• supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    This is major, these AFVs/IFVs stomp on anything russia has and anything Ukraine is replacing with these.

    Imagine being previously stuck in a tin can MT-LB, BTR or BMP and being upgraded to one of these, it would be quite the rush indeed.

    Just considering engines alone, the engine in this thing shits on the engine output capability of most russian main battle tanks

    Here is a rundown of the KF41

    https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=V5MYhFET9vQ

  • Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The IFV is protected against 30 mm projectiles in the frontal projection and 14.5 mm rounds from the sides. The vehicle’s floor provides protection against an explosion equivalent to 10 kg of TNT.

    I feel like specs nowadays, and specifically when related to Ukraine, should include meaningful drone/explosives resilience. But I guess they don’t say anything about anti-tank projectiles either.

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Trust me, if you get any more heavily armored than a KF41 you are talking about a main battle tank, this thing is a beast.

      Think of a US Bradley but even more advanced and heavily armored, which if you are a russian soldier and you aren’t an idiot should make your sphincter clench tightly.

      • Tuuktuuk@piefed.europe.pubM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        if you are a russian soldier and you aren’t an idiot

        Isn’t this is a bit like “if you are a person writing in the Fediverse and you don’t have lungs”?

    • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 hours ago

      While I agree with the idea, there are practical issues to reporting “drone resistance”. Mostly that drones are used to deliver anything from small hand grenades, which even the side-armour of a light APC should handle with ease, to dropping stacks of AT mines or a heavy HEAT round, both of which should defeat an MBT if hit on the roof.

      There’s also the point that you have both bomber-drones, which target the roof, and FPV drones, which typically target the sides, optics, or engine.

      Basically, the most reasonable “drone resistance” metrics you can report are probably whether the vehicle can withstand standard RPG rounds, and (importantly) whether it has any form of proximity defence (like TROPHY). If anything, I’m actually a bit surprised that some form of mounted shotgun that automatically targets FPV drones hasn’t become widely used yet. TROPHY is developed to target AT rockets moving at several hundred meters per second, which is complete overkill for shooting down FPV drones coming in at < 30 m/s.

      There’s been a lot of talk about how effective drones are against armour, and how cheap they are vs. what is used to target them. I’ve seen surprisingly little talk about the fact that drones should be orders of magnitude easier and cheaper to shoot down than rockets. Basically all you need is a shotgun and a targeting system that is much, much more rudimentary than what modern AA uses.