Military Review

Very and not very infantry fighting vehicles

41

First, a little background. The need for infantry action in the conditions of the enemy's use of nuclear weapons, increasing the overall mobility of motorized rifle subunits in battle, equipping them with additional fire support, greater than that of armored personnel carriers, served as the beginning of the creation of a new concept in military equipment.


In the Soviet Union, in relation to these requirements, the scientific and technical committee of the GBTU, together with specialists from the Scientific Research Institute BT (Kubinka) and the Military Academy of Armored Forces at the end of the 1950s, developed a technical assignment for a promising combat vehicle.

According to the technical specifications, the new combat vehicle was supposed to have:

1) cross-country ability and maneuverability are not lower than that of promising medium tanks;
2) armor protection against fragments of mines and shells, small arms and automatic cannons at ranges of up to 600-800 meters, as well as protection against weapons of mass destruction;
3) armament, providing fire support to a dismounted landing force and the ability to fight enemy tanks and armored vehicles;
4) the ability of the landing force to conduct fire combat from the vehicle under the cover of armor and quickly dismount if necessary;
5) radio equipment, providing continuous communication with both the commander of his unit and with tanks;
6) means of disguise;
7) observation devices similar or similar to observation equipment from tanks.

The victory in the competition was won by the Chelyabinsk Design Bureau under the leadership of Pavel Pavlovich Isakov. However, it should be noted that many fundamental technical solutions proposed at the competition by specialists from Kurgan and Volgograd were also included in the final design of the machine, the revised project was designated "object 765".

The new infantry fighting vehicle was officially put into service in 1966, and its layout has become classic for the world practice of creating vehicles of this class.

The Soviet BMP-1 met the requirements of protection against small arms fire and small-caliber automatic cannons in frontal projections, had a low silhouette of the vehicle, which reduced its visibility and made it possible to make the most of the terrain folds for cover on the battlefield and to ensure a convenient landing towards the stern.


Our troops then received a powerful combat vehicle, in many ways ahead of the development of similar vehicles in the armies of other states.

An earlier French version of the AMX-VCI M-56 BMP (Véhicule de Combat d'Infanterie, infantry fighting vehicle) was created by arming an armored personnel carrier with a 20 mm cannon, and the entire series of armored personnel carriers was created in the 50s on the basis of the AMX-13 light tank.

Only the AMX-10R became a specially created BMP in France, the first prototype of which was developed in 1968, and production itself began in 1972, later than in the USSR.

In the photo AMX-VCI M-56 and AMX-10P:


Very and not very infantry fighting vehicles

The high maneuverability and versatility of the BMP-1 served as the basis for the creation in our country of its own combat vehicle for the Airborne Forces. On the initiative of Vasily Filippovich Margelov, the development of BMD began in 1965 at the Design Bureau of the Volgograd Tractor Plant ("object 915").


Serial production of the BMD-1 was started at the Volgograd Tractor Plant in 1968, even before the official adoption of our army.

Both vehicles, BMP and BMD, were armed with 73-mm 2A28 "Thunder" guns and a coaxial 7,62-mm PKT machine gun, along with a 9M14M ATGM. In addition, the BMD-1 received two more PKT course machine guns.

Later, in foreign armies, BMPs also began to enter service and develop, but nothing like our BMD was created.

Even the BMD-1 is still out of competition (the PLA is an exception), especially the BMD-4M.

The only solution for paratroopers in NATO turned out to be in the German army, this is the "Wiesel", the first vehicle, in fact, a tankette, was assembled only in 1989.


The base of the Wiesel machine served as a platform for its use in various versions (for example, an ambulance, a self-propelled mortar, an air defense system).


The crown of maneuverable and versatile vehicles for our troops was the BMP-3 and BMD-4M, which also became platforms for military equipment based on them.



Here it must be emphasized at once that BMP and BMD in our country were originally created as universal combat vehicles. We did not have such a class of BMP, which began to be defined as a heavy BMP.

What kind of combat vehicles do we need? This is what I want to talk about.

Where and why did the Soviet infantry fighting vehicles suddenly receive the nickname "mass grave of the infantry", which was widely disseminated in the media, how deserved it?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the photographs of our military columns, where the infantry sits on top of the BMP / BMD armor, which appeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union, became an additional "argument" for defaming Soviet equipment.

In many ways, criticism of the entire Soviet school of tank building began in the era of reforms under the pole of capitalism, when the military doctrine itself was changing.

Thus, it was assumed that it was unlikely, even the impossibility of a major war in friendship with the United States and in cooperation with NATO. Mainly local conflicts and anti-terrorist operations were distinguished, for which a small contract army with equipment against militants and terrorists was supposed.

It should be noted that even in the war in Afghanistan, the Soviet Army had to fight against an enemy that did not have the combat arms inherent in full-fledged armies, in fact the entire Afghan war was a fight against militants, who in many ways used partisan tactics.

Naturally, army equipment, in particular, our BMP and BMD, were less suitable for this than special police equipment (if we had it then), using MRAP technology (mine resistant ambush protected, that is, protected from undermining and ambush attacks, mine-resistant, ambush-protected).


But in any case, on the mountain serpentine of Afghanistan, both the British Warrior BMP or the American Bradley would be vulnerable, as well as many more modern combat vehicles, which could receive a more powerful land mine under the bottom or hit directly into the roof of the hull during fire from mountain slopes.


Unfortunately, it is useless to explain to many that, in addition to armor, good work of reconnaissance and sappers, air cover, the general coherence of the passage of the convoy, in which there could be onboard vehicles, and truck cranes, tank trucks, and other vulnerable equipment and cargo, was also important.

Being on the armor often made it possible to quickly detect the enemy and quickly dismount, taking up defense. Of course, this also made it easier to endure the heat and increased the chances of surviving a mine or land mine explosion. The specifics of the hostilities forced them to look for effective solutions for the equipment and weapons that were available.

But unambiguously, no one would have moved on an infantry fighting vehicle or BMD to attack. Not the BMP and BMD were bad, it was just that the equipment for that war needed a little different.

Here we will return to the main question. What infantry fighting vehicles do our army need now and do they need them at all?

A generation has grown up that did not serve in the army at all or only served one year somehow, connoisseurs of "World of Tanks" appeared en masse, great specialists in "pumping" equipment, when in the most magical way weapons, armor, mobility are increased in the game.

Probably, such "veterans", who have repeatedly "burned" in network tanks, should most of all stand up for the comfort of a computer chair and the safety of a bomb shelter.

No one is against the convenience and increased protection, but not everything is so simple and straightforward.

What is this passage for? Besides, if we talk about such a phenomenon as "heavy infantry fighting vehicles", then the topics of maneuverability, weight, dimensions and weapons will be very important and interrelated.

It is impossible to add anything, to strengthen, without diminishing, without weakening other qualities. Otherwise, we will get a new "Mouse", and ideally an underground bunker, with air conditioning for a can of beer.

If we are talking about an infantry fighting vehicle, then immediately it is necessary to highlight its fundamental difference from the armored personnel carrier, and this is an addition to the transport function of reinforced weapons, a fire component.

In this, the BMP is initially more versatile, and the armored personnel carrier is more specialized. It makes no sense to argue about the pros and cons of specialization or versatility, but it should be noted that a universal technique will be inferior to a specialized one in a specific task, but surpass it in a complex solution.

After dismounting the infantry, the BMP ceases to perform a transport function and can use its reinforced weapons.

We have a very heavy BMP T-15 (more than 55 tons - combat weight). The width of the car (with side elements of the remote control) is 4,8 meters, the length is 9,5 meters, and the height is 3,5 meters.


True, while this model is being tested and acts as a ceremonial props, very reminiscent in this role of the powerful image of the Soviet five-tower T-35 tank.

For comparison: the crew of the T-35 was 11 people, weight 58 tons, width 3,2 meters, length 9,72 meters, height 3,43 meters.



What is the advantage of the T-15 as an infantry fighting vehicle? The T-15 has three crew members and a troop compartment for nine fully equipped infantrymen (a total of 12 people in the car). Has the dream come true of those who advocated the safety of soldiers' lives?

I immediately disagree with the crafty statements that size does not matter for modern guided and homing missiles.

It has, it will be easier to hit a large-sized target in any case, especially since, in addition to missiles, there are gunners of tank guns and arrows with RPGs.

But this is not the main thing, the dimensions inevitably increase the area that needs to be protected by armor, and this is weight, deterioration of cross-country ability, load on the engine (reduced engine life and increased fuel consumption), a general increase in production costs, and problems with rail transportation.

How much higher is the real protection of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle?

First, it will be problematic to use KAZ because of the risk of being hit by active elements of its own infantry nearby.

Secondly, with an unhurried landing, the defeat of an infantry fighting vehicle, move it next to the tanks, just can make this large-sized target a "mass grave."

There is no invulnerable armor at all, and protection is such a complex concept, which includes not only armor, but also maneuverability, visibility, passability.

Here you can ask: why not immediately make an "armored bus" for 20-30 people, which would comfortably fit the entire platoon?

Such "packing" of the infantry would be "cheaper" than for several vehicles, if the focus was on "economy" and comfort. Yes, this is overkill and stupidity, but why, then, for a combat vehicle, the number of landing forces must necessarily correspond to the number of motorized rifle squads, why it is impossible to increase the comfort of placement not in increasing the dimensions of the vehicle, but in reducing the landing by one vehicle?

After all, the BMP is not an on-board vehicle, not even an armored personnel carrier, especially since the transport function is combined with the need to install a turret with enhanced armament and ammunition, and this is additional weight and volume.

Let the military vehicles need more, but they will remain more compact, more maneuverable, it is easier to cover them in area with armor, and finally, the defeat of such a vehicle with a landing party will minimize losses.

The division of a motorized rifle squad is not at all a big problem than the division of a platoon or company into several vehicles, especially since it is quite possible to consider the landing force acting in conjunction with its tanks as assault groups of 4-6 people per vehicle. Fewer paratroopers will also allow such a group as a combat unit to dismount faster and be ready for action faster.

Therefore, the large size of the BMP as a protected vehicle is unlikely to justify itself.

Now the second hypostasis of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, its specialized fire support. Here, a heavy BMP will be much weaker than a specialized vehicle such as an BMPT. Moreover, the heavy infantry fighting vehicle will lose to the BMPT in all respects, both in armament, ammunition, and in armor.

BMPTs do not have to wait for the infantry to dismount: having tank protection, such vehicles can immediately move forward, if necessary, next to or in front of their tanks, have various combat modules.

In addition, such vehicles will be cheaper; for their production, you can use the base of existing T-72 / T-90 tanks, including as alterations from existing stocks.


As a specialized fire support vehicle, it is better to use an BMPT, rather than a heavy BMP.

As a highly protected vehicle, a heavy BMP is inferior to a heavy armored personnel carrier, which, saving weight and volume in service, can be more compact and better protected.

A "tandem" solution suggests itself, where the tasks of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will be performed by specialized vehicles on a tank base, firing BMPTs, transport - heavy armored personnel carriers in the second line.

For example, we can recall the Israeli "Akhzarit", which used captured T-54 / T-55 tanks, or the domestic BTR-T.

They say that the men have become larger, the ammunition is more, it seems like it is cramped in a small volume.



You can create a heavy armored personnel carrier and, as an option, from BMO-T.


It would be possible in general to make a "tandem" BMP on one body, where the required volume was occupied either by paratroopers (from 4 to 6 people), or by a combat module.

As an example for the BMO-T variant for the weapon module in the photo below.


Let's summarize. Thanks to the Soviet Union, the Soviet tank school, we still have some of the best armored weapons.

The whole trouble is in the understanding, organization and "brass foreheads" under the old charters, or hucksters with traitors who gave birth to their own set "platforms", as if platforms did not exist without them in the USSR.

Then the platforms were not appointed, they did not give birth to technology, but became a well-proven and technological base, being already mastered by the industry. It is useless to understand when only money is important.

I will not make a discovery if I say that as there are different types of combat (some of the most difficult in the city and in the mountains), so there are different wars, this requires its own tactics and, preferably, the appropriate technique.

When everywhere now they insert about the "Syrian experience", I would like to remind about the Afghan, Chechen. This is a specific geographic environment, actions against militants, and not against a regular army, especially an alliance of armies that threaten Russia from all sides.

Believe it or not that a global war is real, but we need a nuclear triad, as we need the Airborne Forces in our vast expanses, mobile army groups capable of immediately crossing numerous water barriers and making high-speed marches.

Consequently, vehicles such as the BMD-4M and BMP-3 (BMP-3F) are very necessary for the defense of Russia in the event of a major war, a major military conflict.

The very concept of the BMP implies maneuverability and versatility, a heavy BMP loses this versatility in the fact that it stops floating.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to use specialized BMPTs and heavy armored personnel carriers to support tanks, and not a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.

Speaking about anti-terrorist operations, the fight against militants using guerrilla tactics, it is necessary to talk about the need to have machines that have finally begun to appear for this.


As for the aforementioned BMP T-15, this mastodon will probably come off as a "police tank" somewhere, if this machine is nevertheless brought to mind, it will be adopted after billions spent on R&D and R&D.

Personally, it would seem more reasonable to me to use the expensive and complex T-15 base as a heavy anti-tank SPG, and not an infantry fighting vehicle that destroys enemy tanks from a safe distance from a 152-mm cannon.



If the equipment will be suitable both for different combat missions and for the types of combat operations, be it a global war, a local conflict or an anti-terrorist operation, then this will be the necessary equipment.

Otherwise, it is better to fight against militants and terrorists with military equipment than to try to defend your country from an aggressor with all types of armed forces using police equipment.
Author:
Photos used:
yandex.ru/images, karopka.ru/community/user/13832, modernweapon.ru/bronetekhnika
41 comment
Ad

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

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. beeper
    beeper 17 October 2020 15: 35 New
    +8
    hi I liked the article!
    As a Soviet mechanical engineer, tank and design, I share the Author's views on the justification of our Soviet (maximum power concentrated in a low-silhouette small volume) approach to the creation of BMP 1,2,3 and on the controversial, very large-sized, "Armature platform ", its general concept and real" viability "on the battlefield of its implementation" in metal "(in such a" barn "form of" grenade launcher's dream "!)!
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 17 October 2020 15: 44 New
      0
      Quote: pishchak
      creation of BMP and on the controversial, very large-sized, "armature platform", its concept and overall "viability"

      In my opinion, the direction of Armata is a wrong turn. Ideal for Israel, very controversial for us.
      I think these areas are more promising:
      Wheeled tank / BMP / BTR a la Boomerang
      Tracked medium tank / BMP a la Kurganets
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 17 October 2020 20: 14 New
      +7
      Quote: pishchak
      and in a design way, I share the Author's views on the justification of our Soviet (maximum power, concentrated in a low-silhouette small volume) approach to the creation of BMP 1,2,3

      Today, a low but wide silhouette is far from the most ideal solution. Unfortunately, many types of modern weapons are aimed at hitting a tank from above. Starting from Javelin and ending with numerous UAVs, everyone strives to break something bad from top to bottom.
      1. beeper
        beeper 17 October 2020 21: 59 New
        +3
        hi Saxahorse, the low hull of the BMP-3 is how wide, is it really wider than the "armature platform" T-15 "Kurganets" ?! what
        After all, the width of such a large-scale "transport equipment" being constructed is usually calculated within the requirements of the general "railway gauge" - this is "stopudovo" for you, as an experienced design engineer (including, in the Soviet Union, for the repair of heavy tracked vehicles and the methods of their transportation by rail / d platforms and auto trailers) I answer.
        This time!
        And secondly, you must agree that in terms of camouflage, visibility and as a "target" on the battlefield, not to mention greater stability (during roll and on ascent and descent, under water with OPVT and afloat) armored vehicles with a low location center of gravity, a low and wide infantry fighting vehicle has more chances to survive than a "barn", which is just as wide, but high and longer ??! request
        Well, yes, we can say that the thicker and more sophisticated roof of the platform capsule increases the crew's chances of surviving an attack from above, but this is also a controversial issue with many known and unknown pros and cons!
        Most likely, I think so, large-sized "sheds" will not take root on the battlefield, since their imaginary "super-protection" in comparison with "traditional" low-silhouette armored vehicles (also not standing still in their development) will not be so advantageous (for example , a caterpillar will be killed in battle - this often happens, and even from a "highly protected capsule" tankers will have to risk their lives in the same way under fire and repair, or will sit out, waiting for help or the end of the battle ??!) ??! winked
        In any case, and in such extreme as the military, in particular, a clear goal should prevail! yes
        From this, a correct understanding of one's present and future actions to achieve it is built, as well as what is needed for this, what means and methods, and the concept of their application!
        When clarity in the goal and setting of tasks is achieved, then it is "easy" for us, design engineers and technologists to create equipment for them, by concentrating all efforts on a narrow area of ​​the solution (not forgetting about the "principle of reasonable sufficiency" and the "cost / efficiency" criteria !) delivered specific task!
        So far, there is no such clarity with the "Armata" made by an experimental batch and its "platform" (with the "Armata" it turned out as in the saying - "our business is to crow, but there, though, don't dawn!" ??! what ), there is a lot of "fog (even with a gun caliber!)", but taxpayers' money has already been spent fairly and, it seems, it is a pity to turn off this "muddy path" and "pride does not allow"?
        If you think carefully, in a state way, then, in many respects, the controversial "Armatovskaya platform" is by no means a panacea, and certainly not a "wunderwaffe" - just an "offshoot" of the design idea!
        Only on these "Aromas" and "Kurgantsy" will not the Ural inventors-designers themselves and the "effective managers" who set them "fantasy" tasks, but ordinary tankers, who, "bleeding from the nose", need to complete a specific combat mission, will fight and burn and destroy the enemy, if possible with a minimum of losses on your side! From this, technically and tactically, it would be necessary to "dance", weighing from all sides!
        Honestly, I can't imagine myself in a capsule of a blown up or shot down "Armata" (with a broken caterpillar and sights smashed by enemy fire), which is about to be finished off with a shell or a rocket, and then the fighting compartment with ammunition will explode ?! But I was "told" that the crew allegedly would not suffer with such a powerful explosion and the capsule would not fall apart along with the hull of the tank, it would lie, like Baba Yaga's hut, "to the enemy in front, to our backs" and did not turn over at the same time- the roof down, thrown back by the explosion and there will even be air for breathing when the fire engulfed, only the tankers' worries so that the battlefield remains behind us, and not behind the enemy, otherwise they will pick us out of the capsule anyway ...
        In general, by how many percent can the survival rate of tankers be higher in the advertised semi-blind super-armored super-heavy "platform" with a remote "electronically sighted" guided cannon, if the crew has to leave it under enemy fire to repair the track or evacuate, what is the meaning of "invulnerable" sitting in a capsule of a tank broken up by an explosion, surrounded by enemies, after all, they will blow up or open-get it anyway ???
        IMHO
    3. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 18 October 2020 01: 31 New
      10
      You've just never ridden this "low-silhouette low volume"! However, this is another feature of the Soviet approach - the attitude to personnel as a consumable that will endure everything.
      And yes, I went to the BMP-2 more than once. This is a real nightmare.
      1. beeper
        beeper 18 October 2020 07: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Sahalinets
        You've just never ridden this "low-silhouette low volume"! However, this is another feature of the Soviet approach - the attitude to personnel as a consumable that will endure everything.
        And yes, I went to the BMP-2 more than once. This is a real nightmare.

        hi Sahalinets, I am, after all, a tank officer by military profession ("кevery зnays мof course нavodchik " yes ) repeat
        My "native" T-55 and T-62 were quite "compact" inside (even at the loader) - the knees of the tank commander were usually "in close contact" with the gunner's back, especially if they were Slavic guys of the 70s-80s, even higher " standard tank height "176 cm, like me. smile
        In "BMPeshka" ("one" and "two") "I happened to be, but I did not make marches on them, and I had no problems with" seasickness "then (like now ?!), neither at sea, nor at on land, or in the airplane "bumpiness" - the "vestibular" did not fail. smile
        On the tank "on horseback", behind the "sixty-two" turret, at a good speed over rough terrain, I had to somehow "ride", the "flight" sensations of the "tank landing" were unforgettable, not like moving "in armor" (although inside not weakly "flying" on bumps)! yes
        The retraining on the T-64 that had begun was interrupted by the collapse of the USSR, but it struck the real "space" of the commander with a gunner in the cabin layout of her turret! good
        Although, when the gunner or commander was in the place for a long time, that leg that "from the turret ring", I started to go numb because of its not very comfortable horizontal elongated-bent position (somehow I did not even ask, maybe not only me Was there such a feeling in the "cabin" tower of "sixty-four" and "eighties"?).

        Well, yes, you are right, we, Soviet tankers, for the most part, children of fathers who fought, were ready to endure all the hardships and deprivations of military service! And they did not want any other tanks, except our Soviet ones. yes
        I knew very well that every "extra" centimeter of height and width of the tank ultimately (and this is an increase in the weight of the tank, the visibility and area of ​​the affected silhouette, a decrease in power density and mobility, ...) reduces the chances of survival in battle and huge "shed-like" American tanks (M60 3,2 meters high against our 2,3 meters), spacious inside, did not envy at all (at home, providing interchangeability in the crew, and with our loaders, we persistently trained "our" left, serving cannon shells, hand winked )!
        An armored vehicle is, first of all, an instrument of war, and you do not expect super-duper comfort from this death machine, although good ergonomics and habitability are a good help for successful use!
        Especially when you consider that you will have to work and live in armored vehicles for days in a big war!
        But producing dubious "caravanserais" is also not the case! After all, the promised "increased invulnerability" of such "exclusive copies", in fact, in a real battle, is likely to turn out to be fiction ??!
        And, again, there is a lot of "dialectics" with the concept of application - perhaps, just like the Germans with "exclusive" "Tigers", "screw up" ?! winked
        IMHO
  2. rocket757
    rocket757 17 October 2020 15: 36 New
    +4
    The variety is great, but all this burns out in the furnace of any conflicts, when, as the author correctly pointed out, the commanders lack the skill, competence, and how to organize and use everything correctly.
  3. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 17 October 2020 15: 47 New
    +2
    A messy article ...
    The title is about BMP. Well, an introduction, a short history ... And then? Jumps from fifth to tenth. BMDs have already been stuck there, and heavy armored personnel carriers, wheeled vehicles ...
    Moreover, combat capabilities, use, losses (especially in recent conflicts), evolution and what it was connected with - are completely omitted!
    No. The article is not finalized.
  4. Operator
    Operator 17 October 2020 16: 16 New
    -4
    BMP-1/2 - a device for disabling motorized rifle by swinging method. BMP-3 - a device for pressing motorized riflemen. BMD is a vehicle for dwarfs. T-15 "Barberry" - a particularly large target laughing

    When will our army finally have a steel armored rather than cardboard infantry vehicle with normal living conditions and anti-mine seats and a floor?
    1. Alesi13
      Alesi13 17 October 2020 16: 45 New
      +7
      Well, bmd for dwarfs, have you been there? Mine are 185, they fit well there, and there were 2-meter guys, it's generally better not to write about what you have no idea
      1. Operator
        Operator 17 October 2020 18: 01 New
        -5
        If your height is 185, then these are 2 meters laughing

        1. Saxahorse
          Saxahorse 17 October 2020 20: 16 New
          0
          This is still divine. And here is the same "Wiesel" crew waist-deep. How they plan to push modern two-meter Germans there - a mystery! laughing
        2. Alesi13
          Alesi13 17 October 2020 22: 06 New
          0
          I don't understand what you want to say
          1. Operator
            Operator 17 October 2020 23: 30 New
            +1
            It meant a comparison in the photo of the growth of the military on the BMD with the height of the BMD.
    2. dima314
      dima314 17 October 2020 20: 16 New
      +5
      They drove me only in the BMP-1 at the post-institute training camp. In terms of dimensions, I was quite, but how it rocked her on the training ground ... it's horror. We have only one lad who did not react to the pitching and slept). Others who like, but me and our other so kapets ... in the sea so does not get seasick! What is funny, but when we rode the T-72, I did not experience any motion sickness at the same training ground). After that, we had a type of march and a few kilometers along the wooded and bushy terrain. Yes, you get tired, but you don't feel sick like after an infantry fighting vehicle. Although, maybe I'm completely unsuitable for the role of a motorized rifleman)
  5. URAL72
    URAL72 17 October 2020 16: 35 New
    +3
    What anti-tank SPG from the T-15? What for? There is a variant of the T-14 with a 152mm cannon. Why a nedotank from the T-15? ... If the author just threw the bait to hear our opinion, then yes.
  6. prodi
    prodi 17 October 2020 17: 20 New
    -6
    for the idea of ​​a heavy infantry fighting vehicle (as well as an armored personnel carrier), it would be necessary to declare a lifelong disqualification altogether.
    However, the very idea of ​​BMP is bad. It is not possible to combine such conflicting requirements in one car (and this is even without our "quirk" with mandatory buoyancy)
    If the idea of ​​a universal two-link vehicle is so disgusting, then you can make two vehicles on the same base: a light tank, in the dimensions of a BMD-4m, better protected and with a large ammunition load, and an armored personnel carrier of the Shell type. In proportion: one tank for two armored personnel carriers
    1. Out
      Out 18 October 2020 13: 26 New
      +1
      However, the very idea of ​​BMP is bad.
      And for some reason I thought that the BMP is the basis of the firepower of the squad and platoon, you can't attach a tank or a self-propelled cannon to each squad.
      1. prodi
        prodi 18 October 2020 13: 52 New
        0
        this has already been described: the car turns out to be too bulky, with a small-caliber cannon, a small number of troops and expensive; or just as bulky, with a fairly powerful universal weapon, but overall weak security with a small number of troops and an expensive (BMP-3).
        A light tank based on the BMP-3 (or better the BMD-4 - it is one meter shorter) and a pair of armored personnel carriers, such as BT-3f (Shell is shorter), on which a module with a checkpoint can be installed, will be a more balanced technique for a platoon
  7. nonsense
    nonsense 17 October 2020 17: 45 New
    -1
    very chaotic and not on the merits of the question ... The author seems to think that the development and mass production of some universal BMP in the USSR is the right step and immediately begins to "agitate" the reader for the idea of ​​"different types of combat - different BMPs!" - Decide already!
    And the truth of life is that BMP idea as a universal vehicle combining a) a means of fire support for the MSO, b) a vehicle for the MSO, c) the floating BRM was is wrong... All these three tasks of the BMP (any!) Are performed poorly! (or doesn't do it at all) Misconception... And all these modern design "bumps of engineering thought" are simply persistence in their original conceptual error.
    Those. required three / four different BM - a) armored personnel carrier (= armored bus, MRAP) transporting infantry to the front edge, b) BRM (amphibious BM for crossing water obstacles with the capture of bridgeheads and raid actions), c) BMOP (fire support) of this very motorized infantry - IMHO is better all for this purpose is a tank (MBT) - the most expensive among the front line BM. It, MBT, and need to "upgrade" and adapt to interaction with the infantry (weapons, means of external control center and communications, the ability to bring up infantry in battle "on armor"). But instead they began to invent a "universal" BMP - money down the drain ...
    1. dima314
      dima314 17 October 2020 20: 19 New
      +3
      maybe when the BMP-1 was being created everything was fine! Then the idea of ​​a fix was to bang with something nuclear and use tanks to get it to the English Channel! Overcoming areas of contaminated terrain, keeping up with the tanks, suppressing the centers of resistance of the surviving enemy). Although after that everything went wrong and it was no longer necessary to go more and quickly to the Antlantic shores)
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 17 October 2020 21: 27 New
        +3
        :) already in the mid-70s, a balance was achieved with the United States in terms of the number of nuclear charges and their carriers. You could bounce a lot and there was no need to go to the English Channel - there was no reason for that. Establishing socialism among radioactive ruins is the height of stupidity. Yes, and they would not have reached that English Channel - the tanks / infantry fighting vehicles themselves are well tolerated by nuclear strikes, but the rear equipment, even of a battalion level, will not be guaranteed to withstand these nuclear strikes. And without the rear (fuels and lubricants, spare parts, food, ...) this battalion (TB / MSB) will not leave anywhere. Its limit is 100 kilometers ...
        PS: and as I wrote above, you cannot fit three different BM (BRM, APC, BMOP) into one (BMP)! Whenever it is created ...
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 17 October 2020 23: 52 New
        +3
        Quote: dima314
        Overcoming areas of contaminated terrain, keeping up with tanks
        Quite right! Finally, someone remembered.
  8. Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 17 October 2020 19: 55 New
    +3
    We need an armored personnel carrier (with purely machine-gun armament to cover the hurrying assault force) and a Terminator-type fire support vehicle. The infantry will never be hindered by a mobile firing point with a large supply of ammunition and the ability to create a high density of fire, well, well-protected, capable of coming close to the enemy. Any attempt at crossing will always result in a "trishkin caftan".
  9. Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 18 October 2020 00: 00 New
    +4
    Despite the fact that NATO has no floating infantry fighting vehicles. They somehow manage to solve the problem of forcing water barriers. And the protection of personnel is a priority. The tactics of using BM is different for everyone and the area of ​​use is the whole world.
    1. nonsense
      nonsense 18 October 2020 09: 52 New
      0
      :) and Examples can you also remember how NATO forces forced some water barriers? - of which not a single one comes to mind ... So this "ability" of NATO troops is a big question.
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 October 2020 11: 57 New
    +6
    Many concepts will change after the Karabakh war.
    The first ever massive use of military unmanned aerial vehicles against the ground forces of the regular army took place.
    ----
    In my opinion, there is nothing to appear on the battlefield without the installation of a KAZ covering a unit of armored vehicles from above.
    The constructors should proceed from this. And after that already think: heavy-light and what kind of tool and so on.
    1. Liam
      Liam 18 October 2020 12: 13 New
      -1
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In my opinion, without the installation of a KAZ,

      Want to turn the tank into a self-propelled air defense system?)
      KAZ versus UAVs that the dead poultry. UAVs are being smashed to pieces by real air defense installations with large radars and air defense missiles, and you want KAZ to stop them.
      Protection of tanks from UAVs in the sky and not KAZ. It is necessary to develop aviation and air defense and clear the sky above the tanks
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 18 October 2020 12: 21 New
        +7
        KAZ is a type of armor, not an air defense system.
        Any armored vehicle must be able to defend itself against anti-tank missiles.
        From whatever direction they fly.
        ---
        Clearing the sky is a common task. Enters air supremacy.
        1. Liam
          Liam 18 October 2020 12: 26 New
          0
          Israeli KAZ (which are world leaders) how do they deal with air strikes?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 October 2020 14: 51 New
            +4
            1) So that the Merkava tank can repel a vertical missile attack,
            KAZ Trophy will have to add one more radar (fifth) looking up.
            And one more "shooter" (third).
            2) There is no satisfactory solution to the protection against
            drones of medium size. Either too expensive or unreliable.
            I think there will be interceptor drones that are roughly equal in size
            shock drones.
            1. prodi
              prodi 18 October 2020 15: 17 New
              0
              interceptor drones are a highly technological and centralized solution. The commanders of combined arms companies and battalions (who take the rap) cannot have anything like that at hand. Only KAZ, because even to shoot (and this is at best) can only be the smallest
        2. Liam
          Liam 18 October 2020 12: 28 New
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          KAZ is a type of armor, not an air defense system.

          KAZ works according to the same principles as the air defense-radar and anti-missile systems. Or not?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 October 2020 14: 53 New
            +3
            Millimeter radar sees very close.
            And the "cannon" shoots powerfully, but at a short distance.
            1. prodi
              prodi 18 October 2020 15: 50 New
              0
              and there is no alternative to the millimeter range: every little thing, with reasonable dimensions, is visible only to him, and in bad weather it also does not fly
            2. Liam
              Liam 18 October 2020 15: 58 New
              0
              That's right. KAZ works in very "narrow" sectors and at very short distances. To monitor the air situation and intercept missiles launched from the air from much greater distances, it must be converted into an air defense complex, add radars of a different type and anti-missiles, and this is unrealistic. Air defense is the task of other military branches.
    2. Out
      Out 18 October 2020 13: 34 New
      0
      Many concepts will change after the Karabakh war.
      The first ever massive use of military unmanned aerial vehicles against the ground forces of the regular army took place.
      It seems to me that there is a lack of normal combat support - engineering and artillery. Impact UAVs are more for pants support. And in terms of resources, Azerbaijan surpasses Armenia more than Iran surpassed Iraq in the 80s.
  11. EvilLion
    EvilLion 19 October 2020 09: 22 New
    0
    Someone outplayed on the imbovy "bang".

    Too small BMP will require more people in the crews and more weapons, which just gives the cost. Most likely, 8-10 people in transport with 2-3 crew members is really optimal. Well, maybe up to 12 if a police car is made, with a squad that includes a lot of infantry with machine guns.
  12. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 20 October 2020 10: 14 New
    0
    Why do modern infantry fighting vehicles bear the well-deserved nickname of a mass grave? Because they are. How did it happen? It's simple. There are a lot of people in the army. But people who think quickly and effectively do not indulge in it with ranks and honors, violently crushing them under the shouts of "encouraging initiative." For which, as usual, you have to pay with the lives of soldiers.
    What is a modern BMP in general, like an armored personnel carrier? This is a German armored personnel carrier from the time of that War, adjusted for more modern weapons and armor. Why did the Germans use their armored personnel carriers somewhere near Kursk in 1941? Firstly, for transporting infantry at a speed greater than the speed of a foot march, in troubled rear areas. And secondly, for transporting infantry across the battlefield to enemy trenches or to convenient shelters.
    In both cases, the armored personnel carrier defended its infantry from light small arms. It's all. In principle, the APC is not capable of more. Then, in the forties of the last century, the technique was quite effective and in demand. Now the situation has changed radically. The great and terrible RPG changed everything. That is, extremely mobile anti-tank weapons in the hands of almost every soldier destroy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers with one shot, killing many infantrymen at once. To send infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers into battle against a more or less armed enemy is simply the destruction of your soldiers. Popular, of course, in certain army circles, fun, but isn't it time to stop the "fun"?
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 20 October 2020 10: 18 New
      0
      The same applies entirely to the transportation of soldiers in areas of guerrilla activity. Mines with an active core, the same RPGs, heavy machine-gun installations ... For such transportation, heavily armored, very passable tractors with light open trailers would be much better suited. It would be possible to reproduce the technique of movement on armor - it is safe to ride for now, quickly jump off and lie down in case of fire. Not to be the meat filling of an armored pie, inside which fire is raging and splinters are whipped.
      Alas, I do not flatter myself with the hope that someone will really listen.
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 20 October 2020 10: 21 New
        0
        Yes, the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are also an artillery and missile platform. It is what it is. True, weak booking makes the platform very vulnerable. Is it possible to launch missiles from a closed position, but what does an infantry squad have to do with it?