UVZ began the modernization of BMPT Terminator

Uralvagonzavod Corporation (UVZ) has begun the modernization of a support combat vehicle tanks (BMPT) "Terminator". As stated on Friday in an interview with the newspaper "Kommersant"CEO Alexander Potapov, a combat vehicle can get new caliber guns and updated combat modules

We are not standing still and are considering new calibers of guns, we are engaged in the modernization of combat units, including for BMPT

- he said.

Currently, two versions of the Terminator have been created on the basis of the T-72 tank - the Terminator-1 and the Terminator-2, which are sold for export, but not purchased by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

Commenting on the absence of orders from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for this machine today, Potapov noted that in the foreseeable future, the military department could begin its purchases

The military, as far as I know, has somehow changed its attitude towards this car. Therefore, I think the reaction will be positive. In addition, the ability to conduct hostilities in confined spaces is suitable for her

- he noted.

The BMPT Terminator armament produced by the Uralvagonzavod Corporation includes two 30А2 X-guns, two Ataka-T anti-tank missiles, two AG-42D automatic grenade launchers and a 17-mm machine gun.

The fire control system of the main armament of the vehicle allows detecting and recognizing small targets at long ranges day and night and in adverse weather conditions.

The presence of three operators in BMPT enables it to quickly detect and simultaneously hit three different targets at once in the 360 degrees sector. As Oleg Siyenko, the former General Director of UVZ, noted, many characteristics of the Terminator-2 have been fundamentally updated, which will make it popular abroad. In particular, the BMPT will receive a new gun, and also the layout created on the basis of the T-72 chassis will reduce the crew from five to three people.

Comments

[Partyzan]

The presence of three operators in the BMPT allows it to quickly detect and simultaneously hit three different targets at once in the 360-degree sector.

this is a good thing

[Victor N]

There was information about the appearance of this car in Syria, but there are no results yet.
Combat use will be a powerful argument in disputes.

[Partyzan]

maybe not completely run in yet?

[Dead duck]

Quote: Victor N

but no results yet.

The main result:

The military, as far as I know, has somehow changed its attitude towards this machine.

It finally arrived that something like this was needed for a battle in an urban setting.

[Partyzan]

Maybe some intermediate results

[Talgat]

Kazakhstan, as far as I read, is almost the only buyer of Terminators.
I’m not an expert of course - but in my opinion the machine is needed - it complements tanks in conditions of urban combat and combat against infantry and helps to fight anti-tank weapons

I hope our KZ will buy the upgraded new options.

[AVGUST]

As the experience of the first Chechen one showed - tanks cannot be used in urban combat - they will be burned like matchboxes, and this is a tank support vehicle, its place away from the near edge, or on the flank of a tank attack, in order to cut off infantry and lightly armored targets, so in my opinion why should there be a bunch of turrets with independent sectors of fire, but God forbid he shoots himself, there is a general direction of 360 degrees of the tower, with various weapons, and let the course grenade launchers work at the rate, it should be good, in short, the experience of war will put everything in order to their places .......

[strannik1985]

Hi-hicks, and the experience of the Second Company showed the opposite.
Seriously, the experience of the New Year’s assault on Grozny showed that it is impossible to storm a city prepared for defense using the BB methodology (that is, troops are deployed as part of marching columns, take objects, and after that there is a clearance), the tanks there were hostages of the situation. The use of tanks has long been planned (since the days of the Second World War), moreover, you can’t do without tanks in the city, it’s a difficult terrain, and direct support may be needed at any time. In the city, any equipment, tank / BMP / BMPT goes for the infantry, as part of the fire support and consolidation groups.

[Torkvat torkvat]

Shilka would use old

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Talgat

I’m not an expert of course - but in my opinion the machine is needed - it complements tanks in conditions of urban combat and combat against infantry and helps to fight anti-tank weapons

In the form that there is an unnecessary car. And it is a pity that Kazakhstan bought it.

Quote: Talgat

I hope our KZ will buy the upgraded new options.

I hope that the new version will be really adequate.

[APASUS]

Quote: Victor N

There was information about the appearance of this car in Syria, but there are no results yet.
Combat use will be a powerful argument in disputes.

Apparently, it is the mushrooms of the use of this machine in Syria that were the primary reason for the modernization, before taking this machine into service.

[Venceremos]

Quote: Victor N

There was information about the appearance of this car in Syria, but there are no results yet.

Far, Syria ... From us, information on the results would come quickly

And so yes, the thing is soooooooo worthy. The line of tanks will complement only this way. It is strange that the Russian Defense Ministry did not find its place in the army ...

[Dead duck]

Quote: Partyzan

Three different targets in the 360 degree sector.

Not all types of weapons installed. Limitations are available. He deceived a little.
Only the tower on 360 is working, the rest is in the front hemisphere.
Nuna put a couple more modules on the tower, then there will be almost 360 degrees with independent sectors.

[Partyzan]

Perhaps during trials and get to this

[hasapis]

why does she need this? 360? she’s not tenacious at all, are they going to throw her on the front line? who will go to her rear?

[Dead duck]

Quote: hasapis

why does she need this? 360? she’s not tenacious at all, are they going to throw her on the front line?

Yes, you are a merry fellow brother, thank you, sincerely amused

[self-propelled]

Quote: Partyzan

this is a good thing

perhaps, only since the advent of the BMPT "in public" (and this is the beginning of the 2000's), no one in the world (even the great copy-paste Chinese) have been trying to do anything like this. I don’t think they can. apparently do not see the point (well, or niches for such a technique)

[Partyzan]

Will run-in. then see if it makes sense or not

[Herman 4223]

There is a point, infantry is the main, most numerous target on the battlefield, and this is essentially an infantry fighter.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: self-propelled

I don’t think they can. apparently they do not see the point (well, or niches for such a technique)

There, it seems, they go the "rational" (tight) way - "use what is at hand, and do not look for another." The result is monstrous BMP-PT The same "Bradley" and "Marders", hung on the very screens with various shooting, launching and radiating iron. On the other hand, the size of, say, the tank fleets of many NATO "bison" is such that, indeed, BMPTs are not very much needed, because, in which case, there will be no one to support ... For example, the same shaves. By the way, they recently revealed this (as required to prove - the Ajax BMP platform in several ways) And then, EMNIP, it was the BMPT variant on this base that slowed down. Indeed - what's the point?

[Mexovoy]

Everything is confused in the article. In version 1 there were 5 operators and 2 grenade launchers. In version 2, they were removed and there were 3 operators, a mechanic commander, a commander and a gunner. 2x grenade launchers removed. What the developer did not agree with. The main idea was 5 pairs of eyes on one machine to deal effectively with infantry.

[Dead duck]

The one that was shown in Syria was a prefabricated building from the first, and the tower from the second option.
Perhaps this option was meant.

[Torkvat torkvat]

Mortar 82 mm IMHO would be better)

[Setrac]

Quote: Torkvat Torkvat

Mortar 82 mm IMHO would be better)

NONA is cooler than any BMPT.

[Maz]

I wonder who buys him or her?

[mark021105]

Quote: Partyzan

In particular, the BMPT will receive a new gun, as well as the layout created on the basis of the T-72 chassis allowed to reduce the crew from five to three human.

And this, how to understand?

[strannik1985]

This song will be endless until it is pushed through and calm down.

[Pancir026]

Quote: strannik1985

This song will be endless until it is pushed through and calm down.

Here’s etit .. if you need a car, why are you constantly waving stake without understanding and not seeing its pluses. But persistently put this type of equipment in bold minus7 What does your

Quote: strannik1985

until pushed through until they calm down.

Where does it come from sometimes that you don’t understand ..

[strannik1985]

It would be needed, would have been adopted about 17 years ago, when UVZ proposed the first version of BMPT.

[Settlement Oparyshev]

Accepted by those who do not use snipers in front of him. Everything is clear to them. BMPT, with a couple of eyes, it will be quite good to fight snipers.

[Pancir026]

Quote: strannik1985

Would be needed, would have been adopted about 17 years ago,

17 years ago ?? this is after the Yeltsin pogrom of industry ?? what are you talking about, my dear man ??

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Pancir026

Here's the thing .. if you need a car

In the form that there is no need.

[Pancir026]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

In the form that there is no need.

Determine the type that you mean-DOT on the tracks do not offer. Equally, the version of Mouse.

[AVGUST]

For rightly so, I saw her work at the armament exhibition in our place in Tagil, a beast-like effect, especially with two course grenade launchers AGS-17 "Flame", and a paired 30-mm cannon, which disassembles the BTRs into atoms ..... ...

[Setrac]

Quote: AVGUST

two course grenade launchers AGS-17 "Flame", and twin 30-mm gun

To carry grenade launchers and 30 mm guns, a monster with forty tons is not needed. According to the CFE treaty, the BMPT is also a tank.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Setrac

According to the CFE treaty, the BMPT is also a tank.

And why do we need this agreement, if it is thoroughly anti-Russian? In spite of the mantras like this, "guided by the goals and objectives of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in the framework of which negotiations were underway on this Agreement;

Recalling their obligation to refrain in their mutual, as in general in their international relations, from the use of force or threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other way, incompatible with the purpose and principles "
Did it somehow save Yugoslavia from the defeat? Did NATO stop the advance to the East?
Are you not familiar with its provisions? Read carefully what it is about, how the country's military power is cut off and what it leads to this dubious treaty signed by the damned Gorbachev. http: //docs.cntd.ru/document/1902078
Do you suggest to this day to fulfill this ??

[Setrac]

Quote: Pancir026

Do you suggest to this day to fulfill this ??

What does it have to do with what I propose, the state decides to comply or not.
125 mm gun is better than any complex that you install on the BMPT.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Setrac

125 mm gun is better than any complex that you install on the BMPT.

Do you propose to have only tanks and nothing more, or to pile up any prodigy on the tank base in order to please yourself?
Who ever told you that 125 mm is the panacea for everything and always?
Why is it a tank base, if you can use some kind of jeep according to your logic?
The performance characteristics of "Gepard"
Crew: 3 person;
Weight: 47,3 t;
Power reserve: 550 km;
Overall dimensions: full length 7,73 m; case length 6,85 m; width 3,37 m; height 3 01 m; height with radar 4,03 m;
Power plant: MTU MB 838 CA M500 V-10 diesel engine with liquid cooling with a capacity of 830 hp;
Maximum speed: 65 km / h;
Slope angle: 60 °;
Vertical obstacle: 1,15 m;
The maximum width of the overcome ditch: 3 m

[Setrac]

Quote: Pancir026

Do you propose to have only tanks and nothing more?

You distort, I did not offer to abandon the entire range of weapons.
All that you are trying to install on the BMPT is already in service. Missiles and 30 mm guns will be installed on the TBTR, to block such an assembly for the sake of automatic grenade launchers?
BMPT - the fifth wheel in the structure of the armed forces.

[may Day]

Let at least 30 mm be changed to 2A72, otherwise it’s impossible to shoot at 1500m due to scatter ..

[AVGUST]

But the fact is, the rate of fire is ten times higher, and of the serious toys on it, launch containers with the “Attack”, if against enemy tanks, but on lightly armored ones -

[may Day]

Yes, the rate is ten times higher

Well, you know, in firing we didn’t get marks for rate of fire, but for hitting a target. But our colleagues with the BMP-3 (2A72) didn’t have any problems at all, there the shells were going to the target closely.

[AVGUST]

The fact is that his weight is not like that of a BMP-3, but his weight, like a full-fledged t-72, is about 44 tons, so he doesn’t feel this twin 30 mm gun on himself, so he beats quite long bursts with good accuracy ...... I myself watched through binoculars from the VIP stands

[Dead duck]

We do not stand still and are considering new gun calibres

Perhaps the 57-mm will deliver, a good tool.
Yes, and remotely controlled modules (7.62-12.7 mm) would not hurt.

[AVGUST]

7,62 is on it, but about the CORD, you are right, the test unit, just for work up to 1500 - 2000 meters in infantry .....

[Dead duck]

Quote: AVGUST

7,62 is on it

there is, but it can’t work independently on the tower.
So, in fact, it can fully work only for one goal and limited to two more.

[AVGUST]

If you make a turret so that you can work at 360 degrees, then you need to put it at the highest point, otherwise you mow your own sights in the heat of battle, or you need to introduce electronic restrictions on the firing sector, in short, in any case, it will turn out well

[Dead duck]

On the sides of the central module (tower).
A pair of pieces just fit (by type as on the T-90). The angles are true degrees 240-280 will be, but that's enough.

Quote: AVGUST

otherwise, you mow your own sights in the heat of battle,

-

Quote: AVGUST

or electronic restriction on the shelling sector must be introduced

You can put mechanical stops.
In any case, do something, you need .... "afraid of wolves - do not go into the forest"

[AVGUST]

Our designers from UKBTM - will figure out what is happening, they can practically implement the "Death Star", it will look like an intergalactic warship, only if the Ministry of Defense will need it is not clear

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Deadush

On the sides of the central module (tower).

Nafig they are not needed there. We need another turret in front of the main turret and one machine-gun module with a 360-degree shelling sector on the main turret.

[Dead duck]

Quote: IS-80_RVGK2

another tower in front of the main

what would it be like?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Deadush

what would it be like?

No, the T-35 has too many towers. Two are enough. Plus a machine gun module on the main turret.

[Dead duck]

And what is worse than one tower with two additional modules?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Deadush

And what is worse than one tower with two additional modules?

We need an optimal set of weapons in many respects. With two modules, it doesn’t work out very well.

[mvg]

The 5th monster tower tanks were already passing this during the first period of the Second World War, but they did not take root. One could see the reasons.
The cost, like a tank, and a queue of 30-40 mm of modern guns, according to it, with armor penetration of 70-140 mm, will take to hell all this weaponry that is on it. And ATGMs and grenade launchers, and 2A42.
And in urban mode, why is it better than a tank? What is a large assortment, yes angles of attack? In the same way, it will receive RPGs in the engine compartment or in the "tower" and from the assortment there will remain "0"

[Maz]

Interestingly, and the line with the BMPT doesn’t it take down all the sighting and observational equipment and mounted hrenovins from an abrams or a bradley? It’ll demolish, and if it’s fragmented, but with such an accuracy of battle ....

[Großer feldherr]

2a72 is no better or worse than the old 2a42

[Dead duck]

Quote: Großer Feldherr

Großer feldherr

From a blind start, I thought that Großer Kurfürst.
Still ships seem

[Alexey RA]

Quote: mayday

Let at least 30 mm be changed to 2A72, otherwise it’s impossible to shoot at 1500m due to scatter ..

So 2A72 has even more problems with the spread - it was also made based on the calculation of the installation in a pair with the “hundredth”. When installed without a “supporting” 100-mm barrel, designers have to dance with a tambourine to achieve performance comparable to 2A42.

Low accuracy of firing from a gun 2A72 BTR-82A - fairy tales. Yes, for more than a year, designers have worked to ensure an acceptable result: accuracy and accuracy should not be lower than that of 2A42 on the BMP-2. Without fulfilling this condition prescribed in the statement of work, the car was not taken into service. One machine was even made with a third fulcrum: a casing on top of the gun with a ring at the end where the barrel goes.
But it didn’t help much either. The solution was found after watching ultra-fast shooting shooting. Some time after the shot, the gun barrel takes its initial position, so the rate of fire was adjusted so that the next shot occurred at that moment. Yes, the maximum rate of fire became slightly lower than what is indicated in the tabular values ​​for 2A72, but sufficient to solve the same problems.

© Denis Mokrushin
That is, to make the "fairy tales" low accuracy of shooting - I had to work for more than a year. And the only solution was to reduce the rate of fire.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Alexey RA

So 2A72 has even more problems with the spread - it was also made based on the calculation of the installation in a pair with the “hundredth”. When installed without a “supporting” 100-mm barrel, designers have to dance with a tambourine to achieve performance comparable to 2A42.

It is high time to make a 45 mm autocannon. CTAS is ready for the bourgeoisie, and our 45 mm cannon hasn’t danced yet.

[Kasym]

Baikal module with 57mm. the gun. AU-220. 120 rounds per minute, 12 km. Delivered to the Barys armored personnel carrier (exhibition specimen), it is supposed to be equipped with this barrel. BMP-3, the project "Derivation" (there is a prototype).

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Kasym

Baikal module with 57mm. the gun. AU-220. 120 rounds per minute, 12 km. Delivered to the Barys armored personnel carrier (exhibition specimen), it is supposed to be equipped with this barrel. BMP-3, the project "Derivation" (there is a prototype).

I don’t need her. Need a 45 mm autocannon.

[Kasym]

Why?
If the memory serves, then there used to be a 45-mm AP.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Kasym

Why?

In aggregate. Excessive power, low ammunition, problems with rate of fire, dimensions. I don’t remember everything. Found somewhere on the Internet.

[Kasym]

“Whoever shoots further wins.”
"Artillery is the God of war."
Well, all of the enemy’s BTT, except tanks, is a victim for her. Tanks can be “naked” (the entire “body kit” removed: optics, etc.) left from a decent distance. In my opinion, you just need to have modules with different calibers and body kits in one unit.
A larger caliber provides new opportunities. This gun was developed for the Navy, but then killed, because considered that low-power. And you mean the excess - the infantry would have such an excess in more! She and the turntables will work at a distance that 30-ke can not be reached. Bradley and the like for a snack on such a cannon, agree. And from a distance that Bradley and Co. could not get, even with ATGMs.
Another thing is that it is necessary to carry different ammunition and establish production of modern ammunition for it. And this is money. It’s not enough to put in a series and adopt it in armament, so you have to spend good money ... So it depends on the budget. And he will have a budget 30 cheaper.
Americans, by the way, carry entire brigades on armored personnel carriers - light brigades. And they have nothing except machine guns.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Kasym

In my opinion, you just need to have modules with different calibers and body kits in one unit.

And a bunch of problems with this zoo. Logistics, repair and more.

Quote: Kasym

And you mean the excess - the infantry would have such an excess in more!

Excess is an overspending of gunpowder, metal and other materials, this is a decrease in transportable ammunition, this is excess return, this is weight, this is a drop in accuracy when shooting.

Quote: Kasym

Bradley and the like for a snack on such a cannon, agree. And from a distance that Bradley and Co. could not get, even with ATGMs.

Actually get it, though depending on which ATGM. Spike ER has 8 km range. And such a direct open space still needs to be sought, on average, it is considered somewhere around 5 km as far as I remember. Plus dispersion over long distances will be such that you will not get anywhere.

[Kasym]

"And a bunch of problems with this zoo."
Can you call a "universal caliber"? Agree that 57mm. the projectile can make more than 30mm .. When the Germans used 45 and 57mm guns on tanks - we set 76mm., when we set 88mm, we were 100 and higher on self-propelled guns and tanks. When NATO members use 120mm. the guns - we are 125mm. Their armored personnel carriers are mainly equipped with machine guns - we set 30mm. guns, they will start to put something similar - the Russian Federation will put 57mm .. Does this history teach us?
About excess, logistics, repairs, etc.? Actually, you offer 45mm., And I immediately 57mm., Because the gun is ready and the module is there. So why spend money on a weaker gun? Develop ammunition with a temporary fuse, etc. here and all that remains. And what's the difference with the "zoo" - you're 45mm. offer to put into service - it’s better to immediately 57mm ..
About ATGM. The fact of the matter is that to achieve a distance of 12km. other wearable ammunition is impossible. Direct visibility is not required - there would be a spotter in the form of a UAV or reconnaissance, incl. cosmic. Once again, what is written in blood: "WHO FIRES SHOOTING, THAT AND WINS." Want to win - have more trunk ?!
I would love to replace 30mm. on an APC and BMP at 57mm., but it's expensive. Therefore, the best option would be mixed weapons in the unit. For 2-3 cars with 30mm, have one with 57mm., Which has a large range of destruction. Of course, it will not replace the receiver artillery, but it will significantly increase the firepower of units and its range. "The machine must be a sea of ​​fire." Well, imagine that two units collide with the same weapons (when will these guns be brought there?). If you have 57mm and your opponent doesn’t, then at least you won’t let him near you. You have an advantage in firepower, you have more options for the development of the situation. Is not it?

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Kasym

Can you call a "universal caliber"?

There are no universal ones.

Quote: Kasym

Agree that 57mm. the projectile can do more than 30mm.

And 152 mm is even larger. We put 152 mm?

Quote: Kasym

When the Germans used 45 and 57 mm guns on tanks, we set 76 mm., When we set 88 mm, we were 100 and higher on self-propelled guns and tanks. When NATO members use 120mm. guns - we are 125mm.

Often this was not done from a good life. But because the industry simply could not at that time achieve the required characteristics of the same armor penetration.

Quote: Kasym

Their armored personnel carriers are mainly equipped with machine guns - we put 30mm. guns

We put a 30 mm gun because our 14,5 mm machine gun no longer penetrates their armored personnel carriers. And our BTR-82 makes its way through their machine gun.

Quote: Kasym

Actually, you offer 45mm., And I immediately 57mm., Because the gun is ready and the module is there.

Because it will be better in the aggregate of characteristics.

Quote: Kasym

offer to put into service - it’s better to immediately 57mm ..

Why then did the bourgeois make 40 mm CTAS and not 57 mm?

Quote: Kasym

Want to win - have more trunk ?!

What about tactics and strategy? Intelligence, detection tools, communications?

Quote: Kasym

If you have 57mm and your opponent doesn’t, then at least you won’t let him near you. You have an advantage in firepower, you have more options for the development of the situation. Is not it?

Not so, war is not a one on one fight. And different weapons systems can be almost equivalent due to different factors, reload speed. terrain, the power of ammunition, the amount of ammunition carried, accuracy and other factors. Moreover, in terms of combination of characteristics, a larger caliber system can be much worse.

[Kasym]

It's about a quick-firing gun. By the way, they put big calibers and quick-firing small-caliber guns on the Strikers. Is it bad to have an advantage?
And what are the aggregate characteristics of 45mm. it's better? Well take a 45mm. in service, get the same zoo you are writing about. The range is less, armor penetration is worse, development costs are the only plus, that the ammunition is more. This is something reminiscent of the M-16 and AK-47. That's just everyone prefers (the same barmalei) AK 7,62.
Tactics and strategy. It's about equal opponents.
Do not be cunning because any commander wants to have a fire advantage.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Kasym

And what are the aggregate characteristics of 45mm. it's better?

Weight, the number of shots in the BC, recoil when fired, rate of fire.

Quote: Kasym

Range less

The range is more than sufficient.

Quote: Kasym

That's just everyone prefers (the same barmalei) AK 7,62.

It has its own specifics of widespread AK-47. And the Russian army is armed with an ak-74 caliber 5,45 mm.

Quote: Kasym

Tactics and strategy. It's about equal opponents.

Once again, the effectiveness of weapons is not determined only by caliber.

Quote: Kasym

Do not be cunning because any commander wants to have a fire advantage.

Each commander wants to get a weapon that will allow him to perform the tasks as efficiently as possible. And the caliber is just one of the characteristics.

[Kasym]

I will repeat myself too. I want to have among three BMPs with 30mm. one gun with 57mm .. From this BC, weight, etc. will not play a significant role for the unit. And if it is a mech. Regiment? Concentrated art. a strike at one place in the defensive order of the enemy can be arranged. Or in defense, transferring such machines to a hot direction. Not having self-propelled guns or tanks at hand will be fine for a certain period.

[Engineer]

Yes, the main law of the market: supply creates demand. For a long time, the Ministry of Defense will not be able to wave away from such a necessary machine. With the third reincarnation, it will definitely fit into the budget, the main thing is not to be worse than the previous one, as it became with the second.

[Pancir026]

Quote: Engineer

Long MO can not

It seems that the point here is the inertness of the thinking of those involved in the states and, accordingly, the determination of the place and role of various weapons.

[strannik1985]

Yes, the military of the whole world (except for the Kazakhs) are distinguished by their bone thinking, they don’t understand their happiness.

[Per se.]

Quote: strannik1985

Yes, the military of the whole world (except for the Kazakhs) are distinguished by their bone thinking, they don’t understand their happiness.

Exactly so, there are plenty of “copper foreheads” everywhere, their Guderians who developed tank doctrines and understood the role of various armored vehicles on the battlefield. At one time, the BMP concept was first developed in the Soviet Union, having no foreign analogues at that time. BMPT was also developed for the first time with us, and it also has no analogues with our “partners” so far. Unfortunately, clever generals, all the more having their own vision of tactics and having combat experience, are not numerous. If we recall the concept of a prominent tank theorist, Marshal Oleg Aleksandrovich Losik, then BMPT is what we need. According to his theory, it is advisable to create two types of specialized tanks - an artillery tank, armed with a large-caliber artillery system, and an infantry one, which, due to armament with an automatic gun, can provide direct fire support to infantry units of the tactical platoon company. Think about it, the Yankees and the British spent their lives hiding over the ocean and the straits, used the tactics of the expeditionary force, Russia has other realities, other enemies, different geography, it’s unlikely for us to see smart Jews in little Israel, or smart-ass Anglo-Saxons axiom. BMPT is needed, as are heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank base, and in such a combination we get a tandem where BMPT provides specialized fire support, walking alongside tanks and not afraid of KAZ operations, which would be dangerous for their infantry, and transport, where in the second line with enhanced protection will be armored personnel carriers with infantry. A single tank base will allow the use of stocks of old tanks for rework in BMPT and heavy armored personnel carriers. In the diagram, a heavy armored personnel carrier based on the T-55 (BTR-T).

[mvg]

Only the Yankees and the British themselves abandoned the "cruising" and "infantry" tanks. And the T-55 was converted into an armored personnel carrier, because there were a lot of them and "free", with delivery by araps "to their homes." What not to use?
It’s much more tasty to find a reliable armor, rather than canned aluminum.

[Per se.]

Quote: mvg

And the T-55 was converted into an armored personnel carrier, because there were a lot of them and "for free"

Namely, the Israelis were the first to evaluate “a lot and for free” when they converted the captured T-54 / T-55 tanks into the heavy Akhzarit armored personnel carrier. The fact that the British abandoned the "cruising" and "infantry" tanks, even earlier from the "females" and "males" (WWI tanks with machine gun or cannon weapons) does not say anything here. Military thought and technological progress did not stand still, there was a time, abandoned armor, with the appearance of firearms, now returned to bulletproof vests. Each era has its own requirements, before there was no armored personnel carrier with BMP, especially BMPT, there was no KAZ. In my humble opinion, BMPT and heavy armored personnel carrier is the functional heavy BMP divided by functionality. The very heavy infantry fighting vehicle, such as the T-15, harm and stupidity, at best, a "police tank" anti-guerrilla equipment. The whole essence of the BMP is versatility and maneuverability, and these should be vehicles of the BMP-3 or BMD-4M type. Any heavy infantry fighting vehicle will lose in the specialized fire component of the BMPT, as well as in defense, and in the heavy transport vehicle. The main thing is that such a "BMP" loses the essence of its concept as a universal, maneuverable vehicle. And it’s not the business of an BMP to climb near tanks, especially since it is a "pregnant" unhurried infantry. In the photo is a heavy armored personnel carrier "Ahzarit".

[Dead duck]

They were still amateurs everywhere to build mortars.
Sometimes a useful thing happens and takes up little space.

[strannik1985]

The Germans-HS.30 were the first to arm the BMP.
I’m embarrassed to ask, where did you divide the infantry? In favorable conditions (on the plain), when the tanks in front of the BMP follow the tanks at a distance of 150-300 meters. The BMPT does not replace tanks, i.e. directly with the tanks there are still some 30 mm cannons, and the tank system also has the same guns and other BMP weapons. Meaning?

[Per se.]

Quote: strannik1985

The Germans-HS.30 were the first to arm the BMP.

In fact, the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 (Schützenpanzer 12-3) has always been classified as an armored personnel carrier, which was later replaced by the Marder BMP, created later by our BMP-1. You are embarrassed to ask where the infantry was divided ... For starters, I will say, as an example, that the IDF does not have heavy infantry fighting vehicles, there are heavy armored personnel carriers, and the "Intent" is the most powerful, so the Israelis do not specifically put heavy weapons on their armored personnel carriers (only auxiliary machine guns) so that it would not occur to any fool, whom it is still difficult to find among Jews, to send armored personnel carriers near tanks, especially in front of them. "BMPT tanks will not replace", who spoke about this? BMPTs are supplemented by tanks, but not replaced, by providing specialized fire support to both their tanks and their infantry, carrying out the main dangerous work instead of infantry in the forefront. Infantry will move on an armored personnel carrier until subsequent dismounting when deployed. That’s the whole point. It turns out that before infantry dismounting, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, if we talk about it, should not go into the first line, otherwise you can lose the entire landing force along with the machine, here it loses to a heavy armored personnel carrier, has no significant advantages, being more complicated and expensive. After dismounting the infantry, the heavy BMP will lose the BMPT in terms of specialized firepower and armor protection (BMPT protection surpasses even the tank one). What is the point of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle if it is more logical to have heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. It is very problematic to get a heavy infantry fighting vehicle by reworking from old stocks, or on an existing tank base. One of the exceptions is the T-64 base, where the engine could be thrown forward (such a heavy BMP was received in Kharkov on the basis of the T-64), on the basis of the T-72 / T-90 this number will not work, but from the stocks of T-55 or T -72 can be made and heavy armored personnel carriers, and BMPT. It also washed away. In our country, "Armata" was appointed a "platform", without waiting for the completion of the tests, without waiting for the development of its industry, finally, regardless of the fact that this platform is expensive and complex, with one tank building center actually remaining. So, to paraphrase, I’ll say that they are not born a “platform”, time-tested, well-established and well-developed bases mastered by the industry become the platform. It was not Serdyukov and Popovkin who invented the platform; on the basis of the same T-72, a long time ago, a lot of different equipment was produced, self-propelled guns (MSTA-S), TOS (Pinocchio), bridge pavers, repair and recovery vehicles, and other equipment on this base developed BMPT ("Terminator-2"). Of course, if you make money on the army, then Serdyukov’s “headsets”, developed to that doctrine of the compact army in anti-terrorist operations, in friendship with NATO and the USA, are quite related to police equipment, two-story Boomerangs and T-15 monsters, the crowd demonstrations are good to scare.

[strannik1985]

Let’s put the BMP classification as a very vague thing, they have pointed it out more than once — the infantry is lucky, accompanies in battle, the gun is, what else is needed?

I’m even embarrassed to ask how do you equate in one row TBTR (bring infantry to the line of dismounting, machine guns on it are purely for self-defense) and BMPT (support for tanks)?
Read the guidance documents, everything is written there. Does the presence of BMPT cancel infantry escort? No, the tanks and BMPT will be followed by infantry at a distance of 150-300 meters. Is this distance critical for arming BMPs and foot soldiers? It seems not, so why else are their substitutes?
Do you need funds to combat tank dangerous manpower? Fragmentation-fragmentation shells and shells with a programmable fuse, combat modules with anti-tank guns for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, BMP NKDZ equipment, replacing the 2C12 Sled with the 2C31 Vienna, why did the light on the BMPT switch come down?

[Per se.]

Vladimir, you either do not read carefully or somehow do not delve into it. Nothing can completely replace the infantry, even the appearance of robots, well, at least in the foreseeable future. Understand that BMPT is good for both tankers and our long-suffering infantry, let there be at least a couple of BMPTs to the infantry battalion, and that will be a plus. To determine the optimal BMPT ratio in tank orders, it will take time and experience, as well as the composition of the BMPT weapons and its various modifications. Against the militants, when using the BMPT in street battles, there may well be a specialization in armaments, for example, if the terrorists do not have tanks, then there may be nothing to put anti-tank missiles on counter-guerrilla modifications, whether such a machine is in Afghanistan or Chechnya, now in Syria. Finally, the BMPT is not a contrast to the BMP-3, which our army needs for areas with a large number of water barriers, especially for forcing them with motorized rifles from the march. BMP-3 and BMD-4М are the best universal machines, it would be foolish to refuse them, especially since the BMD-4М has also become a platform for a number of specialized equipment based on it.

[strannik1985]

While there’s nothing to delve into. Explain the mechanism of the execution of the good. Especially in the city. There, all the equipment, no matter BMPT, BMP, the tank goes after the infantry. At least at a distance exceeding the range of fire from the RPG. What is the difference than maintaining flat fire from a 30-mm BMPT or BMP gun?

[Per se.]

Quote: strannik1985

Explain the mechanism of the execution of the good. Especially in the city.

Fighting in the city for any equipment is one of the most difficult. If you think it’s not important what’s coming for the infantry, there’s nothing to explain. If you don’t see the difference between BMPT armored protection superior to tank protection and fire capabilities, which BMPT has and can have before arming a BMP, before arming a tank in a specialized fire component, there is no point in arguing. You have the right to your opinion.

[strannik1985]

Do not distort. Means of infantry support are important, but why duplicate them (despite the fact that BMP protection is not provided at all)? If to supplement, then where tanks and infantry fighting vehicles cannot, for example, SAO.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: strannik1985

Does the presence of BMPT cancel infantry escort?

No does not cancel.

Quote: strannik1985

No, the tanks and BMPT will be followed by infantry at a distance of 150-300 meters. Is this distance critical for arming BMPs and foot soldiers? It seems not, so why else are their substitutes?

Actually, it’s quite critical for the infantry. Then, that BMPT will give a denser and more accurate fire and a longer time, at farther distances than BMP, he will have more ammunition because he does not need to carry the squad of the brave miracle of heroes of motorized riflemen.

Quote: strannik1985

Do you need funds to combat tank dangerous manpower? Fragmentation-fragmentation shells and shells with a programmable fuse, combat modules with anti-tank guns for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, BMP NKDZ equipment, replacing the 2C12 Sled with the 2C31 Vienna, why did the light on the BMPT switch come down?

Fighting modules mean managing them, who will do it? A sled to Vienna is good, but a time lag is bad. Fragmented beam good, but limited to bq. The rate of fire is lower than that of an autocannon, the vertical aiming angles are small.

[strannik1985]

BMPT-2 barrel, 850 shells, BMP-2 1 barrel, 500 shells, BMP-3 2 barrel, 40/500 shells. The BMPT is by default smaller than the BMP, i.e. the BMP barrel is equal to or greater, they carry more shells.

MSC, as with NSVT.
The time lag is bad, only the targets behind the return slopes must be hit anyway, we need ESU TK, we need a "Vienna" or its analogue (regardless of the presence / absence of BMPT).
But the infantry in the trench will cover as the line of 30-mm shells can not.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: strannik1985

BMPT-2 barrel, 850 shells, BMP-2 1 barrel, 500 shells, BMP-3 2 barrel, 40/500 shells. The BMPT is by default smaller than the BMP, i.e. the BMP barrel is equal to or greater, they carry more shells.

I do not take into account the BMPT that is currently at the moment. I believe that in the form in which it is, it is worthless.

Quote: strannik1985

The time lag is bad, only the targets behind the return slopes must be hit anyway, we need ESU TK, we need a "Vienna" or its analogue (regardless of the presence / absence of BMPT).

This requires a gun at least 2a70, plus possibly AG.

Quote: strannik1985

But the infantry in the trench will cover as the line of 30-mm shells can not.

A 30 mm cannon generally needs to be replaced with a 45 mm autocannon, but unfortunately it is not there yet. At 30 mm, the high-explosive fragmentation is weak.

[strannik1985]

What are you not comfortable with the BMP-3 weapon system? The same 2A70 against infantry and 2A72 against armored vehicles.
You see what’s the matter, we don’t have many obvious things (Commander-E, 83t888-1.7, Mirazh SSOOR, I wouldn’t refuse a laser “Owl”) not to see the army (including 2С31 “Vienna”) is expensive, money is not enough, but is there a BMPT? Stupid.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: strannik1985

What are you not comfortable with the BMP-3 weapon system? The same 2A70 against infantry and 2A72 against armored vehicles.

2a70 rate of fire, the speed of flight of the projectile and the fact that the petur for it is already weak against modern tanks. 2a72 armor-piercing shells do not take modern armored personnel carriers into the forehead, a high-explosive fragmentation effect is weak.

Quote: strannik1985

You see what’s the matter, we don’t have many obvious things (Commander-E, 83t888-1.7, Mirazh SSOOR, I wouldn’t refuse a laser “Owl”) not to see the army (including 2С31 “Vienna”) is expensive, money is not enough, but is there a BMPT?

So this is not about what our army needs more, but whether such a machine as a BMPT is needed. I think that is necessary.

[Settlement Oparyshev]

What systems? What distances are in meters? What are you raving about? There will be no past war! Forget it.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Pancir026

It seems that the point here is the inertness of the thinking of those involved in the states and, accordingly, the determination of the place and role of various weapons.

Yeah ... about the products of Kurchevsky, Dyrenkov, Bekauri and Taubin, they also said so - they say, military retrogrades do not understand everyone's advantage new and unparalleled in the world weapons.

[NEXUS]

Modernization, it is certainly good ... but there were statements about the Terminator on the running Armata and the Baikal module ... where is it all?

[yehat]

made in stealth configuration, can not be found in stock

[Zubr]

[/ quote] As noted by the former general director of UVZ Oleg Sienko, Terminator-2 has fundamentally updated many of its characteristics, which will make it popular abroad. In particular, the BMPT will receive a new gun, as well as the layout created on the basis of the T-72 chassis, which reduced the crew from five to three people. [Quote]

I’m wondering, will the gun be 57 mm AU220M ?!

[NEXUS]

Quote: Zubr

I’m wondering, will the gun be 57 mm AU220M ?!

A good module ... I don’t understand why they are in no hurry to put it on everything that is possible, instead of the 30th caliber and why the Terminator is not equipped with Baikal. For such a caliber, the rate of fire is decent and as far as the video shows, the return is not particularly significant even for such an "easy" platform.

[Zubr]

Maybe all the same a number of problems with the gun? High rate of fire, barrel overheating, large barrel wear, there may be problems with lapping, most likely a two-tape supply of ammunition. If separately, OF, BPS. So far, we can only guess in general. Let's see what the run-in with this gun in Syria will say. On paper, it all comes out beautifully.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Zubr

Maybe all the same a number of problems with the gun?

This gun was developed, if sclerosis doesn’t fail me, 10 years ago, or even more ... for some reason our MO didn’t take it into service ... I don’t think there are any problems with the gun ... most likely it’s the caliber itself. In my opinion, it is not used anywhere else.

[Zubr]

AK-725 naval artillery, used.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-80.html

[Zubr]

In general, of course, the cannon is good, it can seriously damage the face of the tank ...

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: NEXUS

A good module ... I don’t understand why they are in no hurry to put it on everything that can be

Because nafig is not needed. With its characteristics.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Zubr

I’m wondering, will the gun be 57 mm AU220M ?!

Nafig is not needed.

[senima56]

"... new gun calibres ..." - this inspires hope! It would be nice to install a Baikal with a 57 mm cannon! She alone will have a greater effect than 2 to 30 mm!

[Zubr]

Well, the caliber is far from new, we had ZSU 57x2

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: senima56

It would be nice to install a Baikal with a 57 mm cannon!

Not good.

[faiver]

all this is beautiful, but what for modernize what is not accepted for service?

[Dead duck]

Quote: faiver

but what for to modernize what is not accepted for service?

It’s for sale, and they’ll upgrade-break-in (in Syria), you look and take it.

[mvg]

For sale, “shoved” for separate “cookies”. And to whom? Kazakhs. Which do not fight with anyone. From the word "general", only make up

[hasapis]

why are you all so stubborn? we don’t need such a machine, why, where to use it? and at what distances? at 1500 ?, put in a forest belt, where to hide it then? you’re funny ... it burns at a time, it weighs very little, now there are other realities, two Toyota cars will solve those tasks more effectively ...

[Dead duck]

Quote: hasapis

two Toyota cars will solve those tasks more effectively

This "carts" will burn at a time, and from ordinary small arms die.

Quote: hasapis

we don’t need such a car

Golden words! ... their ears would be to the Ministry of Defense. I also think that we need to cut everything down (ships, tanks, planes, missiles, etc.) and build something useful ... for the ceremonial reception of the invaders.

[Grits]

Now other realities, two Toyota cars, will solve those tasks more effectively.
I wish I were neighing with you as you were on a pile of carts. Toyot would rush to the Terminator with machine guns.

[Settlement Oparyshev]

And against snipers you can’t let her go? There are more snipers now than the soldiers themselves. And very productive. They mow down the fighters as they are played.

[Incvizitor]

It would probably be more logical to modernize after a check in Syria.

[Evil 55]

“In particular, the BMPT will receive a new gun, as well as the layout created on the basis of the T-72 chassis, which made it possible to reduce the crew from five to three people,” I sensed, clearly the Bachelor of modern infantry, wrote these nonsense after a heavy brainstorm due to preparations for Friday. .

[Yegorchik]

For urban combat, you need a butt of 152 mm so that you don’t pick individual walls, but completely fold the porches and howitzer, how to throw over obstacles. Here's the type that stood on the KV-2. And throw a 30 mm stick.

[Victor Wolz]

Both that and another and it is possible without oil))

[hasapis]

what are the tanks in the city? they’ll burn it, it's nothing at all, what kind of infantry is he going to support? as in the 41st, the “Germans” will get tired of changing their trunks and we’re all prem ... who’s going to attack now? whom he is there on the battlefield will terminate, the tourinator)))

[vovochka]

In Algeria, the first terminator in the deserts of the local Basmachis drove, ours gave it for trial
Algerians then said - really needed and really want, but for now ....

in general, foreigners do not like to buy what is not yet adopted by the Russian army

[strannik1985]

Quote: pp to Oparyshev

Accepted by those who do not use snipers in front of him. Everything is clear to them. BMPT, with a couple of eyes, it will be quite good to fight snipers.

And what in this case is BMPT better than a tank?
To combat snipers, ATGM calculations, we need artillery reconnaissance artillery groups with appropriate equipment (the Komandirsha-E automated control complex with a thermal imager, 1H11 steam, preferably a CCOOR Mirage type system), plus an "actuator" in the form of a 120- battery mm mortars and batteries PTRK KORNET-E with thermobaric b / h. That is, the group is sitting at the NP, watching the reconnaissance theodolites, a thermal imager, put up a Mirage. They found the target, using the Commanders-E they transmitted ATGM data or using 83t888-1.7 to the mortar battery. 35 seconds and the battery is ready to hit the KM-8 Gran-mine (the LCD is part of the Commander-E) or conventional mines (preferably with an AR-27 radio fuse).

[strannik1985]

Quote: pp to Oparyshev

What systems? What distances are in meters? What are you raving about? There will be no past war! Forget it.

So what? Crowd to crowd? Teleport directly to the position?

[Clone]

Quote: AVGUST

her place

That's the problem that the pros can’t take this pepelats to their destiny in any way: in appearance they are terrible to disgrace, but other tank and motorized rifle “structures” are capable of fulfilling the assigned functions.
And then the burning question arises- What the heck? There are Shilki, Tunguska ... and others ...

[kafa]

Quote: Partyzan

Maybe some intermediate results

Definitely! Still not scratched.

[k_ply]

Ooty, got out of it - nafig not needed ! Tady BMP, ZSU and SPU ATGM in the same battle formations with MBT to support the latter? Is it with their level of protection (BMP and SPU ATGM - often floating BMs, less than 22 tons), and BMPs also with a motorized rifle compartment on board (only 9-10 people)? The "good" now "experts" have gone, headless, apparently, they look a lot at the West (with its "locales"). And if they were going to "fight in the" west, then they would have to fork out heavily for the aviation combat component of the aircraft (the Air Force up to 30% of the number of aircraft), and this, except for the aircraft fleet, with the preparation of numerous flight personnel.

[hasapis]

dear, you have been raving for 41 years, you’re going on vacation over the western borders of Russia, there the guys are afraid of getting into the bester, bmp, "it’s better to fly to the carts," they don’t get in! that time has passed, the realities of others, burn them all, what is their level of protection? It is stitched with a bang, slow, slow! with and without birds, now mobility comes first.

[k_ply]

Crookedly written? ...

Quote: k_ply

This is with their level of protection ...

Nobody has yet canceled the combined arms battle (like the tanks that will need to be defended), it’s lucky that it’s still local (you can get a civilian car) ...

[k_ply]

strannik1985, platoon control fire support (4 M7 BFSV Bradley), reconnaissance. (3 M3 Bradley, 5 HMMWV) and a mortar platoon (4 x 120 mm) - this, of course, is a mandatory set of battalion units in the US Army.

[strannik1985]

Quote: k_ply

Ooty, got out of it - nafig not needed ! Tady BMP, ZSU and SPU ATGM in the same battle formations with MBT to support the latter?

Explain how the presence of BMPT cancels infantry escort of tanks?

[k_ply]

And on what terrain the motorized infantry (including dismounting) was going to accompany the tanks (I hope, without shouting "Hurray!"), Except for the conditions of the n / a, mountainous and wooded and flaky-swampy terrain; and how were you going to save it on a plain open area to perform tasks in such conditions? Or were you going to "stammer" at every copulation, ravine, and shrubbery — to bring the motorized infantry forward (in front of the tanks), to rush, risking people and equipment? In my opinion, the time has come for BMPT.

[strannik1985]

To any respected k_ply, the question is only in the infantry position. According to the guiding documents, the tanks are in front, the infantry is behind at a distance of 150-300 meters, during the attack the supporting artillery should work along the leading edge from the moment the tanks reach the real ATGM range and to RBU (400 meters, the dismounting line is at the same distance).
So what's the problem? After all, it’s not in defeat (especially with fixed fire), but in detection and target designation, that is, machines like the Cayman / Fennek with a thermal imager, a high-resolution camera, ground reconnaissance radar, the Sagittarius KRUS (Commander-E for ATGM, 83t888-1.7 for mortars) for the quick issuance of the command and guidance. I would add a battery / platoon of SAO, RV and VUNA to the battalion so that there would be someone to manage this entire economy.

[k_ply]

Yeah, i.e. in combat formations the motorized infantry is constantly at a distance and doesn’t move forward at any moment of the battle, never acts in the same battle formations with tanks, and in general, is it not needed once there are artillery and mortars? Wonderful! Not tired of contradicting yourself, or hunting to argue for the sake of a dispute (like Don Quixote against the mill)? Then without me. I’m sure that the BMPT’s place will be in the same battle formations as the MBT (mostly by default), and your desire to share the knowledge of the BUSW, the names and characteristics of the optoelectronic reconnaissance intelligence in the village not interested.

[strannik1985]

No, this is the case when the tanks go ahead, in difficult conditions they still have to push the infantry forward, the BMPT will not clear the course of the message and will not look into the ravine. There is a problem of timely detection of grenade launchers and ATGM calculations, what is the advantage of an BMPT if it has a tank-based FCS?

[k_ply]

I didn’t understand the logic - each time your Cayman / Fenneck will rush about over rough terrain along the extended ranks of battle formations of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (or how many of these BRMs will be in YOUR TB?) In order to reach a position convenient for him to observe and subsequently detect the position of the ATGM / RPG (which on the go for Cayman and Fenneck is impossible with a telescopic bar), in order to subsequently adjust the position of the calculation, which he can change, artillery / mortar fire? Isn’t it easier to use 2A42 or AG-17, better resolved by BMPTs already at the forefront (among tanks preserving their ammunition for appropriate purposes), resolving the issue along the way without causing an art fire each time?

Quote: strannik1985

... BMPT will not clear the course of the message and will not look into the ravine.

Elementary! tanks and BMPTs continue to advance / advance (stripping is not their path), and motorized infantry units of the 2nd echelon suppress the centers of resistance in the rear (if they manifest themselves at all), although it all depends on the width and depth of the resistance and intensity.

Quote: strannik1985

There is a problem of timely detection of grenade launchers and ATGM calculations ...

She whose problem is it, what type of BM? If the vehicles do not have IR sighting channels, then the gunner’s sights BO7K2 and the commander PKP-R have them. Cynical, but there will always be problems (both sniper and grenade throwers), and in the case of BMPT and without them, they can only be solved with little blood. And what is wrong with the BMP and MBT SLAs, are they so imperfect in domestic BMs (you probably know better about the sophisticated ones), or is the BMPT itself not initially subject to modernization? They begin to exploit - there will be modifications, if not earlier, after military trials. BMP-1 at the time, too, was not perfect and final.

A recent similar topic (already reluctant to grind the same thing) ...
https://topwar.ru/118388-gotovitsya-seriynyy-vypu
sk-shturmovogo-tanka-terminator-dlya-vs-rf.html

[strannik1985]

Why would the BRM rush about when the front of the advancing battalion is 2 km wide, at the breakout area of ​​1 km? Faith does not allow you to move around with rifts? At least two KNPs (from the RV battalion, from the platoon of SMB artillery control (if any), from the self-propelled guns given to the battalion) can be organized, and you can safely observe them, including using optical reconnaissance detection systems.

Yeah, that is, your first echelon should be without infantry at all? And what about the tanks and BMPT with rear protection? After all, we have already gone through this, shelling with hand-held anti-tank weapons in the stern and the rear of the tower, the New Year’s assault on Grozny.
And if the battalion, after overcoming the advanced positions, stumbles upon a minefield and PT reserve?

Sorry, but if the LMS of tanks and BMPT have the same ability to detect targets, then what's the point? A 125 mm projectile for any purpose is much more effective than a 30 mm projectile. Shells run out? And the second-tier battalion for what?

[k_ply]

Quote: strannik1985

Why would the BRM rush about when the front of the advancing battalion is 2 km wide, at the breakout area of ​​1 km? Faith does not allow you to move around with rifts? At least two KNPs (from the RV battalion, from the platoon of SMB artillery control (if any), from the self-propelled guns given to the battalion) can be organized, and you can safely observe them, including using optical reconnaissance detection systems.

At the breakout site... - squeaks like a pro, the current is probably unknowable as in d.s. fire support is organized. To move around! ... heh! So how much Cayman / Fennek supposed to bat.? The whole art division can be envied (or at that time he simply did not know how much he would need for the argument!)? I got it! However, the BRM turns out to be a magical pepelats, since it is capable of replacing my expected 9 BMPTs (company), some kind of computer game! Still, the mortar battery (4 SM) had enough battery to fulfill the immediate task of bat-a, with such tactics in contact with the enemy and at such a pace of advancement.

Quote: k_ply

strannik1985, platoon control fire support (4 M7 BFSV Bradley) ...

... and from here ... https: //topwar.ru/118388-gotovitsya-seriyn
yy-vypusk-shturmovogo-tanka-terminator-dlya-vs-rf
.html

Quote: k_ply

... and / or a platoon of advanced observers (3 PRP-4) - control of fire support (direct adjustment of artillery and mortar fire).

It is especially amusing when you talk about rough terrain, implying of course bumps with hills, lowlands and forests, and for some in his bony consciousness one horseradish is as plain as a table. Here is just an "out"!

Quote: strannik1985

Yeah, that is, in your opinion, the first echelon should be without infantry at all?

Self-hypnosis? Someone should first deal with the echelons and tactical standards - before cracking. I’ll discover that even tank and motorized rifle battles and companies operate in layers. Well, I’m sure, in your case, the whole day was spent on clearing the copse with the rural graveyard and at least SMEs will be thrown, here you will train!
We read ...

Quote: k_ply

... BMPT releases часть motorized infantry (which is less useless on flat terrain) and saves it for other tasks - DB in urban, mountain and forest areas, participation in amphibious and airborne landings, protection of the rear area from landings and sabotage. enemy groups, blockade of certain areas and n / a etc., etc., a lot of tasks.

- The given link went sideways!

Quote: strannik1985

And if the battalion, after overcoming the advanced positions, stumbles upon a minefield and PT reserve?

For some reason, your military intelligence doesn’t work well before the operation, not talking about other types of troops and services (engineering in the military), and this at the breakout site! In any case, the aforementioned enemy measures provoked BMPT.

Quote: strannik1985

Sorry, but if the LMS of tanks and BMPT have the same capabilities for detecting targets, then what's the point? A 125 mm projectile for any purpose is much more effective than a 30 mm projectile.

Don’t say directly, and why these fools on the BMP-3 installed 2A72, 100 mm would be enough! And this one was possible in the long-barreled assault — higher ballistics. After all, "on the sparrows from the gun" much more effective!

Quote: strannik1985

Shells run out? And the second-tier battalion for what?

And the truth! And let the battalion commanders agree, or the company and platoon commanders of various battles between themselves, where in the BK divisions are running out, and will conduct an unscheduled regrouping directly during a military operation or attack, since the chiefs of staff miscalculated, and to hell with it, re-reconnaissance and lost initiative and time in this operation, roll it all acquired combat coordination!

[strannik1985]

Rudeness was not impressive, I saw cockroaches and larger.
Are you serious now? Contrast BMPT intelligence? BRM from 1 (for example, in the RS MSB 42 MSD 1 BRM and 2 BMP-1/2) to 3.

Why BMPT? Fragmentation-fragmentation shells and shells with a programmable fuse, combat modules with anti-tank guns for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, systems for launching fragmentation grenades instead of aerosol like the Germans and Italians, is it banal to increase the number of tanks in the battalion?

The battle order of the battalion remains the same, but with the addition of a BMPT company? Well, how and in what quantities is personnel saved?

If the immediate and further tasks of the battalion are incorrectly defined, then what should be done?

[k_ply]

And remember, dear, in the initial phase of the attack, the advanced mortar and attached artillery batteries will not reveal their positions every time because of a pair of infantry with RPGs / ATGMs, the artillery preparation preceding the attack is more often from batteries and general operational support divisions that are more distant from the front line. This is not some kind of rebel army to drive.
It’s hard to see that BMPT protecting tanks preserves the motorized infantry, without which you will end up with your approach. (well, of course, "women still give birth"). Believe me, having in addition to mortar batteries (6x120 mm) also mortar mortar platoons (3x82 mm each), your battles will still suffer serious losses: motorized infantry - due to poor armor of the infantry fighting vehicles, and tank - due to lack of support at the forefront (without a link to BMP / BMPT). BMP (MS-Branch - 9-10 people) cannot give MBT this support, otherwise it will be destroyed - an obvious fact that you don’t want to recognize, but then you shouldn’t shout about the obligation to escort BMP tanks, thereby killing motorized infantry, which they also gathered to replace artillery, which does not operate from the front line, not talking about the reaction time with the necessary adjustment and adjustment. A long time ago, I came to the conclusion that you have a woman’s logic with literal perception, and you are arguing for the sake of argument. And this is already without me.

[strannik1985]

Where are you going? So much aplomb and immediately into the bushes.
Have you read what you wrote in the comments on this article? Supporting artillery by the time the infantry enters RBU is finishing work on the front end, it is no longer there.

Of course it will not provide, because instead of equipping BMP NKDZ, we spend money on BMPT. We will have infantry on bare infantry fighting vehicles, but the battalion will be supported by tanks equipped with BMP weapons. Do they replace infantry? No, her place is where she usually is. And you prescribe to me "women still give birth"? It's funny

[k_ply]

Quote: strannik1985

Contrast BMPT intelligence?

What?! Bo-bo head?

Quote: k_ply

... in my opinion, the full range of measures to improve the tank battalion (TB) OSh should include, in addition to the support company (9 BMPT), a battery of self-propelled mortars (4/6 units) is needed for fire support of the TB units, possibly not muzzle-loading systems (in a cheaper version), and 120-mm breech-loading Vienna 2C31. A reconnaissance platoon (3 BRMs) will also be helpful - opening the enemy’s positions, combat security, reconnaissance of routes (+ guidance of artillery and mortars); and / or a platoon of advanced observers (3 PRP-4) - control of fire support (direct adjustment of artillery and mortar fire).

Quote: strannik1985

... combat modules with AG for tanks ...

Or maybe everyone in the crew will carry out their duties, or are you suggesting that a radio operator shooter be introduced? One thing is the march turret anti-aircraft machine gun; the other is an unrealized DBM with associated equipment. If the American purely occupational experience does not give rest (almost without the use of a 120-mm gun), then Abrams will have a crew more.

Quote: strannik1985

... corny increase the number of tanks in the battalion?

Quote: strannik1985

Well, how and in what quantities is personnel saved?

- Absolutely bo-bo!

Quote: strannik1985

If the immediate and further tasks of the battalion are incorrectly defined, then what should be done?

Perform without reasoning.

Quote: strannik1985

Where are you going? So much aplomb ...

So, for other conditions, and your stupidity is too bottomless. Here you wouldn’t be able to climb up arrogant upstarts from the bushes (a woman with her logic is always weaker - I will surrender).

Heh! RBU-jet bombing launcher? (no abbreviations even in the list of abbreviations BUSV) "You are not wise, you show a finger"
For the future - less window dressing, it’s easier to be in order not to look silly.

You adore floating BMP-2 with DZ seen, the detonation of the elements of which it with its weight, shell and chassis will suffer very badly? Personally, no.

[strannik1985]

However, the BRM turns out to be a magical pepelats, since it is capable of replacing my expected 9 BMPTs (company), it’s some kind of computer game

What are your words? You are not familiar with such a concept as priority? How is the 9 30 mm spark more important than the rest of the BTGr weapons?

- Absolutely bo-bo!

.. BMPT releases part of the motorized infantry (of which there is less sense in flat terrain) and saves it for other tasks

What are your words? Where and how is infantry "saved"?

Perform without reasoning.

Those. reports the commander of the battalion about the lack of ammunition, and in response ...

Perform without reasoning.

RBU-boundary safe removal.
http://encyclopedia.mil.ru/encyclopedia/dictionar
y/details_rvsn.htm?id=12395@morfDictionary

Or maybe everyone in the crew will carry out their duties, or are you suggesting that a radio operator shooter be introduced?

Given the range of ATGM NSVT it is precisely what is useless as an anti-aircraft gun, but in the city it was used successfully.

Did you see the adored floating BMP-2 with DZ, the detonations of the elements of which it with its weight, shell and chassis will very badly endure? Personally, no.

4S24 withstands PG-9S. Crossing is a special case, even in this embodiment it is possible to provide floats or a displacement screen.

[hasapis]

Quote: k_ply

And in what terrain did the motorized infantry (including dismounting) gather to escort the tanks (I hope, without shouting “Hurray!”), Except for the conditions of the n / a mountainous and wooded and flaky-swampy terrain; and how were you going to save it on a plain open area to perform tasks in such conditions? Or were you going to "stumble" at every copulation, ravine, and shrubbery areas - to bring the motorized infantry forward (in front of the tanks), to rush, risking people? In my opinion, the time has come for BMPT.

what a mountainous and forested area for tanks, they’ll lose all the tracks there ... have seen enough tank biathlon or what?

[k_ply]

Thickness ?! Probably, the history and history of wars in particular for someone began only after their birth (although they were the 90s and the beginning of the 2000s and the North Caucasus). A man has a massive tank attack in the mountains in his head! Altitude and what a large sniper rifle on the ground is unfamiliar; and the mountainous terrain for such a dead end and a march (passage of troops) through it is impossible, huh? Not only in the horns, but also in the city. Amazing right?

[strannik1985]

IS-80_RVGK2,
That is, we come to a high-ballistic gun with a caliber of at least 100 mm? Why not 2A46?
Ie do three calibers (30/100 / perspective), instead of two (30/100)?
We have not figured out why, what tasks are solved by BMPT and cannot be solved by other means.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: strannik1985

That is, we come to a high-ballistic gun with a caliber of at least 100 mm?

No. Variable power shots from low to medium ballistics.

Quote: strannik1985

Ie do three calibers (30/100 / perspective), instead of two (30/100)?

Why three?

Quote: strannik1985

We have not figured out why, what tasks are solved by BMPT and cannot be solved by other means.

And why does it have to solve the unsolvable? Maybe for a start let him do something better than others?

[Kiril]

Wow Terminator, what can she do?
Supports tanks screaming- "Glory to Ukraine"? and writes down the numbers of deserted tanks, and in the mornings he asks the headquarters “Has Ukraine not died yet?”, and on vacation can bounce cheerfully under the speech “who doesn’t jump, is that Muscovite”?

[k_ply]

Quote: strannik1985

What are your words? You are not familiar with such a concept as priority? How is the 9 30 mm spark more important than the rest of the BTGr weapons?

9 sparks? ... fell from the stove? - the one whose mortar and artillery battery were the basis of BTG. Yes, and a mortar battery is at best (a motorized rifle BTG), and a tank BTG even smaller (1 attached MS company and 1 mortar platoon (3 calculations), respectively).

Quote: strannik1985

What are your words? Where and how is infantry "saved"?

He’s about the preservation of infantry, which, in addition to its BMP / BTR, is also forced to patronize MBT (is the enemy’s priority goal with all that it implies), but he’s "saved" - an accountant or something?

Quote: strannik1985

If the immediate and further tasks of the battalion are incorrectly defined, then what should be done?

Quote: strannik1985

Those. reports the commander of the battalion about the lack of ammunition, and in response ...

Nothing such a master of insinuations! "I turn as I want," huh? And to what dummy they wrote about this? ...

Quote: k_ply

Still, the mortar battery (4 SM) had enough ammunition to fulfill the immediate task of bat-a, with such tactics in contact with the enemy and at such a pace of advancement.

So, woe-battalion commander (batteries, not bat-on), reach out to you to the frontiers of fulfilling the above tasks, and all claims (rather "on the carpet") to the headquarters.
(MINETERS is the nickname of mortar bombers, because at the request of fire often “there are no mines!” This is information for consideration for such griefs)

Frontiers in the military, aviation and naval sphere from which a certain stage of any actions of troops, forces and means begins (stops) WEIGHT. So we write 'for safe removal', no need to be smart.

Quote: strannik1985

Given the range of ATGM NSVT it is precisely what is useless as an anti-aircraft gun, but in the city it was used successfully.

Someone would doubt the success of the 12,7x108-mm ammunition, but the anti-aircraft machine gun, that’s what the turret on the tank is called and that’s its purpose. And about its anti-aircraft (helicopters / UAVs) "futility" will be judged outside of local wars with rebel-type formations. No sane tank commander will fire from an anti-aircraft machine gun at the same time as the main caliber gun (120/125 mm). If the American purely occupational experience does not give rest (almost without the use of a 120-mm gun), then Abrams’s crew will be more painful.

I never doubted that the EDZ 4S24 of the Contact V kit can withstand cumulative ammunition. Or what, the empty immobilized skeleton of the test BMP-2 from the research institute. So did it inspire faith in this BM?

Quote: k_ply

You adore floating BMP-2 with DZ seen, the detonation of the elements of which it with its weight, shell and chassis is very worthless?

[trakks50]

the gun urgently needs 125 mm .. this machine is spinning in the same mess. that’s all the tanks ... and the automatic guns will also be the main ones and will do their job ... and in general what kind of prejudice that the terminator should not have a powerful gun. ..postavit lightweight from an octopus airborne and low tower ... then this car will go ...