Military Review

Tank to help

296
In recent years, a combat support vehicle tanks (BMPT) pays exceptional attention to various exhibitions and shows. A high level of security is combined with serious firepower of defeating or suppressing enemy manpower, and other, mainly ground targets. But her future, oddly enough, is still in question.


The BMPT embodies new design solutions, which are based on modern scientific advances and technological capabilities. As a new direction of development of armored weapons and equipment (armored vehicles), it is of interest to both specialists in the organization of hostilities and to the developers of weapons and military equipment.

The BMPT was created to increase the effectiveness of the performance of combat missions by infantry units and subunits, significantly reducing the losses of personnel, armored personnel carriers. The TTZ laid the possibilities higher than that of the existing heavy armored personnel carrier models, in terms of the density of fire impact on enemy infantry at distances up to 1500 meters, crew mobility and security. Design features provide combat survivability better than in the tank and even more so in the BMP.

The machine has a circular defense, a powerful armament complex designed to defeat and suppress enemy anti-tank weapons (PTS) in the "saw-fired" mode, capable of destroying tanks and other protected equipment and low-flying targets to a distance of up to five kilometers.

But to this day, most military experts considered BMPT solely as a means of reducing the combat losses of tanks. To this conclusion pushes the name of the car. Unfortunately, it was this that caused the negative attitude towards BMPT. Critics argued simply: what kind of support could a machine with two 30-mm cannons provide to a powerful tank?

Wedge wedge

The experience of using tanks in the First and especially in the Second World War showed that without the support of infantry "armor" bears great losses. In connection with this, a so-called tank landing force appeared. He covered the enemy infantry, armed with light anti-tank weapons, and solved the problem of mastering settlements, defensive lines and objects, using tank breakthroughs in the tactical zone of the enemy’s defenses and operations in the operational depth.

Tank to help


The need for a comprehensive organization of interaction between tanks and infantry was clearly expressed in the order of People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR No. 325 of October 16 from 1942 of the year “On the combat use of tank and mechanized units and formations”. It states: the practice of war with the German fascists showed that we had serious shortcomings in the use of tank units. Our tanks in attack attacked the infantry, lost interaction with it. And the cut-off infantry did not support the armored vehicles with their fire and artillery fire. As a result, tankers and infantrymen suffered heavy losses.

Now the situation is much harder than in World War II, due to the wide distribution of automatic rifle weapons. The rate of fire of machine guns and machine guns increased, small-caliber guns appeared, but with the most effective effect of ammunition on the target. Automatic hand-held grenade launchers became standard weapons in each infantry unit, and reactive anti-tank grenades and RPGs with cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation munitions - each soldier. The presence of such an arsenal of weapons on the battlefield creates intolerable conditions for the soldier, no matter what individual means of protection he is equipped with.

A deeper analysis of the nature of modern battles gives every reason to consider the BMPTs as the main means of reducing the losses in the first place of the personnel of mechanized and motorized rifle units in a collision with the enemy. But then why is so thorny the way BMPT into a series with its undeniable need?

The logic of opponents of innovation is simple: what kind of tank is it if it needs cover and support? It quite often worked at the highest level and determined the further attitude to the development.

To find out the truth back to stories create tanks. Their appearance on the margins of the First World War is not accidental and is associated with the advent of semi-automatic and automatic small arms, primarily machine guns and mortars, the increased power of engineering barriers, and the saturation of the warring armies with artillery.

The main task of tanks - to support the infantry in the breakthrough of the enemy defenses. They moved ahead of the attackers, destroying the barricades with cannon and machine-gun fire, paralyzing the will of the enemy with a frightening air. The effectiveness of the impact of the breakthrough of the German defense on the Somme River 15 September 1916-th (32 tank) and the battle of Cambrai 20 November 1917-th (476 tanks) was stunning. However, then it did not produce the expected results. Having breached the defenses on 10 – 15 kilometers, the tanks stopped, because without the support of infantry and light artillery their advance was choking. In the operational pause, the Germans counterattacked and returned the lost positions.

In World War I began to create tank groups. They included a heavy breakthrough tank, ammunition and fuel conveyor tanks, artillery tractor tanks ... By the end of the 1917, the MK-9, an infantry transporter tank, appeared. In World War II, large tank formations and formations, "wedges", appeared. They have already developed operational success in the depth of the enemy defenses. This experience has made significant changes to the weapons system of the Ground Forces. An intensive search began to counter their main strike force. The creation of a powerful anti-tank defense system came to the fore. It was based on new portable “Khmel”, “Baby” type ATGMs, hand-grenade launchers and anti-tank grenades (from RPG-7 to RPG-23, RPG-26, RPG-28), and other means. Similar weapons appeared also in the enemy, began to be used en masse.

The concept of "tank-dangerous living force" was born - personnel, armed with modern portable anti-tank systems, RPGs, conventional and large caliber automatic small arms, capable of effectively using it at a distance of up to 1000 meters and well-protected. The threat was fatal. Possessing powerful, but essentially single-channel armament, tanks could not effectively combat such a significant and massive factor as “tank-dangerous manpower”, —the design features affected.

In addition, in tanks, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, only one crew member can fire from the main type of weapon, even if others have detected more dangerous targets. Ammunition of tanks is relatively small, it is irrational to use it to perform essentially artillery missions - defeating area targets, including those saturated with poorly observable "tank-dangerous manpower."

Opposition to it is relevant in the conduct of hostilities not only with regular armies, but also with illegal armed formations, as evidenced by the experience of local conflicts in Iraq, Yemen, Syria. PTS, capable of inflicting damage to armored vehicles, insurgents have a quarter more than in the regular army, and their proportion sometimes amounted to 95 percent of all the weapons available in the illegal armed formations.

In this regard, to effectively perform combat missions in the forward echelon, it became necessary to have a machine running in line with the tanks (or slightly ahead) with powerful multi-channel automatic weapons capable of assuming the destruction of the enemy’s tank-dangerous infantry. the probability of hitting personnel and armored vehicles.

Targets and targets

The need to solve the problems of the interaction of infantry and tanks in the new combat conditions led to a remarkable idea - to create a special armored vehicle. This is how the BMP appeared, the main purpose of which was to transport motorized infantry units to the place where combat missions were performed, to increase mobility, firepower and security of mechanized units on the battlefield, as well as joint operations with tanks, including the use of weapons of mass destruction.

In the Soviet army, infantry fighting vehicles appeared in the early 60's, then they began to equip the ground forces of many countries with them. The BMP, BMD and vehicles on their base increased the combat effectiveness of both combined-arms formations and units, as well as formations of the types and types of troops of the Armed Forces primarily due to greater mobility. BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3 became the basis of motorized rifle formations and units. In the USSR Armed Forces, by the end of the 80, there were about 20 thousands of infantry fighting vehicles. They are rapidly improving.

But at the same time with the BMP intensively developed means of defeat. An attempt to save a soldier in a light-armored corps led to the opposite result. Even one small-caliber projectile cannon hit, a reactive anti-tank grenade, a mine exploding or an IED caused detonation of ammunition, fire and the death of more than one soldier, as happens in open areas, but groups up to 10 people. As a result, motorized infantrymen were afraid to move inside the car even on the march, in the absence of danger of shelling.

In the conduct of hostilities in Afghanistan, in the North Caucasus, it was impossible to ensure that the landing BMP housed in regular places. All were on the "armor", as well as during World War II. Particularly convincingly the unsuitability of infantry fighting vehicles as a means of supporting and protecting infantry was demonstrated in Grozny in December of 1994-th - January of 1995-th.

Not only upgrading, but also attempts to create a new type of heavy infantry fighting vehicles to increase the protection of the crew and the landing force were made earlier and are quite active now. As a rule, they end with a significant increase in weight and dimensions of the BMP, which not only reduces its main advantage - high maneuverability, but also retains the same probability of death of the motorized infantry unit inside the machine.

We must not forget that the saturation of the battlefield with promising, more powerful means of fire impact will increase and they will “get” to the personnel inside the armored vehicles before approaching the line of attack.

In such conditions, the infantry will dismount and travel long distances with a march, which will significantly reduce the effectiveness of motorized rifle subunits and units. With the transition to the attack, the probability of death of the BMP will be even higher due to the massive use of RPG by the enemy in the first line of defense.

As a participant in the hostilities in Afghanistan, I know that not a single operation, including the posting of columns, fighting in the mountains or Zelenka, providing guard posts and posts, guarding points of deployment and routes, was not carried out without the participation of armored vehicles. Then the question of the need to have in combat formations, in addition to regular tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, a special highly protected, primarily from an RPG, machine with powerful small arms, became acute.

The modernization carried out - strengthening the protection of the T-62 and using it as a fire weapon to cover the motorized rifle subunits did not solve the problem. Tankers, acting at a great distance, especially in the mountains, among duvala and mud buildings, could not timely detect and localize firing means of close combat. The tank became a priority target for the dushmans. But most of all battered BMP loaded with infantry. The defeat of one BMP immediately claimed the lives of five to seven paratroopers. A striking example of the heavy losses of personnel in the BMP is the operation of the 860-th separate motorized rifle regiment in Afghanistan in 1984.

There was an acute need for a car with powerful fire weapons capable of destroying the enemy’s dangerous manpower at a distance of up to two kilometers, covering infantry and paratroopers with its fire. This was then the four-barreled anti-aircraft self-propelled installation of the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka", nicknamed Dushmans "Shaitan-Arba".

The targets of the defeat were the Mujahideen, who were seated with machine guns, machine guns, hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers, MANPADS behind the duels, in the mountain slots, karises, buildings, "Zelenka". The Shilka fire literally swept away the enemy and was the best defense for the infantry, wherever it was located: in the field, in the BMP, BTR, on cars. Whenever possible, ZSU-23-4 was used everywhere: when setting up columns, conducting combat operations, in the desert and “Zelenka”, in guarding communications and guard garrisons, and disposing of troops. She had a drawback in booking too weak.

The first experience of creating a machine that provides more reliable protection of the crew and support for infantry than the BMP, was carried out in the Omsk design bureau of transport engineering.

A large number of obsolete T-55 tanks available in Russia, which were converted into BTR-T (heavy armored personnel carrier), would fill the army with relatively inexpensive and highly protected infantry fighting vehicles.

What made them different? On the BTR-T reinforced bottom of the hull to increase the survival of the crew during the detonation of anti-tank mines. This was provided by an additional reservation, while the sheet was welded indented, the air gap significantly reduced the effect of the blast wave. The conversion of the T-55 to the BTR-T was cheap. But the car was poorly armed and did not enter the troops.

Out of the "framework"

In the middle of 80-s, taking into account the experience of operations in Afghanistan, the specialists of the Military Academy of Armored Forces and the 38-th Research Institute of the USSR Ministry of Defense formulated the main directions for the creation of BMPT. A concept and operational-tactical justification (GR) was developed for its use in tank and motorized rifle subunits.

The head contractor of the work in 1987 was identified the GSKB-2 Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. When modeling the technical appearance of the machine, designers developed several layout options, differing in the location of the engine compartment, the composition and placement of weapons.

To clarify the general relativity of using BMPT and its technical appearance, 1989 tested three experimental options for solving fire and tactical tasks, chose the optimal look of the vehicle and in 1991 developed tactical and technical tasks (TTZ) to carry out OCD under the code "Frame".

Under the direction of the chief designer of GSKB-2, Valery Vershinsky, they quickly completed the technical design, created the working design documentation. However, due to the difficult financial situation, the work was stopped.

The next message to the creation of BMPT was the results of the use of armored vehicles in the first Chechen war. When troops entered Grozny 31 in December 1994, the Tunguska air defense missile system was used as part of the motorized rifle subunits to increase the fire impact, as in Afghanistan. But they turned out to be the first targets of the militants with the RPG-7. Naturally, the task of fire cover the troops did not solve.



Again, as in Afghanistan, there was talk of the need to have machines with powerful firing capabilities in the combat formations of the troops. Requirements were clarified, but the main ones, as before, were:

the achievement of the level of protection of the crew and combat survivability of the machine is higher than that of tanks;
equipping with a multi-channel armament complex capable of concentrating fire and simultaneously striking several targets around;
ensuring continuous circular observation of the battlefield and effective detection of tank-dangerous targets;
giving the car a level of mobility higher than that of tanks;
high ergonomic performance;
maximum possible operational and production unification with tanks in service or in development.


However, an attempt to continue work at ChTZ was not crowned with success. The plant went into bankruptcy and stopped developing armored vehicles.

In 1998, the OCD under the code “Frame-99” was resumed at the Ural Transport Engineering Design Bureau (UKBTM) in Nizhny Tagil. At the stage of technical design, we analyzed a lot of schemes, both our own and predecessors, in order to select the optimal variant combining multi-channel weapons with large ammunition, machine protection from all angles, a highly efficient search system, target detection and fire control using the T-72B tank base / T-xnumx.

By the beginning of 2000, an experimental sample was created. After analyzing the comments of the representatives of the Ministry of Defense and specialists from other departments, the TTZ was clarified. In the next two years, the BMPT design was significantly reworked, and by July 2002 had produced a prototype. The design finds realized in it contributed to a significant increase in the combat and technical characteristics of the product.

Kazakhstan upgrade T-72

A distinctive feature of our design in comparison with foreign counterparts is that it is not a means of transporting infantry; the branch from the 10 motorized infantry units does not fit into it, as was the case, for example, in the BMP. The absence of the landing was filled with combat capabilities. Five firing channels ensured the simultaneous destruction of three targets at a distance of up to 1700 meters. In terms of firepower, the vehicle exceeded two motorized rifle platoons, the BMPT was capable of striking not only enemy infantry, but also armored vehicles, long-term fire installations, shelters, and low-flying aerial targets thanks to the cannon's elevation angle in 450. A large arsenal has provided combat operations for a long time.

Low-profile corps, uninhabited fighting compartments create a level of security and mobility higher than that of the tank. Four optical channels of observation and aiming, a panorama of a circular view, a high speed of turret rotation, constant readiness for firing automatic armament, the possibility of long non-stop shooting - all this ensures timely detection and destruction of the enemy’s "tank-hazardous" manpower. The range of aimed shooting from a cannon with an armor-piercing projectile is up to 2000, high-explosive fragmentation is up to an 4000, an automatic course grenade launcher is up to 1700 meters. Two guns and machine guns installed in the conning tower provide circular destruction of manpower, armored objects and well-protected shelters. The elevation angle of the 450 armament unit allows you to shoot at targets on the upper floors of buildings or at commanding heights in the mountains. The four launchers of the supersonic Attack-Attack-Attack Units, with a semi-automatic, highly-protected, inter-automatic guidance system in the information laser control field, have a firing range of up to six kilometers and punch up to 1000 millimeters of homogeneous armor. The radius of the continuous destruction of high-explosive fragmentation grenades - seven meters.

The machine successfully passed state tests in 2006 year. The State Commission was headed by the Deputy Head of the Ground Forces, one of the most authoritative experts on the conduct of hostilities in local conflicts, twice wounded in Afghanistan and received the “Golden Star” of the Hero of the Russian Federation for leading the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus, Colonel-General Vladimir Bulgakov. Despite this, the decision to equip the Land Forces BMPT was not taken.

UKBTM designers continued to improve BMPT, firmly confident in its usefulness. A new requirement has been added - use BMPT to combat terrorist groups. To do this, it is necessary to clarify the conditions of combat use and adjust the design of the vehicle, the sighting and observation complex, the SLA, remove the task of destroying armored targets, adapt the BMPT to combat at short distances against infantry equipped with small arms and grenade launchers.

A further impetus to the development of BMPT for NPO Uralvagonzavod, as in its time with the T-90 tank, was the signing of an agreement to supply BMPT abroad.

Tests conducted by specialists of the army of Kazakhstan to assess the combat capabilities of the machine both against regular troops and against illegal armed groups confirmed its uniqueness, versatility and high efficiency. By combat potential, it replaces the 2 – 2,5 BMP or 3 – 4 BTR. According to one of the leaders of the Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan, BMPT is a wagon to support personnel of motorized rifle and tank units in offensive and defensive actions.

It came to signing a bilateral agreement on the creation of BMPT. At the same time, it was decided to develop a cheaper version based on T-72 tanks, which are available in sufficient quantity in the Republic of Kazakhstan. As a result, UKBTM created BMPT-72, which later received the name "Terminator-2". The peculiarity is that the alteration of the T-72 tank is minimal. This and a number of other events can significantly reduce the cost of the machine, increase its combat effectiveness. Doubts are caused only by the fact that in the “Terminator-2” design there are no two installations of automatic grenade launchers located in the forward part of the machine body on the right and left sides.

For a couple with "Suntop"

Another of the directions in the development of BMPT is the expansion of the sphere of combat use. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, a new threat emerged: shock troops of terrorist groups. To combat them, UKBTM proposed a simplified version of BMPT - BKM-1 and BKM-2 (combat counter-terrorism machine). When they were created, the designers proceeded from the conditions of use, which made it possible to abandon expensive fire control systems, observation devices, target reconnaissance and aiming. Optimized and complex weapons. At the same time, protection for combat in urban environments is being improved. The machine has the ability to covertly approach the positions of terrorists and deliver a powerful blow from the place of shelter. It has less fuel, which means higher fire safety, more ammunition. To dismantle debris, fences or barricades, the installation of a dozer blade is provided.

Of course, for the effective use of the machine in the battle formations of the Ground Forces, a developed regulatory and methodological base is required. Based on the experience of Afghanistan and other local conflicts, specialists from the Military Academy of Armored Forces named after R. Ya. Malinovsky, 38 of the Scientific Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense and the Main Command of the Combat Training of the Army worked out the methods of using BMPT, defined a niche in the organizational structure of motorized rifle and tank units. It was supposed to create a motor-armored group consisting of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and BMPT. Tanks and BMPT - on the front line of military contact with the enemy, destroy firing points and strong points. BMP with infantry - in the second echelon, hold the taken lines.

Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, General of the Army Alexey Maslov, in 2008, indicated the place of the BMPT in the structure of the Ground Forces and the order of its combat use: “Various options are being worked out for using these machines, the need for which to appear in the combat formations of the troops has long been overdue. Either as a third vehicle in each tank platoon, or as a separate unit supporting the actions of the tank battalion. Previously, the protection of tanks against destruction by anti-tank weapons on the battlefield was provided by motorized rifle troops. Now this task will be carried out by BMPT armed with two 30-mm cannons, two automatic grenade launchers and a machine gun. ”

The most effective, in my opinion, variant of the use of BMPT was demonstrated at the exercises by the armed forces of Kazakhstan. There, a special flamethrowing system TOS-1A "Solntsepek" and BMPT were introduced into the special unit. Acting in tandem, the "Sunlight" burned the enemy, for the BMPT was the subsequent "cleansing" of strong points. Motorized rifle units at the same time occupy and retain sections of terrain or specific objects.

It would seem that there are more than enough arguments in favor of equipping the Armed Forces of the RF Armed Forces with a tank support vehicle. Why so far BMPT is not in the army?

Probably, everything was decided by the position of the ex-chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Nikolai Makarov. The former leadership of the Ministry of Defense did not find a place for BMPT in the army structure.

The previous defense ministers and chiefs of the General Staff - Pavel Grachev, Igor Rodionov, Viktor Dubynin, Anatoly Kvashnin, active participants in the hostilities and leaders of the Armed Forces during the creation of the BMPT, were in favor of putting the vehicle into service with not only the Ground Forces. The decision on the creation of BMPT, recall, took place in the wake of the events in Afghanistan and the Chechen Republic, when it became obvious that this machine was extremely necessary for the warring units. But if the real experience gained in the hot spots is not an argument, then, as a rule, they turn to scientific research that determines the nature of the hostilities and weapon systems necessary to achieve a given result. Unfortunately, this has not happened yet either.

After completion - the robot

On the basis of many years of research, military scientists and specialists developed a concept for tank-infantry integration, in which they made recommendations for changing the organizational structure of troops. In particular, it is proposed to move from a purely tank unit to integrated armored units and parts of the Ground Forces. The project was completed and proposed for consideration by the author of the fundamental work "Tanks" (2015), Major-General Oleg Brilev. Doctor of Technical Sciences, professor, he devoted his whole life to research on the creation and combat use of tanks. The concept is based on the theory of combat and military-economic efficiency as the main tool used in making decisions to equip the Armed Forces with types and types of weapons and military equipment. It is supported by mathematical analysis of hostilities and data modeling the process of creating models of weapons and military equipment. The necessary result was also taken into account, achieved by combining the costs incurred in the combat use of a certain number of different types of armored personnel carrier vehicles with their properties. As a result, the combat value of each sample was determined in the general grouping of armored weapons and equipment. The researchers came to an unequivocal conclusion: it is advisable to combine various types of armored personnel carriers with their combat characteristics and properties, a certain quantitative ratio in the structure of the subunit and units of the Ground Forces.

The theory of combat and economic efficiency makes it possible to determine the optimal combination of types and types of weapons and military equipment in the structure of the Ground Forces to achieve maximum or acceptable combat results in actions against various enemy groupings depending on the terrain conditions, qualitative and quantitative ratio of the opposing sides. Instead of a purely tank, several options are offered for creating integrated units (company, battalion) acting against heterogeneous enemy forces with the task of achieving maximum success.

He confirmed the need to have an armored vehicle differing in combat properties from a tank and another prominent scientist in the field of tactics of tank forces, Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor of 38 of the Central Scientific Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Nikolai Shishkin in the front line of the defending or advancing tank units. In his work “Tanks in local wars and armed conflicts,” he writes that the BMPT, operating in the battle line ahead due to greater invisibility and special weapons, makes it possible to maintain interaction with tanks and prevent their destruction, starting from the turn of the transition to attack, as well as when breaking through fortified positions at the front edge and deep in the enemy defenses.

In this regard, it is necessary to add that powerful protection from all angles makes BMPT an impenetrable target, which allows it to operate effectively in the conditions of mass use of anti-tank weapons. The presence of a large ammunition for the 30-mm automatic cannon (850 shots) makes it possible to fire for a long time at a high rate (600 – 800 shots / min) and creates a high-explosive fragmentation field significantly exceeding the capabilities of the Shilka ZSU.

It is also worth noting that the design of BMPT allows, with minor modifications, to make the machine a fully robotic combat complex.

Remotely controlled rendered armament of the BMPT combat module is the first step towards creating a robotic Terminator based on it. The development of such a machine will remove a person from the front line and thereby significantly reduce losses among personnel.

Today the problem is not whether BMPT is needed or not. Delay in its adoption for service and delivery to the troops can turn into a lot of blood spilled by our tank crews and motorized infantry on the battlefield.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/36412
296 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. svp67
    svp67 8 May 2017 05: 21
    +13
    Posted by: Sergey Maev
    Yes, really ... And not many people understand that this

    "Colonel General Sergey A. Mayev, Head of the Main Armored Directorate (GABTU) of the RF Ministry of Defense. (November 1996 - January 2004)"
    That is, this is a man who knows the essence of the problem, moreover, he himself played a significant role in creating this model of weapons and perfectly understands the need for it. It would be nice to "organize" the top ten "Terminators" "Syrian business trip", I think that it would be possible to put all the points over "Yo" there. And it is possible that his weapons will suffer some change. Since the Barmalei, not using the perfection of the sights and observation devices of old Soviet tanks and other combat vehicles, try to hit them, and let's say not without success, at the maximum possible range for their PTS, and this is about 3000 - 3500 meters, then it is possible that the main weapon on the BMPT is to install a paired 57-mm gun, while at the same time giving the machine the ability to solve some of the air defense tasks of tank and motorized rifle units on the battlefield.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 8 May 2017 05: 52
      +10
      Quote: svp67
      it’s worth installing a twin 57-mm gun,

      what
      hi ZSU-57-2 will work ... request judging by the multitude of video destruction of tanks at distances, TOUs or CORNETs, ​​it makes no difference, no "terminators" against such ambushes will help .... (drag)
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 May 2017 05: 55
        +3
        hi
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        ZSU-57-2 will work ...

        But at a new technological level.
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        fishing on the set of video-destruction of tanks at distances, TOU or KORNET-no matter what "terminators" against such ambushes will not help ...

        But this could be checked in Syria.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 8 May 2017 06: 01
          +5
          Quote: svp67
          But this could be checked in Syria.

          I, Sergei, of course, are not special even once, but it seems to me empty .. just look at the video, and estimate that there (where the tank is knocked out) there is a BMPT - it turns out to be under fire, and not the fact that it will not fly to him first ... or maybe a doublet right away .... no, I don’t see a salvation from ambush ... No.
          1. svp67
            svp67 8 May 2017 06: 22
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            no, I do not see salvation from the "ambush" ...

            And here we must look and the Syrians are not idle
          2. TOR2
            TOR2 8 May 2017 13: 45
            +4
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            .not see salvation from the "ambush" ..

            Let's try to find. There is one clue, this is a sight. To detect optics, the “reverse flare” effect is used.
            Indicator of optical objects "Luch-1" The indicator is designed for installation (installation) on various observation devices and is used to search for and locate optical sniper sights and observation devices, including night, sights of military vehicles, guidance devices of ATGM installations and others optical objects.


            This kind of thing is not enough for the terminator.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 14: 23
              +1
              Well, they’ll put optics that are not glare or just use their heads and position the optics so that it doesn’t glare .... so it’s not a panacea ...
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 8 May 2017 15: 58
                +3
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                Well, they’ll put optics that are not glare or just use their heads and position the optics so that it doesn’t glare .... so it’s not a panacea ...

                It makes sense to have a laser system for determining the availability of optics. Not "glare" The laser beam reflects differently from the optical system and other local objects
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 16: 55
                  0
                  It will save only from ordinary optics with a glare or non-glare coating, but what to do with optics where the light does not reflect in the same direction?
                  1. TOR2
                    TOR2 8 May 2017 18: 44
                    +1
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    but what to do with optics where the light does not reflect in the same direction?

                    If not difficult, give models of the sights where this problem is solved. The developers of such sights will have to fight not with sunlight, but with the laser of the detection station. The station irradiates optics with lasers with different wavelengths, and this is not done by chance. The refractive indices of light in glass are different for different wavelength ranges.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 19: 19
                      0
                      I don’t know the model of military sights, the technology itself was presented for telescopes; there the glass is transparent on one side and black on the other (light does not reflect in the same direction).
                    2. Walanin
                      Walanin 10 May 2017 16: 33
                      0
                      What happens if you just scatter a bunch of glass everywhere?
              2. _Ugene_
                _Ugene_ 8 May 2017 23: 08
                +2
                an Israeli spike can generally shoot a missile from a closed position (from around the corner), and then direct the missiles from the camera and give further guidance to the missile’s seeker
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 8 May 2017 09: 06
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      That is, this is a person who knows the essence of the problem

      Really? Managed a tank unit in battle?

      BMPT has come a long way from four channels of destruction to one. They cut the sturgeon, turning it into an absolutely useless car.
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 May 2017 15: 45
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Really? Managed a tank unit in battle?

        No, he had OTHER duties. Did you want to hear that?
        Quote: Spade
        BMPT has come a long way from four channels of destruction to one.

        So I suggest they run them in Syria, that "Terminator-1", that "Terminator-2."
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 May 2017 16: 07
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          So I suggest they run them in Syria, that "Terminator-1", that "Terminator-2."

          But why?
          In Syria, read, everything has already been verified. Active use of BMP-2 as a firearm was not noticed. And much worse, armored 122-mm self-propelled guns are being pulled for direct fire with tenacity worthy of another application.
          1. svp67
            svp67 8 May 2017 16: 21
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            But why?

            To confirm or refute their military value.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 16: 57
              +2
              But what's the point if it’s clear that they are unnecessary? Why a bunch of armature t14 + t15 BMPT?
              1. svp67
                svp67 8 May 2017 17: 01
                +2
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                But what's the point if it’s clear that they are unnecessary? Why a bunch of armature t14 + t15 BMPT?

                To earn MONEY, by modernizing the existing tank fleets of OTHER states, if our army does not need them. And there is no sense in comparing neither the T-14 nor the T-15 with this machine, it is a completely different purpose military equipment.
                That's what she could replace
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 17: 21
                  +4
                  eeeeee belay BMPT to replace air defense systems? what did you smoke
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 8 May 2017 17: 36
                    +5
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    eeeee BMPT to replace air defense systems? what did you smoke

                    But do not be rude. And why not the Tank Support Fighting Vehicle and not be the one that will perform the tasks of directly covering the tank units on the battlefield from ATGM missiles planning air bombs, with its armaments and with the installation of appropriate equipment and locators, similar to our T-14 or Korean K-2, this will not be an impossible task.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 22: 55
                      0
                      I am ready to apologize if you explain your idea, because at the moment it is too delusional.
                      1) air defense systems (shell) are currently protecting from air ATGMs and small-radius missiles
                      2) air defense is also protected from aircraft bombs (the shell destroys the aircraft)
                      3) neither anti-aircraft defense and BMPT are protected from ground-based ATGMs (like a cornet) because they are away from the equipment itself and cannot hit a flying ATGM due to terrain, This problem is solved by KAZ and the group’s strategy + tactics.
                      4) again, neither air defense nor infantry fighting vehicles can be protected from RPGs because the distance is small, there are infantry fighting vehicles and infantry to protect against RPGs that form a single group with tanks and thereby compensate each other

                      Again, I repeat the question: why do a group of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry and support forces (self-propelled guns \ air defense \ reconnaissance \ etc.) need these your BMPTs? and if you think that they are needed, then explain what strategic and tactical advantages the group will receive?
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 9 May 2017 03: 43
                        +2
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        protect air defense systems (shell)

                        This system, in the form that it is being supplied to the troops now, is not a battlefield system, it lacks armor protection from bullets and fragments, it will not be able to accompany tanks directly on the trail. BMPT is actually protected as a tank, it does not have this problem.
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Neither air defense and BMPT can be protected from ground ATGMs (like a cornet) because they are away from the equipment itself and cannot hit a flying ATGM due to terrain

                        in the presence of a radar can
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        from RPG, again, neither air defense nor infantry fighting vehicles will protect because the distance is small, there are infantry fighting vehicles and infantry for protection against RPGs

                        You still didn’t understand why this machine was originally created, just the same for fighting RPGs.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 04: 01
                        0
                        svp67 the fact that someone claims that "BMPT protects tanks from RPGs" does not mean that she really can do it! And even more so because she can do it better than others!
                        Give an example of a combat situation where only and BMPT will cope! but tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled guns, etc. will not be able to complete the task without BMPT. You will find such an example, then there will be a conversation ...
                  2. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 9 May 2017 02: 18
                    +10
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    eeeeee belay BMPT to replace air defense systems? what did you smoke

                    And you? Recipe skinte.

                    The tank always lacks small-caliber fire placed on the tank, i.e. Closed NORMAL armor base.
                    Czechs-1 and 2. SUCH a car was missing me like air.
                    So we looked for all kinds of killed Shilka (in the city) or, in the future, built “Tachanki” accompanied by “tapes” on the tracks.
                    By the way, the commandant’s put them into operation as an idea, this is their bread.
                    Che, just think so?
                    Yes, there were no analogues of the equipment that was needed.
                    Did not have.
                    ...
                    T-14 and T-15 in conjunction with units of a higher commander?
                    It's good !!!
                    Question:
                    And when ALL of our valiant Red Army will be on the T-14 and T-15?
                    All this means EVERYTHING. Those. and acting, i.e. expanded parts and ... well, everyone else ...))) what is BHVT and CBRT do you need to say? And why are they needed?
                    That's right - total mobilization.
                    ...
                    So, while there are active parts on the T-72,80 and BMP -2 ... they should have a BMPT in the OSh.
                    When T-14 and T-15 saturate the Army in the required quantity, then T-72,80 and BMP-2 with BMPT will need to be sent to the CBR.
                    And to write off .... well, all this equipment will need to be only when T-14 and T-15 from the capital are beginning to come to the CBR before being mothballed for mobile reserve.
                    ...
                    That's clearer ?
                    ...
                    I didn’t want to offend and hurt, I do not need it.
                    But - while there are parts where T-72,80 and BMP-2 are on armament ... there, aphids should be in the OShS BMPT on the BASE of the tank.

                    Then your sons and grandchildren will be more likely to survive.
                    Do we have a BMPT now?
                    There are only BMO-T chemists.
                    And everything else - posters and trials.
                    And WORK need to start on what is NOW.
                    That's the whole pretzel.
                    1. Aleks tv
                      Aleks tv 9 May 2017 02: 53
                      +4
                      Quote: Aleks tv
                      But - while there are parts where T-72,80 and BMP-2 are on armament ... there, aphids should be in the OShS BMPT on the BASE of the tank.

                      Oh, by the way, go to our SMBr, the TSR where the T-72Б3 (80) (90А) and BMP-2 (3) are armed, and tell them that "tomorrow is war" and ... ask:
                      - Boys, do you really need BMPT at all? Bullshit after all? Caliber is incomprehensible? Well, what for do you need it ... ???
                      Do not run away from the checkpoint, I'm sure.
                      yes
                    2. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 04: 09
                      0
                      In your example with old equipment, it is easier and cheaper to modernize existing equipment by making mounts for KAZ and mounted armor.
                      As for shilok and automatic guns, I think that tanks need a 30mm gun like a melon, it will close the weakness of MBT when working with non-armored and lightly armored vehicles.
                      1. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 9 May 2017 22: 41
                        +1
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        I believe that tanks need a 30mm cannon like a melon, it will close the weakness of the MBT when working with non-armored and lightly armored vehicles.

                        And if the tank in the city and they shoot at it from the window of a five-story building? The main gun cannot be raised to this angle, and there is a problem (tank optics do not look high up). To get a grenade with RPGs in the tank roof - no air defense will help here.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 23: 10
                        0
                        Bad_gr Well, to solve these problems, you need to change the combination of tank + infantry fighting vehicles + infantry and not make a new crap with an unknown purpose.
                        For example, below I described an example of a tank with a 152mm low-pulse hybrid gun and a pick-up angle of -10 +80. At the same time, 3 form factors of shots are introduced, one of which is an uncontrolled armor-piercing reactive armor-piercing one to replace the BPS, and the second is a 152mm mortar mortar.
                      3. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 11 May 2017 18: 57
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        I described an example of a tank with a 152mm low-pulse hybrid gun and a pick-up angle of -10 +80.

                        I do not understand why, instead of eliminating a person with a grenade launcher, demolish the whole house? after all, quite peaceful people can be found there in neighboring apartments
                      4. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 20: 25
                        0
                        The military comes first with its losses, not civilian ones. As for the house with civilians, that is, the evacuation zone and the MTR.
                      5. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 12 May 2017 09: 18
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        The military comes first with its losses, not civilian ones.

                        With this approach, the tank in the city is definitely not the place. To demolish the whole city by carpet bombing - we will destroy the enemy and save our soldiers, and the civilian population, if they didn’t have time to take their feet out of the city, it’s to blame.
                      6. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 12 May 2017 13: 53
                        0
                        inappropriately manipulate my words. If the military is unable to protect even themselves, how will they protect others? If the people themselves do not come out of the house and cannot be approached due to return fire, then they will destroy part of the house or the whole house. A vivid example of the Syrian Aleppo. They just let the militants get out of the encirclement to minimize civilian damage, and at the same time they use tanks where they shoot.
                      7. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 12 May 2017 18: 04
                        +1
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        inappropriately manipulate my words.

                        Why not. The question was simple: why use a 152mm shell when 30mm is enough. To which the answer was received in the style: 152 is better, and who is not hiding is not my fault.
                        Among the BMPT options, there was a variant with BMP-3 weapons. But for some reason he was rejected. Most of all, the military liked the option with two turrets, with 30mm guns.
                        But he did not go into the series. I went into production an option with UVZ, with weapons that are still disputed.
                      8. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 13 May 2017 05: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        inappropriately manipulate my words.

                        Why not. The question was simple: why use a 152mm shell when 30mm is enough. To which the answer was received in the style: 152 is better, and who is not hiding is not my fault.

                        Where did I write this? nowhere! I actually pointed out above that the tank needs a 30mm cannon, and below I wrote that I need a spark 152 + 30 like a melon.
                        Moreover, below in that version of the tank that I described (which completely replaces the BMPT without losing the capabilities of the tank). there in armament it turns out about the following 152mm + 30mm + 30mm paired with each other, and in terms of ammunition about the following
                        1)10ракет(152*1500)\ 60мин(152*500)\ 30снарядов(152*1000)\ 1800выстрелов(30*165)
                        2)10ракет(152*1500)\ 10+30мин(152*500)\ 20снарядов(152*1000)\ 3600выстрелов(30*165)
                        Well, why the hell with such a tank need BMPT?
                      9. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 13 May 2017 10: 26
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, why the hell with such a tank need BMPT?

                        In the photo of BMPT variants, and even on the first Terminator, the crew of the car was 5 people each, with a view in all directions at the same time, and the ability to fire simultaneously, at least in three directions at a time. In my opinion, this is important for situations in the city.
                        There is no such possibility in the tank - there are not enough eyes. We need means of automatic detection of the enemy and automatic guidance of weapons for these purposes, and from a crew member only confirmation of destruction. Such equipment exists in iron, but, for some reason, it is not installed on our equipment.
                      10. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 13 May 2017 18: 19
                        +1
                        Quote: Bad_gr

                        In the photo of BMPT options, and on the first “Terminator", the crew of the car was 5 people each, with a view in all directions at the same time(1), and the ability to simultaneously fire at least in three directions simultaneously(2). In my opinion, for situations in the city it is important(3).
                        There is no such possibility in the tank(4) - eyes are not enough5). We need means of automatically detecting the enemy and automatically aiming weapons at these targets, and only a confirmation of the destruction from the crew member(6). Such equipment exists in iron, but, for some reason, it is not installed on our equipment.(7)

                        1) You put at least a hundred people in the BMPT visibility will be the same as the tank, because the observation devices are the same. Therefore, it is necessary not to increase the number of crew, but to improve the means of obtaining and processing information.
                        2) I will quote myself
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Why is BMPT necessary? how will she do it? otherwise, I swear as children, "she will go, make a bang-bang, tyr-tyr, bam-bam and everything will be fine, just buy it."

                        There is no point in simultaneously firing in different directions, look what happened to the cruising multi-tower tanks like the T35! Everyone turned out to be useless! Because there is a big difference between fire from one point for several purposes, and fire from several points for different goals.
                        3) No, it doesn’t matter, you mix several different small actions of armored vehicles into one big one, because of this you make the wrong conclusion (as the author of the article with the company itself). If you go to specific scenarios of the war and write down the points who, what and how to do, you will understand that the BMPT is unnecessary because it does not give the assault group strategic and tactical advantages.
                        4) If not, then we must give! bully
                        5) The tank is full of eyes, at least 30 pairs for each tank (during the assault), and they are called "infantry". The problem is that they (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry) cannot exchange information effectively, therefore they cannot interact. Therefore, you need to optimize this part of your collaboration.
                        6) Well, why then 5 people in one car? no reason! You are right, you need a computer system for collecting, storing and processing data, but this is not an argument in favor of BMPT, because it can also be installed on a tank.
                        7) Tell me the models and their performance characteristics.

                        The problem is not in tanks, BMPTs, and enemy TCP, the problem is in the heads of analysts. because instead of analysis they give out ANALYSIS (because it analyzes it by this place). In general, any analysis is based on 4 stages
                        1) we take garbage knowledge (in which there is a lot of information garbage)
                        2) collect the chaotic quart from "1"
                        3) make a structured quart from "2"
                        4) we determine the restrictions and on their basis we throw out the non-essential information from "3", we get a balanced quart describing the system as a result.
                        If there is no quart, then there is no analysis. The article above is a vivid example of a trash in which there are a lot of unrelated predicates, in the text it is of course connected, connected in sentences and paragraphs, but there are no quarts.
                        correctly posed question is half the answer

                        For example, the article above provides information with incorrect processing of garbage knowledge.
                        In the middle of 80-s, taking into account the experience of operations in Afghanistan, the specialists of the Military Academy of Armored Forces and the 38-th Research Institute of the USSR Ministry of Defense formulated the main directions for the creation of BMPT. A concept and operational-tactical justification (GR) was developed for its use in tank and motorized rifle subunits.

                        It was necessary not to "analyze the need for BMPT", but to analyze the reasons for using "shilka" in Afghanistan. Then we would understand that the concept of "MBT" has drawbacks. For example, in the form of the impossibility of using an MBT tank against a weakly protected enemy, against an enemy hidden behind an obstacle, or the inability to use an MBT tank to suppress an enemy. Yes, many more would have understood. but alas, both the USSR and the Russian Federation do not have normal analysts for armaments and scientific and technical development, there are excellent soldiers, engineers, industrialists and scientists, but with ass analysts ...
                      11. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 16 May 2017 10: 58
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        1) You put at least a hundred people in the BMPT visibility will be the same as the tank, because the observation devices are the same.

                        This is not a fact and purely your speculation. Even at the first glance at the photo of one of the BMPT variants, it is clear that each crew member, in addition to the ordinary triplex, also has an all-round periscope, which can look both up and down, including. Even the driver’s mechanic. That is, he also has the ability to control some kind of weapon (most likely a grenade launcher).

                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        5) ... but alas, both the USSR and the Russian Federation do not have normal analysts on armaments and scientific and technological development ...

                        I mean, those military men who, on the basis of battles in Afghanistan and Chechnya, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a BMPT and handed out the technical task to the designers, in what and how is it better for them to fight, they don’t understand a damn thing?
                      12. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 16 May 2017 18: 23
                        +1
                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        1) You put at least a hundred people in the BMPT visibility will be the same as the tank, because the observation devices are the same.

                        This is not a fact and purely your speculation.

                        It is a fact. these triplexes (from your photo) are not able to help the driver enter "where and how to go" or the gunner "where to shoot after destroying the current target" or the commander "which side is the enemy more dangerous", that they will yell "there are two on the left!", " and three on the right! " "front TCP!" "tank on the right! distance 3, tank!" will only prevent them from performing a combat mission. BMPT can’t even protect itself, where can it protect tanks ...

                        Quote: Bad_gr
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        5) ... but alas, both the USSR and the Russian Federation do not have normal analysts on armaments and scientific and technological development ...

                        I mean, those military men who, on the basis of battles in Afghanistan and Chechnya, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create a BMPT and handed out the technical task to the designers, in what and how is it better for them to fight, they don’t understand a damn thing?

                        problems and solutions - kind of analysis
                        1) conceptual and technical - conceptual and technical analysis, connects all other areas, determines application, defines external constraints and ways to overcome them, defines a “road map” along which other areas develop
                        2) engineering and production - engineering and production analysis, connects current implementation opportunities (develops implementation taking into account internal constraints)
                        3) scientific - mathematical and theoretical analysis
                        4) practical (custom) - a practical analysis (by those who really use it), for example, “a set of correct stances when firing from the AK-47 (it has great returns, therefore it gets worse with automatic firing, how can this be solved without making changes to the AK-47?)"
                        We in the USSR / RF have good, and sometimes even excellent specialists in 2-4, but in the first group the full F ...
                        Well, for example, in the Navy there are already 7 different types of ships (built after 2000) with the same strategic objective and almost the same tactical capabilities, while none of them will be able to carry out combat missions facing the Navy in the event of a real war. And all 7 ships can be replaced with one! Yes, and with great strategic and tactical capabilities! BUT! But no one in the Navy and Moscow Region carried out a conceptual and technical analysis, so we throw money away negative .
                        Or take shilka \ zrpk \ gantraki and their non-targeted use in Afghanistan and Chechnya, here, when analyzing, it immediately pops up for what they were used for, but BMPT is unnecessary for this combat mission, and you need to move from the MBT concept to the MBT v2 concept.
                      13. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 16 May 2017 19: 17
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        It is a fact. these triplexes (from your photo) are not able to help the driver enter "where and how to go" or the gunner "where to shoot

                        Give a reference to the source of this data.
                    3. Pancer
                      Pancer 9 May 2017 16: 52
                      0
                      Quote: Aleks tv
                      And WORK need to start on what is NOW.

                      Oh, your words, yes, to the heads of those who make decisions on accepting weapons and changing the OSh ...
              2. KaPToC
                KaPToC 8 May 2017 23: 00
                +1
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                But what's the point if it’s clear that they are unnecessary? Why a bunch of armature t14 + t15 BMPT?

                BMPT is not equal to BMPT.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 00: 03
                  0
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  BMPT is not equal to BMPT.

                  unimaginable logic! I’ll put in the frame!
                  1. KaPToC
                    KaPToC 9 May 2017 01: 04
                    0
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    unimaginable logic! I’ll put in the frame!

                    But because the T-15 is not a Tank Support Fighting Vehicle, but an Infantry Heavy Fighting Vehicle, it is surprising that I had to explain such simple things, put your erudition in the frame, it left you.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 01: 24
                      +1
                      Surprisingly, you have to clarify what you were wrong about ...
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      But what's the point if it’s clear that they are unnecessary? why a bunch of armature t14 + t15 need BMPT?

                      so I know that T15 is TBMP ...
                      1. KaPToC
                        KaPToC 9 May 2017 01: 31
                        +1
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        so I know that T15 is TBMP ...

                        Do you know why TBMP is needed? I'm sure you know, but then the meaning of your words is lost.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 04: 11
                        0
                        Quote: KaPToC
                        Do you know why TBMP is needed? I'm sure you know, but then the meaning of your words is lost.

                        read carefully ...
                2. svp67
                  svp67 9 May 2017 03: 44
                  +2
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  BMPT is not equal to BMPT.

                  Funny, apparently the phrase should have sounded like BMPT is not equal to TBMP
    3. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 8 May 2017 15: 34
      0
      My opinion is that you need to send a few samples to Syria and there, the BMPT will either show its worthlessness, or it will turn out, for example, with cruise missiles that were invented in the USSR and which no one believed in until one small boat sank an Israeli destroyer. Those. everyone will understand how cool things turned out and start buying and creating.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 8 May 2017 16: 06
        +1
        But in fact - a tank is not needed and an armored personnel carrier with an armored personnel carrier is not needed either. Enemy tanks are more efficiently covered from the air, they are very poorly resistant to such attacks. Instead of a BMP and an armored personnel carrier, a specialized infantry carrier like a truck and a separate infantry fire support vehicle are better. It’s like with helicopters when the Mi-24 accompanied the eights. And its own landing compartment was useless.
    4. RASKAT
      RASKAT 8 May 2017 15: 57
      +2
      My view of the problem. And the future of development. I will try briefly.
      It was decided to abandon the 30mm guns per BMP, as on most future heavy BMPs, in view of their weak ammunition. At medium ranges (from 500 to 1000m) the sub-caliber projectile does not penetrate the side armor of heavy armored vehicles (30mm of armor at a range of 500m), you have to use ATGMs. 30mm OFZ in view of the small amount of explosives (3UOR6 12gr, 3УОФ8-40gr, but there are practically no splinters) and small fragments are weak in construction and infantry in Kevlar defense. 57mm ammunition is much heavier than the formatting unit has 200g explosives, which allows you to spend less ammunition on the target, the structures are more confidently affected (30mm OFZ does not penetrate thick (in a couple of bricks) walls have to switch to Armor-piercing). 57 BR penetrate to 100mm armor at a distance of 1 km, sub-caliber to 140mm (old-style shells). As for drones, you first need to see them to destroy them, EW tools are much more effective at dealing with them than any cannon. Moreover, the complex immediately includes a detection system.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 17: 12
        0
        why come up with nedotank?
        An ideal option for TBMP is a machine gun (5,45-7,62) + a small-caliber gun (30-40mm) + 2-8pcs launchers for guided missiles (anti-tank, thermobaric and / or flamethrower), And for a tank and self-propelled guns 152mm universal gun with the difference that the tank has a lower maximum explosive charge when fired, to reduce recoil when the gun recoils.
        1. RASKAT
          RASKAT 8 May 2017 17: 16
          0
          152mm 14 pieces will fit into the tank into the drum, have already been tried, it’s not enough, and rockets are expensive to shoot, shells are cheaper. Why reinvent the wheel.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 17: 29
            0
            Which tank was shoved into? how shoved?
            I'm actually talking about an uninhabited module with a vertical arrangement of shells. An unguided hypersonic missile will cost as much as a conventional armor-piercing projectile, the only difference is that the first has less recoil to the barrel.
            1. RASKAT
              RASKAT 9 May 2017 08: 46
              +1
              292 object, work was underway, but because of the small ammunition it was decided to suspend for an indefinite period.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 13: 26
                0
                Object 292 was built on the chassis of the T-80U tank, i.e. he has an inhabited turret => hence shells can only be placed horizontally in the floor under the crew => therefore there are few shells and space is inefficiently used.
                I said:
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                I'm actually talking about an uninhabited module with a vertical arrangement of shells.

                So your statement about the "little shells" is not relevant ...
              2. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 12 May 2017 09: 31
                0
                Quote: RASKAT
                292 object, work was underway, but because of the small ammunition it was decided to suspend for an indefinite period.

                In the photo is not object 292, but the platform on which the cannon was rolled in for object 195.
                Object 292 looks like this:
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 13 May 2017 05: 37
                  0
                  not significantly, the same inhabited tower, and I took the Old from the wiki, not from the photo.
  2. Strashila
    Strashila 8 May 2017 06: 56
    +5
    When the analysis is going on ... oh, what a bad technique ... the authors forget why this technique was designed for which fights. Yes, the first call was in Afghanistan, that they could, then corrected. But wars are going on, and the military are planning nothing.
    The same Chechnya, everything is ambiguous there. The equipment is controlled by people .. a tank or infantry fighting vehicle is only part and it is of little importance how it will interact with others. BMPT is not a panacea, not a pill for everything ... it's just a part and how it fits into real conditions is the same open question.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 11: 10
      +5
      but it doesn’t fit in any way, to solve the problem of "ambush" you need the commander’s head and strategic and tactical capabilities to help him. And this pepelats gives neither strategic nor tactical advantages in comparison with existing equipment. So the problem is not in the closets, but in the heads ...
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 9 May 2017 05: 41
        +12
        I will give you an example from the Great Patriotic War. In the 42nd, the Germans first used the Tigers under the Mga station, in small numbers, in the terrain unsuitable for such heavy vehicles, they led them out of a single dam between the swampy areas under heavy artillery fire. The result was extremely negative and one car fell into the hands of the Red Army fighters as a trophy. But in the fields near Kursk, in the 43rd, this tank oh how many sheds of Soviet soldiers drank. So with BMPT, to conclude that this type of armored vehicle is necessary or useless, you need to gain experience in its combat use, preferably in the hands of an experienced crew and under the guidance of a competent commander. This is what the author of the article writes. While there is no such data, it is too early to draw any conclusions. hi
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 13: 38
          0
          Let me give you an example too: If tomorrow another general begins to claim that tanks are needed as in the First World War, "They instilled fear and horror at the enemy, because the enemy could not shoot, he was cried out and surrendered! Therefore we need such tanks", Such Will you also experience a brilliant offer in the army? I think it’s not worth it ...
          I already wrote: "give an example of a combat situation where only BMPT can cope, then there will be a conversation."
          1. Svarog51
            Svarog51 9 May 2017 14: 03
            +11
            As I understand it, you do not hear anyone except yourself. I clearly wrote to you that the conclusions are made AFTER the combat use, and while there is none, it is too early to draw conclusions. And one more thing that has already been mentioned. Troops can be equipped with terminators earlier than a bunch of Armata and T15. Have you seen how many of them were at the parade today? Many of them will not be soon, but they are needed now. Any tank platoon commander would prefer to have a pair of Terminators to support than not to have. hi
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 15: 18
              0
              You were told in Russian
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              "give an example of a combat situation where it can help only BMPTthen there will be a conversation. "

              Give an example theoretically possible combat situation where BMPT will allow to carry out a combat mission and where without a BMPT the combat mission will not be completed.
              When developing any project in any field, the first thing they ask is "justification of practical use" yelling left and right about the "need for BMPT" and about "defenseless tanks", "the commander wants", anyone can. Personally, I could not come up with such a scenario, and therefore I do not see the practical benefits of BMPT.
              1. Pancer
                Pancer 9 May 2017 16: 56
                +2
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                Give an example of a theoretically possible combat situation where BMPT will allow you to perform a combat mission and where without a BMPT the combat mission will not be completed.

                Do you have problems with logic and language?
                Quote: Svarog51
                I clearly wrote to you that the conclusions are made AFTER the combat use, and while there is none, it is too early to draw conclusions. And one more point that has already been mentioned. Troops can be equipped with terminators earlier than a bunch of Armata and T15. Did you see how many of them were at the parade today? Many of them will not be soon, but they are needed now. Any tank platoon commander would prefer to have a pair of Terminators to support than not to have.

                What is not clear?
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 21: 01
                  0
                  The strategic and tactical mission of the BMPT on the battlefield is not clear.
                  Why is BMPT necessary? how will she do it? otherwise, I swear as children, "she will go, make a bang-bang, tyr-tyr, bam-bam and everything will be fine, just buy it."
              2. Svarog51
                Svarog51 9 May 2017 17: 08
                +10
                Counter question - give an example of a combat situation where there is NO OPPORTUNITY to use BMPT. There is a very good saying: in a good housekeeping and bullish .. um .. - rope. If you do not want to find the use of your armored vehicles, this does not mean at all that the other commander will not find her use. How do you put it
                give an example of a combat situation where only BMPT can cope
                , I’ll answer that for any weapon there is no such situation. There is always an alternative, and if it is not, then this is obviously a defeat. If
                Personally, I could not come up with such a scenario, and therefore I do not see the practical benefits of BMPT.
                , this does not mean that another commander will not find use for the Terminator.
                1. speedwing
                  speedwing 9 May 2017 17: 19
                  +1
                  But after all, nevertheless, the vast majority of types of weapons, and indeed - equipment, appear because there is an urgent need for them. And samples that appear without it, as a rule, remain out of work.
                  1. Svarog51
                    Svarog51 9 May 2017 17: 30
                    +10
                    Give an example when the unit commander refused reinforcement. Neither in defense nor in the offensive are there any extra personnel or extra equipment. I haven’t heard of this yet. Military science does not stand still, today they do not know how to apply, and tomorrow this technology will be needed - the more the better. "The dagger is good for the one who has it, and woe to the one who does not have it at the right time." words of Abdullah from the "White Sun of the Desert." soldier
                    1. speedwing
                      speedwing 9 May 2017 18: 26
                      +1
                      Strengthening is, firstly, an additional load for the supply, which the commander may consider unnecessary. Secondly, reinforcement as a rule implies reinforcement by means available under the charter, and not the inclusion of “something new” in the unit, just because you need to do something somewhere.
                      1. Svarog51
                        Svarog51 10 May 2017 01: 15
                        +12
                        additional load for supplies that the commander may find unnecessary

                        It has already been in history. Machine gun - huge ammunition consumption. And when the machine guns began to "mow" whole battalions and regiments - a positional dead end. Submachine gun - "trench broom". German assault groups began to bring success. Tanks - obscure iron boxes. The first breakthroughs of the front, but without the support of the infantry, are choking. This is all in WWI. Between the wars, the Germans developed the concept of using large tank formations and at the beginning of the Second World War captured the whole of Europe.
                        Still need examples of using "something new"? It is this application of the new that brings victory. And if now there is no clear concept of the use of Terminators, then it can be created on the basis of the experience of combat use. Apply and see the results, then make changes to the method of application, i.e. introduce them into the staff structure of existing units or create separate ones.
                        I hope I clearly explained? hi hi
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 00: 17
                        0
                        Svarog51 No, it is not intelligible, what prevents you from giving an example of a theoretically possible combat situation? Probably only the fact that you can’t even come up with such a scenario.
                        Personally, I can’t think of a situation when I need a BMPT terminator, the maximum I can think of is when I need something like a BMPT only in a wheeled version and with other weapons (a column fire support vehicle).
        2. yehat
          yehat 10 May 2017 11: 15
          +1
          under heavy artillery fire

          yes yes, 7.62 mm heavy artillery
          the first tiger was captured after it was fired by scouts from small arms - the inexperienced carrier drove off the road and got hopelessly stuck, after which the crew safely faded.
          1. Svarog51
            Svarog51 10 May 2017 11: 23
            +10
            Sergey, hi It may well be that you are right. I read so many different versions of this event that I will not say the opposite. Actually this fact does not reject the first illiterate application of the Tigers.
  3. tchoni
    tchoni 8 May 2017 07: 55
    0
    . In particular, it is proposed to move from a purely tank unit to integrated armored units and units of the Ground Forces. The project is completed and proposed for consideration by the author of the fundamental work “Tanks” (2015)
    Clever and sound thought. Speaked repeatedly. Beginning with the Genossa Guderian. And the leash proves the need for heavily armored vehicles for infantry. In the modern concept of development of the RF Armed Forces, BMPTs have not left a place. He was firmly occupied by t15.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 11: 13
      +1
      and they did it right for the bunch of t14 + t15 completely replaces the bunch of MBT + BMPT
  4. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 8 May 2017 08: 12
    +3
    30mm is enough (ideally -37-45mm) .. Means and sensors to install more modern and better protection. Sensors for determining the coordinates of firing at a machine, for example, thermal imagers ....
    1. ICT
      ICT 8 May 2017 08: 47
      +2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Install advanced tools and sensors and better protection. Sensors for determining the coordinates of firing on a machine

      there’s probably a thermal imager there,
      but it’s possible, like a type of fur balls, and it’s more likely to put a locator. wink

      since they’ve taken a theater of the Syrian type, there the launch of the anti-aircraft gun goes from maximum distances and not reachable for standard guns,

      in short, if you need help, you need to expand your eyes. and then the same blind as the tank turned assistant
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 May 2017 09: 37
        +7
        And why is there a radar ?.
        "Cat's eye" for calculating optics, UV sensors for calculating the "torches" of rockets and calculating where it came from.
        In addition to the infrared camera infrared sensors. They work in a wide sector, ideally 360 degrees. After all, with appropriate processing by a computer and the presence of a “signature library” they are able to determine the coordinates of almost everything that shoots, from the arrows to mortars (by torches), as well as adjust the fire of their own artillery.
        Laser radiation detectors. Not only to determine its presence, as it is now, but to determine the coordinates of guidance systems, lights, rangefinders, etc.

        As for the sound, there are big doubts. Firstly, there are too many “obstacles” in battle. Secondly, the accuracy is not very high, it is necessary to “knit” several machines with such systems into a single network. Solve these problems - you can sound
        1. ICT
          ICT 8 May 2017 10: 27
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          "Cat's eye" for calculating optics, UV sensors for calculating the "torches" of rockets and calculating where it came from.

          detection range described as applicable?

          Well, again, one does not exclude the other, the whole point is that we need wide-open "eyes" and
          Quote: Spade
          with appropriate processing by a computer and the presence of a "signature library"


          brains, as in case of a reaction time, the minimum will be
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 8 May 2017 15: 27
            +2
            Quote: TIT
            detection range described as applicable?

            Detection of optics - about one and a half to two km. UV sensors - to the horizon, they are used in aviation for warning of a missile attack

            Just a radar does not really protect against infantry. If they are needed, then on the tanks.
        2. tchoni
          tchoni 8 May 2017 15: 00
          0
          Quote: Spade
          As for the sound, there are big doubts. Firstly, there are too many “obstacles” in battle. Secondly, the accuracy is not very high, it is necessary to “knit” several machines with such systems into a single network. Solve these problems - you can sound

          Friends from the big Israelite have long solved the sound problem. And they use it well. Google it.
          As for interference - there are enough of them on all channels. And optics and radar range. How do you order a bullet to distinguish from a fragment? By rl-portrait? I'm afraid to consider we are tormented. And radar is difficult. But the three microphones, set up by a triangle, completely steer. And, due to coherent signal processing, a vector is issued to the shooter.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 8 May 2017 15: 45
            +1
            Quote: tchoni
            Friends from the big Israelite have long solved the sound problem. And they use it well. Google it.

            They did not decide anything. So much so that they use infrared sensors to detect sniper positions. The whole family, from the wearable "SpotLite P" starting and complex on the basis of BTR M113 "SpotLite M" ending

            Sound is made by Americans. Even wearable kits are there. Only they are designed specifically for conflicts of low intensity. In addition, the experience of much more serious systems, the more echo signals, the greater the probability of errors. In the mountains they are practically useless. Well, it’s easy to deceive, because there is a transition to sound thermal, and in the future sound-heat-seismic.
      2. 31rus4
        31rus4 8 May 2017 11: 01
        +1
        Dear, I do not quite agree to check such machines passed back in Afghanistan and proved their viability, especially when wiring columns and protecting block posts. The T-72 tank with enhanced protection of 2-30mm cannons and 2-8 blocks of NAR proved the need for such a technique. the Syrian crafts, when they put 2,4 on the tank, large-caliber machine guns are protected. Here you can only make rocket weapons more modular, you need anti-aircraft missiles, you need rockets with anti-aircraft composition, maybe anti-aircraft, here only work, then brother will more flexible and in demand
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 8 May 2017 15: 39
          +1
          Tank for escorting columns? Cool. And Nitsche, that he has an overhaul mileage of 7-10 thousand? And the survivability of geese - 2-5 thousand? Maybe better bganovichok? What about my friend?
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 8 May 2017 09: 18
      +3
      Quote: Zaurbek
      30mm is enough (ideally -37-45mm) ..

      Nedotank succeed. Useless.

      76, 100, 120. With low-speed shells flying along a hinged path. And as a result, with a small dispersion in range. Plus, such an instrument has two or three additional channels of destruction. In the form of stabilized automatic grenade launchers, heavy machine guns, possibly automatic guns. Guided separately from the main armament
      1. For your motherland, your mother))
        +2
        Nedotank.
        I’m this nedotank, or rather, home-made under it on the basis of MTLB- plus ZU-23 I saw live - the infantry is sweeping away like a lawn mower.
        Private sector houses turned into dust. In the Koteltsky building of the executive committee (where the Bender defenders were seated), he broke a hole in a long line.
        I don’t like 23mm, so let them put it on, but probably not anymore-- here the whole effect lies in an avalanche of fire, probably only the small-caliber effect will provide such an effect.
        But, besides the certification "under-tank" - can anyone explain why such a prejudice against the "terminator" as a concept is armored like a tank and will soon carry a multi-shot thing? Who is their military, please clarify.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 May 2017 15: 55
          +3
          Quote: For the Motherland, your mother))
          the infantry is sweeping away like a lawn mower.

          Where did you see this, with the "swept away infantry"?

          In the southeast of Komsomolsky there was a convenient patch. At a dominant height. Than they didn’t shoot from there. Starting with the FSB snipers and ending with the tank. Mortars (tray, cornflower, sled), AGS, "Storm", even 100-mm MT-12 managed to roll. The only thing that was not needed was ZU-23-2

          Quote: For the Motherland, your mother))
          But, besides the certification "under-tank" - can anyone explain why such a prejudice against the "terminator" as a concept is armored like a tank and will soon carry a multi-shot thing? Who is their military, please clarify.

          The fact that with such weapons the Terminator is no different from a tank. Is that lesser firepower.
        2. tchoni
          tchoni 8 May 2017 16: 14
          +3
          Quote: For the Motherland, your mother))
          But, besides the certification "under-tank" - can anyone explain why such a prejudice against the "terminator" as a concept is armored like a tank and will soon carry a multi-shot thing? Who is their military, please clarify.

          Patamushta normal tank makes a hole in the house with one shot ....
          And your motolyga lived for a long time, but the “them” didn’t have anything more serious than a rifle caliber. BMP with number 2 would have had the same success. But BMP with number 3 — that would have organized the apocalypse.
          But, in front of the BMP number 2, your shushpanzer had a very serious advantage - the view from the -2-23-XNUMX site is much better than from the tower of the mass grave of the infantry. Therefore, she also sawed out infantry with high quality.
          Hence the conclusion: give the tank turrets an infantryman’s turn - and there’s nothing to invent. Unless the cannon is here to lift higher to learn.
    3. sychiov
      sychiov 8 May 2017 09: 37
      +2
      Zaurbek Today, 08:12
      30mm is enough (ideally -37-45mm) .. Means and sensors to install more modern and better protection. Sensors for determining the coordinates of those shooting at a machine, for example, thermal imagers ...


      The 57 mm high explosive action is greater, especially for fights in the city, three four shots with a 10-12 meter detonation from each other in the photo are well shown.
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 8 May 2017 11: 45
        +4
        In fact, we return to the good old shrapnel ... as there in the film ... tube 15 sight 120 ... bang-bang and by.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 8 May 2017 22: 17
        0
        100mm is even better, 152 is still .... / The question is in mobility and in the nature of the targets hit.
        1. sychiov
          sychiov 9 May 2017 12: 42
          +1
          100mm is even better, 152 is still .... / The question is in mobility and in the nature of the targets hit.


          The question is in the balance. FIRMWARE-FOGAS-ANGLE-HANDLING.
          57 mm mastered ammunition supply (conveyor costs, etc.) a concrete-combat 57 mm projectile pierces any wall of any residential houses.
          The rate of fire of the 57 mm Burlak module is higher than any 100 mm, the aiming angle is any, which is important for battles in the city and mountains at 57 mm higher, to achieve a gun similar to 100 mm, due to the size of the breech, you will have to make the tower higher than under 57 mm, respectively heavier .
          1. yehat
            yehat 10 May 2017 11: 27
            0
            do you think you are talking shooting with a 57mm cannon almost point-blank at buildings - is that effective use?
            In my opinion, BMPT should be a complex with different types of weapons.
            there must be a barrel like a heavy machine gun or automatic cannon in order to quickly destroy targets at a considerable distance, you also need a complex with non-fixed firing - a mortar or howitzer or something like that again, automated and sharpened by dense fire with a fast reaction time and high precision. This is a "commitment", otherwise it is not realistic to fight infantry.
            along the way, it is useful to equip with removable / replaceable anti-tank or anti-aircraft missile systems. Also, different means of target designation and reconnaissance should be attached to the BMPT - like parachute mines from a grenade launcher with video cameras or UAVs, thermal imagers, optics detection tools, possibly artillery fire detection systems and calculating the places of shooting or whatever. There is no point in firepower without its necessary application.
            Personally, I am sure that a 57mm gun on such machines is not needed right now.
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 11 May 2017 07: 05
            0
            This is all right. One minus 57mm doesn’t provide for tank destruction ... like 30mm
            1. speedwing
              speedwing 11 May 2017 15: 24
              0
              Heh. It depends on where to shoot. At least for 57mm.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 11 May 2017 20: 01
                0
                for comparison: a 100mm PT MT-12 gun more or less successfully shoots at a tank of a Leo-1 / M-60 level and so on from a distance of 1,5 km. 100mm BPS with tungsten core. For a confident defeat, 2 shells are distributed per tank. In turn, these tanks confidently hit the OB target with a 2,5-km projectile and a BPS with 2 km .... tanks with a 120 mm gun have 500m more distance, and the loss from MT-12 is reduced to 1 km. Now imagine shooting a 57mm cannon at a tank.
                1. speedwing
                  speedwing 12 May 2017 15: 51
                  0
                  Well I say - depending on where to shoot.
                  It is clear that the aiming equipment of the 70s gun did not hurt. I'm talking about a gun with modern SUV and guided missiles, which the MT-12 does not have (only missiles, but this is a completely different song).
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 12 May 2017 16: 17
                    0
                    8x optics, it’s not about optics, but the accuracy of shots. To inflict any damage to the tank, you need to put pieces of 5-6 shells 57mm into it. Now imagine the distance of 1,5km and the dispersion. The question is how many shells will hit? And what will happen when a 120 / 125mm HE projectile arrives after your turn?
                    1. speedwing
                      speedwing 17 May 2017 16: 02
                      0
                      Let's say five out of six shells. Everything - in the area of ​​guidance and surveillance devices, because it was allowed to approach a dangerous distance. Or, if the terrain permits, shooting “around the corner”. Then the distance is acceptable.
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 17 May 2017 17: 11
                        0
                        Look at youtube how a machine gun fires ... with 1,5km you get 1-2 shells ... if you hit a tanker, you win ... if you don't hit, catch the shell.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 17 May 2017 19: 13
                        0
                        For the destruction of devices, the equipment has "anti-material weapons", mainly sniper rifles, a sniper has an advantage both in accuracy, in aiming time, in disguise and in the ability to stay alive after work, but ground-based equipment does not have this.
                        So it’s much more optimal not to create equipment, but to create a complex for snipers.
        2. sychiov
          sychiov 9 May 2017 12: 46
          0
          152 still .... / The question is in mobility and in the nature of the targets struck.


          As for 152 mm, this is BAM, and it has other tasks. BAM operates in the city together with BMPT armed with 57 mm, TBMP, BTR-T.
    4. MaksoMelan
      MaksoMelan 8 May 2017 09: 44
      +2
      At 3500 km? For smokers to beat 30 is enough in buildings. According to the performance characteristics it seems they write that the manpower is up to 4000 km and for the l.technology 1500. If you put 57 mm, there is the possibility of programmable undermining. Above their heads if they are in a trench.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 May 2017 10: 22
        +2
        Quote: MaksoMelan
        If you put 57 mm there is the possibility of programmable undermining. Above their heads if they are in a trench.

        30 mm with programmable detonation can now be supplied to the troops. They and the state. tests have been completed, the technology has been worked out, blasting support devices can be installed on all 30 mm during overhaul
        1. chenia
          chenia 8 May 2017 10: 54
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          30 mm with programmable detonation can now be supplied to the troops


          57 mm shell is 6-7 times heavier and explosives, respectively.
          And all sorts of bells and whistles in a larger caliber are easier to implement.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 8 May 2017 16: 00
            +3
            Quote: chenia
            57 mm shell is 6-7 times heavier and explosives, respectively.

            Shell or cartridge? The shell is not much.

            Well, a few 30 mm in the air is more likely to hit the target than one 57 mm
            1. chenia
              chenia 8 May 2017 17: 36
              0
              Quote: Spade
              Shell or cartridge? The shell is not much.


              57 mm cartridge-6,5 kg, shell 2,8 kg, BB 150 gr.
              30 mm cartridge -0,85 kg, projectile 0,4 kg, BB-50 gr.
      2. Strashila
        Strashila 8 May 2017 12: 02
        +1
        Then, back to the essence of the machine gun, to what it actually started ... and he started by firing from closed positions, such a counterweight was shrapnel, the first machine guns had devices for automatic firing at sectors ... they literally plowed up the enemy’s fortifications. .. the bullet on the final part of its path goes practically at right angles to the ground and if there is no shelter from the top, then a full tryndets. Even for rifles there were devices for firing mounted fire units. So the solution can be very simple ... the experience of a hundred years ago in life.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 12: 13
          0
          and abandoned this prescription because if the enemy trenches are located farther or nearer 1m then the machine gun must also be moved + \ - 1m lol
          1. Strashila
            Strashila 13 May 2017 11: 37
            +1
            By your logic, the artillerymen are pulling the guns of the tuda-syud ... there is the same mounted fire at the angle of elevation of the barrel.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 13 May 2017 18: 25
              0
              Do you remember the difference between a flat, ballistic and intermediate trajectory? I doubt it.
              1. Strashila
                Strashila 14 May 2017 06: 42
                +1
                They were used as installation art ... here is their beginning
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 14 May 2017 09: 34
                  0
                  Dear, art installation, this is good, but I have a question what does the machine gun have to do with it? did he suddenly have a separate loading with regulation of the amount of gunpowder? or maybe he got a shooting correction system from a closed position?
  5. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 8 May 2017 09: 21
    +2
    2-3 tanks, 2-3 BMPTs, a motorized infantry company with a pair of small drones - such a tactical group, quite flexible and could solve many problems.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 12: 16
      +1
      why is such a group better than a group of tanks, a motorized infantry company (at TBMP) with a pair of drones?
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 8 May 2017 13: 42
        +1
        TBMP would be redone from old tanks, right? After all, as I understand it, you are talking about Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Since the engine is located at the rear, the landing will be on top, which is not very good. The option of moving the engine to the front of the hull is too time-consuming and easier to create TBMP from scratch.
        In addition, TBMP would be inferior in armament and fire control systems to a specialized fire support vehicle.
        In Russia, it is planned to adopt the T-15, but I think this machine is more for combined arms combat, and for combat operations, such as those being conducted in Syria or Iraq, the BMPT looks preferable. IMHO,
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 14: 53
          +3
          practical benefit?
          practical benefit?
          practical benefit?
          every time you start thinking with "what is the practical benefit?"
          you did not answer the question, what is "tank + BMPT" better than "tank + TBMP" ceteris paribus? A bunch of armature t14 + t15 has the same strategic and tactical capabilities, so why then need BMPT? I believe that all problems of the tank + BMP ligament should be solved by changing the requirements for the tank and infantry fighting vehicles, and not by creating new wunderwafes ...
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 8 May 2017 16: 51
            +1
            Wait and see. I think in the next few years it will be clear who is right.
          2. chenia
            chenia 8 May 2017 17: 18
            +4
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            you did not answer the question, what is "tank + BMPT" better than "tank + TBMP" ceteris paribus? A bunch of armature t14 + t15 has the same strategic and tactical capabilities, so why then need BMPT?


            BMPT moves almost in line with tanks (maximum 50-70 m at the rear). Yes, and is a tank unit BM. It has naturally all types of protection comparable to a tank.

            BMP-T Goes in the infantry chain, and should not be torn off from them. This is a BM motorized rifle unit. But about the protection of the case is interesting. DZ and KAZ can hit their dismounted infantry. Yes, and the article indicates the difference, carefully read.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 17: 39
              +1
              lol funny, but I remember the slogans "tanks do not go on the attack without covering infantry!"

              In modern wars, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry move together in the same group and compensate for each other's shortcomings. BMPT is simply incapable of checking and cleaning houses or shelters, therefore infantry is needed, and in comparison with tank + BMP it (BMPT) does not give advantages to the group.
              1. chenia
                chenia 8 May 2017 19: 45
                +3
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                In modern wars, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry move together in the same group.


                Yes, you sho?

                Just there is a gap of 150-200 m between the battle line of tanks and the chain. And the transfer of fire is carried out 200 m to the tanks and 400 chain. But without fire (artillery, aviation, in all periods) they do not fight in modern wars.
                Leave home alone. battle in the city is an extreme case. In the last war, hundreds of cities took and handed over, and units were stormed.
                But modern weapons are universal, and should be fought in, and against - mainly field fortifications.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 23: 10
                  +1
                  What do you think that the phrase "moving together" is a couple of meters away? you MISTAKE, "moving together" this means 0-1000m sometimes the technique goes behind the infantry, sometimes in front, sometimes from the side, it all depends on the specific terrain, as well as the strategic and tactical situation.
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 8 May 2017 23: 36
                    +2
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    strategic and tactical situation.


                    So cool, really Strategic - It was already scary.
                    A tank platoon is forced to advance with a ledge to the right to counter a strike organized by two army groups on the flank of this STRATEGIC division.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 00: 09
                      0
                      did you touch? has it become easier? Well, now explain what embarrassed you in the word, otherwise you're so clever; we are far from you lol
                      1. chenia
                        chenia 9 May 2017 09: 05
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, now explain what confused you in the word


                        You will poke your wife (if there is one), we did not serve in one regiment. Nonsense there is no desire to comment. First you need to read the sergeant’s textbook. Then we'll talk.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 13: 44
                        0
                        chenia you can troll as much as you like, but that will not change the fact that you confused these two concepts
                        1) strategy and tactics of application
                        2) strategic unit
                2. speedwing
                  speedwing 9 May 2017 05: 56
                  +2
                  “Leave the house alone. The battle in the city is an extreme case. In the last war, hundreds of cities took and handed over, and units were stormed.
                  But modern weapons are universal, and should be fought in, and against - mainly field fortifications.
                  "
                  Siryezna? And the impression is created such that over the past two centuries, the center of gravity of ground battles only did that it was moving closer and closer to settlements and inside them.
                  Moreover, modern weapons are so modern that it’s not a problem to destroy a unit in an open field with the same aviation or artillery.
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 9 May 2017 09: 22
                    0
                    Quote: Speedwing
                    Siryezna? And the impression is created such that over the past two centuries, the center of gravity of ground battles only did that it was moving closer and closer to settlements and inside them.


                    What level do you consider low-intensity combat operations?
                    Where obviously the weak side huddled to cities (or settlements) under the guise of a population.
                    And so WWII - Stalingrad, Koenigsberg, Burley (well, maybe a couple more cities) and that’s all.
                    The conflict of 1973 , where they fought armies, and approximately equal forces in the cities tried not flattery.
                    The war in Iraq, there, in the field, the Americans smashed the Iraqis (well, here technological superiority is obvious, these are not equal armies). And in the cities, there was a donkey with gold.
                    In Russia, revived 1 Guards TA, for fighting in the city?
                    1. speedwing
                      speedwing 9 May 2017 11: 54
                      +1
                      Happy holiday.
                      In the end - always the main goal was settlements. There is a concentration of defense potential, deployment and control points, human and material reserves. The more advanced and mobile troops became, the more difficult it became to keep them on the approaches, in convenient positions on the ground. Now, in general, there is a prospect of getting the enemy’s troops "for the collar" if you position the positions too far from the protected point / area.
                      As for the storming of cities in the Second World War: yes, maybe a couple more .. dozens.
                      In other conflicts, they fought, firstly, with what they have, and secondly, the valley fields around Palestine do not provide very wide opportunities for bypasses and outbreaks.
                      About 1 Guards. TA: Duc is visible at least to ensure the blocking of cities, only at the modern level of mobility.
                3. yehat
                  yehat 10 May 2017 11: 58
                  0
                  on flat terrain, intelligence, logistics and stupid amount of equipment decide
                  but on the cross you already need to match the technical characteristics of the local conditions
                  however, even in flat Europe there were not a few places where it was possible to "cling" to the terrain features - somewhere a mound, somewhere a river. somewhere a water tower or forest, etc. As such, the assault may not be, but layered ambush tactics are very unpleasant.
    2. yehat
      yehat 10 May 2017 11: 53
      +2
      could solve many problems

      in our army for motorized infantry there are only 2 popular types of tasks - heroically go head-on without artillery support and reconnaissance or defend to the last bullet without supply, communications and support. Do not believe? then look what the army did in the conflict with Georgia.

      the plan of the Georgian offensive was known to the command of the Russian Armed Forces, but the date of its beginning was not known

      the Georgian group by the morning of August 8 totaled 12 thousand people and 75 tanks

      task of the forces of the Russian Federation: forces of the battalion group 135 motorized rifle regiment

      In the afternoon there was an unsuccessful attempt to release Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinvali by the forces of the battalion group 135 of the motorized rifle regiment. The group entered the city and met with Georgian troops who launched a new assault on Tskhinvali. After the battle, having suffered losses in people and equipment, the group withdrew from the city. In this battle several correspondents of the Russian media were wounded and the commander of the 58th Army, Lieutenant General Khrulyov. Not receiving reinforcements, the Russian military were forced to retreat from the Southern camp


      here's how to talk about it without a mat? the group, which had a significant number of heavy weapons, various armored vehicles and support vehicles were planning to attack with a battalion of motorized rifles.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 11 May 2017 17: 45
        0
        Quote: yehat
        here's how to talk about it without a mat? the group, which had a significant number of heavy weapons, various armored vehicles and support vehicles were planning to attack with a battalion of motorized rifles.

        There was not a battalion, but a mixed battalion group, including tanks. And she wasn’t alone - before the approach of the BTG of the 135th regiment, BTG of the 693rd regiment entered Tskhinvali.
        By the way, according to Khrulyov, all that he had on the morning of August 9, 2008 were these two BTGs.
        ... at the first stage, we had only two battalion tactical groups and two self-propelled gun batteries of 5 guns, a MLRS battery against the entire Georgian group

        And there were no other options - the ability to build up the RF Armed Forces in South Ossetia was limited by the presence of a single road with a tunnel.
        1. yehat
          yehat 12 May 2017 09: 05
          0
          how was it? they would have brought young Russian migrant workers, increased the peacekeepers of kitchen workers by two thousand, at night they would have driven part of the equipment through the tunnel - and disguised it, since there is good. It was possible to prepare.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 12 May 2017 10: 19
            0
            Quote: yehat
            how was it? they would have brought young Russian migrant workers, increased the peacekeepers of kitchen workers by two thousand, at night they would have driven part of the equipment through the tunnel - and disguised it, since there is good. It was possible to prepare.

            Mishiko would only be glad. For in this case, he would have received a classic preemptive strike against the aggressor concentrating to capture Georgia. And Georgia itself would be officially recognized as the defending side - and everything would be written off from it. But the Russian Federation could even fly under UN sanctions.
            Or do you not remember how ardently the Georgians tried to prove that Russian equipment entered the territory of South Ossetia before the outbreak of war?
            1. yehat
              yehat 12 May 2017 10: 23
              0
              Let's say technology is bad.
              Well, at least mining and patrolling, intelligence could be strengthened?
              mining cannot be interpreted as an attempt to invade.
              even a banal pair of secretaries with ptrd would have been able to do quite a bit
  6. sychiov
    sychiov 8 May 2017 09: 26
    +3
    The most effective, in my opinion, variant of the use of BMPT was demonstrated at the exercises by the armed forces of Kazakhstan. There, a special flamethrowing system TOS-1A "Solntsepek" and BMPT were introduced into the special unit. Acting in tandem, the "Sunlight" burned the enemy, for the BMPT was the subsequent "cleansing" of strong points. Motorized rifle units at the same time occupy and retain sections of terrain or specific objects.


    I’ll add on my own to item No. 1. TOS-1A "Sun".

    2. BMPT Terminator-3.
    a) With a 57 mm auto-cannon, type module Burrevesnik-80 rounds per minute,
    two coaxial machine guns paired with a cannon.
    b) 57 mm shells with remote detonation to combat drones.
    c) 57 mm shells with remote detonation in the window openings of multi-storey residential buildings, for counter-sniper shooting.
    3. BTR-T_72, heavy tracked armored personnel carrier for 10 motorized rifles, two 152 mm ATGMs, naturally with additional anti-mine reservations.

    All three cars are easily redone from old T-72 reserves.
    1. chenia
      chenia 8 May 2017 10: 11
      +2
      Quote: sychiov
      3. BTR-T_72, heavy tracked armored personnel carrier for 10 motorized rifles, two 152 mm ATGMs, naturally with additional anti-mine reservations.


      I agree! Tanks and BMPT in the tank (or maybe in an already armored unit), and BMP-T infantry.
      There are 2 tanks in the platoon, and one BMPT (TB TP), in the platoon (TB MSP) - 3 tanks, 2 BMPTs.
  7. Dymik
    Dymik 8 May 2017 09: 34
    0
    on the t-14 put the module from the Terminator battle! or remotely controlled
  8. MaksoMelan
    MaksoMelan 8 May 2017 09: 36
    +1
    Maybe they would have found how to apply such a technique in Syria but not for its intended purpose. An article refuting the usefulness of bmpt walks on the Internet. We must take into account the experience of the series. How many meters are tanks destroyed there? In the comments they wrote something about 3 and a half thousand, and BMPT can not suppress the enemy At what distances except perhaps only birds. Among other things, the importance of detecting these launches of detecting targets for destruction is necessary. This must be done automatically without human intervention so that a person makes a decision on the destruction of a particular target. Active protection for BMP is also needed. Such a machine will become an unconditional priority goal for all anti-tank calculations, and it is necessary to take into account the ability to withstand several simultaneous launches of RPG rifles. 57 millimeters and are used in Syria and became famous for the title of mallet or thresher. Why can’t you install a steamed 30 meter cannon on the main tank from 57 meter on BMP? Thirty on the tank, preferably with good aiming angles. Does anyone have statistics on the use of a tank machine gun and even an anti-aircraft machine gun for modern troops in modern conflicts? Or maybe maybe BMPT, too, can make a 30 meter cannon with a steam gun with a 50 mm gun at different distances, a different amount of ammunition which, as usual, is always not enough.
  9. Dymik
    Dymik 8 May 2017 09: 37
    +1
    that's how there are aviation missiles to destroy air defense radars and to develop anti-missile system against anti-tank systems) so that it’s aimed at its beam
    1. MaksoMelan
      MaksoMelan 8 May 2017 16: 27
      0
      Against air defense. Track on radar radiation. You may not notice the clerk. But if you notice it on the laser. Someone has to constantly monitor this or automate laser detection. But I would add, like the Chinese, a laser system to my tank. TO BLIND AN ENEMY AND DISAPPEARING OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS. all terribly expensive cameras and night sights.
  10. chenia
    chenia 8 May 2017 10: 00
    +2
    BMPT thing is necessary no doubt. Object 787 is perhaps the most suitable prototype. A large tower, you can hang a lot of weapons.

    Independent destruction channels, then you need to do double-turret, and course machine guns, AG (well, here is a limited tip).

    The main weapon is probably 57 mm (already an automatic machine) - it allows you to hit almost the entire range of targets (except for tanks and long-term defensive structures, well, others work here.)
  11. Dymik
    Dymik 8 May 2017 10: 14
    0
    on all armored personnel carriers and bmp you need to put a combat module from the Terminator! And not 4 ATGMs but 6 !! remake two of them as Needles so that the anti-tank can shoot down automatically with one missile and the second one according to the calculation of the anti-tank gun !!
    1. MaksoMelan
      MaksoMelan 8 May 2017 16: 22
      0
      Why pturom on PTRK. ? Active protection to be. And I’ll shoot a whole missile from a missile defense complex on an ATGM missile so that it doesn’t knock you out. This is stupidity and waste. I would suggest trying out a quick-shooter under a pistol cartridge. Or machine gun. Ala GSH system as in the Tunguska. but in the form of a turret for shooting down in the vicinity of birds. Cheaper 5,45 to fill up cartridges. During the conflict of this good above the roof will be as an export option. It’s easier to fall asleep with ammunition than buying explosives in special shells for times.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 May 2017 10: 28
    0
    The Kazakhs did the right thing. The simplest thing is to remove the "native" tower from the tank
    and replace with a remotely controlled turret with a 35-40 mm gun and a pair
    ATGMs.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 8 May 2017 22: 18
      0
      Moreover, this can be done with old tanks and T-62 and T-64 and T-72 ... of which the shaft at the storage bases ...
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 10 May 2017 23: 07
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The simplest thing is to remove the "native" tower from the tank
      and replace with a remotely controlled turret

      Simple - but ... ineffective.
      What to do with the crew of the tower? Down? So there is so little space.
      Reduce? This will affect combat effectiveness and situational awareness.
      I am still convinced that the BMPT should have a full-size tank turret, only in this way it is possible to ensure adequate security for the weapons complex (I will not comment on the composition of these weapons, because I have begun to participate in battles on this subject).
      What Kazakhstan acquired can successfully operate only in the conditions of the Central Asian desert, with bare spaces that shoot through for many kilometers. With any close fire contact, or God forbid, battles in the city, all weapons and surveillance equipment from an unarmored module will quickly be demolished.
      I am a staunch supporter of hiding everything vulnerable under armor, and use expensive ATGMs of 150 kilobaksa thing, just as side screens - I think it's overkill))
      You need something like this:
      Nothing should stick out, all weapons should be in the tower, either vertical launch, or retractable launchers.
      And not 4 missiles, it’s for chickens to laugh, at least 8, and preferably 10-12, and not cumulative, but thermobaric.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 00: 30
        0
        If you do not want to comment on the composition of the weapons of the BMPT, then please drop the link to the fuck where you wrote this. You can here, you can me in the drugs.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 11 May 2017 00: 38
          0
          from the last - here:
          https://topwar.ru/88795-boevaya-mashina-podderzhk
          i-pehoty-nuzhna-li-ona.html # comment-id-5437014
          There are also a lot of goodies hi
          In general, this topic is regularly raised on the forum.
          And even this article by Maev in my opinion already was. She's actually pretty old already.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 15: 27
            0
            Thank you, the article and comments were interesting, I saw partial analogues of my ideas, as always I agree with something, I don’t. It’s a pity that most of the text is slogans and voice problems without ways to solve them, no one tried to put everything together, structure and balance, to determine the best combination, what about the tank, what about BMPT, TBMP, etc. etc.
  13. For your motherland, your mother))
    +3
    I’m not a military man at all.
    But he personally saw the work in the battle of Zushka (zu-23) and made an indelible impression.
    In 1992, in Bendery, from the balcony of an apartment on a nine-story building, I watched shooting from zu23 mounted on an MTLB-eshka. She fired in long bursts along the street-- the effect was fatal-- everyone just boldly fucked from the street like a broom, everyone crouched in the alleys and did not even protrude-- no one was showing his nose to try to resist.
    Then I first learned about the existence of such a thing as z y-23, even temporarily otfanatel from it --- the shells for it are beautiful. But that is not the point.
    In conversations with the guards and militias, my impression of this installation was confirmed --- those lying under the shelling of this frantic machine didn’t even try to lean out to shoot from a grenade launcher --- they just lay and prayed to carry it over. Thus, probably, this thing is very suitable to crush someone with a barrage of fire. And if it is also armored-- this is generally a gift for its infantry.
    Honestly, I don’t understand why the terminator’s path is so thorny and long. 25 years after the war in Transnistria - and shooting snowshoes along the street remains my terrible and vivid impression from this war-- there was an evening, it got a little dark - and against this background, long lightnings along a long street and a terrible roar of firing - you can only condolences to those who came under her fire. I don’t understand something, maybe the Ministry of Defense is preparing for some kind of contactless battle, but it seems like no one has canceled the infantry yet, so who will support the infantrymen in the battle, we don’t have robots-- but there are specific living people from the blood and meat - who will be right in their midst to crush the enemy with a fountain of fire, maybe I just don’t know if there is something even more effective? Or just feel sorry for the money? And I would be sorry for people --- to get up and again, as in the old days, cheers for the motherland, arrange everything with my bodies ....
  14. tank64rus
    tank64rus 8 May 2017 11: 30
    0
    Making the BMPT, the designers created a car of a new CLASS of armored vehicles. Therefore, some cannot understand why she is; others are simply against it, just like this is new. In general, a new generation of BTV and Armata and BMOP its first samples is now being born. Although BMPO can now be put into service with flamethrower units and subunits of the RBMF troops. And Colonel General S. Maev is really one of the largest scientists and specialists in the field of armored weapons in our time. Thank you for the article.
  15. k_ply
    k_ply 8 May 2017 11: 36
    +1
    The version with the 30-mm AG-17 grenade launcher in the support company (9 BMPT) of the tank battalion would be very useful, especially if there were no worthy BMP in the system. Platooned to reinforce each tank company. It would be better to introduce 6 82/120-mm self-propelled mortars into TB to support companies, and, of course, platoons of advanced observers and reconnaissance (3 BRM), oh well.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 12: 19
      +1
      It will be much simpler and more efficient to implement TBMP than to make a new child prodigy ...
      1. k_ply
        k_ply 8 May 2017 14: 18
        0
        Quote: k_ply
        ...special in the absence of service decent BMP.

        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        It will be much simpler and more efficient to implement TBMP than to make a new child prodigy ...

        Duc and wait when just realize your effective (?) ...waffle (if not a waffle). Prior to the implementation of the MBT T-14 project, this would not happen, and certainly would not affect the entire BMP SV fleet.
      2. k_ply
        k_ply 8 May 2017 14: 35
        +1
        Simple arithmetic - or more than 60 T-15 for 2 MSB, or 9 BMPT for 1 TB MSBr.
        1. sychiov
          sychiov 8 May 2017 18: 58
          0
          Simple arithmetic - or more than 60 T-15 for 2 MSB, or 9 BMPT for 1 TB MSBr.


          With the T-15, everything is not simple, it is still necessary to finish it.
          In the photo, the door is not reliable, a 120 m mine, a 122 mm land mine hit, or a pockmark of a 155 mm land mine that exploded with fragments and a blast wave breaks through the roof of the T-72 building.
          1. k_ply
            k_ply 10 May 2017 13: 21
            +1
            Quote: sychiov
            With the T-15, everything is not simple, it is still necessary to finish it.

            What for? It is obvious that the T-15 gun has insufficient negative vertical guidance angles in the frontal plane due to the significant displacement of the DBM to the stern for better weight distribution. The slightest deferent on the stern of this "long-length" (9,5 m) even at the moment of stopping and dismounting the landing, and the machine will not be able to support motorized rifles along the front with fire, and how many such moments will be when attacking in movement over rough terrain. Also, the BMP will have to leave the entire hull from behind a shelter (building) in order to use the main weapons again. Most likely, the T-15 will prefer Kurganets-25 (7,2 m) with a lower silhouette (0,5 m), even the latter was indicated as a high silhouette, a T-15 is out of the question.
            Actually, the T-15 was originally a BTR-T, it was only presented at the parade in the variant with DBM (2015). In addition to the BTR-T, on its base KShM (with ACS), TZM (for 2C35), unlikely (rather, on the basis of the T-14), BREM and MTU for combining battalions and batteries equipped with T-14 and 152 mm MBT will be created SAU Coalition-SV.
        2. sychiov
          sychiov 8 May 2017 19: 00
          +1
          Photo door T-15.



          Judging by the thickness of the door to which 20-25mm armor plates were bolted, the T-15 was not fired by mines or HE mines.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 19: 24
            0
            so this is an additional door inside the ramp, not the main one!
            1. sychiov
              sychiov 8 May 2017 20: 03
              0
              alas, this is fortune-telling on coffee grounds, maybe when the string shows the results of the shelling during the tests, and so I hope that they keep 122 HE and do not wedge.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 20: 44
                0
                don't wedge should ramp, the door is then what side?
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 8 May 2017 22: 17
            0
            Quote: sychiov
            Judging by the thickness of the door to which 20-25mm armor plates were bolted, the T-15 was not fired by mines or HE mines.

            Additional sheets of cermets are bolted. This is on top of the main armor.
  16. garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 May 2017 12: 38
    +2
    Let me describe my vision of such a technique.
    Heavy platform with all-angle armor. Heavier and harder tanks. Multichannel and duplicated KAZ. (Infantry will definitely not be near).
    Crew 4 - 5 people. Mekhvod Commander The operator of the main armament The operator of defensive armament The operator of UAVs and remote-controlled weapons.
    The main armament is a 57 mmauto gun with a controlled rate of fire and a large assortment of shells. (programmable detonation, programmable directional detonation, BOPS, high incendiary projectile with a combustible mixture emitting toxic gas. (White phosphorus)). The elevation angle is close to 80 degrees. (I understand that with such a caliber it is almost impossible but you can try.)
    Coaxial machine gun. DUM on the tower 12.7 mm 360 g around 90 g elevation. Ammunition not less than 1000 cartridges. Forced barrel cooling. Multiplicity of synchronization with the viewing device of the commander. (the commander inspects the battlefield, sees a threat, one press of a button and the SAM are directed and fire at the sector. Reaction time 1 - 2 sec.)
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 12: 56
      0
      Well, why is this crap?
      it’s easier to make a tank with an uninhabited module like melon-melon only 152mm and PSUs different from the existing ones, and to a TBMP tank with a gun (30mm), cornets, machine gun (5,45) and an infantry grenade launcher (30-40mm), Once the calculation is detected The ATGM tank will simply cover it with a 152mm mine from a closed position. Simply put, a little tweak the concepts of MBT and BMP to modern requirements.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 8 May 2017 13: 57
        0
        Tank * 152 mm * with a closed outlet. Something reminds. Ahhh coalition. Tanks with closed use inappropriately. And for your description, the artillery system attached to the platoon falls well. Or even a branch. This is a dorgo. If this is someone who breaks through the MO, then the infantry on a lifetime monument will be thrown off. Solid gold full size.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 15: 14
          0
          the coalition here wasn’t lying around at all as it was self-propelled guns and it had slightly different tasks, what I described was a regular tank (MBT), just with a modified concept of fighting the enemy.
          1) at long distances we use guided missiles (cornets launched from the trunk)
          2) at medium distances we use unguided active-reactive shells, including hypersonic ones (replacement with armor-piercing shells)
          3) at medium distances we use 152 mm shells, the explosive charge in the barrel is regulated by U-shaped checkers like mortars, the pallet with the minimum explosive performs obturation. This limits the length of the rollback of the barrel (the higher the angle of fire, the smaller the rollback)
          4) at close range we use mortar mines together with U-shaped checkers
          correction by drone, the calculation is carried out by a computer inside the tank (type of shot, gun angle, number of drafts, tank position).
          The main difference from MBT (t72, t90, etc.) is the limitation on the recoil of the gun, and the lack of destruction range is solved by guided missiles and not guided missiles.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 8 May 2017 16: 59
            +1
            What you describe is t self-propelled guns. And now it’s just so applied.
            A tank. Tank, he covers the infantry. Inspiring. He is needed in front and not in the rear.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 17: 49
              0
              I said that it was NOT self-propelled guns, today the tank needs to go out onto the hill, to fire a direct fire, where they can destroy it, I think it is better if it stays behind the hill and, by correction from the drone, destroys the enemy’s position. and against tanks there are ATGMs and NURSs ...
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 8 May 2017 18: 43
                0
                YES no, my friend you are describing the self-propelled guns, they are now doing exactly what you are describing. At the level of your company. But the tank is more widespread and affordable and should support directly on the battlefield.
                And that is why it is so sewn up.
                Sau enough anti-shatter armor.
                The reaction time when working from closed positions is much longer. Missing chance is higher. And with a well-organized enemy electronic warfare there is a chance of a blow to your own.
                A tank at the forefront of attack pounds without delay and as accurately as possible. The main thing is to cover the ego from those who will sneak up from the sides with the RPG. (I exaggerate)
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 19: 34
                  0
                  and? you look in the book you see a fig? Where did I write about reducing armor? where did I write about work in the rear for kilometers of the front line? The last time I repeat this is a TANK with a universal 152mm gun (gun + howitzer + mortar + launcher), it is capable of firing both direct fire and mounted, it has large angles of vertical fire which gives the tank additional strategic and tactical capabilities. He does not sacrifice tank-TTX in favor of the SAU-TTX. For example, instead of being substituted by firing direct fire at the calculation of the ATGM, it can destroy the ATGM and only then leave.
                  1. speedwing
                    speedwing 9 May 2017 06: 05
                    +1
                    Another argument in favor of the fact that now the tanks themselves are no longer needed, not that BMPT smile
                    After all, the BMP with guided missiles and self-propelled guns can do the same. Yeah, the "informational" armor is becoming more important in comparison with the metal one ..
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 13: 59
                      0
                      Very accurately noticed about the armor! need to adopt good

                      Tanks cannot be abandoned, because they tank + infantry fighting vehicles + infantry form a tactical group (TG) whose elements compensate for each other's shortcomings. If we add support forces (self-propelled guns / air defense / reconnaissance), we get an operational group (OG). Accordingly, a relationship is formed between several tactical groups (TG) per operational group (OG). The reaction time for exhaust gas is shorter than for exhaust gas, therefore, it cannot always provide support for TG, and therefore it is necessary to give TG partial opportunities for TG. In this case, TG will not become a replacement for exhaust gas, since exhaust gases have larger scales. This is the solution to the problem of the exhaust gas reaction time.
                      1. speedwing
                        speedwing 10 May 2017 16: 06
                        0
                        Well, the reaction time for the exhaust gas will be more. Pup. tongue
                        What are the main advantages of the tank: heavy armor and a hypersonic gun. I don’t know how anyone, I think that the absence of these two features in the group can be compensated for by a fairly wide range of means.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 00: 39
                        0
                        hmm, really wrong.
                        There is not a "hypersonic" gun, but NARS (unguided active-rocket projectile). And you do not compensate for NARS in any way, any combination of yours will worsen the capabilities of the TG, either directly (impossibility of hitting the target) or indirectly (increased consumption of resources, especially money). If you want to argue either in the LAN or on the forum (http://forum.topwar.ru/), then a discussion is problematic ...
  17. garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 May 2017 13: 01
    +1
    Defensive weapons: 3 DUM with AGS two forward one back. Large UVN up and down. Programmable shell. Bouncing shell. Projectile contact anti-personnel mine. (To process ahead of time in dangerous directions.) The multiplicity of the reduction in the momentum of the shot for the stela at very close targets with the fall of the projectile is as steep as possible.
    Remote-controlled weapons: ATGMs in vertical TPUs with television guidance over a wired channel and the possibility of short 5–7 min. Range up to 7 km. 4 things . A warhead for a hit in the roof plus a thermobar for bunkers.
    SEVERAL SMALL UAVS. You shot down the next one.
  18. garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 May 2017 14: 19
    +1
    The commander identifies targets that are dangerous to the equipment being followed. Marks gives the command to destroy. The gunner selects the optimal method of destruction fires and controls the effectiveness of the fire. The UAV operator conducts the overall monitoring of the battlefield. The defensive weapon operator looks at the “rear” of the “RPG ATGM in dangerous directions” receives information from the KAZ about the shelling and fires at the points where the shot was fired. Controls the work of KAZ
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 15: 48
      +1
      Defensive weapon operator is watching

      how will he see the ATGM aimed at the tank if it is in another vehicle (BMPT)? and how will KAZ located on the BMPT protect the tank?
      all this nonsense ...
      1. MaksoMelan
        MaksoMelan 8 May 2017 16: 12
        +1
        Kaz must protect this car.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 17: 18
          0
          which KAZ?
          with BMPT? whereas?
          from the tank? then why the heck BMPT?
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 8 May 2017 17: 06
        0
        ATGM aimed at the escorted tank will detect the Commander and hit the gunner.
        A defense operator. armament will enable the commander and gunner to calmly perform basic duties (covering escorted armored vehicles), providing protection for the BMPTiP own protection against the most common threats on the battlefield.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 00: 30
          0
          three simple examples
          1) Well, here we have a hill-shelter, you can go sideways from above, how will the BMPT commander protect the tank leaving the shelter? or BMPT leaves the same playing the role of an additional target for ATGM?
          2) we leave the forest to the meadow, at the other end of the meadow in the forest there is a calculation of the anti-tank systems, how will the BMPT protect the tank? BMPT goes behind the tank, can’t shoot cannons, because the tank closes the trajectory, it can’t shoot either with a grenade launcher, because the calculation is deepened in the forest belt and small grenades will simply work at the top of the trees.
          3) a convoy is traveling; an ATGM launch has taken place from a distance of 5 km; the enemy is hidden in the bushes behind an embankment, how will the BMPT destroy the ATGM calculation? the rocket itself does not need to be destroyed because there is air defense in the convoy and KAZ on technology.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 9 May 2017 00: 40
            0
            Paragraph 1 is absurd say comrade. Why go to Vobsha’s hill that tank and BMPT. Especially without infantry.
            Point 2 a tank is not a don quixote but a BMPT is not a sancho panso they alone in proud loneliness have nothing to do in the clearing. (Plus if the BMPT goes behind, the commander is poorly trained.)
            Point 3 of the launch ranks will be fired upon by the combat guard of the convoy from all that it will reach in range.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 00: 56
              0
              1) It is absurd to ignore uncomfortable questions, ask Ukrainians, militias, Syrians and Ishilovites, why the hell do they leave on tanks because of shelter.
              2) Well, BMPT goes ahead, it was blown up on a land mine, then the picture is the same ...
              3) What? holy spirit? the tank and BMPT fire direct fire, the enemy behind the embankment isn’t enough, grenade launchers aren’t enough, they can get the self-propelled guns but BMPT is unnecessary to her ..
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 9 May 2017 08: 46
                0
                Tanks have fired shells with programmable detonation on the trajectory since the 90s of the last century. Now such shells are even for a caliber of 30 mm the question is in providing them with troops and the accuracy of the rangefinder.
                The directional formation of a fragmentation field in air defense is precisely applied from the same 90.
                At a distance of 5 -6 km such shells can fire at the enemy and the tank and infantry fighting vehicles with melon and BMPT with Baikal.
                To fence a garden with a new super duper tank is not necessary for this.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 14: 21
                  0
                  Programmable ammunition with a cannon flight path, unable to hit the target "behind that three-story house at a distance of 2 km."
                  This task is solved by the proposed tank, having a 3D-card in the on-board computer, it calculates "where can I get the target" marks it on the map, then the commander selects the safest position, moves and opens fire. At the same time, the self-propelled guns are unable to perform such a task, since it is further in the rear and has a much longer reaction time, and it is not yet known whether its shells can hit the target from its direction.
                  Moreover, when several tactical groups (tanks + infantry fighting vehicles + infantry) work, when one group breaks through the defenses, it will be able to deliver flank and / or rear artillery fire (alone or in conjunction with an operational group self-propelled guns), thereby ensuring the capture of a strategic point.
                  1. speedwing
                    speedwing 9 May 2017 15: 16
                    0
                    Duck modern SUV must be assumed for other equipment. BMP with guided weapons can also calculate where he can get the target "behind that three-story house at a distance of 2 km." And self-propelled guns, thanks to normal SUV and MA, will be able to act, firstly, promptly, and secondly (with accurate target designation) aptly.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 16: 01
                      0
                      1) what and how will the BMP hit the target? for her, the view is closed by the folds of the terrain, therefore direct fire is impossible because it means substituting under the attack of an enemy ATGM located behind the house.
                      1.1) Moreover, the BMP simply does not have sufficient firepower, and if it is given such power, we will get a BMP-TTX deterioration, namely the amount of personnel transported. And if you give more power then we get a tank. That's why I’m talking about a combination of "tank + infantry fighting vehicles + infantry" as a single "tactical group (TG)" whose elements compensate for each other’s shortcomings ...
                      2) self-propelled guns are located a few kilometers from the front line, they cannot come closer for weak armor. also can’t get it because the backache is blocked by the house, and if there is a safe route to the point from which you can cover the space behind the house, then you still need to get to the front line, and then to this point, all this takes time, which the enemy will usefully for yourself.
                      3) the proposed tank as part of a tactical group (TG) is already at the forefront, and if the tanks of your TG cannot cover the backward space for a couple of minutes (while the infantry is still alive), then tanks from neighboring TGs can do this.
                      1. speedwing
                        speedwing 9 May 2017 17: 13
                        +1
                        1. If the review is closed to the BMP, then what better situation will be for the tank? In both cases, external target designation is implied: whether other BM, infantry, drones, etc. To hit the same target BMP will be, say, a guided projectile for the AZP-57. To provide a more gentle trajectory, she will also need to find a point from where she can get the target, like the tank.
                        2. That's just the same for self-propelled guns, if situations are needed, and the gun a la "Nona" makes sense. Moreover, also with guided mines in the ammunition.
                        3. And also BMPs and infantry from neighboring TGs can do this. Plus, as an option, the Air Force strike drones, if the interaction during the attack is well organized.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 21: 20
                        0
                        Speedwing here on the site is inconvenient to have a dialogue, if you want to continue the discussion then go to the VO-forum http://forum.topwar.ru/
                        as for the points then
                        1) the proposed tank, unlike the BMP, has greater projectile power, has the possibility of a mounted attack (howitzer and / or mortar), thanks to which it does not need to be substituted for a retaliatory strike.
                        2) the ammunition is unified with self-propelled guns, but self-propelled guns cannot complete the assigned task in the time necessary for the enemy to destroy our infantry. As a result, all the infantry were killed and only after that the enemy destroyed our self-propelled guns.
                        3) Yes, maybe both infantry fighting vehicles and infantry, but only they will also have to substitute for a retaliatory strike, in contrast to the voiced tank. And the reaction time for infantry fighting vehicles and infantry will be longer.
  19. Costeneshty
    Costeneshty 8 May 2017 15: 11
    0
    actually a very useful and good machine, but an unprotected birdhouse with weapons and sights is strange, any hit even from a grenade launcher takes out at least not guns, but the whole control is for sure
  20. speedwing
    speedwing 8 May 2017 17: 03
    +1
    Still, I do not understand the need for BMPT. Tanks, since it cannot be done without them, must protect motorized rifles. If they defend poorly, then something is wrong with the organization of interaction or with weapons. If you still have weapons, then you need to refine the BMP and, possibly, infantry weapons. The appearance of the "correct" BMP with BM a la "Baikal" is in the air.
    In the end, it will be possible to test both of them in practice. In Syria the same.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 8 May 2017 17: 51
      +1
      Correct BMP with Baikal. With the right SLA and new shells to increase flexibility, this is great.
      BMPTiP increase the firepower of the unit at a medium distance. And through the use of advanced SLAs and UAVs, it increases the situational awareness of the entire unit.
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 19: 37
        +1
        UAVs can be placed on a tank or staff vehicle. On the BMP the same guns are installed as on the BMPT, so what's the point in the BMPT?
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 8 May 2017 20: 10
          +1
          The tank crew is already overloaded with information in battle. Who will deal with the image transmitted by the drone? Another crew member? To make the tank even bigger?
          The tank gun is redundant for firing on grenade launchers and has a longer reaction time. 57 mm is enough. Tanks must crush the defense to support their infantry and cover it with their armor. BMPTiP prtkryvat tanks from the fire of infantry anti-tank weapons. RPGs and flank ZPSADs ATGM.
          UAV headquarters should inspect the front of the offensive. UAVs with BMPT must closely monitor the near radius.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 21: 09
            0
            The tank commander already has a picture of the surrounding area, including 3-D maps, he also looks at the near zone and decides where and how to move the tank, this is his direct responsibility, all calculations of the tank’s position and target destruction are performed by the computer, he also highlights on the zone map where you can get the target, so no extra crew needed.

            57 mm of ammunition is unable to shoot with a hinged path, and therefore will not be able to destroy the enemy behind cover, for example, behind a destroyed house, embankment, hill. etc. This task is precisely solved by mortar mines in the combat station. Simply put, the tank covers the zone 0-10000m with direct fire and 300-5000m of the mounted trajectory, and howitzers are already a much larger area.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 9 May 2017 00: 51
              0
              The tool you propose is universal but in many ways utopian. It is difficult to create such an expensive operation.
              I was not in vain comparing with self-propelled guns. A tower such as you offer a caliber and with your IOC will be comparable in size. Either do not book or create a 100 ton monster.
              57 mm with a programmable fuse and preferably with a programmable direction of the fragmentation field. It perfectly affects the infantry sheltered behind hills and in terrain folds.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 01: 09
                0
                expensive? complicated? Yes, it’s easier to create it with a tank gun, because the return is less because the load on the mechanisms is the same less. In terms of complexity, too, there are already no problems with analogues of a smaller caliber non, vein. The cost of shots is also less because full unification with 152mm self-propelled guns and 152mm missiles (cornet, etc.)

                How much is your 57mm projectile with controlled detonation and direction of the fragments?
                How much does a mortar mine cost without any electronics?
                Which one is cheaper?
                1. speedwing
                  speedwing 9 May 2017 06: 30
                  0
                  "Nona", I remember, was created for the specific conditions of the Airborne Forces. SV, such a unification is unprincipled, so far, in any case.
                  A guided projectile in most cases will hit the target with the first shot. Unguided ammunition - far from always. So, even in terms of the net cost of defeat, we can’t talk about the unequivocal advantage of the “wagon”. All the more so - in terms of efficiency: a BM firing with "cast-iron" can be transported with a dangerous target so much that a BM with smart ammunition would have gone further and, you see, would have hit several more targets. Yes, and the enemy may have time to adequately react with greater likelihood, and even if the BM does soak the target, it will be much more difficult to advance it, or even the entire unit. That’s if they don’t have time to soak them themselves.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 14: 31
                    0
                    What you described is only partially true, or rather, true for the technology of the previous generation. Now there are already drones and satellites creating 3D terrain maps, having such a map in the computer, the tank can calculate all the combinations “where, how and how to hit the target”, then the tank commander selects the safest and destroys the target. In this case, due to the shorter range and time of flight of the projectile (compared to self-propelled guns), the accuracy of calculating the trajectory of the projectile increases. And yes, what I suggested is based on NONA, but it also has differences, the main one of which is another combination of shots and an automatic loader
                    1. speedwing
                      speedwing 9 May 2017 15: 23
                      0
                      Drones and satellites are certainly good, but relying too heavily on them is also harmful. It is worth bearing in mind the global war, where satellites can be disabled, and small drones promptly jammed and fired by an adequate enemy. It is necessary that BM could confidently rely on its own SUV in any situation. Plus - it’s very problematic to hit the "cast iron" from one volley on moving targets.
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 21: 35
                        0
                        so the proposed tank and solves all the problems voiced by you, instead of ATGM + BOPS it has ATGM + missile (I already wrote about their cost and difference). The voiced missile is the same BOPS, only solid propellant rocket engines up to a caliber of 152 mm are located around the rod (in the form of a needle), the plumage is slightly changed (it is not attached to the needle), the projectile itself flies out of the gun due to the powder charge, the same charge activates the engine, due to which the projectile accelerates further and at the point of destruction of the tank has a higher speed than the classic BOPS, due to which we have an increase in the damaging parameter while minimizing recoil to the barrel. The basis for the development of shells taken from RPG7.
  21. garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 May 2017 18: 57
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    Correct BMP with Baikal. With the right SLA and new shells to increase flexibility, this is great.
    Only on such equipment do not load a lot of ammunition. The landing will not fit. Prtd to save shells.
    BMPTiP will be able to land to the fullest at any rustle, since he has much more ammunition.
    BMPTiP increase the firepower of the unit at a medium distance. And through the use of advanced SLAs and UAVs, it increases the situational awareness of the entire unit.
  22. garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 May 2017 19: 56
    0
    The last time I repeat this is a TANK with a universal 152mm gun (gun + howitzer + mortar + launcher), it is capable of firing both direct fire and mounted, it has large angles of vertical fire which gives the tank additional strategic and tactical capabilities. He does not sacrifice tank-TTX in favor of the SAU-TTX. For example, instead of being substituted by firing direct fire at the calculation of the ATGM, it can destroy the ATGM and only then leave. [/ Quote]
    What you described (Pushcha howitzer minomint launcher) has long been and is called VIENNA. This self-propelled guns and a smaller caliber. Increase the caliber to your 152 mm and weigh it with armor comparable to modern MBTs and you will get your super tank. Only the price tag will be from the aircraft. It will be cheaper to attach armature to each infantryman.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 8 May 2017 21: 18
      0
      on what grounds You say that the price tag will be higher for such a tank?
      1) chassis, armor, engine are the same as the tank (MBT)
      2) the electronics are the same as the tank (MBT) and self-propelled guns
      3) the software is the same as that of the tank (MBT) and self-propelled guns
      3) drones for tanks are already being developed
      so why will it be more expensive?
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 9 May 2017 00: 53
        0
        Shove everything into one will fly a pretty penny.
        The caliber is too big.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 01: 19
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          Shove everything into one will fly a pretty penny

          already wrote above, indicate what exactly will cost more ...
          Quote: garri-lin
          The caliber is too big.

          What is it too big for you? Tanks with a turret and a 152mm gun were created long ago, the old versions have only two problems, the giant recoil when firing BOPS and few shells in the AZ,
          The first problem is solved by changing the design of the shots and switching from ATGM + BOPS to ATGM + rocket unguided projectile.
          The second problem is solved by an uninhabited tower and a change in the design of the autoloader.
  23. Doliva63
    Doliva63 8 May 2017 20: 57
    +10
    It’s one thing when there is a niche in battle formations - a need arises, TTZ is written. Another thing is when there is a machine, which the whole country is looking for together, and UVZ sales. Somehow wrong, in my opinion.
  24. triumphator
    triumphator 8 May 2017 21: 18
    0
    And why is it still not in service with the Russian army ?!
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 8 May 2017 22: 19
      0
      The army is thinking ......
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 00: 37
      0
      it does not give strategic and tactical advantages to a group of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry and support forces. . Therefore, it is unnecessary in the troops ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. speedwing
      speedwing 9 May 2017 06: 34
      0
      Read the upcoming comment by Dolivy63. smile
  25. Operator
    Operator 9 May 2017 00: 10
    0
    Sergey Maev is a complete brake, he did everything in his power to undermine the combat effectiveness of the tank forces of the RF Armed Forces.

    Tanks need a full-fledged KAZ - and then they will spit from a high bell tower on all the perversions of enemy infantry such as RPGs or ATGMs. After which the tank will remain the only type of anti-tank weapon.

    BMPT with its frail weapons against an enemy tank is nothing at all.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 00: 43
      +1
      KAZ is not a ponacea, for example, you can run several ATGMs, the first activates the KAZ and raises a cloud of garbage that covers the second ATGM. And what's the problem for a rocket to make a slide when approaching and hammer a tank from above where there is no KAZ?
      1. Operator
        Operator 9 May 2017 02: 50
        0
        With the simultaneous launch of two ATGMs from the same azimuth, one KAZ counter-ammunition will destroy both of them. With the simultaneous launch of two ATGMs from different azimuths, two counter-munitions will destroy them.

        When two ATGMs are launched with an interval between them, the KAZ radar will determine in advance the estimated time for launching the counter-ammunition before the first-order counter-ordnance is triggered.

        KAZ "Arena-M" covers from the ATGM and homing aircraft ammunition the entire upper hemisphere at 180 degrees.

        Against scrap (KAZ) there is no reception (ATGM).
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 04: 25
          0
          Quote: Operator
          KAZ "Arena-M" covers from the ATGM and homing aircraft ammunition the entire upper hemisphere at 180 degrees.

          how? Well, let's say they turned the charges 180 degrees, then the first ATGM will destroy the KAZ (radar) and the second is already a tank.

          Moreover, the Americans, together with the Israelis, are developing a hypersonic ATGM with a vertical defeat of the tank, even the triggered Arena will not save there, because there is an analog of BOPS and not cumulative,
          1. Operator
            Operator 9 May 2017 04: 44
            0
            KAZ by definition destroys ATGMs, and not vice versa.

            Supersonic ATGMs are not infantry weapons. The current limit for KAZ ATGM interception speed is 900 m / s. With an increase in the ATGM speed, the capabilities of KAZ will also increase.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 04: 58
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              KAZ by definition destroys ATGMs

              following your logic, a bulletproof vest by definition protects against a bullet :) unfortunately this is not so,
              Against a supersonic ATGM rushing into a tank, the KAZ will not save, even if the KAZ hits it with its fragments, due to its high mass and speed it will still hit the tank and break it. this is its advantage over cumulative ATGMs
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 9 May 2017 08: 56
                +1
                I want to see an infantry (wearable and with a crew of not more than 4 people) ATGMs with a range of 5 - 6 km and hypersonic ammunition speed at least in the tip of the trajectory.
                By the way, Afghanit and the next generation of trophies are declared with the possibility of intercepting BOPS. so the armor is still ahead.
              2. Operator
                Operator 9 May 2017 10: 33
                +2
                A kinetic anti-tank missile should have a BOPS speed (at least 1800 m / s, i.e. be hypersonic) and a mass of BOPS armor-piercing core (10 kg), as a result of which the weight of the rocket reaches 100 kg, and together with TPK and PU - about 200 kg

                The "typical" infantry weapon, cho laughing
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 9 May 2017 11: 50
                  +2
                  Well no. American CKEM weighs about 45 - 50 kg. And the range is small.
                  It only starts not from the ground but from a special machine such as our chrysanthemum.
                  It’s just that some comrades do not understand that the danger on the battlefield is greater from infantry anti-tank weapons. There are simply many more. And the method of application is much more flexible.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 9 May 2017 12: 19
                    +2
                    SKEM supports the speed of 2000 m / s at a distance of the order of 2 km, i.e. rocket carrier (helicopter or armored personnel carrier) is within the range of fire from a tank gun, including a guided projectile.

                    For comparison, the Hellfire helicopter ATGM has a range of 11 km.

                    Infantry ATGMs (not to mention RPGs) are not only much larger, but they are also much cheaper, and most importantly, they don’t need a carrier that is more expensive than a tank and can be completely camouflaged on the ground.

                    Will the BMPT weapon operators discover numerous grenade launchers and anti-tank guards - the grandmother said in two, and KAZ is always on the alert, since she works on anti-tank ammunition after they are completely unmasked (in flight).
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 9 May 2017 12: 56
                      0
                      After starting, they will detect. And prevent the second start. And the tank will not need to be distracted from its main task for self-protection.
                      The time to leave a position after a shot for RPGs is 5-15 seconds, for peters a little longer. The tank will not have time to react. The infantry will not have enough firepower. BMP may die or maybe not. But BMPT will be specially sharpened for this and will have time definitely. Plus, due to the rate of fire, it will be able to cover the whole sector as an MLRS.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 9 May 2017 13: 16
                        +1
                        After launching an anti-tank missile, it is only possible to detect its launcher and even then if it is located in an open position. The ATGM operator can be located 100 meters from the control panel and control several of them located in different places via wires.

                        In the case of equipping KAZ, the crew of the tank is not distracted by the pot-bellied trifle - ATGM operators and grenade launchers.
                2. speedwing
                  speedwing 9 May 2017 12: 00
                  +1
                  What hypersonic shells are there? What is the frequency of work at KAZ? How titanic the ammunition stock should be in order to repel a group of targets from one angle.
                  KAZ is clearly not a panacea. Especially considering the cost.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 9 May 2017 12: 30
                    0
                    For the non-modernized Arena, the time between the launches of two counter-munitions was equal to 0,4 seconds, and for the modernized Arena, it was an order of magnitude shorter. And less is not necessary - in the case of the simultaneous approach of several ATGMs from one angle, they will be lost by one counter-ammunition.

                    Ammunition "Arena-M" is equal to 12 units.

                    The volley fire of 13 and more ATGMs in one tank is fantastic.

                    Arena-M costs 500 thousand $, BMPT - 5 million $.
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 9 May 2017 12: 51
                      0
                      Why compare prices KAZ and BMPTiP.
                      This is how to compare the color of a crocodile and the taste of ice cream. Eio different things each with its own purpose. KAZ at the forefront is absolutely necessary for all technology. BMPT in some cases will increase the firepower of a medium-range unit. (hilly and rugged terrain, city, open terrain with poorly controlled flanks and air parity.)
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 9 May 2017 13: 03
                        +1
                        KAZ is a universal remedy for all types of ATGMs and RPGs adopted for service with a guarantee of 100% all-angle protection (in case of simultaneous attack to 12 ATGMs / RPGs).

                        BMPT - ten times more expensive tool that does not protect against ATGMs, starting outside the effective fire zone of 30-mm guns, in case of disguise of portable anti-tank weapons and / or simultaneous attack from two or more directions.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 14: 39
                        0
                        instead of simply listing the localities, describe a possible combat situation, then we'll see if this BMPT is needed ...
                    2. speedwing
                      speedwing 9 May 2017 15: 35
                      0
                      I am not a supporter of BMPT, but I am also skeptical of KAZ. Especially in terms of the power of counter-ammunition in the defeat of several shells.
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 9 May 2017 14: 29
            0
            Why be so hungry? Vertically, also hypersound .... From the shuttle to shoot tanks?
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 21: 44
              0
              Having gained speed, the projectile has such a large mass that no KAZ can protect, even if fragments from the KAZ fall, then there will be nothing from the blank (needle) from it, it simply will not have time to change the trajectory. This type of shells is an alternative to PUTRAM and BOPS. Two variants of the implementation of the ATGM variant are more expensive but are launched from a closed position, and the BOPS variant is cheaper but only launched from a gun (low pulse).
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 10 May 2017 07: 54
                0
                But you didn’t think that controlling the BPS at such a speed is very problematic and the turning radii will be so large that the total distance will become very large ...
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 00: 45
                  0
                  NARS (unguided active-rocket projectile) flies strictly in a straight line like BOPS, only its speed is higher.
                  ATGM at the initial stage has the usual speed, and only at the end it picks up speed (1-3km to the target)
              2. psiho117
                psiho117 10 May 2017 23: 39
                0
                Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                The voiced missile is the same BOPS, only solid propellant rocket engines up to a caliber of 152 mm are located around the rod (in the form of a needle), the plumage is slightly changed (it is not attached to the needle), the projectile itself flies out of the gun due to the powder charge, the same charge activates the engine, due to which the projectile accelerates further and at the point of destruction of the tank has a higher speed than the classic BOPS, due to which we have an increase in the damaging parameter while minimizing recoil into the barrel
                Mmmm ... I'm afraid everything is far from being so rosy in the version of the Hyper-velocity rocket (GSR) you are describing.
                All currently available GSR projects, in size, go far beyond what is possible for use in a tank. If you try to fit a missile designed to reach a speed of 5M or more into the size of a tank projectile, then, I'm afraid the cost of the engine and the toxicity of its fuel will be, to put it mildly, sensible, if at all possible, at the current level of technological development
                The basis for the development of shells taken from RPG7
                Unfortunately for non-specialists - but it doesn’t work like that.
                It is impossible to achieve hypersound simply by clinging to scrap with powder accelerators.
                Alas, such is the dangers, and inexorable physics.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 19: 46
                  0
                  1) this shell does not have to be exactly hypersonic; it’s enough to be supersonic. The main task to ensure the speed of the NARS at a distance of 3 km strictly no less than that of the BPS, modern anti-aircraft missiles, for example, from the shell, are capable of this. Of course, you can argue that the shell anti-aircraft missile is already 3 m long, to which I will answer that only its rear half is the engine, and the NARS is just about 1,5 m long and that it is placed in a vertical warhead inside an uninhabited tower, because everything fits perfectly. (the difference in calibers is also not significant because NARS does not need a range of tens of kilometers)
                  2) Understand, my logic is pretty simple, all the classic BOPS have reached the limit of their development. Each time increasing its speed by 2-3%, you have to redo the gun and its compensators again, this is a dead end, the same thing has already happened with portable grenade launchers, the limit has been reached and a new system has appeared (an active-rocket shell in RPG-7). Tank guns have the same limit, and the only way to overcome it is to make the shell accelerate or maintain its speed after departure from the barrel. This way of developing armor-piercing shells has the advantage of gradually improving the performance characteristics up to hypersonic shells. It is this path that I propose, first implement the NARS to replace today's BOPS, and then systematically increase its performance characteristics (this will be jointly done by hypersonic rocket builders).
                  3) In addition to overcoming the above mentioned limit, the rejection of the classic BOPS will make it possible to make a tank gun 152 mm high, elevation angles up to 80-90 degrees, three form factors of shots and combine this gun with a 30 mm quick-fire gun. Thus, we get a tank that is ideally suited to modern requirements. As I said below and above in the comments, I propose instead of any BMPTs to make a normal tank that can effectively fight in a tactical group of tanks, TBMP and infantry. Such a tank that can compensate for the shortcomings of today's tanks of the MBT concept.
                  1. psiho117
                    psiho117 11 May 2017 22: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    this shell does not have to be hypersonic; it’s enough to be supersonic
                    Mandatory. Otherwise, he will lose to the standard sub-caliber scrap. However, do not think that I am opposed to this idea, not at all. Probably, in the future it is along this path that the further development of tank subcalibers will go.
                    By the way, the Americans were already developing such a projectile, but were able to achieve speed only in 4M. As a result, the shell lost the contest to its counterpart with a strike core fellow
                    So, I found an article about this:
                    https://topwar.ru/29030-perspektivnye-tankovye-bo
                    epripasy-mrm-dlya-strelby-za-predely-pryamoy-vidi
                    mosti.html
                    classic BOPS have reached the limit of their development. Each time increasing its speed by 2-3%, you have to redo the gun again

                    Well ... not everything is as bad as you say. Yes, modern shells do not fit into the automatic loaders of tanks built in the 70s / 80s - but they generally should not, because these systems are already 40-50 years old, it is not surprising that new shells do not fit!
                    In new tanks, starting with the T-90MS, there is no such problem, the reserve is enough for the growing shells for another 25 years. Well, then I think I’ll replace 125-ku.
                    (It’s funny, but “Well stupid” Americans don’t have such a problem, the Negro somehow doesn’t care if the shell has become 10 cm longer or not wassat)
                    I propose instead of any BMPT to make a normal tank that can effectively fight in a tactical group of tanks, TBMP and infantry. Such a tank that can compensate for the shortcomings of today's tanks of the MBT concept.

                    Heh bully I am impressed by your zeal. I also think that tanks should fix the armament range a bit - however, I am inclined to add 1-2 DBMs with a machine gun + AGS, or to replace a coaxial machine gun with a coaxial 30mm cannon, and new shells for the 125-ke.
                    But, unfortunately, these are just our Wishlist ... And the reality is that no one will hear us.
                    The separation of the generality from reality is so great that they don’t even hear the fighters, those who directly serve - what can we say about us ...
                    The problem with our MO is that most of the brains really flowed into caps.
                    It comes to the point that either the Taburetkins, or at least someone whom the Supreme can rely on (Shoigu), become ministers of defense, and at the same time do not care that he is not an army man, and this kitchen is unfamiliar to him. More stupidly no one to put!
                    For the entire army general corps - there is not a single competent person capable of accepting the post of minister!
                    Is this not evidence of the complete degradation of the generals?
                    So without enthusiasts like Shamanov and Margelov - we’ll stagnate ...
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 12 May 2017 00: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: psiho117
                      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                      this shell does not have to be hypersonic; it’s enough to be supersonic
                      Mandatory. Otherwise, he will lose to the standard sub-caliber scrap.

                      No, it’s not necessary, judging by the photos from the topic, your link made an increase and complication of the projectile, which leads to additional restrictions when hit, which in turn requires an increase in the projectile speed to compensate, all this is not in my version, everything is decided banal opening of the "casing upon contact, i.e. the thickness of the rod is the same as that of the BOPS, and the engines go to the sides when impacting, thereby preventing the rod from breaking through the armor, which is why I call it NARS.

                      about the tank
                      Our thoughts are similar to you, especially about the tank, I also once thought about the ACS and 30mm spark, but in the end I changed my mind, simply because I realized that stuffing everything into one is useless and you need to optimize the tactical group, and not just the tank itself . For example, I thought that the ACS would be a good tool against ambushes, but I realized that this is not so, in the forest and the jungle it will work on the tops of trees, in the mountains it will not be able to accurately lay shells. I immediately rejected the machine guns, because they can shoot only with a flat trajectory and the enemy simply hides behind the slope, moves and strikes again, all the same, the machine guns are more for flank fire, and here the situation is different. And he refused from a 125mm gun immediately in order to unify the tank and self-propelled guns by shots.
                      As a result, I came to a 152mm hybrid gun with three shot form factors (about 1500 \ 1000 \ 500) with a 30mm twin like a melon, two vertical automatic loaders for 152mm (three and two sections) and one AZ for 30mm, all in an uninhabited tower while 30mm gun and laser-optical complex are brought forward into the enlarged casing of the gun to increase the AZ-152mm, aiming angles are from -10 to 85 and UAVs are 3-5pcs in the crazy space, but leave the machine gun only on the commander’s cupola, the small-caliber flaws relics (machine gun and grenade launcher) will be compensated by TBMP and infantry. And actually the tank + BMP + self-propelled guns + self-propelled guns + avto-missile systems at the main battle station (the main combat platform, tracked, one for all the armed forces).
                      ehhh dreams dreams recourse

                      About the Russian Defense Ministry, the phrase "beyond the trees, forests do not see".
                      But it’s really strange why we don’t have any optimization department in the Moscow region? There is an FPI but it is not engaged in the modernization of the defense industry, only in science. For example, I, for example, a simple analyst, collecting, structuring and balancing information on advanced developments (for my personal project) compiled several optimization sets for the Ministry of Defense, which could allow the military to increase combat effectiveness minimize costs, and only year-round free training for sailors is already worth it, and after all you can’t write this ratsuh, I had to send it through the presidential administration, as a result, it will surely end up in a garbage dump and no one will read where to put it there. But there are other people's rationalization ideas, for example, I saw a proposal to optimize the system for attaching equipment to railway platforms and caravans, one tank fastening in 30 seconds without any clogging of nails is worth what. crying Obviously, in Russia we have problems with military conceptual and technical analytics. Therefore we throw money away. recourse
                  2. bk0010
                    bk0010 12 May 2017 00: 14
                    0
                    1. How will you deal with the dead zone, where the rocket speed is insufficient to destroy the tank?
                    2. Why do you need a gun? Launcher for rockets is much simpler and cheaper.
                    3. If you use a cumulative charge instead of scrap, then the question is removed with the dead zone, with hypersonic speeds, and ensuring armor penetration is achieved by an increased caliber of the rocket, which in the absence of a gun is not a problem. Moreover, such a tank was made under Khrushchev, only the results of the military were not satisfied.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 12 May 2017 15: 00
                      0
                      3) Cumulative ones are also used (I didn’t suggest abandoning them!) But they have a drawback, this is a KAZ damaging projectile and thus preventing the formation of a cumulative stream. Therefore, NARS \ BOPS or their analogues of a non-cumulative type are needed.
                      2-3) The tank needs to destroy enemy firing points, and the most simple, cheap and therefore effective way is shells and mines.
                      1) There are several nuances (this disadvantage is compensated by several methods)
                      1.1) Tanks do not work alone, there is a tactical group (TG) of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry platoon drones circling above them (based in the turbulent space of tanks and commander infantry fighting vehicles, equipment and UAVs have optical, infrared and thermal imaging equipment ), the entire tactical group (TG) is connected to a single information network (the picture from all data sources is summed up and stored on the computer of each machine and viewed by all operators at once, while three types of pictures are added and processed at the hardware-software level to identify anomalies which and processed by operators), because the enemy tank is not able to approach a distance of less than 300-500m where NARS speed is less than that of BOPS. For example, if a tank is detected, it can be covered with cumulative mines (calculation using 3D terrain maps, adjustment by a drone or an infantry target designator).
                      1.2) If the tank is in the zone of 0-500 m, it can be destroyed by infantry RPG complexes or tanks of its own or neighboring TG that have moved to the optimal distance (optimal for firing)
                      1.3) The voiced hybrid weapon has a feature that distinguishes it from NONA-VENA, etc. this is a different stroke of the recoil compensators depending on the elevation angle of the implement. For example, at small angles the stroke length is "A", at medium "B", at large "C", where A> B> C. This allows at small angles (tank) to have a large possible recoil, comparable to modern tank. This allows the use of BOPSs, although not the ones that are now, but limited in recoil, the limitation is determined on the basis of the design of an uninhabited tank turret (turret + hybrid gun + recoil compensators).

                      From the conceptual and technical point of view, there are no problems, the only question is to work out a specific engineering and production project, and this is a job for engineers, industrialists and scientists, not analysts.
                      1. psiho117
                        psiho117 12 May 2017 18: 30
                        0
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Cumulative are also used ... but they have a drawback, this is a KAZ damaging projectile and thereby preventing the formation of a cumulative stream

                        Now there is a tendency to replace cumulative ammunition with ammunition that strikes with an impact core. Ammunition triggers behind the limits of the impact of standard KAZ, and in the case of a defeat from above - their armor penetration is enough to incapacitate a tank.
                        (By the way, it was precisely such a system that the American jet BOPS lost the competition)
                        Yes, the Americans have a dual-band KAZ Quick Kill project, the long-range interception range of which should work at a distance of 150m, but they are faced with a bunch of unsolved problems at this stage, and the long-range interception is still dull.
                        In general, what I’m leading to is that the war of the shield and the sword does not stop, and as soon as they came up with a method that gives apparent protection (KAZ), they immediately came up with ways to overcome it.
                        Progress does not stand still hi
  26. garri-lin
    garri-lin 9 May 2017 13: 09
    0
    Operator,
    You have not read my posts above, and my spores is the Cursed Pirate. I also think that both terminators sucks but a machine is needed for these tasks and described his vision of such an aggregate.
    1. Operator
      Operator 9 May 2017 13: 24
      0
      The site is slowing down - and BMPT is not just sucks, but a real cut in the budget, which Sergey Mayev is still lobbying.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 9 May 2017 14: 43
      0
      here on the site it is inconvenient to conduct a discussion, go to the forum (http://forum.topwar.ru), for example, in the topic with this news http://forum.topwar.ru/topic/9751-%D1%82%D0%B0 % D0
      %BD%D0%BA-%D0%B2-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%89%D
      1%8C-%E2%80%94-%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-i/

      well, or create a separate topic about BMPT in general ...
  27. garri-lin
    garri-lin 9 May 2017 13: 13
    0
    I repeat my post.
    Quote: garri-lin
    After starting, they will detect. And prevent the second start. And the tank will not need to be distracted from its main task for self-protection.
    The time to leave a position after a shot for RPGs is 5-15 seconds, for peters a little longer. The tank will not have time to react. The infantry will not have enough firepower. BMP may die or maybe not. But BMPT will be specially sharpened for this and will have time definitely. Plus, due to the rate of fire, it will be able to cover the whole sector as an MLRS.

    I am for KAZ on every unit of armored vehicles on the battlefield of any intensity.
  28. garri-lin
    garri-lin 9 May 2017 14: 08
    0
    Operator,
    I do not argue with you, I agree with you.
    The tank is not distracted. And the BMPT coming near it is exploring the launch positions with its own means and minimizes the possibility of repeated launches by DESTRUCTION.
    Or do you suggest that the tank doesn’t respond to firing on its own?
    1. Operator
      Operator 9 May 2017 14: 31
      0
      I suggest that the crew of the KAZ tank do not react at all to firing ATGMs and rocket-propelled grenades (just like to firing from machine guns, machine guns and rifles).

      Moreover, ATGM operators with grenade launchers will also not respond to a tank with a KAZ, since firing at it from them will be a useless expenditure of ammunition.

      The only goals for the tank are:
      - tanks;
      - anti-tank guns;
      - ZSU (since they may damage attachments);
      - anti-personnel firing points.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 9 May 2017 16: 07
        +2
        In real databases, a tank is beaten out of everything, including light shooting. If there is no problem with ammunition. It is a fact.
        So operators of anti-tank weapons will not ignore the tank.
        Means of overcoming KAZ will appear within 5 years. The hook is just the first step. So to focus only on this stray is not worth it. Its effectiveness will change for the better for the worse.
        By the way, the line of 57mm guns with HE shells licks from the tower that radars and mortars of counter-ammunition. The landmines just triggered by "interception" will comb the entire surface of the tower. Finishing anything from RPG 7.
        1. Operator
          Operator 9 May 2017 20: 57
          +1
          That's when and, most importantly, if there are means to overcome KAZ, only then it will be necessary to discuss something like BMPT, but for now this is an absolutely useless stray.

          On the other hand, as soon as the means of overcoming modern KAZ appear, so immediately promising not overcome KAZ will appear.
  29. bk0010
    bk0010 9 May 2017 15: 42
    0
    And I, instead of creating a BMPT, have a great desire to propose expanding the crew of the tank. But not under armor, but remotely (21st century after all). Retrofit tanks with 2-3 remotely controlled modules (preferably stabilized) with cameras, sensors and heavy machine guns (or automatic grenade launchers, but this option is worse due to range). People sitting in calm conditions, far beyond the front line, can not only protect the tank from the suddenly popping infantrymen, but also provide the command with operational information from the battlefield. For WHO, I do not see any problems. For a big war, the problem is EW, but when it is turned on, the tank will not remain completely defenseless, as in the case of remote control, and the EW station itself can be quickly destroyed. The issue of EMP is not relevant, since infantry simply burns out from its source. The problem is to create secure broadband equipment with a range of 20-50 kilometers, but here you can make a hub machine that goes behind the tanks in BMP orders (something like KShM).
    1. speedwing
      speedwing 9 May 2017 15: 50
      0
      There are already such things. Companion, for example. At low intensity conflicts can come in handy. But special EMI ammunition and generators, too, have not been canceled.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 11 May 2017 00: 31
        0
        Quote: Speedwing
        There are already such things. Companion, for example. At low intensity conflicts can come in handy. But special EMI ammunition and generators, too, have not been canceled.

        There is no such electronic counteraction that could not be circumvented. So far, countermeasures are losing this race.
        It is impossible to suppress absolutely all frequencies, for it will mutually strike both its own troops, leaving them without communication and target designation.
        Similarly, you can’t use high-power EMR near your positions (the reason is higher), and you can’t use it in a highly urbanized area - because this will lead to a collapse of power systems, and may end with the second Bhopal or Chernobyl, not to mention the “simple” hunger and cold.
        All that remains is low-power EMI ammunition, which is now being intensely developed. But at the same time everyone forgets that the competition of armor and shell has been going on for hundreds of years, and there has always been an adequate response to action.
        As soon as these ammunition is widely used, protection measures against them will also be widely distributed.
        Faraday cage, special filters and diodes, duplicating circuits, the transition from electrical networks to fiber optic, but there are many ways.
        This is not to mention the banal fire suppression of threatening targets.
        1. speedwing
          speedwing 11 May 2017 15: 38
          0
          Fair. But, as a fact, still no one canceled the means of knocking out electronics. smile Moreover, for protection from EMR-ammunition, it seems to me that only the transition from electronics to photonics will fully help.
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 11 May 2017 00: 32
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      And I, instead of creating a BMPT, have a great desire to propose expanding the tank crew ... with several remotely controlled modules

      The idea that has been floating in the air for a long time - for every expensive, highly protected manned unit (tank, fighter, helicopter), there should be several cheap unmanned drones (combat, reconnaissance and combat, barrage warheads, etc.).
      In particular, the 6th generation fighters are already being created precisely according to this concept.
      This will require a global digital space of the battlefield, with multiple duplication of information transmission channels.
      While everything rests on finances, and materiel.
      But when it is realized, it will become a really new word in military affairs.
  30. Thompson
    Thompson 10 May 2017 10: 26
    0
    Reading the comments of some sensations, some are Mendeleev, Copernicus and Einsteins !, and you are glad that they do not manage design bureaus and factories!
    1. speedwing
      speedwing 10 May 2017 16: 18
      0
      That's about how project planning takes place in the design bureau, no irony is needed. yes
  31. speedwing
    speedwing 10 May 2017 15: 35
    0
    Bad_gr,
    If the tank is in the city, and there is no one to cover it from the infantry, then it’s gotten into it)). This is not counting the fact that he actually has nothing to do there.
  32. speedwing
    speedwing 10 May 2017 15: 52
    +1
    Svarog51,
    Automatic weapons appeared as a result of an urgent need to increase the rate of fire of a firearm.
    Armored vehicles - as a result of an urgent need for a moving firing point, protected from shelling.
    BMPT appeared as a result of a creative search. Not all creative search finds are needed by others. Just because these others have lost their brains to find wherever it comes in handy.
  33. speedwing
    speedwing 10 May 2017 16: 26
    0
    ProkletyiPirat,
    Eh, it will take a lot of time. Let's go to the forum ourselves, comrade filibuster).
    I can only say that these arguments do not convince me. But good luck to you. You look, someone will look at the idea and want to implement it. And there, in practice, it will become clear whether you are right or not. wink
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. Castro Ruiz
    Castro Ruiz 11 May 2017 02: 19
    0
    BMPT khorosh tolko v gorodskikh boyakh. V terene uvyazlima as tank. A v terene dazhe s 2 x 57 mm pushou + putemyoti, mozhet tolko teren svincom polivat. Bolshogo talk neto.
  36. abc_alex
    abc_alex 11 May 2017 16: 49
    0
    How much I read the history of the creation of BMPT, so much I can not understand why now the development of this machine has left the original project.
    Why did the military ask her? Remove infantry from the battlefield.
    What did they want from her? Equipping with a multichannel armament complex capable of concentrating fire and simultaneously hitting several targets around. That is, in simple terms, several firing points in one housing.
    In fact, the military asked to remove the platoon of motorized infantry with all weapons under armor.

    What now? One swivel module with a pair of guns and an ATG package. This is one firing point. Though terribly diverse armed. Is it a BMPT? No, this is a tank.
  37. bk0010
    bk0010 12 May 2017 00: 09
    0
    Quote: abc_alex
    Why did the military ask her? Remove infantry from the battlefield.
    Whose infantry? Foreign infantry. His own goes to the BMP 100 m from the advancing tanks. In fact, the military did not want anything, BMPT initiative development of the industry to suppress grenade launchers in urban conditions.
    Quote: abc_alex
    That is, in simple terms, several firing points in one housing.
    It was called T-35. The superweapon did not show itself.
    Quote: abc_alex
    In fact, the military asked to remove the platoon of motorized infantry with all weapons under armor.
    No. The platoon under the armor is of little use: it pumps in motion, the weapon is not stabilized, the view is poor, the caliber is small (see BMP).
    And so, I agree with you: they are offering something wrong.
  38. bk0010
    bk0010 12 May 2017 20: 42
    0
    psiho117The shock core is not an option. Now it is being used because tank builders were not laid to counter it. Its penetration is weak, there are no chances to overcome the dynamic protection, most likely we will not realize the tandem option. Imagine that the tank on top was covered with dynamic protection. The engine was closed with thin armor plate with DZ at a height of half a meter from the engine grill. Cooling finalized (put additional fans, perhaps somehow involved the bottom of the tank). Javelin arrives (even if the future one is in tandem), it works, both nuclei are drifted by one DZ cell. Moreover, you can place a special heat source on a small but thick armor plate so that the ATGM is aimed at it. But suppose the enemy succeeded. The tank has only an engine broken. If you pull him out of the battlefield, then the rembat will play him a shaman for a day.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 13 May 2017 01: 05
      +1
      Quote: bk0010
      The impact core is not an option. Now it is being used because tank builders were not laid to counter it. Its penetration is weak, there are no chances to overcome dynamic protection,

      We are armed with anti-tank mines, the striking element of which is the strike core. In tests, the T-72 tank pierced through. That is, 2 bulwarks, 2 sides of the hull (70-80mm of armor each) + all the equipment that was in the tank on the path of this very core.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 13 May 2017 09: 31
        0
        And was the DZ installed?
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 13 May 2017 10: 40
          +1
          Quote: bk0010
          And was the DZ installed?

          I don’t remember, information came across for a long time.
          Incidentally, anti-helicopter mines are the same with a strike core.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. psiho117
      psiho117 13 May 2017 11: 57
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      The shock core is not an option ... Its penetration is weak, there are no chances to overcome dynamic protection,

      Not at all - the dynamic defense is not designed to work on the impact core at all, it is designed to violate the structure of the cumulative “needle”, there is a little bit of its back, at the stage of formation - and that's it - it spreads out, and the effect disappears to almost zero.
      The impact core is not only formed outside the reach of the defense, it also works on bare kinetic impact (like an armor-piercing projectile or BOPS), and therefore the existing dynamic defense against it is ineffective.
      Quote: bk0010
      tandem option, most likely, do not implement

      Why? there are differences from the cumulative - only the shape of the funnel and the features of the blasting.
      Quote: bk0010
      Javelin arrives (even if the future one is in tandem), it works, both nuclei are drifted by one DZ cell.

      there is absolutely no problem in wagging them in turn, with a difference of milliseconds - this will be enough.
      Quote: bk0010
      Moreover, you can place a special heat source on a small but thick armor plate so that the ATGM is aimed at it.
      Modern ATGMs are farther away from primitive rockets guided by wire. Now they can compete with ballistic and cruise missiles, with their Terkom in the complexity of GOS and guidance algorithms.
      They no longer aim at the center of the heat spot, but compare the target signature with the base laid in them, and they select the most vulnerable spot from it.
      Quote: bk0010
      If you pull him out of the battlefield, then the rembat will play him a shaman for a day.

      it still needs to be pulled out, which is not at all a fact.
      And even one day - in modern conflicts of high intensity - is already a lot.
      So far, they have been repairing it - the war has already ended. Just the winner will get the trophy.
      1. Operator
        Operator 13 May 2017 12: 23
        0
        Penetration of a cumulative charge ~ 10 warhead diameters.

        Penetration of the shock core ~ ​​0,5 warhead diameter, i.e. to break through armor in 1 meter of steel equivalent, an ATGM with a diameter of 2 meter is needed.

        Dynamic protection is effective both against short circuit and against UY.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 13 May 2017 18: 33
          0
          Quote: Operator
          Penetration of a cumulative charge ~ 10 warhead diameters.

          Here I read your messages, comrade The operator - and I wonder:
          - With such categoricalness and pathos, copy-paste data from Wiki ... Yes, and still not confirmed by anything.
          And it’s also wrong! bully Talent!
          Well, since the explosives and ammunition are my thing, I have to act as an educator. So:
          - The ultimate armor penetration for cumulative charges is 9 diameters. This is with a tantalum cladding, a high-explosive CL-20 type explosive, and a specially calculated elongated sinusoidal shape of a variable curvature cladding.
          For plain copper, and standard explosives of the RDX type, this indicator is an average of 6 diameters.
          Quote: Operator
          Penetration of the shock core is ~ 0,5 of the warhead diameter, for penetrating armor of 1 meter of steel equivalent, an ATGM of 2 meters in diameter is needed.

          Where do you get this heresy from?
          Penetration of shock nuclei - ~ D * 2, i.e. two diameters, not D / 2 at all. Learn to read formulas.
          Well, at least a little ask for example the characteristics of existing mines
          - here is the hoary antiquity of the 70s of the last century - the Swedish anti-bottom mine FFV028:
          3,5 kg of explosives, diameter 250 mm, lining - copper, at a distance of 0,5 m provides through penetration of hardened armored plate with a thickness of 50 mm, and subsequent penetration of two steel plates 100 mm thick spaced 10 mm each. The diameter of the holes in the armor plate is 90-95 mm, and the breaks in steel sheets reach 270-300 mm.
          But the American self-aiming cluster warheads SADARM (or our analogue "Motive") - with a diameter of 147 mm, are designed to penetrate the roof of most MBTs at ranges not less than 150m.
          In addition, zabronovoe impact is incomparable with godfather. jet.
          The impact core provides a through hole with a diameter of D / 2. On the inside, a characteristic circular spall with a diameter of D. Mass of fragments, chips ~ M * 2-M * 4. Hence the huge armor impact - during the tests, these fragments pierced a 3cm pine beam. The chances of survival are minimal.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 13 May 2017 18: 35
            +1
            Quote: Operator
            Dynamic protection is effective both against short circuit and against UY.

            But nothing that godfather. about 16% of the metal of the lining, going with an unstable thin needle, is converted into a funnel into a stream,
            and the lining of the shock core is completely transformed - 100%! At the same time, due to its weight and animate form, it practically does not lose kinetic energy.
            Using the example of the same SADARM, the weight of the shock core is about 1 kg, the shell collapse rate is close to the speed of the explosion products - for RDX it's 2,12km / s!
            That is, the shock core starts at a speed of more than 2000m / s, plus acceleration of gravity (9,8m \ sec * 150m), so that at the moment of collision it has a speed of about 2,5 km / s! This is fucking hypersound!
            And you hope for the effectiveness of a thin 150g leaf of explosives in counteracting this huge kinetic energy? Naive.
            Learn physics, my friend.
          2. psiho117
            psiho117 13 May 2017 18: 47
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            hole with diameter D / 2. On the inside, a characteristic circular spall with a diameter of D. Mass of fragments, chips ~ M * 2-M * 4.
            I forgot to indicate - this is for a standard charge of 120mm diameter and 600g lining
          3. Operator
            Operator 13 May 2017 19: 03
            0
            Do you read what you write? Type: "mine ... diameter 250mm, ... provides through penetration of hardened armored plate with thickness 50mm" - it turns out 0,2 diameter of the impact core.

            And here’s the data from the Kornet ATGM: the hull diameter is 152 mm, the armor penetration is 1300 mm, i.e. it turns out without small 9 diameters of the cumulative charge.

            Immediately after the actuation of the charge, the impact core has a detonation velocity of a charge explosive of ~ 8 km / s, at a distance of 1 meters from the place of explosion after the formation of a drop-shaped slaughter element, the impact core has a speed of the order of 4 km / s, and at a distance of 10 meters, the speed decreases to 2 km / s s, at a distance of 100 meters ~ 1 km / s.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 14 May 2017 02: 05
              0
              Quote: Operator
              ATGM "Cornet" ... armor penetration - 1300 mm
              I'm not saying that the strike core pierces more than cumulatively — I say that it will cornet, explode it by the same half meter — and it will not penetrate the second sheet of spaced armor. Cumulative very Demanding on the conditions of detonation - 5 cm closer, 5 cm further - and penetration is reduced catastrophically. And even thin, but spaced-out armor - in general, may not be able to do it. Plus high vulnerability to dynamic and active protection.
              The impact core is devoid of all these vulnerabilities - but the payload is at times lower armor penetration (but it is stable, and from a long range).
              Quote: Operator
              Immediately after the actuation of the charge, the impact core has a detonation velocity of a charge explosive of ~ 8 km / s, at a distance of 1 meters from the place of explosion after the formation of a drop-shaped slaughter element, the impact core has a speed of the order of 4 km / s, and at a distance of 10 meters, the speed decreases to 2 km / s s, at a distance of 100 meters ~ 1 km / s.
              Some kind of heresy. Do you even have the slightest idea about explosives? Well can not throwing ability to exceed the speed of explosion products, can not!
              And if for hexogen it is 2,12 km / s, then the shock core will fly at about the same speed. Where does this nonsense about 8km \ sec come from? This is only the head part of the cumulative “needle” that can move at a speed of up to 10 km / s, and then it makes up only 10-20% of the jet, the rest flies with the same speed of ~ 2-2,5 km / s. And then, this is only possible on highly elongated cumulative funnels.
              Further nonsense about "reducing speed from 8 to 2km / s" at a distance of 10 m - I do not even want to comment. The momentum conservation equation cries quietly aside.
              Learn physics, my friend.
              1. Operator
                Operator 14 May 2017 07: 35
                0
                HMX detonation speed is 9 km / s, phlegmatized HMX is 8 km / s, RDX is not used in shock nucleus charges and cumulative charges.

                The speed of the metal lining of the shock nucleus at the moment of approaching the detonation wave in the explosive charge is exactly equal to the velocity of the detonation wave. Subsequently, the obtained kinetic energy of the metal cladding of the UW is spent on the shaping of the slaughter element and its friction against the air.

                Learn explosives, metalworking and aerodynamics, mon cher ami laughing
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 16 May 2017 21: 20
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  RDX is not used in shock nucleus charges and cumulative charges

                  Yes, and such names as TG-40, TG-50, A-IX-I, Hekfol-5 - of course, they won’t tell you anything. But after all, it is not written about them on Wikipedia wassat wassat wassat
                  connoisseur, pah.
                  Quote: Operator
                  Octogen detonation speed - 9 km / s, phlegmatized HMX - 8 km / s

                  What does the detonation speed have to do with the propelling ability? Oh, what am I talking about - after all, wiki experts do not know what it is and what it affects ...
                  The speed of the metal lining of the shock nucleus at the moment of approaching the detonation wave in the explosive charge is exactly equal to the velocity of the detonation wave. Subsequently, the obtained kinetic energy of the metal cladding of the UW is spent on the shaping of the slaughter element and its friction against the air.

                  Yeah, I’ve taken it all and wiped it off the air, from 8km / s - for some tens of centimeters. Could give formulas and calculations, but ... To whom? wassat
                  Okay, I already realized that the dispute with Vicki-ekspert is counterproductive in essence - I don’t answer this heresy anymore.
  39. bk0010
    bk0010 13 May 2017 21: 16
    -1
    Quote: psiho117
    Quote: bk0010
    tandem option, most likely, do not implement

    Why? there are differences from the cumulative - only the shape of the funnel and the features of the blasting.
    Quote: bk0010
    Javelin arrives (even if the future one is in tandem), it works, both nuclei are drifted by one DZ cell.

    there is absolutely no problem in wagging them in turn, with a difference of milliseconds - this will be enough.
    Because the ATGM does not fly into the tank, but past the tank at a speed of 200 m / s, after 1 ms it will be (if it is not spaced when the shock core is formed) 20 cm from the point of detonation (another DZ cell). In general, to organize a tandem detonation, ATGMs must go to the tank strictly vertically (IMHO, of course).
    Quote: psiho117
    Quote: bk0010
    If you pull him out of the battlefield, then the rembat will play him a shaman for a day.

    it still needs to be pulled out, which is not at all a fact.
    And even one day - in modern conflicts of high intensity - is already a lot.
    So far, they have been repairing it - the war has already ended. Just the winner will get the trophy.
    Come on. The war ended in a day? Tell the Jews about this. By the way, their damaged tanks are almost always repaired.
  40. bk0010
    bk0010 13 May 2017 21: 26
    -1
    Quote: psiho117
    And you hope for the effectiveness of a thin 150g leaf of explosives in counteracting this huge kinetic energy? Naive. Learn physics, my friend.
    There, in addition to explosives, another steel plate flies out, which will break the core. But even this is not the main thing, the main thing is to reduce the speed of the nucleus so that from the liquid-liquid interaction to the metal-metal interaction, then the core will simply crash through the armor. That is not a problem for a speed of 2-3 km / s: the cumulative jet has a speed of 9-11 km / s. So DZ will solve the problem with the Javelins (IMHO, of course). The only question is that DZ explosives do not break through thin armor at the top of the tank.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 14 May 2017 02: 21
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      the main thing is to reduce the speed of the core so that from a liquid-liquid interaction to a metal-metal interaction ... That is not a problem for a speed of 2-3 km / s
      "not a problem" am This is a hypersonic speed, at such a speed do not care what flies towards it - the products of an explosion, or a steel plate - who has more density and kinetic energy - he and dad! An attempt of a dynamic defense to stop an impact core weighing about a kilogram and flying at a speed of 6M will have the same “efficiency” as an attempt to stop a BOPS — that is, no!
      Understand, finally, dynamic protection is invented and used. only as a means of counteracting the cumulative jet! For heavy kinetic penetrators ("crowbars" and "shock nuclei"), its effectiveness is in the region of 10-15%.
  41. speedwing
    speedwing 17 May 2017 21: 23
    0
    ProkletyiPirat,
    Let me remind you again that I'm talking about guided missiles. And one and a half kilometers in an open field is too dangerous a distance to allow. Therefore, you need to try to neutralize the ability of the enemy to accurately respond.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2017 01: 23
      0
      Well, let's say you disguised a car with a 57mm gun, let's say that we destroyed the optics of an enemy tank with the first shot, let's say we managed to get away from other tanks after a shot. How will you fight with the remaining tanks? they won’t let you go and aim, there is no time to disguise yourself, when you try to repeat the script there will be a bummer as the enemy is on the alert ...
      what will you do?
      1. speedwing
        speedwing 18 May 2017 15: 31
        0
        Yes whatever!
        To begin with, such a BM should correspond to the concept of ground combat with maximum network-centricity. That is, in such a clash she will certainly be not the only one.
        Then, multichannel should be an important factor in the new generation of SUV. That is, using a tactical map, the SUV gives the control modules in shells specific coordinates. The commander pressed the mark of target A - the target marker translates the coordinates of the shots. All projectiles currently being released will tend to the point indicated by the target marker. The commander pressed the mark of target B - the newly released shells will work on it .. and those already fired at the previous mark will go along the coordinates of mark A after moving the target marker. That is, it is possible to work on several goals even before the shells fired on the first reach it. Yes, for this you need to significantly update the architecture of guided shells and SUV that will work with them. But this does not require any fundamentally new scientific research, you just need to sit down and design.
        Another important nuance of such a concept is the pushing of the frontier of effective fire. A gun with anti-aircraft ballistics with some modifications can spit guided projectiles at a distance of up to ten kilometers. To compensate for the fall in kinetic energy at such a range, you can use modular shells with warheads in different designs, up to the NARS you are promoting. Plus, add to the control module software analogues of rocket modes of operation - from a summer, a hill, etc. The main thing is that a wide range of sighting systems, working with a single tactical map, provide such BM with coordinates. And the BM itself should have a new maximum “big-eyed” SUV, working as far as possible. This makes it possible to fire from a range to which nowadays not only tank guns, but also modern muzzle-launch missiles do not reach.
        In addition, in cooperation with the BM and infantry units of the first line, self-propelled guns with direct fire support with a universal weapon à la Nona-Vienna-Hosta family, with a range of up to 20 km, should work. She will hit the most difficult and uncomfortable targets for the first-line fighters.
        A perfectly valid concept, as for me. The need for MBT and BMPT minimizes.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2017 16: 23
          +1
          Everything is fine in your description. BUT! Why, in the presence of all electronics, information, etc. to have a caliber of 57mm for the destruction of optics and other things? The same equipment delivered to the tank will guarantee to destroy the enemy equipment itself and not just its hitch. Moreover, it will be easier / cheaper as it does not require sniper shooting (below the accuracy limit). The second option is clearly preferable.
          1. speedwing
            speedwing 22 May 2017 16: 29
            0
            Do you think such a tank gun and shells for it will be cheaper? Or are you talking about the version with "cast-iron" shells? If the second, then maybe. True, the system is much more primitive. And the urgent need for it will be much narrower.
            1. speedwing
              speedwing 22 May 2017 16: 49
              0
              And why "guaranteed to destroy"? Why so much bloodthirst? Do you like torn towers?) “Correct” firing from a long distance will surely lead to the tank losing its ability to conduct an adequate battle and, even if it remains on track, it will certainly not continue rapprochement. And if you work well on the shells, then they will be able to hit the back of the tower and MTO from above. Then he certainly will not continue rapprochement). The modern level of protection of the rear of the upper projection allows this. That's when it stops allowing - then we'll talk about new tools and shells. The main thing is that by that time the principle system itself will have already been worked out.
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 23 May 2017 02: 28
              0
              Quote: Speedwing
              And the urgent need for it will be much narrower.

              those. Do you think that 57mm need more than 125mm? Do you really think that the military needs to be "damaged" and not "destroyed"? fool turn on your head!
              And in general, explain how a 57mm projectile fired along a flat path will hit the tank from above? and even if you manage to describe it, then also describe how he will break through the tower and roof of the MTO at the same time ...
              1. speedwing
                speedwing 16 July 2017 22: 44
                0
                Khme, tales from the crypt: continued))))

                I remember that we talked about the caliber and types of BM in combat situations, and not about what to put on the tank - 57mm or 125mm. So, at least the need is no less.

                I, of course, cannot speak for all the military, but in principle they need to "disable" or "deprive combat readiness." "Damage", "destroy" - this is particular. Moreover, tanks, often after a defeat, remain maintainable.

                The rest has already been said. You just need to understand how it works.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 20 July 2017 23: 11
                  0
                  Quote: Speedwing
                  You just need to understand how it works.

                  this realization does not reach me, if it dawned on you, then help me reach it.
                  1. speedwing
                    speedwing 21 July 2017 20: 40
                    0
                    Oh, come on!)) We drove already;) Now, if they implement it, we'll see. Or maybe your "universaltank" will be implemented - we will also see. smile
        2. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 18 May 2017 16: 36
          0
          Quote: Speedwing
          In addition, in cooperation with the BM and infantry units of the first line, self-propelled guns with direct fire support with a universal weapon à la Nona-Vienna-Hosta family, with a range of up to 20 km, should work. She will hit the most difficult and uncomfortable targets for the first-line fighters.

          tactical group - front line of attack, tanks \ BMP \ infantry
          task force - self-propelled guns \ MLRS \ reconnaissance \ HQ headquarters, second line of attack, one TG has several TGs
          To work at 20 km there are already self-propelled guns (MST-s, etc.) the exhaust team simply does not have time to help the TG in time, because the self-propelled guns have to move in order to help different TGs, and even the trajectory of the projectile fired from the rear can not always allow destroy the enemy firing point (he can’t do fortification either).
          1. speedwing
            speedwing 22 May 2017 17: 07
            0
            Just the same at the expense of reducing the number of tanks, you can increase the number of self-propelled guns. For example, in the same 1st GTA to the dissolution of the Union there were somewhere up to 1000 infantry fighting vehicles, up to 700 MBT and up to 300 self-propelled guns. If radically reduce the number of MBT, then self-propelled guns should be quite enough. Somewhere in the area of ​​one to platoon. In addition, self-propelled guns must work on the principle of "conveyor": the platoon of the first line has reached the desired line, the guarding self-propelled guns are curtailed and moving towards it, and its place, having advanced somewhat, is occupied by the second. The first self-propelled guns reached the line, turned around, the other turns and starts moving. The Marines work like this.
            “Msta” is the same, or rather, its successor, the “Coalition” should be responsible for the implementation of more tactical fire missions at a further line.
            As for fortifications, then it’s up to the craftsmen who will pluck control surfaces for shells. And where is the guarantee that the tank is flat and fast shooting with substantially closer distance will destroy from the "far away" .. request
        3. psiho117
          psiho117 18 May 2017 23: 32
          0
          Quote: Speedwing
          A gun with anti-aircraft ballistics with some modifications can spit guided projectiles at a distance of up to a dozen kilometers
          oh, how does your anti-aircraft ballistics give you rest ... but isn’t that already at 4-5 km the projectile trajectory is a slide 20 meters high, and the dispersal is plus or minus the barn?
          where You are going to shoot 10 km, what will you see there?
          anti-aircraft guns were given target designation by KP, according to data from the radar - and they created a high concentration of shells in a certain area of ​​space - maybe at least 1 will hit.
          Who will provide data for the BMP when firing at 10 km (and this will already be a ballistic trajectory), and in what devices will the commander be able to see the result of his shooting?

          Damn, well, neither people have any logic or sense, this range of 10 km does not give them anything to sleep. And no one wants to think, they are going to shoot down helicopters with a quick fire.
          1. speedwing
            speedwing 22 May 2017 17: 24
            0
            Carefully need to read:
            "To begin with, such a BM should correspond to the concept of ground combat with maximum network-centricity. That is, it will certainly be not the only one in such a collision."
            "for this we need to significantly update the architecture of guided shells and SUV that will work with them"
            "Anti-aircraft ballistic gun with some modifications can spit guided projectiles at a distance BEFORE ten kilometers. To compensate for the fall in kinetic energy at such a range, you can use modular shells with warheads in different designs, up to the NARS you are promoting. Plus, add to the control module software analogues of rocket modes of operation - from a summer, a hill, etc. The main thing is that a wide range of sighting systems, working with a single tactical map, provide such BM with coordinates. Yes, and the BM itself should have a new maximum "big-eyed" SUV, working as far as possible. "
            No need to get excited, Comrade Psycho or Dmitry - I sleep quite calmly and do not get hung up on ten kilometers. Five to six is ​​also quite enough. Anyway - the ground battle is not about me, I'm worried about others.
            And as for the runaway helicopter just is to think. ;))
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 23 May 2017 02: 35
              +1
              to get on a helicopter you first need to find it, and today’s radars for this task can’t be crammed into a BMP tank ... and even if crammed, a 57mm gun will not be able to damage the helicopter at a distance of more than 5km
  42. bk0010
    bk0010 18 May 2017 22: 29
    0
    Quote: Speedwing
    That is, using a tactical map, the SUV gives the control modules in shells specific coordinates. The commander pressed the mark of target A - the target marker translates the coordinates of the shots. All projectiles currently being released will tend to the point indicated by the target marker. The commander pressed the mark of target B - the newly released shells will work on it .. and those already fired at the previous mark will go along the coordinates of mark A after moving the target marker.
    Coordinates of moving targets? Do you want to realize “Granite” in the framework of regimental artillery, so that when he arrives at the indicated coordinates he himself searches for targets, or are you hoping to determine and correct the coordinates of moving targets with such accuracy that you could get into the tank? And how do you cover the entrenched battalion? Also guided missiles? We’ll stay without pants.
    Quote: Speedwing
    A gun with anti-aircraft ballistics with some modifications can spit guided projectiles at a distance of up to ten kilometers.
    What for you anti-aircraft gun?
    Quote: Speedwing
    To compensate for the fall in kinetic energy at such a range, you can use modular shells with warheads in different designs, up to the NARS you are promoting.
    Look at explosives and do not worry about energy. If the target is heavily armored - a cumulative charge.
    Quote: Speedwing
    Plus, add to the control module software analogues of rocket modes of operation - from a summer, a hill, etc.
    The shells have a slide. Yeah.
    Quote: Speedwing
    This makes it possible to fire from a range to which nowadays not only tank guns, but also modern muzzle-launch missiles do not reach.
    You are not in the air, you are on the earth. You are lucky if you see 2 km. All that’s next will have to be further explored.
    Quote: Speedwing
    In addition, in conjunction with BM and infantry units of the first line, self-propelled guns with direct fire support with a universal weapon à la Nona-Vienna-Hosta family, with a range of up to 20 km, should work.
    Nona at 20km? Halve the sturgeon.
    1. speedwing
      speedwing 22 May 2017 17: 51
      0
      “Coordinates of moving targets? Do you want to implement Granite in the framework of regimental artillery so that when he arrives at the indicated coordinates he will search for targets or hope to determine and correct the coordinates of moving targets with such accuracy that it would be possible to get into the tank?” will you cover the entrenched battalion? Also with guided shells? We’ll remain without pants. "
      Why immediately "Granite"? Each component of the system should be much simpler and cheaper. So - the second option: to determine and adjust the coordinates. Within a network-centric group, this should be one of the main advantages. It is desirable to build such a system in a measured manner and without cuts. With the second one, of course, how it will turn out, but it’s better for a while without pants than without a head for good. wink
      "What the hell is an anti-aircraft gun for you?"
      Such a gun is the best choice for a motorized rifle BM. Power and firing range with relatively low platform requirements. A 57mm caliber allows you to reduce the cost of designing guided ammunition compared to smaller ones, because you do not need to go out completely to stuff the control module and control surfaces.
      "Fill up explosives and do not worry about energy. If the target is heavily armored - a cumulative charge."
      Anything to offer. This is already for the gunsmiths, who will select the nomenclature of warheads.
      "The shells have a slide. Yeah."
      Why not? Can you imagine what opportunities such application modes will provide if they are implemented.
      "You are not in the air, you are on the earth. You will be lucky if you can see it for 2 km. All that’s next will have to be explored."
      That's it. Therefore, this is the concept of a network-centric group, where "everyone is exploring for everyone."
      "Nona at 20km? Halve the sturgeon."
      I talked about conditional combat lines. However, why not? Won French APKMom spits on the same 17 km. Why not spit with a new generation guided projectile at 20 ..