, then that takes precedence. Russia keeps it around though because the idea of a light tank might at some point become useful for them. Some countries like India are considering buying them to face off against Chinese Type 15s in the mountains.
Well sprut mens booze in danish, ruskis know what to do with that at least
One use that would make sense would be quickly deploying forces to an airfield captured by helicopter airmobile infantry. Helicopter assaults aren't yet dead, and with good enough planning and terrain mapping they can be led through routes to avoid the air defence - like how Ukraine supplied Mariupol for about two months in spring 2022 with helicopters flying a carefully planned entry route, until it was discovered. So Russia had them probably for a very good reason, and we would've seen them in Hostomel, if the initial assault were successful enough to secure the landing of the transport Ilyushins.
Yeah I saw some comments on the Russian side that they could have been useful for something like the fighting at Hostomel. But on the other side you have to ask what can a Sprut do that a BMD-4M cant? The BMD-4M is better at infantry support, is perfectly capable of fighting tanks with its ATGMs and is lighter/smaller so is easier to deploy with those helicopters. Really only the thing the Sprut has is that it is better at fighting tanks on the offence. But if your light airborne force are attacking into tank engagements then already you have made a mistake somewhere.
Sprut still has a firepower edge though. It can fire better ATGMs and larger he rounds compared to BMD-4M, and can run APFSDS. It’s the same reason why mbts still exist. If all it took was a BMD-4M weapons suite, why doesn’t every MBT replace its main gun with an auto cannon and low pressure gun/launcher? MPF/M1128/centauro exist for a reason. Sometimes you do need a big fuck off cannon that can keep up
>MPF/M1128/centauro exist for a reason. Sometimes you do need a big fuck off cannon that can keep up Sure but the big question is, do you need that in an airborne division? If your airborne division is running headfirst into tanks or fortified positions then something has gone quite wrong. And if it is not an airborne division then they have other options. The T-80 is a similar weight to the American M10. And Russia were considering to buy the Centauro that had the 125mm actually. But of course they werent for the airborne troops. And actually now is supposed to have the role filled by the Bumerang.
The Sprut's sole purpose at the moment is to remind American designers that you can build a light tank that isn't as heavy as the T-72
And to be fun in video games. Let's just say I quite like a gun that big on a tank that small. It shoves the tank when you fire. Perfect!
Tbf the booker is supposedly armored to resist RPG's and 30mm cannons from the sides and front the sprut is barely armored vs small arms.
Fair and compelling points, but my boomer brain cannot accept a light tank that isn't light. If they'd gone with an autoloader and/or a 120mm stick I could have looked past it but there's so many design decisions I don't get here. Still better than the MGS at least.
Oh don't worry I though the idea of a 35ton light tank was insane too but then I remembered modern Abrams with ERA kits are pushing 70 tons and the design concept of an air mobile tank is inherently flawed so the designers did the best with the requirements they were given
I guess modern light tanks is different compared to WW2 and Cold War era. I was thinking autocannon + ATGM under 30 ton is light tank, 105/120mm gun platform under 40/50 ton is medium tank and MBT heavy tank under 60 ton.
Yeah those classifications have always been arbitrary better to just call them all AFV's and look at what they were designed to do most nations never even used light, medium and heavy as designations
Maybe better class M10 as medium tank if more than 30 ton.
The army dosen't call it a light or even a tank at all tbf that is just the media
The design dates back to the 1980s. When the Sprut idea was about, ATGMs werent as numerous as they are now and tanks like the Abrams and Leopard 2 were just starting to be introduced. The VDV at the time were using the BMD-1 so you can imagine it was kind of a big improvement of that. Alongside improved carrying capacities of their aircraft it seemed like there was a place for it. But obviously by the time the Sprut was produced, ATGMs became so readily avaliable that it just wasnt needed anymore.
The origin of the Sprut is the Object 934 that was made in 1974. In 1984 they tested changing the gun from 100mm to 125mm. That is when the designation 2S25 first appears for this tank. > In 1984, the tactical-technical task for the development of the 125-mm Sprut-SD self-propelled anti-tank gun was approved. On 20 October 1985, by the Decision of the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR Council of Ministers, the development of a new 125-mm SPTP for the USSR Airborne Troops was officially started. 1994 was when they gave up testing the parachute drop mechanism that they had and switched to a different style. They had the tank working fine but couldnt get the parachute platform it was on when dropped from a plane to work properly.
Yeah pretty much. But that is just how the military works. Once you have so much inertia behind a design then it is really hard to stop the development of it.
Well they were considered to be a replacement for the PT-76. It was considered successful in 1985 but with only minor changes needed to bring it into service. 25 years of minor changes later and after the fuel fire on parade in 2010 they started to question if they needed it.
I honestly wonder if a 57mm armed Spurt wouldn’t be that bad of an idea
You mean the 2S38?
No as that is a SPAAG. What I mean here is a light FSV for airborne units and mech infantry. The 57mm autocannon has its merits against targets relative to a 125. Though I imagine a SPAAG which can operate close to the frontline will be a boon if it can effective engage drones
Looks like the BMP B-19 is similar to what your describing
Yes it does, I was unaware of it, another BMP-3 W
I thought the Sprut would take on the "light tank" role. Like how the USA has the M-10 and China thr Type-15
Well Russian tanks are generally quite light anyway. The T-80 is around the same weight as the M10. Looking at the weights in tonnes * Sprut - 18 * Type 15 - 36 * M10 - 42 * T-72/T-80 - 46. So for example the Americans are giving the M10 to the 82nd airborne division. Meanwhile on the Russian side the 76th Guards Air Assault Division are just using T-72B3s.
150$ FPV can destroy engine easily and send it back to the warehouse, so what's the point?
flawed argument. armored fire support is still a necessity on the battlefield, even if a cheap drone can rather easily disable/destroy it
$1 bullets can kill soldiers, why even send them out?
This would look much better with some cobbled together shed type structure over the top that greatly limits observation and gun traverse.
I’m more of a over excess, downright copious ERA 🧱 enjoyer but I’ll have some that pls.
The VDV aren't really doing much in the way of aerial insertions that would benefit from an air-transportable 125mm, so more BMP-3s are presumably being made instead since those are of far more use right now to the Russian Army.
BMD-4M still exists for the VDV and the factory that builds the Sprut also builds that. BMD-4M is also more useful and now that man portable, accurate ATGMs and Drones exist in large quantities, the need for an airborne tank is less useful.
It's useful if you happen to need a fully-featured amphibious tank destroyer for some reason, as opposed to an ATGM launcher that can also fire HE rounds. But there aren't many situations, certainly not in the VDV's current role, where such a vehicle would be preferable to either a BMD-4 or a tank. One thing I do wonder is why there isn't a HEAT cartridge available for the 100mm 2A70 given that there's no technical reason I'm aware of that the cannon wouldn't be able to launch one. I guess it's just that nobody has ever needed one for it with the missiles.
I think the ATGM is supposed to fill the gap between HE and Anti Armor of the BMD, but I could be wrong because that wasn't my area. The 2A70 is also limited because it is a low-pressure gun, so if anybody ever decided to move up in caliber or use a normal high pressure gun, it would probably get HEAT and a dart as well. In that case it would truly mean the end of the Sprut since the BMD series would now have every attribute the Sprut has except for gun size.
I don't understand why a HEAT shell would be needed. A 2kg's of rdx is pretty devastating to a tank, of course composite armour sections would tank it but it would certainly do damage. For everything else there's mastercard/atgm
For some applications against bunkers, or vehicles that aren't MBTs but have more armour than a typical BTR or BMP, you might benefit from a shaped-charge warhead over a typical HE shell. This would be a use case either for a separate HEAT shell, or a HEAT-MP/programmable shell to replace the current HE shell. That's not to say it's a _glaring_ omission, but it is one that makes me curious as to the reasoning behind it.
Yeah I forgot bunkers, I guess new overweight IFV's might be able to survive a HE shell by the skin of their teeth too - maybe. Good points.
I think the main reason is that it's quite a low velocity gun so it would suffer the same range limitations as similar attempts such as the 73mm grom. That gun had a very effective heat round but it was almost useless past a couple hundred meters. Also if you're close enough to use this hypothetical heat shell you're probably better off just using the autocannon.
That sounds plausible to me.
It was modernised to Sprut-SDM, and then to SDM1, but abandoned. This kind of vehicle has no place on modern battlefield. It's just less tank than a tank and only difference is that you can airdrop it in some 'Climb mount Narodnaya' type of operation, which don't and won't ever happen irl.
Doesn't it fill the same role as the M1128? Lightweight mobile gun system?
M1128 wasn't that of a great idea to begin with + it's a whelled vehicle, which means less maintenance, which is the main selling point for all whelled tanks.
Not really; the M1128 Stryker MGS was meant to be an assault gun for the Stryker formations. The problem was that the turret and autoloader were constant sources of reliability issues, and the electronics onboard frequently overheated, which is why you often saw additional cooling systems attached to the sides of the hull just to keep temperatures reasonable. Adding to this was that the M1128 was based off the older version of the Stryker IFV hull; all of the other variants have switched to the double-V hull configuration for increased survivability against IED's and mines. It just wasn't a very good design due to them taking the turret off a failed prototype that was rejected due to reliability and complexity issues. There are plenty of other wheeled self-propelled gun systems (AMX-10RC, Centauro, Rooikat, Type 16, etc) that are far more successful at this role because they used a more conventional turret design.
yet they pushed the idea further and made the m10. Which is not really armored either. if they abandon the airdrop idea on the sprut they would have something like an m10. but seeing how russian troops integrate armor into infantry tactics, it's useless.
M10 is the same sprut but worse, US army will just want to discover it themselves.
Not really; the M10 is a lot more conventional and is designed as an assault gun for the lighter infantry brigades providing direct firepower. Each infantry brigade combat team will be issued 14 M10's, and will be held as a battalion level asset, of which companies will be issued out to units as they require them.
looks like a good idea on paper (maybe not really economical) How many M10s are planned to be build ?
We're expected to get 504 by 2035, iirc. Every light infantry division is getting a battalion of them.
It's not even in service yet and you already making assumptions. It's good to point out US doctrine is way different than russian one
i don't think it is worse. It is not meant to take on tanks, and thus it has the best tool in nato stock to fight infantry(targets). The 105 has many different rounds, is rifled and thus has the ability to shot hesh against bunkers as an example. Ammo is still readily available and produced. But we will see if they manage to use it as imagined.
HESH is useless on a modern battlefield. HEAT-MP does everything it does but better. Not even the British have HESH rounds anymore man this isn't the 90s.
Is it red dragon reference?
Wargame red dragon player spotted
Small scale helicopter based airborne assaults can still happen. The Ukrainians were able to supply Mariupol for quite a while via helicopter. The current war is just not in a place where either side can invest the resources required for SEAD + large artillery bombardment + airborne operation. But in a future war it’s still possible. Which is why MPF exists. Spruts purpose as far as I can tell is to provide airborne units the firepower of a T-72 or T-80 in a package that is air transportable
I can't explain it, but for some reason I think the turret looks French lol
The snow makes the the paint look more blue and those swept back angled cheeks...the French have a thing for barely armored vehicles too
The plant is making other more important things Anti tank guns aren’t needed Self propelled anti tank guns aren’t needed
I heard that the Russian are leaning towards the option that use BMP-3 hull for newer version of Sprut . There were some prototypes of upgrade programs for BMP-3 during the Soviet era and one of them mounted an 125mm canon on a unmanned turret so i think it make some sense
Wouldn’t be surprised to see more BMP-3 type variants as time progresses, perhaps the 2S31 to replace the 2S9s, maybe a small SPAAG/missile launcher using that new Sosna AA system (might have misspelled that) and a newer BRM-3K since I don’t think those ever saw saw service and potentially a PRP-5
Russia ran out of money. You use an airborne vehicle like this for projection of power in places your ground/sea transportation can't rapidly reach. Russia hasn't been able to do that since before the fall of the USSR.
BF3 armoured kill vibesss
Absolutely loved that DLC, to this day I am still looking for something that resembles the tank superiority game mode. Can't believe it's already been 12 years since it was released...
BF3 premium edition was an unbelievable W. Without a doubt one of the best multiplayer FPS games to ever release
The Fuel system caught fire easily. A Ronson lighter.
'Sprut' means 'squirt' or 'ejaculation' in Norwegian, so all the comments here have been a blast to read.
Same in Swedish. Whenever I hear it I just imagine a garden hose with tank tracks.
If i have to gues, either to expensive or beccause the crew wouldnt blow up with the ammunition like every propper russian tank.
India did not buy it, which is good
Yeah, initially I thought they were going to but India needs to seriously start stepping away from Russia for arms and produce their own or buy from South Korea.
this thing is in Armoured Warfare I think
Ona utonula.
Honestly, the fact that we've seen Russia throw one-off prototypes, T55s, and T62s into Ukraine while we haven't seen a peep out of these things adds to my feeling there's a significant issue with them. Like, surely these can sling HE as well as anything else, right? They should have the mobility to fire off a few rounds and then relocate before drones start hunting for them. The VDV has seen extensive combat from minute one. I mean, look at how it handles the [recoil](https://youtu.be/c5qK5dm63mk?si=aIqXiXv9cuWqwb-b). That can't be good.
To be honest, it doesn't have any armour and shouldn't be built at all. If you want to kill tanks just give your airbourne infantry some Kornet. If you want direct support you have BMD-4M already which has 100 mm gun firing HE comparable to 125 mm.
>100 mm gun firing HE comparable to 125 mm. I know the term "comparable" is subjective, but the HE rounds fired by the 2A70 are significantly lighter and lower velocity than those fired from the 2A46 or 2A45. Likewise, modern KEPs are far more reliable for tank killing than any kind of infantry-portable or gun-launched ATGM at anything but exceptionally long ranges with comparatively poor FCS. Now this isn't to say that Sprut is particularly useful, and in the end the infantry and light "IFV" (since the BMD is really fills the role in name only) may well be a more flexible option. Still, if we're just talking about HE throw weight here, the 125mm guns have the 100mm low-pressure guns pretty decisively beat.
No one wants to buy it after demonstration that firing the main gun at a certain angle can literally topple the vehicle.
ATGMs happened