Military Review

BMP Her Majesty. Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle

80
Great Britain is a conservative country, whose leadership has always been able to count money. Currently, the Army of the Misty Albion is the only tracked infantry fighting vehicle - BMP "Warrior". Serial production of the BMP began in the 1985 year, and in the 1987 year the combat vehicle was officially adopted by the British Army. She remains the only British infantry fighting vehicle in the 2019 year.




From 1985 to 1995, during the mass production years, British enterprises transferred over 1000 Warrior vehicles in various modifications to customers, including armored vehicles manufactured for Kuwait. 489 units were produced directly in the version of the infantry fighting vehicle for the British army, command-staff vehicles, armored repair and maintenance and recovery vehicles, artillery observer vehicles and other variants were also produced in separate series. Currently, these vehicles are being modernized, the British military expects to extend their life cycle until the 2040 year, although when the vehicles were launched into serial production, they were going to operate the BMP only until the 2010 year. In total, it is planned to upgrade the 380 units of Warrior, of which 245 will receive a new tower with an updated weapon system, the rest will perform auxiliary functions.

British BMP Warrior (from the English. "Warrior") is the same age as the domestic BMP-3. British designers were actively working on a new tracked infantry fighting vehicle for Her Majesty's Armed Forces from 1977 to 1983 year. The operation of the new BMP in the troops began in the 1987 year, at the same time that the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle was adopted by the Soviet Army. It is curious that Kuwait became the only export buyer of the new British BMP. Currently in service with this country are both the British Desert Warrior infantry fighting vehicles (modification for the desert) and the Russian BMP-3.

BMP Warrior: from project to implementation


Work on the creation of a new infantry fighting vehicle began in the UK in 1972, and it was then that the Project Definition 1 program was launched, which provided for the creation of an infantry fighting vehicle for the British army. Analysis and evaluation of the proposed projects continued until the 1979 of the year, after which the military decided on the choice of the main contractor. The creation of the tracked infantry fighting vehicle was led by GKN Sankey, then the project received the official designation MCV-80 (Mechanized Combat Vehicle - 80). The first navigational model, and then three ready-made prototypes of the future infantry fighting vehicle, one of which received a two-seat turret with an automatic gun mounted inside the 30-mm, was transferred to the military already in the 1980 year. Curious is the fact that in parallel with the development of its BMP, the British military tested and experienced American combat vehicles, early prototypes of the future M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, but in the end made the choice in favor of the British project.



The British military put forward a number of requirements for the future infantry fighting vehicle. The key ones were: capacity - up to 10 people, including three crew members of the BMP; sufficient maneuverability for interaction on the battlefield with the main combat a tank Challenger security - from any small arms fire weapons, as well as fragments of shells and mines; the presence of weapons to combat any lightly armored targets of a potential enemy. At the same time, the priority in basic combat qualities of the future infantry fighting vehicle was placed as follows: 1. mobility, 2. security, 3. firepower.

The ready-made prototypes of the future BMP made a good impression on the British military and already in June 1980 the first MCV-80 prototypes were recognized as satisfying all the basic requirements, but bringing the tracked infantry fighting vehicle to the production model took several years. During lengthy tests of 12 pre-production combat vehicles, they successfully crossed 200 of thousands of kilometers, and were also subjected to shelling tests. One BMP model with implemented remote control was tested undermining an anti-tank mine. Bringing the combat vehicle to a serial model, which could be put into production, required designers and engineers to re-develop 250 units, components and assemblies of infantry fighting vehicles. Almost completely finished, two combat vehicles passed the first tests in the Middle East in 1983, and in the autumn of 1984 four more infantry fighting vehicles took part in military exercises held in Germany.

According to the initial plans, the army was ready to acquire 1900 new infantry fighting vehicles, and the total costs of the program were estimated at 1,2 billion pounds, but already in the 1981 year the order was reduced to 1053 infantry fighting vehicles, of which only 602 combat vehicles were supposed to get a tower with 30-mm automatic gun. In the end, GKN Defense released the entire 789 BMP for the British army, according to the classification adopted by the army, they received the designation FV510 and their own name Warrior. Moreover, in the linear, basic version with cannon armament, only 489 vehicles were made.



The layout and capabilities of the BMP


The new English caterpillar infantry fighting vehicle received the classic layout characteristic of infantry fighting vehicles of other countries of the world. In the front of the case, the designers installed the engine, and here was the place of the driver (to the left of the engine compartment). The middle part of the hull was occupied by a fighting compartment, which was crowned by a tower designed for the work of two crew members - the commander of the car and the gunner. At the rear of the BMP was an airborne squad, which could accommodate 7 infantry. The landing was carried out through a wide aft door, and fighters could also use double-wing hatches in the roof of the airborne squad to leave the combat vehicle. At the same time, loopholes for firing small arms were absent on the sides of the hull, and paratroopers sat facing each other (three along the port side, four along the right side). All seats crew and landing received seat belts.

The BMP is driven by the four-stroke 8-cylinder multi-fuel diesel engine Perkins-Rolls-Royce V8 Condor. The V-engine is paired with a four-speed automatic gearbox. Engine power is enough to provide a car with a combat weight of more than 25 tons a maximum speed of 75 km / h (on the highway). Cruising on the highway is 660 km. A curious feature is that the 12-cylinder version of the Condor diesel engine is installed on British Challenger tanks. Thus, the designers achieved a unification of the equipment produced, the engines of the infantry fighting vehicle and the main battle tank are included in one design series, which also simplifies the process of their operation and maintenance.

The welded case of the British infantry fighting vehicle is made of rolled sheet armor, the basis of which is aluminum-magnesium alloy, the octagonal tower is made of steel. The first versions of the combat vehicle provided the crew and the landing assault defense from small arms fire to large-caliber 14,5-mm machine guns inclusive. In addition, Warrior’s armor provided reliable protection against fragments of shells and mines, including the 155-mm caliber. Additional protection for the crew was ensured by an internal anti-fragmentation strike, additional protection for the paratroopers is the spare parts and equipment of the infantrymen themselves, which are stored in the space between their seats and the sides of the hull. During the upgrade, the machine’s protection was enhanced by the installation of additional armor, which provided protection against 30-mm shells in the frontal projection. British designers also thought about protecting the crew and the landing force from the effects of anti-tank mines and landmines. The bottom of the combat vehicle is able to withstand the detonation of 9-kg anti-tank mines.


Variant of Desert Warrior in Kuwaiti Army


The main weapon of the new BMP was the 30-mm automatic gun L21A1, with which the 7,62-mm machine gun L94A1 was paired. It was believed that the capabilities of this weapon and the armor-piercing ammunition developed for it would be enough to fight the Soviet BMP-2. An interesting feature of the infantry fighting vehicle was that its weapons were not stabilized. According to British ideas about such military equipment, it could effectively fire at the enemy only from stops. In part, the lack of stabilization of the gun, and this, of course, is a drawback for the second-generation infantry fighting vehicle, was compensated by the low rate of fire, which amounts to 80-90 rounds per minute. At the same time, you can fire from an 30-mm gun either with single shots or in bursts of 3-6 shells, this is because the gun’s power is cluster (cartridges for an 3 shell). In addition to the low rate of fire, dampers were responsible for improving the accuracy of shooting, which the designers placed at the end of the barrel casing. These devices dampen oscillations of the gun barrel when firing.

BMP Warrior have established themselves as a reliable and well-protected machine. They took an active part in the hostilities in Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. They also participated in the conflict in Bosnia on the territory of the former Republic of Yugoslavia. During the fighting, the infantry fighting vehicle demonstrated good survivability, reliably protecting the crew and the landing force from shell fragments and mines, anti-tank missiles and rocket-propelled grenades, and explosive explosives on high-explosive bombs.

Modernization projects BMP "Warrior"


Projects to modernize the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle appeared almost immediately after the start of its mass production. The first modernization step was already taken in 1990-1991, when the British sent three motorized infantry battalions armed with the FV510 Warrior BMP to participate in the operation against Iraq. To participate in the fighting, the cars were modernized, their arms were expanded by installing two Milan ATGMs, which were placed on the tower. In the future, these ATGMs will be replaced by the American Javelin complex.

BMP Her Majesty. Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle

BMP Warrior with Chobham armor in Iraq


British designers also strengthened the protection of the car by installing additional armoring on the BMP. The same armor appeared on the infantry fighting vehicle as on the Challenger tank. It was a composite armor, which in the UK and English-speaking countries is called "Chobham" by the name of the Chobham tank research center, where it was developed in the 1960-s. This armor consists of many ceramic tiles placed in a special metal matrix, they are connected to the base plate by several elastic layers. Such display armor is highly effective in protecting armored vehicles from both cumulative and sub-caliber ammunition. There is a known case when during a military campaign in Iraq, one Warrior infantry fighting vehicle equipped with similar armor successfully survived 12 hits from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers.

Following the completion of Operation Desert Storm, interest in the British BMP was predictably shown by Kuwait, which was liberated from Iraqi occupation. Especially for Kuwait, the British created a version of the combat vehicle, adapted for use in a hot desert climate. This BMP got its own name "Desert Warrior". The main difference is not adaptation to the desert climate, but the new LAV-25TOW tower, in which they installed the 25-mm M242 automatic cannon of the American company Bushmaster. Also, two launchers for launching TOW anti-tank guided missiles appeared on the tower.


Unrealized version of the BRM based on the Warrior BMP


One of the unrealized options for modernization remains the version of the combat reconnaissance vehicle (BRM) presented in the second half of the 1990's based on the Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. This model was also distinguished by the presence of the LAV-25TOW turret and an updated running gear, the number of track rollers in which was reduced from six to five, which made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the combat vehicle. This version was to be equipped with a new intelligence data collection complex, the center of the complex was a telescopic mast, which was located behind the tower. The feature of the machine, which was demonstrated in 1997 at the exhibition of equipment for the British land and naval forces, was also an unusual color. The car was completely black, according to the engineers of the company GKN Defense, this was supposed to increase the secrecy of the BRM.


Upgrade option with the installation of 40-mm gun CTA International CT40


The latest version of the modernization of the “Warrior” infantry fighting vehicle, which is being implemented today in the UK and is supposed to extend the life of the vehicles to 2040 years, involves the installation of a new tower with an 40-mm automatic gun. This modification has already received an unofficial designation Warrior 2. The first eight modernized infantry fighting vehicles arrived for military tests at the British Army Test Center, located in Dorset in January 2018. The updated BMP gets at its disposal a more powerful 40-mm automatic cannon CTA International CT40, along with which telescopic ammunition is used. The fire control system is also seriously updated, which provides the combat vehicle with the possibility of all-weather and all-day use.
Author:
80 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 17 August 2019 09: 47
    +3
    Angles and here remain faithful to the TRADITIONS.
    1. KVU-NSVD
      KVU-NSVD 17 August 2019 13: 50
      +5
      Quote: svp67
      Angles and here remain faithful to the TRADITIONS.

      Not really. Right-hand drive this time made a left-hand drive winked
    2. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 17 August 2019 14: 07
      +1
      Almost angels :)
    3. Observer2014
      Observer2014 17 August 2019 15: 57
      0
      Like from me yes I agree completely.
  2. serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 17 August 2019 10: 23
    0
    Tell me, who knows! 3-4 years ago at VO there was an article about using our old armored vehicles in civilian life, I read it several times, let others read it, but then I was still a guest, what this article is called and where to find it! Thanks in advance! Moderators! Please do not delete this comment! the article was super! neighing hysterically over the passage about armor ,,,,, carts!
    1. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 18 August 2019 19: 54
      0
      The second life of the BRDM. Scouts on the "citizen" - she, no?
      https://topwar.ru/62282-vtoraya-zhizn-brdm-razvedchiki-na-grazhdanke-chast-sedmaya.html
      1. serg.shishkov2015
        serg.shishkov2015 19 August 2019 05: 56
        0
        Not her, but THIS I will look! BRDM-2 - one of the favorite objects of armored vehicles, Thank you!
  3. Corn
    Corn 17 August 2019 10: 56
    +2
    Currently in service with the army of Misty Albion is the only tracked infantry fighting vehicle - BMP "Warrior"
    “Ajax” where have you lost?
  4. Popov Konstantin Ivanovich
    Popov Konstantin Ivanovich 17 August 2019 13: 32
    0
    The British tradition of "Infantry fights on its feet" made it possible to implement powerful (in contrast to BMP - 1,2,3) protection of the crew and troops on the Warrior, to exclude "loopholes" in the sides, on the other hand, it was not possible to place ATGMs, while the ammunition capacity of the cannon and machine gun is quite sufficient to support its infantry (which will fight on foot). I wonder what ammunition the 40mm cannon has. I really like this modernization option. Serious modernization stock, such a machine will not be sent to dill and will not be presented to the Tribals, let them ride on "Saxons" (although cars are also not bad for solving police tasks).
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 17 August 2019 14: 06
      0
      Quote: Popov Konstantin Ivanovich
      The British tradition of "Infantry fighting on their feet" made it possible to implement powerful (in contrast to BMP - 1,2,3) protection of the crew and troops on the Warrior
    2. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 17 August 2019 15: 04
      0
      Somehow my answer was written incorrectly.
      Quote: Popov Konstantin Ivanovich
      The British tradition of "Infantry fighting on their feet" made it possible to implement powerful (in contrast to BMP - 1,2,3) protection of the crew and troops on the Warrior

      But how powerful?
    3. hohol95
      hohol95 17 August 2019 21: 08
      -1
      The British tradition of "Infantry fights on their feet", made it possible to realize on the "Warrior" powerful (in contrast to the BMP - 1,2,3)

      Let me ask you a curiosity - is this car floating?
      If you compare it with BMP-1/2/3.
    4. bk0010
      bk0010 18 August 2019 14: 26
      0
      Such traditions are poorly compatible with the concept of "focus of defeat"
    5. Private-K
      Private-K 25 August 2019 17: 37
      +1
      Just monstrous incompetence!
      BMP-3, the same age as Urrier, weighing 19 tons, has basic frontal projection protection against 30 mm guns BPS (approx. 100 mm equivalent), while Warrier with a weight of 25 tons in the basic version holds only 14,5 mm armor-piercing bullets KPVT machine gun.
      The BMP-3 managed to deploy a powerful weapon system and chic AT capabilities. Warrier has the worst, just SHAME gun with MANUAL LOADING. This is the level of 1942. Warrier has no ATGM - i.e. Missing PT capabilities per se.
      Emirates tested BMP-2 and Warrier. And they decided to take the BMP-2. In 1991. But here, they learned about the presence of BMP-3. And they began to beg for tests. After comparative tests with the BMP-3, nobody even wanted to look at your Warrior. And continues to not want to watch until now! And BMP-3 is already admired by many who wish and lick those who are not available to it.
      And finally: Warrior was so good that the Britons decided not to even try to improve it themselves and continue to build its lineup. And they buy new cars initially ... of Austrian design.
  5. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 17 August 2019 15: 02
    +2
    To be honest, that awkward moment comes when the author wrote an article for which he thanks. But there is nothing in the article.
    For example, about booking - This was originally thought out at the beginning of the 80s as a bottom for protection against mines at 9kg, or it later happened during modernization. As far as I remember in the frontal armor, Vorior has cutouts for cooling the engine. do they not weaken the armor? As far as I remember, there were at least several attempts to cover them with additional armor in the future. And also from sand.
    In addition to Chobham, for Vorior there is armor armor with the placement of elements at angles, something like this.

    Also in Iraq they placed trellised armor on top.

    In light of this, the question just arises that
    "There is a known case when, during the military campaign in Iraq, one Warrior infantry fighting vehicle equipped with similar armor successfully survived 12 hits from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers."
    Is this precisely the merit of Chobham, or is it still partially grating?
    "During the modernization, the vehicle's protection was strengthened by the installation of additional armor, which provided protection against 30-mm shells in the frontal projection."
    By the way, the wiki says 25 mm.

    Now about the gun.
    "Partly the lack of stabilization of the gun, and this is undoubtedly a drawback for the second-generation BMP, was compensated by the low rate of fire, which is 80-90 rounds per minute. At the same time, fire from a 30-mm gun can be either single shots or bursts of 3- 6 shells, this is due to the fact that the gun is powered by a cluster (cassettes for 3 shells). "
    - 80-90 is the rate of fire, but what is the practical rate of fire? How and at what speed do these cassettes approximately change and reload? A very strange decision, I always wanted to know more about it, but, unfortunately, this time did not work either. Just meaning from such a rate of fire and reload? to knock down light equipment - well, ok, but if you didn’t hit it, didn’t hit it right away, did you receive in response a couple of dozen of the same 30 mm rounds that would definitely do something?
    It turns out some kind of sniper gun? And how was it used in that capacity?
    I have always believed that the main feature of such small-caliber automatic guns is their rate of fire, when a hail of shells breaks through even the side armor of tanks, completely demolishes them attachments. Breaks through a shelter or launches a line of shells with striking elements there.
    And still more interesting. Shooting on the go is hard. From the stop, wait for the car to stabilize and then start shooting.
    But there is certainly some sense in this, they would not have launched such weapons if everyone had been so sad. But I don’t understand why tanks need such support.

    "To participate in hostilities, the vehicles were modernized, their armament was expanded by installing two Milan ATGMs, which were placed on the turret. In the future, these ATGMs will be replaced with the American Javelin complex."
    Was it a tower redesign? or just welded on the installation? By the way, in the photo "BMP Warrior with" Chobham "armor in Iraq" there are no installations, it turns out that not everything has been modernized?

    "but already in 1981, the order was cut to reduce costs to 1053 infantry fighting vehicles, of which only 602 combat vehicles were to receive a turret with a 30-mm automatic cannon. In the end, GKN Defense produced only 789 infantry fighting vehicles for the British army, according to they received the designation FV510 and their own name Warrior. "
    - here I do not quite understand. if 602 were only supposed to get a turret with a 30 mm cannon, then what else? just if it’s commander’s, repair, and other vehicles, then it’s not BMP anymore and they’re not called FV510.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 17 August 2019 18: 07
      -2
      Quote: Red_Baron
      "There is a known case when, during the military campaign in Iraq, one Warrior infantry fighting vehicle equipped with similar armor successfully survived 12 hits from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers."
      Is this precisely the merit of Chobham, or is it still partially grating?

      Well, definitely not grates! I believe that it was a merit of the krivorukovy shooters who have never managed to get directly at the target. :)))
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 17 August 2019 18: 34
        0
        I do not know and am quite ready to believe the English army, but of course I would like to appreciate this.
        Arrows are outstanding and quite old ammunition could also play a decisive role, I do not argue :)
    2. Doctor
      Doctor 17 August 2019 19: 05
      +2
      The approaches to the design of armored vehicles in the UK are based on the work of Brigadier General of the Tank Forces Richard Simpkin. His books Motorcycle and Tanks are considered the best works in the English-language analytical literature in the development of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
      Highlights on BMP.
      Tasks:
      1. Providing infantry with a protected vehicle.
      2. Providing fire support for infantry during battle.

      The main components of the design:
      1. The number of crew and landing.
      The main factor. A full-fledged squad of soldiers should be placed. Less than 8 is critical - during landing, a part will fail, 5-6 people will not complete the combat mission.
      2. Firepower.
      The most debated. Must provide suppression of infantry outside the shelter or in unarmored shelters, in fortified shelters and trenches, suppression or defeat of unarmored vehicles and lightly armored vehicles.
      No powerful guns and anti-tank systems! Weight gain, which means a decrease in protection and a decrease in landing. In addition, the crew stimulates the fight against tanks, and there is no chance. Tanks are fighting tanks.
      3. Protection.
      The maximum possible with reasonable dimensions and without reducing the number
      4. Mobility.
      Must keep up with the tanks.
      5. Spatial awareness (visibility) including in terms of landing conditions.
      It should provide the landing party with the possibility of orientation in any setting. It is important that the dismounting infantry squad can quickly navigate the terrain when exiting the vehicle.

      The main thing that you need to understand the BMP (and especially the BTR) is a technique primarily for transporting infantry. Attempts to stick powerful weapons into it lead to the creation of an overall light tank with a large crew.
      And we again carry infantry in the Urals and Kamaz.

      M 113 for all time! If we had something like that in Afghanistan and Chechnya, no one would ride armored.
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 17 August 2019 20: 00
        -1
        Thank you, I would like to answer separately to the words from the book and to your personal ones.
        Quote: Arzt
        Highlights on BMP.
        Tasks:
        1. Providing infantry with a protected vehicle.

        On the battlefield. What for it is needed when moving somewhere combat units.
        Quote: Arzt
        2. Providing fire support for infantry during battle.

        So who are you right or tank general Richard Simpkin?
        Quote: Arzt
        the good thing that you need to understand the BMP (and especially the armored personnel carrier) is a technique primarily for transporting infantry.


        Quote: Arzt
        No powerful guns and anti-tank systems! Weight gain, which means a decrease in protection and a decrease in landing. In addition, the crew stimulates the fight against tanks, and there is no chance. Tanks are fighting tanks.

        That is, with the support of the infantry, if a tank suddenly appears, you will have to literally take off your pants and run, because nothing can be done with it. This is to say the least controversial design. For example, in the same Iraq, the Americans destroyed tanks from Bradley. Or they didn’t know that only tanks should, or that something went wrong.

        Quote: Arzt
        5. Spatial awareness (visibility) including in terms of landing conditions.
        It should provide the landing party with the possibility of orientation in any setting. It is important that the dismounting infantry squad can quickly navigate the terrain when exiting the vehicle.

        And how does this correspond to Warrior? In my opinion, nothing at all. The crew has no sightseeing devices. Only if there are cameras and screens in the troop compartment, I have not seen this.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 17 August 2019 21: 45
          +2
          On the battlefield

          Yes. The question is what does the BMP do there. It fights with tanks, driving the infantry into horror, or moves after its tanks, shooting at trenches, machine guns, etc. When enemy tanks appear, he hides behind his own and spits out the infantry, which does the same thing as the tank landing in the Second World War.
          So who are you right or tank general Richard Simpkin?

          Both. What is meant by support? The battle with enemy tanks? So the landing is not of interest to them. But the enemy infantry will work on the landing, trying to cut off, the tanks are invulnerable to it (relatively). Enemy infantry is the main objective of the BMP. Tanks fight tanks, BMP always protects the landing, independently inside or outside. The Germans went on the attack with the Ganomagi tanks, what were they supposed to carry against the T-34? Take the infantry to the trenches, and then the map will fall.
          That is, with the support of the infantry, if a tank suddenly appears, you will have to literally take off your pants and run

          In a sense, yes. Evade from a knowingly losing battle. You can certainly frolic, but the result will be like under Prokhorovka in the T-60 against the Tigers.
          Americans destroyed tanks and from Bradley

          Anything can happen. In close combat, infantry will generally operate with granotometres.
          Once again, the general idea. The infantry must reach the enemy trenches, as safe and sound as possible. It should not lag behind its tanks, but rather cover them in close combat. When the BMP was not driving just in tanks. But the BMP is handy.
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 17 August 2019 22: 44
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            Yes. The question is what does the BMP do there. It fights with tanks, driving the infantry into horror, or moves after its tanks, shooting at trenches, machine guns, etc. When enemy tanks appear, he hides behind his own and spits out the infantry, which does the same thing as the tank landing in the Second World War.

            Yes, let's exaggerate everything, because this is the path to truth.
            At what appearance of enemy tanks, from around the corner? That's why she has a landing to conduct reconnaissance if necessary. For what their hide. And if there are none or nothing at all, and if there is not a whole brigade fighting there, and only a few platoons performs the task? The carrier of heavy weapons should always be. Otherwise, the appearance of any tank is a disruption to the task or even heavy losses without a chance.

            You know here something Vorriors see, but not very tanks. Maybe they just didn’t get into the frame ...?
            Quote: Arzt
            The Germans went on the attack with the Ganomagi tanks, what were they supposed to carry against the T-34? Take the infantry to the trenches, and then the map will fall.

            Now closer. In the same Ganomage, there may be faustpatrons, a panzer shrek or something like that. I understand that you see the confrontation with the tank. 2 cowboys came out on command, got a weapon and started shooting. This generally does not stand up to criticism. ATGM is able to attack the tank at a distance of 5-6 km, and sometimes further. In some cases, the tank may not be able to detect the ATGM carrier before attacking it.
            Quote: Arzt
            In a sense, yes. Evade from a knowingly losing battle. You can certainly frolic, but the result will be like under Prokhorovka in the T-60 against the Tigers.

            What kind of battle to evade? Can you imagine the power of a tank gun? Something is not much chance to evade, it seems to me. Anything of course happens. But with modern anti-tank weapons, the tank can also be destroyed. If you are reconnaissance, dodge as much as you like. And if the battle, well then maybe it was not necessary to start it.
            Quote: Arzt
            Anything can happen. In close combat, infantry will generally operate with granotometres.

            What happens? What a melee. On Bradley are TOW. With a maximum attack distance of 4 km. The range of the modern, including the infantry, is even higher, and even attack in the weak spots of the tank.
            Quote: Arzt
            Once again, the general idea. The infantry must reach the enemy trenches, as safe and sound as possible. It should not lag behind its tanks, but rather cover them in close combat.

            Yes Yes. Let's remember the Second World War. Your story is about there.
            Even in the city. Challengers 2 I see, the infantry is something not really. Now I’ll look.

            revised a lot, that something like this is not visible - tanks, people mixed up in a heap ... these are cut off, and those are not given to cut off.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 17 August 2019 23: 48
              +2
              At what appearance of enemy tanks, from around the corner? For what their hide. And if there are none or nothing at all ... The carrier of heavy weapons should always be.

              We are discussing the post-war English concept of combined arms combat.
              The attack, the tanks (they are and they are heavy carriers) break through the enemy defenses, they are supported by infantry on the BMP.
              ATGM is able to attack the tank at a distance of 5-6 km, and sometimes further. In some cases, the tank may not be able to detect the ATGM carrier before attacking it.

              Everyone goes forward, who saw the anti-tank systems immediately coordinates everyone, everyone beat out of everything. So this one will be.
              BMP will detect no better than a tank.
              I understand that you see the confrontation with the tank. 2 cowboys came out on command, got a weapon and started shooting.

              At the entrance to the coverage area of ​​the RPG (or SRAW), probably about 200 m to the trenches, the landing force prepares for landing, leaves the car at the command and knocks the cowboys. BMP covers the landing.
              You know here something Vorriors see, but not very tanks.

              This is a different situation, the Middle East, there is no battle, BMP controls the terrain. I don’t know where the tanks are, maybe they dine, or maybe there are no goals for them at all. I would have kept 1 tank for 2-3 infantry fighting vehicles, for, as you correctly noted:
              Can you imagine the power of a tank gun?

              Even in the city. Challengers 2 I see, the infantry is something not really.

              But in vain. In December 1994, such a thing would not have taken place in Grozny.
              tanks mixed up in a heap, people ... these are cut off, and those are not allowed to cut off.

              This is called an assault group.
              "... in street battles, the 8th Guards Army of General V. I. Chuikov used the experience of assault groups, which had been tested back in the Battle of Stalingrad: a rifle platoon or company was given 2-3 tanks, a self-propelled gun, a sapper unit, signalmen and artillery. assault detachments, as a rule, were preceded by a short but powerful artillery preparation. "
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 17 August 2019 23: 55
                0
                Quote: Arzt
                We are discussing the post-war English concept of combined arms combat.
                The attack, the tanks (they are and they are heavy carriers) break through the enemy defenses, they are supported by infantry on the BMP.

                Now I know.
                Quote: Arzt
                Everyone goes forward, who saw the anti-tank systems immediately coordinates everyone, everyone beat out of everything. So this one will be.
                BMP will detect no better than a tank.

                That is, ATGM on BMP is more dangerous than a whole tank? And if ATGM on ALL cars? As now, on almost all BMPs, they will be beating on everyone? :) Well, ok, this is a war, it should be so. :)
                BMP certainly finds better tank. She has a whole carload of scouts, and the viewing aids are usually better.
                Quote: Arzt
                At the entrance to the coverage area of ​​the RPG (or SRAW), probably about 200 m to the trenches, the landing force prepares for landing, leaves the car at the command and knocks the cowboys. BMP covers the landing.

                I say modern infantry anti-tank systems attack up to 5 kilometers. There is nothing to do with the landing. Oh, I understand what you mean and, in principle, in this case I agree.
                Quote: Arzt
                But in vain. In December 1994, such a thing would not have taken place in Grozny.

                And there it would not fail. And probably in other conditions there was a lot of infantry. Only the battles are different. So I referred to the experience of Syria. For example, infantry looks at the street, detects dangerous targets, and transmits data to tankers. Those who go out into the street instantly attack these targets and go back from under possible return fire. This is just an example. Not always the case.
                Quote: Arzt
                This is called an assault group.

                Or so.
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 August 2019 00: 30
            0
            "When enemy tanks appear, it hides behind its own and spits out infantry," ////
            ----
            The British are using this option. And Israel too.
      2. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 17 August 2019 20: 33
        +1
        Quote: Arzt
        The main thing that you need to understand the BMP (and especially the BTR) is a technique primarily for transporting infantry. Attempts to stick powerful weapons into it lead to the creation of an overall light tank with a large crew.

        Here I do not agree at all.
        All modern infantry fighting vehicles follow this principle for many years. BMPs are infantry support vehicles, which means they must have powerful weapons that can withstand any threat. This is a fairly powerful automatic gun and necessarily ATGM. With it, you can hit quite serious shelters and heavily armored vehicles, and from great distances. BMP does not have to fight with the tank and be able to withstand its impact. He must carry WEAPONS capable of incapacitating the tank. And according to the situation, apply it from a safe distance for yourself, conditions and so on. But not be able to - such a BMP is not needed at all.
        Quote: Arzt
        And we again carry infantry in the Urals and Kamaz.

        This is not necessary. This is the nagging of old brain paralytics. And what to carry infantry? Do you understand the difference, at least roughly, what is strategic mobility? Your crawler infantry fighting vehicle will be taken to the battlefield on the trailer or on the platform. Soldiers are also on the train or in the Urals and Kamaz. Or somewhere in the suburbs, suddenly an ambush and mines on the road. Be sure to carry only heavily armored infantry fighting vehicles, all the more tracked. Turn the caterpillars and the chassis before it reaches the battlefield, but it’s calmer, otherwise these summer residents with forks will suddenly attack. Do not take it personally, but these cliches are all wild, which were invented by the rams, especially to bring confusion and humiliate, defame someone. And repeating them to them and approaching.
        Can you imagine, a month ago, pilots were transported to three GAZs. Like Chkalovsky. Here are the cattle. It was necessary on BMD, they do not cherish anyone at all. Only me, if I saw a similar motorcade on the roads, I would definitely think that I was crazy.
        Quote: Arzt
        M 113 for all time! If we had something like that in Afghanistan and Chechnya, no one would ride armored.

        Yes, yes, yes, let's get more moans here. We mix everything in one pile. The Union was preparing for a nuclear war and the equipment was appropriate. Perhaps this war did not happen. Of course, a technique like Vorrior would have helped a lot in those situations. It happened that the tanks were burning. And they will be more protected.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 17 August 2019 22: 29
          0
          BMPs are infantry support vehicles

          Yes.
          which means it must have powerful weapons capable of withstanding any threat.

          No. It completely contradicts the concept of its application (according to Simpkin). This is a transport for landing. The number of troops cannot be reduced. If we put heavy, the dimensions, weight and attractiveness for tanks and heavy opponents grow. On BMP with anti-tank systems will hit, like a tank. The result is the Mass grave of the Footman.
          Your crawler infantry fighting vehicle will be taken to the battlefield on the trailer or on the platform.

          Between Grozny and Urus-Martan she will be taken on a trailer too? A semiautomatic device 100 will tear an action movie in an ambush to shreds, but will they have time to direct it? Maybe better than 20 mm? It will tear no worse, more ammunition, hover faster, takes up less space and weight, which means armor is thicker and more people.
          He must carry WEAPONS capable of incapacitating the tank. And according to the situation, apply it from a safe distance for yourself, conditions and so on. But not be able to - such a BMP is not needed at all.

          This is no longer BMP. This is PPK - Anti-Tank Mobile Complex (give the name wink ).
          The problem is in such a concept. We want to eat the fish and x .. sit down and stay as a girl. As a result, let’s go into battle and armored personnel carriers, which the machine gun is flashing, from which you can jump under your wheels on the go. Yes, there are no fools, they will go on armor as in the Second World War. It’s possible to make a platform with horses.
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 17 August 2019 23: 30
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            No. It completely contradicts the concept of its application (according to Simpkin).

            Actually not really :)
            Quote: Arzt
            If we put heavy, the dimensions, weight and attractiveness for tanks and heavy opponents grow. On BMP with anti-tank systems will hit, like a tank. The result is the Mass grave of the Footman.

            On it and so they will peel. Even the trucks can be beaten from the ATGM. And in Israel, buses also attack from them.
            What dimensions, all, and more. How much do 2 containers weigh with 2-4 ATGM TOW Jewell. Milan or what will they put there? For a 24 + ton machine with a speed above 70 km per hour - crumbs. Do not invent. Have you read the article? One Vorrior was fired 12 times from an anti-tank grenade launcher, details of the truth are not specified.
            Quote: Arzt
            Between Grozny and Urus-Martan she will be taken on a trailer too? A semiautomatic device 100 will tear an action movie in an ambush to shreds, but will they have time to direct it? Maybe better than 20 mm? It will tear no worse, more ammunition, hover faster, takes up less space and weight, which means armor is thicker and more people.

            You know, have time. Read about tank use in Syria. That's just the case for you. The tank left the battlefield while it was being reloaded, the gunner was on duty at the gun, he noticed the gunman and managed to visit and shoot before him. This is a Syrian gunner. 20 is not better. The capabilities of the 20-mm guns are now exhausted. By and large, and 30 mm on the verge. Even with the best ammunition there is no guaranteed defeat of enemy equipment at a distance. And to carry a gun only for infantry? There are machine guns for this. And you have some sort of chip about weight, size, and more. No, weight, size, etc. are not significant. And there will be no more armor and people. The cannon is installed in the tower, there can’t be a landing there instead of it. Its weight and BC compared with the total mass are insignificant. Reservations cannot be increased indefinitely. It is easier then to build a new heavy infantry fighting vehicle taking the tank as a basis. Sorry, you don’t understand what you are writing about. Armor should not be excessive. There are probable threats, and here it is necessary to defend against them. And if threats are unlikely, which with proper use may be absent altogether. So protecting yourself from everything in the world most of the time you will carry a pointless load, and if you want to hit such cuttlefish you will still be hit, but only in a different way.
            Quote: Arzt
            This is no longer BMP. This is PPK - Anti-Tank Mobile Complex (give the name).

            Thanks of course. Only this BMP. PPK and so on is completely different, with other tasks, capabilities. Well, at least look at what BMPs are. For example, I brought you Bradley in Iraq, what the hell is this year. Since then, their equipment has become even more powerful. And you all measure the categories of the second world.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor 18 August 2019 00: 18
              +1
              And you all measure the categories of the second world.

              I agree with you in almost everything. Of course time does not stand still, calibers are growing, armor is getting fat, Faustpatrons hit 5 km. But some general principles remain.
              A tank is the main striking force of a battle; it is defended, powerfully armed, and fast.
              But blind. Chechnya proved it without infantry, especially in close combat. So it is necessary to somehow ensure the presence of the infantry next to him during the battle. We need a vehicle capable of carrying enough infantry. Of course, I want to make her also protected, powerfully armed and fast. But with a crew of 10, it becomes large and heavy (a barn, as they say). So you have to compromise and sacrifice something. You say that 30 mm cannons are on the verge and offer ATGM. And the Israelis have enough machine guns 7,62 on "Akhzar". They want to save people, these are their priorities.
              Simpkin compares an automatic gun, ATGM and more. In his opinion, the best is an automatic grenade launcher + 7,62 machine gun.
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 18 August 2019 04: 23
                +1
                Quote: Arzt
                But some general principles remain.

                Naturally.
                Quote: Arzt
                Of course, I want to make her also protected, powerfully armed and fast.

                So we come to the logical separation. Why not have a certain series of armored personnel carriers, which can accommodate 10-12 people, have good protection, but light weapons and can deliver infantry to the battlefield. To the same tanks in the city. Weapons should be the easiest for unforeseen defense. Moreover, if it is wheeled, it immediately gives us great mobile freedom. you can send at least a hundred at least a few hundred kilometers on your own armor. So let it be fast, capacious, no frills.
                Quote: Arzt
                Simpkin compares an automatic gun, ATGM and more. In his opinion, the best is an automatic grenade launcher + 7,62 machine gun.

                Here is just for these purposes. Sometimes armored personnel carriers are tracked., By the way. You see everything that you reasoned about just falls well under this concept and here I completely agree with all the arguments.
                But we are talking a little bit about the other. But in fact, STRONGLY about something else. It’s clear that I’m exaggerating a little, which would be more contrasting, but I think you will understand. BMP in the modern sense is no longer just a carrier. This is a machine that can do a lot. In its reservation, design, and so on, it is implied that it will lead the battle. Hide behind the tanks, on the ground - as you like. But she can do anything, and by small means.
                You will not argue that such and such means are needed?
                BMP - in contrast to simple and not simple carriers, it is much more complex and expensive equipment. In it, the SLA is no worse than the tank, the surveillance means are slightly worse than the tank, firepower is lower than the tank but has its own characteristics.
                And the tasks can be set completely different, unlike the carrier. And if for a fight, even if it’s hiding, then let’s fight. The grenade launcher is not a bad idea, and it would be nice to have it, but unfortunately its capabilities are no longer suitable. It is advisable to conduct a fight at a long distance and not approach so simply at a distance where even simple means can be very dangerous. The grenade launcher does not give such a range, especially since its shells fly for a long time at its maximum range. They do not have any significant advantages over the autocannon, well, roughly speaking. The 7,62 machine gun at a long distance is not effective against fighters even in the weakest shelters, it is also inferior to automatic guns and for it there are no such shells as for auto guns. That is, they are not suitable for fighting on BMPs. The 30-mm gun makes it possible to shoot at a distance of 2-3 kilometers. At somewhat more reasonable distances, it can penetrate even rather heavy shelters, guaranteed to destroy unarmored vehicles and, in most cases, either destroy or inflict a serious defeat on lightly armored vehicles. Using shrapnel ammunition, you can easily hit targets behind cover. Having anti-tank systems can hit the tank, and quite safely. According to a previously discovered tank from a distance close to the maximum, fire a shot. It makes sense. Fighters should still have anti-tank weapons. It will either be on the machine or they will carry it in it for independent use. Installed on a machine, a controlled SLA has a much greater chance of hitting a target., And also does not burden the landing. Or allows him to have additionally simpler and cheaper means against technology. For example, hand grenade launchers, which are much more compact and lighter. As a result, our BBM covers the whole range of tasks. And not anyhow.
                Quote: Arzt
                And the Israelis have enough machine guns 7,62 on "Akhzar".

                No, Ahzarit is a forced machine that was not specially designed, but created because it is. Based on our T-55 tanks. And this is the armored personnel carrier, albeit heavy and tracked.
                1. yehat
                  yehat 19 August 2019 14: 03
                  0
                  Something I misunderstood your passage about an anti-tank gun.
                  Do you propose to make a somewhat lightweight carrot-4, where there is both a landing and a gun?
                  1. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 19 August 2019 14: 06
                    0
                    If you can quote, I immediately did not even understand what you mean :)
                    But in the end I found it.
                    Quote: Red_Baron
                    Fighters should still have anti-tank weapons. It will either be on the machine or they will carry it in it for independent use.

                    This is either a MANPADS installation or wearable MANPADS.
                    Quote: yehat
                    Do you propose to make a somewhat lightweight carrot-4, where there is both a landing and a gun?

                    holy holy
              2. Bad thing
                Bad thing 20 August 2019 14: 15
                +1
                Quote: Arzt
                And the Israelis have enough machine guns 7,62 on "Akhzar".

                Do the Palestinians have BMPs and armored personnel carriers?
        2. Private-K
          Private-K 25 August 2019 17: 56
          +1
          These are Israeli lobbyists. There are plenty of them. And the task is not pleasant for them to reason and objectively argue, but to defame and pander.
          From the fact that the Israeli Armed Forces managed to punish the Arab armies several times, their heads were spinning and conceit was painful. Not everyone - there are normal guys too - but most of them are awhtung. Moreover, those who understand the topic are normal, and all yap - Ahtung.
      3. bk0010
        bk0010 18 August 2019 14: 30
        +2
        For the first time I heard something good about M 113. It seems that everyone, including the United States, considered him a miserable coffin.
        1. parma
          parma 19 August 2019 10: 01
          0
          Quote: bk0010
          For the first time I heard something good about M 113. It seems that everyone, including the United States, considered him a miserable coffin.

          Now yes ... And half a century ago? And let's say in comparison with the BTR-80/82 (which are not A, those with KPVT), the old man M-113 does not look bad in terms of protection, at least in the sense that he (in the modern version) does not take KPVT, but the good old 50th caliber our BTR takes ... And the installation of a 30mm BTR (IMHO of course) with the BTR-80/82 protection level inspires a desire to use it in battle, which leads to losses ... Israel for this reason TBTR and arms for show ...
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 19 August 2019 14: 11
            0
            Quote: parma
            And the installation of a 30 mm BTR (IMHO of course) with the BTR-80/82 protection level inspires a desire to use it in battle, which leads to losses ... Israel, for this reason, is arming its TBTR with a tick ...

            It seems to me not only for this reason.
            And about the installation of 30 mm. It also seems to me to be completely redundant on an APC. But I can fully understand why this is done. Of course this is my IMHO and what the designers thought I do not know. Ever since Chechnya, armored personnel carriers have been giving roadblocks, for example. At the checkpoint, he is fenced off from the alleged threat by sandbags or even concrete products, so his armor is not so important. But to stop a shahid-mobile 30-mm just can, which can not make a machine gun efficiently enough. Which incidentally was confirmed in Syria.
            1. parma
              parma 20 August 2019 06: 18
              0
              Quote: Red_Baron
              And about the installation of 30 mm. It also seems to me to be completely redundant on an APC. But I can fully understand why this is done. Of course this is my IMHO and what the designers thought I do not know. Ever since Chechnya, armored personnel carriers have been giving roadblocks, for example. At the checkpoint, he is fenced off from the alleged threat by sandbags or even concrete products, so his armor is not so important. But to stop a shahid-mobile 30-mm just can, which can not make a machine gun efficiently enough. Which, incidentally, was confirmed in Syria.

              Here the moment is slippery with posts ... I do not believe that the KPV 14.5 cannot become a shahidmobile (the engine will have enough queue for the eyes, and the load can easily detonate) .. I don’t think that under artisanal conditions you can install armor to withstand .. But if the babakhs are still doing so well with their equipment that it was either an ARV or the same M-113 with "gifts", there is nothing more reliable than an ATGM ..
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 20 August 2019 12: 31
                0
                CPV I think in some situations it can be no worse. But 30 mm is more universal. He has both of shells and shells with remote detonation, there are shells with ready-to-use striking elements. For different situations and conditions.
                ATGM of course is more reliable, but firstly more expensive, secondly flight speed.
                1. Bad thing
                  Bad thing 20 August 2019 14: 24
                  0
                  Quote: Red_Baron
                  But 30 mm is more universal. He has both of shells and shells with remote detonation, there are shells with ready-to-use striking elements.

                  At the exhibitions, there is everything, but in BT, OT, OFZ warehouses ... that's all.
                  1. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 20 August 2019 19: 53
                    0
                    Quote: Bad
                    At the exhibitions, there is everything, but in BT, OT, OFZ warehouses ... that's all.

                    Let be. Warehouses need to be filled for the task. For example, it will be determined that the best installation for shooting down drones is 30 mm with remote detonation - so they are riveted with a margin to protect objects. There will be participation in the conflict, where a different nomenclature of ammunition will be needed and riveted under it. I do not think that in the same Syria they complain about the lack of ammunition. Although there the land contingent is extremely limited.
                    In general, we have some gaps in the development of ammunition. But here another question reasonably arises. OK, if you now rush into the development of 30-mm armor-piercing at the level of the best world - what will it give? Basically, the equipment switches to protection against such ammunition, focusing precisely on maximum capabilities. And for the remaining tasks, there is enough of what is. But what should replace and become a kind of trend is not yet clear.
                    1. Bad thing
                      Bad thing 20 August 2019 20: 54
                      0
                      But only under the programmable detonation it is necessary to install some equipment at the facility, to train people to handle it, to make changes to the shooting course (it is necessary to train personnel). And another interesting question is how the BMP-2 / BTR-82 gunner will program detonation at a distance if he is the distance to the target, he currently determines on the scale of the sight (thousandth formula), and the direction and speed of the wind drooling his finger?
                      1. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 20 August 2019 21: 28
                        0
                        Better fingers needed :)

                        We are talking about ammunition, and not that such actions can be performed by precisely these machines.
                      2. Bad thing
                        Bad thing 21 August 2019 08: 21
                        0
                        There are no other cars, or very few. And what is the use of ammunition if they do not have the appropriate weapons?
                      3. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 21 August 2019 13: 44
                        0
                        Quote: Bad
                        There are no other cars, or very few. And what is the use of ammunition if they do not have the appropriate weapons?

                        How is it not? For example, they are now used on Terminators.
                        On the Shells, at least 3 types of guns of different 30 mm are used.
                        Well, what happened was still there.
                      4. Bad thing
                        Bad thing 21 August 2019 14: 04
                        0
                        There are no terminators, they are only going to carry out tests, the Pantsir is not even air defense of the ground. And yes, and how many "terminator" mouths we have at the moment, it seems that so far none.
                      5. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 21 August 2019 14: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Bad
                        No terminators

                        Do not quite understand what is not? they are 2 pieces 2a42. Adopted in 2018.
                      6. Bad thing
                        Bad thing 21 August 2019 17: 19
                        0
                        Do these "Terminators" have equipment for controlling the blasting on the trajectory (programming)? 2A42 in 1980 was put into service and nothing.
                      7. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 21 August 2019 18: 01
                        0
                        Quote: Bad
                        Do these "Terminators" have equipment for controlling the blasting on the trajectory (programming)?

                        Not yet, it was planned to install and test this year.
                        "It is argued that you can take any combat vehicle with a 30-mm gun, install the necessary components of the LMS on it in a minimum time and return it to service." https://topwar.ru/158074-snarjady-s-upravljaemym-podryvom-na-puti-v-vojska.html
                      8. Bad thing
                        Bad thing 21 August 2019 18: 55
                        0
                        You can approve anything, but to make a problem. First factory, then a full cycle of state tests, including as part of the armament sample. Decision on adoption. Preparation of production documentation (since prototypes are made according to design), organization of small-scale production, trial operation, and only then (if an order is available) launch into series.
                      9. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 22 August 2019 03: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Bad
                        You can approve anything, but to make a problem.

                        Uh, what's the problem? What to do if next year they plan to complete the state tests. That is, the product is already there, already done. How effective and so on will be seen a bit later.
                        Quote: Bad
                        Preparation of production documentation (since prototypes are done according to design), organization of small-scale production, trial operation, and only then (if an order is available) launch into series.

                        I'm shy to ask what? Documentation, you think, will not be able to prepare? :) Or do you already fight and then the bureaucracy?
                      10. Bad thing
                        Bad thing 26 August 2019 22: 30
                        0
                        Do you have any idea how pilot production differs from serial production?
                      11. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 27 August 2019 00: 18
                        -1
                        Yes, of course, only what does this have to do with the words to which you began to oppose?
                      12. Bad thing
                        Bad thing 27 August 2019 19: 25
                        0
                        Simple, At present, our army does not have systems capable of firing 30-mm ammunition with remote detonation, and judging by the rate of production and deployment, it will not appear soon.
                      13. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 27 August 2019 20: 15
                        -1
                        Yes, I wrote about this above, in which you refuted me?
        2. yehat
          yehat 19 August 2019 14: 05
          0
          it has a lot of flaws, sometimes stupid, but the standards laid down are higher than many other less troll armored personnel carriers received
      4. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 21 August 2019 13: 37
        +1
        That is why heavy armored personnel carriers appeared on the basis of the T-55 tank, Ahzarit, in Israel.
    3. Private-K
      Private-K 25 August 2019 17: 43
      -1
      Sometimes NATO comrades said that the armor would protect against Soviet 23-mm ammunition (ZU-23 and others). We have not had a 25-mm caliber in the NE since the days of the Second World War and that was only anti-aircraft guns.

      I have always believed that the main feature of such small-caliber automatic guns is their rate of fire, when a hail of shells breaks through even the side armor of tanks, completely demolishes them attachments. Breaks through a shelter or launches a line of shells with striking elements there.

      This is all a MYTH. There is no such thing. From the queue at 5-6 stands. in the best case, 1-2 rounds will hit the tank, and not "hail blowing and breaking".
      1. Red_Baron
        Red_Baron 25 August 2019 19: 15
        -2
        Not a myth, a few months ago there was a topic where they discussed it in detail. I found online a description of the tests. Naturally there are not 5-6 shots but more, but nonetheless.
        1. Private-K
          Private-K 26 August 2019 09: 28
          -1
          Don't be creative. I am writing to you not on the basis of some video programs for the masses, but on the basis of the realities of the performance characteristics of weapons. Once again: there is no "blowing down a hail of shells on the tank" and is not expected. Is that point-blank, from 100 meters.
          1. Red_Baron
            Red_Baron 26 August 2019 12: 27
            -2
            Do not invent, you compose from the head no matter on what basis. Once again I say there were even tests fired at the tank, there is even a discussion on this site.
            That your business is not foreseen there. I write about what is written.
            1. Private-K
              Private-K 26 August 2019 19: 12
              -1
              You're lying.
              And persist in your lies.
              Once again: from the queue of 5-6 lines. 1 will hit the target, and on the third stage - 2 shells.
              If this, in your opinion, is a hail of shells ...
              1. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 27 August 2019 00: 16
                -2
                You talk complete nonsense
                Quote: Private-K
                Once again: from the queue of 5-6 lines. 1 will hit the target, and on the third stage - 2 shells.
                If this, in your opinion, is a hail of shells ...

                this is complete nonsense worthy and the rest is nonsense.
                liar.
              2. Red_Baron
                Red_Baron 27 August 2019 00: 29
                -1
                On, read, balabolisty.
                "The aiming range of a 30-mm automatic cannon BMP-3 at ground targets with BT shells is 2500 m,
                When firing armor-piercing projectiles at the aft and side projections at ranges up to 1500 m, it is possible to hit the tank or disable it when firing into the frontal projection, as evidenced by the test results. "
                "So, for example, after firing at a tank from a position afloat with a 30-mm automatic cannon from a distance of 1500 m, everything that was attached to the outside of the turret and hull was swept away from the tank, observation devices and sight were broken, the 100-mm cannon of the tank was punctured in four places. In addition, cracks appeared on the upper frontal armor plate. "

                Now excerpt from Baryatinsky:
                The 30-mm gun for a long time was not perceived by the leadership of the GRAU as a serious weapon. It was it that pushed into service an alternative BMP with a 73-mm gun. And despite the fact that comprehensive tests of a 30-mm gun showed sufficient versatility of the system when firing at a variety of targets, including tanks. Comparative tests of the upgraded Grom-M gun and 2A42 gun were also carried out while consuming a comparable part of the ammunition, but at the insistence of the GRAU with a double for the Thunder. After the fire from a 73-mm gun, the fired tank remained combat-ready. After shelling from 2A42, there was no attachment left on it (an anti-aircraft machine gun, for example, flew 15 meters), and the fuel tanks ignited. After the inspection, it turned out that the turret and the tank’s gun were jammed, the gun’s mask had a through hole, and all observation devices and the sight were broken.
                1. Private-K
                  Private-K 27 August 2019 08: 19
                  0
                  And where does it say how much time was fucking?
                  Where is the data on the number of queues and the number of shells?
                  Turn your brains on and learn to critically analyze texts! (And passages like "an anti-aircraft machine gun, for example, flew 15 meters away" are generally designed for the emotional impression of teenagers - Baryatinsky wrote a lot for them, at one time he wrote.)
                  And look at the many videos where they shoot from 30-mm autocannons and you can see where and with what accuracy they fall.
                  1. Red_Baron
                    Red_Baron 27 August 2019 13: 01
                    -1
                    Quote: Private-K
                    And where does it say how much time was fucking?
                    Where is the data on the number of queues and the number of shells?

                    And we did not argue about this. I just stated as a fact. Let at least point blank shot for the purity of the experiment. One forum suggests that most likely it was the devastation of the entire BC in a minute with something or two minutes. That the range was most likely not 1500 meters and not on the water. But I did not find exact data and some kind of fixations.
                    Quote: Private-K
                    And look at the many videos where they shoot from 30-mm autocannons and you can see where and with what accuracy they fall.

                    And I do not argue with that.
                    This is not the case. It is clear that in real conditions this happens extremely rarely. But as the last argument, you should not write them off completely from the shields and even more so declare that this is not at all possible.

                    Quote: Private-K
                    generally designed for the emotional experience of adolescents - Baryatinsky for them a lot, at one time wrote.)

                    I brought his words, because no matter how he wrote, he would not support completely frank nonsense.
                    1. Private-K
                      Private-K 28 August 2019 00: 12
                      0
                      That is, we take a certain semi-circus number, a spherical horse in a vacuum, and based on this we draw a fundamentally important conclusion?
                      This is the wrong approach leading to completely wrong conclusions.
                      30 mm autocannon against a tank, or other well-protected combat vehicle - nothing... For under the conditions of a real battle, it is required to reliably hit the enemy according to the criterion of "lost combat capability" one or two hits. Throw in a hundred or fifty tanks of 30 mm shells no one will.
                      During the Second World War, one Soviet crew on the T-70 managed to knock out three or four "Royal Tigers". But such cases - 1 piece in 10000 with a completely opposite sign, where the case is driven by a wider caliber and thicker armor. So, to give them as an example is to push yourself into a stupid inadequate position.
                      1. Red_Baron
                        Red_Baron 28 August 2019 01: 41
                        -1
                        Quote: Private-K
                        That is, we take a certain semi-circus number, a spherical horse in a vacuum, and based on this we draw a fundamentally important conclusion?

                        Well, do not exaggerate so. I admit that this is not some ordinary action.
                        Quote: Private-K
                        A 30mm autocannon against a tank or other well-protected combat vehicle is nothing. For under the conditions of a real battle, it is required to reliably hit the enemy according to the criterion "lost combat effectiveness" with one or two hits.

                        So I did not write anything about the battle.
                        Quote: Private-K
                        then the wrong approach leads to completely wrong conclusions.

                        So I wrote about something else, and just the conclusions are correct.

                        I will remind you of my words to which you began to find fault.
                        I have always believed that the main feature of such small-caliber automatic guns is their rate of fire, when a hail of shells breaks through even the side armor of tanks, completely demolishes them attachments. Breaks through a shelter or launches a line of shells with striking elements there.

                        The meaning of this is obvious. From the automatic small-caliber cannon they fire not 1-2 sniper shots. And they fire a burst. And the turn makes the action. If the enemy is in cover, then they fire not 1 round at the place where he is supposedly behind cover, but shoot in a burst. Part of the shells will fall nearby, and part will cover the intended position. If the enemy is in a shelter, then 1 fragmentation shell will not be enough. This is not a 125 mm. But to start the line there - so the finished elements will cover a large area and are guaranteed to destroy those who were in the shelter. Turn. And Vorrior has a turn of 3 shots, as shops have 3 shots.
                        Nowhere I say that it is necessary technology with a 30-mm autocannon hunts tanks. I am only talking about firing bursts. What if you had to shoot the tank like that? Even here, 1 shot is not at all terrible for him. But in turn, getting several kinetic shells close to each other can break through the armor. I do not recommend doing this, I do not say that this is normal and correct. I write that 1 shell means little, it is the turn. These guns were designed and installed for firing precisely in the first place in turn. What am I wrong about?

                        Although 1 shot of them is good. My friend served in reconnaissance. They had BMP-2s, so it says that out of 2-42 even the worst shooters hit targets for 2 kilometers. But to complete most tasks, just 1 shot is not enough. I think so.
  6. Red_Baron
    Red_Baron 17 August 2019 15: 15
    -1
    What else I wanted to say. I always liked Vorior, but purely outwardly, layout. I always thought that something like this should be BMP. I like our BMPs, but in a different way.
  7. Nycomed
    Nycomed 17 August 2019 17: 42
    -1
    A good car and in fighting qualities and purely outwardly beautiful. Respect to the author!
  8. san4es
    san4es 17 August 2019 20: 40
    +1
    hi Lockheed Martin - Warrior. Tests with the new tower:

    ... Confusion in Estonia recourse
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 17 August 2019 23: 33
      0
      Well, at least in Estonia everything is like everyone else. : D
  9. yehat
    yehat 19 August 2019 12: 34
    0
    Quote: Arzt
    What is meant by support?

    stand behind and continuously broadcast on the radio "we believe in you"
  10. yehat
    yehat 19 August 2019 13: 59
    0
    It always seemed to me that balanced bmp is something like a warrior with a bmp-3 turret.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 19 August 2019 14: 14
      0
      What kind of tower? Bahcha-u? Her problem is that she does not have anti-tank weapons. 100-mm cumulative or ATGM can be considered anti-tank only conditionally. They do not take modern tanks from the word at all.
      1. yehat
        yehat 19 August 2019 14: 35
        0
        and figs with them with tanks, but everything else takes well.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 19 August 2019 14: 49
          0
          In part. Tanks should never be forgotten, I wrote about it above. The infantry must have an anti-tank weapon in one form or another. Funds installed on the machine are superior to wearables in terms of convenience and other parameters, and also they do not need to be hidden in the reserved volume and make room.
          Anyway. About the rest. Bahci has a 30 mm gun and a 100 low ballistic gun. That is, it is intended for shooting either with land mines or with cumulative weapons, along a trajectory very far from the lay one. That means hitting a maneuvering tool or a weak spot at a safe distance is not an easy task, if at all possible.
          Is 100 mm enough for a concrete-piercing shell? I do not know. In fact, we have an automatic gun and mortar, without the possibility of firing mortars. Naturally with the ability to shoot guided weapons. But a fairly small caliber, low speed and cost much more than other shots. If you do not look at the cost, then everything looks quite interesting.
          But the caliber does not allow the use of more modern, powerful and faster ATGMs.
  11. yehat
    yehat 19 August 2019 14: 55
    0
    Quote: Red_Baron
    In part. Tanks should never be forgotten, I wrote about it above. The infantry must have an anti-tank weapon in one form or another. Funds installed on the machine are superior to wearables in terms of convenience and other parameters, and also they do not need to be hidden in the reserved volume and make room.
    Anyway. About the rest. Bahci has a 30 mm gun and a 100 low ballistic gun. That is, it is intended for shooting either with land mines or with cumulative weapons, along a trajectory very far from the lay one. That means hitting a maneuvering tool or a weak spot at a safe distance is not an easy task, if at all possible.
    Is 100 mm enough for a concrete-piercing shell? I do not know. In fact, we have an automatic gun and mortar, without the possibility of firing mortars. Naturally with the ability to shoot guided weapons. But a fairly small caliber, low speed and cost much more than other shots. If you do not look at the cost, then everything looks quite interesting.
    But the caliber does not allow the use of more modern, powerful and faster ATGMs.

    all the same, there will be no good VET, even if you put the ATGM on the BMP
    in the end, you can attach to specialized infantry fighting vehicles - just a jeep or buggy with ATGM.
    Finally, BMPs very rarely appear on their own - they usually go as part of a combined group or unit or some other balanced unit.
    moreover, with high probability somewhere near the BMP there are anti-tank helicopters, which are much more efficient.
  12. Diverter
    Diverter 27 August 2019 09: 32
    0
    In my opinion a good device. And apparently, they will still be in service for a very long time.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 27 August 2019 13: 02
      -1
      Except the gun. Something very dumb in her design.
      1. Diverter
        Diverter 27 August 2019 23: 35
        0
        so arrogant, sir!))))))))