Military Review

Heavy infantry fighting vehicle BMPV-64. Ukraine

18


This is another option for remaking old Soviet tanks in BMP.

Heavy infantry fighting vehicle BMPV-64. Ukraine


The prototype of the heavy armored vehicle BMPV-64 was developed in Ukraine as a private initiative of the Kharkov BTRZ. The first prototype was completed in 2005 year. This machine is a deep modernization of the honored MBT T-64. The Ukrainian army has several thousand of these tanks. BMPV-64 is designed to transport and support infantry. The machine was created taking into account the experience of the action of infantry fighting vehicles in urban environments, or rather their unsuccessful actions, due to the catastrophically insufficient booking. It was during the city battles that these shortcomings came to light, since the tactics of the use of infantry fighting vehicles during normal military operations, they must go behind the tanks, and their function was reduced only to the function of delivering infantry to the attack site. But in urban battles, where, as such, the enemy's line of defense is blurred, and attacks can be expected from any direction and from any home. BMPs often found themselves on the front line, where they suffered heavy losses.

BMPV-64 has a composite armor which is supplemented with blocks of dynamic armor. The lower part of the hull was also strengthened in comparison with the T-64 tank, to the level at which the BMPV-64 could survive the 4 exploding kg of anti-personnel mine. In addition, a heavy BTR can be equipped with an active protection system - Barrier. It is alleged that this armored personnel carrier has little or no worse protection than most tanks.



The prototype of this heavy armored personnel carrier is equipped with a remote-controlled combat module, which is armed with an 30-mm cannon and an 7,62-mm machine gun coupled with it. The machine also provides for the installation of one remote-controlled 12,7-mm machine gun.

Engine BMVV-64 is in front. The designers actually made the front of the car behind the tank body, so this heavy BTR, so to speak, goes backwards, compared to the T-64. The front engine location provides additional protection and provides enough space for the landing force. Entrance and exit of infantrymen in this machine is through the rear doors.

As an engine, the BMPV-64 uses the proven multi-fuel diesel engine 5TDF, which develops horsepower in 700. The car is also being offered by the Ukrainian 6TD diesel engine developing horsepower 1 000. With this motor, the car can reach speeds of up to 75 km / h.

Various versions of this BMP are offered, such as a commander machine, an ACS for an 120-mm mortar, an evacuation vehicle, and others. Such large upgrade possibilities make it possible to install various combat modules weighing up to 22 tons on this machine. In the base case, the BMP weighs 32,5 tons. In the basic version, the car can easily accommodate up to 12 paratroopers and 3 crew members.

Originator:
http://alternathistory.org.ua
18 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. datur
    datur 24 May 2011 11: 39
    -1
    cheap and efficient. but not for our nano-managers. let them even junk but imported and for a lot of money. The main thing is that the rollback is bigger and the homeland is sideways.
  2. yuvit
    yuvit 24 May 2011 12: 29
    +1
    I’m not a tanker, but the video shows that the maneuverability of the car is unsatisfactory, the exhaust system is not finalized, it makes it difficult to control the machine, and the impression is quite satisfactory
    1. Dvu.ru-shnik
      Dvu.ru-shnik 25 May 2011 21: 14
      +4
      Moreover, the car took the whole complex of transmission flaws of the T-64 and the poor weight distribution and balancing of the BMP-1 and 2. The nose part is noticeably weighted, which will give considerable longitudinal vibrations of the hull on rough terrain. Those. became a collection point for tank sores and infantry fighting vehicles. They did the right thing in releasing it in one copy. For demonstrations at exhibitions and salons - you look at some Georgia and buy it.
      The nose projection is not protected from anti-tank weapons. The crew is covered almost exclusively by the engine, hit which destroys the car. The bulk of modern ATGM hits the target from the upper front hemisphere, and here is the dynamic protection that covers the car only from RPGs with a horizontal path to the side projection, which is unlikely when conducting a battle in a city where most of the AT vehicles are located on the upper floors. Until I figured out where the fuel tanks are located. Is it also in the bow? It might be worth considering a low aft engine location (as on the BMP-3) or with an average engine location (as on the MTLB). This would dramatically improve driving performance, thereby improving the conditions for aiming and firing. There is no need to speak about the possibility of forcing water barriers immediately. The car will not be able to swim or cross reservoirs along the bottom, only by existing or induced crossings, and even then not by all. The weapons unit for a machine with such a mass and such an engine does not look solid, even compared to the 18 ton BMP-3. At least a block of ATGMs and MANPADS would be installed. Well, if you were going to fight on it in the city, then here RPO on the sides of the gun should be set. It is simple to provide a combined multifunctional mount for attaching the ATGM, MANPADS and RPO with an elevation angle - like a 30 mm gun
      1. alex-defensor
        alex-defensor 12 February 2012 11: 35
        0
        The mine action complex has not been carried out. This is already evident from the way the seats are installed. It should be noted that on the basis of the old T-64 there is no possibility to implement such a set of measures, there is not enough space.
  3. cabin boy
    cabin boy 24 May 2011 15: 32
    0
    "But in urban battles, where the enemy's line of defense as such is blurred, an attack can be expected from any direction and from any home." Neither firing nor observation of the battlefield by the landing force is provided, they are just passengers, "... their function was reduced only to the function of delivering infantry to the place of attack."
    It is not shown how water obstacles will be overcome.
    The most important question is how much the deepest modernization of the well-deserved MBT T-64 will cost, maybe in the end it will turn out to be cheaper to buy two new BMPTs.
  4. Joker
    Joker 24 May 2011 17: 18
    0
    The question of equivalent with respect to monolithic armor remains open.

    Dynamic protection for infantry fighting vehicles is a moot decision.

    A good platform for installing various weapons.
  5. CARTRIDGE
    CARTRIDGE 24 May 2011 18: 01
    0
    similar to american
    why nothing is said about the operation of the remote gun?
  6. Helmut
    Helmut 24 May 2011 19: 28
    +1
    Why is he so smoking? The engine of the pindets?
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 25 May 2011 21: 36
      +1
      No, rather low-quality fuel.
    2. urzul
      urzul 30 January 2012 15: 30
      +1
      He definitely doesn’t need a smoke curtain director, just stand on the spot for half a minute
  7. MaxArt
    MaxArt 24 May 2011 22: 19
    +1
    I think this car should not be taken seriously. You just have to do something with a lot of obsolete equipment. So they are trying ...
  8. PSih2097
    PSih2097 25 May 2011 21: 58
    0
    I have a feeling that they ripped off this:

    1. Dvu.ru-shnik
      Dvu.ru-shnik 27 May 2011 17: 20
      0
      Is that an arms unit.
      1. Banderlos
        Banderlos 21 January 2012 22: 17
        0
        Quote: Dvu.ru-shnik
        Is that an arms unit.

        Nothing in common and the Russian module appeared later.
    2. Banderlos
      Banderlos 21 January 2012 22: 16
      0
      Quote: PSih2097

      I have a feeling that they ripped off this:

      This is a feeling for you.
    3. Banderlos
      Banderlos 22 January 2012 06: 42
      0
      Quote: PSih2097
      I have a feeling that they ripped off this:

      And MTLB was made at KhTZ, and not Muromteplovoz
  9. Seregggca
    Seregggca 6 July 2011 08: 52
    0
    Does it make sense to remake a couple of hundred tanks ???
    1. Banderlos
      Banderlos 21 January 2012 22: 19
      +1
      Quote: Seregggca

      Does it make sense to remake a couple of hundred tanks ???

      Firstly, it is the TPH initiative. Second, for the army of Ukraine - no, in Ukraine there is no Chechnya and Palestine.
      1. Hans grohman
        Hans grohman 23 January 2012 20: 24
        0
        And in Iraq, Ukraine also did not peace?
        Quote: Banderlos
        no, in Ukraine there is no Chechnya and Palestine

        And if it appears? (God forbid, of course)!
  10. Hans grohman
    Hans grohman 21 January 2012 22: 01
    0
    I like this. But this "BMP" is a heavy armored personnel carrier in terms of the installed armament and functionality of the landing force sitting inside.
    1. Banderlos
      Banderlos 21 January 2012 22: 20
      0
      Quote: Hans Grohman
      Here are just this "BMP" on the installed weapons

      There is no problem, the same layout.
      Quote: Hans Grohman
      and functionality sitting inside the landing

      This is also a fixable thing.
  11. Hans grohman
    Hans grohman 22 January 2012 01: 45
    0
    Layout because the prototype, or what?

    Quote: Banderlos
    This is also a fixable thing.

    Yes, no one argues that it is not fixable, just why essentially position the layout / prototype of the Platform, called BMP? Personally, I am a supporter of calling a spade a spade.

    And of course, yes, by the way, I have repeatedly met the opinion that this processing is one of the most successful (in the sense of reshaping MBT into TBTR).
    And yet - the T-64 has not yet exhausted its modernization potential as a tank, for such developments there are much more outdated chassis, for example the T-54/55/62. Although, of course, I have to admit - it’s better to remake the tanks in such heavy platforms than send them for scrap.

    Something like that.
    1. Banderlos
      Banderlos 22 January 2012 06: 47
      0
      Quote: Hans Grohman

      Layout because the prototype, or what?

      Because the demonstrator, not accepted for service with a number of deficiencies, etc. (although there is not much of something technological), like the T-90MS.
      Quote: Hans Grohman
      just why essentially position the layout / prototype of the Platform, called BMP?

      So BTR-4 with BTR-3 with powerful combat modules - will we call BMP according to your logic *?
      Quote: Hans Grohman
      And yet - the T-64 has not yet exhausted its modernization potential as a tank, for such developments there are much more outdated chassis

      It’s a complicated story, in Russia the T-64s are written off, but the old T-72 isn’t.
      1. Hans grohman
        Hans grohman 23 January 2012 20: 20
        0
        Quote: Banderlos
        So BTR-4 with BTR-3 with powerful combat modules - will we call BMP according to your logic *?

        You do not understand my logic, an infantry fighting vehicle is an infantry fighting vehicle, from which an airborne assault force has the ability (preferably full-fledged) to engage in battle, and dismounts to solve particularly difficult situations. For a modern infantry fighting vehicle (my personal opinion), a multichannel armament complex is needed, with the ability to control the airborne assault, and enhanced armoring (preferably at the MBT level), which ensures the feasibility and indeed the possibility of an airborne assault from a vehicle.
        Otherwise, it’s an armored personnel carrier (well, or, as an option, an outdated design).

        Quote: Banderlos
        It’s a complicated story, in Russia the T-64s are written off, but the old T-72 isn’t.

        The story is complicated both here and there. They come from their realities, we are from our own. I am a supporter that you need to write off only hopelessly outdated equipment (today it is only the T-34, but it has already been decommissioned for a long time). You yourself know very well why they are doing this from the T-64 to the Russian Ministry of Defense - this is more of a political issue rather than a technical one.
        T-64, T-72, T-80 tanks of about the same level, with competent modernization, none of them will receive a significant advantage over the others.
        The reason is the maintainability of the T-64 and the possibility of further modernization, given that they were manufactured in Kharkov. There is a T-72 production, and the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, in my opinion, absolutely correctly decided to bet on one MBT (at least not yet adopted something newer and more fun).
        Something like that.