IMAGE: Russian Defense Ministry
Several units of 2S25M Sprut-SDM1 amphibious self-propelled anti-tank guns are ready for state trials planned for 2019, Russia’s Rostech corporation stressed on January 7.
Earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry said that the 125mm self-rpropelled gun with a new engine, an armour and a fire control system would be held in 2019.
The 2S25M Sprut-SDM1 was developed and manufactured by the Russian defence company, Volgograd Tractor Plant. Its Sprut anti-tank gun, is capable of firing armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot, HE-Frag, HEAT and ATGM ammunition. This should allow it to be as powerful as a main battle tank and as maneuverable and amphibious as airborne infantry combat vehicles. In the event of success, the 2S25M Sprut-SDM1 could be come a useful tool for Russsian airborne troops.
More about Russia’s airborne troops:
That seems to be a rather weird weapon. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have lighter guns on it and some troops with the Russian versions of TOWs? This seems a bit of a 1 trick pony.
It’s a machine used in offensive ops behind enemy lines, so won’t have a resupply problem with shells, compared to missiles.
Its value is in its low weight and amphibious capabilities, along with a 5in gun.
It is a vehicle built on a BMD 3 chassis and with a 125MM gun derivative of the gun that is on T72, T90. It fires the same variety type of ammo as a T90, having an auto loader and good cross country capability. Russian airborne forces are being equipped with vehicles that use a common chassis, are relatively light therefore easy to air transport and air drop and pack a heavy gun giving the airborne force immediate heavy caliber firepower as they are deployed.
I think it is made in the old T3 factory, Stalingrad, site of the battle.
I think you understand these things better than I do. I must admit I am a bit confused. It could be that the term ‘tank destroyer’ is what is causing the problem. This vehicle has as far as I can tell the same sort of gun as a tank. So it could only engage a tank from the same range as that tank could return fire. So an unarmoured vehicle and an armoured vehicle would be exchanging fire. I don’t see the sense in this.
You’re right about “some sort of gun”, both tanks and tank destroyers are self-propelled guns, but with some differences. Tanks are designed to fight in front lines (hence the thick armour), their gun is limited in vertical movement and mainly they fire in their line of sight, ie direct-line fire. Think of a tank destroyer as an artillery on tracks and it becomes clear. Some models even didn’t have a rotating turret but all have a great range in vertical movement, just like artillery and naturally they can fire ballistic projectile, ie beyond line-of-sight. Their range is generally an artillery range and more than tanks.
So there’s no exchange of fire with tanks, there’s only one-way fire from out of tank’s range or LOS and therefore there’s no need for a thick armour.
This equipment is built for airborne units and it needs to be air dropped, ready for battle. All airborne deployed weapons have a weight constraint, therefore this equipment has a tank gun and light armour. It is meant for direct fire whereby it can engage enemy tanks effectively with an assortment of weapons. The term “tank destroyer” applies to its ability to destroy tanks; airborne forces are normally deployed behind enemy lines, therefore the chances of running into large number of tanks is minimal. It is possible they can be equipped with an active protection system to make up for the light armour, however, in general this equipment would operate in conjunction with other vehicles and utilize the ATGM platforms and high velocity gun against enemy targets.
5 inches equal 127MM, we are dealing with a 125MM gun.
We are dealing with 2mm, less than the width of your finger nails.
It’s a 5in gun to do those who don’t want to be referred to as anoraks.
It provides the airborne forces with a vehicle that is light and can provide the punch of a tank, it is not supposed to carry infantry, BMD3-4 does that, as an infantry fighting vehicle.
There are at least 2 kinds of airbones. 1) is normal infantery landing and keeping a terrain. Maybee most known from the invasion in Normandie. Those were meant to block the nazis and for that was eqipped with anti tank artilley and probatly the new basookas as well –
But those are meant as advanced attack troops, which need mobility. By that its classic having infantery protection by armed vehicles in front or just behind the front of moving troops. You could have other kinds of armed having canons in it, but then You have to have a lolt of wieight as well.
They certainly need some big guns too even it is possible to give heavy airsupport as well as using missiles from far distance. Its not weird to me but an upgrade of those forces.
So basically it’s an MBT minus the armour, but with airdrop and amphibious capabilities. It no doubt costs a lot less than an MBT too, that’s pretty cool.
I agree. They have to be well designed and good for the economy as well.
I sometimes wonder why constructions like that dont wear big wheels for crossin wetlands and lakes. We here see the belts are needed very reduced for weight. In the other hand those vehicles are of the light kind.
Nice looking. I hope its as good as it look and the cost are low. They need to replace old stuff and make a more modern way of warfare.
Hard for me to see those are needed for Baltics, but the rest seemes to be improved possibilities. It reminds me about the total delay of airborne mountain troops in Tjetjenia. Troops like this apart from tanks shoul have been rapidly in use.
We also have seen renewed manuals. Its certainly needed reflecting from, how many russians has died in Syria.
I hope they in those matters improve and learn that defence is much more vital. That of course goes for those airborned too.
The term tank destroyer is not often used, used for light tank with large gun. But also I am not replying to Jens Holm, Someone else is at the keyboard. Perhaps you can correct my grammar and English mistakes? LMAO
Just sober military reflexiens from here as usual. I dont much about spelling and never will be much better. And if people dont understand I mainly try again using other words and sentences.
My english is not arabic and turkish thinking then translated into highschool english meant for lawyers and doctors.
Kan du fortolke det her ?
I have many times here.
Arabic as well as Turkish dont have language for, whats here at all. Even so You insist in Newton can explain Einstein by Newton.
Its in a lot of important stuff. Our few non mixted rooms are in contrast to Your many all over, where You are. Both has its own vocabulary made by culture and religion.
We trust our police and ask for help. Many from other countries are afraid and croos the street, when they see one.
80% here dont work for families but for others and often in ones driven by stockholders and shares. Thats vital for our system, because that give profit and investments.
We are paid paid pr hour and for what we do not status in the family and not by gender. Well often traditionel womens jobs are too low paid.
“Du er lig” in danish say, I am a dead body/corpse. Well I still move my 2 finger system and write here.
You could try again. When I translate tanks from english, I get some, which mainly are full of water or in Syria tigers in aqariums. True tigers are exelent swimmers. Shelling is shells from the sea like oysters and mussels too.
But so far nice try.
In the second video, in the map Crimea is shown as the territory of Russia. Looks like SF opinion is in line with Russian official position:))))))