Bangladesh Army

[BDforever]

In March 2018, Bangladesh Army issued tender for the procurement of 220 anti-tank weapons. Does anyone know which weapons are being tendered or if it is the Metis-M?

@BDforever licensed production could be received from Ukraine as Jordan has. Jordan now produces assembels 2500 RK-3 Corsars.

as far as I know, Carl Gustav has been chosen and we already have Metis-M1

 

[Philip the Arab]

as far as I know, Carl Gustav has been chosen and we already have Metis-M1

Ah I respect that, its a old weapon but a good one and should fit BDs ant-tank requirements well.

 

[TopCat]

Nah, its these aircraft are redundant and the Jordanian armed forces have tight budget. If Allah wills we will be getting new attack helicopters, upgrading F-16 to Viper variant, and buying new transport planes like An-132 or such. We really don't have any great threats in the region because Israel has a peace treaty and you know what's happening with Syria and Lebanon.
BD should really expand influence in MENA area because than you can improve defense ties as well as political ties. I would like to see all Muslim countries defense industries increase including Bangladesh, and this could help.

Also, I don't know if I mentioned this but if BD could procure older Mi-24s and get them upgraded by South Africa it would be a lot cheaper and more deadly that buying new built ones.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiq0rm12tzhAhWCslkKHbcaDYUQFjAHegQIARAC&url=http://www.paramountgroup.com/media/1320/paramount-night-hawk.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0ebummbC3NZZplCV72By6A

Hmm, yes Jordan has a serious tight budget... you are spending close to 7% of our GDP in defense. You guys should move away from American toys... and turn to China.. USA crippled most of the Gulf armies and plundered billions whereas continues to provide edge to Israel with discounted weapons.

 

[The Ronin]

Army has issued RFI for Amphibious Light Tank and Armoured Recovery Vehicle

http://dgdp.gov.bd/dgdp/AP_TEN/noti...U2R_1Jq1g1ZcVUK5jBhn4CuGqt-RHAJaoAxwUOCxgu6G0

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2167352963313218

 

[bd_4_ever]

Army has issued RFI for Amphibious Light Tank and Armoured Recovery Vehicle

http://dgdp.gov.bd/dgdp/AP_TEN/noti...U2R_1Jq1g1ZcVUK5jBhn4CuGqt-RHAJaoAxwUOCxgu6G0

View attachment 555497

Nice! Any idea from where we are trying to get it? I would love some western tanks for a change.

 

[Michael Corleone]

Nice! Any idea from where we are trying to get it? I would love some western tanks for a change.

floating western tanks? hmm...

all i can think of is russian and chinese

 

[Avisheik]

Nice! Any idea from where we are trying to get it? I would love some western tanks for a change.

We are getting eastern tanks. The Rfi stated that the tank must be from group B countries(Russia, China, Poland, Ukraine, etc.) .

There is not much information to speculate from as most of it is labelled as "to be mentioned" but the Type 05 amphibious fighting vehicle could be a candidate as it does match most of the mentioned requirements

The RFI requirements are that the tank must be less than 36tn(loaded) equipped with either 105 or 125 mm main gun and the width must be less than 3500mm. The ZTD 05 has a weight of 26.5tn(unloaded), equipped with 105mm guns and has a width of 3360mm. It is not much to go on with, and it would have been more interesting if they released more info regarding the required specs.

Another interesting fact is that they may be buying it in groups of 14.

 

[Bilal9]

The RFI requirements are that the tank must be less than 36tn(loaded) equipped with either 105 or 125 mm main gun and the width must be less than 3500mm. The ZTD 05 has a weight of 26.5tn(unloaded), equipped with 105mm guns and has a width of 3360mm. It is not much to go on with, and it would have been more interesting if they released more info regarding the required specs.

Well the Sprut-SD Variant (Tank Killer) based on the BMP-3 Amphib tank carries a 2a75 125-mm smoothbore gun (same as the T-90 Russian tank), the BMD-4 comes with a smaller 100mm gun. Either way - all specs are compliant per RFI and has superior power to weight ratio, because it is way lighter than the ZTD-05 at 18 tons, achieved with an aluminum alloy armor. You can get all sorts of ATGM and missile launcher options which will cost you more coin. Amphib tanks are needed in our army direly because that is our fighting scenario.

Tank Destroyer Sprut-SD with 2A75 tank gun based on BMP-3 chassis (more road wheels/heavier hull for higher 18t weight) - doesn't the turret look like the Coelian of WWII?

Regular BMD-4 variants (13.6t)

With Kornet E

And here's one that can be a great candidate too except the calibre of the main gun is too small.

2S38 ZAK-57 Derivatsiya-PVO – Self-propelled air defense vehicle based on BMP-3 chassis fitted with a 57 mm autocannon and passive reconnaissance and target tracking equipment.[71] It is designed to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, aircraft, helicopters, and MLRS rockets.[72] 2S38 is equipped with a TV/thermal-imaging system with automatic target lock-on and tracking capabilities, a laser rangefinder and a laser guidance system. The optical and electronic target acquisition system can spot an aircraft at 6.4 km (4.0 mi) and using sectoral observation can detect aircraft over 12 km (7.5 mi) out. The cannon is fast enough to destroy targets traveling 500 m/s (1,100 mph; 1,800 km/h; Mach 1.5). Laser-guided, air burst and specialized anti-drone munitions for ZAK-57 are in development. Its guided projectiles have four wings folded in the casing and controlled by the actuator in the projectile’s nose section, using the energy of the airflow to steer themselves to the target.

 

[Avisheik]

Well the Sprut-SD Variant (Tank Killer) based on the BMP-3 Amphib tank carries a 2a75 125-mm smoothbore gun (same as the T-90 Russian tank), the BMD-4 comes with a smaller 100mm gun. Either way - all specs are compliant per RFI and has superior power to weight ratio, because it is way lighter than the ZTD-05 at 18 tons, achieved with an aluminum alloy armor. You can get all sorts of ATGM and missile launcher options which will cost you more coin. Amphib tanks are needed in our army direly because that is our fighting scenario.

Tank Destroyer Sprut-SD with 2A75 tank gun based on BMP-3 chassis (more road wheels/heavier hull for higher 18t weight) - doesn't the turret look like the Coelian of WWII?

Regular BMD-4 variants (13.6t)

With Kornet E

And here's one that can be a great candidate too except the calibre of the main gun is too small.

2S38 ZAK-57 Derivatsiya-PVO – Self-propelled air defense vehicle based on BMP-3 chassis fitted with a 57 mm autocannon and passive reconnaissance and target tracking equipment.[71] It is designed to shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), cruise missiles, air-to-surface missiles, aircraft, helicopters, and MLRS rockets.[72] 2S38 is equipped with a TV/thermal-imaging system with automatic target lock-on and tracking capabilities, a laser rangefinder and a laser guidance system. The optical and electronic target acquisition system can spot an aircraft at 6.4 km (4.0 mi) and using sectoral observation can detect aircraft over 12 km (7.5 mi) out. The cannon is fast enough to destroy targets traveling 500 m/s (1,100 mph; 1,800 km/h; Mach 1.5). Laser-guided, air burst and specialized anti-drone munitions for ZAK-57 are in development. Its guided projectiles have four wings folded in the casing and controlled by the actuator in the projectile’s nose section, using the energy of the airflow to steer themselves to the target.

Hahaha yea the range of vehicles is large if we go by what we know in the RFI. Wish they would have mentioned the effective range desired, or the armour thickness etc. Plus if i am not wrong, I think the light tank might be equipped with ATGW, either with the main gun or separately.

No mention of any anti air, other than the AAMG. In current warfare anti air is very crucial for many battlefield scenario, especially with the widespread use of attack helicopters and drones. For me, it would be really swell if they got the light tank equipped with RWS and APS like Arena or Qucik kill. But i highly doubt they will incorporate them to the vehicle.

I really like the derivatsya, if it can be equipped with some ATGMs and 105mm guns, then it will become one of the most capable weapons systems in our army. As for the Sprut it feels like a souped up T55

 

[Arthur]

What about the armour protection level?
Problem with older Russian designs are, the level of armour protection is next to nothing, don't provide any easy way for troop exit. Trying to get out through the top hatch during a amphibious landing is suicide.

Don't know about Chinese designs. But the possible theater of operation will be heavily contested. They might have considered that during design.

Can anyone shed some light here?

 

[Nike]

What about the armour protection level?
Problem with older Russian designs are, the level of armour protection is next to nothing, don't provide any easy way for troop exit. Trying to get out through the top hatch during a amphibious landing is suicide.

Don't know about Chinese designs. But the possible theater of operation will be heavily contested. They might have considered that during design.

Can anyone shed some light here?

Thats why you need strong air force and Navy to soften the possible resistance of enemy before landing operation begin

 

[Arthur]

Thats why you need strong air force and Navy to soften the possible resistance of enemy before landing operation begin

Yes, I know.

But 'armoured' vehicles are called "armoured " for a reason. Air cover takes care of hardened defences, "soften possible " threats . But it doesn't cover you from ambush and other non conventional threat.

Say a determined enemy is hiding with an anti armour weapon, how do you save soldiers from that? That's what good armour is for.

 

[The Ronin]

What about the armour protection level?

I guess the only suitable contender in VN-16 which has all-welded steel armour construction, which give protection against fire of small arms and artillery shell splinters. The rear part of the turret is also fitted with storage rack to provide additional protection against HEAT rounds.

And it's capable of crossing the sea, can't find anything on Sprut SD though except crossing a calm, small river. Does anyone know any other options from Type-B country?

https://www.armyrecognition.com/chi...eet_information_description_intelligence.html

Problem with older Russian designs are, the level of armour protection is next to nothing, don't provide any easy way for troop exit. Trying to get out through the top hatch during a amphibious landing is suicide.

The RFI is about amphibious tank, looks like you are talking about APC or something else.

 

[Nike]

Yes, I know.

But 'armoured' vehicles are called "armoured " for a reason. Air cover takes care of hardened defences, "soften " possible " threats . But it doesn't cover you fom ambush and other non conventional threat.

Say a determined enemy is hiding with an anti armour weapon, how do you save soldiers from that? That's what good armour is for.

Well most of amphibious Armored vehicle got a more thinner skin compared to their land version compatriot, and this not only happened toward the Soviet even US Marines Corps AAV 7 and LAV 3 is got much softer skin compared their Army cousins brother (Indonesia Marines happened to own both countries main amphibious assault vehicles like AAV 7, BMP 3F, BTR series and getting trained with their Marines annually and so on so we can compared them firsthand). This happened because amphibious vehicle need more buoyancy to achieve the needed speed when floating ashore.

Marines doctrine is always infantryman first, rifleman to boot and thats what they are best known for. So thin skin armor to bring them ashore safely during beachead operation to open the theater to made the possible landing secure for the much needed armored units or other units later by the means of LCAC or LST or LCU is just what they needed much enough. To assault the determined enemy with sophisticated anti armor weaponry is what every Marines trained for.

 

[Arthur]

I guess the only suitable contender in VN-16 which has all-welded steel armour construction, which give protection against fire of small arms and artillery shell splinters. The rear part of the turret is also fitted with storage rack to provide additional protection against HEAT rounds.

And it's capable of crossing the sea, can't find anything on Sprut SD though except crossing a calm, small river. Does anyone know any other options from Type-B country?

View attachment 555915


https://www.armyrecognition.com/chi...eet_information_description_intelligence.html

The RFI is about amphibious tank, looks like you are talking about APC or something else.

No bro, I am not. All these Russian designs has top exit doors behind the turret. Which is a setup i hate absolutely. And don't even mention Russian apc 's. Thing has a side door, which only help the shit to break in two pieces if come to contact with IED/mine, like what happened in mali. We bought those Atokar cobras with mine/IED signal jammers to mitigate that threat.

Well most of amphibious Armored vehicle got a more thinner skin compared to their land version compatriot, and this not only happened toward the Soviet even US Marines Corps AAV 7 and LAV 3 is got much softer skin compared their Army cousins brother (Indonesia Marines happened to own both countries main amphibious assault vehicles like AAV 7, BMP 3F, BTR series and getting trained with their Marines annually and so on so we can compared them firsthand). This happened because amphibious vehicle need more buoyancy to achieve the needed speed when floating ashore.

Marines doctrine is always infantryman first, rifleman to boot and thats what they are best known for. So thin skin armor to bring them ashore safely during beachead operation to open the theater to made the possible landing secure for the much needed armored units or other units later by the means of LCAC or LST or LCU is just what they needed much enough. To assault the determined enemy with sophisticated anti armor weaponry is what every Marines trained for.

You are correct to the T. I was talking based on the BD conext in mind, which I failed to mention in my post. sorry.

Well, in BD we can not really call our amphibious units a Marine force. just regular infantry brigades getting trained in amphibious landing. As we can't spare lot of resources, the concept is adapted, tweaked to the limits, Many aspect of a traditional marine doctrine and tactics will be curtailed. So chances are these same units will take part in further operations inland. In that situation an weak armoured vehicle will really fall short.