Military Review

Russian BMPT in French

75
At the beginning of the 199s, Uralvagonzavod demonstrated its new development - Object XNUMX. When creating this vehicle, the goal was to provide fire support. tank connections in various battle conditions. For this reason, "Object 199" received an alternative designation BMPT (Tank Support Fighting Vehicle). The theme on which the project was created bore the code "Frame", which eventually became the name of the machine itself.

By design, the BMPT is a kind of “hybrid” of the main tank and infantry fighting vehicle: a tower with a relatively weak weaponry for heavy armored vehicles is mounted on the tank chassis. At the same time, a complex of 7,62-mm machine guns, automatic guns of caliber 30 millimeters, automatic grenade launchers and anti-tank guided missiles are in some respects not inferior to tank guns. The main purpose of the BMPT is to escort tanks, detect and destroy tank-dangerous targets, enemy light fortifications, as well as tanks. According to the calculations of the designers, one “Frame”, thanks to a variety of weapons, is able to replace six infantry fighting vehicles and 40 men of motorized rifle assault. Because of such high rates of calculated efficiency, the unofficial nickname “Terminator” stuck to the combat vehicle.

BMPT "Terminator" (photo http://pesochinsky.livejournal.com)


In the middle of the two thousandth, the first information appeared regarding the prospects of the project. Representatives of the Ministry of Defense talked about planned purchases of BMPT, as they say, in commercial quantities. In addition, the project was created on the basis of the chassis of existing tanks, which would allow the existing equipment to be converted into new combat vehicles. There were promises for the year 2010 to form the first company "Frame" in the Russian armed forces. However, new messages were received in 2010. As it turned out, the commanders could not enter the BMPT in the current budget, and also did not find a place for it in the concept of using armored troops and, as a result, were forced to abandon the procurement. Since then, a seemingly promising project has not received appropriate distribution. All orders were limited to ten units, which are now being delivered to Kazakhstan.

It is quite obvious that the rejection of the purchase of a new combat vehicle could not but cause a certain reaction on the part of experts in the field of weapons and fans of military equipment. In the statements of some of them, an undoubtedly interesting and promising machine turned into a kind of miracleweaponable to save the whole army alone and win any war. The leadership of the military department, respectively, in these theses acquired the appearance of villains and traitors who want to destroy the entire defense of the country. Such categorical statements always make one doubt their truth, which has led to numerous disputes. If desired, it is not difficult to find another online forum with similar proceedings and examine all the arguments of the parties, most of which relate exclusively to the technical and combat characteristics of BMPT.

More rarely, attention was paid to the tactical side of using the "Terminator" or even to the very necessity of such a machine. Arguments to appeal to foreign experience were often used in debates on the topic of necessity. In other words, if the BMPT was demonstrated ten years ago and during this time no foreign analogs appeared, does it make sense to develop this theme? It cannot be said that this argument is devoid of logic, although it is perhaps also difficult to agree with it. As it turned out, the opinion about the absence of analogues abroad was based on the absence of relevant information. A similar project in recent years has been developed by French designers.

This week in the blog of the famous expert in the field of armored vehicles A. Khlopotov a small note appeared about an interesting publication in the French magazine Raids. The latest issue of the publication is entirely devoted to the recent Eurosatory-2012 exhibition held in Paris. Among other publications in the journal there is an article about the Russian car BMPT. In general, the material is nothing interesting - a description stories, characteristics, etc. In general, everything that is usually written about a new technique in advertising brochures or review articles. The attention of the expert was attracted by the surname of the author of the publication of "Frame". He was widely known in certain circles, Mark Shasillan. This man at one time participated in the work on the French main battle tank AMX-56 Leclerc and rose to the post of director of the program. Monsieur Chasillan spoke well of the Russian project and spoke a little bit of the little-known Leclerc T40.

As it turned out, a few years after the first demonstration of the Terminator, the designers of GIAT started working on a similar machine. The idea of ​​supporting tanks with small-caliber artillery fire and machine guns appealed to French engineers and attracted the attention of the military. However, for more successful advancement, the project was initially positioned as a reconnaissance tank, and not as a vehicle supporting the main tanks. The project called Leclerc T40 meant dismantling the AMX-56 tank from the home turret and installing a new combat module in its place. The basis for armament T40 became automatic gun CTA caliber 40 millimeters. Auxiliary armament of the “reconnaissance tank” is a machine gun placed on a remote-controlled turret in the upper part of the tower, as well as two four-barreled smoke grenade launchers. The crew consists of three people: driver, gunner and commander. Unlike the Russian BMPT, the T40 does not have automatic grenade launchers in the fencing shelves and does not need additional arrows for them.

Several images of the designed TGNUMX Leclerc were attached to the Chassilan article. It follows from them that the French engineers were more likely to adhere to the general concept of the vehicle for escorting tanks, rather than trying to copy the Russian “Object 40”. Thus, the updated Leclerc with a new weapon system does not have the ability to simultaneously transport and use a large number of guided anti-tank missiles. Moreover, the available images do not show any devices for installing transport-launch containers of an ATGM like MILAN or ERIX. Perhaps with the further development of the project T199 would receive rocket armament in addition to the receiver.

The means of protection of tank support vehicles also vary considerably. Both of them were created on the basis of the main battle tanks and generally inherited the concept of providing protection for the crew and the main components of the structure. In the case of BMPT, there is a counter-booking with the possibility of installing dynamic protection. T40, in turn, is fully compatible with attachments of the project Leclerc AZUR. On the front of the armored hull mounted additional protection modules. The stern of the T40 combat vehicle is covered with anti-cumulation grilles. A set of equipment for the Leclerc tank called AZUR (Actions en Zone Urbaine - Actions in urban environments), as its name implies, was created to ensure the safety of armored vehicles in urban areas and on similar battlefields, where high speed is not required, but good level of protection from all angles.

Specifications "Leclerc" T40, unfortunately, were not called. Therefore, it is necessary to be content only with the available information on the relevant indicators of the base tank AMX-56. Perhaps the lighter tower "reconnaissance tank" slightly increased the maximum speed or throughput. However, all the advantages of a new combat module could be “eaten” by the weight of additional protection. Anyway, there are no exact data at least regarding the calculated characteristics of T40.

The fate of the 199 Object and Leclerc T40 projects is somewhat similar. The first exists in several prototypes and small series. The French combat vehicle is still available only in the form of drawings. The fact is that the design of the updated Leclerc was completed at the very moment when the French government began to cut defense spending. The Fifth Republic did not even have money to build a prototype. When promoting T40, even the offer to make these vehicles out of the withdrawn tanks did not help. The military department was adamant. It did not allow to assemble and test even a new combat module.

Why Monsieur Chasillan wrote about T40 right now is not entirely clear. Moreover, the logic of comparing this machine with the Russian BMPT is rather difficult to see. Yes, the equipment of both projects is designed to fire tanks from tank-hazardous targets. But the appearance of the machines varies considerably: the composition of the armament "Frames" allows you to attack and destroy enemy tanks. T40 does not have such powerful weapons and rather is designed to work with lightly armored or unprotected targets and enemy manpower. Protection of the French military vehicle rather transparently hints at the alleged conditions of use - a city or another similar locality where the threat can come from all sides. This is precisely the reason for the lack of anti-tank missiles and related equipment.

Tank support vehicles, despite the general aspects of the concept, are quite different among themselves and the reasons for putting them in one article are a separate issue. A. Khlopotov expressed the opinion that the French engineer did not fail to recall the project with “political” goals. Probably, Chasillan knows the existence of many disputes around BMPT and he tried using his original method to promote his Leclerc T40, telling the general public about it. In this case, under the pressure of the interest of the popular masses, T40 will be able to reach at least the prototype stage. Of course, this is only an assumption, but in advancing their projects, engineers sometimes go for big tricks.




(photo http://gurkhan.blogspot.com)


On the materials of the sites:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/
http://raids.histoireetcollections.com/
http://tank-t-90.ru/
http://arms-expo.ru/
http://raigap.livejournal.com/
http://defense-update.com/
Author:
75 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Hon
    Hon 21 September 2012 08: 47
    +1
    And where is the head of the UralVagonZavod workshop, why isn’t he promoting the car? Or did he already achieve what he wanted, and the peasants with whom he wanted to disperse the rallies would be gone? !!!
    1. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 21 September 2012 14: 54
      +13
      The shop manager should not be engaged in the promotion of machines in the market. There is a sales and marketing department for this.
      1. Hon
        Hon 21 September 2012 15: 24
        0
        So now he is the presidential envoy, licked well laughing
        1. vorobey
          vorobey 21 September 2012 15: 36
          +6
          Quote: Hon
          presidential envoy, licked well

          envy?
          1. Hon
            Hon 21 September 2012 15: 49
            0
            it seems not, only he was so cruel about how stability is dear to him, but at the same time the Moscow Region does not purchase UralWagonZavod products, it was necessary to support the Prime Minister of India, it is he who gives stability to the plant’s employees.
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 5 October 2012 23: 43
              0
              Does anyone know why we do not use the 6 system of spinning trunks? Well, yes, you need a motor, but you can shoot much faster, and the trunks serve longer, and they heat less ...
  2. vorobey
    vorobey 21 September 2012 09: 16
    +10
    It looks like a little steeper.

    damn stick in the case 72 tower from BMP2 that's T40.
    1. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 09: 27
      0
      In principle, the "terminator" can be made both on the T72 and T90 chassis, it was initially assumed that some of the T72s in service would be converted into "terminators".
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 21 September 2012 09: 46
        +3
        let them first adopt. Rogozin vowed to promote his love just did not say the coveted word -in the RF Armed Forces.
        1. Splin
          Splin 21 September 2012 10: 36
          +2
          Quote: vorobey
          let them first adopt


          You yourself understand how a combat staff unit is not needed. The idea itself is good. Only such a module can be put on the chassis of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. When the "Armata" platform comes out, then it's another matter. HIFV (heavy infantry fighting vehicles) must be with a front engine, and there is no such engine in Russia yet to be installed on the T-72 (90) chassis. In Ukraine, they disdain to buy. Probably bought in Germany. But it is really better not to let a bunch of "Urals" go under the knife, but to remake them into BMPs with such a module.

          1. Hon
            Hon 21 September 2012 10: 59
            +2
            In Ukraine, they don’t disdain to buy, just Ukraine is the main competitor in tank building, and therefore they simply do not want to help the Kharkov plant with their purchases. IFVs from T72 will have to be difficult to land in the Moscow Region, but conversion to BMPTs is very convenient, and at the same time it saves money.
            1. Splin
              Splin 21 September 2012 11: 17
              +3
              If a compact engine, install it as in the BMPT-64 and there are no problems !. Why introduce another battalion to the brigade? Change BMP -1 (2,3), still have to come with time. So it’s better to transfer the entire tank brigade to a single chassis. Cheaper and more efficient. In tactics, infantry and tanks will receive a machine that can go with them in the same battle order.
              1. Hon
                Hon 21 September 2012 11: 43
                +2
                Only the armata in 2015 will be, why not make an inexpensive alteration of 72, the terminator, with its visibility and armament, is not particularly needed, and the main tasks of the BMPT should be carried out together with tanks and not motorized rifles, so the landing squad is far from always needed.
                1. Splin
                  Splin 21 September 2012 12: 17
                  +5
                  I will explain structurally. The tank brigade has 3 tank battalions and one motorized rifle. There is also artillery division potentiotic battery, etc. - we don’t need it. According to calculations, one BMPT per tank platoon is needed i.e. company for a tank battalion or battalion for a brigade. Now the functions of the infantry there - is the support of tanks. There are two ways to either remove motorized rifles (but who will occupy the trenches then?) Or add a BMPT battalion. A team is a compound. Numerically to her *** (sorry for being rude), what kind of staff is she. But with the increase in the structure, the battalion needs + machines in the software supply company, + platoon in remrot, + self-propelled battery in the division, in general the entire staff will need to be increased by about 500-600 people. Why inflate the brigade to the division, when you can easily kill two birds with one stone. And leave the previous structure and increase the firepower of the infantry by 2-3 times.
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 21 September 2012 12: 51
                    +3
                    This is all wonderful, of course, but the experience of fighting in Grozny showed that tanks should be covered and infantry could not cope with this task, the Tunguska were used but their visibility was poor (the tank dangerous target still needed to be noticed) so it was easier to knock them out than I would like. the appearance of BMPT will reduce the number of motorized rifles. BMPT with an airborne compartment is an ideal option, but the T72 alteration is economically justified, moreover, this will allow you to get an BMPT now, not when the cancer on the mountain whistles, an interim solution in anticipation of armata. By the way, you can only have a company for a battalion, since large battles using a large number of tanks are unlikely.
                    1. Splin
                      Splin 21 September 2012 13: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: Hon
                      This is all wonderful, of course, but the experience of fighting in Grozny has shown that tanks need to be covered and infantry can’t cope with this task,


                      Just in Grozny, it was once again confirmed that the infantry was coping with its task. But the tactics of using units of niba no!
                      1. Hon
                        Hon 21 September 2012 13: 45
                        0
                        The infantry is easily incapacitated by the smallest fragment and the soldiers are wounded, the tank had a problem in his blindness, the BMPT has no such problem, he easily notices grenade launchers.
                  2. nokki
                    nokki 22 September 2012 22: 21
                    0
                    Sensibly! I add to this word a lot of others, who, in the opinion of the site's organizers, "should carry useful information." But in fact - only legally allow this word to appear.
                  3. evening
                    evening 22 September 2012 22: 59
                    -2
                    Here are just tank brigades - a very rare thing in the RA, mainly motorized rifles.
                    A BMPT should be renamed BMP, and use it accordingly - for the fire support of infantry on the battlefield. The state is a company platoon, like Stryker-105 among amers.
                    And all BMP-1/2 rename the BTR.
                    BMP-3 to give to the marines.
                    1. Hon
                      Hon 23 September 2012 19: 39
                      0
                      BMPT does not have an airborne squad (unfortunately) I hope something similar appears on the armata platform.
                2. vorobey
                  vorobey 21 September 2012 15: 37
                  +4
                  Quote: Hon
                  BMPT should be performed in conjunction with tanks and not motorized rifles,

                  To burn both?
                  1. Hon
                    Hon 21 September 2012 15: 53
                    +2
                    It is difficult to burn it, it sees well, it has large angles of fire and can send a flurry of fire towards the enemy.
    2. Director
      Director 21 September 2012 09: 50
      +3
      Yes Sparrow, here you are right, as it is a little liquid. Well, maybe now the stools on our Frame-99 will pay attention.
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 21 September 2012 12: 21
        +5
        irreversible. Unfortunately, the truth in words spline is, imagine what kind of fist is being formed on the basis of the same tank platoon reinforced with heavy infantry fighting vehicles with armament of the terminator. Or a motorized rifle launch on a heavy infantry fighting vehicle reinforced by a tank.
        1. Splin
          Splin 21 September 2012 13: 00
          +1
          Quote: vorobey
          Unfortunately, there is some truth in the words of spleen.

          Why "Unfortunately..?
          1. vorobey
            vorobey 21 September 2012 13: 42
            +3
            Quote: Splin
            Why "Unfortunately..?


            Why rejoice? one hell will not be accepted.
  3. gregor6549
    gregor6549 21 September 2012 09: 33
    +5
    In my opinion, not a professional "Terminator" is a great machine that can be effectively used to solve many problems, not just the task of escorting and supporting tanks and the French analogue to its level still go and go.
    But it has, it seems to me, a weak point, namely, weak protection of weapons and surveillance equipment placed on the tower. It's one thing when such a "spreading cranberry" is placed on machines like Tunguzski or Pantsir, which have no place in the attacking order, and another thing is when this "cranberry" is perfectly seen in the sight of modern large-caliber sniper rifles in the arsenal of which there have long been very serious armor-piercing ammunition. They may not break through the frontal armor of the Terminator, but they are quite capable of spoiling containers with missiles, jamming the turning mechanisms of the cannons and seriously shuffling the small glasses of sights from a distance of a couple of kilometers.
    1. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 10: 36
      +2
      The French have so far only outline, initially when our BMPT was being developed, it looked something like the tank chassis and the BMP tower, then it was a mountain tank project. Disposable containers with missiles, there is nothing wrong with their damage. Glasses of sights are easily and quickly changed by the crew. If it is possible to jam the guns on the BMPT with a shot from a rifle, then you can jam the tank tower with the same shot. The idea of ​​creating a BMPT arose when analyzing the battles in Grozny, when tanks covered the Tungus with weak armor and worse visibility compared to the BMPT. The BMPT concept has moved from mountain tank projects that have been developed taking into account the experience of Afghanistan.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 21 September 2012 12: 17
        +3
        I propose to put the tank and the Terminator next to each other and conduct welding tests by firing both armor-piercing bullets from a large-caliber sniper rifle. And at the same time to see what benefit the Terminator will have if all these "insignificant" damage occurs under fire in a real battle, and how his crew will change damaged "zhelyazyaki" and optics under the same fire. All the same, in the days of Afghanistan, the "bearded men" had mostly standard "Kalash", RPGs and snipers that were rather weak against iron at that time.
        1. Hon
          Hon 21 September 2012 13: 07
          +1
          The tank also has optics, in BMPT surveillance devices duplicate each other, in addition there will be triplexes, antimaterial rifles for heavy armored vehicles do not pose a danger at all. Booking BMPTs is even better than tanks because they use more advanced dynamic protection. Periodically, any tank needs to leave the battle to eliminate minor damage, replace DZ blocks, and repair optics. RPGs were never weak for iron, in all warriors the RPG was the main means of destruction of the tank (from the moment of its spread), and both our T72 and abrams with mercans burn from it. Even using PG-7V shots, the RPG remains a formidable weapon, not to mention modern shots.
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 21 September 2012 13: 28
          +2
          And if the BMPT crew detects a sniper position during the welding tests, will the shell be picked out from itself?
          1. gregor6549
            gregor6549 21 September 2012 18: 28
            -1
            Yes, it would be nice to see who spotted whom before. It seems to me that even without any tests the answer is clear.
            1. Hon
              Hon 21 September 2012 21: 19
              0
              not quite right now devices that calculate optics at a distance of several kilometers are very common, if the sniper only starts to aim, he will be detected, only there are no such devices on the tank because the sniper cannot cause him any damage.
    2. borisst64
      borisst64 25 September 2012 16: 54
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      spoil the containers with missiles, jam the rotary mechanisms of the guns and seriously scrabble not small glasses


      And in response to receive a queue from thirty or AGS. Anyone interested in such a duel?
  4. rennim
    rennim 21 September 2012 10: 04
    +2
    How can’t they find it ... a place in the tactical link ... Are you the generals ??? Maybe it’s time to remind 37 years ... Kazakhstan found a place ... you can’t. People tried ... they built a new excellent car. This history recalls the beginning of the 20th century. when Porokhovshchikov’s tanks could not be entered in a tactical unit. So it’s clear ... that these funds will more support motorized rifle companies ... rather than tanks. So these machines should definitely be listed in every motorized rifle battalion ...
    1. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 11: 03
      +3
      This machine was developed taking into account the combat experience gained in Chechnya when the tanks were covered by the Tungus, such a machine is needed primarily by tanks, infantry is not always able to cover them.
  5. Zmitcer
    Zmitcer 21 September 2012 10: 24
    -2
    "Terminator" as a concept is not a bad idea, but the implementation is not very good. 30mm is nothing for today. The base is a 57 mm cannon. It can work both on MBT on board, and on armored personnel carriers and helicopters. And against the infantry, you can already add all sorts of different things. Well, plus a missile system.
    1. Splin
      Splin 21 September 2012 10: 41
      +2
      Nudelman's 30-millimeter paper is needed in a module to destroy infantry and not fight tanks. For BMPs like "Puma" or "Anders" there are ATGMs in the module. Don't overcomplicate the module with excess weight!
    2. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 11: 10
      +1
      For MBT and helicopters, missiles work better, but the main task of BMPTs is tank-hazardous targets (grenade launchers) for them they need a high density of fire, therefore paired 30 mm cannons plus a machine gun are an excellent solution, otherwise it would be possible to install a "melon" on a tank chassis and not bathe.
      1. Zmitcer
        Zmitcer 21 September 2012 11: 28
        -2
        Quote: Hon
        but the main objective of BMPT is tank-dangerous targets

        correctly. But this is a fight. Situations can be different and this machine must be universal. There may not be infantry on the battlefield. wink In any case, a single shot of a 57 mm HE shell will solve the problem. And in the conditions of the city, when the infantry is behind the ceilings, a 30-mm shell is farthing, and a 57-mm shell with a programmable explosion behind the barrier is the only effective solution. So this weapon will be more effective in the city and on the fields against helicopters, considering than 2 times the range of the shot. In addition, against the infantry, you can put a couple of machine guns 12,7 (14,5) and leave the grenade launcher.
        1. Splin
          Splin 21 September 2012 12: 20
          +2
          Quote: Zmitcer
          and 57 mm with a programmable explosion behind the obstacle-

          Broste read fiction - helps. And for the struggle in a canopy trajectory (i.e. behind shelters) there is an AGS in the kit.
          1. Zmitcer
            Zmitcer 21 September 2012 12: 56
            0
            Quote: Splin
            Broste read fiction - helps

            If you don’t know something, then read, it helps.
            1. Splin
              Splin 21 September 2012 13: 16
              +4
              Quote: Zmitcer
              If you don’t know something, then read, it helps


              As a person far from our army, I explain. "Soviet Army" (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and others like them) is not technologically advanced and careless. In Bendery, the pilots could not destroy the bridge, tanks entered Grozny without a remote control. In the video "Caucasus 2012" I saw the same "Soviet" army. Throw this pseudo-patriotism and descend from heaven to earth. Is there a new 57mm cannon? There is, only the old proven S-60. Even invent a new shell and detonator for it. rushing shopping for her is not a pleasant pleasure. The efficiency of 120 snare will obviously not be enough. It is cheaper to use automatic grenade launchers (preferably 40-mm) and ATGMs with a thermobaric head, and even better instead of them jet flamethrowers.
              1. Zmitcer
                Zmitcer 21 September 2012 13: 30
                +1
                We probably don't understand each other. I'm talking about replacing 30 mm with 57 mm. I will not encroach on your grenade launcher and ATGMs. Or do you want to say that 2x30 is more effective than 1x57? There is a new version of the gun, it was planned to install it on the modernized PT-76. And if this is not enough, then there is a wonderful "Bofors" -57 mm. Or what's the problem to make, we don't go for tea with bast shoes. I want to say that 57 mm more efficient and more versatile in battle than a 30 mm gun. There are comparisons on this subject, too lazy to send links.
          2. Zmitcer
            Zmitcer 21 September 2012 16: 25
            +2
            Quote: Splin
            those. behind shelters

            I wrote - over the barrier. don't distort, ok? And this may be the wall of the house, when fighting in the city. 57 mm is able to break through a wall (brickwork or a monolithic panel) and explode inside, destroying grenade launchers. A 30-mm only make holes, and that is not a fact.
            1. Splin
              Splin 21 September 2012 17: 09
              0
              Quote: Zmitcer
              And the 30 mm only make holes, and that’s not a fact

              Supply of 40 mm grenade launcher. he has 1,5 times more power. You are trying to prove nonsense to me. As they say, if only my truth. A gun of such a large caliber will take 2 times more space. Then certainly the impasse of the development of such a machine.

              1. Zmitcer
                Zmitcer 21 September 2012 17: 26
                +1
                Quote: Splin
                Supply of 40 mm grenade launcher. he has 1,5 times more power
                Compared to what? with a 57 mm shell weighing 2 kg ???? fool
                Quote: Splin
                You are trying to prove nonsense to me.
                here I agree. while absolute !! laughing
                Quote: Splin
                A gun of such a large caliber will take 2 times more space

                compared to what? you surprise me too. Especially for you. Attention! text !: I propose replacing the 30 mm guns with 57 mm guns. Leave the grenade launcher. again! grenade launcher leave! he will. OK?! fellow and please don’t fantasize, but read carefully .. uh .. tired.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 21 September 2012 17: 35
                  0
                  By the way, I see no reason to use one thing. Cannon and ags.
                  http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut9801/Bmp34/Bmp34001.htm
                  1. Zmitcer
                    Zmitcer 21 September 2012 17: 40
                    +2
                    I know this site is pretty good by the way, only you read it? Here is a quote from his own: "The action of 30-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectiles in manpower does not shine either. This is explained by the low mass of the explosive A-IX-2 charge (48,5 g), the low filling factor (0,125) (full the mass of the projectile is 389 g) and, as a consequence, a small number of lethal fragments, and a specific design of the shock fuse, which does not provide an instant burst of the projectile on the surface of the earth. " ... "The inconsistency of the range of 20-30 mm with the real tasks of the BMP led to several directions for the further development of the cannon armament of the BMP." from myself I will continue in the direction of increasing 40 mm or more.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 21 September 2012 17: 42
                      -1
                      Quote: Zmitcer
                      BB A-IX-2 (48,5 g),

                      Really? And I read to the end - there about the Swedish 40 mm gun and its ammunition nomenclature.

                      and this is most likely not a site - but an electronic version of the TV and Radio magazine
                      1. Zmitcer
                        Zmitcer 21 September 2012 18: 16
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        and this is most likely not a site

                        wassat come on. No, well, if you think so then of course this is not a site. a very important point on your part. what gee-gee ..
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 21 September 2012 18: 20
                        -1
                        Quote: Zmitcer
                        then of course this is not a site. a very important point on your part

                        No less important than your comment on whether I read the article.

                        And is it really that the owner of the SITE added something from himself to the articles? Or is it just an electronic version of articles from TV &
                        Quote: Zmitcer
                        ... "The inconsistency of the range of 20-30 mm with the real tasks of the BMP led to several directions for the further development of the cannon armament of the BMP." from myself I will continue in the direction of increasing 40 mm or more.

                        Why add it? Without this, your approach was more correct.
                      3. Zmitcer
                        Zmitcer 21 September 2012 18: 28
                        +1
                        yes so. so that it was clear where I was leading. We had (are) a 37-mm cannon that was on the Yenisei, but that was "yesterday." Today it does not meet modern requirements. You can take the finished 57-mm, or remember the 45-mm. This is anything you like, in any case not 30mm, but 40-57mm. hi
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 21 September 2012 18: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Zmitcer
                        to make it clear what I was leading

                        Really? Do you again doubt that I re-read your discussion with Splin?
                      5. Splin
                        Splin 21 September 2012 18: 21
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        there about the Swedish 40 mm gun and

                        Here is a 40 mm gun - I agree, you can put it. Is there only one in our bins?
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 21 September 2012 18: 29
                        0
                        Quote: Splin
                        Is there only one in our bins?

                        There is no Ukraine yet, but I don’t see any problems buying it, for placing it on export BMPT 64, and there it can be a license, it can from part of the profit for our aircraft as well and it is necessary to arrange the production of ammunition in Ukraine.
                      7. Splin
                        Splin 21 September 2012 19: 09
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Ukraine? Not yet, but I see no problem buying it, for setting


                        Not me more ambitious - the territory of the CIS. And about BMPT-64 (84). God forbid, we generally put it in service. Until we buy for ourselves, there is no prospect of selling a BMPV-55 (72).
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 21 September 2012 23: 22
                        +1
                        It’s necessary to drag around the exhibitions - we can put it on our armament and put it on - but buy it vryatli.
                        And here is the Russian sky 45 mm

                        http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/08/45.html
                      9. Zmitcer
                        Zmitcer 22 September 2012 00: 08
                        +1
                        Well. Comrades are moving in the right direction.
                2. Bad_gr
                  Bad_gr 23 September 2012 00: 34
                  +2
                  There were options BMPT and with other weapons.
                  For example, like BMP-3:

                  Or like this:
          3. evening
            evening 22 September 2012 23: 03
            0
            In AGS, the projectile trajectory does not allow hitting the enemy behind shelters or, especially, in a trench. To do this, you need a mortar, i.e. strongly hinged trajectory. Moreover, the mortar has variable charges, unlike FUC. which also contributes to canopy shooting.
        2. Hon
          Hon 21 September 2012 13: 30
          0
          There is no such task that a 57 mm gun can perform and 130 mm ATGM cannot perform, in addition, different types of missiles have been developed both for combating helicopters and infantry. 9M120 - guided anti-tank missile with a tandem cumulative warhead. Range 6000 m. Armor penetration of warheads - up to 800 millimeters of homogeneous armor with dynamic protection (normal to the surface). Tandem warhead design - extendable .; 9M120F - a variant of the missile equipped with a warhead combined - high-explosive and volume-detonating action. Designed to destroy fortified firing points, defensive structures, lightly armored and unarmored vehicles, sheltered manpower. Explosiveness of warheads - up to 9,5 kg (TNT equivalent); 9M220O (9A2200) - modification of a missile with a rod warhead for the destruction of aircraft. Range 7 m; 000M9D - ATRA-D ATGM with a flight range of up to 120 m.
          By the way, tanks rarely hit each other on board, so a 57 mm cannon is ineffective for fighting a heavily armored target.
          1. Zmitcer
            Zmitcer 21 September 2012 13: 40
            0
            again 25! Can you guys read? The same to me "Kuliki" compares the 57-gun with missiles, as some "smart guys" conducted comparative tests of the Taubin grenade launcher with a 50-mm mortar. You strike me. Again. 57 mm gun, instead of 30 mm guns. Still not clear? laughing
          2. Splin
            Splin 21 September 2012 13: 57
            +2
            Really do not engage in universalism. There was such a poet - the tsarist ensign, then a USSR marshal named Tukhachevsky. He also used this idea.
            So the goal of the module: 2A42 is designed to combat infantry and create a barrage of fire 1000 v / m from two guns any squeeze to the ground. Do not measure a single projectile with automatic fire for armor penetration. The GSh-6-30 cannon opens the tank like a can. To combat the trench cockroaches there is a grenade launcher. A platoon of vehicles with such a module will destroy ATGMs to a company of tanks. Fuck him ship anti-aircraft gun. Even shooting at a range is not needed. On the European theater beyond 2 kilometers not turned around for the plow. He would have had 23 mm machine guns. But the choice was made in favor of 30 - mm 2A4272), it really is more practical ..

            1. Zmitcer
              Zmitcer 21 September 2012 14: 06
              +2
              Quote: Splin
              GSh-6-30 gun opens the tank as a can

              No comments. fool
              1. Splin
                Splin 21 September 2012 14: 30
                0
                Quote: Zmitcer
                No comments

                I was lucky to still see the MIG-27, until it was sent to the reserve. And I saw his work and the works of his work ...
          3. avdkrd
            avdkrd 22 September 2012 02: 21
            +3
            On the account - tanks rarely hit a friend of the dgug on board ??????
            Excuse me, where do you get the information?
            There is combat and simulated statistics, and both say that the tanks are mainly hit in the sides, followed by forehead and stern.
            About ATGMs that should carry out the tasks of a medium-caliber cannon - your conclusion sounds something like - salty tastes better than a long ..... and the pearl about the fight against infantry ATGMs deserves the MEDAL OF THE MOST POWERFUL MILITARY ECONOMIST.
            Zmitcer correctly says that it’s really 57mm more effective than 30mm, and with regard to a particular gun with a rate of 120 rounds per minute, the power of ammunition is not comparable, the confirmed effectiveness is higher both in relation to MBT and in relation to infantry. The use of 30mm, and in fact TWO guns were installed (and not one with selective power) is very doubtful and most likely lobbied by the manufacturer 2A42. The goals for the ACS for 30mm are less accessible than for the 57mm, but still no one encroaches on the ACS, they have their own tasks. In the framework, the most painful question is the survivability of the BATTLE MODULE with the OPEN ATGM installation. My opinion is that the layout of the missiles should be protected, at least by the principle of installation on the Belarusian Stalker, or a vertical launch should be implemented. I’m not trying to dispute the fundamental existence of a module with a 30mm cannon, it has its own tasks, such as escorting columns, but about 57mm there are serious studies based on combat effectiveness, and 2A42 is already a past century.
            http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/76/pt76m.htm
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 21 September 2012 13: 29
      +3
      and another Grad on the roof- laughing
      1. Odessa
        Odessa 21 September 2012 21: 24
        +3
        lelikas,
        and another Grad on the roof

        there is also color.
  6. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 21 September 2012 10: 46
    0
    Everything has already been discussed about BMPT ...
    I already expressed my opinion: if she had entered the army at the time, we would be able to use it very effectively. There is no need to invent tactics of application at the level of the battalion level, I have already written about this. This car would come in handy and save many lives.
    And now Nuna is waiting for what kind of family Armata will have and there they already look ...

    The article is interesting in that the French investigated this topic. Although Sparrow is right (plus): they just put a BMP tower on the tank - this is not enough: neither an assault vehicle nor a heavy BMP.
    But Makarkin, with his indefatigable love for everything abroad, may pay attention to this French development ... And then he has one principle: if foreigners don’t have such weapons, then we don’t need to ...
    1. mongoose
      mongoose 21 September 2012 10: 56
      +3
      in the "tourist cluster of the north Caucasus" it would have saved many lives for Russian guys
    2. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 11: 16
      -1
      The French have so far only a project, initially we also just put a BMP tower on a tank chassis (a mountain tank project). Probably in the future, the paddlers will do something similar to our BMPT. In general, they often take our concepts. The Leclerc was also created under the influence of the Soviet school of tank building.
      1. Zmitcer
        Zmitcer 21 September 2012 11: 41
        0
        Quote: Hon
        In general, they often take our concepts. The Leclerc was also created under the influence of the Soviet school of tank building.

        wassat come on. The French themselves have enough experience. In addition, they are always distinguished by their originality and application of original solutions. AMX - 13 as one of many examples. So the Soviet school is you dragged absolutely out of place.
        1. Hon
          Hon 21 September 2012 12: 00
          +2
          When creating the Leclerc, our concept was used: a small, relatively light mobile tank, with an automatic loader and a powerful gun. There is no French plagiarism of our systems, but if you compare the Leclerc’s closer to our tanks than NATO’s, by the way, the French never concealed that they relied on the experience of Soviet tank builders when creating it.
          1. Zmitcer
            Zmitcer 21 September 2012 12: 34
            -1
            Quote: Hon
            then leclerc closer to our tanks

            how is he closer? request The French have always had a preference for the concept of firepower + mobility. Take the AMX-32 (40) for example, but Leclerc is just from a different series. So what is it from the "Soviet school" with a mass of 55 tons? This is your "small relatively light tank mobile". laughing I pointed out to you above that the French used the automatic loader in the AMX-13, which was developed in 1946. Or have everything been created according to the "Soviet concept", including the Egyptian chariots? laughing then everything is clear.
            1. Raven1972
              Raven1972 22 September 2012 13: 29
              0
              Do not compare the drum loading system of the French and our AZ, two completely different things ... I shot 2 drums of 6 shots - be kind to pull them out of the tank and reload ... That is, the tank is incapable for a while ... Because of it and refused on the following models ....
              1. Zmitcer
                Zmitcer 22 September 2012 15: 05
                0
                Did I compare her somewhere? where????? I explained to one "expert" that Leclerc is not a light mobile tank built on the basis of the Soviet concept lol . And the fact that the French have enough knowledge and experience to build their tanks, based on their achievements. And they were the first to realize an automatic loader on a battle tank. What kind of design it was, this is no longer the essence, the main thing is that they were applied, then they made another. ..
                1. Raven1972
                  Raven1972 22 September 2012 15: 33
                  0
                  Don’t tell me, they used both our tank building experience and German, and on their basis did their own, using the best of both schools to the maximum ... And then, see for yourself - AMX 50 100 did not go into series, they preferred to develop the idea of ​​the AMX M4 45 abandoning a swinging tower ...
                  1. Zmitcer
                    Zmitcer 22 September 2012 15: 51
                    0
                    Quote: Raven1972
                    Do not tell, they used both our experience in tank building and German
                    Yah!? Here you are again throwing general phrases that do not carry any information. So you can for a long time about anything from empty to empty pour. And here I will give you a specific example, the Renault FT-17 tank is the first tank of the classic layout and with a rotating turret. Which by the way was produced in the USSR. So who used whose experience? AND? wink And the fact that some tank did not go into the series, which was abandoned, it’s normal, many have what didn’t, and what they refused.
                    1. Raven1972
                      Raven1972 22 September 2012 20: 44
                      0
                      Well, yes, and the AMX of the 13-20s of the release ... laughing I mean, post-war tank building ... That way, even before the British Mk I, we’ll come to an agreement ... laughing So it was a sin for the French not to use our and German developments on this topic ... Moreover, as the war showed, nobody better than the Germans did tanks with us ... By the way, ARL 44 was just about the WWI tanks ... yes
                      And please tell me, where do you see at least something from the Renault FT-34 in the T-17, KV or IS? Is that a rotating tower ... laughing
                      1. Raven1972
                        Raven1972 22 September 2012 20: 48
                        0
                        Well, I’m not saying that they COPYED our or German tanks, I’m talking about what they did, using the best practices of our and German schools ...
                      2. Zmitcer
                        Zmitcer 22 September 2012 20: 54
                        0
                        Quote: Raven1972
                        I’m just talking about what they did their own, using the best practices of our and German schools ...
                        Specifically what? give an example. but I am sure that my question will remain unanswered. And your quote
                        Quote: Raven1972
                        AMX 13 - 20 years of release

                        I think many here will cause only laughter. On this your phrase, I understand everything. Excuse me, are you retired or maternity? Forum did not make a mistake? laughing
                      3. Raven1972
                        Raven1972 23 September 2012 16: 23
                        -1
                        Quote: Zmitcer
                        I think many here will cause only laughter.

                        You just don’t have to juggle ... Many, unlike you, perfectly understood that I was laughing, and you and I have problems along the way ... So it is not known which of us made a mistake ... laughing
                        And about what the French took - the Knipkamp suspension was originally designed on the AMX M4 45, then the rational angles of inclination of the armor plates - the influence of the IS and T-34 is clearly visible, they generally took the IS as a model when designing the M4 45, amx 50 100, Baht Chat T.25 ... Read better literature on French tank building ...
  7. Kolyan 2
    Kolyan 2 21 September 2012 10: 59
    +4
    So I look at all this and think what the fuck is a one-year service? With such a technique, it is necessary to increase it

    . "I'm waiting for elephants"
    1. Husseyn
      Husseyn 21 September 2012 11: 10
      +3
      You should not wait, they all understand this very well - in Russia, and in most CIS countries, possibly except Ukraine and Uzbekistan, ALL should serve and serve 24 months.
      Shorter term of service is populism, only money is wasted.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 21 September 2012 18: 22
        +2
        Quote: Huseyn
        should serve ALL
        Yes, everyone should serve, but how to increase the term of service, with universal conscription, without increasing the size of the army? I have already spoken on this topic before, the opinion is the same - it is necessary to divide the service into army and civil. Urgent army - 3 years, civil 4 years (6 months training in civil defense, and working off in the army fund). The best will go to the army, they will have benefits and bonuses, the rest - "everything for the front, everything for victory", you will not cut it. Double basses, for special forces and for sergeants. I don’t know why they don’t want to see it and apply it. Purely in a contract army, I do not believe, like - "as you pay, we fight." The contract army sooner or later turns into a mercenary army, it is impossible to defend the Motherland for money.
    2. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 11: 47
      -1
      Double basses are needed and not conscripts, there are no problems with the soldiers and their training in the border troops, and they can master any technique.
    3. evening
      evening 22 September 2012 22: 52
      0
      On the contrary, the new technique is easier to learn - the tanker needs to memorize the procedure for turning on several buttons / toggle switches - the rest will be done by the machine.
      If you do not spend time on household work, etc., then the training can be reduced to 1-2 months. And you can not reduce it, then soldiers will be released not only familiar with the device, but also those who know how to use it.
      In any case, I have the impression of 2 years of service, incl. the commander of the tank.
  8. Sasha 19871987
    Sasha 19871987 21 September 2012 11: 25
    0
    Yes, the development is very interesting, no doubt, a universal platform for combating various goals, the main thing is that they get into the army
  9. rapira99
    rapira99 21 September 2012 12: 28
    +1
    Strange reasoning .. Working in a taxi about three years ago in the city at night the tanks were straining .. Either the bridge would be blocked, then the road would be blocked with a caterpillar .. They walked accompanied by both "Shilok" and fuel trucks, and also all kinds of equipment .. And periodically at four BMPTs were carried on automobile platforms. The area of ​​the tower was draped with tarpaulin ... So Novosibirsk has it ...
    1. Hon
      Hon 21 September 2012 13: 31
      0
      Single copies could tribute to the test
  10. sergey69
    sergey69 21 September 2012 13: 56
    0
    Kazakhs need to be asked about the effectiveness of BMPT, and not srach-need-not-be needed here. They have 3 pieces in service. I would like to hear their opinion. Still, it is officially in service.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 21 September 2012 18: 38
      -1
      The "wisdom" of our Defense Ministry never ceases to amaze, why is it impossible to order a batch of BMPTs for testing in the troops? They could send at least a couple of pieces to Syria for running-in, especially since the cars are on the mastered chassis, make new BMPTs, or alter them from tanks. What are the problems, what are the risks ...
    2. wasjasibirjac
      wasjasibirjac 21 September 2012 19: 26
      -1
      Quote: sergey69
      Kazakhs need to be asked about the effectiveness of BMPT, and not srach-need-not-be needed here. They have 3 pieces in service. I would like to hear their opinion. Still, it is officially in service.

      and for the Kazakhs for this, what, do I declare war on China? or our native MO can’t buy a dozen cars and test their need experimentally? if they don’t buy, they consider it unnecessary, and without any verification. it seems like before the war, when they also said that the IL-2 is not needed with a shooter
  11. Husseyn
    Husseyn 21 September 2012 14: 05
    +2
    Quote: Hon
    Double basses are needed, not conscripts
    Do mothers give birth to double basses by sergeants? ...
    In the army of the USSR, who was the tank commander, sergeant-conscript? Contractor - they came up with a word and rush with it like a written case :( Why reinvent the wheel ?! Even in the armies of the once fraternal republics, the institute of ensigns was preserved in its original form, they are tank commanders, ZSU and mechanic drivers of special equipment, etc. and etc., plus civilian employees in support units and units, professional drivers, cooks, etc., all the more so all civilians who have been beloved will be waged out of stock to start a war.
    Remember the over-conscripts and warrant officers ... Create conditions, because people in the same Chechnya with pleasure serve from the Altai (!!!) region. In a situation where in many regions conscripts will not find work after demobilization, many will plainly serve urgent jobs in order to continue to be able to stay on extra urgent jobs, and after that receive benefits for admission to the state. University or enroll in the school of warrant officers, etc., etc. Now money in the sun is a very good offer, especially for people from the province, single-industry towns.
    What is the more profitable contractor ’s contractor? The contractor lasts longer, the conscript is less, the reserve increases, and not just any, but well trained.
    Contractors are a few days of war in the event of a large-scale collision, and then what? ... Again in the line of the front line showed Mosinka and "For Stalin! For the Motherland!" to cover the fields with bones? :( To participate in local conflicts, there are special forces units, there are also units for various purposes that lose, at least, their entire material and technical base in the first days of the war, it is senseless and harmful to develop this institution outside of such units.
    1. avdkrd
      avdkrd 22 September 2012 02: 47
      +1
      I served in the SA (90-92), ZGV, in our regiment there was only one warrant officer in the CT (and it was the CT-Commander tank), we called him - the director of the tank, the rest were sergeants. He served in Germany and actually happened to communicate in other units - sergeants everywhere. I can argue that the training was at a high level, of course there were problems with "international" crews (mainly problems with mechanized drivers) - there was such a time (international, tank battalions in a get-together were called China and for 60-70% of representatives of Soviet Central Asia) but after couples RTU and BTU by the end of the training period, there was always a ready-made crew that understood the commands and knew how to shoot and control the database. In my opinion, training a conscript tanker is not a problem. the problem is to train the subunit commander, and starting with the platoon commander, with all the clearly better maintainability of domestic equipment, the approach to servicing tanks should be carried out according to the aviation principle.
  12. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 21 September 2012 14: 09
    +2
    While the Nashnensky darling of the Moscow Region, under the strict guidance of brigadier general-feldmebel Anatoly Serdyukov, zealously zealots with bread, the French are slapping an analogue of BMPT. And something tells me that they are unlikely to pull the rubber with the adoption of the T40 into service ...
    What can I say about this? .. "Overweight polar fox" ...
    1. Glenn witcher
      21 September 2012 14: 59
      0
      They no longer pull. New project? No money, let's goodbye! Even the prototype is not collected.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 21 September 2012 19: 07
        -2
        French T-40, a parody of our BMPT. The British divided their first tanks into "males" (artillery tank), and "females" (machine gun tank), two specializations, this is what the Gauls did, no matter how the T-34 or KV turret from the T-40 or screw the T-60, that's all. The "Terminator", namely, a universal machine, behind which, I think, the future, not it, but it will be covered by tanks.
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 21 September 2012 20: 01
          +3
          The division of the first tanks into "males" and "females" (if my memory serves me right) was introduced by the British, not the French ...
          As for the parody of the T40 ... Better arming is better than the ideal on paper ...
          And "Frame 99" is such a versatile machine as it seems at first glance. Her path is escorting and supporting MBT on the battlefield and on the march. And that's all. She will not go further than this ... Yes, and there is no practical sense in cutting her other tasks. Yes, God, so that she cope in full with those for whom she was actually created, and for which she, by and large, was thought ...
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 22 September 2012 12: 55
            0
            Quote: Chicot 1
            The division of the first tanks into "males" and "females" (if my memory serves me right) was introduced by the British, not the French ...
            And I said that the British. The fact that "Frame 99 is not such a universal machine", but who knows what its further modifications could give, what the idea itself could result in. Technology is developing rapidly, including anti-tank missiles, combat and war models are changing. Time will judge, not the "Minus Ananists".
        2. Raven1972
          Raven1972 22 September 2012 13: 46
          +1
          Maybe it’s a parody of course - but the French have already glanced at our BMPT, and since they still have it at the design stage, it will easily be finalized ...
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 22 September 2012 14: 50
            +1
            So we can modify. For franks for what plus, - appreciated the idea. Of course, our BMPT is not ideal right now, you can argue about the shooters, notice the vulnerability of the missile system, wish for a higher elevation angle for the machine gun-cannon complex, but, after all, these are solvable problems, the refinement of equipment continues throughout its production, and even like modernization after.
            1. Raven1972
              Raven1972 22 September 2012 15: 16
              +2
              Actually, I didn’t say that ours shouldn’t be finalized, I spoke exclusively about the fact that the French could finish their work without any problems on the basis of our design ....
  13. the polar
    the polar 21 September 2012 15: 40
    0
    modern mobile anti-tank weapons have dramatically reduced the effectiveness of the use of armored vehicles, especially in urban environments.
    Therefore, there is no fundamental difference who will burn the first BMPT or a tank going under its cover.

    If we take into account the capabilities of aviation anti-tank missile weapons, in modern conditions armored vehicles can conduct combat operations only as part of integrated units, including anti-aircraft defense equipment, mobile optoelectronic and infrared reconnaissance and detection of enemy manpower, such as UAVs. It is desirable that UAVs during the detection process could also suppress individual firing points.
    And then what remains for the share of armored vehicles?
    Only suppression of long-term fire fortifications?
    But self-propelled guns can handle this.
    1. Splin
      Splin 21 September 2012 15: 53
      0
      Modern wealthy funds, too, do not stand still. "Trophy", "Barrier." The Iron Fist is capable of repelling ATGMs and even BOPS!
    2. Per se.
      Per se. 21 September 2012 18: 49
      -1
      Quote: Polar
      there is no fundamental difference who will burn the first BMPT or a tank going under its cover.
      There is a difference, the BMPT is more likely to suppress anti-tank weapons. Unless, of course, you go into the absolute, otherwise, with this logic, any infantryman is only a target for modern weapons. Robot wars will come, one must think, but for now one needs to live a reality in which, most likely, tanks will already cover the BMPT, and not she them.
  14. 16
    16 21 September 2012 23: 37
    0
    Well, you see, forum users, Russian and Soviet are not bad! And then the pimply (nickname on the forum) is crucifying about Iveco! And I'm talking about TIGER!
  15. JackTheRipper
    JackTheRipper 22 September 2012 00: 40
    +1
    A third of the country is economists, managers and marketers, but they cannot establish production and sale of "Scorpion" ...
  16. plump
    plump 22 September 2012 07: 34
    0
    Yokelamene! Give it to the troops, and the soldiers themselves will figure out how, where and why to use it! Especially in combat.
  17. gen.meleshkin
    gen.meleshkin 22 September 2012 11: 37
    0
    No matter what someone says, going into battle with such a terminator is much better than running with a gun in hand and shouting "Hurray". More efficiency, even at night you can fight.
  18. the polar
    the polar 22 September 2012 12: 20
    +1
    It is more promising with modern doctrines of warfare, instead of tanks, to develop BMPTs integrated into a single unit with tactical missile defense systems and technical equipment for reconnaissance of the leading edge using UAVs and infra-opto-technical equipment.
    And instead of tanks, form SPG divisions of various calibers and warheads
    1. Splin
      Splin 22 September 2012 12: 41
      +1
      The British in Verdun two days plagued the Germans with atillery in the 15th year, and when they advanced, the effect seemed to be minimal. The war has not changed since World War I. Yes, tactics varied, new weapons appeared, but the principles of warfare themselves remained. BMPT there is no place in modern warfare. In fact, this is an experimental car or a tank of a narrow profile. This is not a stillborn baby, but also not a full-fledged living organism.

      The British in Verdun two days clobbering with non-flowering atryry in the 15th year, and when they advanced, the effect seemed to be minimal. The war has not changed since World War I. Yes, tactics varied, new weapons appeared, but the principles of warfare themselves remained. BMPT there is no place in modern warfare. In fact, this is an experimental car or a tank of a narrow profile. This is not a stillborn baby, but also not a full-fledged living organism.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 22 September 2012 17: 21
        +1
        It has changed, dear Splin, you already remembered the First World War, "trench", positional war, with nascent tank units and young aviation. It seems that such wars are already history. Remember Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, current events in Syria, this is another war. Finally, our two wars in Chechnya, the conflict in Georgia. Tanks are increasingly performing the role of support, often acting as a mobile firing point. BMPT, by and large, a new look of the tank, capable of solving problems in the new realities of modern wars. The essence of the war does not change, here I completely agree with you.
        1. Splin
          Splin 22 September 2012 18: 13
          0
          Tactics have changed with the advent of new types of weapons, but its essence has not changed. Let's leave civil wars alone. And the war on 08.08.08 is a vivid example of the classic modern war. Mishko's troops launched an artillery strike on the "positions", then, with the support of tanks, the troops went on the offensive. The Russian army counterattacked with aviation, against which the Georgians used air defense systems. Put in place with the Hail 3-inches, instead of Su-24 Nyupora and you will not see the difference. And the trench warfare was only on the Western Front. In the East, she was even very maneuverable for that time.
          1. Per se.
            Per se. 22 September 2012 20: 44
            0
            Even the Second World War was very different from the First, where only the general from the cavalry, Brusilov, revived us by an offensive against Austria-Hungary. What is to be understood by the essence of the war, if the fact that the ballista and onager of Caesar first fired, together with the archers, the army of barbarians, and then the glorious cohorts of legionnaires went into action, then this essence does not change, I agree. We're talking about the evolution of the tank, its role on the battlefield. Already in World War II, after the massive use of the "Faustpatron" and "Panzershrek" by the Germans, tanks needed increased infantry cover. In Normandy, as soon as the weather improved, the Allied aviation took off, the Germans' counterattack was drowned out, and it was once again confirmed that the tanks were vulnerable from the air. Infantry and cruiser tanks have sunk into oblivion, and the idea of ​​a main tank cannot develop indefinitely by increasing the caliber of the gun and enhancing the armor protection. BMPT with its versatility in attack and defense, in my opinion, is one of the possible ways of evolution of the main tank of the future. This, of course, is just my opinion, probably it's good when there are different opinions, there is something to talk about.
            1. Splin
              Splin 22 September 2012 22: 00
              0
              I understand you do not play chess. I don’t need to tell the story or evolution of the tank. What exactly has changed in the concept of combined arms combat since then? The answer is nothing !. Naturally, the first rudiments of battle were laid back in Ancient Rome, Greece and Carthage, but shooting along a hinged trajectory, mines, barbed wire, automatic weapons, trenches, protective equipment, grenades, aircraft, armored cars, tanks and anti-tank weapons, air defense, building ships in combat order, aircraft carriers. It all started to apply 1MB. Naturally, it later evolved, but nothing essentially disappeared.
              And cruising, cavalry, high-speed tanks are all lyrics that have no common denominators.
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 23 September 2012 00: 47
                0
                At one time I was ill with the "chess fever", I was of the 2nd grade, now, indeed, I have not played for a long time. You are talking about a combined-arms battle, in the concept of which, in your opinion, nothing has changed since the First World War, that is, the system of views and plans remained the same, this is artillery shelling, tanks with infantry in front, aviation on top. Even in chess they don't play only the Spanish game, E2-E4 for all occasions. Much has changed over the past century, but, in your opinion, there is no worthy place for BMPT. Let's assume that BMPT is out of luck. Your opinion, your right.
                1. Splin
                  Splin 23 September 2012 10: 38
                  0
                  BMPT as a car there is no place, the module, for the destruction of infantry and lightly armored vehicles there is a place! In the 60s there were rocket tanks. They also did not live a long century. but the idea of ​​their use was transformed into the T-64B.
  19. ilkovych
    ilkovych 22 September 2012 17: 40
    +1
    The site is avenged by those who are in good shape, please, like a child living, happy.
    Win help divides on the light, from the other side ...
    http://box-inside.ru
  20. Belo_ticketnik
    Belo_ticketnik 22 September 2012 17: 56
    0
    The car is probably good, but whether it is needed will only be shown by its test in combat conditions, because the concept of such a machine is relatively new.

    IMHO, I would prefer that the MO bought such a machine made on the basis of ARMATA or a new heavy infantry fighting vehicle
  21. M. Peter
    M. Peter 23 September 2012 10: 29
    0
    I will be stunned if a few years later we buy one-time samples, since we have no analogue and after testing we will force some plant to produce this "leclerc-bmpt" for our army under a license ...
    What the M ...? sad