Military Review

First BMPT - 787 Viper Object

65
In recent years, the support combat vehicle has become widely known. tanks “Object 199”, also bearing the names “Frame” and “Terminator”. The emergence of “Object 199” was preceded by the development of several other similar projects, which failed to advance further than the construction of the prototype. One of the original prototypes was designated as “Object 787”. Over the past few decades, this machine has remained in storage, but now it will be able to become a museum exhibit.


The idea of ​​creating a special combat vehicle with a variety of missile-gun and small-arms weapons on board appeared a few decades ago and was proposed in the context of increasing the firepower of motorized rifle subunits. Initially, this technique was considered as a kind of addition to the infantry fighting vehicles, and in addition, the possibility of equipping the latter with a reinforced armament complex was studied.


Experienced machine "Object 787" after restoration. Photo Patriotp.ru


In the mid-eighties, taking into account the experience of hostilities in Afghanistan, the Soviet Ministry of Defense issued a technical task for a new model of armored vehicles that could use different weapon and hit a wide range of targets. By the end of the decade, several enterprises had developed and built a number of experienced armored vehicles that met the existing requirements. Technique passed part of the test, but the collapse of the Soviet Union and the problems that followed it did not allow to complete the work. The development of the theme of tank support vehicles stopped for several years.

It should be noted that the modern appearance of the BMPT was then far away. In addition, at that time there was no concept of a tank support vehicle itself. In this regard, this technique is often referred to as multi-purpose combat vehicles. The current term appeared much later, after the development of a number of projects.

One of the developers of BMPT / MBM in the late eighties was the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. It was this company that later decided to revive the abandoned direction and proposed another project. In 1995, the plant, which survived a series of transformations, came up with an interesting proposal. In connection with the outbreak of hostilities in Chechnya, the company decided to create a new armored combat vehicle with the highest possible firepower capable of solving various combat missions.


Machine before restoration. Photo Patriotp.ru


The new project was launched on the initiative of the management of the enterprise, without an order from the military department. The necessary work was proposed at the expense of the plant, in the absence of financial support from the state. Such an approach made it possible to create a new project even under the difficult conditions of the mid-nineties, when the defense budget did not allow launching the development of promising technology.

The design of the new machine was entrusted to the Head Special Design Bureau No. XXUMX from ChTZ. The work was conducted under the control of the bureau director A.V. Yermolin. In just a few months, Chelyabinsk experts formed the optimal look of technology, taking into account technical, economic and combat factors. Already in 2, the tractor plant began building a prototype.

In accordance with the existing nomenclature specifying designations of projects and experimental equipment, the new development was called the “787 Object”. In addition, soon the most interesting sample received the additional name "Viper". As far as is known, this name was associated with the features of the armament complex. It was proposed to equip the prospective BMPT with two cannon-machine-gun blocks, which reminded someone of a forked serpent "sting".

First BMPT - 787 Viper Object
General view of the car, armament raised at a large angle. Photo Russianarms.ru


In order to simplify and cheapen the development and production of new equipment, it was decided to use a ready-made base machine. As a basis for the "Object 787" chose the serial main battle tank T-72. During the construction of the experimental "Viper" machine was used modifications T-72AB. Under the new project, it was planned to remove from the tank all existing weapons and related equipment. Instead, they planned to install new systems, weapons, means of protection, etc. According to the results of such a restructuring, the tank had to turn into a multi-purpose vehicle capable of supporting infantry and armored vehicles, fighting in different landscapes and effectively attacking various enemy targets.

The project "Viper" did not provide for the processing of the existing tank chassis. It was proposed to keep the serial armor case with a combined frontal projection protection, built according to the classic layout. Since the new project proposed to use the T-72AB tank, the hull's own armor was complemented by dynamic protection of the “Contact-1” type. The blocks of this system were placed on the frontal parts of the hull, on the side screens and on the main components of the tower.

The BMPT "Object 787" retained the B-46-6 diesel engine with an 780 horsepower, coupled with a mechanical transmission. The chassis is not changed. In its composition there were six support rollers of average diameter on each side mounted on a torsion bar suspension. In the front of the hull were placed the guide wheels with a caterpillar tension mechanism, in the stern - leading ones. It was assumed that the new armored vehicle in terms of mobility will not differ from the serial tank.

The most serious changes in the new project underwent a fighting compartment. Actually, only the armored dome of the turret, the turret basket, and horizontal guidance drives remained. The main 125-mm gun was removed, and its embrasure was sealed with a protected cap. On the sides of the hull large protruding box-shaped housings appeared, inside which the new armament was to be placed. These units were made of armor steel and were additionally covered with dynamic protection units. A large armored box was installed at the stern of the turret, which served as the ammunition of the guns. With the help of a simple system of guides, which had in its composition a pair of rigid tunnels, the tape with projectiles was to be supplied to the side units with weapons.


"Viper" during storage. Photo Bastion-karpenko.ru


All weapons of the “Object 787” were assembled on two onboard units and mounted on installations of similar design. The right and left onboard installation represented a mirror copy of each other and had the same composition of aggregates. On a common support device, which was based on a cylindrical unit, an automatic gun and a paired machine gun were fixed. Next to them was pivotally mounted a package of guides for unguided rockets. The gun and machine gun, equipped with protective devices, were placed closer to the dome of the tower. Outside fixed package guides.

According to some information, the multi-purpose vehicle had the possibility of separately pointing weapons from different sides. However, this information is not true. Horizontal targeting of all weapons was carried out by turning the tower. For vertical guidance, appropriate drives were used, simultaneously raising or lowering all airborne armament. Synchronous movement of cannon-machine-gun systems was carried out using a transverse shaft, held over the aft of the tower.

The main barrel weapon "Viper" were two automatic guns 2А72. 30-mm guns with tape ammunition could fire at a rate of up to a minute per minute of 300-350, hitting targets at ranges up to 4 km. For attack by manpower, unprotected vehicles, etc. It was proposed to use two 7,62-mm PKT machine guns, which are induced along with the guns. According to some reports, the two cannon-machine gun installations were complemented by turrets. In the aft part of the tower, the installation of two large-caliber machine guns NSV was envisaged.

To significantly increase firepower at medium ranges, it was proposed to equip the 787 Object with its own launchers for unguided missiles. On each side of the tower was placed in one block with six tubular launch rails (three horizontal rows of two). The rear parts of the guides were fixed inside the rectangular casing-holder. The guide blocks had drives for vertical guidance, synchronized with the devices of the receiver systems.


During storage, the prototype was adversely affected. Photo Bastion-karpenko.ru


According to open sources, the combat vehicle was supposed to use uncontrollable aviation missiles, the type of which, however, is not specified. Based on the proportions, it can be assumed that the launch guides had a caliber of 80 mm and should have been used with missiles of the S-8 family. Thus, in theory, using the Viper missile system, it could attack targets at ranges up to 2 km and hit them with different types of warheads: high-explosive fragmentation, cumulative, concrete-piercing, etc.

In an emergency, the tank support fighting vehicle could use smoke grenade launchers. Two units of such weapons of four products each were installed in front of the onboard units of the tower. Smoke grenades were to be fired up and forward relative to the axis of the tower.

In order to control the new weapons, the 787 Object received a set of optical-electronic systems, partly based on instruments of serial tanks, but adapted for use with other weapons. In front of the tower, the characteristic protruding box of the gunner’s optical instruments remained. In addition to the means of guidance, the tower retained surveillance devices located on the commander's cupola.

The crew of the prospective model consisted of only three people: the driver, the gunner and the commander. The driver was placed in a regular place inside the hull and had its own hatch with a viewing device. The places of the commander and the gunner were in the turret, at the left and right sides, respectively. Above them remained their own hatches in the roof. Both control posts in the combat compartment made it possible to observe and attack targets with the aid of existing weapons.

The new BMPT was built on the basis of a serial tank by removing some units and installing others. As a result, in terms of its size and mass, the “787 Object” hardly differed from the base T-72AB. The length of the armored car body did not exceed 6,7 m, width - 3,5 m, height - no more than 2,2 m. Combat weight - no more than 42-45 t. Mobility indicators should have remained at the level of the T-72 family of vehicles.


Machine after restoration. Shot from the commercial / Patriotp.ru


It is known that in 1996, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant rebuilt the serial main tank T-72AB into a prototype of the “787 Object”. Soon this car came to the site for carrying out factory tests. Later, probably, after the elimination of minor shortcomings, the prototype was presented to the specialists of the Ministry of Defense. In the spring of the next 1997, a demonstration and testing of equipment took place with the participation of army representatives.

At the beginning of April, the CTN and the 1997 research institute of armored vehicles conducted a series of tests on 38. After checking the running characteristics, the process of studying the armament complex started. As part of the spring tests, the military checked the work of cannons and machine guns during daylight hours. Shooting was conducted both from a place, and on the move. The distances to the targets corresponded to the peculiarities of the real battles in different conditions. Experienced "Viper" coped with the first part of the fire tests.

In July, new checks began. Now tested under the missile armament of a combat vehicle. Again, the test crew had to solve various fire missions and hit targets in the entire range of allowable ranges.

During the two stages of fire tests, the prototype of the 787 Object proved to be the best. The presence of four machine guns of different caliber, two guns, unguided rockets and smoke grenade launchers made it possible to choose the most effective weapon in the current situation and use it to hit an existing target. The high-ranking representatives of the military department, who left the best reviews about the car they saw, attended the tests.


Most of the hull and turret closed dynamic protection. Shot from the commercial / Patriotp.ru


Having received the unofficial approval of a potential customer, the development plant decided to start promoting its multi-purpose combat vehicle. Soon the general public learned about the existence of the "Viper". A promising model was the subject of publications in print, radio programs and television stories. In not the easiest period of modern stories people had reason to pride in their industry and reasons for restrained optimism.

However, this optimistic situation did not last too long. Television and radio programs about the “787 Object” attracted the attention of controlling structures, who saw in them not familiarizing the population with the latest achievements of the defense industry, but a violation of secrecy. The result was the launch of a special investigation, during which it was planned to identify and punish violators.

According to the results of the investigation, certain conclusions were made, including the most unpleasant ones. GSKB-2 received an order to stop all work on the "Viper". The development of the project was canceled. Also, it was necessary to stop the testing and fine-tuning of the finished prototype. Such a decision actually put an end not only on the “Object 787” project, but also on the whole direction of multi-purpose combat vehicles / tank support vehicles, since other developments of this kind were absent at that time and were not even planned.

The tests of the prototype were carried out at the test site of the 38-nd Research Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering in Kubinka, where it could remain until the order to stop work appeared. The car removed from the tests was soon sent to one of the storage sites at the test site. Over the next two decades, a unique model of armored vehicles stood in the open and was exposed to the negative impact of natural factors. In addition, according to rumors, the status of the car in the worst way affected the activities of dubious individuals who appropriated some of the details.


"787 Object" on the track. Shot from the commercial / Patriotp.ru


In the spring of 2017, it was decided to save the Viper from rust and oblivion. An interesting test vehicle was sent to the Patriot Restoration Workshop. According to the restoration participants, even after two decades of inactivity, the prototype had a good condition: after installing the batteries and refueling, it started up and then was able to get to the repair site on its own. Over the next few months, the “787 Object” was under restoration, during which the lost components were returned, the readiness of existing systems was restored, and so on.

Multipurpose combat vehicle "Object 787" again on the go and now can boast an excellent appearance. In the near future, a unique sample will be another exhibit from the exhibition of domestic armored vehicles of the Patriot fleet. As far as we know, at the present time, specialists are engaged in the restoration of several other experimental machines of a similar purpose, created in the eighties of the last century.

The design of the tank support vehicle “Object 787” was notable for its specific fate. Its development began at a difficult time and was carried out on its own initiative. Later, the prototype came to the test and was able to interest a potential customer. However, very strange events occurred later, according to the results of which the project was closed, the possible mass production was finally canceled, and the only prototype was sent to storage without any prospects. The army could not get the necessary equipment for it. Fortunately, the unique prototype managed to be maintained in an acceptable condition, and then restored. In the near future, everyone will be able to see it.


On the materials of the sites:
http://patriotp.ru/
http://arsenal-otechestva.ru/
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/
http://russianarms.ru/
https://defence.ru/
http://btvt.info/
Author:
65 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Firework
    Firework 31 October 2017 15: 12 New
    +3
    it was necessary to test the viper in real combat conditions
    1. parma
      parma 31 October 2017 15: 26 New
      +7
      WHAT FOR? I don’t want to start breaking spears again, but the stillborn project is just like in principle a concept! This is the same tank, only the weapons are weaker! Tanks have enough DUM with 12,7, well, you can put with KPVT, 30-mm on the edge (although the search in size and weight)! The tank is a more versatile vehicle, which means tenacious on the battlefield!
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 31 October 2017 17: 15 New
        +1
        tank, it’s never universal, at least for sure today, but if you give the tank different weapons to deal with different goals, then the tank will become universal.
        At least it should be
        1) a small-caliber machine gun for destroying enemy infantry near a tank - ideally this is a turret combat module in a pair with a panoramic sight
        2) a quick-fire gun for organizing barrage fire, suppressing fire, destroying weakly armored targets (shushpanzer, gantraki, jihad mobil) and destroying enemy infantry behind poorly protected obstacles (walls made of clay, brick, aerated concrete, etc.) - it is important here do not overdo it with the caliber because the number of ammunition is paramount because there are two options or "ZSU-23" and its options, or 30mm 2A72 and its analogues
        3) the main large-caliber gun 120mm-152mm with a wide range of ammunition and fire trajectories - here I personally tend to a 152mm gun with a shot length of 1500mm (or several pieces but a shorter length, for example 3x500m), so the tank will become a platform for transporting and firing various ammunition and will receive a tactical advantage, for example, having the ability to shoot thermobaric \ gas \ etc active-reactive shots (analogous to RPO \ RPG), cumulative-fragmentation mines (152mm * 500mm) using MRSI, or anti-helicopter missiles (makes a slide with image output to indicate the exact target hidden behind the folds of the terrain (adjusted by the operator in the tank)).

        There will be enough space in the uninhabited tower for the 152mm and 30mm ammunition.
        1. Cat
          Cat 31 October 2017 18: 39 New
          +2
          1. Remote module with a small-caliber machine gun.
          2. Rapid-fire gun 23-30mm.
          3. 125-152 mm. Equipment in the "non-residential" tower.
          And what happened? However, the T-95 !!!
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 31 October 2017 20: 09 New
            0
            Quote: Kotischa
            And what happened? However, the T-95 !!!

            as far as I know, he had a classic set of ammunition at the main gun. So it doesn’t work request
        2. parma
          parma 1 November 2017 07: 47 New
          0
          Look at what the Americans plan to do in M1A2 Sep.3, namely the DUM with 12.7, the DUM 7.62 and the twin 7.62, this is more than enough (well, except for 12.7, but they do not have CVT). 23-40 mm guns too much, small ammunition, hollowing such a crap out of infantry with such an ammunition ammunition tank is too wasteful, 7.62 is enough (12.7 for those who hide behind the wall). 12.7 is enough for BTR-80 light vehicles (for BTR-120 and others it’s not enough), for the rest there is 2 mm (on the battlefield it’s a good question what is more dangerous for a Bradley tank with its XNUMX TOU or Abrams, if you look at the American army). I've never been a supporter of an uninhabited tower, what will the crew do if they hit an electrician when hit? Either drop the tank or try to crawl away from the battlefield. With the inhabited tower there is a reserve manual control system that gives at least a small, but a chance to snap back with the same creep from the battlefield! And as for losses, there are no military operations without losses! In the form that there is a tank, it may not be too universal, but much more universal than BMPT!
          PS: can then equip a tank with gradi, non-tornado missiles like a coliope? and what, one shot and infantry do not even need to be pressed to the ground ...
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 13: 33 New
            0
            Quote: parma
            which is more dangerous for a Bradley tank with its 2 TOU or Abrams

            a pair of gantracks with ATGMs and jihad mobiles, as practice in Syria has shown, in fact, after an attack on several roadblocks with tanks, a wave "set up a 30mm gun on an armored car" rose. For the tank proved to be extremely useless in the fight against voiced goals.
            Quote: parma
            DUM with 12.7, DUM 7.62

            I don’t see any point in arguing, because you can put 12,7, you can set the same quantity of ammunition (increase the box is not a problem). The main condition is the reliable operation of the stabilizer for accurate shooting. If you can do it like with 7,62, you can set 12,7.
            Quote: parma
            I've never been a supporter of an uninhabited tower, what will the crew do if they hit an electrician when hit? Either drop the tank or try to crawl away from the battlefield. With the inhabited tower there is a reserve manual control system that gives at least a small, but a chance to snap back with the same creep from the battlefield!

            In a tank with an uninhabited tower, you can also do "manual control". For example, transfer all optics to a certain analog of the endoscope. The mechanical drives are brought out through the bottom of the armored capsule so that during the explosion of the BK there would be sealing due to the destruction and crushing of the elements. So from a practical point of view, the problems voiced by you are solved.
            1. parma
              parma 1 November 2017 14: 45 New
              0
              You do not compare Syria with a normal war, the tanks there have almost no SUM, and the jihadmobil, by the way, is no different from the same armored personnel carrier in terms of security, not 12.7, so 14,5 is enough for the eyes. About Bradley (and indeed any modern BMP, except BMP-3, perhaps) I wrote with the fact that they seem to be holding 30 mm in the latest configurations, which means that they can only be taken by a shell or an assault rifle, therefore they are also not suitable for BMPTs teeth (in terms of its nominal 30mm).
              If the ammunition of the same Western DUMs with Browning can easily be brought up to 2-3 thousand shots, why at least the pancake of armored personnel carriers didn’t do this yet (the same striker, ok, there are 3 machine guns and a cannon in the abrashka)? The caliber affects the mass and dimensions of the same DUM.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 20: 32 New
                0
                Quote: parma
                You do not compare Syria with a normal war,

                and what is abnormal there? The gantraks are already taking into service, including ours, the same tigers with corners, and how the war so quickly rivet homemade products based on civilian equipment. And jihad mobiles? Do you think there will be no Europe in the future? Yes, now “robomobiles” are already starting to drive along the roads, several more decades will pass and there will be millions of them, and throwing boxes with explosives and shrapnel, and reflashing the computer is not a problem. Again, robots go out onto the battlefield to take the same uranium-9, you are tormented against using its analogs with the main weapon. Well and most importantly, I wrote above about roadblocks and Syria, where machine guns, including 12,7, are placed on posts. But they do not always help. And in the desert against the gantraks, they are completely useless because of the distance. And yes, a leapfrog with 30mm cannons rose due to the OFS shells that showed increased efficiency against all lightly armored or unarmored vehicles. There are a couple of hits and the target is incompetent.
                1. parma
                  parma 2 November 2017 08: 42 New
                  0
                  The war is not normal there in the sense that the war goes along the roads, there is no front as such! The control of the territory is carried out mainly at the expense of roadblocks, and both armies (if the opponents of the SAA can be called an army at all) have neither air defense nor aviation, and even they really have no armored vehicles! And you still haven’t answered how the dumbbell differs from the APC? To take the same BRDM with missiles, it is essentially no different from a gantrack with ATGMs (by the way, you said this yourself when you remembered the tiger) .. If we look at Syria and BMPT, the terminator will help the checkpoint? Is the range of 30 mm longer than 125 mm? Have ATGM? So after all, our tanks have it too, and it’s cheaper on a stationary tiger or on the basis of the same tiger! And we come to where we started - BMPT duplicates the role of the equipment that already exists! If the idea is so good, why no one thought of it before us, and even after we presented it, no one even began to consider this idea!
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 2 November 2017 15: 54 New
                    0
                    So STOP stop
                    Firstly) I am opposed to entering BMPT \ BMPTiP as this will take resources from other types of equipment in the unit (platoon \ company \ battalion \ etc.).
                    Secondly) I am an opponent of the BMPT "terminator" since the weapons that are installed on it can be installed on promising and existing tanks and BMPs
                    third) I understand that modern tanks are not effective in a modern war due to the limited methods of hitting various targets. As an example, the main weapon of our tanks is useless against gantraks, jihad mobiles and infantry hiding behind some types of buildings. The reason for the uselessness is the low rate of fire, a small supply of ammunition, and the excessive power of the main gun.
                    in the fourth) From the above, I consider it necessary to install several different types of weapons and shots on tanks that would overlap each other's shortcomings.

                    In the commentary from “October 31, 2017 17:15” I briefly indicated the minimum range of weapons, in particular this
                    1) DUM with a machine gun at the top of the tank for the destruction of infantry in the immediate vicinity
                    2) rapid-fire gun with AP and General Purpose shots (against weak and unprotected targets) and as large a reserve of ammunition (for organizing barrage and suppression fire)
                    3) the main gun capable of firing along a flat and mounted trajectory and having a wider range of ammunition (for example, gas and thermobaric for flat shooting, cumulative-fragmentation for mounted, as well as missiles for combating aircraft using terrain folds (such as helicopters and some UAV))
                    I hope now we have no misunderstanding on this issue.

                    further, "normal war and Syria"
                    In Syria, there is a normal war, a normal MODERN WAR, and not a "classic war" such as for example WWII / WWII. Modern warfare, a hybrid warfare, combines the two most important differences from the classical one. Firstly, there is a lack of front and rear, the front and rear themselves are present but there is no border between them. as a result, hostilities degenerate into "confrontation between checkpoints." Secondly, this is the presence of an asymmetric response, that is, you are attacking with tanks, and terrorist attacks and sabotage are being arranged for you, you are organizing military bases, and economic killers are against you.
                    1. parma
                      parma 3 November 2017 08: 18 New
                      0
                      If you were for BMPT, I would understand you more .... Do you offer to cross the tank, sau, bmpt and air defense! A large range of ammunition does not make the machine universal, it only complicates the supply and creates difficulties in battle! On the contrary, the tank needs a mineral set of ammunition, namely BOPS, a rocket and something for BABAH (the same OFS), that's all! The tank should not shoot down helicopters or attack aircraft, UAVs! Should not conduct artillery preparation, for this there are air defense systems and the same mortars! Creating vehicles specifically for roadblocks is generally stupid!
                      The Syrian experience of war never meets the modern war, at least because there is a CIVIL WAR! For as soon as the control over previously cleared territories is weakened, the militants again occupy them, because they are either from the local population, or they are supported and taken refuge (although not everywhere in the country) ..
                      Consider both companies in Iraq — both times FRONT was! But the Americans quickly crushed him, and to create a new one, Hussein had no means, no territories (as in France in 1940)
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 3 November 2017 15: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: parma
                        You offer to cross the tank, sau, bmpt and air defense!

                        This is what you are mistaken about.
                        1) the crossing of the tank and sau - absent, due to the fact that the proposed conceptual model is not intended for firing for tens of kilometers along a mounted trajectory. These mines are offered to shoot only a few kilometers. This is done so that the tank does not have to leave because of the shelter for firing (and therefore substituted under fire). Also, these mines are supposed to be used for setting smoke-masking curtains in order to prevent aiming when moving between shelters. They can also be used to neutralize partisans that may have settled in the house (after shelling the windows, the enemy, even having gas masks, will not be able to aim). Due to the presence of an on-board calculator of the projectile flight path, a short firing range (less than that of self-propelled guns), UAV corrections, and MRSI shooting mode, it becomes possible to hit targets without having to travel to the enemy fire zone.
                        2) the crossing of the tank and air defense - absent, due to the fact that the proposed conceptual model (anti-aircraft missile in a tank) is not designed to destroy aircraft or high-altitude UAVs, it is intended to destroy aircraft that use terrain folds, that is, where modern air defense systems are ineffective or completely useless.
                        3) the crossing of the tank and BMPT - the statement is not entirely true, the most accurate will be "giving the tank BMPTiP functions." All weapons installed on the "BMPT terminator" can be installed on existing or future tanks (from t72 to t14). If we are talking about promising BMPTiP with a 57mm gun (I have not yet decided whether it really is necessary), then it should be installed on TBMP \ BMP in the format of an overhead combat module. As for the use of such a large range of weapons on one machine, there are no problems, because one target per unit of time will be hit, and the commander will choose the method of destruction, therefore the load on the gunner will remain the same.
                        4) "a large range of ammunition allegedly complicating the supply" - this problem is absent, because a set of ammunition is selected for a specific operation and territory. For example, when operating in a field (in an open area without terrain folds) there is no need for air defense missiles (there are no terrain folds behind which a helicopter will hide), thermobaric shots (no shelters) and mines (self-propelled guns will cope more efficiently thanks to the work of spotters), but OFS will be needed \ BOPS. During the defense of roadblocks or other important points, mines will be needed (self-propelled guns will not be able to help because of their work in another zone (reaction time is too long before the fire opens (while spotters and self-propelled guns move the checkpoint will be destroyed and / or captured))). During the assault, fortified areas will need thermal bars. When maneuvering in the city / suburbs, smoke-masking mines will be needed in order to minimize losses and cumulative-fragmentation mines to destroy equipment and infantry where they cannot hit self-propelled guns (for example, behind the back of buildings).
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 3 November 2017 16: 11 New
                        0
                        Quote: parma
                        The Syrian experience of war never meets the modern war, at least because there is a CIVIL WAR!

                        You confuse classic war and modern war. Today, no one will fight the Russian Federation with the methods of classical war, because it is guaranteed not to succeed, but will spend resources. Yes, and in Syria there is a modern war that includes civil war, but in addition to civil war, there is also a counter-terror war and political, economic and informational and geopolitical, resources have already been prepared for a territorial war for the redistribution of oil-containing territories ( for control of production in these territories, and not for the territories themselves). All this is a modern war.
          2. Simargl
            Simargl 13 May 2018 12: 45 New
            0
            Quote: parma
            I've never been a supporter of an uninhabited tower, what will the crew do if they hit an electrician when hit?
            Any modern tank will practically go blind and, most likely, will be immobilized. You can attack with a grinder.
    2. svp67
      svp67 1 November 2017 07: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: Salute
      it was necessary to test the viper in real combat conditions

      From the experience of military operation of the Tunguska, it became clear that a similar arrangement of guns, if one of them fails, leads to the fact that it is no longer possible to shoot aiming from a serviceable one. The moment of withdrawal is too great ...
  2. CentDo
    CentDo 31 October 2017 15: 18 New
    0
    Well, that was finally restored. The terminator is good of course, but purely outwardly I like this car more. Feels in her power and reliability.
  3. gromoboj
    gromoboj 31 October 2017 15: 21 New
    +3
    The viper is prettier than the terminator. And the silhouette is much lower.
  4. viktorch
    viktorch 31 October 2017 15: 27 New
    +1
    a simple machine for urban battles, the forerunner of the terminator.
  5. Strashila
    Strashila 31 October 2017 16: 05 New
    +3
    To cross the Viper with the missile Dragon, the same overtook its time ... that would be it.
    1. CentDo
      CentDo 31 October 2017 16: 46 New
      +5
      How is IT 1 ahead of its time? If you mean the installation of ATGMs on a tank chassis, then the Sheridan among the Americans appeared earlier. Well, he’s definitely ahead of his time, for the first time a cannon-launcher was installed.
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 31 October 2017 18: 09 New
        +1
        It is important how ATGM is installed on it. If missile weapons are installed on the Terminator and the Viper, then it is installed on the Dragon only before use
        1. CentDo
          CentDo 31 October 2017 18: 11 New
          0
          And where does the Terminator and the Viper? I compare IT-1 and Sheridan (M551)
          1. AUL
            AUL 31 October 2017 19: 05 New
            +3
            The concept of a missile tank was flawed. It is better to have a PU gun. than just one launcher. IT was created to please Khrushchev with his rocket boom, and stood in service with nothing at all.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 31 October 2017 20: 12 New
              0
              right, just quickly who needed brains were corrected and explained that the tank is not only fighting with tanks, as a result they came to the gun = PU
            2. CentDo
              CentDo 1 November 2017 09: 35 New
              +1
              In fact of the matter. He stood in service for only 3 years, too narrow specialization.
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 1 November 2017 13: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: CentDo
        How is IT 1 ahead of its time? If you mean the installation of ATGMs on a tank chassis, then the Sheridan among the Americans appeared earlier. Well, he’s definitely ahead of his time, for the first time a cannon-launcher was installed.


        Right true. M551 ATGM MGM-51 Shillelagh
  6. 501Legion
    501Legion 31 October 2017 17: 25 New
    0
    Great and interesting article came out
  7. Egor-dis
    Egor-dis 31 October 2017 19: 03 New
    0
    Well, why not resume production? Is there no need for it?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 31 October 2017 20: 12 New
      +2
      Quote: Egor-dis
      Is there no need for it?

      And what was this need for?
  8. polpot
    polpot 31 October 2017 19: 19 New
    0
    It was necessary to name Gromozek such an amount of weapons he dragged cartoon
  9. tank64rus
    tank64rus 31 October 2017 19: 47 New
    0
    An interesting machine is the weaponry of the Terminator, and the base tank is easier to remake. It may make sense to accept as a mobariant.
  10. garri-lin
    garri-lin 31 October 2017 21: 20 New
    +1
    Meaning ZERO for BMPTiP Required multichannel weapons. (At least three channels) and therefore a crew of at least FIVE people.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 31 October 2017 22: 01 New
      0
      you calm down with your multichannel, it is unnecessary, proved by the tanks of the WWII and WWII. For the tank is not fighting alone against the front, it has cover and support. And your extra crew will sit most of the time in ballast. soldier
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 October 2017 22: 57 New
        0
        Understand the use of tanks in WWI, WWII and now. And the role of BMPTiP is precisely the role of supporting tanks and performs. That very support and the very cover that YOU are talking about.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 00: 13 New
          +1
          Think about the use of multi-turret tanks in the FDA and WWII, they were abandoned because most of the time the additional crew with their guns was inactive, that is, riding ballast. As a result, a logical decision was made that instead of one tank with a crew of 6 people, it is better to have two tanks with 3 crew members (or one tank with a crew of 3 people and 3 people of infantry covering around the tank). You suggest returning back, which is sheer stupidity.
          That is, there is a problem consisting in the fact that tanks cannot fight with a large number of various targets that have appeared on the modern battlefield. To solve this problem, you suggest reducing the number of tanks and / or infantry fighting vehicles for the sake of introducing a new type of equipment under the acronym BMPT \ BMPTiP. I propose changing the configuration of weapons and types of ammunition in existing types of equipment.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 1 November 2017 10: 07 New
            0
            I do not propose to cut anything. These machines should, if necessary, be assigned to units as reinforcement. In areas where it is NECESSARY from the point of view of the command.
            And due to the different ranges of the "zone of responsibility" of the various "weapons channels" the entire crew will be occupied. Someone with fire from the main weapon of someone and the cover of units to which are given. Someone general monitoring of the situation through UAVs and the use of guided weapons. There is a case for everyone.
            Now it’s not a “passing century” that electronics allows you to find targets and shoot with a high probability of defeat.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 13: 43 New
              0
              Quote: garri-lin
              I do not propose to cut anything.

              Suggest, you just don’t understand this, where will you get the crew from? Here, either abandon a pair of tanks in favor of BMPTiP or increase the staff of the unit, but then the number of units will decrease.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 1 November 2017 14: 06 New
                0
                I repeat the SEPARATE unit attached to the MAIN unit as necessary for STRENGTHENING.
                Fight in an urban setting.
                Combat on a very rough terrain with a large prevalence of anti-tank means in the enemy infantry. (Anti-Poip and counter-guerrilla fights of low intensity.)
                Actions behind enemy lines in small mobile groups (went from the flank, smashed the warehouse, made a rustle, at the same time carried out reconnaissance, and went home, all on the run).
                Such a technique needs 200 to 300 pieces.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 20: 42 New
                  0
                  I repeat for the deaf-mute sitting in the tank. you have only TWO OPTIONS for getting a CREW on BMPTiP.
                  1) Reduce the number of tanks \ BMP \ etc in the unit (platoon, company, battalion does not change the essence) and let the freed crews on BMPTiP
                  2) Increase the number of units (platoon, company, battalion does not change the essence), but then you have to reduce the number of units because the total number of people is unchanged.
                  Do you have a third option? Before answering, I advise you to think, think carefully! hi
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 1 November 2017 21: 40 New
                    0
                    Lol What makes you think that the total number of people is invariable? Here they created an entire national guard. And we are talking about 5000 - 6000 people in the size of the entire army.
                    Who does not want, finds an occasion.
                    Who wants, finds a remedy.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 23: 54 New
                      +1
                      God, do we have people that are endless? and the training money is endless too? ehh sorry in real no artmani lol

                      You do not see the simple truth behind your slogans, to get people and money to get BMPTiP on the battlefield, do you propose taking them from the air? Unfortunately this is not possible. You can take part of the resources allocated to the battalion, but then you will have to cut something in this battalion. You can give additional resources to the battalion, but where do you get them from? correctly from the regiment, as a result, reduce the number of regiments. You can add resources to the shelves, but where do you get them? correctly, from the brigade thereby cutting the number of brigades, and so on up to the top of the structure.
                      The military budget is not rubber.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      What makes you think that the total number of people is invariable? Here they created an entire national guard.

                      The number of people is not changed! for the budget for their work is not rubber. In the same guard TRANSLATED units from other departments.

                      How old are you, dear? you don’t even understand the basics of economics and management! by golly you are arranging some kindergarten ...
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 2 November 2017 13: 56 New
                        0
                        I have enough years to understand the correctness of your arguments. And in principle, they agree with them. But at the same time, my own experience says that in some cases a specialized machine can save lives. To accomplish the task with fewer people and with less risk for the people involved.
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 2 November 2017 16: 05 New
                        0
                        Yes, indeed, sometimes a specialized machine is better (the fact of the matter is that "sometimes"). But in this case, it (BMPT \ BMPTiP) does not justify the waste of resources, since it is possible to change the composition of the armament of existing types of equipment (MBT \ TBMP \ BMP).
          2. abc_alex
            abc_alex 2 November 2017 23: 08 New
            +1
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            Think about the use of multi-turret tanks in the FDA and WWII, they were abandoned because most of the time the additional crew with their guns was inactive, that is, riding ballast. As a result, a logical decision was made that instead of one tank with a crew of 6 people, it is better to have two tanks with 3 crew members (or one tank with a crew of 3 people and 3 people of infantry covering around the tank). You suggest returning back, which is sheer stupidity.
            That is, there is a problem consisting in the fact that tanks cannot fight with a large number of various targets that have appeared on the modern battlefield. To solve this problem, you suggest reducing the number of tanks and / or infantry fighting vehicles for the sake of introducing a new type of equipment under the acronym BMPT \ BMPTiP. I propose changing the configuration of weapons and types of ammunition in existing types of equipment.




            You are wrong right in both points.
            The multi-tower tanks were abandoned primarily because it was necessary to increase the armor of the tank, and the multi-tower design with anti-shell armor was too monstrous in terms of mass. How long did the crew "work" in high-quality tank nobody really cared. How nobody worried how often machine gunners “work” on heavy bombers.

            And BMPT does not reduce the number of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. You just did not carefully read the history of the BMPT. They are designed to remove infantry from the battlefield.
            The logic is as follows: the infantry’s weapons of destruction of tanks do not allow one to hope for the invulnerability of the armor, therefore on the battlefield maneuver and speed of movement are of particular importance, but it is limited by the physical capabilities of dismounted motorized rifles. To speed up the movement of the tank on the battlefield, you need to give it a support car that can replace the landing force with infantry fighting vehicles.
            You can change the range of ammunition in the tank until you turn blue, this will not change the fact that you will move at a speed of 5 km / h, and your infantry cover will be vulnerable to all types of defensive fire.

            Based on this, the "Viper" and the "Terminator" are completely meaningless, since although they look like an arms store they have one, maximum two firing points. And you need multi-channel or a large number of firing points. In the BMP, the landing is one compartment, 6 people, these are two machine guns, a machine gun, a grenade launcher, and an SVT. So you need to have BMPT independent firing points 3-4. A pair of rifle-caliber machine guns, a heavy machine gun, a grenade launcher or ATGM. And all this should be able to simultaneously shell each his own goal. This is if you save on the battlefield BMP. And if not, then there is a small-caliber gun and something for mounted shooting.

            So the BMPT should look exactly like a multi-tower tank, only at a different level of technology.
            1. gallville
              gallville 8 November 2017 02: 17 New
              0
              Quote: abc_alex
              And you need multi-channel or a large number of firing points. In BMP landing - one department, 6 people, these are two machine guns, a machine gun, a grenade launcher, and SVT. So you need nand BMPT have 3-4 independent firing points. A pair of rifle-caliber machine guns, a heavy machine gun, a grenade launcher or ATGM. And all this should be able to simultaneously bombard each target. This is if you save on the battlefield BMP. And if not, then there is a small-caliber gun and something for mounted shooting.

              This is a key error in the BMP issue.
              BMPT is compared directly to BMP, you still have the "advanced" option, you took into account the landing. This is definitely a plus. Here's the real minus is that you did not consider the application.
              And the application is that MBT is attached to a motorized rifle platoon if it is classically in the field. In the city, the saturation of infantry infantry in relation to the tank is brought to 1 to 30.
              Thus, considering a classic battle in the field, your bmp should have the properties of 3 bmp and 18 personnel.
              Which is technically not possible.
              And this is only a matter of firing on the defense line, but sweeping the defense line itself? In the trenches, the enemy relocates l / s relatively safely, and nothing prevents, as a result, burning a box point blank which will replace one of the squads.
              As a result, it makes sense to use BMPT only in the classical system of obt + platoon + mortar calculation. Those. in fact the battalion (in it, by the way, the mortar company is located in the state) + the company’s obt gain and there as gain gain bmpt. Doesn't the situation seem somewhat absurd?
              Quote: abc_alex
              You can change the range of ammunition in the tank until you turn blue, this will not change the fact that you will move at a speed of 5 km / h

              In essence, this is the tank with a modified range of ammunition. And yet, yes, you can change it until you turn blue, and you can’t get anywhere from the infantry.
              At what is treated not a cause, but a consequence.
              With more armored infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, infantry can be brought to the near edge of the enemy’s defense. As the Israeli concept of BTT implies.
              1. abc_alex
                abc_alex 18 November 2017 01: 05 New
                0
                And the application is that MBT is attached to a motorized rifle platoon if it is classically in the field ...
                Thus, considering a classic battle in the field, your bmp should have the properties of 3 bmp and 18 personnel.


                And who said that BMPT should be one? She replaces secession. To replace the platoon, three BPMTs are needed. Well or two, provided that the machine itself is not afraid of machine gun fire and fragments. After all, this is an option for breaking through the "linear" defense.

                And this is only a matter of firing on the defense line, but sweeping the defense line itself? In the trenches, the enemy relocates l / s relatively safely, and nothing prevents, as a result, burning a box point blank which will replace one of the squads.


                And again, no one said that there was no infantry on the battlefield at all. The fact is that the BMPT application scheme was not worked out in detail, the Union collapsed. But what prevents in the second line of the advancing troops from having the right amount of infantry fighting vehicles? After all, the goal is not to remove the infantry completely, but to remove the infantry out of line with tanksso that she does not hamper them in maneuver and speed. As I believe, it was thought that the infantry should be hurried as close as possible to the enemy’s trenches, ensuring the passage of distance to them at maximum speed inside the BMP under the cover of MBT and BMPT.

                And yet, yes, you can change it until you turn blue, and you can’t get anywhere from the infantry.


                And no one argues. The point is that at the current level of development of infantry destruction weapons, covering tanks with dismounted fighters simply does not make sense. They will not reach the trenches. Kill. And tanks will approach the trenches “naked”, since the infantry will either lie down or lie down. A tank can “fly through” a shot through dangerous space at a speed of 50-60 km / h, and is forced to cross this space at 5 km / h. At such a speed, he is doomed. Together with the infantry cover.

                In essence, this is the tank with a modified range of ammunition.


                In the current form, yes. The way it is. Therefore, no one needs it. First of all, our military. Since no one needs a tank with light weapons and a mass of MBT.

                With more armored infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, infantry can be brought to the near edge of the enemy’s defense. As the Israeli concept of BTT implies.


                It will not be possible to fit the TBMP to the leading edge. Burned from the trenches. Any "severity" of an infantry fighting vehicle implies that around it an airborne assault field runs and covers it from the means of defeating the enemy infantry. This is exactly the only way, even among the Israelis.

                And if you expect to fight with the "bearded in slippers" - this is completely justified, technological superiority will give a lot of chances to win. But if a technologically and organizationally equal opponent is fighting against you, then a volley of heavy mortars will simply deprive the BMPT of infantry cover, and the ATGM will burn the car itself. Not from the first, so from the second or third shot.
                Israel’s BTT concept is too geared toward a too-specific adversary.

                Let me make it clear: BMPTs in the amount of 2-3 pieces along with the tank are advancing at the very front edge, suppressing the firing points of the enemy, followed by the aftermath of the IFVs with an amphibious assault. All these machines overcome the sweeping space in front of positions at maximum speed, not allowing them to concentrate fire on them due to the speed of movement. With a direct approach to the positions of the BMP landed troops which clears the position. With infantry removed the task of covering the tank.
  11. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 1 November 2017 03: 07 New
    +1
    in the future, very strange events took place, as a result of which the project was closed, the possible mass production was finally canceled, and the only prototype was sent for storage without any prospects.
    Achtung, spies! American agents of influence are not asleep! Mobilize retired operas, dig up those years, identify the perpetrators, bring them out of the open field, put them on the wall and shoot 2 times with a personal record! PS Tank Support Fighting Vehicle? And what .... motorized riflemen do not need such a machine? Yes, they
    such weapons are an order of magnitude more necessary! Maybe it is better to call a BMOF (fire support combat vehicle)? Now this role in armed conflicts is played by ZSU-23-4, ZSU-57-2 and the like ... (you can “attract” M163 USA) Of course , this is a forced improvisation with all the shortcomings, but such facts confirm that fire support combat vehicles are necessary. But there is no need to call BMPT Terminators .... both tank and motorized rifle units need BMOP terminators equally! If we are talking about increasing the survivability of tanks, then we need to think about specialized means of protection against anti-tank weapons. And what kind of "means" should these be? Individual or "group"? If a group defense is then SPECIALIZED tank support combat vehicles (BMPT). Neither the "Terminator" nor the "Viper" pull on this.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 05: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      in the future, very strange events took place, as a result of which the project was closed, the possible mass production was finally canceled, and the only prototype was sent for storage without any prospects.

      yeah, they are very "strange" and they are called tests, and these tests proved the complete unsuitability of this pepelats to carry out the tasks assigned to him, the complete uselessness of the guns, and the even greater uselessness of the missiles.
  12. shinobi
    shinobi 1 November 2017 07: 06 New
    0
    I honestly don’t catch up. To create a working BMP, we couldn’t bother much. We take the “shilka”, remove the radar equipment from it, use the free space for additional ammunition. We stick the birds and the ags on the roof with an independent turret. That's all! And worse It wouldn’t be a beast! Actually in Afghanistan and now in Syria, the "shilka" is most often used.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 1 November 2017 07: 39 New
      +8
      Quote: shinobi
      To create a working bmpt it was possible not to bother much. Take the "shilka"


      "Tank Support Fighting Vehicle" (BMPT) - combat vehicle designed for conducting military operations in the battle order of armored forces and fire support of tanks on the battlefield


      Are you going to release the unarmored Shilka on the field with tanks? The idea ... dubious, at least ...
      Quote: shinobi
      ... We stick the birds on the sides ...

      ... and we occupy the space freed from the radar by the control equipment thereof. Not all, of course, is the place, but still ...
      Quote: shinobi
      in Afghanistan and now in Syria, the "shilka" is most often used

      How is BMPT? Oh well ... negative
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 1 November 2017 08: 33 New
      +3
      Quote: shinobi
      .Take the "shilka",

      "Shilka" is a weakly armored vehicle ... Fire support combat vehicles operating on the first line of the battlefield must have reinforced reservations.
  13. Katapulta
    Katapulta 1 November 2017 07: 43 New
    0
    It looks more armored, still the tower from the tank)
  14. demiurg
    demiurg 1 November 2017 13: 40 New
    0
    Enough leads this car as an example for today's production similar. Her task was to accompany the columns, and in the mountains. Elevation angles were not enough for tanks and the first BMP. Supporting tanks in attacking this vehicle was never a task. This is a gantrack on caterpillars booked by most I can’t.

    If you really want to maintain a tank platoon / company with fire, deploy a mortar battery a kilometer away, a 152mm howitzer battery five kilometers away, and enable real-time target designation.
    How? Drone, reconnaissance vehicle, the issuance of portable devices for infantry escort or place this equipment in tanks.
  15. Couchexpert
    Couchexpert 1 November 2017 16: 10 New
    +1
    Can someone explain clearly why it is necessary to install two identical guns on such machines?
    There is a 2A42 gun, the same as on the BMP-2,3, etc., etc. It weighs 115 kg and shoots at a rate of up to 550 rounds / min. For example, for some reason there’s not enough such rate of fire on the “Terminator” (although it seems they put on the armored cars one 2A72, which has a rate of 300 rpm. And min. And it’s enough, though you don’t put more there because of the recoil , anyway). And therefore, two simultaneously firing guns are placed next to each other, the general rate of fire for which is now 550 * 2 = 1100 rds / min.
    But there is, for example, a GSh-30-2 double-barreled gun, which weighs about the same as 2A42has a rate of fire up to 3000 rds / min. (Well, you can configure the same 1100 rds. / Min. if necessary). At the same time, 100 kg of mass will be saved, due to which at least this gun can be protected normally with an armored casing (after all, it’s in the geometric center of the machine and getting into it with fragments or something else is quite probable) or increase the ammunition load (or do nothing - and this relief is favorable will affect the angular velocity of rotation of the tower). Of the minuses - the lack of selective nutrition, but loading various ammunition into the tape is fixable.
    Or another version. We put two guns for reasons of reliability. One broke, the second shoots. This assumption seems logical, but why then on the "Terminator" these standing next trunks not protected in any way? They are so close to each other that, most likely, any fire action that can disable one will break the other. Here at the "Viper" we see that the guns at least spaced on the sides of the tower (in addition, they are also placed in peculiar containers that protect the guns in an inclined position at the back and side) to prevent this situation, the guns of the Tungusok and Shell are also located. But as noted above
    Quote: svp67
    From the experience of military operation of the Tunguska, it became clear that a similar arrangement of guns, if one of them fails, leads to the fact that it is no longer possible to shoot aiming from a serviceable one. The moment of withdrawal is too great ...

    That is, again there is no sense even if one remains. And if the anti-aircraft guns the whole tower was given under the radar and equipment and putting guns in a different way is problematic, then the tank has a place for a 30-mm gun of any design in the center instead of the original 125-mm gun - more than enough.
    Well, why put two identical guns, one of which will not add either reliability or rate of fire and even add mass?
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 20: 55 New
      0
      There is only one reasonable reason. she came from ZRPK like a shell, There the location on the sides is made not only for the radar. But also to create a "cloud of shells" which increases the likelihood of hitting a target. The same can be attributed to the viper, but the trouble is that guns are too far away to defeat ground targets, especially against infantry. The terminator put them closer. BUT as the Formuccans say in the terminator, each gun shoots with its own type of ammunition (there is no selector there), therefore there is no sense in it ...
      1. Couchexpert
        Couchexpert 1 November 2017 22: 57 New
        +1
        No, after all, on anti-aircraft guns this is a necessary measure. At those ranges where they shoot that the guns are 20 cm apart, that at 2 m - there is not much difference - the expansion of the shells will still be decent. But to position the guns far from the axis of rotation of the tower is always unnecessary loads / vibrations / loss of accuracy. In pure cannon systems, it is better when everything is in the middle (see Shilka, Yenisei). Only machine guns, and even rifle caliber, are now shifted to the side of the axis.
        Well, since there are no objective reasons here, the armament of the same "Terminator" and for the rest looks thought out no more than that of the same "Viper" that "did not take off":
        1. Protection (both the module as a whole and individual elements) is insufficient / absent.
        2. The composition of the weapons is not optimal (two are not the most effective guns, is an ATGM necessary for equipment that operates in a tank formation, where each tank also has its own missiles?).
        3. The surveillance tools are partially installed not at the top point, but somewhere under the guns and have “dead zones”.
        4. The version with automatic grenade launchers does not provide round-fire from them, complicates manning (crew - 5 people) and requires reworking the serial MBT case. The option without automatic grenade launchers - does not give any advantages (and even loses) in armament over existing BMP-3s, promising vehicles based on the Boomerang, Kurganets and needs to be strengthened (for example, installing an automatic grenade launcher / NURS units / firing equipment along a hinged trajectory).
        5. Ammunition does not exceed similar on lighter platforms.
        In short, if you just need a heavy "supeShilka" - unscrew it from some AK-630 ship, secure it with armor, put it on the tank and do not suffer. But you will need a trailer with shells.
        If you need to support the tanks with something else that they themselves don’t have, then there are already possible options: 30 mm + AGS (also in a turret with circular guidance), 30 mm + "Bumblebee" (smoking infantry from shelters), etc. But only not more than two calibers and in a module with normal weapon protection, interchangeable with the MBT turret. The reserves of mass and dimensions are enough to do this.
        In general, since then money has appeared at the plant, and the concept has remained unrevealed.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 23: 59 New
          +1
          all this is easier to install on the tank and / or TBMP, rather than introduce a new type of equipment
  16. genezis6
    genezis6 1 November 2017 18: 33 New
    0
    Find and imprison this project for life. This machine could have saved many soldiers' lives in Chechnya.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 1 November 2017 20: 56 New
      0
      she would not save anyone, enough propaganda to breed stop
    2. Al Bychkov
      Al Bychkov 2 November 2017 15: 19 New
      0
      all the same, it was necessary not to fence the garden, but simply to take out the cannon from the tank and put a pair of 57 and 30 instead.
  17. Al Bychkov
    Al Bychkov 2 November 2017 15: 17 New
    0
    if just a gun was changed to two paired with 57 and 30 mm calibers, just changing the barrel, the rest was unchanged, then such a machine would have no price. and cheap and cheerful.
  18. garri-lin
    garri-lin 2 November 2017 18: 00 New
    0
    You described your concept of changing the performance characteristics of existing technology in our previous dispute six months ago. And I’ll tell the honestly described tank that unites both the tank and the self-propelled guns and mortars seems to me somewhat absurd and insanely expensive. Plus TBMP so beloved by you is limited by default in firepower. Mih’s weight is primarily spent on armor.
  19. garri-lin
    garri-lin 2 November 2017 18: 04 New
    0
    ProkletyiPirat,
    The site throws answers anyhow. Auw moderators.
  20. Gartny
    Gartny 10 January 2018 14: 23 New
    0
    The optimal caliber of guns for this kind of machine is 35-45 mm with telescopic ammunition.