T-18 tank support combat vehicle based on the Armata platform

In the previous article, we examined the concept multifunctional missile tank (MFRT), capable of supplementing, and in many ways replacing the existing main combat Tanks (MBT). The estimated nomenclature of ammunition for MRI will allow him to effectively fight not only against enemy armored vehicles, but also against a wide range of targets of a different type.

The presence of various types of anti-aircraft guided missiles in the ammunition will allow MFRT to fight air targets flying at speeds of up to 1000 meters per second, at altitudes of about 5-10 kilometers, at a distance of about 10-15 kilometers.

MFRT can completely replace the advanced anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) "Strela-10M" and "Sosna", partially anti-aircraft missile-gun systems (ZRPK) "Tunguska"

The presence of guided and unguided ammunition with a high-explosive fragmentation (HE) warhead (CU) with the possibility of remote detonation and a thermobaric warhead in combination with a high turn rate and large guidance angles of the launcher will provide a high probability of hitting manpower - both openly located and located in shelters.

However, MFRT also needs support, and this is why it is.

Imperfect technology

One of the key disadvantages of armored vehicles is the poor visibility of the crews. It turns out a situation when, on the one hand, the dimensions and noise of armored vehicles make it possible to detect them at a considerable distance, and on the other hand, the ability of the infantry to camouflage makes it difficult for the crews of armored vehicles to detect them. In combination, these two factors often allow the infantry to strike first at armored vehicles.

The tank support combat vehicle (BMPT) should primarily be designed to increase the protection of existing OTB from the enemy's tank-hazardous manpower, since the MBT is able to cope with armored vehicles on its own, and it is protected from air threats by air defense missile systems / air defense systems.

As we covered in the article Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd, BMPT "Terminator" do not have any significant advantages either in the detection or destruction of tank-hazardous manpower. Their means of detection are similar to those used on the MBT, the targeting speed of the weapons of the BMPT "Terminator" is also similar to those of the MBT weapons.

BMPT "Terminator" has no significant advantages in protecting MBT from tank-hazardous manpower

Of the advantages of BMPTs, only large elevation angles of weapons can be noted, which make it possible to fire at tank-hazardous targets on the upper floors of buildings and on the slopes of mountains, but this advantage is also available in conventional infantry fighting vehicles (BMP), including heavy infantry fighting vehicles (TBMP), capable of not only act in the same formation with tanks, but also transport an infantry squad.

TBMP T-15 is not inferior, but with a 57-mm cannon and surpasses the BMPT "Terminator" in firepower and security

Moreover, reducing the size of remotely controlled weapons modules (DUMV) allows you to create relatively compact DUMV equipped with a 30 mm cannon, which can be placed on MBT instead of a 12,7 mm machine gun.

Equipping the MBT with an auxiliary 30 mm cannon will increase its firepower, save the main ammunition, but will not solve the problem with tank hazardous manpower

To improve the protection of armored vehicles from tank-hazardous manpower, a comprehensive breakthrough is required in terms of creating integrated target detection systems, including multispectral sensors, intelligent systems for preliminary image analysis based on neural networks, highly efficient display facilities, and crew-vehicle interaction interfaces. These issues were considered by the author in articles Increased situational awareness of armored combat vehicle crews и Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms for promising armored vehicles.

In addition, it is necessary to radically increase the reaction rate of armored vehicles weapons to the threat, which can be achieved both by installing high-speed guidance drives and weapons on new physical principles, which was considered in the article Armored vehicles against infantry. Who is faster: a tank or infantry?.

Of course, equipping MBT and MRT with such complexes would allow them to operate without the support of specialized BMPTs, but how realistic is their creation in the near future?

The realization that the development of overly advanced promising systems could be delayed led to the refusal to consider the concept of MRF based on electrically powered platforms, as well as to abandon the use of laser weapons and small-sized unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) escort... The use of the above-mentioned integrated target detection systems was not considered either.

It can be assumed that at the current level of creation of technical vision systems and intelligent algorithms for searching and analyzing targets in Russia, and possibly in the world, it is impossible to create an adequate replacement for human eyes and the ability of a person to analyze, search and recognize targets, make a decision to open fire ... Perhaps something comparable can be created in the next 20-30 years on the basis of advanced neural networks or quantum computers. At the same time, the task of increasing the survivability of armored vehicles in a city is already now.

The emphasis in the concept of MFR is made on existing technologies, which makes it possible to implement this machine already now. But such an MFRT needs protection from tank-hazardous manpower, and this requires a specialized BMPT.

BMPT T-18

Until promising image search and analysis systems are created that can automatically detect tank-hazardous manpower and direct weapons at it, there is only one reliable solution to this problem - human eyes. On the existing BMPT "Terminator" the number of crew members and observation devices is similar to that of the MBT, as a result of which the possibilities of detecting tank hazardous manpower in the MBT and BMPT are comparable. Although the first sample of the BMPT "Terminator" was attended by two more crew members firing from two 30-mm course grenade launchers, their ability to detect targets was extremely limited, so they could hardly change the situation with the search for targets, and in the future from the installation course grenade launchers on BMPT "Terminator" refused.

Therefore, it is proposed to increase the capabilities of the conventional BMPT T-18 by increasing the number of crew members, a corresponding increase in the number of observation devices and remotely controlled weapon modules.
In fact, the BMPT will be a TBMP with an unhurried infantry squad, equipped with observation equipment and weapons modules that allow them to fire "from under the armor."

How will it look in practice?
The upper panel of the BMPT should include four seats with interfaces for connecting various types of DUMV. The placement of seats should ensure that the armament barrels of the DUMV do not intersect, as well as the minimum influence of the DUMV on each other in terms of overlapping the firing sectors. As with unification of ammunition for MRI, seats and interfaces for connecting DUMV for BMPT T-18 should be unified. This will ensure competition between manufacturers and the possibility of effective subsequent modernization of BMPT. In addition, the possibility of optional installation of DUMV will allow configuring the armament of the BMPT T-18 based on the nature of the terrain and the alleged enemies.

One of the main criteria for promising DUMV should be an increase in the speed of turning and targeting weapons, up to 90-180 degrees per second in the transfer mode.

In DUMV, installed on BMPT T-18, the following types of weapons can be used:
- ATGM "Kornet" or a promising ammunition for MFRT;
- gun 2A42 caliber 30 mm;
- gun 2A72 caliber 30 mm;
- machine gun KPVT caliber 14,5 mm;
- machine gun "Kord" caliber 12,7 mm;
- machine gun "Pecheneg" caliber 7,62 mm;
- automatic grenade launcher of 30 mm caliber.

The list of possible types of weapons deployed on the BMPT T-18 is preliminary and not exhaustive. Also, some types of weapons can be combined into one module, for example, a 30-mm cannon can be combined with the Kornet launcher, and a 7,62-mm machine gun with a 30-mm grenade launcher. Ultimately, the choice of one or another DUMV will depend on its weight and size characteristics and compatibility with other modules, as well as on the nature of the terrain and the type of enemy.

Variants of placement of DUMV seats on BMPT T-18 and approximate sweeping radii for machine guns of 7,62 mm, 12,7 mm and 30 mm cannons

As can be seen from the above image, the armament composition of the BMPT T-15 can include one DUMV with a 30 mm cannon and three DUMV with smaller caliber weapons, for example:
- DUMV 1 - 30 mm cannon + two Kornet ATGM (two promising ammunition for MfRT);
- DUMV 2 - 12,7 mm machine gun;
- DUMV 3 - 7,62 mm machine gun + 30 mm automatic grenade launcher;
- DUMV 4 - 7,62 mm machine gun + 30 mm automatic grenade launcher.

Variants of DUMV placement on BMPT T-18 based on the image of "Products-149", the conceptual predecessor of the T-15 (used because of the similarity with the platform in question and the presence of its images in three projections)

In some cases, overlapping of the DUMV firing sectors may occur. To exclude the possibility of damage to one DUMV by firing from another DUMV in the intersection zones, shooting should be blocked automatically.

Examples of overlapping DUMV shelling sectors

When firing at targets located on a hill, all DUMVs will be able to work most of the time without restrictions, due to exceeding the firing trajectory over neighboring DUMVs.

With an increase in the elevation angles of the barrels of weapons, the overlap of the DUMV firing sectors ceases

Moreover, in any case, most of the time several DUMVs (at least two) will be able to simultaneously work in one direction.

In most cases, 2-3 DUMV will be able to work in one direction

The fighters carrying out the guidance of the DUMV should be placed in the troop compartment, which will be inherited by the BMPT T-18 from the heavy BMP T-15. Depending on the size of the workplaces, the crew of the BMPT T-18 will be six (2 + 4) or ten (2 + 8) people.

Airborne compartment TBMP T-15

The first two are the commander with a driver, the other four are the DUMV operators. Why do we need four more crew members in the "2 + 8" variant? They can serve as a "second number" for operators of the DUMV. Obtaining an image from several observation devices of a panoramic view, they must look for potential targets, pointing them on the touch pad, after which the targets are highlighted with a frame on the screen of the DUMV operators. Thus, the "second numbers" perform only the "search" function, while the operators perform the "search and destroy" function. However, the "2 + 8" option is unlikely to be implemented due to the lack of space in the compartment of the BMPT T-18. And even if there is a place, then, most likely, it is better to use it to place spare ammunition for the DUMV.

The driver's function is clear: the commander carries out general coordination, determines the direction of movement of the BMPT and can take over control of one or more DUMV at any time.

As in the case of MfRT, on the BMPT T-18 can be considered both the use of "classic" armor, with powerful frontal armor, and evenly distributed armor protection. Moreover, unlike MBT and MFRT, where the advisability of weakening the frontal armor can be left in doubt, the nature of the targets hit by the BMPT T-18, tilts the scales rather in favor of evenly distributed body armor.

BMPT T-18 can be implemented with reinforced frontal or evenly distributed armor protection

Like on MBT or MfRT, an active protection complex (KAZ) can be installed on the BMPT T-18. It is believed that the KAZ "Afghanit", installed on combat vehicles of the "Armata" family, has the ability to control a standard DUMV with a 7,62 mm machine gun to destroy incoming ammunition. Coupling the KAZ "Afghanit" with four DUMV BMPT T-18 will significantly increase the likelihood of destroying some types of attacking ammunition at a considerable distance from the attacked combat vehicles.

In addition, the pairing of the KAZ MBT T-14 or MfRT with the KAZ BMPT T-18 will allow the latter to shoot incoming ammunition, detected, respectively, by the MBT T-14 or MfRT, and attacking any of the combat vehicles of the programmed group.

At first glance, when considering the concept of the BMPT T-18, an analogy may arise with multi-turret tanks that did not pass "natural selection" during the evolution of this type of military equipment, but it is impossible to compare them with the concept of the BMPT T-18 for several reasons:
- on multi-turret tanks, the presence of several towers prevented the installation of the most powerful weapon. The BMPT does not require the installation of the most powerful weapons capable of defeating enemy armored vehicles, since its main purpose is the enemy's manpower;
- the presence of several towers reduced the security and increased the mass of the multi-turret tank. On BMPT T-18 compact DUMV should be used, which do not penetrate into the hull and do not weaken the armor protection;
- towers of multi-turret tanks significantly blocked the view and firing sectors for each other. DUMV on BMPT T-18 will be subject to this to a much lesser extent due to its compact dimensions, high targeting speed and computer limitation of the firing sectors.

The concept of multi-turret tanks has not received development, but it has nothing to do with the BMPT T-18, except for some external similarity

To some extent, all existing MBTs can be considered multi-turret, since, in addition to the main armament, a DUMV is necessarily installed on them. The fundamental difference is that on modern tanks real "multi-turret" is impossible due to the huge mass of the turret and the dimensions of the gun, but in the BMPT version "multi-turret" is quite appropriate, since it will radically increase the number of eyes and hands "working on the enemy."

Conclusions

The proposed concept of the BMPT T-18 makes it possible to significantly increase the probability of detecting and destroying enemy tank-hazardous manpower by increasing the number of independent reconnaissance and destruction means as part of a combat vehicle, as well as by increasing the number of crew members searching for and destroying tank-hazardous targets.

The probability of target detection by the BMPT T-18 is several times higher than that of the BMPT "Terminator" or MBT, the advantage of the BMPT T-18 increases simultaneously with the increase in the complexity of target detection (reducing the probability of target detection by one operator)

The probability of hitting targets BMPT T-18 will also significantly exceed that of the BMPT "Terminator". It can be assumed that the armament module of the BMPT "Terminator" in terms of fire performance is higher than each individual DUMV BMPT T-18, therefore, the probability of hitting a target is also higher. However, the DUMV BMPT T-18 must be provided with significantly higher turning / guidance speeds, in addition, each DUMV BMPT T-18 can control a sector of 90 degrees, while the area of ​​responsibility of the weapons module of the BMPT "Terminator" will always be 360 ​​degrees. Taken together, this will allow the BMPT T-18 to fire at the target much faster than the armament module of the BMPT “Terminator” can do without giving the target to take cover or change its position, therefore, for the DUMV BMPT T-18 and the weapon module BMPT “Terminator”, a conditionally equal probability hitting the target

The use of the BMPT T-18 in conjunction with the MRFT, MBT T-14 and TBMP T-15 will allow the formation of highly effective ground units that have maximum protection against all types of emerging threats and are capable of effectively destroying all types of targets on the battlefield.

When it comes to the Armata platform, there are two opposite opinions. Some say: it's bad that the T-90s are still being produced and the T-72s are being modernized, we need to take the “Armata”, others say: why do we need an expensive and “raw” “Armata”, where to hurry, we must fully choose the capabilities of reliable modernized machines.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle: it is necessary to develop and adopt new machines, because without military exploitation they will remain "raw" forever, no tests can replace real operation. But it is also necessary to purchase modernized equipment - both to reduce operational risks and to reduce the burden on the budget. In many respects, a qualitatively modernized technique may not be inferior to a new one. In one of the following materials, we will consider how an effective BMPT based on the T-72 tank might look like.

Comments

[_Ugene_]

you need to equip the tank with the capabilities of the BMPT and let it be a combat vehicle to support itself, compensate for the lack of crew with artificial intelligence, but it will be expensive, but cheaper than making a separate BMPT

[Lopatov]

Quote: _Ugene_

you need to equip the tank with the capabilities of the BMPT

It is impossible.
It's easier to invest in control and communication systems. They will provide even greater efficiency than BMPT

Quote: _Ugene_

to compensate for the lack of crew with artificial intelligence

What for?
For example, a remotely controlled weapon station can be controlled not only from a tank.
The operator sitting in the control car in the immediate rear will cope much better than the existing AI

[Starover_Z]

Quote: Spade

It's easier to invest in control and communication systems.

The idea of ​​supplying the same "Armata" with individual UAVs was "announced" here earlier.
Isn't there a way out for detecting camouflaged and other enemy positions at a distance, from where the infantry will not be able to attack and fire on armored vehicles?

[lucul]

In DUMV, installed on BMPT T-18, the following types of weapons can be used:
- ATGM "Kornet" or a promising ammunition for MFRT;
- gun 2A42 caliber 30 mm;
- gun 2A72 caliber 30 mm;
- machine gun KPVT caliber 14,5 mm;
- machine gun "Kord" caliber 12,7 mm;
- machine gun "Pecheneg" caliber 7,62 mm;
- automatic grenade launcher of 30 mm caliber.

That's why to fence like that? )))
Without the help of the 82mm Gorse mortar, in the swivel turret on the BMPT, you can't solve the problem with the infantry.
But what to add 82mm Drok to the pair, to the tower - 30mm cannon or 57mm high ballistics cannon, with shells with remote detonation - this is already an interesting question ...
Well, the Cornets on the sides by itself.

[dauria]

you will not solve the problem with the infantry in any way.

Only the infantry can solve the problem with the infantry. A tank without infantry is nonsense. Whether in the field or in the city. His business is to help the infantry with "tough nuts", and not to solve all its tasks.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: dauria

you will not solve the problem with the infantry in any way.

Only the infantry can solve the problem with the infantry. A tank without infantry is nonsense. Whether in the field or in the city. His business is to help the infantry with "tough nuts", and not to solve all its tasks.

So yes, but there is a fundamental contradiction between the ability to move the tank and the infantry. The infantry largely fetters the tank because of its slowness, deprives the initiative.

And what is the advantage of the infantry? First of all, it has "many eyes" and many hands. I propose to give this opportunity to BMPT. And if the intervention of the dismounted infantry is really necessary, then he should also be part of the combat group on the T-15.

[Alex777]

With all due respect, the concept of the "BMT T-18" is the same bulldozer as the multi-turret tanks.

[Materialist]

It is impossible to fully realize the advantages of a particular type of weapon in parallel, the machines will soon cross the psychological barrier of mass of 70 tons
Why such a number of operators and turrets on one combat unit if infantry and tank-dangerous manpower will be engaged in all the equipment on and off the battlefield, infantry fighting vehicles (auto-cannon-machine-gun armament, BMPT more large-caliber auto-cannon, missile, tanks with large barrels of high ballistics, artillery, which should have their own UAVs for reconnaissance deep into the defense) why many eyes on one machine if reconnaissance should already be done only from the air by each branch of the military at the same time?
One of the advantages of armored vehicles is the ability to fight at a distance where infantry weapons cannot reach (as an option) and all its advantages are fully realized only in this way

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: lucul

In DUMV, installed on BMPT T-18, the following types of weapons can be used:
- ATGM "Kornet" or a promising ammunition for MFRT;
- gun 2A42 caliber 30 mm;
- gun 2A72 caliber 30 mm;
- machine gun KPVT caliber 14,5 mm;
- machine gun "Kord" caliber 12,7 mm;
- machine gun "Pecheneg" caliber 7,62 mm;
- automatic grenade launcher of 30 mm caliber.

That's why to fence like that? )))
Without the help of the 82mm Gorse mortar, in the swivel turret on the BMPT, you can't solve the problem with the infantry.
But what to add 82mm Drok to the pair, to the tower - 30mm cannon or 57mm high ballistics cannon, with shells with remote detonation - this is already an interesting question ...
Well, the Cornets on the sides by itself.

So this is not all at once on the BMPT, these are options for what the DUMV can be created on the basis of.

The mortar is not a melee weapon, but the BMPT's task, first of all, is to protect against sudden close and "quick" threats. For this it is necessary - to quickly see and quickly strike.

The mortar can provide support at a distance of 1-3 km.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Starover_Z

The idea of ​​supplying the same "Armata" with individual UAVs was "announced" here earlier.

Again, this may be required only in the absence of normal communication and a normal control system.
There are not enough people in the tank anyway. The commander is forced to perform the function of two people - the actual commander and operator of a remotely controlled combat module

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Starover_Z

The idea of ​​supplying the same "Armata" with individual UAVs was "announced" here earlier.
Isn't there a way out for detecting camouflaged and other enemy positions at a distance, from where the infantry will not be able to attack and fire on armored vehicles?

This question was addressed for the MRF:
Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles
https://topwar.ru/159509-bespilotnye-sistemy-dlja-perspektivnoj-bronetehniki.html

[vVvAD]

Quote: AVM

This question was addressed for the MRF:
Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles
https://topwar.ru/159509-bespilotnye-sistemy-dlja-perspektivnoj-bronetehniki.html

And the article confirms that such, or better such UAVs are needed. All the same, if we proceed from the realities: even if the concept of MFRT and BMPT T-18 interests someone in military circles, several years will pass only for the accumulation of the necessary "entropy". Then - with a successful combination of circumstances - a few more years on research and development. And by the time of the development work, the necessary UAVs may already appear or a request for them and work on them within the framework of R&D on the main topic.
But this is a saying. It's time to take a ride on the article
Andrey, I definitely like you as an author, and I also like the idea of ​​the BMPT T-18, so I promise to criticize constructively (1 head is good, and 2 is better - in a broad sense ):

Variants of placement of DUMV seats on BMPT T-18 and approximate sweeping radii for machine guns of 7,62 mm, 12,7 mm and 30 mm cannons

That's why he is a DBM, because it does not have to be directly above the operator. Optical sighting devices, so called. prisms can have horizontal channels along the roof with exits to the DBM, if you are against the camera system. It is definitely not worth reducing the protection of operators because of the potential "inconvenient" for this location of the DBMS.

Quote: AVM

Examples of overlapping DUMV shelling sectors

Let's think sensibly: the sectors intersect too much in the horizontal elevation angles, the rear small DBMS will not be able to shoot at negative angles without a slight rise above the armor - and this is already enough to exclude the intersection with the front DBMs in the above-mentioned firing angles and ... this is the same multi-turret tank! (highlighted below).
In the original version, the military will not approve of the initially proposed location of the DBM, because it implies an instant transfer of the target to the DBM operator with an unobstructed firing sector (if he is not already occupied by another target) when the BMPT course changes or a nearby target moves - an unnecessary burden on operators, loss of time reactions and the number of targets simultaneously attacked on certain sectors. This is unacceptable. The option of dividing areas of responsibility into hemispheres - right and left - will increase the reaction time with a reduction in the number of targets fired simultaneously in the horizontal plane. But there is a better option. But it is possible to use the division of the DBM into 2 classes, traced in the article, but not mentioned, into XNUMX classes: small / light and large / heavy, having the higher-planted guns, as a result of which its firing sector does not overlap with light DBM, which can be indirectly indicated by the size and absence of this and the previous images overlapping its firing sector with other DBMs:

And this is also a multi-turret tank.

Quote: AVM

At first glance, when considering the concept of the BMPT T-18, an analogy may arise with multi-turret tanks that did not undergo "natural selection" during the evolution of this type of military equipment "

They did not pass natural selection at the pre-war level of technology development.

Quote: AVM

- on multi-turret tanks, the presence of several towers prevented the installation of the most powerful weapon. The BMPT does not require the installation of the most powerful weapons capable of defeating enemy armored vehicles, since its main purpose is the enemy's manpower;

This is just an argument for multi-turret!

Quote: AVM

- the presence of several towers reduced the security and increased the mass of the multi-turret tank ...
- towers of multi-turret tanks significantly blocked the view and sectors of fire for each other ...

In the case of lightweight and compact unmanned DUBM with cameras and / or the previously mentioned survey devices, I see no negative impact on the security and visibility of the BMPT. So it is not accepted.
In addition, the BMPT-1 has something similar - course grenade launchers on the fenders - they do not interfere with the DUBM shelling sector. Yes, these are not towers, but what prevents them from being placed there? Grenade launcher turrets or machine-gun DBMs that do not rise above the BMPT armor with firing sectors of about 170º in the front and side hemisphere, totaling about 250º.
And, yes: the grenade launcher turrets will be better. they only need to shoot with direct fire almost point-blank, while the others will have a 360º sector of fire. And without a UAV for firing at targets behind cover, nowhere.
So hastily you, Andrey, abandoned the concept multi-turret tank - just look at it from the angle of the presence of several DBMs placed in the horizontal plane according to the multi-turret principle, i.e. one above the other.
For example, 2 light DUBM in fenders and 1 behind the side of the heavy one (both on a platform slightly raised like the BMPT-2 to reach negative angles), and at the same time, it itself will be below the location of the guns on the heavy DUBM with circular shelling, will overlap only to them.
There is one, which may seem controversial, point: but, after all, light DUBM will have only 1 weapon. But is it necessary to concentrate a lot of expensive weapons on one platform, because when it is disabled, all these weapons will be useless. By the way, it is for this reason that the Coalition did not acquire the 1nd barrel. Those. The heavy module is universal, but in general against tanks and light equipment, the rest are against tank-hazardous manpower and weakly protected equipment no larger than armored cars of a light class a-la jeep, carts, small RTKs, etc.

[vVvAD]

And just this light DUBM can be taken somewhat forward in relation to the heavy one - so that the heavy one would block its firing sector from the side in the rear hemisphere.

[Bad_gr]

We have such a system called "anti-sniper". She herself finds the optics directed towards the equipment and indicates where it is, as well as options with automatic aiming of the weapon at infrared radiation with a person's temperature.
Install such a thing (with automatic aiming) on ​​the tank,

and to the commander, bring the screen and the button to confirm the fire, for destruction. You can duplicate the screen with the button for the driver: when the tank is in position (in ambush, etc.), the mechanic's eyes will not be superfluous in this matter.

[Senka naughty]

Quote: Bad_gr

Install such a thing (with automatic aiming) on ​​the tank

And in the conditions of urban development, mow down your own infantry .. All this has long been in the form of thermal imaging cameras, and these systems do not automate precisely because even the most experienced commanders sometimes completely lose their sense of space, and the automatically guided system will substitute its own infantry support. All this can only be done with a good friend or foe recognition system. Otherwise, instead of completing the assigned task, the gunner and commander will be busy with visual recognition of targets. All these visors and sensors are good in oppositional confrontation, and during breakthroughs, when their own infantry teems nearby, the only means of dealing with enemy ATGMs is communication and competent target designation from reconnaissance / drones.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: Senka Naughty

... and in case of breakthroughs, when its own infantry teems nearby, the only means of dealing with enemy ATGMs is communication and competent target designation from reconnaissance / drones.

First of all, target designation from its own infantry, it is the main "intelligence" on the battlefield, especially in urban areas.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Bad_gr

We have such a system called "anti-sniper". She herself finds the optics directed towards the equipment and indicates where it is, as well as options with automatic aiming of the weapon at infrared radiation with a person's temperature.
Install such a thing (with automatic aiming) on ​​the tank,

and to the commander, bring the screen and the button to confirm the fire, for destruction. You can duplicate the screen with the button for the driver: when the tank is in position (in ambush, etc.), the mechanic's eyes will not be superfluous in this matter.

Yes, all this needs to be worked out, and this will simplify the task of finding and hitting the target, but so far, it will not finally solve it.

Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms for promising armored vehicles
https://topwar.ru/159275-jergonomika-rabochih-mest-i-boevye-algoritmy-perspektivnyh-bronemashin.html

[garri-lin]

And the connection? I am silent about taking over control. But they may well block.

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

And the connection?

It is cheaper to provide it. Including with the help of repeaters on robotic air and ground platforms.

The problem still needs to be solved, a modern army cannot be without communication.

[garri-lin]

It is definitely necessary to decide. But transmitting high definition video online is very difficult. The flow of information is great. And without this, remotely aimed fire will not work.

[yehat2]

I would like to note several points in the development of BMPT. She has enough firepower now.
a radical increase in the number of firing points will not change anything.
What is the BMPT really missing?
1. First of all, target designation and search for targets inaccessible to the tank and a more complete view of the hemisphere
2. Improving the reaction speed and accuracy of weapons systems
3 tower mount with weapons is probably not enough, but more than two, I think, should not be done. It is worth remembering that you need not an ideal, but a real tank.
4. Selecting targets
5. I believe that BPMT simply needs a mortar or a compact replacement like a mini-howitzer.
Moreover, this will help not only against the infantry - you can use a cumulative bomb and get a tank in cover.
And the last thing - now the battlefield has been changed, the BMPT simply must be able to collect data from other nearby units and act as a coordination center. Including, coordinate air (UAV, etc.) and ground reconnaissance (reconnaissance vehicles, DRG).
In addition, BMPTs need to be trained to be the backbone of the infantry squad's actions, especially on clearing and patrol missions. In this regard, you can take some of the ready-made solutions in Israel.
There is absolutely no need to hang endless devices, firing points and so on on it.
It is still useful to use specialized machines. For example, we have armored vehicles in the army that are designed to use UAVs from the rear. It is enough to keep in touch with them.

[max702]

Everything you need for this has long been there. on it through the sights of the module with the possibility of targeting and for "melon", a couple of three drones with the function of automatic takeoff / landing / charging in the same place, they can be controlled by both a remote operator and the commander himself .. Sectors do not overlap almost never blocking the intersection is not a problem , a 100mm gun (ideally 120mm from Vienna) is enough to work with land mines, 30mm, 7.62mm as an addition to the main one, the epoch module is a plus to all this .. We get the same 3 crew members, chassis from t-55 to t-14, and actually worked out elements of modules, UAVs, all the difficulty of linking all this with each other and into a centered battlefield (which should be done anyway) .. Such a machine is quite real and universal for any tasks .. The only thing that is expensive but it will be cheaper than what the author suggests ..

[yehat2]

about drones unrealistically too intelligent are not needed - this is a consumable
an extra operator is also not needed. therefore, there are no regular UAVs, except maybe a storage container, only the use of a video channel from an already appeared UAV in some way.

[max702]

Well, it is quite possible to transmit a signal from the UAV and the remote operator still needs a connection and turning on the UAV channel is not a problem, and the commander may well use it himself and be guided by remote prompts, this is primarily to relieve the commander ... The price is not particularly will change, but if you organize direct target designation from a UAV and even with a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder, etc. then yes, the price is too high .. Ideally, the camera is well and a simple laser rangefinder (all this is now inexpensive), and the UAV itself is something like a penny square ..

[yehat2]

A massive quadrocopter will consume a huge amount of batteries - even the United States has problems with this, where logistics is much better developed than ours.
In addition, the depth of the battlefield is 5-20 km, this is not the distance for a quadcopter.
It seems to me that it is necessary to use aircraft-like UAVs.
quadcopters - only for the needs of the infantry squad.

[max702]

Quote: yehat2

a massive quadcopter will consume a huge amount of batteries

That's why I wrote the function of automatic take-off / landing / recharging .. 10 minutes hung up the next one, the price of this will obviously be in the range of 5000-10000 dollars, which is similar to ATGMs which have long been a consumable for the OBD .. I absolutely do not see such a problem in UAVs, similar ones are massively used all parties have been in local conflicts for several years.

[yehat2]

Yes, there are no such devices that automatically do everything and at the same time are cheap, small and convenient. need to look more realistic at technology

[max702]

For rent again this is not a problem, but just such a task was not set. Is it really difficult to give a command to take off with a 10% charge of what is in the air, or is it difficult that the UAV can land on the recharging base? Something I do not believe in this .. The coordinates are known, the algorithm is not a problem to register for the return ..

[yehat2]

I repeat, there is little sense from the quadcopter that hangs next to the BMPT
he must find closed positions several kilometers away. A quadcopter that can fly like that is simply irrational. Therefore the plane. Therefore, no base and automatic take-off and landing

[max702]

Well, I don’t know the ability of the tank commander to look at the battlefield from a height of another hundred meters, or stupidly look around the corner, I don’t see anything superfluous .. And the takeoff landing is just a convenient functionality and nothing more ..

[yehat2]

tanks alone do not fight. leave the infantry to look around. Now it is much more important for a tank to look 1-7 km from its position in order to pose a danger of movement. In addition, regular surveillance equipment is relatively effective at close range.

[max702]

Even how they are fighting in fact, and even then talking about BMPTs in general .. In the same Donbass, they conduct reconnaissance mainly by unmanned aerial vehicles, and in Syria they are quite used. This is exactly the kind of cheap UAV worth $ 5k / $ a tank worth $ 5kk / $ is needed ..

[yehat2]

check out which UAVs are used in Syria or Donbass
I, unlike you, worked at an enterprise that makes them
quadrocopters - just look around within tens of meters. Everything else is aircraft uavs

[psiho117]

Quote: yehat2

yes, there are no such devices that do everything automatically and at the same time are cheap, small and convenient

Oh, how it is not, the Chinese "selfie-drones" from Ali-Express, there, on command, take off on their own, take a position near the person, and take pictures, keeping at the same distance;
can accompany, can do panoramic photography, many drones now automatically return to the base station to charge.
So you are wrong, everything is there. The truth is not with us

[yehat2]

pancake. the question is not that it cannot be done. The problem is then in operation.
the helicopter scheme consumes 2-3 times more fuel or electricity at once.
Changing quadrocopters a few kilometers from the base generally looks unrealistic.
Travel speed is just as important as payload.
And selfies at close range BMPT nafig is not necessary.
The problem is not to look around. It is also necessary to look around where it is really needed and it needs to be done for a long time. Therefore, a quadric that is convenient in everyday life is not at all suitable.
by the way, the constant supply of electricity in the field is also a hemorrhoid.

[psiho117]

Quote: yehat2

The problem is not to look around. It is also necessary to look around where it is really needed and it needs to be done for a long time.

Even the opportunity to look “around that corner” is more than there is. And I don't understand your obsession with driving your drone miles away.
The main problem is precisely the DB in urban development, it is there that the situational awareness of armored vehicles critically suffers. And there are fewer problems with visibility for kilometers - there are observation devices on armored vehicles, there are reconnaissance drones, there are BRMs and remote posts. The problem is precisely to look without substituting behind the corner, behind the house, behind the fence, on the roof or somewhere else. next with the car.
If it's too hot, you can send the drone one way, it can fly 30 kilometers in 40-80 minutes. What is the problem?

the helicopter scheme consumes 2-3 times more fuel or electricity at once.

do not like quadrics - there are airplanes. It starts with an elastic band or from the hand, can fix some point and wrap circles, he sits on a 2-3m patch himself. The return on board, however, will be more difficult - it will have to be manually lifted.
But quadrics are simpler and more practical. It is easy to automate the whole process. I flew for half an hour, charged for half an hour. At this time, the other flies.

Changing quadrocopters a few kilometers from the base generally looks unrealistic

Drones are consumables. And like any consumables they will be brought if they are relied on by the state.

[t7310]

Quote: Spade

to compensate for the lack of crew with artificial intelligence

What for?
For example, a remotely controlled weapon station can be controlled not only from a tank.
The operator sitting in the control car in the immediate rear will cope much better than the existing AI

web is now quite accessible even to barmaley, cars with remote control on the front line are too vulnerable for web, remote control is not superfluous, since it is cheap, but a backup system in the form of AI with protection from the web or operator inside the car

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: _Ugene_

you need to equip the tank with the capabilities of the BMPT and let it be a combat vehicle to support itself, compensate for the lack of crew with artificial intelligence, but it will be expensive, but cheaper than making a separate BMPT

Yes, but so far it is impossible, and it will hardly be possible for another 20-30 years.

PMSM in the late 90s and early 2000s, there was some kind of euphoria about artificial intelligence, the power of computers was growing so quickly that it seemed that there would be AI, virtual reality, in fact, the so-called. "strong" AI has not yet been created, and when it will be created is unknown.

[Su24]

Quote: _Ugene_

you need to equip the tank with the capabilities of the BMPT and let it be a combat vehicle to support itself, compensate for the lack of crew with artificial intelligence, but it will be expensive, but cheaper than making a separate BMPT

I agree. It is enough to give the commander a normal module with a sight, for example, with an autocannon and a 7,62 machine gun. Then in the tank platoon there will already be means with fast aiming and a high aiming angle.

[strannik1985]

This music will be eternal. Does it bother anyone that BMPTs also need infantry cover?

[Alekseev]

Have already written a lot ...
But still. Support for tanks on the battlefield is also the actions of aviation, artillery, infantry and, of course, air defense missile systems and MANPADS. And they all have the appropriate samples of equipment and weapons. What is the role of the special ashina BMPT?
It is clear that one vehicle cannot replace both ACS and ZRPK.
Still, it is possible that an ACS with a powerful mortar howitzer, such as Nona, a long-range ATGM complex, capable of working against air targets (helicopters, attack aircraft), should support tanks in the battle line. The 57-mm artillery module will also be useful. Duplicate the armament of the BMP - 30-mm 2A42 and not the most powerful ATGM is not necessary, this is already available in the SMB in sufficient quantities.

[strannik1985]

Still, it is possible to keep tanks in line

If we are talking about BMPT, then it should completely or partially replace the infantry, mainly the fight against tank-hazardous manpower. The main task is not to destroy, but to discover. There are a lot of complexes, from old, Soviet type PAPV to modern ones (for example, the two-channel (thermal imager + laser) "Zarnitsa"). Then transfer to the executor, at least for the same tanks (infantry armored vehicles, artillerymen, ATGM battery) and hit.

[NEXUS]

Quote: strannik1985

This music will be eternal. Does it bother anyone that BMPTs also need infantry cover?

Everything on earth needs infantry cover, including the T-15 Terminator.
So why bother with a garden, pushing 100500 cannons and machine guns onto the platform, if in addition to Terminators, T-15 various infantry fighting vehicles, etc., the infantry is also directly involved in the destruction of enemy manpower? Well, not to remove the infantry completely from the battlefield today.
It is the infantry that neutralizes and will neutralize the most tank-hazardous areas, including low-flying targets.
In the foreseeable future, serial exoskeletons, new armor for infantry, etc. will appear ...
In fact, this T-18 is an attempt to minimize the presence of infantry on the front line. This is how robots, UAVs, etc. are created in this direction ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: NEXUS

Everything on earth needs infantry cover, including the T-15 Terminator.

It was originally stated that BMPTs have the task of replacing the infantry

[NEXUS]

Quote: Spade

It was originally stated that BMPTs have the task of replacing the infantry

Will not replace in the near future. Neither BMPTs nor even robots. The level of technology has not yet matured.

[Lopatov]

Quote: NEXUS

Will not replace in the near future. Neither BMPTs nor even robots. The level of technology has not yet matured.

If you do not "replace", then BMPT and special meaning do not have
This is what the ficus-picus consists of

[NEXUS]

Quote: Spade

If you do not "replace", then BMPT and special meaning do not have
This is what the ficus-picus consists of

The BMPT is, in fact, no longer an assistant to tanks, but to infantry, especially in urban areas. And the tank is covered by everyone ...
The meaning of the BMPT, if quite simply, is to put on the platform as many weapons as possible (if completely exaggerated), sharpened to destroy manpower and lightly armored targets. That is, the BMPT, given its armor and ammo, is essentially a mobile bunker.

[Lopatov]

Quote: NEXUS

BMPT, in fact, is more of an assistant not to tanks, but to infantry, especially in urban areas.

The tank is definitely better.

Quote: NEXUS

That is, the BMPT, given its armor and ammunition, is essentially a mobile bunker.

?
Is the tank a mobile super DOT?

[NEXUS]

Quote: Spade

Is the tank a mobile super DOT?

No ... the tank is simply more mobile ART ... or do you have a different opinion on this?

[Kerensky]

The tank is definitely better

There is no place for a tank in the city!
The task of the BMP "hitchhiking" is to slip through the sectors fired from small arms, not to run into a land mine and to pour out troops "around the corner." Further BMP crushes with fire exposed by the landing firing points ...

[garri-lin]

Given the introduction of KAZ, it is highly undesirable for its infantry to be located 50 meters from the tank. In some cases, BMPT will be able to replace the infantry. More precisely to add. Plus, stand by the infantryman simply will not be able to carry those surveillance equipment that can be placed on the BMPT. The debate about the benefits has been going on for a long time. And there is no end in sight. And the reason is simple. There are many pros and many cons. And what is more incomprehensible. In one situation, there are more advantages. The other cons.

[Lopatov]

Quote: garri-lin

Given the introduction of KAZ, it is highly undesirable for its infantry to be located 50 meters from the tank.

I apologize, the infantry has nothing to do in front of the tank and without the KAZ
She is 100-300 meters behind, as far as I remember.

Quote: garri-lin

In some cases, BMPT will be able to replace the infantry.

No.

Quote: garri-lin

Plus, stand still, the infantryman simply will not be able to carry with him the means of observation that can be placed on the BMPT.

But the infantry squad has an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier, where it can be easily placed.

[garri-lin]

In the city or on very rough terrain, the infantry being very far behind the tank will not see anything and will not help.
Will not replace completely. But partially it can. A normal BMPT (not a terminator) is several channels of weapons and the ability to quickly hit the infantry hidden in the folds of the terrain. LSHO 57 mm correctly modified for this is excellent. Large ammunition load. Enough power.
I hope they will appear there and so in the form of modern observation devices and sights.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: garri-lin

I hope they will appear there and so in the form of modern observation devices and sights.

You need a UAV attached to each BMPT T-18 - look for "... infantry hidden in the folds of the terrain ..." For "quick response" you will have to attach a "shock load" to the UAV.

[Cympak]

Why can't the UAV operator be left behind? Let him sit quietly in a lightly armored KShM, identify targets and transfer them to the tanks and TBMPs leading the attack, and the artillery support assigned to them.

[cat Rusich]

Can. But it is better to have "your eyes in the sky" (UAV) and look through it "under your nose." And if not necessary, let it be in the "trunk".

[Cympak]

And don't we know about the "network-centric battlefield"?

[cat Rusich]

The "look" of the headquarters UAV is directed to one point, and everyone who is connected to the video channel looks at this point. But you need to look into the corner of the screen and not just look at the corner of the screen, but take a closer look - focus your gaze on an interesting place for you, or even go back. And at the same time, 99 more commanders want the same thing (to look at an interesting place only for you) ... Don't mix the general picture of the battlefield and the look in front of you.

[garri-lin]

Jews rivet this en masse.

[Senka naughty]

Quote: Spade

She is 100-300 meters behind, as far as I remember.

This is if a tank is advancing across the field, after a 2-hour art preparation or during a reload.
And in all other cases, the infantry advances under the cover of a tank or in the flanks from cover to cover, and in a city, reconnaissance generally constantly runs in front of the tank. You release the tank 100-300 meters in front and it is a corpse. In general, there are as many strategies and conditions as there are situations. Therefore, all these BMPTs are a dream of a distant future. Without infantry, equipment cannot work, from the word at all. None of the optics and thermal imagers will reveal a well-constructed secret / ambush.

[Materialist]

Apparently, not everyone understands that the BMPT complements, and consequently "competes" with motorized infantry (since the very essence of the BMPT concept came from the merger of the functions of the tank and the firepower of the ZSU, the first of which is the basis in the offensive, which it supplemented before the advent of the BMPT with its fire support only BMP) leaving the last role, suitable only for two-legged and small, to go to occupy the trenches
An armored personnel carrier is not a combat vehicle, it cannot be considered on a par with combat vehicles of the front line echelon
BMP-armed transporter with the necessary protection of the level of the same BMPT and tank, but having among them a specialization in cargo transport

[yehat2]

it is not the infantry that needs to be replaced, but the need for its massive use.
so that not an infantry battalion, but a squadron was going on the battlefield. That's why BMPT.
But in fact, no one is trying to make this replacement. They just increase the striking power of tanks.

[_Ugene_]

Will not replace in the near future. Neither BMPTs nor even robots. The level of technology has not yet matured.

This is the whole point - the infantry is the most vulnerable on the battlefield, it is necessary to reduce the loss of manpower, and in the future, completely remove a person from the battlefield and technology has almost matured, we, as always, are 10-20 years behind

[Bad_gr]

Quote: strannik1985

Does it bother anyone that BMPTs also need infantry cover?

Where is this written? BMPT and created to replace this very cover infantry. So that the fighter does not run next to the tank, looking out for tank-hazardous targets, but sat under the cover of tank armor, with a good view, armed with a machine gun (grenade launcher, small-caliber cannon, etc.) performing the same tasks.

[psiho117]

Quote: Bad_gr

BMPT and created to replace this very cover infantry. So that the fighter does not run next to the tank, looking out for tank-hazardous targets, but sat under the cover of tank armor

It's all the same without infantry. BMPT can "solve" only in an open field (like, like how Kazakhs bought "Terminators" for themselves in the steppe).
As soon as it comes to battles in urban agglomerations (namely, such battles, according to all forecasts, will make up 90% of all DBs in the near future), there is no way without the infantry clearing buildings.
It’s very, you know, unpleasant when from a house you just passed, an RPG flies in the ass, or grenades are thrown onto the roof.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: strannik1985

This music will be eternal. Does it bother anyone that BMPTs also need infantry cover?

To some extent. It's like a "sandwich" - a T-14 tank, MfRT, BMPT T-18 and T-15 with infantry. In the group, their protection and shock capabilities will be maximized.

[strannik1985]

To some extent.

There are a lot of situations when the infantry will have to go ahead of the armored vehicle, for example in the city.
All the same, we need systems for determining optical reconnaissance devices (even Soviet ones - PAPV, Luch-1, new ones - Mirage, Antisniper, two-channel Zarnitsa), communications, fire support (for example, equipping mortar batteries of SMEs with complexes of type 83t888-1.7 or rearmament to a self-propelled mortar as 2S34 "Vienna"). Where does the money for everything come from? And when they do, the question arises - why BMPT?

[gvozdan]

Some kind of crossout

[The leader of the Redskins]

With such an extension of the desired to reality, soon the well-known "dung" will find its niche and logical justification.

[Senka naughty]

Quote: Leader of the Redskins

With such an extension of the desired to reality, soon the well-known "dung" will find its niche and logical justification.

This is how they work, throwing VO on the site and hoping to steal a breakthrough idea here.

[Pavel57]

Multi-section conveyor. Each section has its own specialization.

[Ded_Mazay]

And let's better immediately pull the five-turret T-35 out of naphthalene, stick it with "contact-5" and fasten the nameplate "BMPT-35" !?
Why is there no "humor" section on the site? The article would be out of place ...

[andreykolesov123]

Quote: Ded_Mazay

And let's better immediately pull the five-turret T-35 out of naphthalene, stick it with "contact-5" and fasten the nameplate "BMPT-35" !?

and sell to Israel

[BAI]

In my opinion, some kind of insanity began, or sabotage - as you wish. Improvement for the sake of improvement, the process is everything, the result is nothing. Moreover, the "improvements" themselves are quite controversial, but the only exact result is that new equipment is not produced by serial factories. Design bureaus carry out OCD for themselves, without result in the troops.
Culling about "those who do not have analogs in the world", take money off and forget.

[Genry]

The author has an "inventor syndrome" based on a lack of education and poor logical analysis - this often affects children.

[besser best]

Henri, I totally agree with you! But for some reason everyone forgot about the old BMP-3. She has 2 guns 100 and 30. The car is sensible and underrated. 4 km out of 100 (2A70), and even an ATGM ... An absolutely custom article!

[Ros 56]

The main thing when creating such a diverse technique is not to tear the pants from overvoltage. Too many and varied, and this is fraught with service staff, and in supply, and in training crews, and in combat coordination with other types of weapons and troops.

[dgonni]

Another project of the death star.
About the likelihood of detecting a threatening target! The dismounted squad will see more order than being inside the iron box.
And the same bassoon or cornet in the ground version is more tenacious than all this described prefabricated hodgepodge on the chassis of the armata!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: dgonni

Another project of the death star.
About the likelihood of detecting a threatening target! The dismounted squad will see more order than being inside the iron box.
And the same bassoon or cornet in the ground version is more tenacious than all this described prefabricated hodgepodge on the chassis of the armata!

It is much less protected and unable to move at the same pace as the tanks.

And by the way, it is far from the fact that it will see better. Nowadays, technical vision systems surpass the human eye - you can mix information from a high-resolution daytime video camera, night vision device and a thermal imager.

Similar complexes are being developed for infantry in the format of glasses or a helmet (and they are extremely necessary), but they will still be inferior to those installed on a combat vehicle, for example, due to the impossibility of cooling the thermal imager matrix (which gives high sensitivity), a smaller field vision, etc. + all this can be supplemented by a radar machine of cm or mm range (they are already part of KAZ Afganit).

[Kerensky]

It is much less protected and unable to move at the same pace as the tanks.

On the march it is quite capable, but in battle, the tank adjusts to the infantry.

Nowadays, technical vision systems surpass the human eye - you can mix information from a high-resolution daytime video camera, night vision device and a thermal imager.

Open your eyes to the dog handlers - why are they messing with dogs ...
Let in the ruins the nests of snipers and grenade launchers, these gadgets are calculated. And if they drop it, or the food ends there, they go to the warehouse for a new one ...

[garri-lin]

There are many scanners that detect optical devices. The installation of such scanners will make it possible to identify the places where the "observers" are hiding. Binoculars, scopes, cameras, and the like. Then such places can be studied more closely with a thermal scanner or something similar. Will not help against long-range ptura. But against RPGs or ATGMs on very rough terrain, it is quite suitable. This is by situational awareness.

[psiho117]

Quote: garri-lin

There are many scanners that detect optical devices

Exactly. For some reason, the author did not mention that without quality (and not quantitative, as he suggests) superiority in means of detection - meaning in the whole concept of BMPT - ZERO!
We need a complex of multi-band sensors, both passive and active, like AFAR and LIDAR.
There should be a system for launching cheap drone copters on board for reconnaissance.
A simple laser installation (15-20 kW) is needed to "probe the sparkles" (xs, what is the lidar spotted - broken glass or a man aiming) and burn out the eyes of adversaries, and shoot down small drones.
And like a cherry on a cake:
We need a probed CIUS, with elements of artificial intelligence and self-learning, (seriously, it is already in your smartphones ) having the right to independently open fire in the event of a threat.
BIUS has several modes of independence, depending on the aggressiveness of the environment.
For example, in the "paranoid" mode - the BIUS independently searches for targets, and their defeat: any shine of the sight will be detected by the scanning subsystem, after which it is burned out with a laser, snipers (and they are also dangerous for a tank - they can knock out observation devices) detected by a microphone system and struck by projectiles with a controlled detonation, the coordinates of the enemy tank will be transmitted to the allies in the tactical network, with subsequent defeat by coordinated fire from several sides, to oversaturate the defense systems ...
And what we have now (including in projects) is outdated even before birth.

[garri-lin]

Judging by the adequacy of Alice or Siri from smartphones, AI can only be trusted by observation. And so it will be for a long time.

[psiho117]

I'm talking about analysis algorithms - they perfectly remember and analyze what the user is interested in on the network - nothing prevents you from writing software so that the CIUS remembers and analyzes how and from where they shoot at it - and give forecasts of dangerous places.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: psiho117

Quote: garri-lin

There are many scanners that detect optical devices

Exactly. For some reason, the author did not mention that without quality (and not quantitative, as he suggests) superiority in means of detection - meaning in the whole concept of BMPT - ZERO!
We need a complex of multi-band sensors, both passive and active, like AFAR and LIDAR.
There should be a system for launching cheap drone copters on board for reconnaissance.
A simple laser installation (15-20 kW) is needed to "probe the sparkles" (xs, what is the lidar spotted - broken glass or a man aiming) and burn out the eyes of adversaries, and shoot down small drones.
And like a cherry on a cake:
We need a probed CIUS, with elements of artificial intelligence and self-learning, (seriously, it is already in your smartphones ) having the right to independently open fire in the event of a threat.
BIUS has several modes of independence, depending on the aggressiveness of the environment.
For example, in the "paranoid" mode - the BIUS independently searches for targets, and their defeat: any shine of the sight will be detected by the scanning subsystem, after which it is burned out with a laser, snipers (and they are also dangerous for a tank - they can knock out observation devices) detected by a microphone system and struck by projectiles with a controlled detonation, the coordinates of the enemy tank will be transmitted to the allies in the tactical network, with subsequent defeat by coordinated fire from several sides, to oversaturate the defense systems ...
And what we have now (including in projects) is outdated even before birth.

All this was considered in 4 articles:
- Armored vehicles against infantry. Who is faster: a tank or an infantryman? https://topwar.ru/158798-bronetehnika-protiv-pehoty-oni-dolzhny-byt-neulovimo-bystrymi.html
- Increasing situational awareness of the crews of armored combat vehicles https://topwar.ru/159061-povyshenie-situacionnoj-osvedomlennosti-jekipazhej-boevyh-bronirovannyh-mashin.html
- Ergonomics of workplaces and combat algorithms of promising armored vehicles https://topwar.ru/159275-jergonomika-rabochih-mest-i-boevye-algoritmy-perspektivnyh-bronemashin.html
- Unmanned systems for advanced armored vehicles https://topwar.ru/159509-bespilotnye-sistemy-dlja-perspektivnoj-bronetehniki.html

[Kerensky]

Exist weight scanners detecting optical devices

In quantity or at exhibitions? How much is given out to the department?

[garri-lin]

For the separation of what? In quantity and mass production. Only the army is still waiting for something.

[Kerensky]

For the separation of what? In quantity and mass production.

Pieces. How much from that mass produced in the troops? Did you get everything and learn how to use it? Or the pop-eyed box remained at the exhibition?

[garri-lin]

The devices have been on stream for over 10 years. Private traders widely use them and are satisfied with their performance. Since we are talking about a promising technology, it is possible to talk about implementation.

[Kerensky]

The devices have been on stream for over 10 years. Private traders use them widely

Vooot! And where are the pop-eyed boxes in the troops? Or are we chasing the marriage, catching the military representative and selling it as a civilian product? Are we afraid of moose with optics?
At exhibitions, there are a lot of such systems - they can run for beer and bring change. And how many in the troops, but in the hands of sergeant Fakir Nihuyamamdeyarov? What's the point in discussing a device that will help everyone, if in reality you can only screw MMG onto a tank ...
"Sister's name! Name! .." (C) What are the commodity quantities of supplies in the interests of the RF Ministry of Defense for ten years of continuous production .....

[Thomas N.]

Optical scanners, like all "revolutionary" means of detecting targets before them, will not remain without countermeasures for a very short time. For a radar, for example, they quickly found a means of jamming - dipole reflectors. Why not use ordinary reflectors as decoys for laser ranging of optical devices? (https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katafot) To fill up all defensive positions with reflectors like candy, with the help of some pyrotechnic "firecrackers" :-), is it not a hindrance?

[garri-lin]

Catafot will not ride. There is some cunning when scanning. It reacts to the lenses. Punching false lenses will certainly not be a problem.

[Alien From]

Thanks to the author, an interesting article)

[daveduff]

What are these numbers in the tables? What calculations are they taken from? Also, there are no references to literary sources along the text. At the same time, the significant amount of work done to write the article is striking. This is definitely a positive point.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: daveduff

What are these numbers in the tables? What calculations are they taken from? Also, there are no references to literary sources along the text. At the same time, the significant amount of work done to write the article is striking. This is definitely a positive point.

Probability calculation. Made in Excel, so only results. In principle, the formula there is simple:
- the probability of hitting the target by the 1st operator is subtracted from 1, we get the probability of not hitting the target by 1 operator, so for each operator.
- we multiply all the probabilities of non-defeat by the 1st operator, we get the probability of non-defeat by all operators;
- from 1 we subtract the probability of non-hitting the target by all operators, we get the probability of hitting the target by at least one operator of all of them.

[Kerensky]

In principle, the formula there is simple:

On the night before the offensive, 100.000 Chinese sappers deploy a battle rake in the brigade's advance. Each carries 10 items. They manage to make 2-3 trips ...

[Nikolaevich I]

Dreams Dreams...! Dreaming is not harmful? Is it harmful not to dream?

[cat Rusich]

Conclusion ... "tank bodyguards" will ride in front, behind and on the sides of the tank. Direct comparison with "ordinary bodyguards" - "bodyguards" are in front, on the sides and behind the "guarded object" ... behind the infantry on an armored personnel carrier (to specify the model), and cover this "procession" from the "rear" of the MLRS self-propelled guns. I drew an approximate layout of the equipment ...

Let me explain: 2 (two) BMPTs go slightly in front, 1 MBT each - right and left, along the forward movement of the MBT. Their task is to look for "tank-hazardous soft targets" in front, but not to block the forward sector of view and MBT shelling. Tank (MBT) has the ability to look ahead and fire as needed. The back of the MBT is covered by another BMPT - it controls the space to the right and left of the MBT, even after the forward BMPT has passed through this place, if necessary, it acts as a "spare". Then, across the cleared space, the infantry moves on an armored personnel carrier (to clarify the model), their task is to go after the advancing equipment and, if necessary, dismount and consolidate on the ground. All of them are covered by self-propelled guns and MLRS following behind everyone and firing over the heads of the attackers. Artillery receives target designations from UAVs and advancing equipment (network centrism in action). Scheme "approximate" without names of specific models, only the type of equipment. Distances between vehicles must be calculated based on the performance characteristics of specific models and the assigned combat mission on the ground.

[psiho117]

Quote: cat Rusich

Conclusion ... "tank bodyguards" will ride in front, behind and on the sides of the tank

Then they must be unmanned, at least the first 2 - otherwise there are too many people, and too big losses, if that (and "if that" - happens regularly).
And by the way, the Americans are already testing ground-based UAV control vehicles at Bradley's base.
https://topwar.ru/174980-revoljucija-robotov-armija-ssha-namerena-vooruzhit-svoi-distancionno-upravljaemye-mashiny.html
There are four control stations on board for operators controlling drones - 2 for driver + gunner, or 4 independent operators.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: psiho117

Then they must be unmanned, at least the first 2 - otherwise there are too many people, and too big losses, if that (and "if that" - happens regularly).
And by the way, the Americans are already testing ground-based UAV control vehicles at Bradley's base.

Project "Shturm" - MBT with a dozer blade, "T-72 missile tank", BMPT "Terminator-2", TOS-1A - are controlled from the "command tank". From what is -

Uranium-9. There are "robotic T-72". We (Russia) already have everything, but they are not getting together and developing tactics and strategies for using "robotic technology" ... In open sources, at least, yes, there are tests in Syria, but how far have we come? - they have not reported to us yet.

[psiho117]

Quote: cat Rusich

does not come together and the tactics and strategy of using "robotic technology" are not developed

Exactly. They hung a cloud of weapons on a wedge, and they want to operate from a certain "command tank". What kind of hemorrhoids are there for tankers?
The Americans are doing the right thing for now - full-fledged seats for operators, in a well-protected and armed vehicle.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: psiho117

They hung a cloud of weapons on a wedge, and they want to control

If you wish, you can give each soldier a "radio-controlled tankette" ...

Russian radio tankette. And here is a radio wedge from the USA ...

And an approximate way to control a radio tankette.

[psiho117]

Quote: cat Rusich

If you wish, you can give each soldier a "radio-controlled tankette" ...

And so it will, over time, be: not in vain, in fantasy, the fighter of the future is the commander of the drone squad.

And a rough way of managing

This control method is only good for the smallest (or reconnaissance) drones.
Anything larger requires at least a couple (shooter + driver) operators, while they must at least sit in an armored personnel carrier, and not run after the drone across the battlefield.

[cat Rusich]

Teletanket "Goliath" 3 Reich

Remote controlled combat vehicles have been known for a long time and were used in WWII. Since then, only the composition of the weapons has changed.

And this is how "Goliath" was brought to the place of battle.

[Kerensky]

Open source at least yes there are trials in Syria, but how far have we come? - we are not yet informed.

No match.
Imagine a street covered in rubble of fairly large reinforced concrete debris, lined with trees and wires, flavored with partially opened tunnels of underground utilities. If all this is under snow or in smoke ... The operator will simply refuse to work and the infantry will go ...

[Alex.ET]

IMHO, in the presence of sau and rszo, mbt and third bmpt are superfluous, and instead of them 1 spr is better.

[disyptiformer]

Plagiarism + nonsense + tukhachevshchinna (Khazar sabotage) and a tower in the best years of the 30s.
Everything has long been stolen and detailed.
http://btvt.info/4ourarticles/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm

[andreykolesov123]

Quote: Disiptiformer

Khazar sabotage

right, this is all Hasidic intrigues

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Disiptiformer

Plagiarism + nonsense + tukhachevshchinna (Khazar sabotage) and a tower in the best years of the 30s.
Everything has long been stolen and detailed.
http://btvt.info/4ourarticles/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm

So plagiarism or delusion?

On the one hand, the development of BMPT with independent weapon modules was carried out in "hardware", serious design bureaus, since there is an understanding of this need. On the other hand, they simply could not properly implement this idea then, since there was no DUMV. With two "towers", with an operator in each, we just get a "multi-turret tank". Look at the image from your link, how will they unfold? The shelling sectors will be extremely limited.

And in the concept of the BMPT T-18, I provided for the separation of the DUMV, taking into account the radius of the sweeping of the trunks - they will interfere with each other to a minimum.

[Aleks2000]

What's that in the pictures? That's terrible!

[steelmaker]

What? Has the Terminator already been tested in Syria to say that it is bad for supporting tanks? I did not hear. And it turns out that the Terminator will not be and the T-18 is not known when it will be built. Divide the money!

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: steel maker

What? Has the Terminator already been tested in Syria to say that it is bad for supporting tanks? I did not hear. And it turns out that the Terminator will not be and the T-18 is not known when it will be built. Divide the money!

And it is not needed in its present form. If we talk about what we have, then something with a 57 mm cannon, such as Derivation, is better. And the platform can be at least Armata, at least T-72.

[max702]

This version is more suitable for fighting infantry, only the tower is booked

[WeAreNumerOne]

Moreover, the enemies are already in the ranks! This is what makes a start

[Pandiurin]

Perhaps this is due to the experience in Syria.
There is often the task of taking control of the building (what is left of it). I watched several videos: two or three tanks supported by infantry. The tanks rotated their turrets without stopping, the barrel back and forth, periodically they fired from the cannon at potentially dangerous places. Judging by the fact that you had to constantly turn the tower, there are many more sectors that need to be controlled. There are four independent sectors at once, i.e. four times better. Although, of course, the one who was in such a situation will say more accurately.

[rtutaloe]

This concept of multi-crew tanks was already implemented by the Germans in the First World War, and as rightly indicated in the form of the T-28 and T-35 tanks in the second. The results are disappointing - everyone switched to small single-turret tanks instead of these sedentary monsters. And the point here is not that someone is blocking the sectors of fire for someone, but that such a monster is easily hit by any anti-tank weapon, and first of all by the same enemy tank. And the entire large crew perishes at once. In principle, I do not understand why not implement a tank support combat vehicle based on the same Tunguska? She's a car for you against planes and helicopters, with her cannons she will perfectly put the infantry in line of sight, plus we also have a radar. Such a scheme was seen in the ancient computer toy "JTF". A complex detachment of tanks, anti-aircraft guns and infantry fighting vehicles coped quite well with all tactical targets of the enemy, plus infantry fighting vehicles brought up infantry to capture buildings. And if such a unit is supported by a pair of combat helicopters, it is generally immortal. I still don’t understand why all this spectrum of the nomenclature of weapons on the battlefield, which modern army strategists are trying to draw? Tank, anti-aircraft gun and infantry fighting vehicles, what else to invent? The BMP has a couple of anti-tank missiles, the anti-aircraft gun also has a thermal imager and you're done. To unite all of them by a single computer network and bring everything for all crew commanders into one picture from all observation devices. The computer already knows how to fight like that. It remains for people to learn.

[psiho117]

Quote: rtutaloe

In principle, I do not understand why not implement a tank support combat vehicle based on the same Tunguska?

Mb because it will not withstand not only a large, but even an armor-piercing 7,62?

Such a scheme was visible even in an ancient computer toy ... A complex detachment of tanks, anti-aircraft guns and infantry fighting vehicles coped quite well with all the tactical targets of the enemy ...
if such a unit is supported by a pair of combat helicopters, it is generally immortal ...
I still don’t understand why all this spectrum of the nomenclature of weapons on the battlefield, which modern army strategists are trying to draw?

Strongly said. You need to write it down.
And by the way, although not Tunguska - but the anti-aircraft gun of the front edge (almost BMPT) has already been created - and on the basis of a full-fledged tank: AGDS / M1

tank chassis and tower, two 35mm Bushmaster-3 guns with ammunition of 1000 shells and 12 (!) Universal ADATs in retractable launchers!
Here is an article about this project:
https://topwar.ru/28730-agds-m1-zenitnaya-samohod
ka-na-baze-tanka-abrams.html
And taking into account the fact that ADATS has already been flashed with mini-missiles, 7 pieces per TPK, even Mitrofanov, with his rocket mega-tank, should like

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: psiho117

Quote: rtutaloe

In principle, I do not understand why not implement a tank support combat vehicle based on the same Tunguska?

Mb because it will not withstand not only a large, but even an armor-piercing 7,62?

Such a scheme was visible even in an ancient computer toy ... A complex detachment of tanks, anti-aircraft guns and infantry fighting vehicles coped quite well with all the tactical targets of the enemy ...
if such a unit is supported by a pair of combat helicopters, it is generally immortal ...
I still don’t understand why all this spectrum of the nomenclature of weapons on the battlefield, which modern army strategists are trying to draw?

Strongly said. You need to write it down.
And by the way, although not Tunguska - but the anti-aircraft gun of the front edge (almost BMPT) has already been created - and on the basis of a full-fledged tank: AGDS / M1

tank chassis and tower, two 35mm Bushmaster-3 guns with ammunition of 1000 shells and 12 (!) Universal ADATs in retractable launchers!
Here is an article about this project:
https://topwar.ru/28730-agds-m1-zenitnaya-samohod
ka-na-baze-tanka-abrams.html
And taking into account the fact that ADATS has already been flashed with mini-missiles, 7 pieces per TPK, even Mitrofanov, with his rocket mega-tank, should like

Thank you but not to please.

PMSM, one of the most important requirements for a ground combat vehicle is the highest speed of reaction to suddenly emerging threats. Massive rotating turrets stuffed with weapons don't fit into this requirement.

[rtutaloe]

Well, why was I wrong, if smart people in the West have already created this, and fools in the post-Soviet space still cannot understand how and why?

[psiho117]

Quote: AVM

one of the most important requirements for a ground combat vehicle is the highest reaction speed to suddenly emerging threats. Massive rotating turrets stuffed with weapons don't fit into this requirement.

Well, they actually created an anti-aircraft gun ... The speed of the turret and the accuracy of the reaction of the drives in any way should be better than that of the tank. Plus, there is no tank gun that greatly increases inertia.
However, we will never know

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: psiho117

Quote: AVM

one of the most important requirements for a ground combat vehicle is the highest reaction speed to suddenly emerging threats. Massive rotating turrets stuffed with weapons don't fit into this requirement.

Well, they actually created an anti-aircraft gun ... The speed of the turret and the accuracy of the reaction of the drives in any way should be better than that of the tank. Plus, there is no tank gun that greatly increases inertia.

In principle, yes, in order to ensure the possibility of tracking targets with a high course speed, the turret turning speed may well be quite good.

Quote: psiho117

However, we will never know

Who knows, the information is not very secret, most likely, just no one bothered.

An analogy can be drawn: the Tunguska's turret traverse speed reaches as much as 68 ° per second horizontally and 64 ° vertically, better than that of a tank (40-45 ° per second), but for MfRT and BMPT it is desirable to ensure the speed of the launcher's turn and DUMV is about 120-180 ° per second.

By the way, the South Korean K30 BIHO-2 air defense missile system has a turret traverse speed of 90 ° per second, so high speeds are quite achievable.

[Kerensky]

for MFRT and BMPT, it is desirable to ensure the speed of rotation of the PU and DUMV of the order of 120-180 ° per second.

Easy! Stick 4 Maxima into the tower at the cardinal points and it won't even have to make 1/4 of a turn. That is, in terms of the speed of reaction to a sudden threat, it will lead. Want power? Recalculate Maxim under 12.7 ...

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: rtutaloe

This concept of multi-crew tanks was already implemented by the Germans in the First World War, and as rightly indicated in the form of the T-28 and T-35 tanks in the second. The results are disappointing - everyone switched to small one-turret tanks instead of these sedentary monsters. And the point here is not that someone is blocking the sectors of fire for someone, but that such a monster is easily hit by any anti-tank weapon, and first of all by the same enemy tank.

Because then these were precisely the "towers". They penetrated the body, weakening it, they were very heavy. And the tank needs a very powerful cannon, and it is big and heavy. Small-sized DUMV are needed to defeat the infantry, so the problem of large mass and dimensions is not critical.

Quote: rtutaloe

And the entire large crew perishes at once.

Maybe then BMP / armored personnel carriers do for one infantryman? The crew must be protected, and not only by armor, but also by active defense.

So it is better to switch to UAVs and robots in general - no one will die at all, but the technology has not yet "reached". Pupuasov did not go far to bomb, but there will be a strong adversary, will interfere with electronic warfare communications, and will collect robots as a crop from the garden.

Quote: rtutaloe

In principle, I do not understand why not implement a tank support combat vehicle based on the same Tunguska? She's a car for you against planes and helicopters, with her guns she will perfectly put the infantry in line of sight, plus we also have a radar.

See the experience of using Tungusok in Chechnya ...

[rtutaloe]

If you have experience of using them in Chechnya, give me a link to it yourself. The fact that the armor of Shilok and Tungusok does not hold something there - that's why there are designers. Let them do the same Tunguska on a tank chassis. And in the BMP there is no task for the infantry to sit the whole battle in the car. After the landing, the BMP is an ordinary light tank with a crew of 3 people. Moreover, the infantry itself is not interested in sitting in a battle. And this is already the experience of our war. )) Why do I need Chechnya? I myself have "Chechnya" 6 km away from me. )) Moreover, I do not understand at all the concept of heavy bulky BMP or BMPT, in conditions when RPGs of a new generation break both active and dynamic protection from one volley. The machine must be sufficiently small and mobile, and moreover, multitasking. At the same time, she should be able to perform the main task brilliantly, and with additional ones she should simply be insured. And yes, T-35, I say it again - the loudness of the towers did not weaken the armor. The armor on them, in principle, was bulletproof, that is, according to the principle of modern infantry fighting vehicles. And the bulkiness of such a machine also made it inactive, that is, an easy target on the battlefield. Why did you run up against these towers and their epaulettes like a ram in a new gate? And besides, in rough terrain, which is usually in our conditions, you never know who will jump out of the bushes at you - a couple of tanks or a couple of three grenade launchers. And reconnaissance should be carried out not by the drones attached to the BMPT, but by aviation and other specially designed units. Therefore, the whole concept described in the article is complete nonsense and fantasies of sofa theorists. In general, Russia now resembles Germany in the second half of WWII: this is how the wunderwaffe ideas that are far from reality are pouring in. The more exotic the better. Only a few samples of new equipment put into service deserve attention. In addition, like Germany in the second half of WWII, all samples are expensive enough to be mass-produced. As a result, funds are sprinkled on all sorts of miracles, instead of stamping something like 34-rock or Shermans, like the Americans in WWII, and thereby win.

[psiho117]

Quote: rtutaloe

all samples are expensive enough to be mass-produced. As a result, funds are sprinkled on all kinds of miracles

And the time is now - all high-tech technology is so expensive.
And every year, the world is becoming more and more expensive, the demands are growing - and, as one well-known character said, “you have to run with all your might just to stay in place”.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: rtutaloe

If you have experience of using them in Chechnya, give me a link to it yourself.

Please: http://pvo.guns.ru/book/chechnya_pvo.htm

Quote: rtutaloe

The fact that the armor of Shilok and Tungusok does not hold something there - that's why there are designers. Let them do the same Tunguska on a tank chassis.

With regards to the Tunguska - it's not just the armor or the chassis. Have you seen what rises above the chassis? How to protect the radar? How to close the cannons with drives? By the way, they are water-cooled - the slightest splinter in the cooling system and the Khan's guns. And why do we need such large, heavy, rapid-fire guns? Shoot ammunition in 20 seconds?

In fact, what you described earlier is, to some extent, the MfT project that I considered in the previous article.

Quote: rtutaloe

And in the BMP there is no task for the infantry to sit the whole battle in the car. After the landing, the BMP is an ordinary light tank with a crew of 3 people. Moreover, the infantry itself is not interested in sitting in a battle.

The BMP does not, but the BMPT does, since the tasks are simultaneously different and the same. For example, consider a tank breakout. If you move at the speed of an infantry, the enemy will draw forces to the place of the breakthrough. And if the tanks break away from the infantry, they will be burned by RPGs. It is to enhance the protection of tanks from enemy infantry in such a situation and need BMPT.

Quote: rtutaloe

And this is already the experience of our war. )) Why do I need Chechnya? I myself have "Chechnya" 6 km away from me. ))

Where is this, if not a secret?

Quote: rtutaloe

Moreover, I generally do not understand the concept of heavy bulky BMPs or BMPTs, in conditions when RPGs of a new generation break both active and dynamic protection from one salvo.

Not that they break, only the newest versions, such as "Cranberries". And the armor also does not stand still. Why then did Israel create Namer? After all, they have vast experience in fighting.

Quote: rtutaloe

The machine must be sufficiently small and mobile, and moreover, multitasking. At the same time, she should be able to perform the main task brilliantly, and with additional ones she should simply be insured.

Quote: rtutaloe

And yes, T-35, I say it again - the loudness of the towers did not weaken the armor. The armor on them, in principle, was bulletproof, that is, according to the principle of modern infantry fighting vehicles. And the bulkiness of such a machine also made it inactive, that is, an easy target on the battlefield. Why did you run up against these towers and their epaulettes like a ram in a new gate?

Because bulkiness is a consequence of "many towers", and the weakening of armor is a consequence of "bulkiness", because if you put powerful armor on a huge multi-turret tank, it will not budge.

Quote: rtutaloe

And besides, in rough terrain, which is usually in our conditions, you never know who will jump out of the bushes at you - a couple of tanks or a couple of three grenade launchers.

For this, balanced ground strike groups are needed, including tanks, MfRT, BMPT and TBMP.

Quote: rtutaloe

And reconnaissance should be carried out not by the drones attached to the BMPT, but by aviation and other specially designed units.

And if the aviation has big losses? Or is she working on a different site? Haven't you heard about the constant problems of interaction between the Air Force and the Ground Force? One can argue with many things, but drones on ground combat vehicles are an inevitable reality. And this is not my invention, they are already talking about it officially, incl. and our aircraft.

Quote: rtutaloe

Therefore, the whole concept described in the article is complete nonsense and fantasies of sofa theorists. In general, Russia now resembles Germany in the second half of WWII: this is how the Wunderwaffe ideas are pouring in, far from reality. The more exotic the better. Only a few samples of new equipment put into service deserve attention. In addition, like Germany in the second half of WWII, all samples are expensive enough to be mass-produced. As a result, funds are being scattered on all sorts of miracles, instead of stamping something like 34-rock or Shermans, like the Americans in WWII, and thereby win.

We are massively modernizing T-72 T-80 and T-90 - why not "34"? And why did you decide that you can definitely say what is nonsense and what is not? Not a very bold statement for a person who suggested making a "tank" from Tunguska?

Without the development of new concepts, without the search for new solutions, the state will always be number two or three - trailing behind those who are ready to implement risky projects. The same Armata would not have appeared if there had not been dozens or even hundreds of projects previously worked out by the industry of the USSR. Many of them have been eliminated but not forgotten. They either became the basis for new development paths, or were postponed until the necessary technologies “mature”.

[psiho117]

Quote: AVM

Where is this, if not a secret?

Donbass, I guess. There are many of us on VO
And those who fought, and just saw ... Anything.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: AVM

For example, consider a tank breakthrough. If you move at the speed of an infantry, the enemy will draw forces to the place of the breakthrough. And if the tanks break away from the infantry, they will be burned by RPGs. It is to enhance the protection of tanks from enemy infantry in such a situation and need BMPT.

No one ever, having broken through the front, moves with the speed of infantry walking on foot. Even when there was not yet an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle, they used cavalry, trucks or tank troops, despite the losses. mobility when entering the operational space is more important. And the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were specially designed for this.

[storm]

The most correct thought is that the BMPT is in no way superior to the heavy BMP (TBMP), but the heavy BMP, in addition to escorting tanks and protecting them from tank-hazardous infantry, can itself deliver reconnaissance, sabotage, assault or engineering units to the right place, which can also "clean up" sections of the front from tank-hazardous infantry and create their strongholds.
Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are many times more versatile than BMPTs, which, in addition to the landing force, can deliver ammunition, mobile
ATGM, take out the wounded ...

[Zaurbek]

With a bunch of old tanks, why not convert them into YABMPT? Any 30mm -57mm modules? You can at least make an army of BMPT.
There will be no mass production of tanks and armored vehicles to rivet such vehicles and also tanks. Even in the USSR, such machines remained in the museum.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: Zaurbek

With a bunch of old tanks, why not convert them into YABMPT? Any 30mm -57mm modules? You can at least make an army of BMPT.
There will be no mass production of tanks and armored vehicles to rivet such vehicles and also tanks. Even in the USSR, such machines remained in the museum.

The last two paragraphs in the article:

When it comes to the Armata platform, there are two opposite opinions. Some say: it's bad that the T-90s are still being produced and the T-72s are being modernized, we need to take the “Armata”, others say: why do we need an expensive and “raw” “Armata”, where to hurry, we must fully choose the capabilities of reliable modernized machines.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle: it is necessary to develop and adopt new machines, because without military exploitation they will remain "raw" forever, no tests can replace real operation. But it is also necessary to purchase modernized equipment - both to reduce operational risks and to reduce the burden on the budget. In many respects, a qualitatively modernized technique may not be inferior to a new one. In one of the following materials, we will consider how an effective BMPT based on the T-72 tank might look like.

[sen]

In Syria, Shilka is widely used to cover tanks. But her armor is weak, so her protection is strengthened with improvised means.

[rtutaloe]

Quote: AVM

So it is better to switch to UAVs and robots in general - no one will die at all, but the technology has not yet "reached". Pupuasov did not go far to bomb, but there will be a strong adversary, will interfere with electronic warfare communications, and will collect robots as a crop from the garden.

To prevent this from happening, it is enough for the army to simply work in an organized manner. Intelligence can easily report the presence of such vehicles even 40 kilometers from the front line, and then these jammers are easily hit by heavy artillery, MLRS or aviation. So I just got myself into trouble and assembled robots - a myth. ))

[psiho117]

Quote: rtutaloe

and then these jammers are easily hit by heavy artillery, MLRS or aviation

And the enemy is such a fool that he does not protect a critical element of defense, and he does not have a bunch of false targets, reserve vehicles are not hidden in shelters, and in general, he is for peace and love

[seacap]

Let's build another battleship for the parade? And what is simpler and better quality? The T-34 of any modification, like the T-34-85, was by how many times simpler and cheaper than the PzKpfw V "Panther", respectively, the technology and the number of vehicles produced, an order of magnitude difference. And in our conditions of a colonial economy with destroyed and sold technologies, the production of microelectronics and high-precision optics, the destroyed engineering and production school, etc., a well-thought-out strategic policy for creating promising technology is more relevant than ever, the cost of mistakes is too high and critical.

[SHOPPING MALL]

Quote: seacap

Let's build another battleship for the parade? And what is simpler and better quality? The T-34 of any modification, like the T-34-85, was by how many times simpler and cheaper than the PzKpfw V "Panther", respectively, the technology and the number of vehicles produced, an order of magnitude difference. And in our conditions of a colonial economy with destroyed and sold technologies, the production of microelectronics and high-precision optics, the destroyed engineering and production school, etc., a well-thought-out strategic policy for creating promising technology is more relevant than ever, the cost of mistakes is too high and critical.

T-72B3M, T-80BVM fit? Stop at this?
What is the complexity of the T-18 concept? The chassis is standard, DUMV is also a waste product.

[Alexfly]

And so, in the end we return to the experience of Israel ... and rightly so ..

[prodi]

in the "field", the value of the infantry to support the attack of "modern" tanks equipped with KAZ tends to zero; in the "city" - it will be slightly better, even with direct communication with the crew

[Interdum_silentium_volo]

The main problem is "WHY", why is the BMPT needed, what are its goals? !! ​​To protect the tank or help it?!?!
BMPT should not do the same as a tank, should not work instead of a tank. This means that the presence of cannon weapons is not necessary, the tank itself will destroy any equipment from the pick-up trucks with large tanks to the same tanks. Again, BMPs that already have automatic cannons will work with tanks, no one refuses them.
What to shove missiles from ATGM ??? so it is again to do someone else's work, the same tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (which are already equipped with anti-tank systems).
We already have a BMPT, which does not need ATGMs, or large-caliber and automatic guns. All this is already on the battlefield on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. And the purpose of all this is to fight against any technique.
And also there is air defense, which should provide cover from aircraft, helicopters, UAVs, and it is various S-500,400,350,300 ... Armor, Torah, Buki, Strela and at least a dozen more. Putting MANPADS on BMPT is again to climb into someone else's garden, and on crutches.
What is left for the BMPT?!?!?! Only the fight against the infantry is at least a reasonable goal. But again, the enemy infantry must be suppressed by our infantry, with the support of the same infantry fighting vehicles. So what is the BMPT unique and necessary on the battlefield?!?! Yes, nothing, it's a suitcase without a handle.
Oh, yes, put a mortar on it, but we have no art, and these are its tasks and it is also numerous ....... and having solved the issue of target designation and communication banally, the need for any mortar armament on BMPT is not needed for kernels ...
The very idea of ​​BMPT was born from a major problem: the eternal lack of a balanced grouping of troops. When something is always missing, somewhere there are tanks, somewhere air defense, somewhere there are turntables. But it's just time to learn how to assemble them at the right time in the right place in the right proportions, with good control and communication.

[wow]

War is always a victim and tankers and pilots, whatever one may say. And all these stealth technologies and measures to counter tank hazardous manpower will only slightly increase the likelihood of "staying alive."

[acetophenone]

History teaches ANYONE NOTHING ... Just as they used to glue multi-turret freaks, so now ...
As old Chernomyrdin said, it never happened, and now - again ...
It remains to attach two more pairs of tracks to the three towers - well, not only to shoot, but also to go in any direction.

[Clone]

Something tells me that with such a flight of imagination and so many options for choosing and placing weapons, BMPT will not appear in the troops at all ...

[Dedok]

although the author wrote that "the concept of multi-turret tanks has nothing to do ... and tra-ta-ta-ta", in fact, it is a repetition of the traversed and, as history has shown, a dead-end path.
you do not need "multi-turret", you need "multi-visibility", i.e. we need well-armored battle control objects - those that see "ALL" the situation, which are associated with the UAV, which can themselves determine / collect information, and which distribute MBT instructions ...
and so, I look at the pictures and I understand that there is very little creativity, mainly hype ...

[staer-62]

Play Crossout, there are plenty of such and generally free component machines in different configurations. Collected a cyberpunk-style tank and into battle. Efficiency and survivability will be immediately apparent.

[Devil13]

Check out what was the problem with multi-turret tanks.
It is time.
Two. Any problems on the defeat of HP, armored vehicles, aviation, are solved by 57mm dum-dumas. Read about the ZSU-57-2.
It's just that now it needs normal ammunition - with radio detonation, with a section of fragments, with an air detonation over the target, OBPS (again with the correct crowbars, flying out in a bunch of fragments from the other side), etc.
Plus - optional ATGM, with different warheads - cumulative, HE, volumetric explosion, etc.

Few types of weapons - more ammo for what it costs.
And as they say, the density of the saturation of the area with shells has a positive effect on the likelihood of someone surviving there. Again, more autonomy.

The issue of "vision" is solved by installing a bunch of cameras of different ranges (those, thermal, night, etc.) in all directions, and creating (like the recently demonstrated by the Israelis BMP) electronic vision in the format of a full 3d picture around and the reaction of Electronics to objects. Human response and attentiveness is WORSE. The decision to open fire can be left to a person, but nothing more, and then - I would allow electronics to do this.

And a lot of people, a lot of orders, a lot of time. This is not fucking necessary in the 21st century.

[kris_67]

fine arts circle

[yehat2]

Quote: psiho117

And I don’t understand your obsession with driving your drone miles away

everything is simple - in the field, armor fights much more often and more willingly than in the city or other such narrow places where you need to look around the corner. Where the corner is, the infantry is fighting.

[Metlik]

As Stalin said - we need one, but a good gun. There is nothing better than naval six-barreled gatlings for suppressing infantry and shooting incoming shells. Armata is heavier, it will hold the recoil better, in the end you can develop quick-release outriggers.

[Thomas N.]

Quote: Metlik

There is nothing better than naval six-barreled gatlings for suppressing infantry and shooting incoming shells.

For naval six-barreled guns, you need a ship :-) in order to have sufficient ammunition for their rate of fire. On ships, the normal length of a burst of such guns is 50 rounds. That is why six-barreled guns are not popular on military land anti-aircraft artillery systems.

[Mister who]

Wahaha, allocate space for the UAV and put the algorithm in the UAV, plus a thermal imager on the UAV, everything is available, it's expensive for them. "You have to pay in blood for the savings." A platform without a cannon with uav-type missiles will do any tank. The protection of the tank is also not ideal, I think it will not save you from 5-10 rockets strikes from one direction and with a small interval, and a bunch of expensive scrap metal will stand rooted to the spot in one place.

[Dkuznecov]

As I understand it, during the article I accidentally missed the application
nuclear deterrent.
Armageddon is over.

And this article tells us about
like after the nuclear dust settled,
the people who sat in the bunkers,
climbed into the tanks and let yourself shoot each other?

Interesting article.

[Konnick]

"It's great that we are all gathered here today ..."
A good target for the enemy, concentration of weapons and personnel in one box. All these modules sticking out of the armor are well destroyed by small arms.
Show a video of a test firing of some modules from a PC and SVD in order to preserve the performance of these fashionable devices.

[Darter88]

Mdyayaya! Well, why the heck is this tracked armored train? Here, on the next branch, they are now discussing about submunitions, which fly in swarms with artificial intelligence, again suggest the concept of yesterday! This tracked armored train, a mass grave for the crew in modern combat !!!

[Petroff]

BMPT Terminator was created on the basis of a tank ... It works together with tanks and has tank characteristics of cross-country ability - speed.
Isn't it logical to create a promising BMPT on a tank chassis with which the BMPT will interact !?
And the scope for such a pepelatsa based on a tank is wider than wide.
For example: we leave our BMPT a shank tower, a crew in a capsule, an uninhabited tower. We remove such a weapon, we plant four 30 mm barrels, a la shilka, and launch missiles on the sides of the barrels right inside the tower. The ammunition supply of the automatic machines is bunker, from bottom to top. Moreover, to make a developed aft niche above which we install another combat module, either with a pair of 14mm machine guns, or with a twin machine gun-grenade launcher. Again with PU on the sides. As a result, we have two powerful combat modules capable of firing in two independent directions simultaneously. And if you add the exchange rate mechanics to the driver, then three.
If it seems that the firepower is not enough, then we increase ... In the main tower there are two assault rifles 2x45mm + 4x2 PU PURS and in the additional 2x30mm + 2x2 PU ATGM (SAM)

[Bobik012]

Quote: Alex777

With all due respect, the concept of "BPMT T-18" is the same bulldozer as multi-turret tanks

Truly. The problem with multi-turret tanks was not the intersection of the sectors of fire and the increase in mass. Basically, the problem was in the management of this whole Swanfucker. What will we have in the case of the current subject. Author, don't smoke THIS anymore!