Military Review

Who needs a tank support combat vehicle?

160
The concept of a new class of armored vehicles - support combat vehicles tanks (BMPT) has been discussed since the beginning of the 90s, and so far they have not come to a common denominator. In the late 90's, it is not clear for what reasons, two prototype BMPT Terminator prototypes were developed and manufactured, which were presented as a qualitative leap in the development of armored vehicles. For almost twenty years, they were regularly shown at various exhibitions, but were not in demand in the Russian army. They did not find a customer abroad either.




After checking these machines in real combat conditions in 2017, in Syria, the controversy around BMPT flared up with a new force, the emphasis shifted, it turned out that for such machines there is a completely different scope.

When developing the concept of BMPT, everything was turned upside down. First, they developed and manufactured prototypes of the Terminator BMPT, and then began to substantiate the need for such machines and justify the tactics of their use.

As a result, we came to the conclusion that this machine is necessary for fire support of tanks from anti-tank melee weapons at a distance of hundreds of meters, the most dangerous of them are ATGW and RPGs that are difficult to detect from a tank. Then, it is not clear by what logic, they added the fight against light-armored equipment, which tries to keep the tanks as far as possible, since the hitting of a shell of a tank gun or rocket blows the light-armored equipment to shreds. That is, tanks already have an effective means of dealing with lightly armored targets, and BMPT is not really needed for this.

В article Arguments are given about which weapons are most appropriate to use on BMPTs. Of course, you can talk about the armament of this machine, but the main question behind it remains: why do we need BMPTs, what tasks should it solve and what is the tactics of its use.

If for the near-range distance the most tank-dangerous targets are RPG and ATGM calculations, then the BMPT should have better than the tank’s instruments and means for detecting small-sized tank-hazard targets, have effective weapon for their quick destruction and more powerful protection against melee weapons in comparison with a tank.

What of this set is implemented on BMPT? Of the target detection tools, only a set of standard tank sights and observation devices that did not bring anything new to the process of searching and hitting targets.

For the destruction of targets, two small-caliber 30-mm guns and a tank 7,62-mm machine gun are used. The installation of guided missiles also looks frivolous: they are not needed to defeat small targets, this class of weapons is intended to defeat well-armored vehicles at long distances and protected firing points and strong points. Some samples used automatic grenade launchers, then they were removed. The calculations of the anti-tank missile systems and RPGs for the destruction of tanks should see their target and direct a rocket at it, so they cannot be behind obstacles. Installing a grenade launcher, designed to "throw" mines for obstacles, to destroy such targets is really not needed. To reduce the weight and the amount of the booked space at the BMPT, the tank gun was removed, which weakened its firepower.

That is, the BMPT firepower is significantly lower than the tank. The advantage is only in the use of two 30-mm guns. The tank is even better equipped with small arms, it has two machine guns. One of them is large and with a significantly higher elevation angle. The controlled weaponry tank many times exceeds the BMPT, it does not have four missiles in the strike, the entire ammunition load can contain 22 guided missiles in the automatic loader.

As a result, in fire power, BMPT is significantly inferior to a tank in artillery armament (no tank gun), in small arms, guided armament and surpasses only in small-caliber artillery armament. In principle, the installation work on the tank 23-mm and 30-mm guns have already been carried out, and this task can be solved without any problems on the tank, for this purpose it is not necessary to develop BMPT.

The task of providing BMPT with more powerful protection compared to a tank is also not solved, since the hull of the T-72 tank was taken as the base of the BMPT. Her defense is somewhat enhanced, but there is nothing fundamentally new.

According to the complex of tasks facing the BMPT, it can be concluded that the task of finding and detecting targets of BMPT is solved at the tank level and does not exceed it, the BMPT is significantly inferior to the tank in providing firepower, the advantage only in small-caliber artillery tank.

It should also be noted that the tactics of using BMPT on the battlefield, on the basis of their equipment and tasks, have not been worked out at all. In which tactical level of tank forces and in whose subordination should they be, in what battle formations should they be (in front of tanks, as part of a tank unit or behind tanks)? ..

All these problems, apparently, and determined the thorny path of moving this machine to the troops. The use of BMPT for fire support of tanks in the form in which it was created, does little. If such a task stands, then it should be solved with a different approach to equipping and using armored vehicles.

The use of this machine in a real combat situation in Syria showed that this machine is needed, but absolutely for other tasks. It turned out that it is necessary as an infantry fire support machine in confrontation with the enemy, unable to massively use armored vehicles, and in urban areas. In such battles, the main targets are enemy infantry with small arms, MANPADS and RPG operators, light armored vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers, and firing points at short distances.

To solve such problems, the machine must be equipped with small-arms and small-caliber artillery weapons to suppress infantry and lightly armored targets, light grenade launchers to hit targets behind obstacles, and rocket weapons to pinpoint artillery and rocket launchers and strong points.

Different types of weapons must be untied from each other vertically and horizon and be able to conduct simultaneous fire in different directions, since the machine can be suddenly attacked from any direction. Rifle armament must have elevation angles of at least 75 degrees (45 degrees are few) for firing at the upper floors of buildings, as was the case when the “Cliff” anti-aircraft machine gun was installed on the tank.

The machine needs "eyes" for reconnaissance of the terrain and identifying targets, and for this the UAV is most acceptable, driven by an individual crew member. The machine must have a powerful comprehensive protection against the most likely means of destruction (RPG and ATGW), especially from attacks from above. To solve the tasks assigned to the vehicle, the crew must be at least four people.

From the point of view of tactics of using an infantry fire support vehicle, it should be in the combat formations of the tactical level, the company - the battalion, subordinate to the commanders of this level.

The expediency of creating such a machine is obvious, the Syrian events only confirmed this. Such a machine is necessary for use in local conflicts of low intensity and police operations, which are now the majority.

Apparently, BMPT can also find its place in the army structures. Before starting the development of such a machine, it is necessary, taking into account the experience gained in creating the Terminator BMPT and its testing in combat conditions in Syria, to determine the tasks facing it, the tactics of its use, the requirements for the weapons complex and the defense system, and only then decide on creating such armored vehicles.
Author:
Photos used:
http://falconbbs.com
160 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 30 November 2018 05: 46
    +5
    Until these machines go through the "baptism of fire" not as a single experimental machine, but as part of subdivisions and units, the disputes will continue.
    First developed and manufactured prototypes BMPT "Terminator", and then began to justify the need for such machines and justify the tactics of their use.
    So with the tank there was the same story, at first they created, and then they began to think about why
    1. kenig1
      kenig1 30 November 2018 06: 32
      +12
      So with the tank there was the same story, at first they created, and then they began to think about why Are you serious?
      1. Aleks2048
        Aleks2048 30 November 2018 08: 23
        0
        How serious!
      2. svp67
        svp67 30 November 2018 09: 29
        +2
        Quote: kenig1
        Are you serious?

        And what is wrong. At first they created, and then for a very long time they tried to understand all its possibilities, and most importantly how to turn them to their advantage, and the enemy to fear
        1. parma
          parma 30 November 2018 09: 49
          +12
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: kenig1
          Are you serious?

          And what is wrong. At first they created, and then for a very long time they tried to understand all its possibilities, and most importantly how to turn them to their advantage, and the enemy to fear

          The shaving tanks were created right away to break through the trenches, like ground battleships, let’s say ... Just then it turned out that they had many tasks ....
          1. svp67
            svp67 30 November 2018 09: 57
            +1
            Quote: parma
            Britons immediately created tanks to break through the trenches

            Breakthrough trenches ????? Are you serious? And managed to break the trenches? That's cool
            Quote: parma
            like land battleships

            So BMPT was created with a specific task. But it seems that even those who created it did not fully understand what they created
            1. the most important
              the most important 30 November 2018 16: 52
              +4
              Quote: svp67
              So BMPT was created with a specific task. But it seems that even those who created it did not fully understand what they created

              To you +. BMPT in its modern design is a rather strange creation ... Two guns of 30 mm, then why? In how many seconds will they use up their ammunition? It’s the same as supporting a huge dump truck with a hand truck. It’s right that they don’t take her into the troops. But fire support for the infantry is a completely different matter! A set of weapons for new tasks also needs to be reviewed. I would choose a 57 mm cannon, a heavy machine gun, a course machine gun, a new 40 mm grenade launcher and 4 guided missiles. A set of weapons for almost all possible targets on the battlefield. And in addition, he also unified this weapon with BMP.
              1. svp67
                svp67 30 November 2018 16: 54
                +1
                Quote: the most important
                Two guns of 30 mm, why?

                Well, for example, something flying "hard to land"
                1. the most important
                  the most important 30 November 2018 16: 55
                  -1
                  Quote: svp67
                  Two guns of 30 mm, why?

                  Well, for example, something flying "hard to land"

                  Everything flying and from one gun will land very hard.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 30 November 2018 16: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: the most important
                    Everything flying and from one gun will land very hard.

                    With a probability of 0,6 ... None. Two - full warranty
                    1. the most important
                      the most important 30 November 2018 17: 00
                      +1
                      Quote: svp67
                      Everything flying and from one gun will land very hard.

                      With a probability of 0,6 ... None. Two - full warranty

                      An explosive programmable projectile of 57 mm guarantees at a great distance a hot hug with the ground to everything that flies in the wrong place. fellow
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 30 November 2018 17: 08
                        +1
                        Quote: the most important
                        An explosive programmable projectile of 57 mm guarantees a long hug with the ground over long distances to everything that flies in the wrong place

                        There is such a thing. But two 30 mm radio fuses will be cooler
                      2. the most important
                        the most important 30 November 2018 17: 12
                        +5
                        Quote: svp67
                        An explosive programmable projectile of 57 mm guarantees a long hug with the ground over long distances to everything that flies in the wrong place

                        There is such a thing. But two 30 mm radio fuses will be cooler

                        Our dispute will be solved only by a duel !!! (Now it’s fashionable). I have 57 mm, and you only have 2 30 mm each! wassat Therefore, I suggest you give up immediately. because today is Friday and skip a beer after the bath for my victory! drinks good
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 30 November 2018 17: 14
                        +4
                        Quote: the most important
                        Therefore, I suggest you give up immediately. because today is Friday and skip a beer after the bath for my victory!

                        Yes, no problem, especially since while you were talking to you an ATGM has already arrived ... There is no time for "gentlemanhood" in war
                      4. the most important
                        the most important 30 November 2018 17: 19
                        +2
                        Well, I don’t know where your ATGM flies ... But two cutlets arrived very accurately on a plate !!!
                      5. Grits
                        Grits 1 December 2018 04: 25
                        +1
                        Our dispute will be solved only by a duel !!! (Now it’s fashionable). I have 57 mm, and you only have 2 30 mm each!
                        I suggest choosing a compromise so that you do not shoot after arguing with each other after a beer. Namely - 1 gun 57 mm, 1 gun 23 mm. automatic grenade launcher (two possible) and 1 machine gun 7 mm.
                      6. the most important
                        the most important 1 December 2018 18: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Gritsa

                        Our dispute will be solved only by a duel !!! (Now it’s fashionable). I have 57 mm, and you only have 2 30 mm each!
                        I suggest choosing a compromise so that you do not shoot after arguing with each other after a beer. Namely - 1 gun 57 mm, 1 gun 23 mm. automatic grenade launcher (two possible) and 1 machine gun 7 mm.

                        Great choice!!! But you forgot about ATGMs. And about cold beer after a hot fight !!
                    2. Bad thing
                      Bad thing 30 November 2018 23: 24
                      0
                      Quote: svp67
                      With a probability of 0,6 ... None. Two - full warranty

                      The "Tunguska" with all its pribluds has a 0.35-0.4 cannon channel, but here "naked" tank optics have such efficiency, you should not fantasize.
                2. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 30 November 2018 18: 09
                  +2
                  Quote: svp67
                  Well, for example, something flying "hard to land"

                  This requires detection means, a sight + SUAO. Otherwise it will be a pointless waste of projectiles. The defeat of air targets is not such an easy task ... otherwise all sorts of "Tunguska" and "shells" would not be needed - an ordinary BMP-2 would be enough. smile
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 30 November 2018 18: 32
                    +1
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    To do this, you need detection tools, sight + SUAO.

                    But this is already happening, phased arrays of radars appear on tanks, they are connected to a single combat information network, all this already makes it possible to resolve issues of timely detection and destruction of flying objects
                    otherwise all sorts of "Tunguska" and "shells" would not be needed - the usual BMP-2 would be enough
                    Each has its own job, the "shells" will not follow the tanks at a distance of 100 meters, and all of them, including the "Tunguska" with BMP-2, are too "thin-skinned"
              2. kplayer
                kplayer 30 November 2018 20: 39
                +2
                Quote: the most important
                А in addition also unified this weapon with BMP.

                They usually start with unification, without any exclusivity. The standard range of ammunition for the logistics of combined arms and units is very useful (not to mention repair and maintenance), so there is not a 57 mm gun yet, but a 2x30 mm 2A42, as with the MSB base - BMP-2, the same about 30- mm AG / AGS.
            2. Doliva63
              Doliva63 2 December 2018 17: 17
              +2
              Quote: svp67
              Quote: parma
              Britons immediately created tanks to break through the trenches

              Breakthrough trenches ????? Are you serious? And managed to break the trenches? That's cool
              Quote: parma
              like land battleships

              So BMPT was created with a specific task. But it seems that even those who created it did not fully understand what they created

              BMPTs were created for one purpose - to make money at least when the order for tanks fell below the baseboard. It’s not even worth arguing - her designer told me at an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil when they first showed them. We argued with him whether it will go into series or not, almost 20 years have passed, but so far the reality is on my side.
              As for the article, this is also bad luck - the infantry squad has a BMP, which has a cannon, missiles, and a machine gun and is designed specifically to cover its infantry, including in urban environments. That is, in fact, this BMPT is a worthless toy.
              1. svp67
                svp67 2 December 2018 17: 29
                +3
                Quote: Doliva63
                BMPTs were created for one purpose - to make money at least when the order for tanks fell below the baseboard.

                How easy it is for you. I do not deny that they moved it in order to earn money, but I must say right away that such projects do not appear in an instant, especially since a crisis in tank building has long been outlined. So I’m sure that the concept itself has been considered for a long time, the time has come - presented.
                Quote: Doliva63
                As for the article, this is also bad luck - the infantry squad has a BMP, which has a cannon, missiles, and a machine gun and is designed specifically to cover its infantry, including in urban environments. That is, in fact, this BMPT is a worthless toy.

                You do not confuse the light-armored infantry fighting vehicle, which penetrates the roof with the PKT machine gun and the heavy-armored BMP. There is work for everyone on the battlefield
                1. Doliva63
                  Doliva63 3 December 2018 18: 29
                  0
                  Quote: svp67
                  Quote: Doliva63
                  BMPTs were created for one purpose - to make money at least when the order for tanks fell below the baseboard.

                  How easy it is for you. I do not deny that they moved it in order to earn money, but I must say right away that such projects do not appear in an instant, especially since a crisis in tank building has long been outlined. So I’m sure that the concept itself has been considered for a long time, the time has come - presented.
                  Quote: Doliva63
                  As for the article, this is also bad luck - the infantry squad has a BMP, which has a cannon, missiles, and a machine gun and is designed specifically to cover its infantry, including in urban environments. That is, in fact, this BMPT is a worthless toy.

                  You do not confuse the light-armored infantry fighting vehicle, which penetrates the roof with the PKT machine gun and the heavy-armored BMP. There is work for everyone on the battlefield

                  Replacing a BMP with a heavy BMP removes all questions, doesn't it? Well, there is no BMPT place in battle formations while it is as it is.
          2. Sergey-8848
            Sergey-8848 30 November 2018 17: 47
            -1
            Tearing the wire is already a success. Shoot left and right at the same time. And from this "tank" -reservoir in the process of development, tank troops grew.
      3. Per se.
        Per se. 30 November 2018 10: 13
        +12
        Quote: kenig1
        first created, and then began to think, for what
        The tank forced to create a "positional dead end", when neither the infantry nor the artillery could solve the problem of overcoming defense in depth, barbed wire, trenches, machine-gun fire. This is how the tank appeared, its necessity on the battlefield. You can also recall here that there was a moment when the first British tanks were divided into "males" (artillery) and "females" (machine-gun), already somewhere laying the distant forerunner of the BMPT.
        1. svp67
          svp67 30 November 2018 17: 04
          +5
          Quote: Per se.
          already laying somewhere the distant forerunner of BMPT.
          Well, yes, "trench cleaners", even a little outwardly similar
      4. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 November 2018 16: 33
        +2
        Quote: kenig1
        So with the tank there was the same story, at first they created, and then they began to think about why Are you serious?

        In World War I, they had no idea how to use tanks at first. And this is a fact.
        On September 15, 1916, during the Battle of the Somme of World War I, the British first used a completely new weapon - a tank. Despite the awkwardness and slow-movingness of the “first pancake”, the armored hulkers caused horror in the trenches of the Germans, but the tanks weren’t enough and they could radically help the offensive.

        Having barely begun, already in 1915, the First World War came to a standstill in the positional "meat grinder": the sides stood opposite each other, ** they annihilated each other ** with artillery, and could not advance, since the infantry was mowed by machine guns. The advanced generals quickly realized that armored vehicles could become a “cunning nut” on a machine-gun “bolt”, the first of which (while still horse-drawn) was invented by Leonardo da Vinci. But although in the twentieth century there were already cars with internal combustion engines - their patency on wheels through the trench mud, to put it mildly, left much to be desired.

        Then the British military engineers suggested using a caterpillar instead of a wheeled automobile chassis (tractors with caterpillars were already produced in advanced countries too) and in 1916 they created the first real tank - Mark I.

        Moreover, I note that the British had these tanks "males" and "females" genus, that is, one modification was with guns, and the second only with machine guns ...
        The first tank, the prototype of which, was called differently: "Big Willy", "Wilson's Machine", "Mother" and even "Centipede". In serial production, this tank entered with the designation "Mark-1", or Mk.I. According to the type of weapons installed on the tank, Mk.I began to be divided into “males” and “Females”. The first type (“male”) was a cannon and armed with two 6-pound (57-mm) sea guns with an effective firing range of 1800 m and a rate of fire of 15-20 rounds per minute. The second ("female") carried six Vickers machine guns and had no cannons. And in battle, the cannon “male” had to support the “female”.

        Nothing reminds about male and female, no?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 30 November 2018 18: 17
          +5
          Quote: NEXUS
          In World War I, they had no idea how to use tanks at first. And this is a fact.

          You see what's the matter ... "for what"And"how to use"are different questions.
          Just why they needed a caterpillar tank, the generals understood. But here's how to apply it in such a way as to complete the tasks - this was the problem. Wise owl as usual, he well understood the strategy, but he was plugged with tactics. smile
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 30 November 2018 18: 20
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            "for what" and "how to use" are different questions.

            That's what I’m talking about - the concept of application and tactics are developed not in one day.
            In addition, it was not in vain that I said about the double complementation of the male and female MARKSs. That is, the "female" is essentially the forerunner of the BMPT.
    2. sak1969
      sak1969 30 November 2018 17: 26
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      Until these machines go through the "baptism of fire" not as a single experimental machine, but as part of subdivisions and units, the disputes will continue.

      Maybe a typo. But when I read Afigel.
      Army is preparing for the "Terminators"

      Currently, studies are underway to justify, as well as the development of tactical and technical requirements for the “Terminators” until 2030. The Ministry of Defense reported that the design of the conceptual appearance of the samples is being developed for the period after 2030. By the way, this year 3 thousand tank support combat vehicles have already been commissioned.

      https://warfiles.ru/191805-k-koncu-goda-rossiyu-vooruzhat-terminatorami.html
      1. dirk182
        dirk182 4 December 2018 10: 24
        0
        I read the article. I don’t understand, where did they get the figure of 3000? Does this figure apply to BMPT?
    3. alexmach
      alexmach 30 November 2018 21: 01
      +1
      So with the tank there was the same story, at first they created, and then they began to think about why

      Not the same story at all. In World War I, when they realized that it was impossible to crush the prepared defense in depth by infantry and artillery.
  2. Graz
    Graz 30 November 2018 06: 14
    0
    like Algeria bought 300 pcs BMPT and Kazakhstan how much
    1. Corn
      Corn 30 November 2018 06: 47
      0
      Kazakhstan has long bought a dozen for parades, so they ride in parades. Of course, there is no question of any combat readiness. The contract with Algeria, it’s also a pitchfork, they don’t have conventional tanks, the purchases by this country of the expensive BMPT are skeptical.
      1. URAL72
        URAL72 30 November 2018 12: 24
        +6
        Does Algeria have no tanks? The third country in the world in terms of T-90 (185 units, plan 300), more than 450 T-72, hundreds of T-62 and T-54/55. The army of Algeria will be much more serious dill, moreover, they have been driving the Basmachi sugar for a very long time, they are seriously preparing.
      2. alexmach
        alexmach 30 November 2018 21: 02
        +2
        The contract with Algeria, it’s also a pitchfork on the water, they don’t have ordinary tanks either

        Another xperd?
  3. riwas
    riwas 30 November 2018 06: 17
    +2
    The idea of ​​a support machine is not new. A watch tank is more optimal.
    http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren/tank_21.htm
    Moreover, it uses equipment universally, not only to combat infantry, but also the near air defense system.
    Armament:
    57 mm universal cannon;
    multi-barrel heavy machine gun;
    side universal attachment points for missiles of various types, depending on the task at hand - for the destruction of infantry (such as "Buratino"), ATGM, SAM;
    powerful interference system to protect not only yourself.
    An article about a patrol tank was published in the journal "TEKHNIKA-YOLLODEZH", 2000, No. 5.
    1. parma
      parma 30 November 2018 07: 44
      +10
      What kind of air defense / missile defense are we talking about? For example, the Apache will burn such a car without even getting hit by return fire thanks to the fired-forget missiles (and most likely will not be noticed by the crew) without a radar. And not to put the radar - it will be disabled in a city battle almost immediately ... For air defense / missile defense there is a shilka and its "offspring" / analogues ... All these attempts to attach (otherwise I don’t know what to call this desire) are all there ATGM, SAM, NURS and other missiles from the evil one, an attempt to make a prodigy ...
      Today, the tank has enough firepower to defeat all the targets that it is really capable of meeting, but not enough firepower to suppress infantry in the city ...
      In other words, in the city you have at least some super cars, until the infantry enters the building, you can’t move forward quarterly, and it doesn’t matter if the enemy uses guerrilla tactics or is it a full-fledged army with tanks and planes ...
      And "if there is no difference, why pay more?", Therefore, it is enough to modify the tanks (as everyone else does) to work in the city - by installing additional machine guns in the DUM, additional protection, communication with the infantry, knives, etc., than to turn a new car back. .. As for me, it is better to have a modified tank against any enemy than to stay with such a support vehicle against a full-fledged enemy ....
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 30 November 2018 10: 01
        +1
        Quote: parma
        As for me, it is better to have a modified tank against any opponent than to stay with such a support vehicle against a full-fledged opponent ...
        You cannot add anything, without subtracting anything, without sacrificing anything, it is not in "World of Tanks" to engage in "pumping". The BMPT's protection can be increased at least in the fact that specialized weapons can be much lighter (and more compact) than a 125 mm tank gun with ammunition and an automatic loader. Likewise, saying, “if there is no difference, why pay more?”, So the difference is what, in price, protection, efficiency? A "modified tank" will initially be more expensive than an unmodified one, and it is not a fact that such a modification will be cheaper than creating an BMPT on the same tank base, in fact, when replacing a tank turret with a module with special weapons. Of course, you can do so during battles in the city ("cheap and cheerful").

        However, it is still better to have a more adapted technique, especially since fighting in the city is one of the most difficult types of combat for tanks, which, ideally, it is better not to stick at close city streets.
      2. URAL72
        URAL72 30 November 2018 12: 38
        +8
        What for Apache? He and the tank will burn without problems, but the air defense is not a tank or BMPT, there are other means for this. What a breakthrough? This is a SUPPORT machine! A tank is not needed everywhere, and in a city it will not be able to deploy a tower everywhere and cannot work on the upper floors. And no one canceled the ambush and the DRG. I need a machine, I’m telling you from the experience of the war in the Donbass. Our main weapon is the BMP. Tanks were taken around Minsk, and not always needed and expensive from a cannon on sparrows. BMPT - the ultimate dream. While you are thinking on the couch, we have already studied and solved this dilemma.
        1. parma
          parma 30 November 2018 13: 58
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          Likewise, saying, “if there is no difference, why pay more?”, So the difference is what, in price, protection, efficiency? A "modified tank" will initially be more expensive than an unmodified one, and it is not a fact that such a modification will be cheaper than creating an BMPT on the same tank base, in fact, when replacing a tank turret with a module with special weapons. Of course, you can do so during battles in the city ("cheap and cheerful").

          It means that BMPT will not be able to replace the tank .... Do you have BMPT or not, you need a tank, and in the city too ... It’s not easier / cheaper / more efficient due to the increase in the fleet to keep the same number of tanks, but to equip them for the city battlefield?
          Quote: URAL72
          What for Apache? He and the tank will burn without problems, but the air defense is not a tank or BMPT, there are other means for this. What a breakthrough? This is a SUPPORT machine! A tank is not needed everywhere, and in a city it will not be able to deploy a tower everywhere and cannot work on the upper floors. And no one canceled the ambush and the DRG. I need a machine, I’m telling you from the experience of the war in the Donbass. Our main weapon is the BMP. Tanks were taken around Minsk, and not always needed and expensive from a cannon on sparrows. BMPT - the ultimate dream. While you are thinking on the couch, we have already studied and solved this dilemma.

          If you are not too lazy, and look in response to what post I wrote, you will understand that it is not my idea to make an air defense weapon out of BMPT, I am writing about the flawedness of such an idea ("anti-aircraft" machine gun on tanks, which is the same last hope as an ATGM at BMP-2 "what if it works out") ... Regarding "it will not work out of the cannon to hit the upper floors" - firstly, you do not need to drive under the building itself, little of their equipment can shoot 90 degrees at all, and secondly - YakB in the DUM in place of the cord may well suppress the RPG / ATGM calculation, while their own enter the building ...
          If you were ambushed, then you don’t have a tank or BMPT difference, you’ll find out about getting on board after breaking through the armor ...
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 30 November 2018 22: 00
            +3
            Quote: parma
            It means that BMPT cannot replace a tank ...
            Unfortunately, there are still no examples in history where it would be possible to declare from combat experience that the BMPT will not be able to replace the tank in street battles, but, unambiguously, the tank in the city needs help, both infantry and vehicles such as BMPT. So what's the argument about? If you resist, IFVs with armored personnel carriers will not replace a tank, even if it is a 50-ton T-15 mastodon. This is not about the "independence" of tanks, and if the tanks were used to drive the infantry "astride" on the armor, it only emphasized the need for motorized rifle tanks, and for them, accordingly, new armored personnel carriers with infantry fighting vehicles. If the BMPT can replace the infantrymen covering the tanks on the battlefield, hedge and strengthen the actions of the infantry next to the tanks, what is there to argue about? You can do without BMPTs, and even without the tanks themselves. Is it about extremes? To make an air defense weapon out of BMPT ... Then the BMPT would be called "Tunguska" or "Shilka", so the dispute is about nothing. "The flaw in the idea", as you can find in this, - "Target: a helicopter (target number 25) appearing for 60 seconds at an altitude of 110-20 meters. Range to the target: 1500-1300m Ammunition 20 rounds, 6 of them with tracer bullets . Time to shoot: limited by the time to show the target. " This is one of the tank shooting exercises. That, for BMPT, with a pair of 30 mm assault rifles, such exercises would be "flawed"? Also, tanks can hit the upper floors, here's a picture in the subject.
            However, will there always be such a distance and the possibility of slowly shooting the building, without fear of burning in the streets between the houses? To sum up, everything that facilitates the task in battle, which contributes to the victory, you need to have and develop, without showing off. If BMPT helps tanks and infantry, such a machine is needed.
      3. prodi
        prodi 30 November 2018 15: 09
        -1
        - in my opinion, it would be worth giving a "similar" vehicle to each tank platoon (discussed in terms of armament).
        (total, 4 units);
        - exchange (not replace!) ATGMs for air defense systems (AFAR on the roof of the tower)
        1. parma
          parma 30 November 2018 16: 34
          +1
          And ....... Attention ........... It turns out "Tunguska" ..... Very armored, but still it .... In a battle with tanks, this unit is useless, even snap enemy tanks cannot, in the city it is all the more useless (all the same, AFAR will be covered in Nth number of minutes ...) and where is it?
          1. prodi
            prodi 30 November 2018 16: 48
            -1
            Quote: parma
            And ....... Attention ........... It turns out "Tunguska" ..... Very armored, but still it .... In a battle with tanks, this unit is useless, even snap enemy tanks cannot, in the city it is all the more useless (all the same, AFAR will be covered in Nth number of minutes ...) and where is it?

            - if this is an objection to me, then ATGMs remain, just in case;
            - AFAR is located horizontally on the roof of a large tower (such as Leopard)
            (and why is it going to be covered right away? At least not worse than the main sight)
            - as the main armament, it seems to me quite reasonable module, such as Bahcha (only with a 125mm gun)
            - if cramming into a platoon is problematic, then a similar platoon at each company
            1. Bad thing
              Bad thing 1 December 2018 00: 05
              +2
              Quote: prodi
              (and why is she immediately covered?

              Hole it, quickly and without cost, in many places.
      4. riwas
        riwas 31 December 2018 06: 46
        0
        Do not delve into. Sentinel tank - modular design. You can collect the option to destroy the infantry, but you can - the near air defense / missile defense. The devices included in its composition are universal. The millimeter-wave radar antenna is small and no more vulnerable than infrared devices.
  4. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 30 November 2018 06: 40
    -2
    BMPT is needed, but in a different guise, instead of a pair of 30 mm guns, 57 mm with smart shells, a coaxial machine gun of 12,7 mm caliber and even better 14,5 mm, with new ammunition of high power. The crew is in an armored capsule like T-14 Armata , with a powerful anti-mine multi-functional trawl, with a dump function. 360 * active defense, ATGMs of the Spike type in armored modules that can be replaced by NURS or something else. A UAV-quadrocopter of at least four pieces. And most importantly, the BMPT should be a crewless function for special conditions (in urban areas), and create on a unified platform.
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 30 November 2018 09: 28
      +3
      Quote: merkava-2bet

      BMPT is needed, but in another form, instead of a pair of 30 mm guns, 57 mm with smart shells,

      Will she use clever projectiles to handle "that forest" so that enemy grenade launchers do not get fixed there? Will there be enough ammunition? Aren't "smart shells" fired for the sake of a naughty expensive?
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 30 November 2018 11: 56
        +2
        Under "smart" shells can be understood incl. shells with remote detonation. Corrected projectiles with high ballistics are needed for air defense systems, but they belong to the "Derivation-air defense" topic.
        The economy of smart weapons is not so straightforward. as it is customary to interpret: it is better to bombard the enemy with a flurry of shells from the ZU-23 than to waste ATGM.
        In practice, 1 ATGM (even at a higher cost) is usually cheaper, taking into account logistics.
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 30 November 2018 14: 06
          +2
          Quote: Cympak
          In practice, 1 ATGM (even at a higher cost) is usually cheaper, taking into account logistics.

          They have different tasks. Are you seriously going to fire on areas with precision weapons?
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 30 November 2018 22: 10
            -2
            I will disappoint you, there are such ammunition and for about 30 years they have been used, they are called cluster shells and bombs, warheads for OTR, and they are strange to high-precision weapons, and the modern range has increased its potential even more, and most importantly they are widely used.
      2. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 30 November 2018 22: 05
        +1
        That is, according to your opinion, any naughty “out in that forest” should be filled with a salvo from BM-21 Grad or TOS-1 Pinocchio, or a vigorous charge can immediately explode.
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 1 December 2018 09: 01
          0
          Quote: merkava-2bet
          That is, according to your opinion, any naughty “out in that forest” should be filled with a salvo from BM-21 Grad or TOS-1 Pinocchio, or a vigorous charge can immediately explode.

          "That forest" can be safely bombarded with shells from a 30 mm cannon at a distance of up to 4 km. And without any nix - just for the sake of the fact that if there is no one there now, then no one will be there anymore.
          Do not waste the same tank tanks in white light as a pretty penny. And 57 mm in this regard will be worse, because there will be fewer shells, and another half should be armor-piercing and will not work for such purposes.
  5. Corn
    Corn 30 November 2018 06: 42
    +2
    After checking these machines in real combat conditions in 2017

    Stop speculating with definitions and concepts for advertising purposes. If some soldier takes a toy pistol with him to Syria, can it be considered that this toy has successfully passed "combat use"? - I think no.
    The same thing with the terminator, there are simply no facts and evidence of successful use, unlike the same tanks, which have millions of battles depending on the network.
    .....
    Until 100% of the existing tanks are supplied with KAZ and DUBM, no fundurwaffe is out of the question, and the adoption of a "terminator" is a pure crime for which in the USSR they were punished with all severity and justice.
    1. tanit
      tanit 30 November 2018 16: 50
      0
      For corn
      And lying in the comments is not enough, no? Algeria has no tanks, you say, right? You're lying.
  6. Herman 4223
    Herman 4223 30 November 2018 07: 33
    +8
    The BMPT was conceived even during the USSR, its main task is to suppress tank-dangerous targets, calculations of anti-tank missiles, rocket launchers, destroy infantry on the battlefield, operating in ONE LINE with tanks, infantry in this line is not safe, it follows behind, and this affects the cover of tanks .Article nonsense.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 30 November 2018 13: 58
      +1
      acting in ONE LINE with tanks, the infantry in this line is not safe, it follows behind, and this affects the cover of the tanks. article is nonsense.

      I agree with you. Especially considering that the infantry can no longer cover the tank, as during the Great Patriotic War. The range of shots from RPGs and ATGMs has increased many times.
      And if active armor is introduced on the tanks (and this will happen sooner or later), it’s not safe to be near the tank.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 30 November 2018 19: 51
      +2
      And what goals can the BMPT suppress and cannot the tank itself?
    3. Doliva63
      Doliva63 2 December 2018 17: 28
      -2
      Quote: Herman 4223
      The BMPT was conceived even during the USSR, its main task is to suppress tank-dangerous targets, calculations of anti-tank missiles, rocket launchers, destroy infantry on the battlefield, operating in ONE LINE with tanks, infantry in this line is not safe, it follows behind, and this affects the cover of tanks .Article nonsense.

      And the BMP has already been canceled in BUSV, or what? laughing It seems that few read it here, much less used it. drinks
      1. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 2 December 2018 18: 42
        0
        The attack on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) is used on the terrain accessible to them when attacking the enemy, hastily switched to defense, in the absence of organized resistance, and also when the enemy’s defense is reliably suppressed and most of its anti-tank weapons are destroyed. In this case, the tanks attack after the shells of their artillery, and the motorized rifle units on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) - in the battle line behind the tanks at a distance of 100-200 m, firing from all their fire weapons. Here you are, USE at a distance of one hundred two hundred meters, behind the tanks and not in ONE LINE with them.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 3 December 2018 18: 33
          -1
          Quote: Herman 4223
          The attack on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) is used on the terrain accessible to them when attacking the enemy, hastily switched to defense, in the absence of organized resistance, and also when the enemy’s defense is reliably suppressed and most of its anti-tank weapons are destroyed. In this case, the tanks attack after the shells of their artillery, and the motorized rifle units on infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) - in the battle line behind the tanks at a distance of 100-200 m, firing from all their fire weapons. Here you are, USE at a distance of one hundred two hundred meters, behind the tanks and not in ONE LINE with them.

          Some of us are dumb. The infantry goes behind the BMP, but the BMP goes in line with the tanks or where they order. What is wrong here?
      2. Herman 4223
        Herman 4223 2 December 2018 19: 04
        +1
        BMP is not canceled of course, we hope that they will not be canceled drinks
  7. Per se.
    Per se. 30 November 2018 08: 21
    +8
    Experience in Syria, Chechnya, Afghanistan ... The very first is the experience of local wars, anti-terrorist operations against militants, mainly using guerrilla tactics, and not the experience of war against a full-fledged army, which has various types of armed forces, and has incomparably great application possibilities weapons and military equipment. If we are talking about the creation or use of military equipment, we must immediately determine whether this is police equipment, anti-guerrilla equipment, or this equipment for a large and serious war, with the possible defense of Russia from a modern army or an entire alliance. Second, what the future sees for the tanks themselves, the impression is that MBT is again beginning to split into specialization. Already when trying to switch to 152 mm caliber, the weight of the prototypes increased, and the tanks had to be lightened by using titanium in the design. In this regard, a reasonable question arises, how much is it possible to further increase the power of tank guns, where even without increasing the caliber of the gun, the more powerful indicators of the gun itself and the ammunition inevitably increase the total weight of the vehicle. In this regard, the BMPT can be noted already in the fact that the use of lighter specialized weapons will enhance the overall protection of the BMPT, in comparison with the same tank. In addition, returning to the growth of the "main caliber", and, as a consequence, the weight and dimensions of the tank, the improvement of missile weapons, already now makes the missile longer-range, more precisely and somewhere more powerful than an artillery shell. If we take the consumption of tank shells for guaranteed defeat as a criterion, then here an alternative to a heavy tank cannon can be a rocket-cannon complex of 30-57 mm automatic guns and guided missiles. Already, the caliber of anti-tank missiles is 152 mm and can be increased, without any particular problems, in comparison with the problems of increasing the caliber of a tank gun. In other words, the tank itself in some specialized incarnation can become similar to the BMPT.
    For such a machine, armed with an automatic 57 mm cannon and a missile system, a base from a T-55 or T-72 / T-90 is quite suitable. The second option for the BMPT can be its tandem use with a heavy armored personnel carrier, where specialized fire support goes entirely to the BMPT, and the transport support to the heavy armored personnel carrier. This is an alternative to the "heavy infantry fighting vehicle", which, with the infantry in its belly, will still not climb ahead of the tanks (the defeat of such the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle is the death of the entire landing force, especially if 9-10 people push it there), and without the landing, when using its weapons for support, such a "heavy infantry fighting vehicle" will initially lose to the armament and protection that an infantry fighting vehicle may have, which is not burdened with a transport function. For example, on the basis of the T-72 tank, you can get an BMPT and a heavy armored personnel carrier, in a bundle it can be one BMPT and two or three heavy armored personnel carriers (or, in some other way). Here BMPTs with heavy armored personnel carriers are not an alternative to the same wheeled armored personnel carriers or universal armored personnel carriers (BMP-2, BMP-3), but in addition to tanks, on one tank base, a "tandem BMP" for specialized fire support of their tanks and assault groups on heavy armored personnel carriers ... In this case, for assault groups, and not for the usual transportation of infantry, it is possible and necessary to reduce the number of paratroopers per vehicle to 5-6 people, which will minimize losses (in the event of a defeat of an armored personnel carrier with a landing party), reduce the size of the armored personnel carrier, while having good protection ... Here, to BMPT, the option from BMO-T could come up. Otherwise, even for police or counter-guerrilla missions, BMPT can be easily adapted by choosing the right weapons and protection. In this, in my opinion, the BMPT, its concept, has a future.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 10: 07
      +4
      Quote: Per se.
      If the criterion is the consumption of tank shells for guaranteed destruction, then an alternative to a heavy tank cannon can be a missile-cannon system of 30-57 mm automatic cannons and guided missiles. Already, the caliber of anti-tank missiles is 152 mm and can be increased, without any problems, compared with the problems of increasing the caliber of a tank gun.


      I would say - not an alternative, but an additional tool.

      Since the transportable ammunition shell of 152 mm caliber will be even smaller than 125 mm, it would be good to equip the MBT with not only a promising 152 mm gun, but also a 57 mm coaxial gun to defeat a wider range of targets, since for a wide range of targets 152 mm ammunition will be excessive , which will lead to the rapid depletion of regular BC.

      A similar problem was successfully solved in the BMP-3.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 30 November 2018 10: 31
        +3
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        Since the transportable BC of the 152 mm caliber will be even smaller than the 125 mm, then to defeat a wider range of targets, it would be good to equip the MBT with not only a promising tool 152 mm
        Dmitry Vladimirovich, when creating tanks for 152 mm, the guns were puzzled by this, both on "Object 195" and "Object 477". Here, for example, in the photo, where the T-95 (Object 195) on the "pit" in the box, without tracks, is seen from the side of the turret, an auxiliary 30 mm 2A42 automatic cannon raised up.
        The cannon was supposed to save the "main caliber" when firing at secondary targets, in addition, even allowing for a smaller ammunition reserve of 152 mm shells, it must be borne in mind that one shell was enough for guaranteed destruction here, moreover, from a range inaccessible for return fire of an enemy tank. As for the "alternative" you noted in my context, the alternative here is only as the "main caliber" of universal missile and cannon tanks, otherwise, of course, as an addition to the "classic" tanks with 125 mm or 152 mm guns. Barreled artillery pieces will in any case remain, even if the tanks suffer the fate of battleships in the fleet, where the "main caliber" has been supplanted by powerful missile weapons, but with the preservation of auxiliary automatic cannons.
        1. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 12: 13
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          Barrel artillery pieces will in any case remain, even if the tanks suffer the fate of battleships in the fleet, where the "main caliber" was supplanted by powerful rocket weapons, but with the preservation of auxiliary automatic cannons.


          I agree - there is no alternative at the price of barrel artillery yet.
          Battleships were more intended for a linear battle against similar battleships (although the landing forces were able to support).
          The tank can not only perform the functions of anti-tank missions, but it is also intended to be used for various purposes with various types of fortified, armored and group soft targets.
          Tanks will be relevant for a long time.

          Quote: Per se.
          Dmitry Vladimirovich, when creating tanks for 152 mm, the guns were puzzled by this, both on "Object 195" and "Object 477". Here, for example, in the photo, where the T-95 (Object 195) on the "pit" in the box, without tracks, is seen from the side of the turret, an auxiliary 30 mm 2A42 automatic cannon raised up.


          Yes - also in the know.
          In light of the emergence of new infantry fighting vehicles capable of withstanding 30 mm ammunition in the frontal projection, the installation of a 57 mm gun looks like a logical continuation.
        2. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 13: 14
          0
          Quote: Per se.
          in my context, the alternative here is only as the "main caliber" of universal missile and cannon tanks, otherwise, of course, as an addition to "classic" tanks with 125 mm or 152 mm guns.


          Nevertheless, it seems to me wrong to use the MBT chassis for installing obviously weaker weapons.
          I adhere to the escalation strategy that tank designers came to in the 80s - i.e. increasing the capabilities of armament of MBT with automatic guns, allowing to close a wider range of targets.

          I do not see in the current state of BMPT a step forward, compared with MBT.
          Perhaps only in situational awareness.

          In a situation that you choose at the same price BMPT + MBT or MBT + MBT, perhaps the second option looks preferable.
          BMPT should have a certain advantage over MBT, so that its use becomes justified.
          If two 30 mm BMPT guns are conventionally distributed over 2 MBT, with a corresponding modernization of the SLA, which will lead to a slight increase in the cost of MBT with a paired artillery installation of 125 mm +30 mm, then such a bunch is in theory better than a bunch of BMPT + MBT.
          Is it so - only practice can show.
          Personally, I hope that the emergence and development of the BMPT theme will lead to the solution of the issue of tank operations in isolation from infantry - an extremely important task.
          Ideally, a bunch of 4 MBTs and 2 BMPTs should form a tactical assault unit.

          To determine the effective range of weapons BMPT, the topic must certainly be developed.
          Perhaps a 57 mm gun (but it seems to me that this option is not effective enough for a heavy chassis and low high-explosive power of 57 mm OFS), possibly variations on the theme 2A51 - 120-mm gun-howitzer-mortar - (installed on 2S9 2S9-1M), which will allow both "disturb" targets hidden in the folds of the terrain, and conduct flat fire (there is a wide range of ammunition for the gun) ...
          In general, here you can be creative in determining the effective composition of weapons.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 30 November 2018 22: 21
            0
            Quote: DimerVladimer
            In a situation that you choose at the same price BMPT + MBT or MBT + MBT, perhaps the second option looks preferable.
            Let's not. Do tanks need infantry, can tanks completely dispense with infantry, especially in street battles? It is unlikely, and this is a mass of examples from the Second World War, on the suppression of the rebellion in Hungary, on the storming of Grozny. The BMPT is not a tank, but the BMPT can do or supplement the work of the infantry in covering their tanks. The infantry is needed, which means that the BMPT is needed. By and large, BMPTs are needed not only for their tanks, having specialized weapons that tanks lack, but also for their infantry, interacting with tanks. I have already said that if you reshape for your calculations, you need not MBT + MBT, but MBT + BMPT + TBTR (with an assault group). Such, here, is the "holy trinity", in any quantitative combination between different combat vehicles, if we are talking about a shock tank group. As for the rest, to argue, we need ACS, TOS, and aviation, everything that is used in war, that was in demand and finds its combat application. The evolution of BMPT is just beginning, where everything will come, time will tell.
  8. RuslanD36
    RuslanD36 30 November 2018 08: 23
    +5
    Starting from Afghanistan, it is fashionable to see improvised systems with the ZU-23-2. Again in Afghanistan and Chechnya they used shilka. I answered the question what niche does BMPT occupy?

    Every couple of days about the BMPT article, and everyone is procrastinating the same thing.
  9. Strashila
    Strashila 30 November 2018 08: 36
    +4
    What it sounds like, what you call a yacht, so it will float. BMPT for fire support of tanks, "tanks" is a key mistake, which immediately made a narrow niche of application. You just needed a "combat vehicle for fire support", the range of application is expanding dramatically. Gantrucks of various configurations are in demand all over the world. The peculiarity of Russia, the tracked chassis prevails over the wheeled chassis it is ours. Conditionally close relatives of ZSU-57-2 and Shilka, they are quite in demand in armed conflicts. Based on the new definition, it will be necessary to rethink and possibly refine the vehicle, with an increase in the crew, to improve control of the battlefield. At least theoretically, drive them out based on the experience of our army in Chechnya, Syria, Afghanistan, if it is necessary to modify based on the actions of the enemy to increase the effectiveness of countering them and destroying them.
  10. Sedoy
    Sedoy 30 November 2018 09: 06
    0
    in urban conditions


    the author has some kind of crap with a theme ...
    that the "best" use of BMPT is for assault operations (urban combat) was said in the media even before Syria ...
  11. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 09: 42
    +1
    That is, tanks already have an effective means of combating lightly armored targets, and BMPTs are not really needed for this.


    Which is preferable?
    For an unarmored target at a range exceeding the ability to defeat PKT, for example, a truck using a 125 mm OFS or 2-3 30 mm projectile?
    For lightly armored targets, a defeat of 30 mm weapons is both more economical and more efficient and quite effective.

    The use of this machine in a real combat situation in Syria has shown that this machine is needed, but for completely different tasks. It turned out that it was needed as an infantry fire support vehicle in confrontation with an enemy incapable of massively using armored vehicles and in urban areas.


    But try to smoke a 30 mm automatic cannon from a building with concrete walls - this will just more successfully execute a 125 mm tank gun.
    In this case, from Syria, BMP-2s with 30 mm guns were used only to suppress firing points, and tanks were used to destroy (these are different terms).
    Suppression fire, forces the calculation to cease fire and take cover, but does not always lead to the destruction of the target, especially in urban areas.
    1. parma
      parma 30 November 2018 10: 11
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Which is preferable? For an unarmored target at a range exceeding the possibility of defeating PKT, for example, using a truck with a 125 mm OFS or 2-3 30 mm projectile? For lightly armored targets, a defeat of 30 mm weapons is both more economical and more efficient and quite effective.

      12.7 gauge is enough for the truck, put a YakB instead of a cord / cliff, and a box of 5000 rounds is behind the arable land and you have enough above the roof to fight infantry and unarmored / light vehicles (vehicles, dumbbells, our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles), for the rest 125 mm enough ...
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Try to smoke 30 mm with an automatic cannon, from a building with concrete walls - this will just make a 125 mm tank gun more successful. In this case, from Syria BMP-2 with 30 mm guns were used only to suppress firing points, but to destroy (they are different terms) tanks were used. Fire to suppress, forces the calculation to cease fire and take cover, but does not always lead to the destruction of the target, especially in urban areas.

      Again, the YakB in the DUM will cope with the suppression ... And a platoon of its infantry in this concrete building will give a 100% guarantee of the destruction of the calculation ....
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 12: 02
        -1
        Quote: parma
        12.7 gauge is enough for the truck, put a YakB instead of a cord / cliff, and a box of 5000 rounds is behind the arable land and you have enough above the roof to fight infantry and unarmored / light vehicles (vehicles, dumbbells, our armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles), for the rest 125 mm enough ...

        In the frontal projection, modern BMPs hold 20 mm, and sometimes even 30 mm shells.
        So the use of heavy machine guns, instead of a 30 mm gun, I think is not thought out.
        1. parma
          parma 30 November 2018 14: 01
          0
          But it does not hold 125 mm .... The YakB is proposed to be used against infantry, vehicles and light equipment like Hamvi, our tigers, lynxes, our armored personnel carriers (although there are enough M-113), all kinds of BRDM like phenic, etc., against the rest will be 125 ...
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 30 November 2018 11: 06
      +3
      The problem of using MBT in urban combat:
      - small angles of VN, without redesigning the tank, the problem cannot be solved due to the size of the breech or you need to change the gun
      - a long barrel makes it difficult to maneuver between buildings, you need a short barrel, preferably not extending beyond the front of the tank,
      - direct fire (sometimes it is necessary to throw a shell, for example, behind a barricade or garage)
      - Insufficient power of the regular OFS for the destruction of well-fortified firing points (according to the experience of Komsomolsky)
      - the lack of specialized ammunition to defeat the enemy located behind concrete walls (you need a penetrating high-explosive fragmentation projectile or OFS with a programmable fuse)
      - you need a DBM on the tower for self-defense, stabilized and rotating 360 g, with good VN angles, both up and down.
      - need circular protection against light anti-tank grenade launchers
      - you need an automatic gun (either in the DUMB, or paired with the main gun) to defeat the armored jihad mobiles that jumped around the corner
      - you need to increase crew awareness of the situation outside the tank (for example, augmented reality glasses with the ability to see through the armor)
      - need ACS for interaction with assault groups and remote reconnaissance equipment (drones)
      - need a blade blade and electromagnetic trawl
      1. parma
        parma 30 November 2018 16: 37
        0
        Quote: Cympak
        The problem of using MBT in urban combat:
        - small angles of VN, without redesigning the tank, the problem cannot be solved due to the size of the breech or you need to change the gun
        - a long barrel makes it difficult to maneuver between buildings, you need a short barrel, preferably not extending beyond the front of the tank,
        - direct fire (sometimes it is necessary to throw a shell, for example, behind a barricade or garage)
        - Insufficient power of the regular OFS for the destruction of well-fortified firing points (according to the experience of Komsomolsky)
        - the lack of specialized ammunition to defeat the enemy located behind concrete walls (you need a penetrating high-explosive fragmentation projectile or OFS with a programmable fuse)
        - you need a DBM on the tower for self-defense, stabilized and rotating 360 g, with good VN angles, both up and down.
        - need circular protection against light anti-tank grenade launchers
        - you need an automatic gun (either in the DUMB, or paired with the main gun) to defeat the armored jihad mobiles that jumped around the corner
        - you need to increase crew awareness of the situation outside the tank (for example, augmented reality glasses with the ability to see through the armor)
        - need ACS for interaction with assault groups and remote reconnaissance equipment (drones)
        - need a blade blade and electromagnetic trawl

        And who is against? If necessary (and it is necessary, maybe except for the autocannon) - we set it, but why BMPT then sculpt? Why create another car when you can give its functions to the tank without any problems ....
      2. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 1 December 2018 08: 43
        0
        All the same, I wrote above. For me, in the form that we see BMPT Terminator-1,2,3 ..... etc, it’s not good, a waste of money. Why do I say that, the former tanker himself and three years of hostilities, and I have my own vision.
  12. chenia
    chenia 30 November 2018 09: 59
    +5
    People, have you ever been to vocational schools and seen SMEs on the offensive?
    The author has a complete misunderstanding of the essence of combined arms combat.

    The topic was recently, so I repeat.

    The tank is in attack, which means that aviation (distant approaches) and artillery are also working in depth and ahead of up to 200 m (and the fire is constantly moving).
    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.

    The work of the BMPT is mainly against the trench "rascals" (grenade launchers, portable ATGMs, etc.). That is what dismounted infantry should do (but that is torn from the tanks by more than 200 m, the line of safe removal 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).
    Hence the limit of the BMPT at somewhere 300-500 m. And then other means work in bulk (the offensive was prepared, the concentration of forces and means).
    The poet should be a sea of ​​fire (mainly 7,52) and bombarded with grenades AG-40 (both remote and impact). Several fire channels are desirable. And significant elevation angles, for use in certain conditions (mountains, city, etc.)

    In the enemy’s GPs, an entire division beats at a rate of two to three carriages of shells. And for some other purposes, a group of divisions. And a bunch of other firearms. (3-4 enemy tanks, 1-2 BMPTs + 12 BMPs (MSR) for enemy platoon.
    And the unit’s task 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).

    But for use in conflicts of low intensity, another story - specialized equipment and special forces can work here in general.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 10: 15
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      People, have you ever been to vocational schools and seen SMEs on the offensive?
      The author has a complete misunderstanding of the essence of combined arms combat.


      In most ongoing wars, tactics of mobile BTG are used.
      Infantry, used to clean up the area.
      With such tactics - the use of BMPT seems quite justified.
      1. chenia
        chenia 30 November 2018 10: 50
        +2
        Quote: DimerVladimer
        In most ongoing wars, tactics of mobile BTG are used.


        most leading countries in the first place unified fire system of the enemy. And many areas and areas previously occupied by the enemy can simply be driven through (the case when the enemy is not reported).

        And low-intensity conflicts are different.
        1. Bad thing
          Bad thing 1 December 2018 00: 36
          +1
          Quote: chenia
          unified enemy fire system
          complex fire damage is called, isn’t it ?.
          1. chenia
            chenia 1 December 2018 14: 03
            0
            Quote: Bad
            complex fire damage is called, isn’t it ?.


            Yes. you're right!
    2. Cympak
      Cympak 30 November 2018 15: 18
      0
      What is your vision of tactics for using BMPT in defense?
      1. chenia
        chenia 30 November 2018 16: 02
        0
        Quote: Cympak

        What is your vision of tactics for using BMPT in defense?


        BMPTs should normally include TR (the fourth platoon, it is better to have a separate unit with the ability to attach directly to the infantry - for example, in a battle in the city).
        In defense (mainly active component)
        - in the first position, as part of an armored group (attached), to organize a counterattack.
        - the second echelon - to participate in a counterattack from the cut-off positions (which TB should do) with its own company. This is where you need to have 57 mm capable of hitting all (except for tanks) armored vehicles. (I indicated the approximate weapons in the last branch.
        1. Bad thing
          Bad thing 1 December 2018 00: 51
          +1
          Quote: chenia
          BMPT nominally should include TR
          In my opinion, it is better to have a company as part of a battalion, it’s better for organizing combat training of crews, and to work out issues of interaction with tank companies during joint tactical exercises, company and battalion exercises.
          1. chenia
            chenia 1 December 2018 14: 01
            0
            Quote: Bad
            In my opinion it is better to have a company in the battalion


            Of course you are right in this regard.
            But in combat conditions, the company was pulled by the platoon. And what to do company management? Confused under the nagas at the KB (well, they understand they will find a service, but still it seems to be an extra entity). Well, anyway, from the beginning, platoons will be tied to certain companies (well, this is purely psychologically correct). In essence, a platoon in TR, this is more for TB SMEs.

            But for TB TP can be reinforced platoon (5-6 BMPT) in the battalion. By the nature (as a rule) of tasks, the regiment begins to operate in the depths of the enemy’s defense, where the density of defense falls, dealing with divisional reserves.
            And if you can’t get around the line or you need to take it, then we’ll use the BMPT platoon.
    3. Doliva63
      Doliva63 2 December 2018 17: 43
      0
      Quote: chenia
      People, have you ever been to vocational schools and seen SMEs on the offensive?
      The author has a complete misunderstanding of the essence of combined arms combat.

      The topic was recently, so I repeat.

      The tank is in attack, which means that aviation (distant approaches) and artillery are also working in depth and ahead of up to 200 m (and the fire is constantly moving).
      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.

      The work of the BMPT is mainly against the trench "rascals" (grenade launchers, portable ATGMs, etc.). That is what dismounted infantry should do (but that is torn from the tanks by more than 200 m, the line of safe removal 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).
      Hence the limit of the BMPT at somewhere 300-500 m. And then other means work in bulk (the offensive was prepared, the concentration of forces and means).
      The poet should be a sea of ​​fire (mainly 7,52) and bombarded with grenades AG-40 (both remote and impact). Several fire channels are desirable. And significant elevation angles, for use in certain conditions (mountains, city, etc.)

      In the enemy’s GPs, an entire division beats at a rate of two to three carriages of shells. And for some other purposes, a group of divisions. And a bunch of other firearms. (3-4 enemy tanks, 1-2 BMPTs + 12 BMPs (MSR) for enemy platoon.
      And the unit’s task is to take the first position, then at rest or at the pick-up (if it remains intact, to ensure the fulfillment of the immediate task of a higher formation)
      But for use in conflicts of low intensity, another story - specialized equipment and special forces can work here in general.

      The people who saw from the RTU to the DTU are found here. And the question is: do you think BMP is purely transport for infantry, or what? It is interesting to know the year of your graduation from VVUZ. Higher education institution, I hope, MO?
      1. chenia
        chenia 2 December 2018 19: 44
        0
        Quote: Doliva63
        And the question is: do you think BMP is purely transport for infantry, or what?

        To start! 976 HAVACOLE.
        Well, not the armored personnel carrier which is behind the chain.
        BUT
        And by the way, how? A breakthrough of a pre-occupied defense?
        And what did I write wrong?
        And what is there in BUSV?
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 3 December 2018 18: 51
          0
          Quote: chenia
          Quote: Doliva63
          And the question is: do you think BMP is purely transport for infantry, or what?

          To start! 976 HAVACOLE.
          Well, not the armored personnel carrier which is behind the chain.
          BUT
          And by the way, how? A breakthrough of a pre-occupied defense?
          And what did I write wrong?
          And what is there in BUSV?

          Artillery? BUAR? Clear. I respect drinks
          But the fact is that the infantry division on the BMP independently performs the tasks that were invented for the BMPT - and covering tanks, and work in the city, etc. And moreover, it performs tasks without tanks. Why fence a garden?
          And what’s in BUSV, it’s publicly available now.
          1. chenia
            chenia 3 December 2018 19: 56
            0
            Quote: Doliva63
            Artillery? BUAR?


            Artillery, yes! Why BUAR?
            About vocational schools (despite, despite all the conventions in real life, the regiment is not fighting like that) I spoke in terms of the defeat system. in which the BMPT is assigned only a certain role (many judging by the comments and the function of reconnaissance and air defense, and many others tried to put it there).

            Quote: Doliva63
            But the fact is that the infantry division on the BMP independently performs the tasks that were invented for the BMPT - and covering tanks


            Yes, but I don’t argue. But the effectiveness (when overcoming a pre-occupied defense) when dismounted (and in this case it is impossible to overcome the BMP and huddle with the tanks) lags behind them the BU line of 400 m (not to mention the enemy’s barrage that cuts off our manpower.)
            And our charters do not imply the separation of infantry fighting vehicles from the chain (even if this is the initiative of the commander to send one infantry fighting vehicle forward for tanks (1-2)), the fire capabilities of this vehicle will not replace the platoon fire (or two squads).
            Well, PMPT is not necessary in all SMEs of the division (as well as BMP) ..
            1. Doliva63
              Doliva63 4 December 2018 18: 16
              0
              Quote: chenia
              Quote: Doliva63
              Artillery? BUAR?


              Artillery, yes! Why BUAR?
              About vocational schools (despite, despite all the conventions in real life, the regiment is not fighting like that) I spoke in terms of the defeat system. in which the BMPT is assigned only a certain role (many judging by the comments and the function of reconnaissance and air defense, and many others tried to put it there).

              Quote: Doliva63
              But the fact is that the infantry division on the BMP independently performs the tasks that were invented for the BMPT - and covering tanks


              Yes, but I don’t argue. But the effectiveness (when overcoming a pre-occupied defense) when dismounted (and in this case it is impossible to overcome the BMP and huddle with the tanks) lags behind them the BU line of 400 m (not to mention the enemy’s barrage that cuts off our manpower.)
              And our charters do not imply the separation of infantry fighting vehicles from the chain (even if this is the initiative of the commander to send one infantry fighting vehicle forward for tanks (1-2)), the fire capabilities of this vehicle will not replace the platoon fire (or two squads).
              Well, PMPT is not necessary in all SMEs of the division (as well as BMP) ..

              Sorry, by BUAR (artillery reconnaissance control battery) I meant BUAR (Combat Artillery Charter).
              The enemy fire during infantry dismantling should not be by definition.
              BMP / BTR in SMEs should be - by the same definition).
              Another thing is that an armored personnel carrier (since you need wheeled vehicles) must be equal in terms of fire capabilities to an infantry fighting vehicle.
              Well, I don’t see the point in the BMPT in the army - there is a specific technique for each task. Universal for all occasions is not yet in the right condition to create. Rosguard, maybe, will buy. They don’t buy that.
              1. chenia
                chenia 4 December 2018 18: 49
                0
                Quote: Doliva63
                BUAR (Combat charter of artillery).


                BUNA (N-terrestrial)

                Quote: Doliva63
                The enemy fire during infantry dismantling should not be by definition.


                That's right, the headache of the senior boss.
                But our charters prescribe this event, even at the stage of promotion from the original.
                Here as the enemy allows.

                Quote: Doliva63
                Well, I see no reason for BMPT in the army


                And if in the TBMP variant. One regiment (breakthrough) in the division at TBMP. Moreover, in the platoon (MCB) there are four TMBPs (it is now being asked - three departments + management and amplification link) with the same number of l / s.
                During a breakthrough (1-2 tanks fall into a platoon), three TMBPs remain in the chain, and the fourth in the battle line of the tanks, covering them.
                It would be better, but TBMP is also a "taxi" with the allocation of space for the landing.
                And the car turns out to be more bulky ..
                1. Doliva63
                  Doliva63 5 December 2018 19: 49
                  0
                  Quote: chenia
                  Quote: Doliva63
                  BUAR (Combat charter of artillery).


                  BUNA (N-terrestrial)

                  Quote: Doliva63
                  The enemy fire during infantry dismantling should not be by definition.


                  That's right, the headache of the senior boss.
                  But our charters prescribe this event, even at the stage of promotion from the original.
                  Here as the enemy allows.

                  Quote: Doliva63
                  Well, I see no reason for BMPT in the army


                  And if in the TBMP variant. One regiment (breakthrough) in the division at TBMP. Moreover, in the platoon (MCB) there are four TMBPs (it is now being asked - three departments + management and amplification link) with the same number of l / s.
                  During a breakthrough (1-2 tanks fall into a platoon), three TMBPs remain in the chain, and the fourth in the battle line of the tanks, covering them.
                  It would be better, but TBMP is also a "taxi" with the allocation of space for the landing.
                  And the car turns out to be more bulky ..

                  In my time, it seemed, was the Combat Charter of the artillery of the Ground Forces. Maybe I forgot something, I'm generally a tanker by training laughing
                  I do not approve of heavy BMPs. And in general I see no reason for any changes in BUSV. The same Chechen showed that voluntaristic waste from him led to the death of people and failure to fulfill the task. Let me remind you that both city battles and battles in the conditions of focal defense, etc. are registered there. Until a fundamentally new weapon has been invented, tactics and staff do not change. Today, drones over the battlefield are possible from the new - a real fact, but this is solved by means of air defense, if we are talking about the army. I see nothing more new that would require the introduction of additional equipment.
                  1. chenia
                    chenia 5 December 2018 20: 34
                    0
                    Quote: Doliva63
                    Maybe I forgot something,

                    I already forgot, confused -Manual on fire control of ground artillery.
                    64 years old. (the waist belt and boots have been gathering dust in the closet for decades, conditionally).
  13. Izotovp
    Izotovp 30 November 2018 10: 25
    +1
    It is enough to change the emphasis in the evaluation of armored vehicles and everything falls into place: BMPT as the main means of destruction on the battlefield and the tank as a means of amplification between BMPT and self-propelled guns.
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 30 November 2018 12: 21
      0
      Quote: Izotovp
      It is enough to change the emphasis in the evaluation of armored vehicles and everything falls into place: BMPT as the main means of destruction on the battlefield and the tank as a means of amplification between BMPT and self-propelled guns.


      How can we compare the cannon and mounted gun platforms - they are armored according to their assigned role: the heavily armored assault self-propelled guns have long served their age
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 30 November 2018 16: 27
        +1
        And I did not compare. I said that in the first line with the infantry should be BMPT. Behind the infantry are "large sniper rifles-tanks." Self-propelled guns and heavy self-propelled mortars, as before, in the second line.
  14. Cympak
    Cympak 30 November 2018 10: 44
    +4
    Another "nothing-about-anything" article, apparently from a sofa expert. Before that there was Ryabov Kirill, now Yuri Apukhtin. Well, if you have not served, if you have not studied tactics and combat manuals, then you can at least sort out the history of the issue, with the technical part.
    According to the history of the issue:
    - were the achievements of the Americans in the 60s, as well as in 2000 as part of the FCS program
    - there were Soviet developments of the 80s from ChTZ on projects 781 and 782
    - there were research shipunovtsy with an assessment of the effectiveness of various weapon systems: 100 + 30, 120 + 30, 30 + AGS ....
    - there are materials on the history of the theme "Frame-99" from which the BMPT "Terminator" came out
    - there is a well-known interview of one of the developers of BMPT - Aleksadr Yakovlev, in which he explains what they wanted, what happened and why ....
    Author, read more! It's too early for you to write.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 30 November 2018 11: 55
      +3
      Quote: Cympak
      Author, read more! It's too early for you to write.
      Well, this is how to see who needs to read and know more.
      Yuriy M. Apukhtin was born in 1948 in the Kursk region. He has two higher educations. He worked for twenty four years as a lead designer in the Kharkov engineering design bureau for them. A. Morozova. Candidate of Technical Sciences. He is the author of many publications and books, he has several inventions in the field of tank control systems. From 1995, he was a deputy of the Kharkiv Regional Council. A convinced supporter of the unity of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 30 November 2018 12: 42
        +3
        Not only I noted the author’s extremely superficial look at the BMPT problem.
        Pearls:
        First developed and manufactured prototypes BMPT "Terminator", and then began to justify the need for such machines and justify the tactics of their use.

        We are watching the work of "Frames", objects 781, 782, interviews with Yakovlev. Obviously, during the development there were TK

        Then, it is not clear by what logic, they added the fight against lightly armored vehicles, which try to stay as far away from tanks as possible when a shell of a tank gun or missile smashes lightly armored vehicles to shreds

        Obviously, for a tank, lightly armored targets are secondary. For their destruction came up with BMP. And BMPT in combined arms assumes the fire functions of the BMP.

        The installation of guided missiles looks far-fetched too: they are not needed for hitting small-sized targets, this class of weapons is intended for hitting well-armored vehicles at long distances and protected firing points and strong points.

        Perhaps far-fetched, but in an interview with A. Yakovlev it is clearly stated that when designing the Terminator, they actually made a missile tank capable of hitting enemy tanks at a great distance and using multi-channel guidance.

        The calculations of the ATGMs and RPGs for the destruction of tanks should see their target and direct a missile at it, so they can’t be behind obstacles.

        Ukrainian and Belarusian PRTK "Stugna", "Skif" are equipped with remote control panels. There is information that the Kornet ATGM also has a remote bullet. During a battle, grenade launchers usually hide behind obstacles and appear because of it only for a few seconds.
        That is, the BMPT firepower is significantly lower than the tank. The advantage is only in the use of two 30-mm guns. The tank is even better equipped with small arms, it has two machine guns. One of them is large and with a significantly higher elevation angle. The controlled weaponry tank many times exceeds the BMPT, it does not have four missiles in the strike, the entire ammunition load can contain 22 guided missiles in the automatic loader.

        This is generally beyond good and evil .... The heavy machine gun on most of our tanks does not have full stabilization and does not have remote control. Those. its effectiveness in battle is approaching zero, and the risk for the tank commander is maximized. 22 missiles in the BC - a fantasy that has nothing to do with reality. The effectiveness of the TUR, as shown even by the greenhouse conditions of the tank biathlon, is extremely low. The channel of the tank according to TOUR = 1, and the BMPT (according to Yakovlev’s interview) has the ability to direct several missiles with one mirror, while it partially does not depend on the guidance channel of the guns.
        As a result, in fire power, BMPT is significantly inferior to a tank in artillery armament (no tank gun), in small arms, guided armament and surpasses only in small-caliber artillery armament. In principle, the installation work on the tank 23-mm and 30-mm guns have already been carried out, and this task can be solved without any problems on the tank, for this purpose it is not necessary to develop BMPT.

        That's just the rate of fire for automatic guns and tank guns is different. If you stick another automatic cannon on an existing tank. If the automatic gun is paired with a tank gun, then the channel in weapons will not change. in addition, different ballistics of the main gun and automatic require additional mesh in the sight. If the automatic gun is made independent in the DBM, then the gun commander (who has other tasks) will control this gun (aim, shoot, control the shooting results). As shown by experiments on tanks with a crew of 2 people, the commander ceases to cope with his tasks if hang the gunner’s task on it.

        The task of providing BMPT with more powerful protection compared to a tank is also not solved, since the hull of the T-72 tank was taken as the base of the BMPT. Her defense is somewhat enhanced, but there is nothing fundamentally new.

        If BMPT acts in the same order by machine tools, then why does it need protection above the tank? BMPT security is significantly superior to BMP security, which BMPT replaces on the battlefield. We must also take into account psychology: the enemy will first of all fight tanks that really have great firepower
        To be continued with ....
        1. chenia
          chenia 30 November 2018 13: 29
          +2
          Quote: Per se.
          Apukhtin Yuri Mikhailovich was born in 1948 in the Kursk region. He has two higher educations. He spent twenty-four years as a leading designer at the Kharkov Design Bureau of Engineering named after


          It’s strange, because I have to work closely with the army, and I received TK with explanations.

          Quote: Cympak
          If BMPT acts in the same order by machine tools, then why does it need protection above the tank? BMPT security significantly exceeds BMP security, which BMPT replaces on the battlefield.


          Definitely. And the armament is mainly against the trench "rascals" portable ATGM and grenade launchers (up to 300-500 m). If, what is more serious target designation (tracer on the target, sign to the tank - hit). For other purposes, there is a lot of artillery (in the MSD there are more fire batteries than motorized rifle companies) and aviation.

          In view of the fire cover, the dismounted infantry cannot operate in the battle line of tanks, but the BMPT must (while having several destruction channels, equipped with weapons inherent in the lagging infantry).
      2. Cympak
        Cympak 30 November 2018 13: 07
        +2
        We continue ....
        All these problems, in all likelihood, determined the thorny path of advancement of this machine into the troops.

        Watching an interview with Yakovlev. Everything becomes clear. The military wanted an "armored harvester-tachanka" to fight the enemy's anti-tank weapons, but received a "hawk eye" - an anti-missile tank with rudiments of air defense (for this, two 30-mm cannons).

        The use of this machine in a real combat situation in Syria showed that this machine is needed, but absolutely for other tasks. It turned out that it is necessary as an infantry fire support machine in confrontation with the enemy, unable to massively use armored vehicles, and in urban areas. In such battles, the main targets are enemy infantry with small arms, MANPADS and RPG operators, light armored vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers, and firing points at short distances.

        Where does the information about the use of BMPT in Syria come from? Of those who have no analogue-TV transmission? I won’t believe that our Defense Ministry shared any information about the experience of using BMPTs with a designer from independent Ukraine, who works at an enterprise that is a competitor of our defense industrial complex, which merges information about the development to the Americans (recall the supply of samples of armored products for testing in the USA)
        In the car, “eyes” are needed for reconnaissance and target detection, and for this, an UAV controlled by an individual crew member is most acceptable.

        UAVs on a machine designed to operate at the tip of an attack are an extremely controversial decision. The problem of situational awareness, search for goals and target allocation should be solved with the help of automated control systems, and UAVs should be placed in the depth of construction on a specialized control machine. UAVs should work on all the machines involved in the attack, and not just on BMPTs.
        Installing an UAV on an BMPT makes sense when the BMPT acts as a separate unit, for example in a city. But to control the UAV, you need a separate crew member and to place it you need a lot of space for monitors (maybe someday they can be replaced with an augmented reality helmet, but in the Russian army this will not come very soon). And if we want multichannel armament , then we need separate operators for each channel. And our BMPT is turning .... turning .... into TBMP.
        1. Per se.
          Per se. 30 November 2018 13: 58
          +3
          Quote: Cympak
          And our BMPT turns into .... turns .... into TBMP.
          Alexey, what you are analyzing, and, most importantly, arguing, is impressed. In this it is possible to communicate with you, of course, neither I nor you, we will not be the ultimate truth, especially since the BMPT topic is initially complex and controversial. For example, I agree with you on the difficulty of using tanks (MBT) in street battles, here you can add the comment above from URAL72 (Oleg) to this. The BMPT, or would they call the car in some other way, is needed, even if it is not ideally yet, so we need to start with something, especially since all equipment is subject to the process of modernization and refinement. As for the UAV, maybe you don't need to shove everything into one "barrel", well, there are the laws of physics, there is the popular concept of "Trishkin's caftan", you cannot add anything without subtracting something else, without changing the weight, dimensions, reliability, price, cruising range and so on. Tank or BMP are not rubber. As for the above quote on TBMP, the BMPT does not turn into TBMP, already by the fact that the infantry, as an assault force, are not operators on board some AWACS, and there is no need to make an "aircraft carrier" from the BMP. It is better to use a special vehicle as UAV carriers, with trained operators who would ensure the use of the UAV in the interests of tankers or their own infantry. In general, if we talk specifically about TBMPs, then, as previously noted, it is much more reasonable to have a separate BMPT as a well-protected means of specialized fire support, and a separate heavy armored personnel carrier as a specialized well-protected vehicle for assault groups. This trio, tank, BMPT and heavy armored personnel carrier can be on the same tank base and used as a shock tank fist. After all, tanks without infantry, or infantry without tanks, are defective, weakened formations, and BMPTs and heavy armored personnel carriers can be the link between a tank and an infantryman. Let me emphasize that we are talking about a shock, tank triad, which is not an alternative to the BMP-2, BMP-3 or BTR-80 (and similar equipment), in their tasks.
  15. Tektor
    Tektor 30 November 2018 11: 20
    +1
    To meet its purpose, the BMPT must have a pair of AGS Balkans with remote detonation of grenades and an appropriate fire control system, including a network-centric KRUS "Strelets", a thermal imager with a stabilization system in two planes and an automatic target tracking mode, plus a radar, such as Headlight or Sobolyatnik. KAZ "Arena" or "Afghanit". Everything else is not important, options.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 30 November 2018 11: 48
      +2
      If we talk about supporting tanks in combined arms combat, then we need to solve the following problems:
      - channel weapons, you need to have several independent channels of weapons for the simultaneous destruction of several targets (see objects 781 and 782). Several channels require an appropriate crew that controlled all of these weapons.
      - All crew accommodation with protection and mobility comparable to tank
      - a complex of weapons that allows you to effectively destroy small targets (homing speed, combat rate of fire, effectiveness of destruction)
      - search for small targets on the battlefield and target allocation between vehicles, ensuring high situational awareness
  16. kplayer
    kplayer 30 November 2018 11: 54
    +2
    Those. in Syria, the machine was very useful in suppressing the enemy infantry (ie, performs the assigned tasks)? Is there a need for a massive use of tanks there? And why it was necessary to compare the BMPT with the firepower of the tank when the vehicles have clearly different targets, although the tank’s ammunition can be different, but it’s quite limited, in my opinion. And with regard to ATGMs, the key support tanks, unload their crews, and just "an extra pair of eyes." We must ask the tankers who took part ...
  17. Operator
    Operator 30 November 2018 12: 00
    -2
    The correct article is that the tanks themselves can completely cope with threats in the form of ATGMs and RPGs with the help of KAZ, which will cost several times cheaper than the BMPT fleet.

    Another thing is that the BMPT in its current form is not needed as a means of direct support for the infantry - an order of magnitude cheaper "Nona" or its analogue on the BMP-3 chassis, also equipped with KAZ, can quite cope with this.
    1. chenia
      chenia 30 November 2018 16: 16
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      Another thing is that BMPT in its current form is not needed as a means of directly supporting infantry -

      ?????
      BMP Support Tanks.

      Quote: Operator
      cheaper "Nona"

      Then Vienna. (though it’s if it covers the tanks indirectly, like all artillery).


      Quote: Operator
      Pseudo-technical nonsense.


      Already implemented, and what scared you so much?
      1. Operator
        Operator 30 November 2018 16: 26
        -1
        The author of the article is considering using BMPT to support infantry.

        Nona / Vienna or their future counterpart is not the point, the main thing is that the self-propelled gun can shoot up to 80 degrees for actions in multi-story urban buildings and firing.

        The fig is multichannel (parasitic weight, low reliability of the entire complex, a small stock of ammunition for each channel), if there is a universal gun with low-speed OFS and high-speed BPS?
        1. chenia
          chenia 30 November 2018 16: 33
          0
          Quote: Operator
          small stock of ammunition for each channel


          7,62 and the AG-40 - will not burden BMPTs (but just against the infantry. So as not to protrude. Just right), and the main armament in the main full-size tower, and not higher than 57 mm.

          Remember, a large caliber drives away its own infantry (safe line).
          1. Operator
            Operator 30 November 2018 16: 46
            0
            Why drag small arms onto armored vehicles - infantry is just right for him; on the other hand, why press the 40-mm infantry to the ground with underframes when one OFZ is enough to destroy one firing point online?

            I do not like 120-mm (with OFZ weighing 15 kg) - use 80-mm (with OFZ 5 kg): the radius of fragmentation is smaller, the ammunition is larger, and the BPS will still penetrate any enemy armored vehicles, including MBTs (the latter are on board, of course) .

            57-mm does not know how to conduct mounted fire in a link up to the battalion inclusive - a very large firing range is obtained.
            1. chenia
              chenia 30 November 2018 16: 59
              0
              Quote: Operator
              armored vehicles handheld small arms - for him the infantry just right; on the other hand, why press 40 mm underfloor to the ground


              No infantry nearby. No!
              Beats artillery, a division in the GP-object of attack (2-3 carriages of shells flew away).
              Fire transfer for 200 m from tanks, infantry (dismounted) for 400 m (their machine-gun fire is not very effective). More powerful weapons can not be used, you repel your infantry.

              Here, in all its glory, is also the BMPT (which doesn’t kill very much, but forces manpower to snuggle up in the trenches, and not to jerk, and in any case not to glance at the attacking tanks.). And there already his own infantry came up and was clearing the trenches.

              Sergeant Tactics Textbook.
              1. Operator
                Operator 30 November 2018 17: 29
                -1
                What is written in your textbook about the organization of the attack of tanks equipped with KAZ, which is violet with all anti-tank infantry weapons?

                Therefore, forget about tanks and look at the following organization of fire support for motorized rifles on the battlefield:
                - one part of the self-propelled guns in a closed position by harassing mounted fire presses the enemy infantry armed with hand small arms to the ground;
                - another part of the self-propelled guns with KAZ (which also weighs all panzerfausts combined) move behind the attacking infantry by 200 meters (radius of expansion of the fragments of the KAZ counter-munitions) and with a lay-fire online it destroys the enemy’s group fire weapons (machine guns, anti-personnel grenade launchers and AGS);
                - dismounted motorized riflemen move ahead of the self-propelled guns and burst into the trenches of GPs immediately after the termination of harassing mounted fire.

                In this situation, participation in the attack of tanks and the consumption of carriages of shells are not required.
                1. chenia
                  chenia 30 November 2018 17: 42
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  In this situation, participation in the attack of tanks and the consumption of carriages of shells are not required.


                  Right!!!
                  With an offer to the General Staff.
                  And you will wear pampas.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 30 November 2018 17: 51
                    0
                    Scarce tanks are needed not to roll into the dust of golem GPs, but to break through the enemy anti-tank missile, consisting of self-propelled guns and tanks, which are not controlled by KAZ, but by armor.
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 30 November 2018 19: 57
                      0
                      Take away the tanks and the VET will become useless.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 3 December 2018 12: 08
                        0
                        In the absence of tanks, the VET will hit BMPs and self-propelled guns.
                      2. alexxxxz
                        alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 56
                        0
                        Nafig to disperse all the armies and wars will not! How? Saving same!
                2. alexxxxz
                  alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 49
                  0
                  "one part of the self-propelled guns in a closed position with harassing mounted fire presses the enemy infantry armed with hand-held small arms to the ground," a wagon of shells has already been delivered to the position of the self-propelled guns. And enemy infantry, squatting in full-height trenches, laughs at the stupidity of the strategist.
                  "The other part of the self-propelled guns with the KAZ (which also does not care about all the panzerfausts taken together) are moving behind the attacking infantry at 200 meters (the radius of dispersal of the fragments of the KAZ counter-ammunition) and with flat fire" - and at this time the anti-tank guns are shooting with armor-piercing subcaliber shells with direct shots from their own guns, advancing self-propelled guns. Then the artillerymen laugh at the stupidity of the strategist who sent expensive equipment to slaughter.
                  "dismounted motorized riflemen are moving in front of the self-propelled guns" - and motorized riflemen at this time are already lying on the ground, pressed by the fire of enemy riflemen, who stood up from the trenches and shot the unfortunate as in a shooting range. Then they all eat porridge together and laugh.
                  "In this situation, participation in the attack of tanks and the consumption of shells will not be required" - thus the car was not saved, the infantry was put down, but the tanks, fortunately, were not needed. Hooray!
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 16 January 2019 21: 30
                    0
                    You already decide - your infantry squatted under the fire of my self-propelled guns from closed positions, or stood in the trenches at full height? laughing
                    And yes - that Eza Wunderwaffe is your barrel anti-tank gun that can shoot BPSs with my self-propelled guns in closed positions? laughing

                    By and large - squat in the trenches and wait for hand grenades from my foot soldiers (since the barrel anti-tank gun is not, by definition).
                    1. alexxxxz
                      alexxxxz 24 May 2019 11: 37
                      0
                      Oh, these couch strategists! ..))) And everyone imagines himself a strategist, looking at the battle from the side!
  18. Operator
    Operator 30 November 2018 12: 04
    -3
    Quote: Cympak
    channel weapons

    Pseudo-technical nonsense.
  19. Whowhy
    Whowhy 30 November 2018 12: 13
    +3
    Based on the debate, the main task emerges, which has very little to do with BMPT. “This is the development of reliable means of situational awareness on the battlefield. For example, in a broadcast similar to our "Polygon", they showed a portable (laptop-sized) radar for special forces, which allows you to see through the walls and determine the presence of people there .... And the means of destroying the detected enemy will not matter.
    For example, take the same BMPT, put on it an uninhabited module with a large-caliber automatic grenade launcher (with "smart" grenades with air blasting, and an elevation angle of 85 degrees), paired with a large one, and instead of the troop compartment, place cassettes (covered with armor) with missiles vertical launch with a caliber of 240 mm (there are quite a few of them fit). The missiles are guided by a laser beam, either from BMPTs, or from other armored vehicles (remember the principles of network centricity), or from remote controls (yes, and from the same UAV). Such an BMPT can cope with any object that can be found in the city, and in an open area it will "make a rustle" ...
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 30 November 2018 20: 09
      0
      Missiles are cheaper with radio command guidance. Generally wire management. Cheap and reliable, and the range is not large.
  20. exo
    exo 30 November 2018 12: 18
    +2
    It turned out that it was needed as an infantry fire support vehicle in confrontation with an enemy incapable of massively using armored vehicles and in urban areas. In such battles, the main targets are enemy infantry with small arms, MANPADS and RPG operators, lightly armored vehicles, artillery and rocket launchers and firing points at short range.

    It turns out that this is an anti-terrorist machine and its place in the Russian Guard? And support for tanks, nothing to do with it? It would be interesting to get acquainted with the official conclusions on the results of their combat use in Syria. That would explain a lot. But, this is impossible.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 30 November 2018 13: 29
      +1
      It didn’t turn out, this is how BMPT was used in Syria. In Syria, combined-arms battles against an equal enemy were not conducted.
  21. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 30 November 2018 13: 18
    -1
    Well, yes, the inefficient use of funds continues. Probably the enterprise does not discuss the need for such tanks with the RF Ministry of Defense. We needed the development of the T-14, but was postponed for the future because of its high cost.
  22. Metlik
    Metlik 30 November 2018 13: 42
    0
    The main weapon and means of detecting BMPT are quadrocopters or minidrones. Not a UAV, just short-range devices. Their operators do not sit inside the BMPT, but move from behind, in another car, for example, a remote control point will be obtained from the “shell” armored personnel carrier, there is a lot of space. He also runs the BMPT itself. Without a crew and a tank gun, the internal volume will be reduced to a minimum, which will increase protection.
    1. alexxxxz
      alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 42
      0
      Here are just a "shell" or any armored vehicle - an excellent screen for radio signals, how external antennas for radio stations are made and what quality of communication they provide is known to everyone. Therefore, in fact, a fighter with a remote control will sit on the armor or stick out standing in the hatch. How long is this?
  23. kplayer
    kplayer 30 November 2018 14: 12
    +2
    Looks like bankers, but merchants alone! ...
    Quote: Anchonsha
    Well, yes, the inefficient use of funds continues. Probably the enterprise does not discuss the need for such tanks with the RF Ministry of Defense. We needed the development of the T-14, but was postponed for the future because of its high cost.

    Where is the development, and where is the serial production? - Different things. So there is the T-90M
    Quote: Operator
    The correct article is that the tanks themselves can completely cope with threats in the form of ATGMs and RPGs with the help of KAZ, which will cost several times cheaper than the BMPT fleet.

    KAZ, apparently, will crumble the calculations of RPGs and ATGMs? And motorized infantry with their infantry fighting vehicles are also probably superfluous to tank units? It is enough to recall the motorized rifle about their current full-time infantry fighting vehicles and their crews - an understanding will come of why BMPT is needed.
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 30 November 2018 21: 40
      +3
      In general, you read some comments - the attitude to the infantry, to the motorized riflemen as to certain entities from computer "strategies", a consumable that restores losses to full strength in real time.
      1. alexxxxz
        alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 37
        0
        Do you really think that war is a picnic on the sidelines for any soldier? But the tankers are immortal ponies in armored limos! ))) Everyone dies in the war, everything. Each year, more people die in road accidents than in local armed conflicts.
    2. alexxxxz
      alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 39
      0
      "It is enough to remember the motorized riflemen about their current standard infantry fighting vehicles and their crews - you will understand why BMPTs are needed." What's wrong with the BMP? And will there be exclusively omnipotent cyborgs in the BMPT crews?
  24. atos_kin
    atos_kin 30 November 2018 16: 23
    0
    Who needs a tank support combat vehicle?

    The author replied to the infantry. It remains only to change the letter: BMPТ -> BMPП(hunters). And of course, everything related to this. As you call a ship, so it is ... (c).
  25. tank64rus
    tank64rus 30 November 2018 16: 27
    0
    "The claimed technical result can be obtained using the invention, is the possibility of equipping BMOS with standard UAVs with a launch and landing system, placing rockets with a seeker (seeker) together with an ATGM, which will significantly increase their dimensions and thereby increase the range of target destruction lengthening the rear of the combat module and placing there the installation of rocket-propelled flamethrowers will allow both the defeat of TOZHS (tank hazardous manpower) and other targets, as well as masking groups of armored objects and individual units. (remotely controlled ground vehicle) will allow the use of BMOS as a mobile forward control point for various types of robotic systems. " RF patent №2658517 "Reconnaissance and fire complex BMOP" model of a robotic complex was demonstrated at the Army-2018. A similar model has already been exhibited by China in
    the beginning of November in Zhuhai at the next military-technical exhibition AirShow China.
  26. Kaw
    Kaw 30 November 2018 16: 28
    0
    To my mind. This machine, in all respects, is much more efficient than a tank.
    Against the infantry, a 30-mm quick-firing gun is much more effective than a large gun with a low rate of fire.
    Secondly, due to the weight savings on the gun, it was possible to make anti-cumulative protection on the entire side surface of the body. Flammable charges were removed from the inside, which greatly increased the survivability of the machine.
    Thirdly, the 152 mm ATGM Cornet is much more effective against modern tanks than any armor-piercing shells for a standard 125 mm gun.
    Thus, with most of the tasks assigned to the tank, this machine will cope better than the tank.
    1. alexxxxz
      alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 33
      0
      "In my opinion. This machine, in all respects, is much more effective than a tank." - but in my opinion it is worse, because it does not have such a powerful cannon with powerful HE ammunition as a tank.
      "Against infantry, a 30mm rapid-fire cannon is much more effective than a large cannon with a slow rate of fire." - infantry is more effective against infantry, because they each have a rapid-fire machine. And then there are machine gunners and grenade launchers.
      "Secondly, due to the weight savings on the gun, we managed to make anti-cumulative protection on the entire side surface of the hull." - not quite "because of", but including. It's good.
      "The flammable charges were removed from the inside, which greatly increased the survivability of the machine." - only the tanks with flammable liquid remained in place. And their area and occupied volume are very, very.
      "Third, the 152mm Kornet ATGMs are much more effective against modern tanks than any AP rounds for a standard 125mm cannon." Yes? Precisely against modern ones? Does it bother you that the speed of the rocket is much less than the speed of a sub-caliber projectile?
      "Thus, with most of the tasks assigned to the tank, this machine will cope better than the tank." But no better than BMP. Why then?
  27. vindigo
    vindigo 30 November 2018 18: 05
    0
    And why BMP can not perform all these tasks? Why make a new car? Put the module with the right weapons. Hung additional armor. When forcing water barriers or road transport add. removed the armor or the bottom as the tank passed. Self-propelled mortars and artillery or air strikes can cover infantry in shelters. The tank and infantry fighting vehicles explode machine gun nests that interfere with the infantry, the tank distracts the enemy tank, and the infantrymen themselves, arriving at the infantry fighting vehicles and covering it, shoot grenade launchers and ATGM operators and cover them with volume-detonating ammunition. We need good communication and interaction, and not a new combat vehicle.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 30 November 2018 20: 16
      +1
      How many copies are broken. A machine is needed, with proper implementation, a rather universal unit is obtained. The question is in the cry. 57 mm gun and 40 or 57 mm automatic grenade launcher plus machine guns plus rockets in vertical launchers. It will be able to cover tanks and support infantry, and in the city use to more than from the tank.
  28. Buoy tour
    Buoy tour 30 November 2018 19: 15
    0
    In my opinion, a cool technique, the main thing is that the crew should be trained. Attack, ambush defense all for him 3 such cleaners minus 2 platoon of enemy tanks.
  29. andrew42
    andrew42 30 November 2018 20: 18
    +1
    "... since the hit of a shell from a tank gun or rocket blows lightly armored vehicles to shreds." - Lightly armored vehicles are very mobile and maneuverable, getting into them on the move from a tank gun is the height of skill, provided that nothing interferes. Not to mention the various systems installed on cars - to hunt for them on a tank, like a club for mosquitoes. Here BMPT and place. About the battalion link - to the very point, I agree. In combination with conventional infantry fighting vehicles, it will work wonderfully well.
  30. TOR2
    TOR2 30 November 2018 23: 33
    +2
    In the car, “eyes” are needed for reconnaissance and target identification
    That's all it comes down to. To effectively support tanks, the BMPT should be primarily equipped with an optics detector, with a rather powerful 4 km. minimum. And the second important objective of the BMPT should be the neutralization of already launched missiles, both from anti-tank systems and from helicopters. Then it will really be a tank support vehicle.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 1 December 2018 00: 37
      +1
      Interception of the ATGM in flight is almost impossible by the BMPTiP forces, well, a very advanced MSA is needed. But in advance to identify and suppress / destroy it easily. Plus, the firing position of any anti-tank gun is easily spotted after the shot. BMPTiP will be able to fire at it within a couple of seconds after detection. In the case of using AGS57 mm or projectiles against the "Baikal" with air flow, the affected area will be large. And KAZ will cope with a (single) rocket.
    2. Operator
      Operator 3 December 2018 12: 12
      0
      A microrelief hood makes it impossible to detect optics.
  31. malyvalv
    malyvalv 1 December 2018 14: 43
    +4
    At all times there were heavy goals and easy goals. There was light and heavy cavalry. There were large battleships and small destroyers. And what is characteristic of light targets, as a rule, was a multiple of more than heavy ones. And to combat light targets, such as destroyers, no one used the main caliber guns. They put specifically medium-caliber artillery.
    On the proposed battlefield for the breakout tank, there will most likely be the same picture. A certain amount of fortified goals and a huge number of light and maneuverable ones. A tank may simply not have time to hit all targets with a single gun. For this, something small-caliber and rapid-fire is needed. But with no less protection than the tank itself. That is BMPT.
    It can be argued whether the BMPT 2 guns of 30 mm or better, but one but 57 mm or some other option, but such a machine is definitely needed.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 1 December 2018 17: 27
      +1
      30 mm is not enough. As you put it, "light targets" are now just created to hold 30 mm. 57 mm is optimal. Ideally, 40 mm bofos can either buy or create an analogue. And there are 57 plus ammunition stocks in warehouses.
  32. kplayer
    kplayer 8 December 2018 15: 16
    +2
    For especially gifted "experts" BUSV - BMP follow the dismounted infantry, and not vice versa.
    BMPT ch.n. By default, it was created to work in uniform battle formations with tanks and on the basis of a tank (or is the meaning of its abbreviation not clear?), in order to save the lives of motorized riflemen and their imperfect "cardboard" BMPs at the same time on flat terrain, so that the latter do not become a "mass grave of infantry" ", because without the last (infantry) tanks can not in the conditions of urban development and mountainous and wooded areas.
  33. Clone
    Clone 8 December 2018 19: 41
    0
    At different levels, in different directions to fire ... Well, as if from the T-28 and T-35 long ago abandoned. And the reasons for this decision are known.
    And then, to protect the OPP machine, create your own personal guard? Isn’t it easier to bring to mind the tasks to be performed by BMP and armored personnel carriers? Not?
  34. First iron-faced
    First iron-faced 8 December 2018 21: 15
    0
    Quote: Clone
    Isn’t it easier to bring to mind the tasks to be performed by BMP and armored personnel carriers? Not?

    Well, like they brought it ... At the exit, the same hopeless "cardboard" in the form of the BMP-2M "Berezhok" and the BTR-82A ... What, isn't it?
    1. Clone
      Clone 9 December 2018 01: 41
      0
      Actually, I didn’t mean applying nano-paint to ancient vehicles of motorized rifle and other infantry.
  35. First iron-faced
    First iron-faced 9 December 2018 19: 43
    0
    Heh! So, which of the surviving vehicles will be engaged in supporting tanks with a bunch of inactive people inside (poor fellows ride on armor for good reason)? Of course, it is possible to land motorized rifles at gunpoint - for slaughter. The logical conclusion does not come, no? - Why did the BMPT appear?
  36. bone1
    bone1 11 December 2018 20: 10
    -2
    But how did tanks fight before - without the support of BMPT? - and is there any data on the combat use and effectiveness of this "Akhzarit"? And then they thought up all sorts of BMPTs just to beg the grandmother, tomorrow they will come up with an BMP BMPT! laughing
  37. alexxxxz
    alexxxxz 16 January 2019 15: 17
    0
    My personal opinion, as a theorist and sofa iksperd, that this whole idea with BMPT - zilch and fiction. I don't see any advantages in it. A kind of hybrid of a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle. Heavy as a tank, snarling like an infantry fighting vehicle. A hybrid of a hedgehog and a snake! All this nonsense about its ability to defeat tank-hazardous targets is nonsense. Through the observation devices of the tank, not a damn thing can be seen even in the parking lot, but in motion, but in battle - a sleazy elephant! It can strike, but not detect. AFAR? The enemy's shooters will quickly turn it into a sieve of small arms, and if this is the main "sighted organ", then, accordingly, blindness. Tanks in the city - byada-byada! But Berlin and Prague were taken and the corresponding tactics have long been described. In Grozny it was clarified. All in all - no need to reinvent the wheel! The infantry must be trained and trained more carefully! Even if it detects and suppresses tank-dangerous targets! What, sobsno, is nothing new !!! And when some here talk about safety in battle, it’s "no magician". War, wapshche, is not a safe occupation!
  38. alexxxxz
    alexxxxz 16 January 2019 17: 53
    0
    Quote: chenia
    Here in all its glory and BMPT (which doesn’t really kill, but forces manpower to snuggle in the trenches, and not to jump)

    I myself imagined BMPT vividly spewing a wall of fire immediately along the entire front of my attack and pouring lead every square cm of the enemy’s position. Movie!
  39. Jarserge
    Jarserge 30 January 2019 19: 24
    0
    In the Soviet Army, there were motorized rifle companies, then motorized rifle battalions, to perform the same tasks. With the appropriate training, slightly different from the linear motorized rifle squads, they coped with their task quite well, and much better than a deaf and blind copy of the BMPT tank. In my opinion, the creation of BMPT is a vivid example of how production is trying to manipulate the customer. Here it is easier and easier for us to produce, so "customize" to your tasks. Instead of designing and offering a normal armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicles, they continue to collect not understand what is with the "cardboard" armor from which the infantry dismounts through the top, at best from the side while suffering enormous PLANNED losses from frontal fire. And gentlemen generals, instead of supporting the fantasies of the military-industrial complex, it would be nice to think about increasing the efficiency of fire control of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, at a time when the infantry is dismounted and all the commanders from the squad to the company commander are on foot. Our military-industrial complex, even under Comrade Stalin, managed to "give birth" to covs such as multi-turret tanks and so on, and now what are the armored personnel carriers, which are essentially reconnaissance patrol vehicles, and the Polish-Czech cattle is a revelation in terms of suitability for the infantry. And the one who came up with the BMP-3 with its full-time layout and armament, you just need to hang ...
  40. czes
    czes April 8 2019 17: 14
    0
    Quote: Jarserge
    And the one who came up with the BMP-3 with its full-time layout and weapons you just need to hang ....

    ++
  41. alexxxxz
    alexxxxz 24 May 2019 11: 40
    0
    Quote: alexxxz
    You already decide - your infantry squatted under the fire of my self-propelled guns from closed positions

    What can be defined here? If the opponent does not understand the Russian language, then explaining something to him is pointless. I wrote everything clearly, in Russian, for each proposed scenario. And yes, I’ve already decided on you.