A little context on & a few examples of, Russian Federation BMP-3 & BDM-4 series IFVs' catastrophic disruptions. This due to full or partial ‘en masse’ detonation of their 100 mm 2A70 gun’s non-insensitive munitions (IM) compliant munitions
Failure of these IFV families is down to three main factors; a lack of adequate armour protection; the non-IM explosive fills used in their 100 mm munitions; & the format of their ammunition stowage system (examples attached). Trooper-carried munitions may also be problematic.
The IFV carry a combination of 9M117-series GL-ATGM & HE-frag rounds, which include the 3UOF17, 3UOF19 & 3UOF26 families. The GL-ATGM are Okfol-3.5 filled, the HE-frag A-IX-2. The fills aren't IM-compliant, nor are their propellants, or their fuze’s boosters.
Perforation of the armour allows their munitions to be struck. If struck with sufficient impetus, the HE & likely their propellant fills will detonate. The lack of shielding between munitions allows the propagation of detonation by direct contact or fragment strikes.
The result of a full or even partial ‘en masse’ detonation is, as mentioned, catastrophic, with almost certain death for all crew members & carried troopers. Death is via multiple fragment impact & blast effects, the result of which is very little left of the personnel.
As to the 30 mm 3UOF6 HEI ammunition, this has a low propensity for en masse detonation. Even if en masse detonation occurs the likelihood of catastrophic disruption of the vehicle is next to zero. The frag & blast effects from these rounds in a confined space is however lethal.
Examples, with all but a few thanks to Ukraine Weapons Tracker (@UAWeapons), as are follows. Firstly a good view inside an intact BMD-4M from the 30th April 2022, showing the problems due to its ammo stowage.
The first rather catastrophic example is from the IAA Forum (forum.cartridgecollectors.org). Internal fragment strikes from what are likely its HE-frag projectile rounds are present on most internals surfaces.
Just a corrective note - as there's still no minor edit function - the 30 mm HEI round is the 3UOF8. not the 3UOF6. I was half asleep & feeling rather rough (a cold) when putting this together & mixed up the designations 3UOR6 HEI-T with the 3UOF8 HEI. fenix-insight.online/munition/canno…
In reference to a reply by @millenboy and to give further context, I had to research the historical & scientific data on IM up to the date the article below was published... some +17 years ago as of now. Further free info at the website linked below. insensitivemunitions.org
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Like the prior post on the 3OF22 RAP, this would seem to be another use of an infrequently-seen munitions. In this case they are being fired from a 2S4 (2С4) Tyul’pan (Тюльпан, lit. Tulip) 240 mm self-propelled heavy mortar.
Unfortunately, though a great image, the view of the munition isn’t clear. As such it could be one of three munitions, which look very similar. However, as far as I can tell, it is not firing a 3VF4 (3ВФ4) round & hence the 3F5 (3Ф5) Smel'chak (Смельчак) guided projectile.
The 1st of the possible munitions is the 3VF2 round. This uses the 3F2 rocket-assisted HE-frag projectile (‘mortar bomb’). This has a large impact-fuzed warhead that contains more HE than the weight of most 152 mm projectiles. fenix-insight.online/munition/morta…
These would seem to be two of infrequently-seen and originally Soviet-era-developed 152 mm rocket assisted projectiles (RAP). More specifically these would seem to be early-adopted (1975) 3OF22 (3ОФ22) RAP, their codename Kren (Крен).
The 3OF22 has a 3-part body with: a fuze adapter/booster holder at the front; a forward ogival nose assembly; & a partitioned rear body assembly. The ogival nose & front cavity in the rear body hold the explosive charge, the rear cavity in the rear body holds the rocket motor.
The rocket motor has its own igniter that operates (starts) under the forces of firing. The igniter, which is essentially a base-mounted powder-train time fuze, ignites the rocket motor downrange after a present time period, boosting the projectile's velocity.
What appears to be the previously operationally-unseen, advanced Russian top-attack anti-tank & anti-vehicle mine, the PTKM-1R (ПТКМ-1Р). This was discovered on the 26th of April in the Ukraine. An image of the munition attached to the tweet.
In operation the base unit of the PTKM-1R detects its target & then launches a sensor-fuzed munition/submunition (SFM/SFS) over its target. See video for further details.
The PTKM-1R, which is similar to the US M93 Hornet Wide-Area Munition (WAM), is thought to have been adopted by the Russian Armed Forces (on a limited basis) in July 2020. Fenix Insight has a detailed entry on this new munition, its link below. fenix-insight.online/munition/mine/…
I'm not sure if people are mixing up Latin script with Cyrillic, but it's the 3R-41 (3Р-41) Volna (Волна). This known to the West by its NATO reporting name of 'Top Dome'. A hyphen should be present as it's a Russian Navy URAV index code, not a Russian Army GRAU index code.
The 3R-41 radar control system provides missile & target tracking, plus command links. When writing the Jane's Naval Weapons (JNW) entry on the system, reference material stated it 'can' be used to search, but the vessel's search radar is normally used.
The 3R-41, along with the 3Ts-41 target designation system, were used with the 3M-41 (5V55RM) SAM. All were originally part of the S-300F (С-300Ф) Fort (Форт) SAM system. This may have the 3K-41 URAV index code, its NATO reporting name reportedly SA-N-6 Grumble.
The video shows the use and effect of artillery rocket delivered high explosive fragmentation (HE-frag) submunitions, either the 9N210 or the 9N235. This was logged earlier today in the Fenix munition use event database system, but I was too busy to post anything until now.
Various video frame captures show the highlighted submunitions falling or exploding. The bottom left & bottom right images show the same submunition, its fuze's self-destruct (SD) mechanism operating correctly after a short period of time.
Many of the submunitions can be seen failing with their noses/fuzes not pointing straight downwards, which is why 1 is later seen to self-destruct & not explode on impact. Many fall in a manner suggesting they have stability problems & hence 1 of the reasons why they often fail.
What would seem to be parts of a 9N510 warhead, which is used by both the 9M22S and the 9M28S 122 mm incendiary submunition dispensing artillery rockets.
Seen in the images are: top left (TL) = the internal diaphragm between the 2 payload areas of the warhead; TR = the fuze remnants attached to the forward nose body; BL & BR = burnt-out incendiary submunitions.
The 9M22S was developed for use with the 2B5 or 2B17 multiple rocket launcher (MRL) of the 9K51 Grad system (MRLS). More details can be found here. fenix-insight.online/munition/rocke…