BMP-3M "Dragoon" will be able to surpass foreign analogues

The Tractor Plants Concern and the Ministry of Defense of Russia have completed testing of a unique new infantry fighting vehicle with the working name of the BMP-3M “Dragoon”. About this newspaper "Izvestia". The BMP-3, which, because of its characteristics, was once called the “queen of the infantry”, despite its already thirty years of age, still remains one of the most powerful combat vehicles in its class. In this case, the designers continuously continue the process of its improvement. A further development of the BMP-3М model was the BMP-3М Dragoon combat vehicle, which received its name from the name of the development work, within which this modernization was carried out.

The concern Tractor Plants, which includes the enterprise Kurganmashzavod, which is directly involved in the production of BMP-3 combat vehicles, told Izvestiya journalists that the BMP-3М "Dragoon" with the UTD-32T engine is ready for serial production. At the same time, representatives of the concern declined further comment.

BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle

Debut "Draguna" took place in 2015 year as part of the X International Exhibition of Arms, Military Equipment and Ammunition Russia Arms EXPO 2015, which is held in Nizhny Tagil. The BMP-3М "Dragoon" became one of the sensations of that exhibition along with the BMP-3 "Derivation". By and large, the BMP-3M "Dragoon" is a completely new infantry fighting vehicle, based on the BMP-3 chassis, the novelty should allow our country to retain its leadership in international arms markets. It is worth noting that the BMP-3 is quite popular in the world, this combat vehicle in various modifications is in service with Azerbaijan, Algeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Cyprus, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and several other countries.

A peculiarity of the deep modernization of the infantry fighting vehicle BMP-3, which is the “Dragoon” variant, was the reconfiguration of the vehicle and the location of the engine compartment (MTO) in the forward part of the hull. In addition, the BMP-3M "Dragoon" boasts variability of combat units with a different set of weapons: a standard for the BMP-3 - 100-mm gun-launcher 2A70 with 30-mm automatic cannon 2A72 and 7,62-mm machine gun PKTM variant with 57- mm automatic gun and machine gun PKTM and version with 125-mm gun 2А75 and machine gun PCTM. Apparently, the main unit will become an uninhabited combat module with an armament block that is identical in composition to conventional BMP-3, which is in service with the Russian army. At the same time, the new combat module received a slightly increased size compared with the tower of the classic machine. The reason was that in the new uninhabited module weapon and ammunition were completely isolated from the crew of the combat vehicle and the landing force. Such an arrangement should significantly increase their chances of survival in the event of a detonation of ammunition in the event of the defeat of the machine on the battlefield.

The full combat crew of the upgraded BMP has grown to 11 man, and the location in the bow of the MTO corps significantly increased its security on the battlefield. In the bow projection, the means of defeating the enemy must pierce not only the frontal armor of the hull, but also the engine itself. In addition, the placement of the assault force in the stern of the combat vehicle and the location of a folding ramp for the assault forces (motorized infantry units) with a door built into it made it possible to improve the conditions of landing and dismounting of servicemen, including during movement of the combat vehicle at low speed. The entire crew of the combat vehicle as part of the commander, driver and gunner-operator of weapons is located in the department of control, which is located in the forward part of the body of the BMP directly behind the logistics. All crew members sit side by side shoulder to shoulder, with the mechanical drive position located in the center. In connection with the new layout, two PKTM machine guns were removed from the BMP corps.

BMP-3M "Dragoon"

Total BMP-3M "Dragoon" can take on board 8 paratroopers. The seats of two of them are located on the seats located behind the control compartment, in front of the tower chase and the fighting compartment. The units of the fighting compartment, located inside the body of the infantry fighting vehicle, are placed in a rectangular casing, on the sides of which small passages are left, they can be used by paratroopers sitting in the front seats for members of the crew of the combat vehicle. The entire stern of the hull of the new BMP, which is located behind the epaulettes of the tower, was given under the location of the landing. The dimensions of this compartment allowed to place six seats here, three from each side of the combat vehicle. The seats are attached directly to the sides of the hull, the soldiers are facing each other.

According to representatives of the Tractor Plants concern, the new BMP-3M "Dragoon" has an improved level of armor protection, which is higher than on conventional BMPs. Also, the new machine is notable for its improved location of the crew and the landing (motorized infantry), there is more space in it, and it’s just easier for people to sit, since the troop compartment has been completely re-packaged. At the same time on the machine was significantly enhanced mine protection. In order to reduce the impact on the paratroopers of the shock wave during the undermining of infantry fighting vehicles on improvised explosive devices or mines, comfortable anti-traumatic armchairs were mounted in it that are equipped with five-point safety belts. At the same time, the space between the bottom of the combat vehicle hull and the floor of the troop compartment was filled with specialized anti-mine "sandwiches."

As noted above, the uninhabited combat module has a similar armament complex, as in the usual BMP-3, but the composition of its ammunition has undergone some changes. This is primarily due to the fact that the main part of the combat vehicle’s ammunition is now outside the manned compartment: these are all 30-mm ammunition designed for automatic guns 2А72 - 500 cartridges in two tapes (305 with fragmentation-tracer and high-explosive incendants shells and another 195 with armor-piercing tracer shells); 22 shots for 100-mm 2А70 guns in the automatic loader, as well as three shots with a guided missile. In addition, 18 100-mm rounds to the cannon and 5 guided missiles can be placed in a special piling located in the body of the combat vehicle. Ammunition 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun is 2000 cartridges.

The upgraded version of the infantry fighting vehicle, created by the Tractor Plants specialists, is equipped with a new diesel engine with a gas turbine supercharged horsepower 816. Previous versions of infantry combat vehicles BMP-3 equipped with motors ranging from 500 to 660 HP. respectively. The new UTD-32T four-stroke multi-fuel diesel engine with direct fuel injection allows the 21-ton combat vehicle to demonstrate outstanding power density characteristics - more than 38 hp. per ton, this indicator is not present today in any BMP in the world. This engine makes it possible for a seriously heavier combat vehicle (with its modernization to grow by about three tons) to develop on the highway a speed of more than 70 km / h, afloat, the maximum speed is up to 10 km / h.

Has changed and the chassis of the new BMP. These changes are directly related to the processing of the components of the BMP-3M "Dragoon" case. The upgraded infantry fighting vehicle still has 6 track rollers on each side. BMP rollers have an individual torsion suspension, with two front pairs of rollers and one feed pair equipped with additional shock absorbers. For the correct distribution of the load on the undercarriage, the support rollers of the updated combat vehicle were placed unevenly. For example, the third, fourth and fifth pairs of rollers were shifted to each other, so the gaps between the second and third, as well as the last two pairs of rollers increased. Imposed its imprint and new engine layout. In connection with the transfer of MTO to the front of the case, the driving wheels are also located here.

The tanks with fuel, which in the classical version of the BMP-3 were located in the forward part of the hull, were made armored and explosion-proof in a modernized combat vehicle, they were equipped with a self-retracting inner cover and transferred to the stern of the BMP. In addition to improving fire safety inside the combat vehicle, such a course of designers has improved its longitudinal alignment. Thanks to this improvement, there is no need to install a hydraulic shock absorber on the first suspension nodes.

At the same time, a profound modernization of the BMP-3 consists not only in the new layout and use of the new engine and combat module. A significant role in the updated combat vehicle plays an updated technical stuffing and equipment. On the BMP-3M "Dragoon" appeared anti-noise all-daily fire control system (FCS) "Vityaz". The new MSA integrated into the modernized machine, in its essence, is one of the elements of the digital on-board equipment installed on the BMP, through which it is interfaced with a unified information environment. The new Vityaz fire control system provides automatic tracking of not only ground, but also air targets, provides firing from closed positions, registers all the parameters of the SLA and the crew’s actions, in this regard it is similar to black boxes that are installed on airplanes. In addition, the new MSA provides for the integration of the BMP-3М "Dragoon" into a single automated system for the management of units in combat (ASC TK).

The new fire control system provides full duplication of the gunner-operator functions by the commander of the combat vehicle and vice versa, since the commander and gunner-operator of armaments have unified panoramic all-day sight Krechet at their automated workplaces. ” These sights have an independent two-plane stabilization of the field of view, with thermal and television channels, a laser rangefinder and a laser beam control channel ATGM. The jobs of the commander of the combat vehicle and the gunner were equipped with control panels and panel computers (PCs) with modern high-impact LCD monitors, built-in automatic target tracking (ASC) at each workplace. The possibility of independent work of the Krechetov and their full identity increase the combat capabilities of the vehicle during its operation, including on the battlefield. Even with the failure of one of them, the combat capabilities of the BMP-3M "Dragoon" will not be affected.

PCs at the commander’s and gunner’s workplaces ensure the processing of television and thermal information received from the Krechet sight, auto-tracking of targets, as well as displaying an electronic map of the area and interaction with the combat control system of the unit. The target tracking machine implemented in the OMS can significantly improve the target tracking accuracy up to a person by 8 times, and also provides electronic stabilization of the image displayed on the crew working positions. Due to the inclusion of the upgraded infantry combat vehicle of the Vityaz missile system into the armament complex, the developers managed to reduce the time required for the preparation and production of the first shot, thereby reducing the execution time of the fire mission. In practice, this means that the crew of the BMP-3M “Dragoon” will most likely be able to detect and hit the target before the enemy can hit the Russian BMP.

Also in the Vityaz SUO a new digital two-plane weapon stabilizer was implemented with an integrated ballistic computer and automatic compensation of the withdrawals. The peculiarity of this fire control system and a kind of "chip" of the upgraded infantry fighting vehicle is that the weapon system can be controlled from the remote control. Thanks to such a decision, for example, during combat operations in defense, the crew can leave the BMP and settle down at some distance from it in some kind of shelter. In essence, the Vityaz allows you to get as close as possible to the implementation of the concept of a crewless remote combat use of an infantry fighting vehicle.

American analysts from the research corporation RAND have included a new BMP-3M "Dragoon" in the list of the four most powerful BMP on the planet. For example, the Russian novelty surpasses all foreign-made infantry fighting vehicles in terms of engine power density. The American M2 Bradley BMP, depending on the modification, installs the Cummins VTA-903T500 engines from 500 to 660 hp. On the French wheeled BMP VBCI stands the Renault D12D engine with 550 hp power, on the Italian BMP VCC-80 Dardo - Fiat 6V MTCA hp turbo diesel engine. Also, American experts particularly emphasize maneuverability, increased firepower and buoyancy indicators of a Russian-made infantry fighting vehicle.

It is curious that on the same day when domestic media reported on the completion of the preliminary tests of the modernized Dragoon BMP, Jane's 360 publishing house with reference to the US Army Association (AUSA), announced that as early as December 2017 of the US Army Europe will receive the first Stryker armored personnel carriers armed with 30-mm automatic cannons. These combat vehicles received an index XM1296 and name Dragoon (Dragoon). The armament complex of this combat vehicle, which, in fact, can be considered a wheeled BMP, was mounted in an uninhabited MC-RCT turret. This tower is manufactured by the Norwegian company Kongsberg. Unlike the American "Dragoon", its Russian namesake can fire not only from 30-mm automatic direct-fire guns, but from 100-mm guns not only direct fire, but also from closed positions to a distance of up to 7 km, in addition, the gun allows Effectively destroy enemy armored targets with an anti-tank missile at a distance of up to 6 km.

Information sources:
https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201710170748-hgfz.htm
https://iz.ru/632639/dmitrii-litovkin-aleksei-ramm/super-bmp-sdala-ekzameny
http://otvaga2004.ru/fotoreportazhi/vystavki-vooruzheniya/bmp-3m-dragun
Open source materials

Comments

[Graz]

Really 2 lines of BMPs will do both BMP-3 Dragoon and Kurganets -25 at the same time?
Of course, shooting from closed positions is a good advantage for Dragoon in entrenched infantry (if I don’t confuse), and by and large, programmable PR ammunition is not needed (and as I understand it, nefig will not be cheap)

[Sofa Analyst]

Well, they wrote that the Kurgan seemed to be covered

[Graz]

read more rubbish, bankrupt the corporation, the Kurgan plant will go to the state corporation under the wing of Rostec, apparently they will work in conjunction with UVZ

[Sergeant71]

Yes, what Kurganets? He can’t afford it. They will again modernize the old women ala T-72 in the T-72 B3. We have this good Soviet thousands stand and rust.

[andrewkor]

Well, finally, the dvigun on the BMP was moved forward, at least some addition to the aluminum armor and a very big gain for the convenience and safety of the landing!

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: andrewkor

Well, finally, the dvigun on the BMP was moved forward, at least some addition to the aluminum armor and a very big gain for the convenience and safety of the landing!

Dvigun is a dubious defense. Shifts the center of gravity of the machine forward with all the ensuing flaws.

[alexmach]

Now, except that motor protection is better than fuel tank protection? I remember the motivation for placing the engine in the feed for the BMP-3 sounded like a machine could survive without a tank or with a broken tank, even without a crew member, without an engine - nothing at all.

[SMP]

andrewkor Yesterday, 07:25
Well, finally, the dvigun on the BMP was moved forward, at least some addition to the aluminum armor and a very big gain for the convenience and safety of the landing!

If you installed two gearboxes on V-8/6 from two sides like on 5TD,
A. Morozova,


gain in everything, if the scheme is old as on the T-90 with the only difference
that MTO transferred to the nose, then the loss of power due to the heap of gearboxes is more than 10%.

I personally did not find a photo of how the engine and gearbox are located.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

if the circuit is old as on the T-90 with the only difference
that MTO transferred to the nose, then the loss of power due to the heap of gearboxes is more than 10%.

Who told you that the motor in the BMP is made in the likeness of a tank? There, starting with the BMP-1, the engine with the box is assembled in a single unit.
Yes, and the T-90th. In which heap of gearboxes the loss of 10% power? If you are talking about a “guitar” that stands between the engine and gearboxes, then it has only five gears. Try to dissipate 10% of the power of a 1000-strong engine into them, translating these losses into heat. By the way, inside the 5TD (6TD) engine between the two crankshafts there are as many gears for synchronizing and transmitting forces from the second crankshaft (this gearbox does not exist in the T-90 engine), which means that the losses of these transmissions are comparable.

[SMP]

I personally did not find the photo, how the engine and gearbox are located.

Sorry dear BUT YOU know how to read? You are able to distinguish ASSUMPTION
from approval? Honestly, I don’t even know what to answer.

[SMP]

Yes, and the T-90th. In which heap of gearboxes the loss of 10% power? If you are talking about a “guitar” that stands between the engine and gearboxes, then it has only five gears. Try to dissipate 10% of the power of a 1000-strong engine into them, translating these losses into heat.

On the T-90 there is the same circuit as on the T-72, T-54, in this circuit there are two types of rotary gearboxes, so they lose 10% or even 15% of the power, I don’t remember if I’m interested in looking for you links, somewhere on the second computer I have saved data, because I myself was very surprised, since a lot of dirt about the T-64 power plant was poured.
If you want to prove your point of view at any cost, I won’t answer, but please take off the facts.

In the meantime, two pictures I do not know which one will be better seen, and there yourself take a calculator and calculate the percentage.
(costs of rewinding tracks and rolling OK, without loss of engagement)

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

On the T-90 there is the same circuit as on the T-72, T-54, in this circuit there are two types of rotary gearboxes, so they lose 10% or even 15% of the power, I don’t remember if I’m interested in looking for you links, somewhere on the second computer I have saved data, because I myself was very surprised, since a lot of dirt about the T-64 power plant was poured.

I’m a character by nature, a techie, so it’s interesting for me to get to the bottom of the true data, and not the distorted ones, which, for example, on the site of Tarasenko are very many.

Quote: SMP

On the T-90 is the same circuit as on the T-72, T-54

The schemes are different. The T-44-54-55-62 has one gearbox, to which the force from the engine is transmitted through the "guitar", and from the box, through the planetary rotation mechanism (T54-55-62) to the tracks.
The T-90 (T-72) - as well as the T-64 has 2 planetary gearboxes (on each side), and the engine shaft is connected to the gearboxes through a "guitar". The T-64 has an engine output to the gearbox on both sides of the engine, there is no "Guitar". But, I repeat, in the engine itself there is a gearbox, which is comparable in losses to a "guitar".

Quote: SMP

.... since a lot of dirt about the T-64 powerplant has been poured.

They do not scold the transmission, but the engine itself. The engine was created on the basis of the German Jumo 205 aircraft engine. The engine, no doubt, is compact, but certainly not for the tank. With the same success, an engine from Formula 1 can be put in the tank, choosing accordingly in terms of power.

[SMP]

A. Tarasenko .. http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/t-64_t-72.htm
There is a lot of information on the main site, but it’s already been reworked, it’s a clone of the site that was closed a year ago, here it had the opinions of different people who worked directly with A. Morozov, plus his personal notes.

Sorry, I believe the general designer Morozov, and enter into the polemic that you offer me It is possible only on the basis of formulas and all. And this has already been done back in the 70s, there are materials and formulas for calculating all losses, you yourself, please.

I will try briefly, loss calculation is in progress ONLY from the shaft shaft to which two transmissions are attached on both sides, i.e. from the original power MOST engine no one ever considers losses inside the engine, because they are still 5TDF much less than the V-12 T-90.

Everything is very simple, excuse me, but you didn’t pay attention to a simple fact 5TDF Two-stroke engine, and V-12 at T-90 FOUR STROKE

Therefore:
1. Count losses inside engines different types, especially one push-pullthe second four stroke it’s not grateful at all, and a completely different topic.

2. The idea is only the layout of the MTO T-64, and everything just doesn’t matter which engine, but at least a single-row gasoline
with an efficiency of 20%, or as I showed in Figure V-8, two gearboxes are placed directly on the crankshaft on both sides and that’s it, but the T-90 circuit has intermediate gearboxes, the T-64 does not have them at all.

For example, take the V-12 1130 l / s from the T-90 and and bypassing all the adapters in the form of gears (guitars) just like on the T-64 set directly on the shaft of the shaft, can I? Of course you can, only the tank’s width will be such that it cannot fit on any railway platform because the MTO’s width will be half a meter wider than that of the T-64 and T-90, since the V-12 is a very long engine in size, and the 5TDF is short.
Therefore, the T-72 \ 90 had to go to rotary gears to lose power so that the power unit fit into the dimensions of the width of the case. And that’s all! ..

And if you replace V-12 with V-8, it will turn out the same as on T-64, only instead of a two-stroke engine, there will be a four-stroke.
Previously, such a scheme was not possible due to the low power of the V-12 750 l / s, the power of the V-8 did not exceed 470 l / s, which is even less than the T-34.
Then they adopted the T-80 with a gas-turbine engine of 1000 l / s, after which they planned to abandon the diesel engines altogether, then 1991, there was no money, then there were already two models, the Omsk 640 and the 195 Tagil, which made the T-14 .

By the way, here they explained well, the rest if you want, I'll throw it off to you.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

I believe the general designer Morozov, and you can only enter into the polemic that you propose to me based on formulas and that’s all.

We take the figures given by you on the transmission efficiency: "... with an efficiency of 20% ..." (as I understand it, these are losses, not the efficiency of the entire transmission)
To make it easier to calculate, let's take the T-90 transmission with a 1000-and-strong engine.
1000l / hp = 750 kilowatts. 20% of 750 = 150 kilowatts. In this case, the loss is heat. That is, they can be represented as a heating heater. With 3 kilowatts, you can warm the room in the apartment. Transmission of our tank in the area of ​​3m cubic. and inside these three cubes of ten of 150 kilowatts. It’s not that the oil will boil away - the metal will flow. And for some reason the T-90 travels for hours even in a hot desert.
Where am I mistaken?

[SMP]

Your comment.

We take the figures given by you on the transmission efficiency: "... with an efficiency of 20% ..." (as I understand it, these are losses, not the efficiency of the entire transmission)

My comment

The idea is only the layout of the MTO T-64, and there everything just doesn’t matter which engine, but at least a single-row petrol with an efficiency of 20%

All gasoline four-stroke engines in the WORLD have an efficiency of 20%
Including your car gasoline has an efficiency of 20%.
All diesel engines in the world have an efficiency of 40%
If in your car diesel it also has an efficiency of 40%
This was an example.

Where am I mistaken?

Have you watched a movie?

Again, on the T-72 and T-64 there are identical gearboxes, it seems to be on the T-90. So?

If the engine T-90 V-12 on an open bench in the laboratory directly
on Kalen shaft from two sides, install two gearboxes removed from the T-64, then there will be no power loss on the drive wheel as well as on the T-64.

In the picture from the film, a screen of the MTO T-64 circuit.


And if you assemble a T-5 circuit with gearboxes on a 64TDF T-90 engine on an open bench in the laboratory, then the 5TDF T-64 will also have about 10% of the power loss to the drive wheel at the output.

In the picture, the screen diagram of the MTO T-72


So, with the arrows I showed the number of intermediate links, that is, rotary gears, torque is transmitted through each, and there is power loss on each.

On the T-64 they are not at all, turns occur by shifting gears on two gearboxes.
This is the genius of A. Morozov.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

In the picture, the screen diagram of the MTO T-72

The diagram says "V-12 (T-90) :). Actually, this is a diagram of the MTO of the T-54-55-62 tank.
Transmission T-54-55-62

Transmission T-64-84

Transmission T-72-90


And back to the transmission losses. Well, even 10% of power cannot be lost there. This is with a 1000-horsepower engine of 75 kilowatts.
With a smaller fuel volume, the T-72 can travel 500 km without refueling (700 km on asphalt), which has been confirmed more than once at the landfills.
On the T-64 indicate the same range. Why? If the 64-ki transmission efficiency is higher, the range should be greater, but it is not even on the passport.

[SMP]

Quote: Bad_gr

On the T-64 indicate the same range. Why? If the 64-ki transmission efficiency is higher, the range should be greater, but it is not even on the passport.

Mileage depends primarily on the capacity of the fuel tanks, and secondly on the fuel consumption of the engine itself, that is, its efficiency.

For the rest, I already arranged the table in the comment above, and so in the materials that I read it generally says about 15% of the T-72 power losses compared to the T-64.
that is, somewhere around 5-6% is also lost on the chassis, so A. Morozov, who created the T-44 and T-54 tanks, refused his own layout and sided with the T-64 chassis with track rollers with internal shock absorption.


5-6% of power losses include the best traction of T-64 tracks with the ground.

A small steel (rigid) track roller provides high contact pressure on the steel treadmill of the truck. Under their influence, a flexible (with a parallel hinge) track lying on a compliant bearing base is deformed with a variable radius of curvature. A rigid one-piece truck, with a serial hinge of the T-72 tank, does not possess this property. The maximum pressure in the caterpillar-soil system occurs in the center of the truck, in the area of ​​the shoe, and there is a cavity that is clogged with soil and holds it with spurs. Namely, it provides a high coefficient of friction in the "caterpillar-soil" system and high traction and coupling qualities of the caterpillar mover. 20 .. 25% of the traction (coupling) qualities of the track of the T-64 tank is realized by BASHMAKOM.

The shape of the supporting surface of the link and the holes in it not only reduce weight (reduce idle rewinding losses), increase the cleanability of the caterpillar, but also increase its traction properties: internal bonds (forces) between the soil particles located under and above the caterpillar work. Due to this, another 15 .. 25% of traction is realized. The remaining 50 ... 65% are sold by lugs (spurs) of the truck. The genius of the chassis of the Morozovsky T-64 is its simplicity and effectiveness. “There are no trifles in a tank,” A.A. liked to repeat. Morozov [5] and the chassis of the T-64 are confirmation of this.

[SMP]

With a smaller fuel volume, the T-72 can travel 500 km without refueling (700 km on asphalt), which has been confirmed more than once at the landfills.

I don’t know the amount of fuel, I don’t trust different sites, if I get data that are reliable, I’ll definitely remember.
But fuel consumption has never reflected and does not reflect transmission efficiency.

[SMP]

Yes, and thanks for the MTO T-72 scheme.
It turns out that there are two gearboxes from the T-72 on the T-64B, that is, the T-72B and T-64 gearboxes are completely interchangeable, I did not specifically look for it, I thought only of the T-90.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

All gasoline four-stroke engines in the WORLD have an efficiency of 20%
All diesel engines in the world have an efficiency of 40%

Not necessary. There are other data:

http://www.membrana.ru/particle/2755
TWO-STROKE SHIP DIESEL: ".... In the mode of least specific fuel consumption (not full power), the efficiency exceeds 50% ....... Yes, and at full load the efficiency of the engine is not much lower ....."

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

Therefore, the T-72 \ 90 had to go to rotary gears to lose power so that the power unit fit into the dimensions of the width of the case. And that’s all! ..

And it was possible to put the engine along (as in Armata) and, through the 2nd oblique gears, transmit the force to both boxes. The engine would have gone a little to the fighting compartment (it would have taken part of the storage rack space), and the place next to the engine could have been occupied by fuel tanks.
If you search the Internet for object 187, which you would like to release under the T-90 label, then it (No. 5, No. 6) had an X-shaped engine (dad of what is on Armata) at 1200l / s, longitudinal location, hydrostatic transmission, which allowed to smoothly turn, moreover, the frontal projection of the tank did not have a weakened zone in the area of ​​the driver’s place (legacy of the T-64 body),
and the tank hull was only 30cm longer than the T-72.

[Golovan Jack]

Quote: Bad_gr

And it was possible to put the engine along (as in Armata)

On Armata "engine along"? I didn’t know, really.
How did you know that?

Quote: Bad_gr

The engine would have gone a little to the fighting compartment (it would have taken part of the tank rack space)

I have cognitive dissonance. The tank rack, as I recall, is in front-right in the fighting compartment. The engine, in this situation, cannot “take up part of the tank-rack space ... but it just doesn’t.
But to wedge a loader - yes easily.
Tell me, where am I mistaken?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Golovan Jack

On Armata "engine along"?

Exhaust pipes on both sides of the tank (as with facility 187)

Quote: Golovan Jack

The tank rack, as I recall, is in front-right in the fighting compartment.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Golovan Jack

On Armata "engine along"? I didn’t know, really.
How did you know that?

Photo from the movie "Military Acceptance". You can see the X-shaped engine in a single unit with the transmission. I don’t know what the “secret” plate closes, but the location of the engine is clearly visible.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

.... no one ever considers losses inside the engine, for they are still 5TDF many times less than V-12 T-90.

Based on what such fantastic conclusions?
Losses inside the engine affect the efficiency of the engine itself, which is lower for a two-stroke engine than for a four-stroke engine. This will confirm any reference. And then inside the push-pull additional gearbox between the crankshafts, on which part of the power is dissipated.
Another part of the power of the T-64 engine is lost on the diffusers of the ejection cooling system. By the way, the T-90 takes 75 horsepower to the cooling fan, the T-72 has a little more because of the less perfect fan. At Leopard, about 200 horses go to fans (see because of less efficient ring-shaped radiators).

Quote: SMP

.... install two gearboxes removed from the T-64, then the power loss on the drive wheel will not be exactly the same as on the T-64.

:) And the 2 gearboxes clogged with gears (8 planetary gears each) + 2 on-board gearboxes + hinge resistance of the track itself - have no losses at all? or are they only present on the tanks of other plants (UVZ, Omsk)?

[SMP]

Based on what such fantastic conclusions?
Losses inside the engine affect the efficiency of the engine itself, which is lower for a two-stroke engine than for a four-stroke engine

You are not right at the root, power in all movements begins with a comparison of cubic capacity. I don’t remember, but if you are interested you can find how many cubes (five cylinder) 5TD 750 l \ s which was produced in the 70s, and how much cubic (twelve cylinder) 750 l \ s T-72.
You will be very surprised that the five cylinder engine T-64 has less cubes than the twelve cylinder T-72. The difference is too big.
An example of a VAZ 2103 (three) is 1500 cubic meters, I don’t remember exactly somewhere 75 l \ s. in tank diesels the same.

:) And the 2 gearboxes clogged with gears (8 planetary gears each) + 2 on-board gearboxes + hinge resistance of the track itself - have no losses at all? or are they only present on the tanks of other plants (UVZ, Omsk)?

I don’t understand anything at all that you are trying to either ask or prove?

other plants (UVZ, Omsk)

And what have the plants to do with it? Yes, even penguins in Antarctica will do, did I write something about plants to you?

I'll try again in the pictures, take the T-90 V-12 engine, cut four cylinders and to the resulting V-8 from two sides two gearboxes from T-90 are placed, the red line marks the crankshaft transmitting torque from both sides directly to the T-90 gearboxes from two sides. circuit below.



You are not a techie at all, I have arranged this scheme for you above, but you have run into the word T-64.
Schemes, drawings, capable of catching any car mechanic on the fly,
that is, generally any. Have you written your technical mindset?
you don’t have a single ability for technology, because you need to have developed imaginative thinking, you have developed logical, for technology you need more than 80% of figurative thinking, to work with drawings and in 3D programs.
Do not be offended, but this direction is not your thing.
Further discussion on this issue is meaningless to me.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SMP

............ Losses inside the engine affect the efficiency of the engine itself, which is lower for a two-stroke engine than for a 4-stroke engine

You are not right at the root, power in all movements begins with a comparison of cubic capacity.

And this man criticizes me for illiteracy ....
Imagine the situation:
two engines of SAME power are in exactly the same machines. With the SAME amount of fuel, one car will travel 75 km and the other 100 km. The one that will pass 100 has an engine with high efficiency. And this is in 99 cases out of 100 there will be a 4-stroke engine, and not a two-stroke one.

An engine with a large volume of cylinders usually has a wider range in revolutions, at which maximum power is maintained. For example, the T-72 engine is distinguished by locomotive traction at revolutions starting just above idle, in contrast to the T-64 engine, which is not present at low speeds.

Quote: SMP

Schemes, drawings, capable of catching any car mechanic on the fly,

I don’t argue, any competent person would have noticed long ago that in addition to the “guitar” there are also a bunch of all kinds of gearboxes (including gearboxes) that also have not 100% percent efficiency (especially planetary ones, where all gears are in constant gear) .
In your opinion, it turns out that the loss is only limited to the T-72 gearbox (efficiency 15% (!!!), but for the T-64 everything is direct, without loss.
Losses in the transmission on each gear connection and losses in the “guitar” are only a small part of the total. And everything else, except for the “guitar”, is present on the T-64.

Quote: SMP

So your answer will be nowhere, I won’t even read it.

Well, for God's sake ...

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

T-72 gearbox (15% efficiency (!!!)

Sorry typo. Meant "loss of 15%"

[SMP]

:) And the 2nd gearboxes clogged with gears (8 planetary rows in each) + 2 onboard gears

Just in case, IF THE CONNECTION GOES DIRECTLY TO THE KALEN SHAFT, THEN DO NOT put additional REDUCERS .........
BECAUSE DIRECTLY ......

You don’t even know what is on the T-72 \ 90 TWO GEARBOXES.

This is the screen of your circuit.



Here's how you can discuss ????
If you don’t think at all ????
On the forum of tanchikov yes, .. but not in.
So your answer will be nowhere, I won’t even read it.

[SMP]

:) And the 2 gearboxes clogged with gears (8 planetary gears each) + 2 on-board gearboxes + hinge resistance of the track itself - have no losses at all? or are they only present on the tanks of other plants (UVZ, Omsk)?

So that you would not be offended at the conclusion of the most concrete example, otherwise it is not possible at all.

The gear shaft from the T-90 is welded to the shaft of the T-90 engine by welding on the left side, the shaft of the second gear box from the T-90 is also welded to the right side by welding.

So try not to me but to yourself to explain what power losses will be at the weld?

And on the T-90 tank, two rotary guitar gears play the role of a weld. Is it clear? and you start to consider the losses inside the engine, now the losses inside the gearbox.
So what losses can be at the weld?
And the guitar gearboxes have big ones too.

You are not a technical mindset; you are most likely a humanist.


As for the UVZ, it was created by the author of the T-64 .. A. Morozov, then the creator of the UVZ, the Central Committee sent to create the KhTZ. After the war, it was destroyed.

[Bobik012]

did he smoke something?

[tchoni]

By and large, the BMP-3M "Dragoon" is a completely new infantry fighting vehicle, made on the basis of the BMP-3 chassis,

The phrase, to be honest, beaten by aircraft manufacturers and dragged to Ascomin. Directly alarming. But this is so .... personal, irrelevant.
Now about the case. It seems that the author was going to participate in the races on this BMP - the article focuses several times on the specific power of the BMP as some kind of almost the most important parameter.
But really important things, such as security, mine resistance were circumvented by a couple of phrases of "general form"

According to representatives of the Tractor Plants concern, the new BMP-3M Dragun has an improved level of armor protection, which is higher than on conventional BMPs.

How much higher? unclear. .....
But in general, one cannot fail to note the high universality of the project, created on a modular basis. Also in a very positive way is the preservation of the BMP 3 firepower combined with the ability not to store the ammunition of 100 mm guns in the airborne squad (at least the crew can simply not take spare 18 rounds ... or not to take airborne assault, to empty the ammunition squad and work as a cart)))))
For portable Dushkts - just applauding standing gentlemen designers !!!

And now personal IMHO. The car is excellent and wonderful, but, nevertheless, still has a low level of security. I repeat, this is a personal opinion. In general, this is a class of vehicles trying to combine light weight, passenger capacity armored personnel carriers and firepower of the tank is initially doomed. And it's not just about our BMP-3 ... it's about the whole class. Modern infantry fighting vehicles cannot transport infantry across the battlefield. They can only be taken to it and maintained by fire from the shelter. Those. in fact, this is not an infantry fighting vehicle, but an armored personnel carrier with enhanced equipment.

[Per se.]

Quote: tchoni

The car is great and great, but, nevertheless, still has a low level of security.

What level of security should be that he surpassed a bomb shelter? Dear Eugene, I will allow myself to express my opinion in the same way, maybe you will even agree with him. The whole chip BMP, the whole essence of its concept, it is maneuverability and versatility, in this capacity the idea was further developed in BMD. Now, what is a "heavy BMP" is a machine that has lost its maneuverability and versatility, that is, the whole essence of its concept. As a specialized fire support vehicle for tanks and its infantry, such a BMPT loses BMPT both in fire function and in armor protection. As an armored vehicle, such an "BMP" due to the reinforcement of the fire component will lose the BTR. Moreover, with unhurried infantry to send such a device next to the tanks is fraught with the fact that his defeat would entail not only the loss of the car with the crew, but also the entire landing force, especially if you are "proud" that you can shove 10-12 paratroopers there. The use of KAZ on "heavy infantry fighting vehicles" raises questions about what will happen to the infantry alongside, after dismounting (or when dismounting), if the KAZ operates. My personal opinion, heavy BMP is stupidity, harm, and if we are talking about increasing the security of equipment and its rational use in battle, we need BMPT (as a specialized fire support) and a heavy BTR (as a transport component with enhanced armor protection). All this can be done on a single tank base, for example, the T-90 tank (or T-72), BMPT and a heavy armored personnel carrier (BMO-T type). Moreover, it is not necessary to push the 10-12 man into the BTR, just as, 6 is a man of the landing and more optimally, since it is possible to create more comfortable conditions for them. make the machine itself more compact, they will dismount faster, and, be faster ready for battle as a combat group. Finally, with the defeat of the machine with unhurried infantry (despite the fact that the BTR should not climb ahead or next to the tanks and BMPT), will result in less casualties in humans. Two heavy armored personnel carriers per detachment, better than one ridiculous and expensive monster ala "Mouse" T-15. The BMPs themselves, as universal machines, are needed, such as the BMP-3 (BMD-4М), for maneuvering combat, capturing the bridgeheads over the river, marching throws.

[alexmach]

what will happen to the infantry next, after dismounting (or when dismounting), if KAZ works.

And what will happen to her if just a Cumulative or universal commutative-fragmentation projectile arrives at the BIP during dismounting and the KAZ does not work?

[Per se.]

Quote: alexmach

A cumulative or universal commutative fragmentation projectile arrives in the BIP when dismounting and KAZ does not work?

Maybe, simply, it is not necessary to climb with the infantry in the first line, and for the second, behind the tanks and BMPT, are you less likely to “arrive”? There is no technology that is being killed, but in many respects it depends on the tactics of its use, there will be more or less losses. The Israelis, in the IDF, on thick-skinned "Timer" did not specifically put anything but an auxiliary machine gun, so that it would not occur to anyone to use it as a "tank." Therefore, speaking of the KAZ on the BMP and the question arises, what could be more dangerous, the flown-in charge, or the infantry next to the KAZ, which had been triggered by its own KAZ, and whether the BMP is located (with or without KAZ) next to the tanks in the first line.

[alexmach]

Maybe it’s just that you don’t need to climb the first line with the infantry

may not be necessary, but is it always possible

There is no technique to be killed, but the tactics of its use largely depend on whether there will be more or less losses.

Here, perhaps I agree. It is necessary to really practice the tactics of use in different situations and proceeding from it to formulate requirements for technology.

[A.V.S.]

How tired of the moronic phrase: "superior to foreign counterparts!" If only they had brought the defense to the old American Bradley, it’s already very cool! In Yemen, BMP-3, when blown up, shatters to pieces, ATGM breaks through, and everything is "unique" !!!

[Lopatov]

Quote: A.W.S.

In Yemen, BMP-3, when blown up, shatters to pieces, ATGM breaks through, and everything is "unique" !!!

Well, firstly, the Emirate BMP-3, unlike the "Dragoon", is not protected from cumulative ammunition, we also saved through the fault of the Emirates themselves. Secondly, why in the plural?

A unique BMP-3 is its combat module. Which is so good in the opinion of the same emirates that they demanded to put it on wheeled vehicles. What will the Finns do now.

[venik]

Quote: A.W.S.

If only they had brought the defense to the old American Bradley, it’s already very cool! In Yemen, BMP-3 scatter into pieces when undermining, ATGM penetrates right through

=======
And you want to say that the "Bradley" mines "do not take" and ATGMs "do not break" ??? Think what you say, dear!

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: A.W.S.

If only they had brought the defense to the old American Bradley, it’s already very cool!

Over the entire period of operation of the BMP-3, it is reliably known about the loss of 2 (!) Vehicles + 1 knocked out: one BMP was lost in Yemen (one of several hundred in service) and 2 in the First Chechen (one battalion fully equipped with this machine took part there) . In addition, in terms of performance characteristics, the BMP-3 is in no way inferior to Bradley, who is also carried to pieces by a landmine. So what is it inferior to the American?

[Protos]

Quote: A.W.S.

How tired of the moronic phrase: "superior to foreign counterparts!" If only they had brought the defense to the old American Bradley, it’s already very cool! In Yemen, BMP-3, when blown up, shatters to pieces, ATGM breaks through, and everything is "unique" !!!

“Bradley” has the same problem - when blown up, they fly apart, ATGM breaks through

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Protos

“Bradley” has the same problem - when blown up, they fly apart, ATGM breaks through

And all by the fact that various "experts" absolutely do not understand why BMP is needed at all and what exactly it does.

[parma]

Kurgan just made a three normal layout, great! the armor is really still not enough, but as the development of the BMP-1/2 is quite acceptable ..

[parma]

Quote: A.W.S.

How tired of the moronic phrase: "superior to foreign counterparts!" If only they had brought the defense to the old American Bradley, it’s already very cool! In Yemen, BMP-3, when blown up, shatters to pieces, ATGM breaks through, and everything is "unique" !!!

And raving does not fly away? a priori, there is no indestructible equipment ... BMP-3 in the USSR was developed to replace the first two, which means as a mass machine for the World War II, and even a jerk to the La Mancha, so it should be toothy and light ...

[venik]

Quote: parma

BMP-3 in the USSR was developed to replace the first two, which means as a mass machine for World War II, and even a jerk to the Lamansh, so it should be toothy and light ...

=========
In! In addition, do not forget that - unlike "Brad-Lee" and the German "Cougar" - IT ("three-ruble note") - also SWIMS !!! And - not bad !!!
Well, if it’s used in Yemen for other purposes, but as a TANK, then ..... Well, in short, "the technique in the hands of a savage is a piece of iron" .....

[Großer feldherr]

And where did this buoyancy come in handy in just 50 years of continuous warfare involving domestic infantry fighting vehicles?
A place of war, which has never been, is not, and cannot be (until they learn to rule out a nuclear threat), it would be better to prepare for something more real.
Small rivulets can easily be ford with a set of overcoming water obstacles. There are not so many large rivers, even in Russia; for their forcing, engineering troops and special equipment are still needed.
In this form, this is a suitcase without a handle.

[zoolu350]

When buoyancy is needed, but it will not be, it will be too late to drink Borjomi. The equipment must be built for the proposed theater, and this is the East European plain and the Far Eastern hills and taiga. Do you know what small rivulets turn into in spring?

[Großer feldherr]

For some reason, no one makes tanks tanks, and this despite the fact that they must operate in conjunction with infantry fighting vehicles.

Quote: zoolu350

Do you know what small rivulets turn into in spring?

No, I don’t know, I live on Mars.
Still, I wonder what they turn into, in your opinion?

[abc_alex]

Because they can’t. No one in the world can make MBT swim. Neither the Germans, nor the British, nor the French, nor the United States can do this. Not given 60-70 ton fool superdense layout swim. Even our light tanks, by Euro-American standards, cannot sail. If you want to know why, read about displacement.

Yes, who knows how, equips tanks with a system of underwater driving. But here's an ambush, NOBODY carries snorkels with them and they are not mounted in 5 minutes. Therefore, such systems are a solution for leisurely forcing a water barrier with rear connections or for those cases where you can wait about five hours until the support units are tightened and snorkels are strengthened on the tanks. :)

The buoyancy requirements for our light BT were formed from the experience of conducting military operations in Europe, not from a hangover or from a fool. You do not like that our BT is adapted to the European theater? :)
And do you seriously think that eliminating the water jet will save so much weight that it will allow you to reserve an IFV from oncoming fire :)
BMP is not a tank, it is not designed to counter army anti-tank weapons by definition. Such a task has never been set and will not be set. The Americans tried to design a BMP with high security - they got a monster with an estimated weight of 70 tons. In your opinion, such a machine is more suitable for "50 years of continuous war with the participation of domestic infantry fighting vehicles"?

[Großer feldherr]

Already from the first words everything was turned upside down, so, perhaps, I’ll start by building a logical chain and finer “chewing” the comments above.
Buoyancy determines the specific gravity of the machine (volume / mass), which should be less than that of water. The more armor and defense, the more difficult it is to achieve a positive balance. This time.
BMP, this is not an armored personnel carrier, or even BMD, it operates as part of the main forces, among which a lot of equipment is not adapted to overcome water obstacles. Even after crossing the obstacle, the "infantry" will not be able to advance further waiting for everyone else.
Spend 5 minutes every 10 years on the installation of snorkels, this is not the disadvantage for which people are forced to move in the frontline zone without protection.
And they do not carry them only as unnecessary, the routes of marches are always negotiated in advance.
About what requirements are put forward by warriors, whole legends already go.
https://youtu.be/qOtioVb2RLA
The mass will be saved not by eliminating the water mover, but by not limiting the specific gravity and buoyancy, roughly speaking, an infantry fighting vehicle should be done on a full tank base, with tank armor and maximum protection.
........
The spoon is good for dinner, and the experience very quickly becomes obsolete and loses relevance. How many times have the generals prepared for past wars, but ordinary fighters have already paid for their mistakes with their lives.

[abc_alex]

Buoyancy determines the specific gravity of the machine (volume / mass), which should be less than that of water. The more armor and defense, the more difficult it is to achieve a positive balance. This time.

Congratulations to both of us, we were able to express the same idea in different words.

BMP, this is not an armored personnel carrier, or even BMD, it operates as part of the main forces, among which a lot of equipment is not adapted to overcome water barriers.Even after crossing the obstacle, the "infantry" will not be able to advance further waiting for everyone else.

Correctly, but at the same time provide cover for this very crossing. Otherwise, the enemy will cover everyone with all the fire weapons.

You are right, and the composition of the army units is full of funds to force water barriers. From snorkels to pantone bridges. And yes, there is a mass of military equipment that cannot overcome water barriers on its own. But armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles do floating. If only because any bridge has a limited throughput, and the number of people killed during this process depends on the speed of overcoming the water barrier ..

Spend 5 minutes every 10 years on the installation of snorkels, this is not the disadvantage for which people are forced to move in the frontline zone without protection.

5 minutes? Not less than an hour. And reservoirs with a depth of not more than 5 meters can be forced, and since no one canceled the law of Archimedes, then not with any bottom. And forcing itself is not so simple. Installation of equipment is carried out a few kilometers from the shore, tanks go to the shore, there the integrity of the equipment is monitored. At the same time, tanks do not enter the water en masse but sequentially, so that no more than three vehicles are in the water at once (wartime scheme). And all the time, tanks approaching the water and leaving it are not combat-ready (towers are usually locked).

So I repeat: the question is not how long the installation of the snorkel takes. The question is that it is possible to transfer equipment to the bottom only in the absence of fire contact with the enemy.

The mass will be saved not by eliminating the water mover, but by not limiting the specific gravity and buoyancy, roughly speaking, an infantry fighting vehicle should be done on a full tank base, with tank armor and maximum protection.

And you get a 70-ton monster. Since the volume of reserved space should be significantly larger than the tank.
But the soldiers will dismount in the same way on the battlefield, and the BMP in the same way will not be able to get in line with the tanks, because its weapons are "of the wrong caliber."
If you care about the infantry, then it must be replaced by BMPT.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: abc_alex

But here's an ambush, NOBODY carries snorkels with them and they are not mounted in 5 minutes.

On the T-62, snorkels were fixed on the tower and fussed around constantly. And to establish them was not a problem: the viewing device of the loader was twisted out and a pipe was put in its place, which was screwed into the inside of the tower with just one nut.
The blinds above the engine were closed by covers (which, again, always stood on the tank properly) + something in detail. And forward, under the water.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bad_gr

On the T-62, snorkels were fixed on the tower and fussed around constantly.

I noticed that modern tanks (T-72m3) snorkels carry with them constantly.
Even in the photo from Syria, he is fixed in a regular place.

[zoolu350]

And how is the weather on Mars, the sun does not bake your head? In the middle rivers with swampy floodplains. In a war over an adult (with the use of the HAND and UBC), maximum survival will be ensured not by the most reserved equipment, but by the most maneuverable and passable.

[Großer feldherr]

On the contrary, the Sun is far away, and only fiery water saves from cosmic radiation and helps to warm up.
Your "serious war" of the 2MV type, with only nuclear weapons, will remain the wet fantasy of insanely generals (no kidding, I don’t know why, but the military almost always demolishes the attic in old people), the real people have the real power, and they want to live.

[zoolu350]

These people of yours (the owners of the Fed) are adequate, only in the desire to rob and cash in, and they have more military slaves than Russian soldiers, I generally keep silent about economic opportunities. But there are other people (the leadership of the CCP) who have the PLA (the most powerful army in the world) and the economy of China. So only the massive use of NBC leaves the Russians a chance to somehow fight back.

[venik]

Quote: Großer Feldherr

And where did this buoyancy come in handy in just 50 years of continuous warfare involving domestic infantry fighting vehicles?

=======
And what is the Syrians asking for to force the Euphrates ??? EXACTLY floating BT and came in handy! Hindus in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) used the PT-76 and were enthusiastic!
---------

Quote: Großer Feldherr

Small rivulets can easily be ford with a set of overcoming water obstacles.

========
Yes, you see, my friend, you didn’t serve in the army and you don’t imagine what "crossing the water barrier" is !!! Another "stinky river" with a width of 20 meters and a depth of 1.5-3 meters cannot be ford into the wild (well, or 30 kilometers to run along the banks in search of ford !!!!

[igorspb]

And do without sharp corners in a uninhabited weapons module in any way?

[Lopatov]

Where is the uninhabited module here?

[Großer feldherr]

As I understand it, here is a remotely controlled version of melon.

As noted above, the uninhabited combat module has a similar weapon system as on the conventional BMP-3, however, the composition of its ammunition has undergone some changes. This is due primarily to the fact that the main part of the ammunition of the combat vehicle is now outside the inhabited compartment: these are all 30-mm ammunition designed for 2A72 automatic guns - 500 rounds in two tapes (305 with fragmentation tracer and high-explosive fragmentation incendiary shells and another 195 with armor-piercing tracer shells); 22 shots for a 100 mm 2A70 gun in an automatic loader, as well as three shots with a guided missile.

[venik]

Or does it seem to me, or indeed, the "Dragoon" in form (body) is surprisingly reminiscent of "Kurgan"? Unfortunately, there is very little information about both "Dragoon" and "Kurganets", including TTX - very approximate .... There is a question: WHAT are the main advantages of the "Kurgan" ??? (can anyone clarify?) And in this connection: But was there any need to spend money on its development when the BMP-3 had a HUGE modernization potential? I personally so far, that "out of the blue" ......

[CTABEP]

It seems that in the reservation, KAZ and possibly SLA. But yes, little information.

[Couchexpert]

Well, finally, Russia now has a humanly arranged BMP! Moreover, it’s ready for production, according to the developers. Indeed, it was possible to fix many anachronistic jambs of past products: the sides are covered, the “holes for the gun” in the front part, the modern FCS and even the remote control are removed.
True, it’s really a little incomprehensible why to use an engine with a power sufficient even for MBT on a 21-ton machine, for which this will inevitably result in increased fuel consumption, and, consequently, a decrease in the mileage between refueling (reserved volumes for fuel comparable to tank ones should not be expected here ) I also suspect that all kinds of “forcing” are not very favorable effect on the resource. Well, the dimensions of such a power unit are also apparently tank-type: in western infantry fighting vehicles, the engine usually moves in the side and there is still enough space nearby for a mechanical drive. Moreover, since there is no additional power plant for powering on-board systems like on tanks, the engine will probably have to be driven constantly, otherwise the DBM will not be able to work.
I was very pleased that our managed to make such a powerful uninhabited combat module. Is it possible that, in accordance with tank trends, a paired (built?) PKTM should be located as a separate sub-module outside the a la T-90M tower: this is a high speed of reaction to threats, and large vertical aiming angles, and a place in a tower under BC or something else will be free. This is unless of course there are some strict restrictions on the overall height of the machine.
But in general, this is still the same representative of the Soviet concept of "assault" infantry fighting vehicles, in which, for the sake of the possibility of inflicting maximum damage per unit time and high speed of development of the offensive, they consciously sacrifice security at the design stage. Perhaps this approach will prove to be justified in the event of a "big war", but local conflicts, consisting of ambushes and patrolling along mined roads a little less than completely, dictate a clearly different extreme: tank armor (necessarily with a complex of active defense) and a lone machine gun / gun on the roof.
It is strange that nothing is said about the capabilities of the machine in terms of air transportability (more advertising to the advertising god!), And they should be of such a level. Therefore, it is precisely with such machines on a mass basis that in the future it is worth arming the airborne forces (instead of the "zoo" from the platforms that we have now), when firepower and pace are more important, and massive restrictions do not allow building up protection. At the same time, as the combined-arms unit, the Kurgan people look much more promising.

[CTABEP]

BMP-3, what it was supposed to be from the beginning, without any mutations such as course FCT and 100-mm shells in the hull. Of infa of course a little, especially about the reservation, it is not clear whether it has increased or not, but everything else pleases. The main question remains - when will it be in the troops, and how will such an abundance of the project be combined with the unification of equipment in the army.

[Großer feldherr]

Comment on 10 "stars", it is a pity you can put only one.
It was in this form that BMP3 should have appeared 30 years ago.
All at the same technological level, there is nothing ultramodern and new here, they took the old and brought to mind.
Still “weaving” was removed, freeing up the internal volume and a couple of tons of mass that can be used to strengthen cardboard armor.

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Großer Feldherr

Still “weaving” was removed, freeing up the internal volume and a couple of tons of mass that can be used to strengthen cardboard armor.

Weaving is artillery here and now. And the armor all the same against tank guns, even reinforced due to the weight of hundreds, will not help.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Großer Feldherr

which can be used to strengthen cardboard armor.

Those. armor that can withstand 30 mm in the forehead and 12,7 in a circle - is it cardboard? You didn’t get acquainted with the performance characteristics of other infantry fighting vehicles? Only Puma and the CV90 have better protection, but lose in mobility and armament.

[Krasnyiy komissar]

Why is Dragoon needed if the Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle is under development? With a mass of 21 tons, it is impossible to provide serious protection against shells of small-caliber guns 35/40 mm and IEDs. The 100 mm cannon, of course, is good against infantry and lightly armored targets, but low ammunition load, low projectile speed (you can’t use BOPS) and low armor penetration of the CS bring all the advantages to naught. The 57 mm autocannon, firing projectiles with controlled detonation on the trajectory, strikes all existing NATO armored vehicles, except for MBT, and its high ballistics and rate of fire make it possible to fight enemy helicopters.
In my opinion, the average BMP should have a normal weight of about 30 tons, have protection from 40 mm BPS in the frontal projection, circular protection from 30 mm shells, be able to carry additional armored panels made of ceramics and KAZ. As for the main gun, its caliber should be at least 40 mm, and its rate of fire exceeding 200 rpm. Yes, it’s expensive, difficult, it doesn’t swim without preparation, but protecting people inside should not sacrifice buoyancy.

[venik]

Quote: Krasnyiy komissar

In my opinion, the average BMP should have a normal weight of about 30 tons, have protection from 40 mm BPS in the frontal projection, circular protection from 30 mm shells, be able to carry additional armored panels made of ceramics and KAZ.

=======
..... And at the same time PURE it is deprived of the opportunity to SWIM ..... In the "three rubles" - just a REASONABLE compromise !! And as for security - here - in my opinion - the BEST option is the "Heavy" BMP type "Barbariski" (BMP-T-15). In combination, both types of machines are able to provide a fairly flexible structure .....

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: Krasnyiy komissar

and low armor penetration of the COP

Pretty tall. Given the fact that the enemy has a bunch of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, a very good thing.

Quote: Krasnyiy komissar

The 57 mm autocannon, firing projectiles with controlled detonation on the trajectory, strikes all existing NATO armored vehicles, except for MBT, and its high ballistics and rate of fire make it possible to fight enemy helicopters.

Yeah, you scolding a hundredth for a small BK, but with a 57 mm gun it is also not very large, so you won't be able to fire infantry with fire either. Moreover, it is weak against more or less serious fortifications. Cannot hit targets on reverse ramps. Against helicopters, she does not have enough good means of detection.

[alexmach]

then its caliber should be at least 40 mm, and its rate of fire exceeding 200 rpm.

\
Yeah, but where can I put ammunition for such an instrument? Again in the case?

[kunstkammer]

Quote: tchoni

It feels like the author on this BMP was going to participate in races

I have some kind of deja vu ... somewhere and once I already heard it: "On the earth, in the heavens and the sea .. our answer is both powerful and powerful!" It seems that our fastest tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in the world ... on high-quality European roads .. a couple of days before the La Mancha gathered again.
But why the hell did you leave Berlin? From there it is closer to Lamanche than from Ivangorod.
Although the NATO-slow tanks from Narva to St. Petersburg and three hours is enough.

s.s Grandfather Zhukov! Please get up from the grave ... play for the blue ones and show the current "highbrow", unforgettable z.a.s.r.p.a.s.ts.a.m. how the enemy can reach from Brest to Moscow!

[parma]

Quote: Krasnyiy komissar

Why is Dragoon needed if the Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicle is under development? With a mass of 21 tons, it is impossible to provide serious protection against shells of small-caliber guns 35/40 mm and IEDs. The 100 mm cannon, of course, is good against infantry and lightly armored targets, but low ammunition load, low projectile speed (you can’t use BOPS) and low armor penetration of the CS bring all the advantages to naught. The 57 mm autocannon, firing projectiles with controlled detonation on the trajectory, strikes all existing NATO armored vehicles, except for MBT, and its high ballistics and rate of fire make it possible to fight enemy helicopters.
In my opinion, the average BMP should have a normal weight of about 30 tons, have protection from 40 mm BPS in the frontal projection, circular protection from 30 mm shells, be able to carry additional armored panels made of ceramics and KAZ. As for the main gun, its caliber should be at least 40 mm, and its rate of fire exceeding 200 rpm. Yes, it’s expensive, difficult, it doesn’t swim without preparation, but protecting people inside should not sacrifice buoyancy.

You can hang a cactus on the usual “three”, I think it’s also here, but about the hundred-millimeter .... In vain you are so ... The explosive action is much greater than that of the small things .... once pulled through the window and everyone on the floor got sick to fight, and the same 30th one needs to shoot in every window, it is not for nothing that the Americans stuffed 130mm into their AS-105, and not only 40 mm ...

[Izotovp]

It remains to make an automatic mortar on this base, MLRS, SAM and BMPT)))

[alexmach]

It remains to make an automatic mortar on this base

Well, there is already. Recently they wrote about an uninhabited module of the era with a 57 mm low-ballistic weapon - read with a mortar.

[parma]

Quote: Izotovp

It remains to make an automatic mortar on this base, MLRS, SAM and BMPT)))

And why? ... BMPT on the basis of "three" is too poorly protected, and artillery and air defense systems are better to do on the basis of materyga, and cheaply and not whimsical, but if the mortar / art / MLRS / air defense system meets someone, armor will not help them all anyway, the tank / BMP / broads (American) with RPG will still burn ...

[Izotovp]

As for bmpt, I agree that the armor followed, and as for the matalyga, all this is true, but this is another platform, and I meant the reduction of the platforms.

[Izotovp]

I apologize for the typo: the armor is weak.

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: parma

"three" too weakly protected

And why is the BMP-3 armor bad?

[Alexey-74]

This is all clear, let’s take conditionally that the BMP 3 “Dragoon” is much better than the existing BMPs in the aircraft (although the security issue remains). The question is how many different samples can be demonstrated ???? Really fed up with these "best in the world and having no analogues in the world" .... when will all this equipment go to the troops? It is worthless to all developments and inventions, if they didn’t send troops ..... and if they do, then oh no sooner, state tests and all that, and until it reaches the series, it’s time to invent something new already. equipment quickly becomes obsolete ..... and here with Kurgan’s it is not clear that .............. In short, some questions, but in the troops they both traveled and fought on old Soviet BMPs, and are driving.

[RL]

All of you are more or less right. And the “Dragoon” and the hypothetical “Kurganets” and the no less hypothetical “Armata” would not have been surpassed on the battlefield during their adoption, but on one condition! And this condition is that the entire western military-industrial complex will not be developing anything. She will sleep on her laurels and wait until their roasted cock pecks or until the thunder strikes.
However, such aspirations of Russian manufacturers, patriots, and the media are at variance with reality.
We understand that the ARMATA media project was created to maintain the faith of one’s own people in the invincibility of Soviet science, under the guidance of ... etc.
But we, too, are working, thanks to your "projects". Thanks!

[IS-80_RVGK2]

Quote: RL

We understand that the ARMATA media project was created to maintain the faith of one’s own people in the invincibility of Soviet science, under the guidance of ... etc.

Please do not write more stupidity, here and so there are enough of them on the site. You are welcome. Thanks!

[parma]

Quote: Alexey-74

This is all clear, let’s take conditionally that the BMP 3 “Dragoon” is much better than the existing BMPs in the aircraft (although the security issue remains). The question is how many different samples can be demonstrated ???? Really fed up with these "best in the world and having no analogues in the world" .... when will all this equipment go to the troops? It is worthless to all developments and inventions, if they didn’t send troops ..... and if they do, then oh no sooner, state tests and all that, and until it reaches the series, it’s time to invent something new already. equipment quickly becomes obsolete ..... and here with Kurgan’s it is not clear that .............. In short, some questions, but in the troops they both traveled and fought on old Soviet BMPs, and are driving.

They will go into the series when the real need is for it ... In order not to lag behind, they allocate money for projects, but they do not go into the series because there is no arms race as such ... Take anyone from NATO, Americans over the past 30 years old, what was new in service? Striker, but this is just the counterpart to our BTR-80 (replacing the M-113 refrigerator, the BTR-60 peer). Yes, on the basis of Striker there is a bunch of everything — and a light tank, and a TOU, and a mortar, and armored personnel carriers, and so on and so forth, which are not on base 80, but they are now actively working on 80, they went to 82a. Bradlik is not younger than three. The British have the same picture, they vari oh how they do not plan to change soon. The Germans, yes, well done, Pumas began to eat up theirs, only the marten had been skating since BMP-1 (although I like the marten soooooooo clearly). The French have no BMP at all, if the heavy wheeled armored personnel carrier ... The Chinese also, except that they have a copy of the "three" from the BMP ... So the money is allocated for what is really needed - aviation and air defense, because NATO is also active on this works.

[missuris]

normusik) why couldn’t they think of its design like that before? dviglo forward / door back? Now it’s clear to everyone so, but before, what hindered?

[Bad_gr]

And what hindered? We have the very first BMP 1-2 and were "dviglo forward / door back".
Then they decided to make one BMP for the troops and for the landing. For better balancing, the engine was removed back, which allowed the front to hang a steel armor plate that holds a 30-mm shell. Weapons and troops landed in the center of the car, which is considered the most comfortable.
Then came Serdyukov. The order of the military was buried, and the order of managers went into production, and a fashionable way back appeared on the BMP and BTR. Engine forward. I don’t know how this crap will float, but I’m sure that the back will be like on a BMP1-2.

[ruff]

Fine, just what the hell are we now grave-shaped, tall "Kurganets 25"?

[Zaurbek]

Dragoon- modernization of the BMP-3 ... I think so far they will launch Kurganets, to secure, they made such a machine with the front MTO (Almost Chinese BMP)

[garri-lin]

I think the troops should go in two versions, and the classic "triad" and Baikal with 57mm
Plus, the DUM with 7,62 / 12,7 / 40 mm to choose from does not hinder. The back of the tower is free, you can place the DUM there and make it lifted.

[garri-lin]

More like a drizzle site.
I continue.
Trust DUM management to the senior in the landing. Plus, before dismounting, through the SUM scope, the landing party will be able to evaluate the battlefield. One more eyes and the weapon channel will not hurt.
Also, for DUM, it is possible to realize automatic shelling of a point marked from the viewing device of the commander. By type, he found a threat, marked it with a single keystroke, the DUM fires at the indicated sector with a minimum reaction time while the main gun is aimed. From grenade launchers in an ambush should help well.

[Bersaglieri]

To the question: "Is" Kurganets-25 "necessary in the presence of" Dragoon "?" Despite the fact that BO in "Dragoon" is more efficient, and the profile is lower.

[tracer]

Thing. Well done. Everyone who at least once sat down in such vehicles will understand me.

[Steve57]

The Kurganets project needs to be frozen until 2030 (or postpone adoption).
That BMP 3M Dragoon is necessary to purchase in bulk!

[Sergei N 58912062]

I think that we will not see Kurganets-25 in our army soon, if at all.
Therefore, I think that the BMP-3M "Dragoon" is not a bad option!

[Cetarb kilk]

It's been five and a half years... Aw!!! Where is she in the army?

[Szerg]

Yes, good car. Too bad it didn't make it into the series.