Military Review

Slovenian combat module ODIN 570

57
At the Eurosatory 2016 exhibition recently held in France, VALHALLA from Slovenia presented the ODIN 570 combat module with the famous L70 automatic automatic gun (57 mm) made by the Swedish concern Bofors, reports Messenger of Mordovia.




Ammunition gun is 100 shots. There is also an 5,56-mm twin machine gun and a remote-controlled machine gun caliber 7,62-mm. Ammunition of both - on 2 thousand cartridges.

“L70 is able to effectively destroy various armored vehicles such as BMP, BRM and BTR. And also disable the main combat Tanks, hit planes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. The module has the necessary reservation. It is equipped with modern multi-channel sights, so the crew gets the opportunity to hit targets both day and night, ”the article says.

Slovenian combat module ODIN 570


According to the author, "Slovenian specialists offer ODIN 570 for installation on modern combat vehicles, like the German Puma BMP, and on obsolete tanks, such as Leopard 1, M-60, T-72."

It is noted that their version of the T-72 with the specified module, the developers called BMPT-72.

“According to military experts, despite the fact that the development of the Slovenes are quite interesting, they will not seriously compete with such giants as UVZ. However, it is possible that they will be able to conclude a certain number of orders, including the modernization of the T-72, ”writes the publication.

Photos used:
VALHALLA, Alexey Khlopotov (gurkhan.blogspot.ru)
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 1 July 2016 13: 04
    +11
    "And also disable main battle tanks"

    A very bold statement for such a caliber. request
    1. Pavel1
      Pavel1 1 July 2016 13: 10
      +2
      it turns out there is a Slovenian artillery school, what do they still have their own?
      1. cyberhanter
        cyberhanter 1 July 2016 13: 31
        +2
        and what did you see yours in this development? Blueprints? the gun is Swedish, the rest is not said. Armor steel can also be imported)
      2. Denis Obukhov
        Denis Obukhov 1 July 2016 13: 51
        +3
        Putting on the T-72 combat module with one 57-mm cannon and 2 machine guns is stupid, based on the purpose of the chassis
        But on the BMP-1 and BMP-2 chassis - very interesting
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 1 July 2016 16: 23
          +2
          Quote: Denis Obukhov
          But on the BMP-1 and BMP-2 chassis - very interesting

          Judging by the presented figures, the dimensions of this module - be healthy! And he weighs, apparently, respectively. It is no coincidence that it is proposed to install it on the Puma and T-72 - because they weigh that one, that the other - more than 40 tons. On the BMP-2 weighing 14 tons, this unit is unlikely to find a place. And from here the question arises - why such a heavy module with relatively weak weapons?
        2. Come on
          Come on 3 July 2016 13: 29
          0
          What is interesting about the BMP1 and 2 chassis? Cardboard armor and no armor protection? Horseradish resistance against recoil and a bunch of other shortcomings? Just the chassis from the old tanks is most suitable for such a gun, to be at least invulnerable to the cannons of small enemy caliber, up to 105mm, if they are added with additional armor on the sides.
    2. figwam
      figwam 1 July 2016 13: 10
      +10
      Quote: Vladimirets
      "And also disable main battle tanks"

      A very bold statement for such a caliber. request

      It means that he will demolish all the attachments on the tank, after which aiming and firing for the tank will be problematic.
    3. Khariton
      Khariton 1 July 2016 13: 11
      -5
      We know their designs ... They went under the Germans immediately in the 40s with all their designs! Now they will keep within the USA and England ... And again we will have to break the ridge! Everything is trite and already known! hi
      1. joopel
        joopel 1 July 2016 13: 19
        +6
        Hariton, Haros already sob. Do not trifle, send all uncensored. Seven-story, may feel better. And it will be more fun without you. Do not be a bore.
        1. Khariton
          Khariton 1 July 2016 13: 40
          +2
          Quote: joopel
          Hariton, Haros already sob. Do not trifle, send all uncensored. Seven-story, may feel better. And it will be more fun without you. Do not be a bore.

          Do you want to get rid of me ... (who’s the team leader there ..?))) I’m just writing what I think and don’t touch you (jackals kicked me clearly already ..)))) Enough already!
          I am not like you! soldier
          1. joopel
            joopel 1 July 2016 14: 08
            +3
            I agree, you are not like me. We are all different. Who kicked you? What are you drilling? From resuscitation correspondence slash? Epaulettes tore off? Damaging loss. Pure shoulder straps, a clear conscience.
        2. Monarchist
          Monarchist 1 July 2016 16: 11
          0
          Ober lieutenant I make a remark to you: why provokes Chariton? I do not like all his statements, but in this particular case he is right: they drag all the developments in the key to the Anglo-Saxons, and this idea seems to me not the most sensible
    4. razmik72
      razmik72 1 July 2016 13: 16
      +11
      It seems to me that this is just a branch of the Swedish company "Bofors" in Slovenia, and not an independent company, I made an assumption about this, based on the following:
      The name of the Slovenian company VALHALLA corresponds to the Old Norse divine pantheon, and the name of the module - ODIN is stylized as the terrible Scandinavian god of war.
    5. joopel
      joopel 1 July 2016 13: 22
      +9
      This is a wonderful caliber. The armor of a modern tank may not be taken, but everything will be completely cleaned from the armor, including rollers. This is called, disable. And it’s better not to meddle with armored vehicles for this caliber.
    6. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog 1 July 2016 16: 06
      +2
      Well, why is it possible to damage the gun mask or surveillance tools? They did not declare the destruction of armored vehicles! Again, you can tear the tracks with such a baby!
      1. kirieeleyson
        kirieeleyson 2 July 2016 01: 14
        0
        Ahahah, yes, to tear and dazzle the trucks. Kamikaze army, truck destroyers, yes.
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. Shuttle
      Shuttle 4 July 2016 09: 03
      +1
      Quote: Vladimirets
      "And also disable main battle tanks"

      A very bold statement for such a caliber. request

      Normal statement. After all, it is not said to "destroy", namely to disable.
      57-mm is quite enough to smash through a series of shots DZ, external tanks, it is possible to damage optics and electronic equipment. And certainly enough to damage the chassis.
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 1 July 2016 13: 09
    +5
    I don’t understand one thing, why is this module on the T-72 chassis ?! It’s rather weak for supporting infantry, it’s funny against tanks, it’s useless against aviation! So why then ?!)
    1. marshes
      marshes 1 July 2016 13: 12
      0
      Quote: Magic Archer
      I don’t understand one thing, why is this module on the T-72 chassis?

      Maybe the working chassis for some as "dirt", and in the article they are positioned as
      It is noted that the developers called their version of the T-72 with the specified module BMPT-72
      1. Magic archer
        Magic archer 1 July 2016 13: 17
        0
        Dear, I read the article carefully. Read my koment. The bottom line is that the infantry support machine (for example, our Terminator) has a much stronger composition of weapons. In addition to the gun, there are guns and machine guns plus the installation of the AGS is possible. And here what? 50 mm cannon infantry can not help much. I hope I clearly explained my point
        1. marshes
          marshes 1 July 2016 13: 27
          +1
          Quote: Magic Archer
          I hope I clearly explained my point

          May the working chassis have some as "dirt

          For my part, the same can intelligibly.

          Quote: Magic Archer
          . The bottom line is that the infantry support vehicle (for example, our Terminator) has a much stronger composition of weapons. In addition to the gun, there are guns and machine guns, plus AGS can be installed

          We have a BMPT and that, in addition to the command vehicle, we could not adapt to the Sturm-S platoon. Yes BMPT-72, this is our request, or rather the module for the Chassis-T-72, which we plan to install in Semipalatinsk.
          And then the Slovenes, I looked fussed.
    2. Kent0001
      Kent0001 1 July 2016 15: 20
      0
      That would be. Many people now produce such modules, but to put them on the T-72 chassis, sorry, but this is complete idiocy.
      1. marshes
        marshes 1 July 2016 15: 34
        +1
        Quote: Kent0001
        That would be. Many people now produce such modules, but to put them on the T-72 chassis, sorry, but this is complete idiocy

        Why did you decide so, So the module for BMPT is the same idiocy.
    3. db1967
      db1967 1 July 2016 18: 16
      +1
      Well, it’s completely incomprehensible what actually but L70 is or may be in this module.
      The gun itself is both accurate and long-range.
  3. Winnie76
    Winnie76 1 July 2016 13: 18
    +1
    And I would take it, in traffic jams, a very useful thing ... Will it be interesting for Grand Vitara to stand up without an overkill? laughing
  4. Berkut24
    Berkut24 1 July 2016 13: 22
    0
    Somewhat bulky this module. Our cramped 125mm killer into a much smaller volume.
  5. Polite Moose
    Polite Moose 1 July 2016 13: 28
    +2
    I have a question for the specialists.
    Please comment on the presence on the module of 2 different machine guns of approximately the same type. I would not ask questions if the remote control 12,7 and twin 7,62 (5,56). And so, I suspect that there are reasons for this configuration, but ... request
  6. ARES623
    ARES623 1 July 2016 13: 32
    +4
    Maybe this particular BM is weaker than ours, but one must bear in mind the emergence of a tendency to switch to machines of a larger caliber. If the 40-mm bofors projectile with remote detonation was quite serious, judging by the demonstration firing, then the 57 mm would be a serious weapon against the infantry in the trench, but the BTR-BMP with helicopters would "suck" from it. I wouldn't laugh at this thing. And the attachment of automatic grenade launchers and containers with ATGM is a matter of time. And they hang it on the T-72 because a 125-mm b / p was sold to Ukraine along with the barrels, but the chassis remained, why stand idle? IMHO.
  7. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 1 July 2016 13: 43
    -1
    Ammunition is small for a cannon, the hundredth shell will spit out in battle, and then what to hang a white flag?
  8. Leonid Har
    Leonid Har 1 July 2016 14: 15
    -2
    Shoots cumulative shells of 57 caliber or what? Disable the tracks and rollers of the main tanks, if it comes to the distance of the shot? He will not be allowed to come so close.
  9. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 1 July 2016 14: 19
    +2
    In the last photo, an almost perfect BMPD is drawn, supplemented with a pair of rocket launchers and that's it.
    The 57mm gun makes it possible to fight almost any threat to the escorted tank at short and medium distances. I think such a machine would be very effective against suicide vehicles in Syria.
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 1 July 2016 15: 39
      0
      This is not a BMPD, but an artillery system with a ship’s gun.
  10. kolkulon
    kolkulon 1 July 2016 14: 49
    +4
    Ours looks much cooler.
    1. marshes
      marshes 1 July 2016 14: 56
      +2
      Quote: kolkulon
      Ours looks much cooler.

      Sorry, is there a remote detonation?
      Here is a competitor in the form of Odin for Baikal, a mercantile interest was drawn for installation on the Barys 8x8, T-72 chassis.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 1 July 2016 16: 51
        +2
        Quote: marshes
        Sorry, is there a remote detonation?

        Only for the customer’s money. If he pays for R&D and production, they will even make a TOUR in 57-mm caliber. smile

        In real life, to our module there are only shells from S-60 remaining in warehouses.
        1. marshes
          marshes 1 July 2016 16: 59
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Only for the customer’s money. If he pays for R&D and production, they will even make a TOUR in 57-mm caliber.

          In real life, to our module there are only shells from S-60 remaining in warehouses.

          So ours will reflect smile , originally they planned to put Bahchu on Barys 8x8, ideally Berzhka would be enough for the eyes or the module from the BTR-82A.
          And One is interesting, the army recalled ONE! smile And one is right there.
  11. Engineer
    Engineer 1 July 2016 15: 29
    +1
    Quote: Genry
    This is a melee vehicle. Your external ATGMs, after 5 minutes of battle, will look like holey buckets.
    There is a corresponding technique against tanks. And this BMPT can stand aside, cut off the infantry.

    Firstly, this is not a car, but a combat module for a car. Secondly, this module is equipped with a 57mm Bofors naval gun with an effective range of 8,5 km. Yeah, melee machine, you can’t argue.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 1 July 2016 16: 52
      +2
      Quote: Engineer
      Secondly, this module is equipped with a 57mm Bofors naval gun with an effective range of 8,5 km.

      SUAO on this module is also ship? Because shoot and hit are different things. smile
    2. Genry
      Genry 2 July 2016 12: 31
      0
      Quote: Engineer
      Firstly, this is not a car, but a combat module for a car.

      I mean Foma and you tell me about Yerema ... Read more closely, the discussion was about a car based on T-72. Or you already have "age".
      Quote: Engineer
      Secondly, this module is equipped with a 57mm Bofors naval gun with an effective range of 8,5 km. Yeah, melee machine, you can’t argue.

      This is a ballistic range. Everything will be much more modest for a flat shot.
      And even 9 km is this, long-range combat? ... in your opinion, this is the range of a direct shot (although you’ll get to hell). Who will be closer?
      The purpose of such a gun (module) is to quickly destroy small targets in trenches, in shelters, to repel helicopters and low-flying UAVs and BMP BTR for a snack. This is the hottest point of the battle.
  12. K-50
    K-50 1 July 2016 15: 50
    +1
    But what is the point of changing a 125-mm caliber gun to 57 on a tank chassis? If there are no more goodies, then definitely negative
    1. marshes
      marshes 1 July 2016 15: 55
      +1
      Quote: K-50
      And the point is to change the gun of 125-mm caliber to 57 on a tank chassis

      If the guns are gone. laughing Yes, and the BMP 1,2 are absent or "breathe incense".
  13. afrikanez
    afrikanez 1 July 2016 16: 22
    +1
    If such a module is installed on the T-72, then it is not clear what the benefit will be. For me 125mm is better than 57mm. The only thing is of course the rate of fire. Our "Terminator" in my opinion is much more interesting and solid.
  14. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 1 July 2016 17: 08
    0
    If you take a closer look, you can see that the photo of the combat module on the T-72 platform is very similar to the photo-toad.
    Pay attention to the dimensions of the module in the first and second picture in relation to different chassis. Probably just pasted the photo on the photo in the case of the T-72.
  15. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 1 July 2016 17: 11
    0
    Slovenia is a member of NATO. NATO members do not need to invent and make any weapons, they do not need to arm themselves, they do not even need to think. The United States will come up with and make up all the weapons they need, they will arm them, they will also tell who these weapons should be directed at. Everything is simple and clear and Slovenia does not need to complicate the situation with all sorts of modules that no one needs ..
  16. APASUS
    APASUS 1 July 2016 17: 27
    0
    What kind of monster is this?
    Take a disassemble tank and stick a 57 mm gun there and what does this give in addition to deterioration of the tank performance characteristics. If you only upgrade the T-34
    1. marshes
      marshes 1 July 2016 17: 34
      +4
      Quote: APASUS
      Take a disassemble tank and stick a 57 mm gun there and what does this give in addition to deterioration of the tank performance characteristics. If you only upgrade the T-34

      And what about this. They also worsened the tank performance characteristics. smile A competitor appears.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 1 July 2016 18: 26
        0
        Quote: marshes
        And what about this. They also worsened the tank performance characteristics.

        Unlike the ODIN 570 combat module, the Terminator has something to withstand the tank and the protected fortifications. But there is no point in refuting such nonsense
        And also disable main battle tanks, destroy planes,
        1. marshes
          marshes 1 July 2016 18: 45
          0
          Quote: APASUS
          Unlike the ODIN 570 combat module, the Terminator has something to withstand the tank and the protected fortifications. But there is no point in refuting such nonsense

          Well, yes, in addition to the three Storms C or Chrysanthemums C.
          30 is not enough, you can simply install a ZSU-23/4 somewhere on a hill. If you butt with the "partisans".
          What OVER ATGM does not have will be decided over time.
          And so a real example of a "city" tank, Only I, Lopatov and AVT "sucked" this topic earlier, converged on a 120 mm gun, from Vienna or Nona. The most successful solution would have been the Slovenians, I did not expect them to have prime minister to work he rides on the Velek, such a thing was offered, they got into trouble that they didn't bring it to CADEKS 2016, but put it on display in France.
          http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2016/06/bmpt-72-57.html
          1. APASUS
            APASUS 1 July 2016 20: 56
            -2
            Quote: marshes
            a real example of a "city" tank,

            What kind of city tank?
            Chechnya’s experience doesn’t teach. Just look at the argument of our military about not adopting this vehicle, but this monster will be inferior to the Terminator
            1. marshes
              marshes 1 July 2016 21: 05
              +1
              Quote: APASUS
              Chechnya’s experience doesn’t teach. Just look at our military’s argument about not adopting this machine

              What kind of car are you telling us? The T-72 recently proposed for urban combat, the T-72 KZ Shygys, looks better, though there is no bulldozer dump. But it is very expensive. That the Jordanians allowed to buy it.
              Quote: APASUS
              and this monster will yield to the Terminator

              What?
            2. Come on
              Come on 3 July 2016 16: 56
              -1
              In my opinion, the Terminator would be more effective if it had 30mm programmable shells and accuracy over long distances. Further km accuracy is not particularly in the A242. For example, the Puma can conduct targeted fire with programmable ammunition up to 3km, only ATGM will help a terminator at such a distance, but this is another song, at the expense of infantry effectiveness, which, for example, is behind concrete barriers, or in trenches, behind hills. It’s not clear to me why they still haven’t made a cannon based on 2A42 with a lower cadence for the required accuracy (for example, 4 programmable projectiles squared 2 by 2 m from distances greater than 2 km) did not take measures to reduce the vibration of a long barrel, like dill did, or the Germans on their Puma, and of course the programmable, telescopic BC, is very necessary. Indeed, in general, the 2A42 gun is good, that is, the base, the barrel is. Even under criticism, at least more than once have the opinions of people in the subject have met that 2 barrels create too strong vibration and it is impossible to use other weapons while firing 30mm cannons. You can shoot first, then another. The effectiveness of ATGMs with a laser guidance system against a modern one equipped with all kinds of passive and active armored systems is, in my opinion, also questionable, I need ATGM shot-forgot, with GOS like Spike or Javelin, but in a conflict like a civil war in Syria, where the equipment 50-80s Terminator might come in handy.

              The Slovak version with a 57mm cannon is very interesting in my opinion, as is the Russian 57mm cannon, but not with the S-60 BK. There is also a programmable BC already on the Bofors Mk3 57mm, below the video. The effective maximum battle distance should be at least 5 km and then the Slovak version becomes very dangerous for everything, even tanks to a certain extent, and even helicopters with attack aircraft at distances up to 5 km. The SLA of modern infantry fighting vehicles has an automatic tracking system for purposes moving no more than 250 km / h, with everything that flies onto the BM gun, or to a certain angle to the left and right, the SLA is of course even easier to handle and there is a high probability of one or several programmable hits, maybe with extra. radio fuse of shells of such a caliber in LA. High and effective against infantry, in armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, in trenches, buildings, concrete shelters. Moreover, the effective firing range of 5 km will complicate the calculations of ATGMs greatly life. If we take into account the penetration of modern BOPS caliber of 30-40 mm, then the BOPS 57 mm should have at least 150 mm by 1-1,5 km, and this T-72 can also be dangerous, depending on which side, of course, but there are 72 at least immobilize can and severely damage the OMS. Although of course it is indisputable against the tanks of the Terminator ATGMs more efficiently.

              My conclusion is that the Slovak module on the T-72, against everything except the tanks, is more effective than the Terminator. As a means of combating the calculations of ATGMs, infantry sheltered in buildings, concrete partitions, trenches, etc. The Terminator is much inferior not only to TBMP with a 57mm gun, but also to other types of armored vehicles with programmable shells 30-40mm. Carrying ATGMs just to destroy enemy tanks, although Terminator alone, without tanks, will probably never appear on the battlefield, I do not see much point. It would make more sense if one gun were removed, one centrally placed, paired with 7,62 mm, all in a fairly flat tower such as Bahcha, on which they would put a DBM with an AGS and another 7,62 and a panoramic sight . Then the gunner could wage his war with 30mm and 7,62, the commander with the AGS and also his own 7,62. The crew is 3 people, and the space saved is for 4-8 Cornet ATGMs, with launchers similar to those of Chrysanthemums, or for landing, ext. BC, but malol of what.
            3. Come on
              Come on 3 July 2016 16: 57
              0
              Oh yes, the Bofors Mk3 57mm video
  17. marshes
    marshes 1 July 2016 18: 08
    +1
    And yet, for the defense of a tank or other product, I am impressed by the 7.62 mm module. Yes, the caliber is small, it will not "decompose" a brick wall. That's 12,7, but everyone has forgotten about the mass of the module, plus the body and ammunition. With mythical helicopters and UAVs you can like they fight. Time for reaction is not enough to turn such a mass.
    So the DBM 7.62 on the T-90 MS is of great interest. Another thing is to put, mate, 12.7 with the main 125 mm gun. Like on old post-war tanks.
    1. Come on
      Come on 4 July 2016 02: 23
      0
      Quote: marshes
      you can fight them with mythical helicopters and UAVs. There isn’t enough time for response to crank up such a mass.


      Take an interest in how many Grad / sec a U-turn of a modern tank turret produces, not to mention the faster BMP towers. Judging by the speed of the gun’s turn, there will be no problems against supersonic aircraft, it is more than enough. And there is nothing mythical in this, the SLA of modern infantry fighting vehicles already initially implies the fight against aircraft to certain speeds and distances, for this there is an automatic target tracking. The laser measures the distance, when measuring again, and the angular velocity and in a split second calculates the lead, takes the target for tracking, the crew only needs to decide how many bursts of 3-4 shells to do.
  18. marshes
    marshes 1 July 2016 20: 13
    0
    The Slovenes hope to "frustrate" the Creators of the Baikal module, and they will be able to offer something in the future. If the Russian Federation does not need a plant for the production of 57mm ammunition, you can place it in Kazakhstan.
    more BA (BTR) Tiger, price and quality is the best example of armored vehicles, a lot of this class has been studied.
    T-90 MS is also interesting.
    In short, there is a whole line of weapons, for the price and quality that is of interest.
    The main thing is not to "dumb", do not slow down, expand the possibilities.
    1. Come on
      Come on 3 July 2016 13: 22
      0
      Quote: marshes
      more BA (BTR) Tiger, price and quality is the best example of armored vehicles, a lot of this class has been studied.


      The tiger is the best model of armored personnel carriers?) This is a very bold statement!;) But the ammunition 57mm before producing, you must first create them. We need telescopic ammunition (especially in such a calligraphy) and programmable, as well as BOPs, maybe some small URs. Or are you for the production of ammunition for the S-60?
  19. tyler2
    tyler2 3 July 2016 14: 25
    0
    This module should be at least two times smaller, or even three.
  20. Alex1977RUS
    Alex1977RUS 5 July 2016 14: 40
    +1
    Quote: Denis Obukhov
    Putting on the T-72 combat module with one 57-mm cannon and 2 machine guns is stupid, based on the purpose of the chassis
    But on the BMP-1 and BMP-2 chassis - very interesting

    Why stupidity, judging by the name BMPT-72 (tank support combat vehicle (T 72 chassis)) the task of this machine is escort and sorry for the tautalogy of tank support)))
    It is stated - “L70 is capable of effectively destroying various armored vehicles such as BMP, BRM and BTR. And also disable the main battle tanks, destroy planes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles.
    Is the 57 mm cannon located on the MBT chassis capable of effectively fighting BMPs, armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers?
    Capable of.
    Can it do it faster and cheaper than a 125 mm smoothbore gun?
    Capable of anti-aircraft 57 mm gun to effectively combat combat helicopters and low-flying aircraft?
    Capable of.
    Able to 57 mm automatic gun to disable surveillance devices, sights, guns and mounted equipment MBT, shoot down sights, minimizing return fire and allowing their MBT without loss, without being subjected to return fire calmly hit a blind, unarmed tank?
    Capable of.
    What's wrong ?