How to arm tank support vehicle

In recent years, various projects of the so-called combat vehicles support tanks / fire support combat vehicles. While it is impossible to talk about the existence of a certain classical concept of such a technique, and therefore new models are noticeably different from each other. First of all, the differences are in the composition of weapons. From this point of view, even the developments of the same country may differ. We carefully consider the issue of armaments and determine what means of destruction are necessary for an effective BMPT.

First of all, you need to remember the goals and objectives of BMPT / BMOP. Such a technique, as its name implies, is intended to provide fire support to tanks or infantry. The main tank is not always able to fight tank-dangerous targets, and therefore their destruction is assigned to the infantry. However, in some situations, the infantry can not accompany the tanks and help them. It is in this case that BMPT is needed - a special vehicle with powerful protection and advanced weapons, capable of detecting and destroying grenade throwers, anti-tank complexes calculations, as well as light armored vehicles or some fortifications.

The first serial BMPT Russian development. Photo of Wikimedia Commons

Thus, potential targets for weapons BMPT are manpower and a significant part of the combat vehicles for various purposes. At the same time, depending on the specifics of the current situation, the fire support vehicle may be able to attack tanks or field structures. All this places special demands on its weapons and fire control devices.

Bullets and shards

Despite the development of defenses, infantrymen with grenade launchers or portable anti-tank systems are still one of the main threats to tanks and other armored vehicles. Their weapons can, at a minimum, damage the tank and interfere with its operation. Thus, BMPT should be able to effectively defeat “soft targets” that threaten armored vehicles. An obvious means of dealing with such threats is small arms and automatic grenade launchers.

In the near zone, at distances of at least several hundred meters, an effective anti-personnel vehicle is a machine gun of normal caliber. For example, the Russian BMPT "Object 199" / "Terminator" carried one PKTM machine gun with an aimed range to 1500 m. The placement of the machine gun on a stabilized unit and the presence of a fire control system with advanced optics made it possible to realize the full potential of such a weapon. The twin gun mount system on the Terminator allowed the weapon to be raised 45 ° above the horizon, which in a known manner increased the area of ​​shelling of the machine gun and other systems.

The bullet's trajectory limits the combat qualities of the machine gun, preventing it from hitting targets behind obstacles. To increase the anti-personnel potential of BMPT / BMPPs, you can use automatic grenade launchers that can carry out mounted shooting and literally throw ammunition over obstacles. Grenade launchers of type AG-17D are used in several domestic projects of tank support machines. With their help, it is proposed to hit manpower, unprotected buildings and lightly armored vehicles at ranges up to 1500-1700 m.

Tower "Terminator" with the main part of weapons. Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net

It should be noted that in the field of "light" weapons there are disputes and improvements. For example, the Russian “Terminators” of the first versions had both a machine gun and a pair of automatic grenade launchers. In the future, the grenade launchers were abandoned for reasons of crew reduction and optimization of internal space. Foreign samples, such as the newest Chinese BMP QN-506, may not have grenade armament at all and can only do with a machine gun.

Artillery fire

The obvious way to bring the range of destruction of tank-dangerous targets to several kilometers is to use artillery weapons. Equipment BMPT / BMOP tank gun or other medium-caliber gun does not look optimal, and therefore this technique should be equipped with small-caliber guns. Tools caliber 30-40 mm have the most successful combination of firepower and size, and also do not impose special requirements for the volume of large ammunition.

Russian engineers for a long time came to the conclusion that it was necessary to use two automatic guns at once. A pair of 2А42 X-guns caliber 30 mm provides a significant increase in firepower, while maintaining a reasonable size of the ammunition. In addition, the installation with a pair of guns is characterized by increased survivability: damage to one gun allows you to continue shooting.

An interesting fact is that foreign engineers when developing new concepts and real samples do not always use Russian ideas. As a result, their equipment carries only one small-caliber gun. This simplifies the design of the combat vehicle, but at the same time leads to understandable consequences in the context of firepower and combat survivability. However, foreign technology, such as the Ukrainian BMPT "Guard", may have a couple of guns.

The 30-mm automatic gun is capable of striking manpower or unprotected equipment at distances up to 3-4 km. At shorter ranges, it also turns out to be a means of dealing with light armored vehicles and various structures. Vertical guidance in a wide sector allows you to attack low-flying slow air targets. Thus, artillery can be considered perhaps the most important element of weapons of BMPT, capable of hitting most of the characteristic targets. At the same time, as events and trends in recent years show, it should be developed in a certain direction.

An updated version of the "Terminator". Photo NPK "Uralvagonzavod" / uvz.ru

Light and medium in mass armored vehicles armed with ATGMs pose a serious threat to tanks - quite a few armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles from different countries now correspond to this definition. To date, most of these machines have protection from small-caliber artillery shells, most often 30 mm caliber. Thus, BMPT / BMPP with an 30-mm gun can no longer be guaranteed to hit enemy equipment before it reaches the line of return fire.

The solution to this problem can be an increase in the caliber of weapons. Now in our country are creating new combat modules with 57-mm automatic cannon. It is possible that the next generation of "Terminators" will receive such weapons, and with it the ability to defeat almost all tank-dangerous objects - with the exception of tanks.

Guided missiles

Working in the same battle formations with tanks, the fire support fighting vehicle has all the chances to face the enemy’s heavy armored vehicles, and this must also be taken into account when forming its armament complex. As already mentioned, the installation of tank guns on the BMPT does not make sense, therefore, to fight against tanks it is necessary to use other weapons. A reasonable response to such threats are guided missiles.

Russian tank support vehicles are equipped with the Ataka anti-tank missile system and are capable of using several types of missiles. Ready-to-use ammunition consists of four missiles transported on the sides of the turret in transport and launch containers. The Attack complex increases the range of target fire up to 6-8 km. Depending on the model of the missile, the tandem cumulative warhead is capable of penetrating at least 850-950 mm of homogeneous armor behind dynamic protection.

Serial BMPT at the parade. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation / mil.ru

Similarly arming machine "Guardian". On its tower four TPKs are transported with missiles of the Bar' перевозr complex. The firing range they declared at the level of 5 km. The tandem warhead is said to be capable of penetrating more than 800 mm of armor for dynamic protection.

Chinese engineers in their project QN-506 used a different set of weapons. This armored vehicle is equipped with a pair of large containers with rocket weapons, which use two types of missiles. First of all, the Chinese BMPT / BMOP can use QN-502 guided missiles with a range of up to 6 km. Also, unguided rockets QN-201 caliber 70 mm can be used against ground targets. Launch rails for unguided rockets are placed on some installations with TPK anti-tank missiles.

Other well-known foreign projects and concepts also provide for the use of guided missile weapons, but from this point of view they are not of particular interest. Missiles are regarded as a “standard” addition to other weapons, and no radical innovations are envisaged.

Arms control

Even the best weapons will not be able to show high performance without effective controls and guidance. From the point of view of possibilities of observation and search for targets, BMPT should not be inferior to modern tanks and therefore needs appropriate means. The commander must have a panoramic sight, the gunner needs his own aiming devices. You must have a day and night channel, as well as a means of measuring distance. In the future, tank support vehicles may also receive other means, such as radar stations or reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles. Some new models already have similar equipment.

As development progressed, domestic BMPTs received the entire core set of weapons monitoring and control tools. At the same time, the specific composition of the armament complex led to the need to create a completely new fire control system capable of controlling barrel and missile weapons of all types. The standard equipment of the Terminator provides observation of the entire surrounding space with timely detection of targets and subsequent targeting of weapons.

The prototype of the Ukrainian BMPT "Guardian". Photo of Wikimedia Commons

The Chinese project QN-506, according to known data, involves the use of similar equipment, but at the same time offers an expansion of capabilities through completely new components. Such a BMPT should carry a light unmanned aerial vehicle with a camera on board that has a working radius of 10 km. The presence of the UAV provides reconnaissance at a long distance from the combat vehicle and, as a result, increased crew situational awareness.

Fire in all directions

The unobvious, but important parameter of a tank support combat vehicle is the ability to fire in different directions, including with simultaneous firing from different weapons at several targets. Modern BMPT / BMIP have similar capabilities of this kind, allowing to solve basic combat missions. At the same time, certain problems are possible.

Russian "Terminators" of all modifications are equipped with a full-turn turret and panoramic sights. Thus, the crew can detect the target in any direction and then attack it with a machine gun, cannons or missiles. If the target is in the forward hemisphere, then some variants of our BMPTs can also hit it using grenade launchers. In appropriate situations, the target in front can be fired at once in several ways. With only a turret and no exchange rate weapons, firepower decreases slightly, but the pickup sector remains the same.

You also need to consider the number of simultaneously fired targets. Different situations can arise on the battlefield, and in some one BMPT will have to attack several different targets at once, including in different directions. Some modern combat vehicles are capable of solving such problems, while others are inferior to them in this.

Chinese combat vehicle QN-506. Photos Slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn

The old modifications of the Russian Terminator had both a turret with weapons and a pair of automatic grenade launchers on their own installations. The architecture of the tower and SLA allowed the simultaneous use of guns, machine guns and rockets for only one purpose. At the same time, a pair of grenade launchers, which had their own sighting devices and autonomous weapon systems, could attack two other objects. Late modifications of Russian BMPTs were left without grenade launchers. Accordingly, they lost a couple of target channels and related opportunities.

Future and development

The concept of a tank support combat vehicle / a fire support vehicle cannot be called particularly popular. New projects of this kind appear regularly, but real samples are rarely built, and most of them are created by just one country. Nevertheless, the military of different armies show some interest in the proposed ideas, and this is the reason for the continuation of the development of the whole class and the emergence of new projects.

Apparently, in the future, BMPTs will change, but their development paths are still difficult to predict. Most likely, the main way to modernize such equipment will be the transfer of combat modules with weapons to new chassis that meet current requirements. It is also possible to upgrade the weapon system. First of all, it should follow the path of using new types of barreled weapons, missile systems, etc. New products will improve the range and accuracy of shooting. It makes sense to further develop fire control tools, including with the addition of existing systems with new devices.

However, the development of the entire class of BMPT / BMIP is limited by objective factors. For one reason or another, this technique is not popular. The lack of orders leads to a lack of competition and, as a result, to the absence of the need for active development of the direction. Nevertheless, BMPT is still coming into service in some countries, and this stimulates their development. The improvement of technology continues, and in the future we will be able to see again the results of such incentives.

Based on:
http://uvz.ru/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://btvt.info/
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/
Suvorov S. BMPT "Terminator". Return from oblivion // Technique and armament, 2018 №8.

Comments

[Krasnodar]

The main danger for tanks on the battlefield are well-disguised anti-tank systems. What will help in this case, the tank support machine is not clear.
Question - do these machines advance in front of tanks? Follow the tanks? Moving next to tanks? You can hang anything on a modern armored car, the question is how to apply it.

[max702]

The main reason for the appearance of BMPTs is the sharply increased cost of infantry, both materially and morally politically, today the cost of a trained / equipped infantryman (and an unprepared and not equipped inefficient) is extremely high, and the loss of infantry is very painful for society. And in order to reduce these material and human risks, the search for new BMPT solutions is one of them .. So the concept itself has a right to life, as was said just below, tanks appeared in order to reduce infantry losses (because technology began to allow it) the time has come for BMPTs as classic tanks are in a tactical dead end, too complex too expensive and too much have to solve problems .. It also seems to TBMP expensive \ difficult \ many tasks .. So the TBTR + BMPT tactics come up, the TBTR is equipped with defensive weapons to deprive the temptation to use it as a strike unit, thereby putting the troops and its assets at risk, but the reconnaissance and coordination function can leave completely its UAVs and equipment for coordinating units / troops will increase efficiency units. BMPT performs fire support tasks for all types of targets. There is an opinion that there are tanks for this, today a tank is a PT weapon with weapons sharpened primarily for destroying enemy’s BT, and this implies inefficiency for other tasks, especially in operations on urban areas, the main weapon due to its dimensions, small aiming angles, impossibility Mounted firing does not allow solving many problems and, as a result of loss, and not completing a combat mission .. What is required from BMPT? This is a high level of protection against anti-tank weapons of the enemy’s assets, which are mainly RPGs and anti-tank systems, the probability of action against tanks is not high compared to the indicated threat, but even in this case the BMPT must have at least some weapons, therefore something needs to be able to respond quickly emerging massive threats (infantry with RPG \ ATGM) and on the enemy’s BT .. Due to the fact that it is very likely that a simultaneous attack from different attack vectors in the BMPT should be at least TWO independent fire posts capable of firing in different directions independently of each other, here we come to the topic of multi-tower, it’s clear that monsters a la T-35 deadlock, but something at the new technological level will be quite successful. I see two fire posts (no technology will not allow no price) in two floors on the tower, as it is done today on tanks, the main gun and the DBMS on the tower .. The solution to the right question is only in WEAPONS, and it is key! I see it this way, a 120 mm launcher from the "Vena" paired with a 30mm, 7.62mm BMP-3 "troika" type with a modern control system, and an "Epoch" module on the turret .. It would be nice to have a couple of three UAVs with an automatic takeoff function \ landing \ charging for reconnaissance and target designation .. The main weapon is given to the gunner, and the commander observes / searches for targets through the Epoch control system, thus at any time, in addition to target designation, he can destroy or use the module's weapon on the threat .. Any UAV operator can be from crew members or attached operator via remote control.

[svp67]

Quote: Krasnodar

The main danger for tanks on the battlefield are well-disguised anti-tank systems. What will help in this case, the tank support machine is not clear.

Not only them, but also helicopters. And here it is

It is for this case that BMPT is necessary - a special machine with powerful protection and advanced weapons, capable of noticing and destroying grenade launchers in time, calculations of anti-tank systems, as well as light armored vehicles or some fortifications.

BMP can calmly do. But BMPT is simply obliged to be able to counter flying objects, both in terms of armament and equipment. That is, while the tank is engaged in the work of clearing the terrain for its infantry, the BMPT should cover it from the attacks of ATGMs, combat helicopters, planning and corrected air bombs. Which is quite possible with a pair of 30 mm cannons or one 57 mm cannon.

[Krasnodar]

Helicopters and UAVs - I agree. In this case, is it not cheaper and more efficient to give shock drones armed with air defense missiles and air - ground instead of BMPTs, for example?

[113262a]

You want a lot! Do not turn BMPT into a superweapon! There are so few of them! Almost none at all! Shilka-tunguska-armor should be engaged in air at interception, infantry with arrows ?! Can you imagine a view from the tank? Even with a panoramic sight? So also watch the flies?

[svp67]

Quote: 113262

Shilka-tunguska-armor should be engaged in air at interception, infantry with arrows ?!

Yes, let them work, this machine will work already in the immediate radius of meters with 400 from the tank

Quote: 113262

Can you imagine a review from the tank?

Do you imagine the possibilities of modern monitoring and control tools tied into a single command network?

Quote: 113262

So also watch the flies?

And for the "flies" and its younger relatives, too, otherwise who will protect the tanks from them

[venik]

Quote: Krasnodar

The main danger for tanks on the battlefield are well-disguised anti-tank systems. What will help in this case, the tank support machine is not clear.

=========
Well, obviously - the ability to DETECT and HIT - SOME objectives SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!?

[Krasnodar]

An UAV will do better, don’t you think?

[philosopher]

Hence the conclusion that a certain symbiosis of TBMP and BMPT is needed. When the infantrymen are inside, they are operators of equipment weapons, and not useless cargo, but dismounted - independent combat units. It seems to me that they removed two turrets from the AGS in vain, as they were on the first terminator. You need four such sponson turrets, and each one must have an AGS and a rifle caliber machine gun. Still, the extra four pairs of eyes that independently survey the area are expensive. The fifth infantryman can fly the drone and be the "upper eyes", giving guidance to the entire expanded crew.

[113262a]

Is this for every infantryman in a stable sight? And what else? Did you watch binoculars on the move? Here is the same review from BM on the go! Fully instantly, we started shooting ... from 72,64 and 80! When the main mirror is stable regardless of the weapon. Even on BMP-2 at a speed of more than 20 km per hour it is sooooo hard to get!

[philosopher]

Yes, to each of the four. In fact, a multi-tower tank, if I may say so, given the difference in the uninhabitedness of each tower. But the main similarity is several independent armed pairs of eyes, and this is priceless for BMPTs, especially in the ruins of urban development. Here is one operator who noticed the enemy’s figure and immediately gave it a line from a machine gun and / or automatic grenade launcher. Or he fires to suppress his weapons, requesting support from the main calibers at the disposal of the commander. Again, five towers can with one common salvo through the windows clean out the whole house or cover a large area in case of suspected disguised infantry with anti-tank systems.
When unloading the infantry, the command of the armament of the auxiliary towers passes to the commander and all the firepower can be concentrated on one target using automatic equipment. Can you imagine what even a short salvo of four 30mm AG does in the field? Continuous area of ​​defeat, no shelter.

[113262a]

This is if the operators at least see something! Who has the best view in the tank? At the driver! Yes Yes! And panoramic, and even stabilized sights to each of 4? Expensive and cumbersome! Yes, and places in the BMPT, not a car! Then the drone is more real!

[philosopher]

Still, yes, shoving everything into one building will not work.
But the idea of ​​multi-tower when each infantryman in TBMP is also the operator of the twin machine gun and automatic grenade launcher, and the commander of the machine in combination with the drone operator, who, having the best knowledge, can give target designation all operators, does not leave me.

[Zaurbek]

It can help if it has start point detection equipment.

[Krasnodar]

Once again - in this case, more efficient than UAVs.

[Zaurbek]

UAV - addition ... who on earth will occupy the territory?

[Krasnodar]

And here there are no options - infantry))
We are talking about supporting tanks. In my opinion, a strike reconnaissance UAV is more effective than a BMPT

[Zaurbek]

Not all targets require anti-tank systems, not all targets will be found before the shot ....

[Per se.]

In order to determine the armament, you first need to understand the very concept of the machine. Was the infantry "riding" on tank armor in WWII to support tanks? Yes, it was. Especially, the need to support tanks was observed in street battles, where, without their own infantry, tanks were often simply doomed in tight streets. Was the armored personnel carrier carrying infantry supporting tanks? Yes, as an armored infantry transport, as an additional firing point, at least as the same machine gun. Finally, the BMP, first created in the USSR, and the concept of which was defined as "Infantry fighting vehicle, BMP is a class of armored combat vehicles, the main purpose of which is fire support and transportation of personnel of the rifle squad (infantry) to the place of combat missions with the possibility of landing conduct a fire battle from a vehicle, increase its mobility and security on the battlefield in conditions of the enemy's use of nuclear weapons and for joint action with tanks in battle". Infantry, its transport (armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles), all this one way or another support for tanks. The most important thing is that the tanks themselves were originally created to get out of the" trench dead end ", and, not to a small extent, were themselves intended to support the infantry. Such, here, is a cycle in which there is nothing strange, since everything is interconnected, and, ultimately, is aimed at achieving victory in a battle, at completing a combat mission.Not tanks for tanks, not armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles or BMPTs for the sake of tanks, everything first of all for a person in war, for the sake of victory.A simple infantryman needed a tank, to a tank, to accelerate the movement of infantry and its protection of armored personnel carriers, to armored personnel carriers, to increase fire support, infantry fighting vehicles. And, here, the difficult concept of BMPT, criticized by many, Can the BMPT completely replace the infantry? It is unlikely, it is unlikely that it will be able to completely replace, but significantly strengthen, specialized fire support, yes, undoubtedly. Moreover, it is the BMPT fire support that will be much more effective than that of the BMP, which is also burdened with tra nsport function, especially the armored personnel carrier, in which the transport component is more specialized than that of the BMP. Probably, speaking of the BMPT, it is necessary first of all to allocate specialized fire support, moreover, not only for our tanks, but also for our infantry. If you want, in the versatility of the BMP sits a hybrid of a light tank (fire support), and an armored personnel carrier (transport function). This is the strength of the BMP, namely, as a universal machine. Heavy infantry fighting vehicles loses this versatility, for increased protection and partially armament, such a "weight" stops floating, becomes less maneuverable, mobile. BMPT and heavy armored personnel carriers, as a tandem, are much preferable here, where the fire function of specialized support goes to the BMPT, and the transport, with enhanced protection, to the heavy armored personnel carrier, which, first of all, is no longer just a transport for infantry, but a delivery vehicle assault groups... Here, assault groups, and should interact with tanks and BMPTs to solve shock missions. A trio of tank, BMPT and heavy armored personnel carriers in this approach could use one base, for example, T-72 / T-90, BMPT ("Terminator"), and armored personnel carriers (modified BMO-T). In such an integrated approach, the BMPT concept becomes more understandable, and the BMPT armament can be selected depending on specific tasks (for example, a battle in the city), where a 40-57 mm gun will be needed more, and where a pair of 30 mm. Such, here, thoughts.

[Corn]

We’ve developed tactics with analytics based on the Second World War and the First World War ....
BMPT, this is just an attempt to breathe at least some kind of life into the body of outdated technology. The combat effectiveness of the "Terminator" is no higher than the BMP-2. The same gun, the same archaic means of detection and communication, the same protection (i.e., its absence) from ATGMs and mines.
This is not the first time I am writing, UVZ would have better developed and brought to mind a full-fledged heavy BMP, not as expensive as the T-15 (based on Almaty), but also more adequate than the BMO-T.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Corn

The combat effectiveness of the "Terminator" is no higher than the BMP-2. The same gun, the same archaic means of detection and communication, the same protection (i.e., its absence) from ATGMs and mines.

Nothing that the Terminator has a chassis from the tank, that is, a protection comparable to that of a tank. And you say that the BMP-2 has no worse protection?
The BMP-2 has one 30-mm cannon and a machine gun. The Terminator has many times more firepower. And given the missiles, he is able to burn tanks and helicopters to shoot down low-flying. BMP-2 capable of this?
The terminator is thinking of using it at the front edge, next to the tanks. Considering the weak armor of the BMP-2, if it is used the same way, it will not last long and even the ATGM will not be needed for this, but a large machine gun with armor-piercing bullets is enough.

[Corn]

This tank defense also does not hold the main threat.
Please give me no "firepower many times higher", and specifically on the shelves:
- paired cannons, with different types of shells (why didn’t they make selective feeding, like on the same BMP2?), which lightly armored target cannot be handled by one 30 gun with a speed of 600 rounds / minute, and 2 of the same guns with different types of shells? Personally, it’s even difficult for me to come up with such a specific task, but here a car is created and launched under it for a series. Questions.
-Why do we need obviously fake useless course AGSs? Voposy
-the same "attack" spurts on the shore did not look ideal, but much more harmonious.
So we get where the firepower grows ?! - I don’t know where to go, just like in fairy tales.
As air defense, it is also useless; the LMS is not designed to defeat moving air targets.
Given the weak armor of the BMP2, it is necessary to change this order, which served the equipment of venerable age, new and modern, preferably on a tank chassis and with full armor.
In its current form, the "terminator" is another saw-cut machine, a military Yo-mobile.

[NEXUS]

Quote: Corn

In its current form, the "terminator" is another saw-cut machine, a military Yo-mobile.

When the Union was the first to create an APC, the BMP did not know what they were. And now, after the evolution of these platforms and the comprehension of their tactics of application, all the armies of the world have them in service. And Terminator as a platform is only at the very beginning of its evolution.

[Corn]

Quote: NEXUS

The Union generally created the first BTR, BMP

Those. Doesn’t it bother you that the first armored personnel carriers were still in World War I?
If the party said that the USSR was the first in everything, and the rest envy us, then it is. The logic is iron, worthy of praise.

[Astronaut]

that the first armored personnel carriers were still in the 1st world

Have you mixed up an armored personnel carrier with an armored car?

[Corn]

Mark ix

[113262a]

As the war in the Donbass has shown, the chances of completing a combat mission for armored vehicles of both sides are at least! And this is without the use of aviation. Mountains of scrap metal on the deployment lines, burned columns of tanks and plywood ,, Torn off by artillery turret at the tanks in the trenches, behi and motoliga, killed stupidly by the marksman! And those who have sat down on their own and others ’mine are a dime a dozen!

[Per se.]

Quote: Corn

In its current form, the "terminator" is another saw-cut machine, a military Yo-mobile.

"Sawing the dough" means creating a "platform" on an expensive and complex base, spending money in development on "furniture sets" that are created from a raw base that has not passed the entire test cycle, has not been adopted for service, has not been mastered by the industry, which has not proved its reliability and manufacturability. This primarily concerns everything that was designed as a "heavy platform", in particular, the T-15 mastodon, which is comparable in size to the five-tower T-35. What, Karl, is your confidence that a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is needed by our army, our infantry? There are fighters from "World of Tanks" here, many have not served in the army either, but they are harshly judged by the "pumping" and combat value, the main thing is that the cannon is more powerful, the tank is heavier ... What you write not for the first time - UVZ would better develop and bring to mind a full-fledged heavy BMP, not as expensive as t-15 (based on armat), but also more adequate than BMO-T". There is no invulnerable equipment, and the heaviest BMP, this is not a bomb shelter, not a guarantee of invulnerability. With the infantry not dismounted, climb such a" heavy infantry fighting vehicle "next to the tanks, its defeat will be a" mass grave "for the crew members and all paratroopers. Without landing, as fire support, than a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is better than the BMPT based on the T-72 / T-90, which has long been a well-established and mastered platform for a huge family of various equipment. There are also large stocks of old T-72 tanks that can how to modernize for new tank modules, and use for alterations in heavy armored personnel carriers, BMPT, self-propelled guns, TOS. "Diluted tactics here with analytics based on the Second World War and the First World War ..." everything consists of causal relationships, a chain in the development of military and technical thought.Division into specialization, where specialized fire support with powerful tank protection goes to the BMPT, and the transport function to the heavy armored personnel carrier will be much more More efficient than a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. You can't add anything without sacrificing anything, so that the armor is thicker, and the weapons are more powerful, and even the landing force can be crammed inside. Therefore, we are talking about tandem, duplex, dual system, BMPT weapons, transport function for heavy armored personnel carriers. Here the BMPT does not need to wait for the infantry to dismount, having powerful protection, similar or even superior to the tank one, the BMPT can immediately go next to or in front of the tanks. A heavy armored personnel carrier, in this bundle, this, as already emphasized above, is not so much transport for the infantry as transport for assault groups, where not 9-10 paratroopers will be optimal for the vehicle, but 5-6, which will make it more comfortable to place the troops, make the vehicle more compact and better protected, in the event of its defeat with the infantry, it minimizes losses, and when dismounting, it will reduce the time for dismounting and deploying assault groups as a unit on the battlefield. Here BMO-T, with its revision, will be more preferable. As for the BMP concept, it must remain a versatile and maneuverable vehicle, capable of overcoming water obstacles on the move, making raids and marches. Well, and the last thing, speaking of technology, we need to decide for what type of battle, for what kind of war it is being created. If you need counter-guerrilla equipment, equipment for anti-terrorist operations, this is one thing, here, as a "police tank" against militants and "heavy infantry fighting vehicles" will do. If we are talking about the defense of the Fatherland, not against terrorists, with their guerrilla tactics, but against a war with a full-fledged army, which will not be exchanged for ambushes along rear roads, with explosions on planed landmines of military columns, this is a completely different war, for which other technique.

[Cympak]

TBMP does not float, but BMPT with TBTR do not float either. What should a heavy armored personnel carrier do after dismounting the landing? To go further, but the capabilities of the armored personnel carrier to support the infantry are limited, and as you approach the enemy, the chances of "getting" more and more.
We put on a heavy armored personnel carrier an uninhabited tower with an automatic gun, we get TBMP.
We land from TBMP landing, we get BMPT
We change the turret with an automatic cannon to a turret with a "troika" (100-120 mm cannon + 30 mm cannon + machine gun) + NURSs / Single-use flamethrowers / ATGM on the sides of the turret + wedge / blade, we get an assault tank (almost).

To make a fit TBTP based on T-72 / T-90 is a utopia, because it is easier to re-design than rework a tank
1. Problems with dismounting while maintaining the rear-engined line-up. BMO-T is an open ugliness with a "window" in the center of the VLD. The Jews got the Akhzarit after replacing the engine with a more compact one. Replacing the engine will replace the transmission. In addition, the "Akhzarits" in the army have been replaced by "Namer".
2. Problems with a complete redesign of the vehicle when trying to "turn" the body of the tank with the engine forward, the crew compartment back:
- you need to turn the engine and transmission over, as T-72 / T-90 reverse 5-7 km / h
- it is necessary to significantly strengthen the reservation on the engine side (the engine is not armor), and the tank has very weak back booking in the engine area.
- Additional reservation will change the weight distribution of the case and will require alteration with the chassis.
- it is necessary to solve problems with engine cooling and the exclusion of the effect of thermal haze in front of observation devices, etc. etc.

[Per se.]

Quote: Cympak

TBMP does not float, but BMPTs with TBTR do not swim. What should make heavy armored personnel carrier after dismounting the landing?

The tank also does not float, it is just about a strike group, a bundle on one tank base, for example, a T-72 / T-90 tank, an BMPT ("Terminator"), a heavy armored personnel carrier (like BMO-T). There is no need to abandon the same wheeled armored personnel carriers, or the classic BMP-2, BMP-3, they can be used, but not as a strike group with tanks.

Quote: Cympak

We land from TBMP landing, we get BMPT

We get a surrogate, I have already said that it is impossible to shove everything into one volume, without any damage, therefore, BMPT specialized only on fire support will initially be better than BMP, which also has the function of transporting infantry.

Quote: Cympak

To make a fit TBTP based on T-72 / T-90 is a utopia, because it is easier to re-design than rework a tank

It's not about rebuilding the tank, but using its chassis. As for the "utopia" on the T-72 / T-90 base, we will consider this as your personal opinion. By the way, Namer also used a tank base from the Merkava. Also, very smart Jews, for a long time did not put anything on their heavy armored personnel carriers except for an auxiliary machine gun, so that no fool who was looking for them in Israel would think of using an armored personnel carrier instead of a tank. This is what a heavy armored personnel carrier will do after a landing. The main task of a heavy armored personnel carrier is to deliver its infantry intact, in my presentation, an assault group, which, together with BMPTs and tanks, must complete the main combat mission. If the armored personnel carrier here somehow helps with fire from a large-caliber machine gun, or covers its sides with armor, that's enough. I repeat, we are talking about direct interaction with tanks, not giving up the rest of the armored vehicles. It must also be emphasized that the most important thing is the competent use of various equipment, while even an armored jeep with an ATGM can, due to its speed and maneuverability, be more protected than a clumsy heavy monster, especially if you wanted to use it on an unsuitable terrain, on which -or swampy soils. Of course, all this is just my vision, my opinion, nothing more.

[Graz]

perhaps it is necessary to separate the BMP and the assault vehicle for urban battles, and why, by the way, do not put the assembly of flamethrowers on such a machine?

[Whowhy]

At one time, Tukhachevsky ruined the entire air defense, forcing designers to come up with universal guns.
Why the heck BMPT hit targets located 6 km (on the ground) ??? And then what are the tanks for? But giving the tank target designation in time is very important. The most dangerous targets for tanks are closely spaced camouflaged fighters with grenade launchers, and, based on established tactics, these are several fighters (or groups) attacking almost simultaneously (in two or three waves). The first "wave" blows away all the protection, and the second and third hits already on bare armor. Thus, it is necessary not only to detect these targets, but also to destroy them as quickly as possible, since even one remaining soldier can disable the tank. Attack drones and helicopters are also dangerous.
Thus, the following system is formed: a large (60-80mm) caliber grenade launcher (with separate feeding of cumulative and high-explosive shells, like on a 30mm gun, or with a single cumulative-rod fragmentation shell) paired with an AGS; heavy machine gun in an uninhabited module; a block of anti-helicopter and anti-tank (capable of hitting a tank from above), vertically launched missiles; and, of course, a drone carrying a video camera, a universal radar (or two - on the ground and in the air), a thermal imager and a laser targeting head (maybe not one). Since the batteries cannot be pulled, the drone is connected to the BMPT with a thin cable (copper-coated steel wire), because it is powered by high frequency generator, which is equipped with its own engine (so that it could work in parking lots). Probably the most optimal anti-personnel weapon will also be a block of special (a la beam projectiles) missiles. Since several missiles can launch at the same time, to simultaneously hit several targets illuminated by the drone. In this case, a block of missiles (in an armored container) will have to be dragged on a trailer.
Something like that.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: whowhy

At one time, Tukhachevsky ruined the entire air defense, forcing designers to come up with universal guns.

Heh heh heh ... actually, in comparison with the standard means of air defense of the rifle division of the early 30s, the universal weapon so beloved by Tukhachevsky was a step forward.
Here is what happened in the divisional air defense:

Specialized 3K anti-aircraft guns were expensive and few. And, by the way, taking into account the number of guns of German projects (and their heirs), which were never launched into series by our industry or launched with incomplete functionality, it was rather dangerous to rely on the German 3K in planning weapons. The same 45-mm gun was brought to mind for 4 years - the semi-automatic did not work on fragmentation shells (and this despite the fact that the consumption of fragmentation shells at the "forty-five" reached 2/3 of the total consumption of shells).

[Cympak]

It is better to install drones on a command command vehicle, which would follow behind the battle formations and transmit information on identified targets to combat vehicles within the framework of a single tactical automated control system.

[garri-lin]

The drone is vulnerable. They should be many. Preferably on each machine. It’s even better to be controlled by any operator. Tobish from tartu from one tank and the operator to another.

[tank64rus]

Patent for invention No. 2658517 priority from 08 "Reconnaissance and fire complex BMPT". The layout was presented at the Army 12. The Chinese looked and made the conclusions. They work fast.

[The leader of the Redskins]

Personally, I consider this branch of the BTVT deadlock. A kind of expensive but useless toy for parades.
An example of this concept takes place. This is a hobby in the 30s of the past with multi-turret tanks. It was also believed that such a machine would burst into the enemy's location, turn the towers in different directions and "haymaking" would begin! In fact, we know how it all turned out. Difficulty in controlling weapons, lack of clarity by commanders, places in battle formations, etc.

[Corn]

There is not even multi-tower. More similar to the concept of machine gun tanks of the 20-30s of the banal century.
Both guns are paired, exchange rate stabilized AGSs are obviously useless props, expensive ATGMs without any protection also raise a lot of questions.
In fact, we have a car with the cost of a new tank and the capabilities of a jihadmobile ....

[dzvero]

In my opinion, the BMPT was conceived as a replacement for the infantry, acting in conjunction with tanks as part of assault groups (in the field or in the city). As the desire to reduce losses, everything is correct. But the infantry "landing", in addition to protecting the tanks, performs another task - to gain a foothold in the terrain before the arrival of the main forces. And here BMPT loses TBMP. In my opinion, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is preferable - both weapons and security are the same as those of the BMPT, but a detachment of motorized riflemen is also lucky, i.e. 2 in 1.
BMPT has a niche, but if the price is comparable to TBMP, is the game worth the candle?

[brn521]

Quote: dzvero

In my opinion, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is preferable - both armament and security like those of an infantry fighting vehicle, but the separation of motorized rifles is also lucky, i.e. 2 in 1.

Not good. Taking into account modern requirements, this BMP will surpass tanks in dimensions, weight, cost of production and operation. Therefore, only 1 in 1. That is to carry motorized rifles on heavy armored personnel carriers, the task of which is guaranteed delivery and guaranteed evacuation of the assault force, therefore installing only light light defensive weapons on them. 2 in 1 makes sense only for paratroopers and marines because of the strict restrictions on the size and weight of the equipment delivered.

[Cympak]

If we install an uninhabited turret with an automatic cannon on a heavy armored vehicle, we get a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. At the same time, the mass will increase slightly. Example: Israel has long abandoned the BMP, believing that the best combat platform is the Merkava tank, and the infantry needs to be transported on armored personnel carriers, which are well protected, but do not participate in direct combat. But in the end they also began to install an uninhabited turret on the Namer armored personnel carrier with an automatic cannon, a machine gun and an ATGM.

[brn521]

Quote: Cympak

If you install an uninhabited turret with an automatic gun on a heavy BRT, we get a heavy BMP.

An uninhabited tower will turn transport into a full-fledged combat unit and will require two more specialists who will not actually be paratroopers - a gunner and a commander.

Quote: Cympak

But in the end they also began to install an uninhabited turret on the Namer armored personnel carrier with an automatic cannon, a machine gun and an ATGM.

Namer is a Merkava designed to transport military specialists (monstrous size and cost included) during police operations. From which it will not be lost if they master a couple more military professions. It is difficult to call them motorized riflemen, the likelihood of direct participation in a clash with the use of personal weapons is too low.

[dzvero]

The development of the T-14 / T-15 ligament, moreover, for motorized riflemen, is just suggestive, which in the future tends to be a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. BMPT based on Almaty, if it is, then as an addition, and not in bulk.

[brn521]

Quote: dzvero

The development of the T-14 / T-15 ligament, moreover, for motorized rifles, is just suggestive that in the future they tend to heavy BMP

To a limited batch of heavy infantry fighting vehicles applied only in certain cases. Most motorized rifles are unlikely to see them at least once in their eyes.

[abc_alex]

You are absolutely right. Like

max702

. Only the matter is not only in reducing losses. The fact is that from the 60-70s the infantry firepower began to increase sharply. And ultimately, in the classic confrontation between the sword and the armor, the armor lost. It became clear that it was simply not possible to reserve a tank so that an infantryman with ATGM could not cut it. Immediately began the search for alternative ways to protect the tank. And it turned out that the infantry’s urgently needed tank support was preventing this very defense. Active protection of tanks is dangerous for shooters. And increasing the mobility of tanks becomes useless, since the tank is forced to move at the speed of a dismounted fighter across the battlefield.
Therefore, the concept of a tank support combat vehicle appeared - a mechanized analogue of a motorized rifle compartment on an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier. To give tanks the ability to maneuver around the battlefield at normal speed. Based on this, a set of weapons was formed. A cannon of 30-40 mm caliber, a rifle caliber machine gun, a grenade launcher. So the first BMPT just met this rule. And why was it not accepted and not accepted into the troops, limited to various "trial lots"? But because the creators "forgot" the main property of BMPT. It should have several independent firing points, in fact, as part of a squad of fighters. They also created one firing point with a "gun store". The author of the article, obviously, does not understand something, since he writes:

An unobvious, but important parameter of a tank support combat vehicle is the ability to fire in different directions, including the simultaneous firing of different weapons at several targets ...
Russian "Terminators" of all modifications are equipped with a full-swivel tower and panoramic sights. Thus, the crew can detect the target in any direction and then attack it using a machine gun, guns or rockets.

The task was posed precisely in the opportunity simultaneous attack of several targets. This one turret cannot give. If you have two enemies drawn on different flanks, the infantry will crush them at the same time. And BMPT will be forced to consistently fire first on one flank, then on the other.
It doesn't matter what set of weapons the creators have piled on the BMPT, in its current form it is not an BMPT, but a tank. At one time they tried to make a "rocket tank", and this is the "Terminator". Only modern technologies made it possible to add artillery weapons to the ATGM.

In general, I doubt the possibility of implementing an BMPT based on the main tank. In my opinion, the BMPT weapon system should be formed in at least three firing points, just like it was on the T-28. The two front turrets can contain modules with a machine gun and an automatic grenade launcher. The central tower assumes the installation of the main artillery caliber. But the ATGM should be retracted into the vehicle's body, as was done on the Chrysanthemum, and launched vertically, like the Tor air defense missile systems.
The sighting system of each of the front towers must be combined for a grenade launcher and a machine gun to allow one operator to control both systems. Panoramic sight at the commander and operator of the main tower. ATGM guidance system.

[Cympak]

First you need to decide on a tactic, then develop an OSh for this tactic.
Current problems of combined arms combat in the attack:
- tanks cannot act alone; infantry must support them
- the infantry does not have time to follow the tanks, it needs to be transported, and in a hurry from a certain line
- the tank has 1 weapon channel, if you add a stabilized DBM on the tower, controlled by the commander, we get 1,5-2 channels.
- it is desirable to have an armored vehicle capable of acting in the same order with tanks (has similar protection) and specializing in "weak" targets: armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, ATGM crews, infantry, while it is desirable to have several independent channels of weapons
- Each weapon channel today requires a separate operator.
- you need to protect yourself from helicopters with ATGMs and kamikaze drones / NLOS-ATGM
Solutions:
1. Tank + light infantry fighting vehicle
Light infantry fighting vehicles support tanks, deliver infantry to the line of dismounting, and develop an offensive after breaking through a defense. Problem - protects only from fragments and bullets. It is easily destroyed, has insufficient protection. When operating with tanks in the same line, it suffers heavy losses. In isolation from tanks, light infantry fighting vehicles can operate limited until they meet with enemy heavy armored vehicles.

2. Tank + BMPT + heavy armored personnel carrier - 1 line, light BMP - the second line
A heavy armored personnel carrier is unarmed and cannot provide effective support. After dismounting the infantry, it makes no sense to go further. If we want support, then we need to put weapons, i.e. we get a heavy BMP. Those. instead of one TBMP, you need to have two BMPT and TBTR vehicles

3. Tank + TBMP - 1 line, light infantry fighting vehicles - second line
If there is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, with part of the landing used to control additional weapons channels or to search for targets to the dismounting line. Light BMPs go in the second line and develop success.
For "full minced meat" it is necessary to add ZAK to the second / third line (like Derivation). In this case, the ZAK should interact with the radar control post located in the depth of the formation, providing reconnaissance of the airspace over the battlefield and issuing target designation to the ZAK.

Fighting in the city is a completely different task. In the city, equipment must go behind the assault groups and support them with fire for targets identified by the assault groups.
Delivery of assault groups is carried out by armored personnel carriers or MRAP, and their assault engineering tank must support their work.
The armament of the assault engineering tank:
- short-barreled gun (120-152 mm), low ballistics with the ability to fire direct fire and from a closed position
- shells: OFS with a programmable fuse (instant action or with a delay), shrapnel shell with remote detonation, possibly HASH - for making breaks in the walls, if the power of the OFS is not enough
- in the DBM - 23-30 mm gun, machine gun
- auxiliary weapons in containers on the sides of the tower, installed if necessary: ​​NURS blocks, one-time flamethrowers, possibly ATGM
- developed means of communication with assault groups, with the possibility of mutual target designation, i.e. single tactical ACS
- the presence of external containers with additional ammunition and weapons for assault groups (disposable grenade launchers, AGS, 12.5 mm machine guns, ammunition)
- the presence of one-time grenade launchers for the installation of an aerosol curtain, as well as shrapnel grenades for self-defense against the enemy who came close to face
- passive and active protection against ATGM and grenade launchers.
- wedge blade for clearing barricades
- electromagnetic trawl
- intelligence tools, including determination of enemy positions by sound, flash of a shot, radar direction finding of bullets and shells by means of active defense.
It is better to place the drone on a separate command and control vehicle and ensure the transfer of data from it to the self-propelled guns of the assault tank.
In general, it turns out to be very expensive, but assault tanks should not participate in combined arms combat, this is a means for clearing settlements. They need to have a little in the assault engineering units. All TOS and units of flamethrowers can be transferred there;

[garri-lin]

He turned up !!!! Although I agree 99 percent.

[brn521]

Quote: Krasnodar

The main danger for tanks on the battlefield are well-disguised anti-tank systems. What will help in this case, the tank support machine is not clear.

In time, discover the very fact of the launch and destroy the launcher and / or calculation before the ATGM can hit the target. Actually for this, we need a 30 mm gun as part of the armament.
But first of all, an automatic target detection and guidance system is needed. Actually, such a system is the most important component of any promising "tank escort vehicle". To be able to detect, track and destroy suspicious objects in the maximum amount and in the minimum time as quickly as possible and without the participation of the crew.

[Cympak]

First of all, we need an automated control system, which would allow us to mark identified targets and suspicious objects on the map, and ensure the target distribution between combat vehicles for their destruction.

[brn521]

Quote: Cympak

First of all, we need an automated control system, which would allow us to mark identified targets and suspicious objects on the map, and ensure the target distribution between combat vehicles for their destruction.

There are no problems in the allocation. The difficulty is just to identify and hit the target in time. Especially on the go.

[the47th]

In addition to the "city tank" described in the article, you can make a variant similar to the M60A2, with a 150-155 mm gun-launcher and maximum protection. Alternatively, equip the tank with a dump like the M728. In Syria, Carnations are used for this, with bulletproof armor, which does not contribute to their survival.

[Cympak]

First of all, the city needs an assault engineering tank, like the M-728, you just need bigger VL angles and add a DBM with an automatic gun, for example, a double-barreled GS-23. But for a really high-quality leap, we also need an ACS coupled with assault groups for mutual target designation and interaction.
Well, at the stern of an assault engineering tank, it would not hurt to place armored boxes with ammunition and heavy weapons (mines, flamethrowers, AGS ...) to provide assault groups.

[the47th]

In my opinion, you described the Vindicator from Warhammer 40k.

[Cympak]

Closer to these real cars:
English Centurion AVRE-

American M728 CEV (combat engineer vehicle)

BMPT-80UD project

[Metlik]

How to arm bmpt? First you need to think about how to protect bmpt. If this machine is opposed to birds, it should go far ahead of the tanks. And take on a dozen rockets, artillery shelling, drones attack and bombing. And it will not matter how many and which guns we put in there - they will not help her.
Significantly increase survivability can be additional armor, active protection, duplication of systems. That is - you will have to increase weight, abandon the crew (why should he climb into this meat grinder?), And develop a car from scratch, and not remodel armature or t90. And you also need minidrons with a radius of 100-200 meters.

[Izotovp]

The modern 57-mm cannon with a shell with the possibility of remote detonation, mounted on the BMPT, will be able to solve the vast majority of the problem. Plus birds and bumblebees in launch containers.

[Kolin]

It’s best to equip a 125 mm cannon because the tank is the best BMPT.

[garri-lin]

The tank does not have enough destruction channels on very rough terrain. The essence of BMPTiP (BMOP) in the speed of response to the threat and multichannel. Ideally three channels, completely independent from each other.
57mm in a swinging, stabilized tower, on top of the Epoch, and the DUM with 12,7 from the commander. And there are many many guided missiles in vertical launchers. And ptur and pzrka based on ptur and thermobar against bunkers and cassette. A lot of everything.

[chenia]

Quote: garri-lin

Ideally three channels, completely independent from each other.

It should be so. In the main tower, the commander, operator. and two turrets with a 7,62 machine gun with an AG-40 (moreover, the fighter is not under them, but nearby and remotely (mechanical communication) controls)
.
Base object 787, in the center 57 mm, paired on both sides 14,5 and 7,62.
Separate machine gun 7,62 target designation for tanks (red tracer) from the commander.
Total - 5 (with a mechanical drive) crew man.
And organizationally, the platoon in TR is probably better.
Then you can give your own among your own.

[garri-lin]

Additional weapons (defensive) are better than 12,7 plus large-caliber anti-tank guns of 40 mm or 57 mm. And the regularly jumping grenade with the ready-made striking ones to increase the area of ​​defeat.

[chenia]

Quote: garri-lin

Additional weapons (defensive) are better than 12,7 plus large-caliber anti-tank guns of 40 mm or 57 mm.

12,7 mm -control shot for an armed man. becomes too diverse.
AG-40 to the main tower?
It is better to have in the BC 57 mm along with the RP and armor-piercing high ballistics, composite (3 shells, telescopic) fragmentation low ballistics. Moreover, the first shell of a remote blast the rest of the drums. Three in one like an automaton.

Well, and ATGMs in the fighting compartment, on guides if necessary (to cover tanks this is not a priority weapon).

[garri-lin]

I will describe how I see. Swinging stabilized turret with 57mm assault rifle + 7,62 twin. Above is the "Epoch" with a 57 mm grenade launcher and a 12,7 mm machine gun. DUM with 12,7 synchronized with the commander's sight. Where the sight looks there and the DUM can shoot right away (it will be useful to drive away grenade launchers). In the corps corps in vertical TPKs there is a wide range of missiles and reconnaissance UAVs.
As a result, the main armament channel is 1 piece. The channel is self-sewn 2 pieces. A channel of precision weapons for important purposes. 1 piece. Possibility of shelling shelters and reverse slopes of terrain folds from AGS57. The main gun 57 mm wide assortment of ammunition. BOPS, PF, programmable detonation. Programmable detonation with directional fragmentation, this is optional for firing at UAVs and turntables.

[chenia]

Quote: garri-lin

Swinging stabilized tower with a 57mm machine gun + 7,62 twin.

Stable, well, of course. 57mm machine gun? Too much space will take. Better mechanism of accelerated loading. And taking into account the telescopic projectile of low ballistics, the machine will not work.

Quote: garri-lin

In the case of casing in vertical TPK, a large assortment of missiles and UAVs reconnaissance.

BMPT, what is required to fight for the entire regiment?
Yes, in the enemy’s GPs, an entire division beats at a rate of two carriages of shells. And for some other purposes, a group of divisions. And a bunch of other fire weapons. (3 enemy tanks to platoon the enemy, 1 BMPT + 12 BMP (MCP).
Yes, the task of the unit is to take the first position, then at rest or at the pick-up (if it remains intact, ensure the fulfillment of the immediate task of a higher formation).

[garri-lin]

57 mm machine gun is a "Baikal" cheap, convenient, cheerful. The weapon's potential is enormous. And telescopic ammunition is evil. A popularized product with a minimum of merits. This realization is just beginning.
4 ATURA vertical launch with the ability to launch two simultaneously on one target. 4 SD with radio command guidance or just in general via fiber optic with thermal bars for long-term structures. 2 ATGM-based anti-aircraft missiles with the ability to launch from air defense vehicles attached to the unit. 5 UAV scout. The total of 15 TPKs the size of a "cornet" is not a lot but not a little.

[chenia]

In the USSR, BMPT was necessary to narrow the gap between dismounted infantry and tanks. This gap (200 m) is formed due to different boundaries of safe disposal.
Here, many throats are tearing about strengthening the BMPT weapons,
What for?
All this is. The tank is in attack, which means that aviation (distant approaches) and artillery are also working in depth and ahead up to 200 m (and the fire is constantly being transferred).
Part of the artillery (self-propelled) for 500-800 m from the battle line of tanks, can directly hit most fire weapons with the appropriate caliber and projectile power.

BMPT work is mainly against trench "rascals"(grenade launchers, portable ATGM, etc.), what the dismounted infantry should do (but it is torn off from the tanks by more than 200 m, the line of safe distance is 400 m).
BMPT goes in the battle line of tanks (well, up to 50 m behind) and is part of the tank unit (this is not infantry).

So here we have to think about how and how to arm the BMPT (including certain battle conditions in the mountains, city, etc.)

[garri-lin]

Not included in the composition of the unit and attached in case of need. In conflicts of low intensity, infantry may also be given reinforcements.

[chenia]

Quote: garri-lin

Subdivision not included

For 2-3 tanks one BMPT.
BMPT on the basis of the tank. (Technical service TB) and combat training in the battalion is preferred.
Make a separate unit in TB? Can.
But it will be more coherent in the composition of the tank platoon.
Although options are possible. Separate platoon in a tank company, or a company as part of the TB (already indicated).

[garri-lin]

If it is part of a unit, then the staff must be changed. Either increase the total number of vehicles or replace part of the tanks, thereby reducing their number. Such a technique will not always be needed. It is wiser to give in the form of reinforcement, and the issue of coherence is purely organizational. Teaching to help.

[chenia]

Quote: garri-lin

If it is part of a unit, then the state must be changed

It should!
In SMEs, there are 3 tank platoons in a tank company (3 tanks each - 4) and a BMPT-3 platoon.
Separate regiment company an orphan.
All separate companies (combat and combat and rear support) have a cover - the beginning of the army or the regiment's chief service.
And to whom to stick a company BMPT?
And techies, but the organization of BP?
Not. the tank battalion is their hometown.

[garri-lin]

It is necessary to think over.

[Cympak]

A good justification for the need for BMPT for combined arms combat!

[gallville]

How to arm tank support vehicle

Crew:
- mechanical drive;
- commander;
- the gunner.
Classic lineup:
- tower;
- tank chassis.
Crew Location:
- mechanical drive in the housing;
- gunner in the tower’s sphere;
- commander behind the gunner in the upper sphere.
(the last two are located as in a helicopter).
Such placement will allow to maximize the commander’s observation devices to identify targets.
Armament:
- 2 * 30mm guns separated from the fighting compartment;
- 4 ptur next to the guns;
- 12,7 dub 4-barrel machine gun as in a helicopter complete with ags at the disposal of the commander;

[garri-lin]

Again, one channel of defeat. And you need at least three plus missiles.

[gallville]

Channels of defeat 3.
1. Spark 30mm.
2. Dubm ags + 12,7 while the spark works on areas with a continuous flurry, the commander catches a single target.
3. Ptur fired - forgot. First of all, petur with a temobaric charge.

[garri-lin]

1. 57 mm (Baikal) is better.
2. The commander should not catch anyone, his task is to observe and lead. So the operator of the second weapon module is needed (I call it defensive). These are also extra eyes.
3. At the disposal of the commander should be another DUM just 12,7 mm without a border. But with a very short reaction time and a smart sight. (The commander inspects the terrain, sees a threat, for example, an aiming grenade launcher, directs the mark of the sight and presses fire. With a reaction in a couple of seconds, the DUM starts firing at the marked place, scaring off the enemy and knocking down the aiming. At the same time, target data is transmitted to the defensive module which will destroy the target and refine the presence of other targets in this sector. The commander at this time continues to review the battlefield without participating in shelling the target.)
ATGM it is high time to rename the guided missile of the battlefield into the USRS. Shot forgot against sedentary infantry and firing points expensive. Primitive control by cable or radio command is enough. Cheaper and more reliable. But against moving targets (tank, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles, assault on the chassis) it is desirable to have such a missile.

[Cympak]

Very large base (distance between) of the guns. It will be difficult to get, you need mixing.

[garri-lin]

Realizio is easy. Only pointless. An adder is a tank with weakened weapons and a full-time crew.

[gallville]

The BMPT itself is a tank with weakened weapons. Just because an instrument of high ballistics with such a caliber will not be able to have either the pace or angles of reference. Yes, and it is redundant for some purposes.

[gallville]

Well here is a purely example in the photo. Of course you need a little more efficient. If you hide the guns behind the armor, and the crew separate the armor, the defense from the sides of the tower will increase dramatically. Even with the defeat of one side, the second will remain workable.

[Cympak]

Soviet prototypes BMPT
"Object 781" from ChTZ with 2 independent 30-mm cannons, ATGM, AGS and several machine guns

"Object 782" from ChTZ with weapons similar to BMP-3 + AGS and 5 machine guns

read here: https://defence.ru/editors-choice/uvz-vosstanovit-pervuyu-sovetskuyu-boevuyu-mashinu-podderzhki-tankov/
American concepts:

Read here: https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1001633.html

[IL-18]

Something from the article came out that it’s easier and more efficient to return the T-55 to service, put the right MSA, DBM on the turret with a pair of machine guns of 7,62 and 12,7 (14,) mm, dynamic protection (taking into account infantry support, it’s possible without it), smoke grenade launchers, you can AGS. And move behind the MBT. Work out tactics, interaction and control from a single node with target designation. Container with ATGM? I don’t know how he will reach the point of application as a whole, better from the trunk.

[kplayer]

How to arm a combat vehicle tank support

Yes, with the same full-time motorized infantry units on the BMP-2 (2A42, AGS, PKTM, PTRK) armed with what the current BMPT is actually armed with, only the significant difference is that the cannon-gun is stabilized in two guidance planes. Yes, and only all of this will be in the same combat order with tanks, and not at a distance from them (due to the greater protection of the BMPT in front of the BMP, and, by the way, less common human capacity).
With the upgrade of the staff in the MSB, it is worth revising the weapons complex of the machine.

[Michael HORNET]

We see it like this
https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/117/2357433.html
Land_Air carrier "instead of BMPT.

1. The disadvantages of BMPT, its tactical limitations.
2. Requirements for CA and its composition.
3. Requirements for the SA wing and its armament.
4. Fighting vehicles, basic for SA. The crew of the SA, the functions of the military.
5. Simplified algorithm of combat work and maintenance of SA.

BMPT "Terminator" is based on the MBT chassis, operates in battle formations of tanks.
1.1. Hence its vulnerability, comparable to the vulnerability of MBT in the battle space.
1.2. The BMPT crew (4-5 people, of which 2-3 "arrows") - controls / fires, simplified, 2-3 targets / sectors.
1.3. The view from which the BMPT shooters are observing / shooting is (simplified) similar to the view from which the tankers supported by it are also observing.
1.4. The trajectories of any BMPT shells - (simplified) are similar to the trajectories of weapons supported by MBT, when operating in cramped conditions (forest, development).
1.5. BMPT is more expensive than MBT - both in humans and in iron.

2. Land carrier (hereinafter SA).
2.1. CA must be DISTRIBUTED - instead of compartments / decks / services, separate machines:
- KM = command vehicle
- MU = aircraft wing control machine (one or more)
- TZPM = transport-loading-launch vehicles, "hives" (two or more)
- MO = support machines
2.2. CA must be ROBOTIZED:
- not_ contain / not_ carry inhabited aircraft.
- the winged drones independently launch from the TZPM, get to the combat zone, attack under the control of the Pilots, then independently go to their launch point with an accuracy of half a meter.
- all TZPM are also unmanned - they independently launch drones on command from the CM, copy the route of the TZPM-"predecessor", pick up on it (from the ground) sat down drones at the launch points previously transmitted by the "predecessor", diagnose / discard damaged ones, charge their batteries, arm , launch the drones on command from the CM, transmit the launch coordinates to the "follower".

2.3. CA must be TACTICAL:
- the depth of attack of drones SA does not exceed tactical (10-30km)
Otherwise, a significant increase in the dimensions / cost of drones.

2.4. A CA must be HIDDEN: its vehicles must not stand out from other second-tier combat vehicles.
The layout in the form of an armored train is also possible - it will provide a more massive attack, but it will worsen stealth and tactical flexibility.
3.1. Aircraft SA consists of absolutely identical drones.
3.2. Each drone = quadrocopter vertical takeoff / launch and landing.
3.3. Like the BEES, each drone is designed for one "bite".
3.4. However, the drone is NOT a one-time one - it returns to its place of launch after an attack on its own, while maintaining its orientation as at_start.
3.5. Dimensions: 0,7x0,7x0,1 meters (chassis unarmed) - must allow passage between trees, into window / doorways, breaks in the building.
3.6. The cost of the "chassis" does not exceed 2-5 tons. (equal in value to the adjustable artillery shell); chassis are available for mass production.
3.7. Chassis stacked in a cassette / magazine TZPM without additional devices, have an automated connector for charging batteries from TZPM, and diagnostics.
3.8. The drone is armed with one or two aviation NURSs of cumulative fragmentation action, on an external sling; NURSs themselves are simpler / cheaper than aviation ones, because firing distance is almost "pistol", in line of sight of the sight. Instead of fuel, it is better to add a b.part.
3.9. Automatic grip for NURS / pair_NURSov (or guides_with_fixation?) On the "belly" of the chassis, with vertical guidance and launch at the command of the Pilot.
3.10. An armed drone (which has not used up its NURS / NURSs) cannot automatically / unmanned land (for the safety of separate storage of the chassis and ammunition). A pilot can land it remotely (e.g. for an ambush).
3.11. Surveillance Devices:
- panoramic / panoramic camera on the front-lower quarter of the sphere,
- a thermal imaging sight, synchronized vertically with the NURS suspension, while horizontal aiming is carried out by turning the entire chassis. (trimming the entire chassis is dangerous, but you can twist it)
- acoustic / laser raster "air_sounder" on the front (horizontal) semicircle to avoid collisions.
- A simple altimeter for landing and movement along the terrain.
- upper sensor of the presence / orientation of the bottom opening of the TZPM above the lying drone, for "parking_take off".
(the last three devices DO NOT have access to the Pilot, they are needed for automated movements).
4. Platforms for the entire composition of the CA are unified on the basis of existing armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles. The use of obsolete machines is acceptable. Everything "dangerous" (NURS, lithium_battery) = in unmanned vehicles, or in the 3rd echelon.
4.1. Functions of the team machine (KM):
- general battle management, communication with a superior unit
- liaison with supported units
- communication with the machine / aircraft wing control machines
- management of the TZPM, currently carrying out launches of drones
- Commander_CA, Driver, Signalman, Operator / s, + all necessary communication equipment.
- there is no own armament, either lightweight models, or an anti-aircraft machine gun for self-defense.
- a compact personal weapon (PP-90?) in the cartridge at the back door.
4.2. Air wing control machine (MU):
- Signalman, Driver, 6-9 Pilot workplaces (instead of motorized riflemen) with their equipment (monitor + motion_handle + fire_handle)
- it is possible that the workplace of the ZakKOMSA or the Operator (free) will increase the combat stability of the SA control.
- an antenna farm providing remote control of 6-9 drones currently operating in the combat zone.
- there is no own armament, either lightweight models, or an anti-aircraft machine gun for self-defense.
- a compact personal weapon (PP-90?) in the cartridge at the back door.
4.3. TZPM is performed on the same chassis, but:
- uninhabited!
- has a sunroof / opening in the bottom for picking / parking landing drones.
- has an automated rack / magazine / cassette FIFO (first in, first out) in the reserved volume for storing the chassis of drones, in the amount of 12-18 pcs.
- diagnoses the drone chassis during storage / transportation, charges their batteries = automated connectors by the number of storage units.
- the rejected landing gear is dropped through the lower hatch "into the street".
- has a cassette with NURSs and their automated feeding to the armament post of the drone. Ammunition NURS = 2-3 sorties with a full set of drones.
- equips the drone with a NURS (pair of NURS?) in automatic mode.
- Launching a pack of charged and armed drones on command from KM (upper_lyuk? catapult?)
- independently and exactly repeats the trajectory of the TZPM predecessor for the selection of landing drones.
- on a command from KM independently leaves for the Third Echelon, finds support vehicles for picking / repair / replenishment of the ammunition kit (by the repair team).
- own weapons are absent, or lightweight models.
4.4. Support Machines (MO). Identical to vehicles of the THIRD echelon of host units.
- carry equipped drone cartridges, equipped NURS cartridges.
- carry repair kits for drones and SA vehicles, and repair teams of specialists.
- carry fuel for all CA vehicles.
- have handling equipment for reloading cassettes.
5.CA moves in the SECOND echelon of the supported unit, along with its infantry on the BMP / BTR.
In the THIRD echelon, only CA support vehicles move.
5.1. Upon reaching launch line (2-5km behind the tanks), the commander orders the start of the equipped drones.
5.2. Operators (remotely) set the primary drone trajectory and the line of attack, remotely launch a swarm from the nearest (or several) moving TZPM, in the amount corresponding to the Pilot staff + planned_losses.
5.3. When drones automatically exit to attack line - Pilots take control of them and fight in the interests of the supported unit (tanks, infantry). At the same time, Pilots can disperse, concentrate, and perform roundabout / flank / rear maneuvers in azimuth and altitude.
!! HERE is superior to BMPTs operating in tank orders: a drone / swarm can attack enemy anti-tank forces from ANY direction.

5.4. The pilot of the drone that fired his shot (used up the ammunition set ??), or was shot down by the enemy - forgets about him, shouts "Free Cash!" takes control of the next vehicle from the attack_line (in the air).
5.5. In this case, the chassis of the drone that fired its shot (used up ammunition ??) automatically (straight to the point? The reverse GLONASS track?) Flies to the place of its launch, where it lands in the same orientation.
5.6. TZPM, which has used up its set of drones, receives from the Operators the exact trajectory of the TZPM predecessor, repeats it in detail (already autonomously), collecting the shrunken chassis of the drones. The rejected chassis is laid on the ground through the receiving hatch and transmits the coordinates to the supply machine. Charges, arms them on the go, and starts them again at the Operator's need / command.
5.7. TZPM, which has used up the NURS ammunition or (up to the "irreducible_residue") fuel - independently moves to the third echelon and finds (out of the_ ready_ to_work) a support vehicle, where RemGroup changes the drone and NURS cassettes, refueling the TZPM - after which the TZPM goes under the control of the Operator) start_fire.
5.8. At the end of the battle, RemGroup collects downed / rejected drones according to the received coordinates (downed = from Pilot, rejected = from ТЗПМ) for their repair / cannibalization.

[DimerVladimer]

Russian engineers for a long time came to the conclusion that it was necessary to use two automatic guns at once. A pair of 2А42 X-guns caliber 30 mm provides a significant increase in firepower, while maintaining a reasonable size of the ammunition. In addition, the installation with a pair of guns is characterized by increased survivability: damage to one gun allows you to continue shooting.

Typically, one gun is loaded with armor-piercing PSUs to combat armored vehicles and protected targets, and the second is loaded with HE shells to combat unprotected targets.
Of course, it is possible to change the type of ammunition to combat contact.

Later modifications of the Russian BMPT were left without grenade launchers. Accordingly, they lost a couple of target channels and related opportunities.

Very low combat capabilities as abolished control channels and very weak grenade launchers.

[kplayer]

https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/117/2357433.html

That would be without futurism! And ... all sorts of armored (!) Drone carriers, I hope that these very armored vehicles are supposed from dreamers at least without EDZ and KAZ.

BMPT - this is a combat vehicle tank supportIe not an alternative to tanks, and the replacement is more vulnerable and even farther away from perfection, the existing BMP, and even bearing h. there is a motorized rifle compartment on its board, which BMP loses and risks with itself. And BMPT will not be used in the ratio 1: 1, but rather 1: 3, i.e. one per tank platoon (possibly a support company of 9 BMPTs in TB). In short, in addition to supporting tanks, the priority is to save the lives of motorized rifles (albeit without joint actions) and reduce the risk of losing less protected infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. Those. the car should replace motorized infantry precisely on flat terrain, and the freed motorized rifle units can be sent to perform other tasks, such as the mass in the course of conducting a DB: conducting combat in urban conditions, in wooded and mountainous-wooded areas, participating in airborne landings, guarding and defense of the rear area of ​​troops from enemy landing and sabotage groups, etc.

[Bodipancher]

The Israelis have been at war for 50 years and the concept of such machines has been perfected to perfection. We need a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, if you load infantry there, this is an infantry fighting vehicle, instead of infantry, an increased ammunition is a fire support vehicle. Radar and additional optics of short-range air defense. T-15 or Kurganets seems to be an ideal platform for the development of such a direction. Of the more affordable cars, the BMP-3 performed by Dragoons comes to mind. Of course, an automatic grenade launcher or mortar is vital. Against the infantry without them in any way. And in itself, the Terminator seems to be a dead end branch of evolution.

[shahor]

I think that the domestic defense industry urgently needs to think about creating a combat support vehicle for a tank support combat vehicle!

[czes]

Quote: whowhy

Since the batteries cannot be pulled, the drone is connected to the BMPT with a thin cable

Well, finally, an ally! Maybe the designers will pay attention to such an obvious solution ... on ships too!

[czes]

Quote: abc_alex

But the ATGM should be retracted into the vehicle's body, as was done on the Chrysanthemum, and launched vertically, like the Tor air defense missile systems.

Thank you, comrade, unloaded my brain. When will responsible comrades get drunk before this obvious decision? When will we see this in the gland? Bet the Chinese will be the first! Or maybe it’s better not to express valuable ideas here for the Chinese?

[octogen]

BMPT should provide information about the attack of the old tanks and, if possible, bring down the calculations of anti-tank systems and UAVs. To do this, you need to have advanced IR / UV viewing tools in 360 degrees on the sides and in the upper hemisphere. As well as mm-range radar with anti-tank recognition by signature. Perhaps an acoustic low-frequency system to catch the noise of helicopters from 7-15 kilometers. The helicopter rotor delivers excellent purpose-specific noise. Moreover, BMPT should be able to warn tanks about SPBE hanging overhead.

To defeat the ATGM and UAV / helicopter calculations, you need to have a 57-mm high-ballistic gun with fragmentation-beam and guided projectiles. A 30 mm pukalka is no good. As well as advanced versions of Cornet, to bring down enemy tanks from more than 5-6 km and, possibly, to bring down helicopters with the same Cornet.

Look at the Jews Trophy provides a turn of the tower towards the launch of ATGM. Tankers can hit the ATGM calculation before their missile arrives. BMPT should be able to do the same.

[Mustached Kok]

I think that you can solve the problem of oversaturation of weapons by switching to a caliber of 40 mm. It will be much easier for the domestic defense industry to create a projectile with controlled remote detonation in such a caliber.
The thing is, 30 mm is a very common caliber in many armies. Our potential opponents have a lot of it especially. But at the same time, due to the spread of 30 mm. automatic guns - more equipment will adapt to you for protection against this caliber. Even in attack helicopters, the most critical nodes are designed for 30 mm (initially it was also common in air defense). As a result, a problem is formed. Tanks, of course, never took this caliber anyway (unless you manage to get close to the rear), but at the same time, armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles will also begin to make their way with difficulty, and there are more of them on the battlefield than tanks.
As a result, it is better to switch to 40 mm. Such a caliber will easily penetrate all armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles for the next 20-30 years. Moreover, some models will now be able to pierce even in the forehead. Tanks are still penetrated, but attachments will be destroyed faster and more effectively than 30mm. The helicopter is generally afraid to enter the line of sight. And in the presence of shells with remote detonation, we can successfully both fight infantry that hides in the folds of the terrain (including in the city), and in theory shoot down some enemy drones and missiles.