France compared BMPT "Terminator" with new armored vehicles

Since its first public appearance, the Terminator BMPT has generated a lot of interest among reviewers. Armored vehicle designed on the chassis tank T-72, has an impressive arsenal of weapons, represented by two 30-mm automatic cannons, 4 ATGM 9M120 "Attack-T", two 30-mm grenade launchers and a 7.62-mm machine gun.

This innovative approach was the result of an awareness of the vulnerabilities of BMPs and armored personnel carriers, which manifested themselves during the Afghan and Chechen campaigns. The mission of the BMPT is to escort armored vehicles, destroy, as it advances, centers of infantry resistance, especially in urban areas, and enemy armored vehicles

- explained in the French edition of Meta-defense.

However, the Terminator was exported only to Algeria and Kazakhstan.

Assurances [of the effectiveness of the Terminator] on the part of the Russian military aroused open distrust [among potential buyers]. How can you convince of the advantages of BMPT over a pair of "MBT + BMP"?

- the author asks.

In his words, moreover, the newest Russian models, such as the T-15, Kurganets and Boomerang, BMP-2 with the Epoch module and 57-mm cannon, have much greater firepower in comparison with the Terminator. ... Moreover, in addition to the tank, they transport the troops, which are necessary to accompany the equipment, especially in urban conditions.

Despite all this, the Russian army decided to equip part of the BMPT troops: the first company of "Terminators" has already been formed as part of the 90th division. However, the publication believes that the very idea of ​​BMPT is doomed to failure.

First, there is an increase in firepower (in comparison with the capabilities of the BMPT), both Russian and foreign technology. Secondly, infantry fighting vehicles and new reconnaissance armored vehicles have much greater mobility and versatility than the Terminator. An example is the new French Jaguar EBRC armored vehicle with a 40mm cannon and a new generation MMP ATGM, which is said to have "comparable firepower to BMPTs and much greater mobility."

Therefore, despite the theoretical attractiveness of the BMPT concept, its presence in Russian troops will remain limited, if not completely short-lived.

- make a conclusion in the French edition.

Jaguar EBRC:

Comments

[Fisherman]

The war will show. Not police operations in colonies with Bedouins, but a war with a normal, staunch enemy.

[just exp]

just in a big war, it is not needed, but for local conflicts with partisans it is suitable.

[bayard]

Quote: just explo

just in a big war, it is not needed, but for local conflicts with partisans it is suitable.

Is it only with partisans?
I am afraid that the right direction in the development of this new type of armored vehicles has become a hostage ... of the wrong name, and hence the classification and understanding of its place (BMPT) in battle formations. Just from the experience of Afghanistan and Chechnya, it became clear that we needed a vehicle with armored tanks and armament of BMPs ... or two BMPs at once.
But the purpose and place in the battle formations was immediately determined to her incorrectly.
Support / cover for tanks is just one of the possible functions / tasks of this vehicle.
And where is its main place? And what should be the tasks of such a specific machine?
But first about the name (and hence the classification). This vehicle must be "renamed" (and therefore reclassified) into an INFANTRY ASSISTANCE VEHICLE.
Notice how the focus has shifted right away?
And where else can there be a place for such a machine if not in the fighting ranks of the attacking infantry? Its very armament obliges it.
And the armor protection is even higher than that of the tank.
Conventional infantry fighting vehicles cannot accompany the infantry due to their high vulnerability to weapons, their armor and overall security are insufficient for this.
But for ShMPP, fighting to support the attacking infantry is the most dear element. She also has optimal armament for this: 30 mm. guns, 30 mm. automatic grenade launchers, ATGMs to destroy suddenly appeared tanks or other armored vehicles of the enemy, a machine gun ... What else is needed for military happiness?
But the tanks (!) Should follow at a few distances behind the infantry and the SMPP, supporting them with the fire of their guns, and "FASTING her movement with a heavy tread." This arrangement of attacking formations will be the most optimal in modern conditions, when hostilities are often conducted in conditions of urban development, destroyed infrastructure - where the enemy has something to catch on, take cover, organize ambushes and firing points, resistance nodes. In conditions of a high saturation of the infantry with anti-tank weapons - RPGs, ATGMs, etc. When automatic cannons are so important to suppress firing points behind an obstacle, infantry hiding behind folds of terrain, camouflaged tanks in ambush ... and at the same time have maximum protection of a combat vehicle equipped by these means.
And WHEN the TRUE purpose of such a machine is realized, then they will go to the troops, and they will go in sufficient numbers.
And the old infantry fighting vehicles (1 \ 2) will turn into just well-armed armored personnel carriers.
And with that - floating.
This is the kind of synergy in battle formations, when it is the ShMPP and the infantry that are at the forefront of the attack, and the tanks follow behind and suppress the identified firing points with their fire, and this is the purpose and purpose of such a machine.
The only thing left is to change the name and combat application algorithms.
And if KAZ appears on such machines, then it will be just hellish assault threshers.

But such vehicles will also be effective against partisans, tea is not the cardboard armor of the BMP-1 \ 2.
Tank with automatic 30 mm. cannons, this is the dream of the attacking infantry.

[Sancho_SP]

All of this is true, of course, but the tank gun is more versatile. Unless, it is worse to shoot at small drones, and even that is not a fact.

Well, the detection tools, kaz and other bells and whistles on the tank will look even better)

[bayard]

Quote: Sancho_SP

All of this is true, of course, but the tank gun is more versatile.

But who will encroach on the tanks? This is the main striking force, but in attacking - assault formations, it is not the cannon that is important, but machine guns, grenade launchers, 30 mm. guns to suppress firing points behind an obstacle, good visibility and the ability to fight at short distances. And the tanks at this time, a little behind - 300 - 400 meters, support all this disgrace with fire. But they shouldn't enter the enemy positions themselves, into urban buildings or into a fortified area, there is work for the ShMPP. A tank needs a certain distance to conduct a battle, so that the grenade launchers do not jump out from under every bush and gateway.

Quote: Sancho_SP

Well, the detection tools, kaz and other bells and whistles on the tank will look even better.

Yes, they are already on them, and they look.
But the tanks lacked 30 mm. guns. Remember how many projects on this topic there were when this 30 mm was laid on the tower, then on the side of the tower. No, a tank is not suitable for close combat today - any infantryman will hit him with a grenade launcher in the side, and he will not notice. It was to eliminate this shortcoming and inferiority of tanks that the BMPT was conceived. That is why they called it that - to protect the tank from the infantry.
And since there is someone to protect the tank from the infantry, then there is someone to fight with the infantry instead. And the place for the tank is where it, being in relative safety, will see the whole picture of the battle and with direct fire suppress detected enemy firing points, accumulations of infantry, detected armored vehicles and enemy tanks. And do it from such a distance that the grenade launchers don't get it.
And she will take all the fury of the enemy infantry on herself - SHMPP (nee - BMPT), for this she desires KAZ, on a par with ordinary tanks, because in an assault attack she will get the most. But she will be able to fully manifest her rage.

[Old tanker]

In princepe, as an application option, it is quite justified. Moreover, this has already happened. Only now tanks are shifting to the role of heavy self-propelled guns, supporting the attack of medium tanks in the second half of the Second World War, and BMPT takes the place of medium tanks.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The problem is in the design and weakness of the selected weapons. The lack of an armored turret and a small angle of elevation of the trunks are only part of the many flaws.

[Rome]

I do not agree with you that the BMPT should go ahead of the tanks! Her view is not much better than from a tank. Therefore, to get an RPG on board, the chances are the same with a tank! and the tank will not be able to cover it from behind from the infantry, since its gun is redundant, for this, and the machine gun may not be enough!
Ahead should go a highly protected vehicle, with a weapon capable of breaking anything: a pillbox, a building, a basement, any armored vehicle! Those. a tank should go ahead, tk. armament of BMPT for these purposes is not enough! But behind him, as an overlap, is the BMPT, which has optimal weapons for fighting infantry. Infantry tanks do not attack head-on, they just strive from the sides, or from the top! Therefore, the BMPT goes behind, covering the sides and roof controls. And if she is walking with the infantry, then either again from behind, or she covers the infantry with herself, since there are no tanks.

[bayard]

Quote: Eroma

I do not agree with you that the BMPT should go ahead of the tanks!

When approaching the enemy, tanks are always ahead, BMPT covers, incl. from the flanks.
At the line of dismounting (infantry), BMPT / ShMPP come out ahead, which pave the way for the infantry, and the tanks with their fire support their movement, revealing the opened enemy firing points, tanks, armored vehicles. At this time, ShMPP is engaged in close combat, allowing the infantry to enter and gain a foothold for the infantry in enemy positions, and further developing this success.
The tank has nothing to do in this meat grinder, because in the heat of the battle it is easy to get from the grenade launcher to the side. Tanks - provide insurance and support with fire.
Therefore, on the march and when approaching the enemy, "Terminators" cover the tanks. And at the actual moment of the assault, on the contrary, the tanks cover the ShMPP and the attacking infantry.
And success will be guaranteed.

[Archon]

I would send an armored robot forward to take the fire on myself. Let them fire from machine guns and small cannons in automatic mode.

[skipper83]

Tell me, how is the infantry? By foot in a chain? But then it will be very vulnerable to mines, mortars and other artillery systems.

[bayard]

Quote: shkiper83

Tell me, how is the infantry? By foot in a chain?

Until the line of dismounting - on BMPs and armored personnel carriers behind the tanks and ShMPP.
After dismounting - with legs, short dashes, following the ShMPP right up to the trenches, the actual positions of the enemy, when it is up to her - the infantry to work. Clearing trenches, dugouts, buildings. And already she (in urban development) will protect her SMPP from grenade launchers and other troubles.

Quote: shkiper83

But then it will be very vulnerable to mines, mortars and other artillery systems.

The enemy's firepower is suppressed by the training that precedes the attack, and during the attack itself - by tanks, which stop at the dismounting line in order to better see the picture of the battle and destroy everything that they see, and the SMPP that go ahead of the infantry, clearing the way for it.
Or do you propose to infantry on BMPs to roll to the very trenches of the enemy?
Will she want it herself?
So as to blind kittens, if what?
Do you know how the BMP was decoded in Afghanistan (and not only)?
Mass grave of the infantry.
Do you know why on the march the infantry prefers to ride not under armor, but ON armor?
Overview ! During an attack, you can immediately see who and where from, everyone is vividly shining FOR the armor (and not under it), and they are already protected by two sides of an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier.
With a direct attack, the same picture - when approaching the enemy, hiding behind the forward-moving SHMPP, the infantry perfectly sees everything around and enters the battle perfectly representing the picture of the battle. And it was crazy to jump out of the armor already being in contact with the enemy ... After all, the fighter needs to look around, assess the situation ... Yes, at least in single file behind the ShMPP on the bent ones. But when they got to the enemy, then their work begins.

And for the commander to see the whole picture of the battle, it is enough to hang one or two quadcopters, so that there are no surprises behind the folds of the terrain.

[Kaw]

Quote: Sancho_SP

All of this is true, of course, but the tank gun is more versatile.

Modern tank guns are a dead-end branch of evolution IMHO. The caliber of the guns was constantly growing only due to the fact that the thickness of the armor of enemy tanks grew. For other tasks, the tank does not need a large-caliber cannon and even interferes. For battles in the city, it is too destructive, for effective firing at infantry it has too low a rate of fire and ammunition, but to combat modern tanks it is already ineffective, and because of a too heavy gun, the tank's protection had to be cut back. In Syria, after each shot, the tanks were covered with dust and smoke - the tank was out of action for 1-3 minutes. When powerful projectiles hit a building, it usually becomes unusable due to strong concussion.
A small-bore rapid-fire cannon and a powerful ATGM are much better suited for all these purposes. IMHO.
Another thing is that for some reason they put a weak ATGM on the terminator, of the same caliber as the tank's cannon, thereby nullifying the benefits of it.

[just exp]

that's why TBMP was created.
and this is purely for city battles, more precisely for village battles, because the upper floors will not fire.
and for real intense urban battles, a heavy self-propelled bunker is needed, with all-aspect protection higher than that of a tank (very high maneuverability and speed are not needed), so that DZ and KAZ, and weapons - 152mm small ballistics for the use of land mines, 30mm for the infantry on the course, a pair of AGS for shooting on floors (well, so that 30mm rise high) and all this is desirable on remote control

[bayard]

Quote: just explo

more precisely for village battles, because the upper floors will not fire.

And you roll back a bit, look and fire.

Quote: just explo

and for real intense urban battles you need a heavy self-propelled bunker

Yes, a couple of "Bumblebees" on such a bunker, it will end.
In such battles, to support the biting "villain" ShMPP \ BMPT will just be in place.
but a large caliber is also needed to destroy capital buildings and highly protected objects.

Quote: just explo

and weapons - 152mm small ballistics

Small ballistics dooms you to a short range of combat. But remember about the T-95 rejected by the scoundrel iPhone, and implement such a weapon on the Armata platform ... moreover, using for this chassis not a tank, but ... TBMP T-15, where such a weapon will stand like a dear, ammunition will accommodate sufficient , and the security of the T-15 is higher than that of the T-14 ... and the crew is in the aft ... There, in the aft, as in the "Merkava", you can take a small troop (3-4 people) with you. This is how the assault tank with the ultimate caliber will turn out. On an existing platform.
And the gun for the T-95 was ready ...
Only to hit the floors of buildings is better not at close range, but from a certain distance.
And the AGS can be installed on the roof of the tower - all-aspect and with telecontrol.

[just exp]

You do not quite understand my idea, I mean the creation of a special VERY heavy tank specially created ONLY for urban battles. The main emphasis is on KAZ and DZ to combat cumulative ammunition, that is, ATGMs and RPGs, BOPSs are already secondary, because he will not fight with tanks very often, but he will be able to work out if necessary. from the Bumblebee, this is the RPO, it is useless to hit them, although in theory, if you bang next to the air intake, this can disable the engine, but this applies to any technique and place the air intake there at the back and bottom + put thermofilters.
firepower is small-caliber cannons and large-caliber machine guns and AG. and only one 152mm cannon of weak ballistics, because it will not shoot at enemy tanks, but at fortifications in the city.
and necessarily all sorts of signal silencers, trawls and dumps included

[bayard]

For such a monster, you need to discover new OCDs, spend 10 years and make sure that something else is needed.
Your tank will turn out to be too heavy, neither bridges nor railway platforms will hold it, it will get stuck on soft ground up to its belly, it will be clumsy in a fast-paced battle.
But if you use existing solutions, samples of equipment and weapons, and how to assemble from them what you need for such tasks in the Lego constructor ... then you get the same tower with 152 mm. gun on the T-15 platform - a kind of Russian "Merkava" with an ultimatum caliber.
And it is a sin to limit such a tank with low ballistics - there are different cases. It happens that during the assault on the outskirts of the city, it is necessary to quickly destroy the capital buildings, in which the enemy firing points do not allow the infantry to enter the city buildings and start the assault squeezing out. If the buildings are really capital, then the power is 125 mm. the cannon may not be enough, and calling artillery fire from closed positions is not always rational when jewelry work is needed. And here a heavy assault tank with an ultimatum caliber will be the very tool that the doctor asked for. And with direct fire, he will simply destroy those buildings where the enemy hid behind the capital walls. And for this, it is far from always necessary to enter the urban development, only providing the infantry and SMPP to go into the city and catch on, and there the "Bumblebees" in the hands of the infantry and other convincing devices in the hands of assault units will be much more rational.
And on the upper floors, if the cannon is not lifted, it is better to work out with helicopters.

[bayard]

Quote: just explo

from Bumblebee, this is the RPO, it's useless to hit them

Probably you have not seen HOW the dynamic protection works when a "Bumblebee" (and better than two at once) hits a tank with such protection ... It works from half to 2/3 of the dynamic protection, creating a monstrous fugvsny effect right on the armor of the tank ... from what detonates ammunition and the tower flies away.
It's not for nothing that I said not about RPGs or ATGMs from the window, in Donbass "Bumblebees" showed themselves very well against tanks.

[zadorin1974]

Have you ever been near a tank (up to 20-30 meters) during a shot? Now let's imagine that the "self-propelled pillbox" drove into position and dashed at the identified target of 125-152 mm, the infantry itself will scatter from the tank. Watch the video from Syria, where it is very clearly seen that there is no infantry and from there there are large losses of armor.

[Alexander Seklitsky]

By the way, yes. In the army, at the firing range, the tankers were beating from the T62 next to our firing positions during the shooting. Well, next to it, about 100 meters somewhere to the right. There was a feeling that the meat was being removed from the bones, although the t 62 had a total caliber of 100mm. It is scary to imagine what will happen next to a 152mm cannon shot three meters from the armor. Especially in lateral projection

[bayard]

Quote: Alexander Seklitsky

.Although the t 62 has a total caliber of 100mm

The T-62 has a 115 mm caliber. , 100 mm. at the T-55.

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

Then the optimal would be something like a German Mouse with active armor and screens, preferably multi-turret to increase the flexibility of the use of auxiliary weapons. Let's say the main turret - a shortened 152mm cannon from Msta-s, two towers on the sides with 30-mm cannons paired with AGS, and an additional 12,7 mm machine guns and anti-tank guns. For the assault on populated areas, the most it. Something like T-35.

[bayard]

Quote: Evgeny Ivanov_5

Then the optimal would be something like a German Mouse with active armor and screens, preferably multi-turret to increase the flexibility of the use of auxiliary weapons. Let's say the main turret - a shortened 152mm cannon from Msta-s, two towers on the sides with 30-mm cannons paired with AGS, and an additional 12,7 mm machine guns and anti-tank guns. For the assault on populated areas, the most it. Something like T-35.

Yeah the fun was not childish.
Although all of this monster is enough just a couple of "Terminators" and the problem will be solved.

[loki565]

If, to support the infantry, you will also need a vehicle for transporting infantry, then it is easier to make a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, it will be more versatile.

[bayard]

So it has already been done, the T-15 is called, but at a price it is more expensive than a tank.
A new tank.
A SHMPP \ BMPT can be removed from storage on the T-72 chassis, riveted at least in the hundreds. That's the point that such a highly protected fool ... a flock of fools, drive into the enemy's position and make a commotion there (after the art preparation
of course). And the infantry ... even on the Kurgantsy-25, at least on the T-15 (if any), at least on the BMP-1 \ 2 \ 3 - to the dismounting line, and then - with legs, short dashes ... following the evil and a hefty ferocious flock of SHMPP / BMPT.
A heavy infantry fighting vehicle with a large troop compartment will be cumbersome and may not be optimal in urban combat. But the "Terminator" - a very lean car, nimble and splinter. But the infantry will have to be delivered to the dismounting line with something.
The cost of converting a T-72 into a ShMPP \ BMPT is unlikely to greatly exceed the modernization of the same tank to the T-72B3M level, and it will be several times (4-5 times) cheaper than the T-15 TBMP.
If you need cars for war - here they are. Fast, cheap and cheerful.

[Alexander Seklitsky]

And if this BMPT is made unmanned, or rather bezmechvodny. Then it will generally be a no-lose option.

[bayard]

In principle, there is such a possibility, perhaps for some cases it would be nice to have a couple of mouths of such robots ... but ... communication channels ... this is the Achilles' heel of such systems.

[Alexander Seklitsky]

But why? With the UAV, everything works, all the more it is possible to sew in an inertial control system to return to the base in case of loss of communication. Or he had some artificial brains.

[bayard]

First, such a machine must be made (and it is desirable to do it) in order to assess its capabilities and develop algorithms for work in cooperation with its infantry, otherwise it, in the heat of "autonomous work", can mow its own people. And if it works out, then why not. Moreover, smaller robots have already fought / are fighting.
But the crew is guided by itself on the spot, shows reasonable initiative and correct decisions. Therefore, it is necessary to work on a robotic version (and for tanks too, and for the same T-72, but use it with caution.

[SVD68]

Quote: bayard

This vehicle must be "renamed" (and therefore reclassified) into an INFANTRY ASSISTANCE VEHICLE.

From the moment of their appearance, such vehicles were called tanks. So, by and large, the only question is, what kind of weapon should the tank carry?

[bayard]

Quote: SVD68

From the moment of their appearance, such vehicles were called tanks.

And for some reason, the interwar "Matilda" immediately comes to mind - with anti-cannon armor and two machine guns. Beast machines to mow down the infantry.

[YOUR]

Quote: bayard

Just from the experience of Afghanistan and Chechnya

Afghan and Chechnya are they big wars or local conflicts and "partisans"?

[bayard]

And the battles for Grozny, are they partisans, or the second Stalingrad?
Or will urban battles in big cities be somehow different?
Then remember the storming of Berlin ... Budapest.
In the mountains and in the city, a completely different instrument is needed than in the open field - on the plain.
So those battles showed that tanks in such battles are extremely vulnerable and have small gun elevation angles. This is how the terms of reference for the Terminator appeared.
Only such a machine and in an open field - it will be useful when storming fortified enemy positions. And in general, in any battle where close fire contact with an enemy operating from behind cover is expected.

So not as partisans alone, but in any battle where there is enemy infantry behind cover.

[YOUR]

About the second Stalingrad.
The number of troops entering Grozny on December 31.12.1994, 5 was up to 200 thousand people with 250-100 units of armored vehicles and 15000 units of heavy weapons (guns and mortars), in four groups. In total, a group of about XNUMX people entered Chechnya.
The fighting in Grozny and the whole war is a local conflict or do you have a different opinion? Then justify.

[bayard]

I'm talking about the very nature of the battles, their intensity, and about the vulnerability of conventional tanks in such a battle. Grenade launchers on the roofs and from the windows of houses, a short distance of the battle, the actions of enemy infantry from behind cover.
After all, out of hopelessness they tried to drive the Tunguska there - so that they could walk through the floors and roofs with their cannons ... lost ... due to poor armor and protection.
But the conflict was, of course, local, and internal.

[YOUR]

There were no Tunguski, there were a small number of Shiloks. Moreover, they were not used thoughtlessly ahead of the mows to the right to the left, but were put forward under the cover of tanks.
It was originally Pasha Mercedes who tried, without thinking, drove the unprepared guys, I thought that we were lined up in front of Grozny schazzz, they would bring Duda by the mustache to him.
They didn't. They snapped back. All of them would be on the same bitch and those and these and Lebed who did not let him finish off with his Khasavyurt agreements. He was no longer a general, but a politician who was aiming for the presidential throne.
I myself was not there, but two good friends stayed there and a friend's son returned as an invalid. A fragment of a mine on my leg interrupted the nerve. The wound was pierced with a nail, but the guy was unlucky.

[bayard]

I sympathize, my comrade disappeared without a trace in that war.

[Evgeny Ivanov_5]

There is a phrase Remember the war. It is necessary to learn the experience of the Second World War, or rather the battles for Berlin, Budapest. They took cities stuffed with faustics with the use of armored vehicles and nothing. We just don't want to study and every war is dressed from scratch. So we climb into Grozny like ...

[YOUR]

Hastened to send the first comment

Quote: bayard

into the INFANTRY SUPPORT ASSISTANCE VEHICLE.

Where did you see the attacking infantry without the support of armored vehicles.? If this is BMP-3 or BMP-4, then the landing, i.e. attacking infantry of 5 - 7 people, supported by 100 mm, 30 mm cannons, machine guns and ATGM, on other infantry fighting vehicles instead of one machine gun, AGS is installed

Quote: bayard

Conventional infantry fighting vehicles cannot accompany the infantry due to their high vulnerability to weapons, their armor and overall security are insufficient for this.

For modern anti-tank weapons, both a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle can penetrate everything. And if the platoon is on the offensive, then these are 3 infantry fighting vehicles that "clean" in their direction and not one BMPT whose visibility is not very high. In addition, a tank will be assigned to 90 out of 100 platoons, and so we consider 3 - 100 mm cannons, 3 - 30 mm cannons, 6 machine guns, ATGM.
And where is the firepower higher?
If we also consider the battle order of the offensive is the simplest in a line, without any ledges. That is 70 - 100 meters per department, then the same gap, and so on there are three departments. Do you propose to give each department an BMPT, and even regular BMPs? Then say goodbye to sausage and butter shops. What kind of economy will withstand such an armor pressure, I do not remind you how much fuel will be needed. We'll have to switch to bicycles.

[hagen]

Quote: YOUR

And where is the firepower higher?

The firepower is higher where there will be support from the senior chief. MSV alone does not fight .... And if we talk about BMPT, then the decrease in its firepower in comparison with the tank should be compensated for by some characteristic that is sharply better than that of the tank. For example, the ability to launch and receive a quadcopter on board and more powerful battlefield reconnaissance devices capable of automatically detecting the optics of anti-tank weapons, including those located behind obstacles (roofs of buildings, reverse slopes of the terrain, etc., higher angles aiming guns.

[YOUR]

We have what we have. There is a BMPT with two 30 mm cannons, two AGS, one machine gun and 4 ATGMs barely covered with an armor plate. The rest of the series if he was carrying cartridges or pasta.
You want to make a reconnaissance and strike complex out of a front-line combat vehicle. Then at least one more person is needed there, and some equipment will not interfere. And where to stick it? And what a shock complex with such a feeble weapon.

[hagen]

Quote: YOUR

You want to make a reconnaissance and strike complex out of a front-line combat vehicle.

Were you alarmed by "battlefield reconnaissance"? So, every commander of a combat vehicle (tank, BMP, armored personnel carrier, etc.) and a gunner is engaged in reconnaissance of targets and observation. Actually, this is almost the most important thing they should do in battle. And each of them is taught this specially in the educational units. Another question is that the instrumental-instrumental complex in this reconnaissance of targets can be different. So in the BMPT, it should be sharpened against small-sized mobile thermal contrast targets equipped with optical devices. And the presence of UAVs will allow them (commander / gunner ...) to find the target (ATGM calculation, RPG, etc.) on the roofs or in the ruins of buildings. It is desirable for a tank, but it is simply necessary for an BMPT. I think so. And if the BMPT will not differ from the tank in anything, except for the caliber of the gun, then there is no sense in fencing this "Muir and Merliz". At the same time, the "Reconnaissance and strike complex" is somewhat different from what the article says. This is more ambitious and, in part, essentially resembles an element of a modern system for network-centric actions. They talked a lot about these ROK and RUK back in the 80s, both in our country and in the countries of the "potential enemy".

[YOUR]

Quote: Hagen

Were you alarmed by "battlefield reconnaissance"? So, every commander of a combat vehicle (tank, infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier, etc.) and a gunner is engaged in reconnaissance of targets.

Somehow it so happened that I know who is doing what.

Quote: Hagen

And the presence of a UAV will allow them (commander / gunner ...) to find a target (ATGM calculation, RPG, etc.) on the roofs or in the ruins of buildings.

Who will control this UAV? The BMPT has a crew of 5 people, and you can't tear anyone off in case of business.

[hagen]

Quote: YOUR

Who will control this UAV? The BMPT has a crew of 5 people, and you can't tear anyone off in case of business.

There are things that need to be designed from the beginning, and not adapted to the finished one. It's just that the need and the place of the car on the battlefield with its purpose should be laid down in the preliminary design of the car, and only then - to embody this solution in metal. And we, in this case, "blinded from what was" and then we want to give this meaning "that has no analogue in the world". You have to think first, not later ...

[German]

As far as I remember: the first version of the BMPT had five crew members, and as I then understood it was good visibility and the ability to observe with a large number of eyes and control weapons with a large number of hands - and was the main idea of ​​"a characteristic that is sharply better than that of a tank." But! For some reason, this idea was abandoned.

[bayard]

Quote: YOUR

If it's BMP-3 or BMP-4

They do not have sufficient armor and protection in order to enter the enemy's position first, to clear space for their infantry. In the attack, their place is in front of the infantry, and not behind - tanks will go behind and will remotely hit the identified enemy firing points with their guns, without getting into close contact, but having better visibility for battle.
And the BMP-1 \ 2 \ 3 available now in such difficult conditions will play the role of a protected infantry transporter with good and very good weapons.

Quote: YOUR

Do you propose to give each department an BMPT, and even regular BMPs? Then say goodbye to sausage and butter shops. What kind of economy will withstand such an armor pressure, I do not remind you how much fuel will be needed. We'll have to switch to bicycles.

ShMPP \ BMPT should be attached precisely to assault infantry groups, when storming highly defended enemy positions, storming cities and towns and on difficult-rugged terrain.
As part of a battalion tactical group, it is reasonable to have from a platoon to a company of such vehicles, depending on the complexity of the combat missions.
ShMPP \ BMPT, this is a tank with anti-personnel weapons + ATGMs. He has a place in the forefront of the attacking infantry. The tanks are in the back.
But when approaching the enemy, ShMPP \ BMPT - in the same order with the tanks, the infantry behind - on the BMP.
We have a lot of infantry fighting vehicles in storage, as well as tanks. When upgrading and returning to service, some of the tanks can be upgraded / converted into ShMPP / BMPT, it will not be more expensive (not much more expensive) than upgrading the tank to the T-72B3M level. But we will get a universal tool for assault operations, protection of tanks on the march, actions in the mountains and urban development, as well as counter-guerrilla actions. This machine has everything you need for this.

[Vladimir61]

Quote: bayard

Support / cover for tanks is just one of the possible functions / tasks of this vehicle.
And where is its main place? And what should be the tasks of such a specific machine?
But first about the name (and hence the classification). This vehicle must be "renamed" (and therefore reclassified) into an INFANTRY ASSISTANCE VEHICLE.
Notice how the focus has shifted right away?

Exactly! I have already expressed the thought that it will be much more "fun" for me to go on the attack if there is this lawn mower between the tanks and me!

[YOUR]

I forgot, but you know that, remind me from the BU (combat manual, part of the third platoon, squad, tank) what distance should be in the offensive between the tank and the infantry

[Vladimir61]

Well, the infantry can "stomp" behind the tanks or move on the BMP, at a distance of 100-200 meters from them. Where is the place of this armored mower? In the battle formations of a tank platoon, at some distance from them, or in the battle formations of the infantry? After all, all this "kitchen" is only being rolled around and its place in battle formations, during an attack, is unknown to us.

[YOUR]

Otnyut said the count and ... In the offensive, the platoon on the BMP moves 50 - 100 m away from the tanks. At the command "Prepare to dismount", the BMP (armored personnel carrier) overtake the tanks and, at the command to the vehicle, the landing party leaves the vehicles. In the future, advancing on foot in front of the tank, almost on the same level as the infantry and behind in 50 - 100 m BMP (armored personnel carrier), where with such a formation is the place of BMPT?
This is a variant of the offensive from the depths. When advancing from a position of direct contact with the enemy, the infantry, when passing tanks, jumps out of the trenches, continuing the offensive together with the tanks. BMP (armored personnel carriers) support the attack with fire from a place. Upon reaching the designated milestone. Here, depending on the specific task and terrain, BMPs move behind the advancing ones. In the platoon, an MG (maneuverable group) is created, practically this is a platoon's BMP. Usually she is led directly by the com. platoon. Well and so on
And where, with such constructions, is the BMPT place? No, I don’t argue you can shove. For example, it stays on the line with the BMP and supports the offensive with fire. There is never enough firepower. But it seems that everyone preferred one more tank, except for the naturally defenders.

[2 Level Advisor]

BMP with "Berezhok" with 30mm, ATGMs and AGS - what will be worse? the armament is the same .. the armor of the tower is the same .. the armor is more powerful, perhaps .. but without the DZ, the armor is not much more useful than the ATGM 30 mm or 100 mm .. and the DZ and the BMP have already been developed .. I think this is already outdated a car, 25 years ago, it was directly needed, but now the technologies and BMPs are already up to these tasks ..

[bayard]

The BMPT / ShMPT has a highly located combat module, so it has decent descent angles for its guns, which means that it will be able to drive into the enemy trench and mow the enemy trenches with a machine gun, grenade launchers and cannons, clearing the path for the infantry.
The elevation angles of this module are also great, therefore, along the floors of buildings, tops of mountains / hills / ridges, they can also work directly smarsha (if suddenly an ambush happens).
The BMP will never be the first to enter the enemy's position, stay alive and do the job. And ShMPP can. Having the security of the tank (and above) and the armament of two infantry fighting vehicles, it will do the job of supporting the attacking infantry much better than the tank and BMP itself. This is his task.
And this car is still relevant today.
And getting such a machine today is much easier and cheaper than composing a highly protected and similarly armed TBMP. We will get a T-15, which is good, but costs 4 - 5 times more expensive than this vehicle. And much more cumbersome.

[2 Level Advisor]

1.From the point of view of economy, I agree - definitely more profitable than the same Kurganets ...
2. from the point of view of the trenches, I also agree .. BUT .. almost military strategists believe that positional warfare ala WWII will no longer exist, i.e. trench lines too ..
3. Protection from more or less modern ATGM / RPG for BMP and Terminator is the same .. without at least DZ = 0 ... ATGM / RPG will not notice the difference in armor thickness - they have penetration with a margin even for T-72 .. and with the DZ (which is already installed on the BMP), the same protection is again - if the DZ works, it will protect both cars .. unless there is a slight difference in the forehead ..
3.Up the BMP works no worse, the difference in armament is 2 times the rate of fire due to 2 barrels, but who said that 1 barrel is not enough?
4. The BMP is carrying troops or whatever you want, the BMPT is not.
5. Total. Yes, there is relevance, but, in principle, solely because of the inexpensiveness of reworking the T-72 from stocks .. from scratch - there is no special sense - and Kurganets has almost the same utility (with Berezhk, of course, identical in armament) but also has a cargo compartment. ...
P.S. and do not forget about the combat module, which is much worse than the tank turret is protected from the same bullets and shrapnel (or rather, almost not protected) .. a good sniper-BMPT / BMP with several shots will greatly deprive the combat power .. and the triggering of DZ or high-explosive grenades RPG-effectively will be very effective .. so it's definitely not a wunderwaffe .. a normal car, for various reasons, mainly prices. New BMPs are very expensive and useful for the troops to mass produce ..

[bayard]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

1.From the point of view of economy, I agree - definitely more profitable than the same Kurganets ...

Yes, especially in comparison with "Kurganets".

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

3. Protection from more or less modern ATGM / RPG for BMP and Terminator is the same .. without at least DZ = 0 ... ATGM / RPG will not notice the difference in armor thickness - they have a margin of penetration even for T-72.

Here I disagree, the BMPT \ ShMPP has even higher security than the T-72 + ERA. And if you also screw the KAZ to him (nevertheless, you have to work at the forefront of the attacking order), then even that is better.
And if you also look at the linear dimensions of these machines (BMPT \ ShMPP and Kurganets-25), it will be almost like a bus next to a Zhiguli, just look at the Kurganets and T-90s standing next to each other.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

3.Up the BMP works no worse, the difference in armament is 2 times greater

Nobody denied this, but ... SECURITY. For the sake of the high security of such a machine, everything was started.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

5. Total. Yes, there is relevance, but in principle, solely because of the inexpensiveness of reworking the T-72 from stocks .. from scratch - there is no special sense

And the price with the cost of alteration here is a very pleasant option for a very necessary and demanded car in the war. There is no need to do it from scratch when there are so many tanks in storage ... The developer offered an upgrade with the installation of the module on ANY tanks, starting with the T-55, for foreign customers.
Well, the security of the module itself ... yes - weapons and optical devices stick out from the outside.
This is certainly not a wunderwaffe, but a very useful and necessary vehicle, complementing tanks, and capable of replacing them in the first echelon in a direct attack on enemy positions.

[vervolk]

at least by the fact that it is inhabited. and, if lost, leads to the death of the crew

[venik]

Quote: bayard

Support / cover for tanks is just one of the possible functions / tasks of this vehicle.
And where is its main place?

========
I don’t quite agree with you about the place of the BMPT (or ShMPT, as you called it, and NOT WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING!) In battle.
From my "trench point of view" - this system should be called: "heavy combat vehicle fire support" (TBMOP).
- In an offensive battle (when breaking through the enemy's defensive lines), their place is in the same row with the tanks (moreover, not only in the center, but mainly along the flanks (to cover MBT, which crumble the enemy's field fortifications), from the "dirty tricks" like grenade launchers and ATGM crews), as well as suppress firing points.
- In an oncoming battle with enemy tanks (if this happens) - go into the "second line" (between tanks and infantry fighting vehicles), especially since the design features allow them to shoot "over the head" of their tanks!
- Well, in the case when the battle has to be fought in urban areas (or in difficult terrain that allows you to organize ambushes or because of the relief close to the MBT) - we must move forward! And already behind them are tanks or infantry fighting vehicles with dismounted infantrymen ...
PS But this is exclusively my personal point of view, in no way claiming to be "the ultimate truth"!
The only thing I am SURE of: "Terminators" in the Army - superfluous - WILL NOT BE !!!

[bayard]

Quote: venik

From my "trench point of view" - this system should be called: "heavy combat vehicle fire support" (TBMOP).

It is possible and so, the main thing is that the essence of its purpose is clearly reflected in the title.
Otherwise, I described my vision of its combat use in about the same way. The BMPs that are currently available should in fact turn into infantry transporters to the dismounting line, then - with legs, short dashes after the ShMPP / BMPT, which should, clearing the way for the infantry, break into the enemy's positions. And their high security and the nature of the weapons to help.

[venik]

Quote: bayard

Otherwise, I described my vision of its combat use in about the same way.

========
The main thing is different: we BOTH see and understand the NEED of such a technique ..... And she - NECESSARY! Very NECESSARY! Also - "the day before yesterday"!
But there are also problems: this kind of technique requires a serious REVIEW of the tactics of using mechanized units and units in combat (offensive, counter, defensive) .... And the Army is a conservative structure (to say the least!) .... Any innovations, especially concerning changes in tactical and operational methods of warfare, he usually perceives "with hostility", which in general is natural and quite normal!) ...
But, it so happened that today we are in a period of breaking the stereotypes that have been established since the Second World War .... Well, what can you do? It just so happened ..... And the "Terminator" turned out to be such a kind of "litmus test" .... Perhaps this is why it is so difficult and is its perception in the troops ... But all the same, there is nowhere to go! Even the introduction of the BMP-T-15, all the same, will require a certain revision of the established concepts (unless, of course, we want to use it as a "slide rule for nailing"! ....

[bayard]

Quote: venik

The main thing is different: we BOTH see and understand the NEED of this technique ..... And it is NEEDED! Very NECESSARY! Also - "the day before yesterday"!

Quite right, and the new tactics of using tanks and similar machines have already been used and applied in Syria, and will be in great demand in the upcoming battles in the Donbass.
Life itself makes you change templates, although ... the very first WWII tanks and the interwar period played a similar role - infantry support tanks, etc. breakthrough tanks.
Today, the main thing is that these vehicles appear in the army and in practice show and prove their place in battle formations.

[Osipov9391]

And is it possible that there will be a war in Donbass? Will the Sumerians, having assembled a 125-strong group, still trample?
Now the Duma is confused about what to do. Well, for now, they say to recognize the independence of the LDNR in the event of an attack on Ukraine, provide assistance in any way possible, and divide it up with peacekeeping forces.
And this is quite possibly one of the best options. This seems to be the maximum ...

[bayard]

Quote: Osipov9391

Will the Sumerians, having assembled a 125-strong group, still trample?

As in London / Washington they will order, and they will trample them - they are forced animals.
As they trample on, so their statehood will end.
So it is easier for the Sumerians - the mess will end sooner.
And their present owners - to hang this "millstone of fate" around the neck of Russia under the name of Ukraine.
If the stake is made on a global war, as a means of solving / nullifying all standing problems, then so be it - they have known their fate for a long time.
But seriously, it's time to stop that carnival. Lukashenka has already decided with whom he is, and what kind of future of Krajina-U he sees. So the matter is small - the reason.
Soon frosts will make Ukrainian mud passable for equipment and everything will become possible.

[Osipov9391]

Almost all "Russian oligarchs" are not under the jurisdiction of Russia, each has 3-4 passports and, accordingly, 3-4 citizenships.
But their influence in Russia is enormous. And on the President, and on both chambers of parliament and other structures.
And to these oligarchs, the West is already hinting at what will happen if Russia crosses the "red lines" with Ukraine / Donbass.
Roma will lose all their yachts and castles, and the football clubs there in Foggy Albion. And not only there. And not only him - there are many like him.
Therefore, they will now do everything in their power to leave "as is."
They are very afraid of losing their "honestly earned" there in the West.
And the state interests and the Russian world are the tenth thing for them ...
And judging by the statements, the new sanctions will not even be on the Russian State, but on these uncles. Maybe in this way they will want to kindle protests and change the government to a more complaisant one.
From the information that leaks out, one can judge that in 2014 they were "blown away" because of the danger of a breakdown of the Olympic Games in Sochi and the 2018 Football Championship.
These projects, again, were implemented by the oligarchs to a large extent. And they are very afraid of losing something.

And if everything was / is / will be, where can such a policy lead Russia?

[vervolk]

Where do you get this nonsense? it seems that the last 15 years have been in the basement. exactly the opposite is true. and the jurisdiction extends (including informal) and has no influence ... where were you when Deripaska was told to sign and return the pen? missed yes? rode on the Maidan?

[venik]

Quote: bayard

Life itself makes you change templates, although ... the very first WWII tanks and the interwar period played a similar role - infantry support tanks, etc. breakthrough tanks.

=======
Agree done!
A rapidly changing life - makes its own "adjustments"! .... You can't go anywhere! The one who can keep up with the rapidly changing situation - he will ultimately benefit! The main thing is NOT TO STOP! Only forward!
It's hard to live like thisbut Alas! I have to!

[Konnick]

But for ShMPP, fighting to support the attacking infantry is the most dear element. She also has optimal armament for this: 30 mm. guns, 30 mm. automatic grenade launchers, ATGMs to destroy suddenly appeared tanks or other armored vehicles of the enemy, a machine gun ... What else is needed for military happiness?

It is impossible to grasp the immensity ... already passed.
All of the above weapons cannot be used simultaneously, this is not even a multi-turret T-35, which, in principle, could shoot in different directions, but did not in any way show this ability in real combat operations. You cannot put eggs in one basket, especially gold ones. It is necessary for each type of weapon to have its own combat vehicle, specialized specifically for specific purposes, of much smaller dimensions. With the appearance of tanks and ATGM calculations at the same time, which goal will be in priority? Too complex fire control system, expensive chassis and large weight and dimensions for city streets. Instead of one universal, you need 2-3 specialized ones. You cannot rely only on passive protection, you need mobility, smaller dimensions in comparison with a tank. Easier and more reliable.

[bayard]

How much smaller are the dimensions?
Our tanks are already famous for their compactness, and this machine is on the T-72 chassis. With the new engine, it will be agile and agile, like ... our tanks in biathlon. And even much faster than Yu, because the cost will be the life of the crew, and doping will bring adrenaline from the excitement of the battle.
Yes, and it is already impossible to reduce anything there - what to do with the crew? he is already cramped.

Quote: Konnick

... You cannot put eggs in one basket, especially gold ones.

This is just not a basket, but that very Egg - not simple, not golden, but Steel. And its price is about the same as the modernized T-73B3M, no more.

Quote: Konnick

With the appearance of tanks and ATGM calculations at the same time, which goal will be in priority?

Which one is closer and the first to be discovered. First, a turn on an ATGM, then an ATGM on a tank. Moreover, the commander will fire a burst of cannons / machine guns, and the operator will at this time capture the tank in the sight.

Quote: Konnick

Instead of one universal, you need 2-3 specialized ones.

Well, of course - a specialist is always better than a versatile person to do his job. And it will survive. Well, you can't fit EVERYTHING into one car - tank armor, troop compartment and rapid-fire 30 mm. cannons, grenade launcher and machine gun / you. Otherwise, you get a T-15 with its price and dimensions. With the price, as it were, not higher than "Armata".
Let the tanks suppress the firing points, the accumulations of infantry and equipment with their guns from a distance safe from RPGs, the SMPP / BMPT mow down all life on the bridgehead, clearing it for the infantry, and the infantry is consolidated in the captured positions and develops success.
And the BMP will deliver the infantry to the dismounting line and observe all this disgrace from afar, and if the attack fails, they will evacuate the retreating infantry ... if the attack is successful, the wounded will be evacuated and the BC will be brought up. It is better not to meddle with their reservation in the confusion of battle unless absolutely necessary.
Every good deed needs its own, and, moreover, a good tool.
and this tool is good.

[bayard]

Quote: Konnick

not even the multi-turret T-35, which, in principle, could shoot in different directions, but which in no way showed this ability in real combat operations.

Yes, he just happened to be in the wrong war then. T-35, this is a breakthrough tank - drove into the enemy trenches and went to mow everyone to the right and left - from all 5 towers. And almost all of them were lost on the marches due to breakdowns, from air strikes, lack of fuel, or in battle, when he did not even see the enemy (they were beating from ambushes for a long time).
And he could shoot in all directions, for this he was created.
But to compare the "Terminator" with him is a SIN. This lean, toothy, fast and angry.

[Barberry25]

the T-35 had a problem with the lack of development and unreliability of equipment ... a significant part of the equipment was thrown on the march due to breakdowns, be it the T-35 / t-28 / t-34 or Churchill ..

[ism_ek]

Quote: bayard

When automatic cannons are so important to suppress firing points behind an obstacle

The purpose of the BMPT is to conduct defensive fire. Shoot at the POSSIBLE locations of the enemy and prevent the TOW or Javelin operators from firing an aimed shot.
It is expensive to carry out such random fire from a tank.
If the target has already been identified, then a shot from a tank cannon will be much more effective. The tank gun is more accurate and more powerful.

[Barberry25]

the only thing that needs to be tweaked is to put 30 tons of lsho-57 instead of one, increase the number of missiles to 6 and put on a panoramic sight Kord or a 23 mm cannon, for example am-23. In this case, there will be overwhelming firepower and the ability to fire 3-4 directions immediately

[English tarantas]

INFANTRY ASSISTANCE VEHICLE

+ + +
It was instead of a tank at the forefront. Unambiguously, a tank with more dangerous and heavy weapons immediately becomes the very first target, since it can demolish in line of sight anything at all, up to the point that it is already necessary to bomb, and the BMPs are too fragile, it is corny that the fire of a pair of KKPs will already force the BMP to hide, and if making BMP heavily armored is easier to do at the level of the tank. This is why the BMPT is a good thing, the tank is behind, at a safe distance, it does its work, and the BMPT crushes with a flurry of fire in the support (because 2 2a42 is better than the Zu-23-2, almost an awl). Moreover, the tank is actually not always a convenient vehicle, the same Syria showed how quickly the tank consumes ammunition, it is not rational to waggle 1-2 infantrymen with a 120mm land mine with a 20 rounds ammunition.
So it comes out right, on the front line infantry, BMPT, possibly TBTR, on the second line tanks, BMP with infantry, then only armored personnel carriers as a mobile reserve, so it comes out quite balanced and how fashionable is the "imbalance" picture, and in this case Breakthrough Defense BMPTs can also develop breakthroughs like tanks.
Again, it is easier and safer for the infantry to work next to the BMPT, because if the tank needs to shoot, then next to it and about 30 meters in front of the tank, all its infantry will go to the hospital, the BMPT has a combat module and is higher and the accompanying effects are lower.
Ps. I have a story even about this. One acquaintance served in the Chechen, stood at a height, a tank was attached, periodically the tank fired, and they had to generally guard it. At first there was a T-72b, and when the command to fire was received, he first started the engine and this was a signal to the infantry that they needed to take cover. But then they gave me a T-80 which I don’t know, but he already had an air force, so he shot "without warning", so my friend got a shell shock, was a couple of tens of meters in front of the tank, did not notice the "movement" that had begun and went home with severe concussion. Lucky, now he is doing well, relatively.

[Bow]

You are missing one very important point. But it does not concern the concept of "heavy armor + 30 mm / ars / etc", but this particular vehicle. This moment is both her dignity and her disadvantage. We are talking about its base. On the one hand, the creation of a machine on the basis of a once very massive tank simplified its development and made its production cheaper, but on the other hand ... On the other hand, it deprived the infantry of the most protected means of movement, which, I think, no infantryman in his right mind would refuse. Heavy infantry fighting vehicles have a place to be, under certain conditions they are very successfully used for their intended purpose. And the BMPT will never be able to. And the stock of 72s is not eternal, now they are being dismantled well for modernization.
I believe that a heavy, similarly (or better) protected and armed infantry fighting vehicle in the army will look much more logical than an infantry fighting vehicle

[bayard]

Quote: Bow

I believe that a heavy, similarly (or better) protected and armed infantry fighting vehicle in the army will look much more logical than an infantry fighting vehicle

Such an infantry fighting vehicle has already been created and can hardly be smaller in size and price.
This TBMP T-15.
A very good BMP and VERY well worth it - no less than a T-14 tank.
For this amount you can order 4 - 5 pcs. BMPT \ ShMPP based on T-72 from storage. And these tanks in storage are quite enough for all modernization needs.
And believe me, it is still better to have a separate support vehicle for the attacking / assault infantry, and a separate vehicle for delivering the infantry to the battlefield and evacuating it from this field in case of an unsuccessful attack. At the same time, the BMP-1 \ 2 \ 3 available in service will be able to successfully fulfill the role of such armored personnel carriers, and very well armed at the same time. So, for complete happiness, we just have to supplement our orders of the ShMPP / BMPT as part of battalion tactical groups (in fact, assault regiments) ...
And that’s it.
ShMPP is a consumable material on the battlefield, and believe that such TBMPs like the T-15 will not be in sufficient quantities for the troops anytime soon ... and such TBMPs should be taken out / evacuated from the battlefield rather than diving into close-range firepower themselves. battle on difficult-rough terrain or in urban combat conditions ... they are too cumbersome for that (large target) and ROAD. And believe me, they will be protected.

[AML]

It seems that the main purpose is urban battles. As the Chechen woman showed, fighting with tanks in urban areas is a bad idea.

[bayard]

And in the conditions of urban combat, and in the mountains, and on difficult-rugged terrain, and on the plain, when storming the fortified positions of the enemy, such a machine will be more than appropriate. And precisely as an infantry support vehicle during assault operations.

[Victor_B]

Unfortunately, even the military themselves have not really decided where to attach them ...
This is the case when the industry proactively, without an order from the Ministry of Defense, has created a really breakthrough and new type of armored vehicles, but there are still disputes about how to use it.

[just exp]

Can you tell me what is breakthrough in it? what can he give in terms of fire support that the BMP-2 cannot give?
okay, at least when the first version of the AG was standing, but here ...

[Victor_B]

Quote: just explo

okay, at least when the first version of the AG was standing, but here ...

has an impressive arsenal of weapons, represented by two 30-mm automatic cannons, 4 ATGM 9M120 "Attack-T", two 30-mm grenade launchers and a 7.62 mm machine gun.

so in the article ...
Maybe they riveted these?

[just exp]

but maybe not, because they were not on Terminator 2.
and they are not in the photo either

[Victor_B]

Quote: just explo

and they are not in the photo either

But in the photo for the article, it IS!
That's why I remembered about them!

[just exp]

Are you talking about PU smoke grenades? or about fencing PU from which it will not be possible to shmalnut on the upper floors with all the desire?

[venik]

Quote: just EXPL

Are you talking about PU smoke grenades? or about fencing PU from which it will not be possible to shmalnut on the upper floors with all the desire?

=======
No! He (Viktor Petrovich) - about AGS-30:

I don’t know WHO gave you a "+", but from me - "from the bottom of my heart": "-" !!!

[Grits]

Quote: just explo

but maybe not, because they were not on Terminator 2.

Yeah ... Terminator-2 without AG immediately became somehow worthless and it is not clear why it was suitable. But this is precisely the main weapon against the infantry, although it is precisely about the AG that they often forget to mention when they write something about the Terminator. The machine gun is remembered, but the AG is not remembered.
As a result, they saved on 2 crew members and immediately lost in "productivity"

[Hog]

Quote: just EXPL

Can you tell me what is breakthrough in it? what can he give in terms of fire support that the BMP-2 cannot give?
okay, at least when the first version of the AG was standing, but here ...

In the concept itself, the abandonment of infantry fighting vehicles and escort infantry.
BMPT calmly goes in the same ranks with tanks and is not an easy target (protection is like that of tanks, and not like that of BMP-1/2/3). With the appearance of the TBMP T-15 in the BMPT, the meaning simply disappeared, tk. there +/- everything is also itself + there is a landing.

[just exp]

here I’m just about too. armor was the only advantage, and the fire capabilities are the same, and with the release of TBMP, there is no particular sense in them

[Grits]

Quote: Hog

With the appearance of the TBMP T-15 in the BMPT, the meaning simply disappeared, tk. there +/- everything is also itself + there is a landing.

Don't tell. In the T-15, everything is the same, only minus one more 30 mm. cannon and minus 2 automatic grenade launchers. True plus a few more AKMs and hand grenades

[Hog]

Quote: Gritsa

Don't tell. In the T-15, everything is the same, only minus one more 30 mm. cannon and minus 2 automatic grenade launchers. True plus a few more AKMs and hand grenades

A module with a 15mm cannon is being developed on the T-57. AGS is not effective at most distances and when moving (only from stopping in trenches), while the rest of the weapons are stabilized.

[venik]

Quote: Hog

In the concept itself, the abandonment of infantry fighting vehicles and escort infantry. BMPT calmly goes in the same ranks with tanks and is not an easy target (protection is like that of tanks, and not like that of BMP-1/2/3). With the appearance of the TBMP T-15 in the BMPT, the meaning simply disappeared, tk. there +/- everything is also itself + there is a landing.

========
Alas, "did not disappear"! Here the question is - in the PRICE! The BMP-T15 costs about the same as the T-12 "Armata" ... Well, maybe a little cheaper ... The cost of the "Armata" was once estimated at $ 3.5 - 4.5 million! In reality, it turns out more .... The cost of the export T-90 is approx. $ 3 million .... And how much will it cost to re-equip the T-72 (and there are about 7 (seven!) THOUSANDS of them in long-term storage warehouses!) With the replacement of the tower - for a module and 2 AGS installations ??? .....
I think the answer is OBVIOUS! Here is the question: What is better - to build 100 BMP-T15 or 400 (!) "Terminators"? (And this is given that the conversion of the T-72 into the BMPT can be carried out not only at Uralvagonzavod, but even at tank repair factories!!!
PS God forbid! I am not against the BMP-T-15! On the contrary: - with two hands, two legs, a head and even a coccyx - FOR !!! They are needed as soon as possible and MORE-MORE and MUCH !!! And already pose-pose-yesterday[i] [/ i]!
But alas! Being a REALIST, I understand: the military budget is NOT RUBBER! And "all at once! And" all at once "- well, it will NOT work out IN ANY way !!!! EVERYTHING IS NOT ENOUGH !!!!
But to "cheat" the BMP-T-15 project is a CRIME! But in exactly the same way, "screwing" the "Terminator" project is an ERROR, closely bordering on a crime !!!

[Hog]

Alas, "did not disappear"! Here the question is - in the PRICE!

In the price, perhaps, but not a fact.
How much does it cost to convert a T-72 into an BMPT?
1) Sometimes the modification of the used equipment is more expensive than building a new one.
2) If you are going to move from the T-72/90 platform to the Armata, then there is no point in building an BMPT (based on the T-72), it is better to wait for the fine-tuning and immediately start purchasing new equipment (T-15).
3) The Terminator was needed yesterday, or better the day before, now it is obsolete. They were bought by one batch, that's all and will die out.

[abc_alex]

Quote: just explo

Can you tell me what is breakthrough in it? what can he give in terms of fire support that the BMP-2 cannot give?

The very concept of BMPT (not this one) would give tank units a new degree of freedom on the battlefield. Firstly, they could attack at full speed, and not at the speed of an infantryman, and secondly, to fight in any weather conditions, and of course in conditions of WMD infection.

[voyaka uh]

"can give BMP-2" ///
---
BMP makes its way through from any serious hit.
And the Terminator's tank armor will withstand them.
This is the difference - in the armor protection.

[just exp]

I am aware of the booking as well as at the expense of it and on the TBMP, so I asked about the FIRE opportunities

[Starover_Z]

Quote: Victor_B

This is the case when the industry proactively, without an order from the Ministry of Defense, created a really breakthrough and new type of armored vehicles,

This means that among the industrialists there was a group of former military men who had gone through "hot spots", who pushed the idea of ​​this type of equipment, if it was not an order from the Ministry of Defense.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Victor_B

Unfortunately, even the military themselves have not yet really decided where to attach them ...

Unfortunately, only war can give an accurate analysis of whether a technique is good or not. All talk about performance characteristics and advantages at the training ground is in favor of the poor. With a crookedly stamped receiver, a magazine suitable only for this particular machine gun, the Soviet Union took Berlin. And now, when the tolerance for surface treatment of small arms is not 0,2, as in the TU war, but 0, let's talk about Russia's technological lag. Let the critics of Russian weapons answer me - why in the dukans of Afghanistan Czech and Yugoslavian AKs cost 04 dollars, local ones, "made from a Chinese designer file" - a hundred, and Soviet ones - a thousand. By the way, AKC, my dear, 400. The purchasing power is three or four times lower than the "official" rate set by the New York Stock Exchange. True, the price of the dollar on the domestic market, and not on the MICEX, is not high there. He handed over his machine gun to a "chizhik" from a training course, a fellow countryman, along with his demobilization belt. I still remember the number. I don’t remember my cell phone number by heart, but I remember the number of the machine gun and the military ID.

The people who made AK and AKM can do anything. Can do ANY technique. Maybe they won't make the eighth iPhone - that's the question of the order. Let our left-hander be remembered ...

We, due to our poverty, do not have small scopes. Have our eyes shot ... (c)

[2 Level Advisor]

Igor, I completely agree with you .. with one remark .. you are talking about Soviet weapons - indeed one of the best in the world .. and the Soviet Union has not been there for more than 30 years .. Moreover, even before Soviet weapons - in the Republic of Ingushetia - especially it wasn’t something super cool to boast of to the same extent as Soviet .. people who made AK and AKM are no longer .. and it's a pity .. and as for our modern Russian weapons (not based on the best - Soviet) - once again I agree with you

Quote: Zoldat_A

Unfortunately, only war can give an accurate analysis of whether a technique is good or not. All talk about performance characteristics and advantages at the training ground is in favor of the poor.

and there is...

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

I completely agree with you .. with one remark .. you are talking about Soviet weapons

You know, Nikolai ... I have already grown up from the mobilization age, but if something needs to happen, I will go (only I’ll get out of the hospital - an accident, I broke down a bit). And I'll go with my own AKC. all these super-duper designs are for the soldiers of the 21st century. And I - already from the "old man". So it is more convenient for us with our usual "digging stick".

[2 Level Advisor]

I’m still in stock for quite a long time, but I’ll agree - it’s better with what I served - with the Soviet) although it seems to me that if they call on us, they will give us Soviet and will be given back from those warehouses .. the newfangled one will definitely not be enough for everyone

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

we definitely won't have enough newfangled for everyone

And you don't need to. Although I served in ankle boots, I will not even be offended by the "tarpaulin". Better though. of course, in "lice", in their own. And more comfortable and better quality than the nicest army ankle boots. If only they gave the AKC. I think that in warehouses for another 8-10 wars with Ukraine, they have been in store since Soviet times.

[Ramon Mercader]

It's always hard in the beginning. But the road will be mastered by the walking one.

[Blue fox]

To begin with, comparing a tracked vehicle with a wheeled vehicle is like comparing warm to soft. The rest of the evaluation criteria were somehow also not particularly objectively expressed, and first of all, a comparison with BMP (troop transport) and reconnaissance vehicles (mobility), and then the topic of BMPT protection similar to the level of a tank is not very much disclosed, which is clearly more than the concept of protection of any BMP or reconnaissance vehicle.
And yes, personally, I am in favor of a normal main tank instead of BMPT.

[Victor_B]

An example is the new French Jaguar EBRC armored vehicle with a 40mm cannon and a new generation MMP ATGM, which is said to have "comparable firepower to BMPTs and much greater mobility."

At the same time, it is much less protected.
Still, MBT and BMPT, ideally, even an ATGM can withstand.

[just exp]

he would have to raise the elevation angle for the guns so that he could work on the upper floors and put the AG on it would be nice for the Gordian battles, but IMHO to do it then in the T-15 corps, there is still KAZ.

[Gambit44]

The fact of the matter is that he, in principle, does not need ACS - it was generally a stupid idea from the beginning. There is a solution to this for a long time, which is already used by many armies of the world. Namely, he needs self-detonating ammunition that will perfectly cope with the tasks of the AGS on the battlefield, including in urban environments.

[Old tanker]

1 cannon and 2 AG - these are three barrels firing at different targets at the same time. A cannon with a remote detonation is 1 barrel that works on only one target. Feel the difference, as they say.

[2 Level Advisor]

It would be nice, but the operator is 1 pc. How will he hit 3 places at the same time?

[Old tanker]

Operator 3.

[2 Level Advisor]

I'm wrong .. yes .. although if about terminator 2, then we are both wrong - there are two of them ...

[Old tanker]

The Terminators from the AG entered service. Take a good look at the photos and videos.

[just exp]

AG will allow you to cover targets that are on the roof and inside buildings, with a gun this will not work

[Old tanker]

And the goals behind the parapet.

[Alexey G]

In my Terminator, a place in street battles !!! With two 30-mm automatic cannons, 4 ATGM 9M120 "Attack-T", two 30-mm grenade launchers and a 7.62-mm machine gun. he can crush the entrenched infantry! If you give him flamethrowers instead of ATGMs and programmable shells for the guns, he will become simply super-duper. He will be able to smoke from everywhere very efficiently.
As for the Jaguar EBRC, it is clear that his defense is weaker, so he will be hit in street battles and mobility will not help him! And on the Terminator, you can put ERA and plus the armor of the 72nd is much cooler than the French toy!

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

In my Terminator, a place in street battles !!! With two 30-mm automatic cannons, 4 ATGM 9M120 "Attack-T", two 30-mm grenade launchers and a 7.62-mm machine gun. he will be able to crush the entrenched infantry!

But what, a tank with a 120-mm cannon and a machine gun, with the support of BMP-3 with "Bakhcha", can not? A pair of BMPT cannons are not capable of simultaneously firing at targets on different sides. ATGMs on an external sling are extremely vulnerable to enemy fire, and grenade launchers, and at all course, have a very limited sector of fire. This car in the city will be no better than a tank.

Quote: Alexey G

If you give him flamethrowers instead of ATGMs and programmable shells for the guns, he will become simply super-duper.

There is already a crew of 5 people. How many people still have to be put there? And it still won't help.

[Alexey G]

BMP-3 with "Bakhcha" can, but the armor of BMP 3 is aluminum and in the forehead only from 30mm shells! you can't put it in one line next to a tank! And to shoot from a tank gun at a large infantry is expensive and slow. The gutters are vulnerable and protection can be improved I do not argue

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

BMP-3 with "Bakhcha" can, but the armor of BMP 3 is aluminum and in the forehead only from 30mm shells! you can't put it in one line next to a tank! And to shoot from a tank gun at a large infantry is expensive and slow. The gutters are vulnerable and protection can be improved I do not argue

In China, in Tiananmen Square, local "students" burned tanks with blankets and cans of gasoline. This I mean, if you do not drive away the hunters from the tank, they will burn it without even piercing the armor. And the BMPT is no better than a tank. And worse than a pair of tank-infantry fighting vehicles. The couple can at least control both sides of the street with machine guns on the left and right. But BMPT cannot. If she enters the city, they will burn her as quickly as a tank. And inevitably it will be used exclusively from a distance. But her main caliber is 4 ATGMs. Few. There are more 120 mm shells in the tank. And if together with 100-mm BMP shells - even more so. And 30-mm cannons are unlikely to help fight infantry behind rubble and ruins. And it will not demolish and will not throw a projectile along a ballistic trajectory.

Talking about the BMPT, you need to remember that its "gun store" was designed as an auxiliary one working with tank weapons. This is a tank escort vehicle. She is not independent in her design.

[Alexey G]

https://youtu.be/Wuk3eeJEOUM посмотрите как пушки 30 мм долбят пехоту, если они с ДВ! А у терминатора и пулемет имеется!

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

https://youtu.be/Wuk3eeJEOUM посмотрите как пушки 30 мм долбят пехоту, если они с ДВ! А у терминатора и пулемет имеется!

So it's in an open field. And we are talking about urban combat. Conditions when the crew does not see the trenches 200 meters in front of him. And it is necessary not to fire at open trenches with motionless dummies, directly along the front, but to control the front and both flanks. Here is a photo from Grozny in 1995.
https://tvzvezda.ru/storage/news_other_images/original/2017/06/09/29a84939ef1348789e5b95b11c3dab58.jpg

https://cdnn21.img.ria.ru/images/103682/91/1036829102_0:0:1788:1226_1440x900_80_0_1_88c03b0fc93a841d01c54b3ae8e13209.jpg.webp?source-sid=ap_photo

Here are the real conditions of urban combat. This is not a half-brick wall or open-air trenches. And tons of broken bricks and concrete in the form of rubble and parapet, dozens of closed positions and multilayer engineering structures, which from 10 fools with a diameter of 30 mm will not fold and will not fall apart ...

[Alexey G]

Good photos! I saw it and yes, I agree, the training ground is not a real battle, but fundamentally it does not change much! High-speed guns and even from the Far East will help the tanks! DV makes it possible to fire at people behind cover and no matter where they are hiding in a house, a trench, behind a heap of bricks or on a roof! The explosion will occur over their ear! As soon as the firing point is spotted their end! The only way out is a quick change of positions, but then the fire of the defense will not be dense and the attackers will be able to advance! These guns do not need to fold thick walls, as in the assault on Konigsberg! They fly into the embrasure and explode over the ear! If you are behind a closed position, the projectile will explode right over your head, the drone will give you the exact location and let's go! The technology of information civilization works subtly! The problem is quickly and efficiently recognizing targets! But here recon drones and communication with crews will help!
I am sure that if these cars were in Grozny then, we would have felt better!

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alexey G

I am sure that if these cars were in Grozny then, we would have felt better!

I do not doubt that. But the problem of the BMPT in this case will be the same as that of the tank - to see. Spot. The grenade launcher in the basement or in the rubble under a concrete slab is invisible from a height and is hardly noticeable from the tank turret. Drones are unlikely to solve the problem specifically for urban combat. Although there are not many alternatives to them.
To shoot "into the embrasure" of the BMPT, you need to come pretty close to the target, be in the line of sight and not 3 kilometers away. Still, the 2A42 is remarkable for its power, and not for its sniper accuracy. In this case, she herself risks falling under fire from grenade launchers and ATGMs.

Under equal conditions, the tank can fire from a much greater distance, and the power of the 120-mm projectile will solve the lack of accuracy.

[Alexey G]

Well, if the problem is how to pronounce it in 2A42, then you can put the 57th caliber

[abc_alex]

Exactly. :)
What I'm talking about is that to support the infantry in the city, you need a vehicle armed in a different way. In my opinion, these should be two independent machine gun and grenade launcher modules on the sides, one artillery and machine gun system in the center. And ATGM, if done, then order a system with a vertical launch, put it inside the hull and equip the vehicle with a target holding system.
And the BMPT, in the first version, in the second version, is not suitable for supporting the infantry in the city. It's better than nothing, but worse than the BMP-3 and the tank.

[Gambit44]

Well, just as an auxiliary paired with a tank. I remember initially she thought that it seemed like two BMPTs would work in tandem with one such, i.e. in the city, they must act in such "troikas" and at the same time they will be actively supported by the assault infantry.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Gambit44

Well, just as an auxiliary paired with a tank. I remember initially she thought that it seemed like two BMPTs would work in tandem with one such, i.e. in the city, they must act in such "troikas" and at the same time they will be actively supported by the assault infantry.

No. It was conceived for combined-arms combat "in the field", it is not a replacement for 2 infantry fighting vehicles, it is a way to remove the infantry from the battlefield and give the tank the ability to maneuver at normal speed. If we are talking about BMPT. And this car was conceived for an incomprehensible reason. Here the military is trying to "glue" it to something ...

[Old tanker]

And worse than a pair of tank-infantry fighting vehicles. The couple can at least control both sides of the street with machine guns on the left and right.

The fact of the matter is that two in one are more effective than just two. For two units of armored vehicles acting together in battle, the organization of interaction and constant communication (which in battle may not be from the word at all) is already needed. In case of loss or lag (for any reason) of one of the pair, we lose half of the complementary second. And accordingly, we immediately make it an easier target.

Well, at the expense of controlling a pair of streets left and right. Yes, they can both left and right with their towers. Only now forward on the course, in this case, they have nothing to control. And BMPT at the rate controls the AG. And with the tower to the left, then to the right. And it's all one.
So during the assault on the city, he will provide the infantry with more effective support in battle formations than a pair of tank-infantry fighting vehicles.
And if a couple is a tank-BMPT, it's generally a beauty. BMPT immediately behind the battle formations of the infantry, and the tank from far away with a powerful cannon at the identified nodes of resistance.
How we lacked BMPT in August 96! Our brigade then, during the assault on Grozny, did not lose a single tank, but the BMP pretty much.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Old Tankman

The fact of the matter is that two in one are more effective than just two. For two units of armored vehicles acting together in battle, the organization of interaction and constant communication are already needed

Nevertheless, it was intended to work in tandem with a tank. He is the War_Machine_Support_Tanks... Initially, she was not supposed to have any independent role.

Quote: Old Tankman

Yes, they can both left and right with their towers. Only now forward on the course, in this case, they have nothing to control.

The BMP-3 has 2 course machine guns.
In the T-72 - 12,7mm on the turret, in theory, it can control the front.
The T-90 has a DUM turret with a machine gun.
At the T-14 - the bottom of the DUM tower with a machine gun.
So at least three machine guns can always look at the front.

Quote: Old Tankman

And BMPT at the rate controls the AG.

And there are no course AGs in the BMPT-2. Removed. Because the crew was too big. And even if with him, it still turns out that the BMP / Tank pair controls three directions (the flanks are good and the front is worse), and the BMPT does not control one direction at all. The whole module is spinning at once.

Quote: Old Tankman

BMPT immediately behind the battle formations of the infantry, and the tank from far away with a powerful cannon at the identified nodes of resistance.

So what is this then a tank support vehicle? :)
Well, that's what I'm saying that the "Terminators" of UVZ are anything but BMPT. Strange tanks, gun shops, whatever you call them. But they cannot fulfill their main task. They have to defend the tanks not together with the infantry and certainly not to go behind it. They have to defend the tanks instead of infantry.
And what did UVZ do? Rocket tank? No. Anti-personnel tank? No.
Tank for urban combat? Again, no.
I now see the ideal purpose for her - a support for the checkpoint. In front, warm up a shaft made of earth, broken brick or put a wall of foundation slabs, on the sides there are trenches for shooters and a dugout with a generator.

Quote: Old Tankman

Our brigade then, during the assault on Grozny, did not lose a single tank, but the BMP pretty much.

So you needed a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. Something that can deliver you to the battlefield and support you with fire. How will you eat on BMPT? On horseback? Yes, I agree, now the infantry needs a mobile artillery system in the caliber of 30 ... 50 mm, and it is not just that every time the front-line craftsmen fence up "carts" from ZU 23-2. Well, it is the infantry fire support vehicle that needs to be done, since the tanks no longer perform this function. Only without freaks with two guns or ATGMs on an external sling.

[Old tanker]

The BMP-3 has 2 course machine guns.
In the T-72 - 12,7mm on the turret, in theory, it can control the front.
The T-90 has a DUM turret with a machine gun.
At the T-14 - the bottom of the DUM tower with a machine gun.
So at least three machine guns can always look at the front.

The BMP-3 machine guns are firing from the gunners. Which, when dismounted, the machine guns will not have.
The tank commander must turn his head (turret) 360 °, and not control only one sector.
Well, ro a bunch of BMPT-tank, you are right. And it is much more effective in terms of firepower than a bunch of tank-infantry fighting vehicles. It is because of the 2-course AG. Which have not been removed anywhere.

And there are no course AGs in the BMPT-2. Removed

Take a close look at the photos and videos of BMPTs that entered 90td.
In different combat situations, the place of the tank in the battle is different. And not always ahead of the rest of the planet.
In urban combat, infantry can also be delivered to the battle site on horseback. Since she enters the city on foot from the outskirts in front of the infantry fighting vehicles, which cover her with their fire. And the tanks act on the call of the infantry, like a distant hand on direct fire. In the case when it is impossible to cover with artillery.
Columns during the assault on settlements are not driven. The bitter experience of the 131st brigade and the 81st mechanized infantry brigade taught.
Well, to have only heavy infantry fighting vehicles in the army is stupidity.
Well, the BMPT is in fact not only a support vehicle for tanks, but also for any units. Including assault engineering, for example. Therefore, there was once a proposal to rename it to a fire support combat vehicle. Which is more consistent with its essence.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Old Tankman

Take a close look at the photos and videos of BMPTs that entered 90td.

Nevertheless, the BMPT-2 has no course grenade launchers. And it is unlikely that UVZ will begin to make serially a 5-seater car. At least now he has no orders for it. Those 10 machines that are being tested in the RF Armed Forces are everything that has been done in previous years. The current orders for Kazakhstan and Algeria are BMPT-2.

Quote: Old Tankman

In urban combat, infantry can also be delivered to the battle site on horseback. Since she enters the city on foot from the outskirts in front of the infantry fighting vehicles, which cover her with their fire. And the tanks act on the call of the infantry, like a distant hand on direct fire. In the case when it is impossible to cover with artillery.
Columns during the assault on settlements are not driven. The bitter experience of the 131st brigade and the 81st mechanized infantry brigade taught.
Well, to have only heavy infantry fighting vehicles in the army is stupidity.

I will not dispute your theses, they are certainly true. And I have already agreed that the modern infantry in the city needs a support combat vehicle with artillery 30..57 mm. I just want to say that BMPT in this role is not optimal. It combines the worst properties of an infantry fighting vehicle and a tank, without having their best properties. This car is hastily assembled and does not really meet any requirements. For example, a shot from an RPG that is not even the latest modification will bring the BMPT weapon module into a limitedly usable, if not unusable state. And to protect it with hinged armor or KAZ is simply not realistic. Only in BMPT-2 UVZ somehow tried to solve this problem.

Quote: Old Tankman

The tank commander must turn his head (turret) 360 °, and not control only one sector.

Exactly! This is also why the BMPT in its current form is no better than a tank. Distribution of roles in the crew: mechanic driver, gunner-grenade launchers, commander and gunner-gunner. The question arises: who performs the functions of the ATGM operator? If an artilleryman, then I envy the toughness of this guy: he has a couple of cannons, a machine gun and ATGMs, he probably has 2 heads and 4 arms. :) But the BMPT's guns are not stabilized ...
If the commander, then during the period of the shot he ceases to fulfill his direct duties "to turn his head 360".

Therefore, apparently in the video of field tests and in many photos from Syria, ATGMs are not installed on BMPTs at all.

Apparently the military quickly realized that there was simply no one to shoot ATGMs. After all, for example, in the Mi-28 and Ka-52 "Attack" is serviced by a dedicated crew member, and he is also assisted by the target holding system ...

Quote: Old Tankman

Columns during the assault on settlements are not driven. The bitter experience of the 131st brigade and the 81st mechanized infantry brigade taught.

It's not about the column. The car is not moving over the ruins. She is driving along the road. In the city, this road can be shot from the flanks. Moreover from both simultaneously. That is why, for example, in Berlin, tanks moved along the streets on a ledge, controlling each of their sides.
According to the idea of ​​the BMPT, it was supposed to solve this problem. This is what the prototype, commissioned by the military, looked like:

See? Two independent fire module. This combat vehicle had an independent battery of a machine gun, AG, and a 30mm cannon on each side. I think that such a machine could be released into urban combat to support the infantry not on the basis of "better than nothing" but on the basis of "optimal for this purpose." No?

Quote: Old Tankman

Well, to have only heavy infantry fighting vehicles in the army is stupidity.

Indisputably. But considering the BMPT as a means of supporting the infantry in the city is also not correct. Here it is shown what exactly this machine was created for.

Quote: Old Tankman

Well, the BMPT is in fact not only a support vehicle for tanks, but also for any units.

Unfortunately, it cannot support tanks. Shitty constructed. As for "any subdivisions", I hope it will be used during the tests. Not found yet.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You are absolutely right in a city battle it is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle that is needed, so that reinforcements with ammunition can be thrown to any point, and the wounded can be taken out.

[Alexey G]

And it still won't help.

Well, you don't need to sit down more people for this, but the effectiveness of firing such projectiles is magical!
https://youtu.be/Wuk3eeJEOUM вот тут посмотрите

[paul3390]

Duc - in Terminator-2, it seems like grenade launchers are already netting .. In general, it is a strange device, right to say, it can no longer use anything attached to it, although for the declared tasks it seems like a mounted fire is simply necessary. For some reason, a 30-mm spark, what - one barrel would not be enough? And instead of it - it seems like something 57-mm is asking for, and the power on the target is more solid, and there is a programmable detonation .. But - no .. Four Attacks is not enough for a long battle? At least one - definitely with a godfather should be, in case of meeting with armored vehicles. So there is a maximum of three left to work on fortifications and infantry? Etc..

[abc_alex]

Not the word "weird". It is not for nothing that they will not accept it in the troops for almost 30 years. It absolutely does not correspond to its name and the original TK. In theory, the military of the USSR ordered something like the T-28, but "on transistors." We needed a car with several autonomous firing points. And at UVZ they made a "strange tank". In this car, everything is absurd: a couple of guns, and an ATGM outside, and coursework grenade launchers. In my opinion, the vehicle should have two independent machine-gun and grenade launcher modules (12,7 and 40 mm), one 30..57 mm cannon, and if you put an ATGM, then remove them behind the armor, like on Chrysanthemum. And several sighting systems so that the vehicle can simultaneously fire on both sides and the front.

[Gambit44]

There is definitely a healthy grain in this reasoning))

[riwas]

For some reason, a 30-mm spark, what - one barrel would not be enough?

I thought so too, until I read that one of her cannons fires only armor-piercing shells, and the other - fragmentation shells.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

One barrel is definitely not enough. Switching between tapes in automatic mode is almost unattainable. And the choice between armor-piercing and fragmentation ammunition is needed. Otherwise I agree.

[Hermann]

Although the 2A42 cannon is two-tape, this has not been implemented on the BMPT, there was not enough space to bring two tapes to each cannon, so there each cannon has its own type of ammunition, so only one of the two cannons will work on the infantry.

[Old tanker]

It all depends on the task ahead in battle. Nothing prevents you from loading both cannons with fragmentation cannons.
BMPT acts in conjunction with tanks as infantry cleaners in the trenches. More serious targets are hit by tanks. So, armor-piercing BMPTs can be skipped.
A tank platoon is given 1 MSO per infantry fighting vehicle. But if a tank platoon is given an BMPT, then the firepower increases significantly in comparison with the BMP.
And if we take into account that we can lose the BMP even before the start of the battle, since it will be hit by close explosions of artillery shells due to its light armor, then the tanks will be left without support at all.
But even the TV + TBMP bundle is inferior in firepower to the TV-BMPT bundle. But TV without mso on BMP is a great rarity, so BMPT is also a plus to them - it's already a serious punch.

[Hermann]

I'm not saying that the BMPT is not needed, I just would like more opportunities, armor-piercing shots are also needed to defeat light armored vehicles so that the ATGM is not spent.

[Old tanker]

This is if the BMPT acts independently. And if together with tanks, then some fragmentation is enough. Although you can combine in the tape. For example 1 BT, after 2-3 OFZ. It will be possible to work out on light armor. Yes, and guided missiles, paired with a high-explosive unit, set up to beat the shelters.
So there are enough options and combinations.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You are exaggerating the capabilities of the 30mm 2A42 cannon. Even its creators mentioned it. that at ranges close to 2 km, the ATGM calculation can only be hit by accident. Even the presence of shells with remote detonation is unlikely to dramatically improve the situation. For such a heavy chassis, a weak and inaccurate cannon is out of place. A version of the Epoch combat module with a wider shoulder strap, where it would be possible to place an additional high-ballistic small-caliber cannon in addition to the 57-mm low-ballistics gun, would have looked much better.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The availability of space here does not matter. The mechanism for switching belts with different ammunition and manually switching the task is not an easy task, automation is definitely beyond the power of this. Therefore, two separate barrels due to the difficulty of switching between belts.

[LiSiCyn]

BMPT is primarily designed for assault operations in urban areas. Destruction of grenade launchers and snipers. Compared to the "Frenchman", I would bet on "The Terminator". In addition to tank armor, there is also such an important fact as tracked chassis. Which again, in the conditions of urban battles (and not only), is a definite plus.
Conclusion: BMPT - designed for assault. And for defense we have Chrysanthemums.

[abc_alex]

Quote: LiSiCyn

BMPT is primarily designed for assault operations in urban areas. Destruction of grenade launchers and snipers.

No. These are UVZ specialists, having received an echo from the RF Ministry of Defense, and began to invent where to stick it. In real life, the BMPT "is designed to replace motorized rifle troops on the battlefield, which provides protection of tanks from being hit by anti-tank weapons of a potential enemy ".

[eehnie]

Combat experience has proven the correctness and usefulness of this concept. It is not for nothing that the ZSU-23-4 is one of the types of weapons, the production of which was completed earlier, that is, it will continue in the Russian Armed Forces after the process of reducing the combat fleets, and this is absolutely correct.

It should not be forgotten that the main role of this type of weapon was and remains air defense. This is the key in this case. The role of supporting the main battle tanks against infantry in urban environments is secondary, and the fact that the armor from earlier versions of the concept was reinforced in order to withstand this secondary role in the best conditions should not make one forget about the main role of the concept.

While the main weapons of this concept still have a longer range in air defense than portable weapons, the weapons of this concept will remain conceptually modern with no structural flaws.

(Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

Combat experience proved the concept right and useful. Not in vain, the ZSU-23-4 is one the weapons which production finished earlier, that is to continue in the Russian Armed Forces after the process of reduction of the combat fleets, and this it is fully correct. The BMPT is only the evolution of the concept in order to afford in better conditions a secondary role.

It is necessary to forget not that the main role of this type of weapon was and is air defense. This is the key in this case. The role of support to Main Battle Tanks against infantry in urban environments is a secondary role, and the fact of strenghtening the armor from earlier versions of the concept in order to face in better conditions this secondary role, must not make to forget the main role of the concept.

While the main weapons of this concept remain having a longer range on air defense than main-portable weapons, the weapons of this concept will remain conceptually modern, without structural weaknesses.

[Nikolaevich I]

I do not believe in the "need" for BMPT in the form that is offered by the industry! BMPT, or rather BMOP (Fighting vehicle for fire support of motorized rifle (!) And tank units ...) may be in demand among the troops, but in a slightly different "format"! Repeatedly I "agitated" about the need for an air defense combat vehicle to support tank and motorized rifle units ... The main purpose of the BMPT-air defense is to combat "long-range" anti-tank weapons! (Western analogue-MNTK ...)

[Geofiz]

If he is handed 30mm shells with remote detonation, shrapnel (fragmentation) type, it will be a good help in the fight against UAVs.
It seems already written that ours have developed such an ammunition ...

[abc_alex]

Quote: Geofiz

If he is handed 30mm shells with remote detonation, shrapnel (fragmentation) type, it will be a good help in the fight against UAVs.

No. The problem with tanks, even those strange ones like BMPTs, is that they are "blind". How will BMPT detect UAVs? Through the eyes of the operator? See how Tunguska looks like, sharpened to destroy flying objects. Like the same cannons, the same missiles outside. But there are already TWO radars. So the BMPT will first need to be installed at least one. In order for the BMPT to become useful in protecting against UAVs, its "weapons store" must be built like a sword-type air defense system. In the center of the OLS or radar, on the sides are a pair of weapon modules.

[Old tanker]

Why are you up against the UAV? Karabakh syndrome straight! Combined arms units in the Russian army have long been reliably covered by echeloned military air defense and electronic warfare. Attack drones for military air defense are fairly easy targets. The problem is in stealthy light reconnaissance UAVs, directing artillery, and loitering ammunition. Which all the same, not a single tank, BMP, BMPT will find! And this is not their job, but "Derivation-Air Defense". Which has already begun to enter the anti-aircraft divisions of motorized rifle and tank units.

[Klingon]

Quote: just EXPL

he would have to raise the elevation angle for the guns so that he could work on the upper floors and put the AG on it would be nice for the Gordian battles, but IMHO to do it then in the T-15 corps, there is still KAZ.

On the first version, there were 2 AGS in mini sponsons, the firing sector is 90 ° (2x45) along the course. It was a so-so decision. it is better to finish off 30mm ammunition to the version with DV or install a module with 57mm caliber

[storm]

BMPT - 72 in modern configuration are only suitable for engineering troops:
1. To support assault groups during battles in the city, where a BMPT company for an engineer assault battalion should be enough.
2. BMPT can be useful for covering from tank-hazardous infantry TOS Buratino and Solntsepek, which, due to their short firing range, are forced to move 3-5 km to the front line.
So the Kazakhs did this by the way with 10 units purchased from Russia. BMPT.

[Old tanker]

I think that in the future it will be so
One remark. The troops are now not BMPT-72, and BMPT "Terminator" with 2 course AGs.

[aszzz888]

make a conclusion in the French edition.

A common marketing ploy is to cheat a competitor.

[Vasyan1971]

An example is the new French armored vehicle Jaguar EBRC

It was here that the dog rummaged. Putting down a possible competitor in order to elevate your craft and you will be happy!

[tuts]

Israel was the first to massively use the conversion of tanks into heavy armored personnel carriers.Here is a good article on this topic
https://topwar.ru/166732-ahzarit-izrailskij-btr-iz-sovetskih-tankov.html

[Yaro Polk]

For Donbass, it’s something, all sorts of fascist bandelogs wet.

[riwas]

BMPT idea is doomed to failure

The idea is very correct, but the car needs to be improved. We need a system of sensors for detecting threats and the main AI in order to find targets and aim weapons at them with a minimum of time. In addition, BMPT must have the ability to deal with attack drones and helicopters, and must also have a developed jamming system to cover protected vehicles or objects and be able to intercept UAB and UR.

[SVD68]

Wouldn't it be better to send information to the automated control system, which will determine that a neighboring tank, UAV, mortar or howitzer from the second line, etc., should hit this target?

[malyvalv]

Not only firepower is good technology. We also need protection. Going for a breakthrough in the same formation with tanks must have at least the same protection. In addition, despite the firepower of the tank, the rate of fire is lame. So the BMPT appeared. Although the T-15 will certainly be better as the landing force is also lucky. But expensive.

[Graz]

the mistake is, in my opinion, that two modifications should be made on the same chassis, but with slightly different weapons.
need a tank support vehicle this time
and you need an assault vehicle for urban battles that's two

[Skipper]

Well, what's the problem ... in a hypothetical duel between the Terminator and this new French armored vehicle? The 40mm cannon does not roll against the Terminator's armor. That is, both will come down to detecting and firing their ATGMs. Whose ATGM is better is the one who will win.

[Sergey39]

Yes! For these great military experts, the Maginot Line was considered an insurmountable obstacle and, of course, driving tribes across North Africa is not storming cities!

[Castro Ruiz]

Beat bi TBMP T-15 thistot Terminator beat bi superfluous / unnecessary.

[AC130 Gunship]

Speed ​​65 km / h. Crew - 5 people. Will be a good target for tanks

[Roman Efremov]

A wheeled armored car with bulletproof armor to compare with the Terminator? .................... And that it would be nice for him to change the gun to a 57-mm one, with 2 types of shells and with a high elevation angle barrel for the ability to shoot through the air - yes. Today's 30mm doesn't look very good anymore.

[oberstz]

BMPT is a balanced and thoughtful development of the "Frame" project, unified with MBT (and simply with a massive waste chassis) for operations in the same echelon with tanks to destroy infantry and lightly armored vehicles.
BMP projects T14, etc. all the same, for actions and support of motorized infantry and various special operations ...

PS> to install a module with "Epoch" class weapons on BMPT is not an insurmountable problem

[Borisych]

France is the kind of country that gets beaten all the time. All and sundry. Algerians, Papuans, Vietnamese and the list is very long. The Japanese do too. Even the Naglo-Saxons. First they abandoned it in Dunkirk, then they drowned the fleet, then they added it in Africa. I am silent about the Russians and the Germans, we had a full blast. Therefore, all French experts should be approached from this point of view. Their map is a bit.

[Jan]

T-14, T-14 here's the Termnator! And what is wrong? Is the tower not inhabited? Yes, not inhabited! Is the crew protected? Unfortunately, not really! So there is something to do: well, there is a more powerful gun, and so on. etc. And then they blinded a fool above three meters and where now with her ?! Everything is easy right there: landing, maneuverable and fast! Go see, aim and hit ... not so easy!

[older]

Quote: bayard

Quote: just explo

more precisely for village battles, because the upper floors will not fire.

And you roll back a bit, look and fire.

Quote: just explo

and for real intense urban battles you need a heavy self-propelled bunker

Yes, a couple of "Bumblebees" on such a bunker, it will end.
In such battles, to support the biting "villain" ShMPP \ BMPT will just be in place.
but a large caliber is also needed to destroy capital buildings and highly protected objects.

Quote: just explo

and weapons - 152mm small ballistics

Small ballistics dooms you to a short range of combat. But remember about the T-95 rejected by the scoundrel iPhone, and implement such a weapon on the Armata platform ... moreover, using for this chassis not a tank, but ... TBMP T-15, where such a weapon will stand like a dear, ammunition will accommodate sufficient , and the security of the T-15 is higher than that of the T-14 ... and the crew is in the aft ... There, in the aft, as in the "Merkava", you can take a small troop (3-4 people) with you. This is how the assault tank with the ultimate caliber will turn out. On an existing platform.
And the gun for the T-95 was ready ...
Only to hit the floors of buildings is better not at close range, but from a certain distance.
And the AGS can be installed on the roof of the tower - all-aspect and with telecontrol.

are we going to SHILKA?

[older]

IMHO. If there is a surplus of 72 carts, then it may be time to get confused with heavy BMPs, as a Jew out of 55 do. a useful thing and will save more lives. And then we have a terminator, and the infantry on the armor on top is nonsense

[Clone]

Where could I see this "machine" from my far historical point of view of the commander of a reconnaissance company ... In the "infantry". Into space ...