Floating armored vehicles - a dead end branch of evolution

MT-LBM is a typical example of how armored vehicles should not be made. On the artillery rear tractor to attack. Source: wikipedia.org

Floating "movable trenches"

Military equipment is always a complex compromise of many mutually exclusive requirements. It seems that in the Soviet infantry fighting vehicles this thesis has become especially expressive. Appearing for the first time in the world in the USSR in 1966, the BMP-1 gave birth to a whole class of armored vehicles, but it remained one of the most controversial vehicles. First of all, due to the fact that engineers had to combine many requirements in one design. Even from the definition of the term BMP it becomes uncomfortable:

"A transport-combat vehicle that provides motorized infantry with the ability to move and fight in close cooperation with tanks».

Close interaction with tanks - is this when both tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are subjected to comparable fire effects? When shells and ATGMs are equally likely to fly over the frontal armor of a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle. In domestic infantry fighting vehicles, this problem was solved in a non-trivial way - they put the engine in the bow and put the driver. That is, until the first effective defeat, when the BMP is guaranteed to be immobilized and turns into an even easier target. However, at the time of development, no one really thought about it - all thoughts were about nuclear war.

Approximately this is how the fighters have to independently armor the equipment. If we exclude the option of swimming, how many tons of armor could be added to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? The question is rhetorical. Source: telegram.org

First of all, the BMP should be used as a chariot of the apocalypse, when the infantry is reliably protected from shock waves, radiation and radioactive contamination. No one really cared about the fact that someone would plant mines, IEDs and fire from portable ATGMs in the nuclear desert. And, of course, the icing on the cake has always been the possibility of a mandatory overcoming of a water barrier. Moreover, it was on the move - there could be no talk of any attachments that increase displacement.

In defense, infantry fighting vehicles were supposed to become "moving trenches", and in the attack they landed troops at a distance of 600-800 meters from the front edge of the enemy. You can't get any closer - this is already the patrimony of tanks and the actions of enemy anti-tank weapons. Note that already in the 60s they understood that letting an infantry fighting vehicle closer than 0,8 kilometers was deadly. Because the requirements for buoyancy and, to a lesser extent, for air transportability completely leveled the armor protection of the vehicle. High mobility, low weight, high firepower, buoyancy and high security were required from the armored vehicle. The latter was finally sacrificed when the BMP-3 was being developed.

In fact, from the rifle weapons a series of domestic infantry fighting vehicles is protected only in frontal projection. At the same time, an amazing paradox developed - the military seemed to have forgotten about the eternal confrontation between armor and projectile. As soon as one member of this inequality makes a qualitative leap, the other is simply obliged to respond in proportion. But what do we see? Strengthening the firepower of the BMP-2, BMP-3, maintaining buoyancy and thin armor. At the same time, systems for attacking armored vehicles abroad and in Russia have made a colossal leap. As soon as work on third-generation ATGMs began in NATO countries, allowing every idiot to shoot from around the corner, the buoyancy option for light armored vehicles should have been immediately abandoned. A few saved tons should have gone into millimeters of additional armor.

More examples of forced screening. Source: telegram.org

In the 60s, launching an ATGM was a whole science - the equipment was unreliable, heavy, the rocket went to the target for a long time. This at least partially offset the weak armor of the first generation. Javelin has been in service since 1996, its development began three or four years earlier, but since then domestic tank builders have not made any conclusions. More precisely, the GABTU did not draw any conclusions when they assessed the prospects for future conflicts.

At the same time, the BMP class will never be saved by active protection systems - this is a typical tank story and for field use only. An infantry fighting vehicle, by definition, works in close proximity to foot gunners, and any active defense is deadly to those around it. And the tank in the city often works in close connection with the fighters-attack aircraft, therefore, all sorts of "Afghanites" and "Drozdy" are contraindicated for him.

MT-LBM is a typical example of how armored vehicles should not be made. On the artillery rear tractor to attack. Source: wikipedia.org

I note that here we are not even talking about the MT-LB multi-purpose transporter tractors, which are not intended for the front line at all. These are typical logistics vehicles that should only carry artillery systems and other equipment. Even the frontal armor barely holds a caliber of 7,62 mm. But anti-tank systems, grenade launchers are easily mounted on this equipment, and in the 2000s the MT-LBM appeared with the GSh-30K cannon. Naturally, when a floating car with cardboard armor went on the attack at the end of the campaign in Afghanistan, it turned out that 7,62 mm was completely insufficient. On the battlefield, a floating armored tractor saves only a squat silhouette.

Ukrainian case

Oddly enough, but in the Russian army there is an example of an ideal infantry fighting vehicle - this is the BMO-T flamethrower combat vehicle, created on the basis of the T-72. We can say that this is a lightweight analogue of the Israeli 60-ton Namer armored personnel carrier. There are a lot of paradoxes with BMO-T. Firstly, this is actually an assault vehicle designed to deliver seven flamethrowers to the very thick of battle. Most often to suppress well-fortified enemy firing points. Secondly, this technique is in some unknown way attributed to the practically “peaceful” troops of the RBHZ. As, however, and divisions of flamethrowers. There are hardly more than a dozen such BMO-Ts throughout Russia, two of which, according to some sources, have already been lost in Ukraine. At the same time, according to photographic evidence, one car was not hit, but left by the crew.

BMO-T is an ideal armored personnel carrier or BPM, if you put a gun. Source: wikipedia.org

The range of tasks that the BMO-T should perform, unfortunately, in Ukraine, is performed by completely different machines. The shelling of firing points in houses, the assault on fortifications are carried out from the BTR-82, infantry fighting vehicles of all series, or at best from tanks. With a high saturation of the Ukrainian theater of operations with light and very effective anti-tank weapons, the fighters are forced to go into battle on floating equipment, well adapted exclusively for nuclear war. The recent appearance of the BMPT "Terminator" in Ukraine raises the question - has the military leadership of the operation realized the need or is this the next stage of the operation?

An infantry fighting vehicle is sailing somewhere in Ukraine. Comments are superfluous. Source: telegram.org

Despite Ukraine, cut by riverbeds, no one was going to take water barriers on the move on floating equipment. We see pontoon crossings, with varying degrees of success, being built by both sides of the conflict, but we do not see armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles on the water. And do not say that they are not shown to us. Now "Special Operation Z" is unprecedentedly open to information, and the facts of the use of floating equipment for their intended purpose would not pass by. However, there are still two pieces of evidence, but they are also sad. And this is in two and a half months.

The story is explained simply - in order to transport light armored vehicles to the other side, it is necessary to carefully choose the place and time. For example, armored personnel carriers still have one of the most serious problems - the possibility of reaching an unprepared shore. With the BMP, this issue is not so acute. If a swim crossing point has been chosen, it is often easier and safer to wait for the pontooners and send tanks forward to seize the landing bridgehead. How much will light armored vehicles do for victory on the other bank?

Examples of additional booking of Russian equipment in Ukraine. Source: youtube.com

Recently, unfortunately, in Russia, the ground forces have lived on the rights of poor relatives. The lion's share of funds was spent on modernization aviation and missile troops, and motorized infantry cost little. For example, the paradoxical, if not harsher, BMP-1AM "Basurmanin". Now, when the main burden of the special operation in Ukraine falls on the shoulders of motorized riflemen, they are forced to make do with floating vehicles that will never float. It remains to wait for victory and the necessary conclusions to be drawn about the dead end branch of technical evolution.

Comments

[K-50]

If we exclude the option of swimming, how many tons of armor could be added to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? The question is rhetorical.

Would she save? Something and this "extra" armor does not always help the tank. If only from small calibers of kinetic action. Only dynamic protection and KAZ saves from cumulative ammunition. The other one has not yet come up with.

[bk0010]

Quote: K-50

Only dynamic protection and KAZ saves from cumulative ammunition.

Dynamic protection does not save, but reduces the likelihood of defeat, but the main thing is that in order to benefit from it, at least a few centimeters of armor are required.

[Shurik70]

On any to overcome water barriers it is necessary.
And land not with a bare bottom, but on equipment.
It is clear that floating equipment will be weaker armored. But at least something is much better than nothing.
Moreover, with modern anti-tank grenade launchers, almost any armor can be destroyed.
And from bullets and fragments and floating protects reliably.

[Evgeny Fedorov]

A few millimeters of additional armor will allow you to put dynamic protection on light armored vehicles without fear that it will break through the hull if something happens.

[ZeeD]

But doesn’t it bother you, the presence of a remote sensing that does not break the hull? I think it's called Cactus. Perhaps there is some more.
I also disagree about a couple of mm. Basically nothing will change.
In addition, the BMP-3 is armored exactly as well as the BMP-1 (if not better), due to the use of other alloys.

[bk0010]

Quote: Evgeny Fedorov

A few millimeters of additional armor will allow you to put dynamic protection on light armored vehicles

A few centimeters, no less. Both combined armor and dynamic protection reduce armor penetration, but something must withstand the remnants of the jet.

[28st region]

Some results on the Seversky Donets. When trying to counterattack, the Ukrainians tried to build several crossings 2-3 were immediately destroyed. I think you've seen these shots. With us, during the same attempts, 4-5 crossings were destroyed, given the destroyed pontoon park that had not yet had time to turn around. It was possible to force the Seversky Donets and gain a foothold on the opposite bank, to drive the enemy away, only after they crossed the river on floating equipment, seized a bridgehead and began to develop an offensive, only after that it was possible to establish permanent pontoon crossings, along which heavy armor went.
How should armor develop, should it be as heavy as possible protected or still floating and at the same time be nominally protected, protecting against light small arms and giving in to large-caliber rifle systems. I think there should be a middle and both have the right to life.
As for the MT-LB as an armored personnel carrier, this vehicle has not received much distribution. It is mainly used in the Far North, where infantry fighting vehicles with their narrow tracks did not perform very well, and armored personnel carriers in very cold winter conditions are also not very suitable. Not a good example you have with this machine.

[Bobik012]

Motolyga Forever! Replaces everything. Masterpiece. and very cheap. And the author simply did not fight. When a stream of three meters becomes an obstacle, you really regret that the tanks cannot swim

[Vincent price]

Well, what kind of stream is such that the tank will not move along the bottom? And on the topic: you need 2 types of infantry fighting vehicles, light and heavy with unified weapons. And we came to this, t15, Kurgan. Only there is no money, so we are holding on to Soviet stocks.

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

How should armor develop, should it be as heavy as possible protected or still floating and at the same time be nominally protected, protecting against light small arms and giving in to large-caliber rifle systems. I think there should be a middle and both have the right to life.

In conditions when in our troops ALL military equipment for motorized riflemen is floating, I consider it unnecessary to argue about whether it is needed - it simply IS and will be for a very long time.
But the question of whether a heavily armored infantry fighting vehicle is needed on the battlefield and as part of combat units has already found the answer by itself and cries out in a wild voice in the desert - YES, such equipment is urgently needed, in demand and necessary!
And today ONLY heavily armored vehicles need to be taken care of, developed, ordered and delivered to the troops.
For a lightly armored floating one, both in our troops and at storage bases, is in store for two world wars - repair, modernize, and it will last another 30 years.
But there is no highly protected equipment in the troops.
Just as there are no BMPTs in the troops to this day (one to two dozen for all the RF Armed Forces, it’s just NOTHING. But it is precisely such vehicles that are now needed on the front lines, when assaulting highly protected enemy positions and fighting in urban areas.
Ideally, floating equipment should not exceed 25 - 30% in infantry units, for arming reconnaissance and vanguard units. The task of which will be to overcome water barriers immediately, capture and hold bridgeheads until the construction of pontoon crossings and the entry of tanks and other heavy equipment to the bridgeheads.
Therefore, in the coming years, priority should be given to the purchase of highly protected infantry fighting vehicles, which should displace the BMP-1 and BMP-2 to the justified 25-30%.
Part (and considerable) of the BMP-2 and "Basurman" can be transferred to the category of ... well-armed armored personnel carriers and for arming units and subunits of the 2nd, 3rd line.
As a highly protected infantry fighting vehicle, you can choose a version of the BMP-3M "Dragoon" with enhanced armor (to the point of being able to install dynamic protection), but with the elimination of the ability to swim.
The T-15 "Armata" is unlikely to be widely used among the troops due to the high price, but the reinforced "Dragoon", having received enhanced armor and DZ, can become exactly the combat vehicle that does not have to be "reinforced" with logs, sandbags, and drive riding armor.

[28st region]

Quote: bayard

As there is no BMPT to this day

These BMPTs were given to you. What a qualitative breakthrough they have made. Yes, none. The same 30 mm guns, the same ATGMs. By the way, pay attention to the personnel of the BMPT in Ukraine, the containers for ATGMs are empty.

Quote: bayard

BMP-2 and "Basurman" can be transferred to the category of ... well-armed armored personnel carriers

Basurman is the same BMP-1, only there is a tower with the same 30 mm cannon as on the BMP-2. No quality breakthrough.

Quote: bayard

BMP-3M "Dragoon" with enhanced armor (up to the state of the possibility of installing dynamic protection), but with the elimination of the ability to swim

Why is it necessary to deprive this BMP of the ability to swim? By the way, she is in service with the Marine Corps.
All these Dragoons, Basurmanins are marking time. Attempts to make some semblance of a modern one out of old cars from the middle of the last century. By and large, everything is as it was and remains, there are small improvements, but ...

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

These BMPTs were given to you. What a qualitative breakthrough they have made

So the fact of the matter is that so far no one has been brought in - there are none.
The dozen that an experienced batch of SVs have now received from us - they will try to show something in the Donbass. For in order to contribute something, you first need to BE.
In the troops.
And at the same time in the right place.
Here in Mariupol in urban battles they had the very place.
But they were NOT there.
And it would be necessary, in each BTG, to have a company of such machines. So that, acting together with tanks, they cleared the battlefield from firing points, ATGMs and light armored vehicles.

Quote: 28st region

The same 30 mm guns,

Yes . But there are TWO 30 mm. guns. Plus a machine gun. Have you seen what even one such gun (BTR-82A or BMP-2) is capable of in urban combat?
And the BMPT has very good optics.
Well, it's just REALLY good.
And this car sees everything around MUCH better than any tank.
An order of magnitude!
The tank generally has vision ... like a rhinoceros.
Especially in urban combat.
In Mariupol, an armored personnel carrier or BMP-2 covered the tank at the time of reloading and selecting a new target for a shot. But at the same time, they themselves VERY risked their cardboard armor. And the BMPT's security is even better than that of the tank.

Quote: 28st region

. By the way, pay attention to the personnel of the BMPT in Ukraine, the containers for ATGMs are empty.

Of course they are empty, this is not a parade, and not an exercise. Here one sniper shot at the ATGM container is enough to cause trouble.
And actually, according to the idea of ​​​​the designers, the BMPT should track down and hit enemy tanks with ATGMs FROM AMBUSH and from a great distance. And when cannons are used, this is already a contact battle. So consider these ATGMs an option for ambush and defensive operations. And now we are advancing.
And in general, the troops need a simpler version of this machine - without grenade launchers on the fenders. Only two guns and a machine gun! This is more than enough to storm fortified positions and urban combat. Automatic cannon/cannons and tank-level security (even higher).
ATGMs for defensive and ambush actions ... well, maybe on marches when guarding columns.

Quote: 28st region

Basurman is the same BMP-1, only there is a tower with the same 30 mm cannon as on the BMP-2. No quality breakthrough.

What breakthrough?
This is just an opportunity to bring the BMP-1 back to life from storage bases. There are thousands of them, and if you don’t come up with a modernization option for them, they will simply rot, and even require money for disposal.
In addition, this is an opportunity to offer such vehicles to poor countries - either to buy such upgraded ones from us, or to upgrade their old BMP-1s, incl. right on the spot by supplying combat modules, etc. with the performance of work at their repair plants.
Yes, and in the current conditions of our Army, in the conditions of a sharp increase in its numbers (so far, the SV has doubled), a large amount of equipment is needed. Most of this equipment will go from storage bases with refurbishment or partial modernization.
I would recommend developing a program for additional booking of the BMP-1 and BMP-2, taking into account the deprivation of PART of the equipment of the ability to swim. This will increase its survivability, and if it is confirmed that it is possible to install additional armor (with spaced armor) elements of dynamic protection on the plates (and there were such experiments), then install them.

For the last 8 years, the Russian Federation has essentially lived in a state of postponed conflict ... This delay was not used in the best way, much was missed.
But today the Russian Federation is already in a state of ongoing, albeit limited, conflict, threatening at any moment to develop into a global conflict.
So there is no time for fat now, and you will have to fight with what is in warehouses, or with what the industry is able to release in the very near future. So the options for budgetary modernization of the BMP-1, BMP-2, T-72B and T-80 are now very appropriate, because they are carried out by repair (tank repair) plants, without diverting the main industries from the implementation of the state defense order.

Quote: 28st region

Why is it necessary to deprive this BMP of the ability to swim? By the way, she is in service with the Marine Corps.

There are already quite a lot of BMP-3s in the army, and it is in the classic - floating version. I think this is already enough for the reconnaissance and vanguard units of the RF Armed Forces. It's time to think about HIGHLY PROTECTED infantry fighting vehicles, which are not present in the troops at all (!) today.

Quote: 28st region

By the way, she is in service with the Marine Corps.

For marines, it can be supplied in the classic (waterfowl) version. But for them, I would leave the qualification at 25 - 30% floating, and the rest - reinforced. For even during amphibious operations, you can see some of the equipment landing by swimming, most of it by landing in a port (captured from the enemy), on a beach or other suitable place where the equipment from the board goes directly to the shore. I would also not want to deprive the MP of highly protected infantry fighting vehicles.

Quote: 28st region

All these Dragoons, Basurmanins are marking time. Attempts to make some semblance of a modern one out of old cars from the middle of the last century.

Have you seen the BMP-3M? Did you read her description?
She has security at the level of "Kurganets-25", thrust-to-weight ratio (and hence mobility) is simply frantic, and in addition to "Bakhchi", any other of the available combat modules can be installed. Incl. and with 57 mm. cannon.
But its price is much cheaper than the Kurganets, the industry is ready for its release, unification with the previous version of the BMP-3 will ensure its rapid retraining and development in the troops, organization of maintenance, operation and repair.

And DO NOT constantly invent something "fundamentally new". Otherwise, we will get another "Armata", "Kurganets" or Su-57. The degree of novelty in new technology should not exceed 15% - in order to avoid the risks of failure, delays and difficulties in mastering production by industry.
We now need reliable, proven and familiar vehicles in the army, which the industry is able to supply in hundreds of pieces. in year .

[28st region]

Quote: bayard

But there are TWO 30 mm. guns. Plus a machine gun.

So on the BMP there is a cannon and a machine gun, and on the BMPR-3 there are 2 guns, 100 mm and 30 mm and 2 machine guns, there are modifications where instead of course machine guns they put an AGS, one AGS and one machine gun or 2 AGS. in terms of firepower, the BMP-3 is more powerful than the BMPT.

Quote: bayard

And the BMPT has very good optics.
Well, it's just REALLY good.

Where? the same as on tanks, the same as on infantry fighting vehicles. There is nothing new. But let's take your guess for a second. Then the question is why the same is not put on other cars? A couple of dozen BMPTs were made with excellent well, just excellent optics and that's it. Cause?

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

So on the BMP there is a cannon and a machine gun, and on the BMPR-3 there are 2 guns, 100 mm and 30 mm and 2 machine guns, there are modifications where instead of course machine guns they put an AGS, one AGS and one machine gun or 2 AGS. in terms of firepower, the BMP-3 is more powerful than the BMPT.

Appointment.
BMPT should fight in the same formations with tanks and cover them. It is for this that its security is at a level and even higher than that of MBT. No infantry fighting vehicle can do that - withstand the blows of a tank or anti-tank projectile, ATGM. The BMP has more modest tasks - to deliver the infantry to the line of contact and support it with fire from behind the backs of the advancing infantry, to ensure the evacuation of the wounded, the withdrawal of units from the battlefield, and the delivery of ammunition. Direct combat in the first line is contraindicated for them due to weak security.

Quote: 28st region

Quote: bayard
And the BMPT has very good optics.
Well, it's just REALLY good.

Where? the same as on tanks, the same as on infantry fighting vehicles

You're wrong .
OLS was developed for BMPT on a separate project.

Quote: 28st region

Then the question is why the same is not put on other cars?

I think - the price of the issue and the jealousy of the developers. And do not forget that the most budgetary upgrade option was chosen for the T-72B3.
Savings and care for the mass character / large series within the budget.

Quote: 28st region

A couple of dozen BMPTs were made with excellent well, just excellent optics and that's it. Cause?

Let's be glad that such machines have entered the army at least in some quantity and now they can demonstrate their need, demand and irreplaceability. After all, they might not have accepted it into service at all ... they were all "looking for a place for it in battle formations" ... they have been looking for it for more than a dozen years ... and now the battle formations have found these places themselves ... but there are NO BMPTs themselves! And they could already have a couple of hundred of them and they would have a very serious impact on the success of assault operations and battles in urban areas.
And its main advantage is the highest security and very good optics.

[28st region]

Quote: bayard

It is for this that its security is at a level and even higher than that of MBT

What did it mean? Extra armor? Or some new one. If this is the same T-72, then why can’t the tanks be brought to such a state

Quote: bayard

OLS was developed for BMPT on a separate project

And again the same question. Why not put this on tanks?
Some optical devices affect the price of the issue. And where? In our country, which supplies all of Europe with gas and oil. You yourself are not funny.

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

What did it mean? Extra armor? Or some new one.

Better security in the frontal projection, additional side protection. The result is better crew protection and overall combat survivability.

Quote: 28st region

And again the same question. Why not put this on tanks?

Ask this question to the Ministry of Defense and the profile committee of the State Duma.
I think that the most budgetary option for modernization was simply chosen for the sake of mass production and higher rates of supplies to the troops. It was possible to ensure mass deliveries, therefore I believe that the main goal of this modernization has been achieved.
And all the latest options and improvements were received by the T-90M, which also enters the troops and all early versions of this tank undergo similar modernization.

Quote: 28st region

In our country, which supplies all of Europe with gas and oil. You yourself are not funny.

No, it's not funny.
But in the country, as you may know, capitalism, lobbying for private interests and their mother is Corruption.

[garri-lin]

You propose to armor BMP 1 and 2 to the state of deprivation of buoyancy. . It's not about buoyancy, it's about running. The running gear will not pull. Need to redo.

[bayard]

Quote: garri-lin

The running gear will not pull. Need to redo

So I suggest REDOING.
As part of the restoration repair and partial modernization during the withdrawal from the storage bases. Change torsion bars, make in the image and likeness of the "Afghan" BMP-2.
By the way, in the troops (and especially in the LDNR), additional armor is hung on the BMP-1 \ 2. And in the current conflict, we have even seen enough of how infantry fighting vehicles are hung with logs, sheets of iron (not armor), pieces of a conveyor belt ... It’s better to strengthen the armor immediately at repair plants, according to a single project and with proper quality.

[garri-lin]

The Afghan BMP 2 was overloaded. And this is a fact. The list of works necessary for alteration and dobranirovaniya huge. Isn't it easier to make new equipment for that money ??? There is one financial and labor-intensive process in the alteration. Dismantling the old. It's easier to make something new than to put together an old one.

[bayard]

Torsion bars, bearings, and often engines, means of communication, all this, when removed from storage of such a duration, change.
So what prevents with such a replacement to strengthen the suspension (new torsion bars), hang additional armor panels, screens and anti-cumulative grilles? It's just that you need to do this according to a single project, according to the TOR, and not to be weird later in the troops, or even in the fire order during the database.
Of course within the allowable weight loads.
And use other unreinforced infantry fighting vehicles as armored personnel carriers, supply vehicles and evacuation of the wounded. At the same time, they are well-armed.
For I do not believe that we will have time to create new heavy infantry fighting vehicles in the proper quantity. You will have to fight with what you have.

[garri-lin]

Are you sure about the replacement of torsion bars and bearings during re-opening? Or is this speculation???

[bayard]

Quote: garri-lin

Are you sure about the replacement of torsion bars and bearings during re-opening?

In the case of strengthening the reservation, the suspension needs to be strengthened.
It is this procedure that is carried out when upgrading the BMP-1 to the version "Basurman", while changing the engine to the same type with the BMP-2.
They change to BMP-1 and torsion bars, although the armor is not enhanced.
But the suspension is getting stronger.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[garri-lin]

Well, this is not removed from conservation, but an extremely unsuccessful modernization. Senseless.

[bayard]

A completely acceptable upgrade for the BMP-1, bringing it to the level of combat power of the BMP-2. With better (than a deuce) armor protection and an uninhabited module (which also adds security to .
There are claims to 30 mm. cannon - not too reliable and a large spread of shells. I would replace it with a more rigid one with a muzzle brake, which was chosen for good reason on the BMP-2, helicopters, and BMPTs.

Quote: garri-lin

Senseless.

Very meaningful, because it allows thousands of BMP-1s to be returned to service. We have a big war ahead of us and we will need a lot of combat vehicles. the industry will not be able to cope with such requests, but the repair plants will help. How to arm new units / formations during mobilization?
In addition, this modernization has a good export sight - an offer for poor allies.

[garri-lin]

Only export. Putting such a trough into service in your army is a huge sin. BMP 1 has one way. Replace weapons with DUM from 7,62 and use in the rear. Transport. Tractor. The medicine. And the like.
120 mm mortar to adapt. Cheap and cheerful. But not in a fight.

[bayard]

Right now, the RF Armed Forces are doubling the number of SVs. And what new units to plant? Where to get equipment?
From storage.
With refurbishment and partial modernization (if possible).
And you will have to fight on what is available, and not on pink dreams.
In the summer of 1941, the USSR Army had about two million self-loading (automatic) rifles ... And the Mosinki fought the whole war.
Why
Yes, because the mobilized Russian collective farmers could not master and competently operate and maintain such complex rifles. Therefore, the automatic ones were withdrawn from the troops (they were left only in the Navy), and the production of "Mosinok" was resumed.
And today there is no time to master new equipment (if suddenly this appears in the troops), and people are trained on the T-72, BMP-1 \ 2 \ 3, etc., the equipment they used to serve on.
So it's time to forget about the plans and quirks of peacetime and prepare for a long and difficult war.
And of course, this is not a first-line weapon, but for rear units, for service at checkpoints. But if necessary, they will still fight.
The main thing is that they should be able to easily make up for losses from storage bases, have a ready-made project for restoration repairs and partial modernization, and also that there be capacities and specialists for these works.

[garri-lin]

If we are to upgrade, then definitely it is better to invest money in BMP2. Afghan version but additional booking from new materials and with an eye to be smart. It will turn out better than Basurman.
The Mosinki example is not correct. The conscript has served on a regular Behe ​​1 and the mobilized one will need to be retrained for Basurman unambiguously. A lot has changed there. Let them better retrain for normal technique and not for ersatz.
The problem with singles and doubles is not in the gun. The problem is armor that does not correspond to tasks and situational awareness. It’s easier to pull a deuce under realities than a single one.

[bayard]

Quote: garri-lin

The Mosinki example is not correct. The conscript served on a regular Behe ​​1 and the mobilized one will need to be retrained for Basurman unambiguously

You definitely won’t have to retrain the driver, the rest is learned quickly.

Quote: garri-lin

Let them better retrain for normal technique and not for ersatz.

The question is what technique do you consider normal.
"Kurganets-25"?
It will not be - unjustifiably expensive and oversized.
BMP -3 \ 3M?
It would be nice, but there are not so many of them in the troops and the mobilized units are unlikely to receive them.
BMP-2?
Yes, there are even more of them in storage than a few. But there are thousands of ones, and they should not disappear. And with additional armor and an uninhabited module, the BMP-1 will have even greater survivability - due to the best basic armor (somewhat better than that of the BMP-2) and the lack of a manned tower. And their fire capabilities are approximately (with "Basurman") equal.
And the industry simply will not have time to provide new samples, it takes 10 years for this.
But it is NEEDED to strive to transfer motorized infantry to heavy, highly protected infantry fighting vehicles.
And the old BMP-1 \ 2 will still serve as auxiliary equipment - as tracked armored personnel carriers, evacuation vehicles for the removal of the wounded, front line supply vehicles, combat vehicles for rear units and ... as "light cavalry" as floating infantry fighting vehicles.

Quote: garri-lin

If we are to upgrade, then it’s definitely better to invest money in BMP2

They are undergoing planned modernization, it turns out well.
And "Basurmanin" is a prudent use of the resource and the possibility of mobilization during a big war.

[garri-lin]

Basurmanin is a waste of money. And time. Deuce is a much more logical source for upgrading.
In any case, the driver does not need to be retrained. On any upgraded technology.
Basurmanin's gun seems to be worse than on Deuce. The accuracy is less.
Normal equipment is the BMP 3 family in different versions. Or logically upgraded deuces. Additional armor and a good sight / observation device. With a thermal imager.

[bayard]

Quote: garri-lin

Basurmanin is a waste of money. And time. Deuce is a much more logical source for upgrading.

The deuces are already being modernized and there are a lot of them in storage, if you add armor reinforcement to the existing modernization project, then it will be what you need.
And after modernization, the BMP-1 is more reasonable to use an armored personnel carrier, and not an infantry fighting vehicle.

Quote: garri-lin

Basurmanin's gun seems to be worse than on Deuce. The accuracy is less.

Yes, the gun is much worse - both in the spread of shells (poor accuracy due to the barrel walking during firing), and less reliability, and the lack of a muzzle brake. During the fighting in Mariupol, there were frequent pluggings during vigorous fire.

Quote: garri-lin

Normal equipment is the BMP 3 family in different versions.

Well, this goes without saying, but it will not be possible soon to bring their number in the troops to an acceptable percentage. And we must quickly move on to the production of the BMP-3M "Dragoon", preferably in two forms - floating and with the most enhanced protection.

But if the current conflict goes into disarray and Mobilization does happen, then all available types of armored vehicles will have to be put into operation, and it’s good that the BMP-1 can be upgraded - on a budget and to an acceptable level.
And the module for her (Basurman) and for the BTR-82A, I would rework for a normal 30 mm. a cannon - with a rigid barrel, a muzzle brake and reliable automation.

[garri-lin]

1. That's it. Units to upgrade to the level of tracked armored personnel carriers. Remove original weapon. Reinforce suspension. Put screens and additional armor. Work with mine protection. Landing 8-10 people.
An armored personnel carrier does not need strong weapons. 82 is frankly unsuccessfully armed.
The weapons required for such equipment are well implemented on the Strikers. 40 mm grenade launcher. Russia has the Balkans. DUM with 40 mm grenade launcher and 7,62 × 54. Adequate means of observation. And on a wheeled and tracked armored personnel carrier. Easier and more efficient.
2. Such a gun does not make sense. This is the last century.
3. A module with a normal cannon is not possible. The module is small and light. The recoil of a normal gun is high BM armored personnel carrier 82 compromise variani. And frank show-offs. A 40 mm grenade launcher looks much more logical on such a carrier.

[bayard]

Quote: garri-lin

The weapons required for such equipment are well implemented on the Strikers. 40 mm grenade launcher. Russia has the Balkans. DUM with 40 mm

A dubious offer for an armored personnel carrier, still 40 mm. the grenade launcher is suitable against infantry and unarmored vehicles, again, the distance of fire, the range of destruction. 2A42 is of course more powerful, heavier, but it also has a good muzzle brake, they even put it on helicopters ... and on armored vehicles. Of course, it shakes armored vehicles with recoil, but the BTR-82 is still heavier, and eight large wheels with individual suspension will dampen recoil well. And the combat module from the same car will fit there completely.
Yes, this will be another modification of the armored personnel carrier, but it's worth it if such armored personnel carriers are going to continue to be supplied to the troops. Apparently, during the development of the BTR-82A, there was simply no other suitable module, and the jambs with the unsuccessful gun were not fully identified.
And on the BTR-80 \ 82 chassis they even put the "Nona" tower, and nothing.
And the gun is much more versatile than a grenade launcher. Here and the defeat of light armored vehicles, the destruction of enemy firing points behind an obstacle, and if shells with remote detonation do go to the troops, then this will be super-effective against manpower - no worse than a grenade launcher.
Have you seen how she breaks through the main walls?
And when queues work?
And with a grenade launcher, you must definitely hit the window.
no, the gun is better.
But it must be the RIGHT GUN.
And as for the tracked armored personnel carrier from the BMP-1, you understood correctly. It is not good for such machines to rot at storage bases when the war is on.
And there should be a LOT of such technology.

[garri-lin]

A 40 mm grenade launcher against infantry is much more useful than a 30 mm hole punch.
It is also more effective against all unarmored and lightly armored vehicles.
I am silent about cumulatives. And they are also effective.
Plus, concrete-piercing cumulatives with a specially selected funnel focus that make a "fragmentation jacket" out of any concrete barrier.
And if you really dream about a controlled detonation, then at 40 mm it is much more effective. Right hinged trajectories can be taken care of by a directed fragmentation field. When most of the mass of the shot flies in the right direction and does not scatter 365 degrees in any plane.
40 mm and mounted fire with an adequate list of ammunition is much more effective than 30 mm direct shot. Precisely for purposes at the level of a platoon - departments.
And one more plus. A machine with such a DUM can hit an anti-tank without getting out of the folds of the terrain. I don't risk getting a refund.
About the fact that 30 mm is put on helicopters, this does not mean anything. And it doesn’t say anything about armored cars. The main disadvantage of this weapon is the swaying when firing in bursts. The weak gun is not accurate for technical reasons. Strong on BIR is inaccurate due to the strong sway from recoil. "NONA" is not an indicator; it does not shoot bursts.

[bayard]

Well, perhaps they persuaded, a grenade launcher module is also possible - for a change and expansion of capabilities, but as another one. The cannon is the main armament, it has a greater range of a direct shot, in the mountains and urban combat from long distances it is more useful. At close range - yes, a grenade launcher may seem more interesting.
But on a tracked armored personnel carrier \ BMP-1, only a gun, you can’t swing its suspension.
And in general, an armored personnel carrier is not for direct combat at a short distance (where a grenade launcher can be more interesting), but a means of delivering infantry to the line of clashes, with the possibility of fire support during the landing and during the evacuation. Close combat is not his (armored personnel carrier) element.

[garri-lin]

A half-hearted shot in the city is hundreds of meters. Not more. 30 mm are redundant. But 40 mm can do it.
The gun is good on infantry fighting vehicles that should participate in the battle of the apoilri. We are talking about the retraining of the BMP1 into a tracked armored personnel carrier for which the gun is redundant. Difficult and hard road.
It is necessary to make a new DUM module. 40 mm 150 - 200 shots
7,62×54 2000 shots. Cool and sophisticated optics with thermal imagers, laser designators and other stuffing. For scouts, special forces and sabotage groups. Install a stripped-down version on mass machines. No expensive toppings. On the commander's can be more fancy, the thermal imager is one-shot. Well, the spices are all minced meat.
Mass will give a price reduction at least for "iron".
These are the light modules to equip armored personnel carriers.
And leave the guns on the BMP.

[bayard]

Quote: garri-lin

A half-hearted shot in the city is hundreds of meters. Not more. 30 mm are redundant. But 40 mm can do it.

And in the mountains, fields, forests?
Hundreds of meters, this is the distance of an RPG shot. And there is also an ATGM, which the armored personnel carrier must counteract, at least be able to respond / disrupt the attack. And for this only a gun.
Yes, it's light, so we tried to do this in the image of 2A72 ... it didn't turn out quite well. And since combat experience has shown / revealed its shortcomings, then apparently measures will be taken to correct it.
The grenade launcher you proposed also has the right to life, but not as a complete alternative, but as an addition to cannon armored personnel carriers, when a cannon armored personnel carrier fires at distant targets and targets behind an obstacle, and an armored personnel carrier with an automatic grenade launcher operates in the near and middle zone against infantry and unarmored equipment, and also conducts mounted fire on infantry behind the folds of the terrain.
Maybe such a version of the BTR-82 will appear.

[garri-lin]

The Balkan operates at a range of up to 2500. This is enough in the field and forest. Of the minuses, grenade flight time and accuracy. Although when compared with the Pushkots BTR82, the difference in accuracy is not very big.
An armored personnel carrier should not participate in combat. This is transport. And what about the gun, what about the grenade launcher, the problem of the armored personnel carrier in battle is not in the gun, but in the armor.
It is necessary to use equipment adequately and not go on the attack on equipment that is of little use for this and was created for another.

[fone]

Who told you that the BMP-1 has better armor than the BMP-2? It's worse! During the transition to the production of the BMP-2, the brand of armor steel was specially changed in order to increase the durability of the armor.

[alexmach]

Torsion bars, bearings, and often engines, means of communication, all this, when removed from storage for such a duration, change

Engines? When removed from storage? Change? Yes, for what reason? They change all rubber products, all sorts of seals there, including those in the engine, but neither the engine itself nor the bearings are changed when removed from storage. Trossions - I don’t know, I actually once studied automotive engineering, but it also somehow sounds doubtful.

[bayard]

Quote: alexmach

Engines? When removed from storage? Change? Yes, for what reason?

Yes, for the BMP-1 when upgrading to the "Basurman" version.

Quote: alexmach

They change all rubber products, all sorts of seals there, including in the engine,

And wiring, cables, electrics, often an aiming system, communications equipment, etc. electrics / electronics. But I didn't mention such banality, it's a classic.
But during the modernization of the BMP-1 in the "Basurman", both torsion bars (suspension reinforcement) and engines (for unification with the BMP-2) are changed. In this case, the booking itself is not enhanced. What prevents, even with the planned replacement of torsion bars, to provide for an increase in the weight of the armor by 2-3 tons? After all, the replacement is still underway.

Quote: alexmach

Change? Yes, for what reason?

They stood in storage in OUR CLIMATE CONDITIONS for at least 30 years !! What state do you think they are in?
Can they be loaded and driven? Changing the oil and putting in the battery?

[alexmach]

Yes, for the BMP-1 when upgrading to the "Basurman" version.

No, I am aware of the fact that during modernization the equipment is capitalized and a lot of things change. But this is never a removal from storage, but a major overhaul. Another thing is that the storage conditions are really not the fact that they comply with the standards.

[bayard]

Yes, it is impossible to remove equipment from storage without repair. And after 30 years of sludge, without major repairs. Engines are overhauled, and more often they are simply changed, even for tanks.
When martial law was declared in / in Ukraine at the end of February / beginning of March 2014, then at night they dragged tanks from storage (with units that were not long-term, but well-stood), then in one night they were either 3 or 4 the tank was lost - one in the trench caught fire and the BC detonated (they warmed up from a running engine), the other was brought in the box by putting it on warm-up, and it also got tanned, the BC began to tear and with it 2 or 3 more tanks in the same box burned down and the hangar / garage \box collapsed... In both cases, the wiring caught fire.
I then received this information live ... we laughed with a friend - we didn’t have time to declare war, and already lost 4 tanks.
So in practice, the Sumerians realized that when removing tanks (and other equipment) from the DH, it was necessary to capitalize, changing all the wiring, sorting out engines, transmission, running gear and ... mechanization and gun drives (in the summer of 2014, their guns very often failed even before the first shot).
... Then it seemed ridiculous.
And now it’s not at all a laughing matter - they played at the end.

[alexmach]

And in general, the troops need a simpler version of this machine - without grenade launchers on the fenders

Hello. After all, it’s not complicated because of grenade launchers, but because of those very electro-optical devices.

[bayard]

Quote: alexmach

Hello.

And good day to you.

Quote: alexmach

After all, it’s not complicated because of grenade launchers, but because of those very electro-optical devices.

The question, including the composition of the crew. In the version with grenade launchers, the crew of the BMPT is already 5 people! And give everyone your own surveillance devices, a place in the fighting compartment, drives for the same grenade launchers ... But if (and when) 30 mm appear. shells with controlled detonation, the need for such grenade launchers will disappear automatically.
Again, I'm talking about the experience of fighting in urban areas (Mariupol and in general in the Donbass), where just 30 mm are needed. guns behind tank armor and with good visibility.
And in the SV Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for so long they slowed down the adoption of the BMPT precisely because of the excesses in it, asking to make a simplified version of the BM with 30 mm. cannons, machine guns and ATGMs, as an option (when working from ambushes). In urban and close contact combat (assault operation), ATGMs on BMPTs are not needed at all and are simply dangerous. Any bullet, shrapnel...
And this - a simplified BMPT did appear. But the first company came to the troops with all this circus ...
Here, after all, the question is not only the price of such a body kit, but also the simplicity, convenience and SPEED of creating such machines on the T-72 chassis. Removed the tower - installed the combat module. The crew was reduced by 2 people - a larger ammo was placed in the fighting compartment. After all, we are already at war. And a world war could break out at any moment. Such machines are needed in the MASS troops - in each BTG for a company ... at least - for a platoon. And as quickly as possible. And so that modernization can be carried out even at tank repair plants by installing ready-made combat modules.

By the way, according to the assurances of the developer, the BMPT wins in a direct linear confrontation with any tank (even the Armata).
Firstly, because she will detect him earlier (OLS is much better).
Secondly, it will be able to hit him at a much greater distance.
Thirdly, it will be able to survive a direct hit by any (!) Projectile of a modern MBT (and "Armata" too), but a tank (any one, including "Armata") will not survive its hit.
This is the most important task that the chief designer of this product set for himself, and he realized this task. By the way, he had previously created the very T-95, which today is much more in demand than the absurdity in the image of the T-14.

By the way, the simplified BMPT really turned out to be 1,5 times cheaper, and its combat module can be installed on almost the chassis of any MBT whose shoulder strap is suitable - T-72, T-64, T-62, and even T-55.
And there should be hundreds of such machines in the RF Armed Forces. And the chassis for them at the storage bases was simply heaped up.

[alexmach]

This is the most important task that the chief designer of this product set himself, and this task was realized

According to him.. Yes. I watched a video with them, they were recently shared here when discussing BMPT.
Indeed, the designer himself said that the army initially wanted a "simplified version".

By the way, according to the assurances of the developer, the BMPT wins in a direct linear confrontation with any tank (even the Armata).
Firstly, because she will detect him earlier (OLS is much better).

Well, I don’t know where he got such confidence that the OLS is better than on a modern tank. This statement is not at all clear to me. I believe that the best available should have been put on a promising tank.

Secondly, it will be able to hit him at a much greater distance.

Cornet? maybe he can, maybe he can't. Dynamic and active protection is still effective against anti-tank systems.

Thirdly, it will be able to survive a direct hit by any (!) Projectile of a modern MBT

This is the most controversial statement in my opinion. How can she survive him? For what? The T-72B3 will not be able to, but the BMPT, and even built on the basis of an older tank hull, can it?

In general, it is clear that "every sandpiper praises his swamp." It is likely that in general the machine has its own tactical niche. But he does seem to over-praise her a little.

[bayard]

Well, what designer does not consider his product to be the best?
But the fact that the security of the BMPT is higher than that of the MBT, both in the frontal and in the lateral projection, has been talked about since the very appearance of this machine, and I have not heard or read a single refutation. Reservations have been strengthened + dynamic protection, additional armor body kit and screens on the sides. I won’t say how much it increases in percentage terms, but additional passive armor + the absence of a manned tower, the survivability of the vehicle as a whole and the survival of the crew, increase.
Here is the combat module itself to demolish - it's easy. And the crew will survive.
Yes, and the designer conceived it for action from ambush ... although he was ordered an assault vehicle, incl. for urban combat and combat in the mountains.

And now all these additional miracles are not needed for nothing, we need cars on a tank chassis, with crew protection at the tank level and armed with 30 mm. guns + machine gun.
Even ATGMs are not necessary.
But there are more, because this is the ideal assault vehicle, capable of working together and on a par with a tank, or independently.
Now with what blood each fortified area, each settlement is given ... And how much time it takes ... And how much light equipment is lost, because 30 mm is NEEDED. automatic gun. And she is only on the BMP-2 and BTR-82A.
My comrade in Mariupol was wounded - the 9th regiment. It was they who started the assault on Mariupol and bit into it. Came without technology!
The light one is pitiful and useless, but the tank does not see anything. The tank, already during the fighting in the city, came up to support ... and who should cover it (tank)? When grenade launchers are like uncut dogs?
When he was wounded on March 30, 37 people remained in the ranks of the battalion ...
And if from the very beginning there were BMPTs?
That's why I care for them.

[alexmach]

But the fact that the security of the BMPT is higher than that of the MBT, both in the frontal and in the lateral projection, has been talked about since the very appearance of this machine, and I have not heard or read a single refutation. Reservations have been strengthened + dynamic protection, additional armor body kit and screens on the sides

Well, that sounds a bit doubtful. Especially if they are made from hulls that are not suitable for modernization according to existing tank programs ... And they are not suitable, in fact, because of the worst security .. But God knows. maybe removing the tower really won so much in weight that there was a lot left to defend ..

But in fact, this war will show everything about both floating equipment and BMPTs .. about everything.

[Jager]

But at the same time, the Volgograd Tractor Plant and many other plants producing tracked vehicles were destroyed in our country. Wherever you look - everywhere Doosans, Daewoo, Caterpillars, JSB and others. In automotive technology, dump trucks are now entirely Chinese ...

[bayard]

Many factories have been destroyed. So after all, in the Russian Federation, unlike the USSR, the appetite for new armored vehicles has decreased many times over.

Quote: Jager

In automotive technology, dump trucks are now entirely Chinese ...

And you do not follow fashion, support a domestic manufacturer - buy KAMAZ trucks. They are right - no worse.
Now, for the war, we don’t need new equipment so much as we need power to restore and modernize / transform the old one - from the DH.
It is necessary to pump up tank repair capacities to return the T-72, T-80, BMP-1\3 to service, and to transform old tanks into TBTRs.

[surok1]

At one time there was a topic on flying tanks, but there was no topic on underwater ones. So that along the bottom on batteries, without preparation and fear. Such a fool comes out with two 30mm cannons, two 12,7mm machine guns, with automatic grenade launchers, invulnerable, highly mobile and waters everything he notices.

[Jager]

So it is on the bottom and so it can))

[surok1]

Need to do better.

[trenkkvaz]

Universalism is a bad thing. All qualities are deteriorating. It is better to divide the armor protection of equipment according to belonging to parts.
Most infantry should have heavy vehicles with as much protection as possible.
But for some units whose task is to operate behind enemy lines or seize bridgeheads on water barriers, let them use lighter equipment that can swim.

[28st region]

I repeat especially for you

Some results on the Seversky Donets. When trying to counterattack, the Ukrainians tried to build several crossings 2-3 were immediately destroyed. I think you've seen these shots. With us, during the same attempts, 4-5 crossings were destroyed, given the destroyed pontoon park that had not yet had time to turn around. It was possible to force the Seversky Donets and gain a foothold on the opposite bank, to drive off the enemy, only after they crossed the river on floating equipment, seized a bridgehead and began to develop an offensive,

Even when moving, any river, stream, for non-floating equipment becomes an insurmountable obstacle. The movement stalled.
And you are universalism.

[28st region]

As if in pursuit. Pay attention to the experience of b / d in Ukraine. The infantry, whatever you call it, remained infantry; in combat contact, it acts on foot. The question arises, why build armored vehicles with maximum protection? And what does that mean, maximum protection. Armor thickness of a meter, vehicle weight of 100 tons, or something else.

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

. The question arises, why build armored vehicles with maximum protection? And what does that mean, maximum protection. Armor thickness of a meter, vehicle weight of 100 tons, or something else.

To ensure the protection of the crew and troops from a direct hit by RPGs and ATGMs, as well as from 30 mm. or even 40 mm. guns.
Armor in a meter is of course not needed, as the main BMP it is best to choose the BMP-3M "Dragoon" with good armor and powerful side screens with ceramic armor (from "Kurganets"). She even holds 30 mm on board. projectile and RPG / ATGM (due to spaced armor and powerful side screens, which also increase ... buoyancy.
If you abandon buoyancy, then the armor can be further strengthened by providing protection against promising shells from NATO infantry fighting vehicles (40 mm.). But even in the basic configuration, the BMP-3M is very good. And at the same time it is very mobile - the engine from the "Kurganets" gives just wild thrust-to-weight ratio, and it is located in front.
The weight of the BMP-3M is about 21 tons, but the engine power and good suspension allow you to increase the weight to 24 - 25 tons without much difficulty.
And most importantly, this BMP-3M already exists and can be launched into series.

There is no need to look for complicated ways, it is much more productive to use existing developments.

And of course, the TBMP T-15 based on "Armata", which is good for everyone, except for the price and difficulties in production and future operation - due to the novelty and complexity of the design and the lack of repair kits, spare parts and trained specialists.

And as the easiest and fastest way to enhance the protection of existing BMP-1 \ 2 - an example of the "Afghan" version of the BMP-2. It will be possible to hang on such, possibly dynamic protection.

[28st region]

Those. remove the requirements of the military for such equipment to float?

[bayard]

We now have ALL (!!!) equipment floating!
You understand - EVERYTHING.
All infantry fighting vehicles, all armored personnel carriers, MTLBs, light (amphibious (!) Tanks).
So why cry for almost a week?
The troops now need not floating (because now ALL equipment is floating there), but highly protected equipment. So that birch logs are not hung on the sides and sandbags are not lined with sandbags.
Have you noticed how quickly the assault work went on in the Severodonetsk-Lisichansk direction?
But only one BMPT company came there.
There will be hundreds of such vehicles in the troops - offensive operations will go where as quickly. And for urban battles, it’s better not to find a car (yes, paired with a tank).

And the military demanded that they have floating equipment ... But this does not mean that ALL equipment should float. Tanks, self-propelled guns, trucks, engineering vehicles will never float. And 25 - 30% of floating equipment is quite enough to capture bridgeheads and force water barriers on the move. But the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to such indicators (no more than 30% of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are floating) as to China in a plastun way ... from Vologda.

[28st region]

Quote: bayard

light (floating (!) tanks)

What kind of tanks, why don't I know?

Quote: bayard

And 25 - 30% of floating equipment is quite enough to capture bridgeheads and force water barriers on the move.

Where such confidence? And as with the states of units and subdivisions.

Quote: bayard

But the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to such indicators (no more than 30% of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are floating) as to China in a plastun way ... from Vologda.

In general, I didn’t understand a fig, what are you talking about?

Quote: bayard

Have you noticed how quickly the assault work went on in the Severodonetsk-Lisichansk direction?
But only one BMPT company came there.

Those. tanks have nothing to do with it, and armored personnel carriers have nothing to do with it, and infantry fighting vehicles don’t play any role either, and artillery and aviation don’t need to take them into account at all.
Yes, what nonsense. Confronted in this direction are fresh, just mobilized units, in which people do not want to serve. Surrendered not by tens but by hundreds. And when they begin to talk during interrogations, they only talk about how our artillery and aviation bombard them with metal. Watch the video with the positions of ukrov. Solid funnels.
As for the BMPT, there is currently no information about their participation and effectiveness, these are your notions, nothing more.

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

What kind of tanks, why don't I know?

"Octopus". It’s true that they called it a floating (and SDM and airborne) self-propelled gun ... But this number is a collision with the classification - by someone’s whim it was impossible to call a light tank a tank, therefore they called it a self-propelled anti-tank gun . At the same time, floating and even airborne.

Quote: 28st region

Where such confidence? And as with the states of units and subdivisions.

From the practice of overcoming water barriers - only the vanguard.
So it is enough to have a vanguard battalion in the regiment - on floating equipment. In the BTG, you can have a vanguard company ... and two assault companies on heavy equipment.

Quote: 28st region

In general, I didn’t understand a fig, what are you talking about?

The fact that our trouble is not due to the fact that there is little floating equipment, but that ALL of our equipment ... is floating.
And the complete absence of heavy, well-protected armored vehicles for infantry (of course, tanks do not count).
therefore, if the right decision is made and heavy highly protected equipment goes into the troops, then bringing its number in the troops even to 50% ... even up to 30% of the total number ... will still be very, very far away.
Therefore, the only way out now is to strengthen the reservation of regular infantry fighting vehicles along the lines of the "Afghan" one and order the same BMP-3M ... because for the time being, its earlier version, which has less security, is being sent to the troops.

Quote: 28st region

Those. tanks have nothing to do with it, and armored personnel carriers have nothing to do with it, and infantry fighting vehicles don’t play any role either, and artillery and aviation don’t need to take them into account at all.

Yes, this was all before, and I can hear well how the "Malki" work. There was a lack of heavy assault armored vehicles with automatic cannons and protection at the MBT level and above.
Now it has appeared, and immediately a rapid advancement in one day. No, I have not yet heard any reports from the front end, but I really hope that the "Terminators" (always jarred from this name) have made their contribution.
Moreover, in the frames they are just in those very advancing orders, and are used (as far as I understand) as part of a group and, I hope, with the support of tanks.

Quote: 28st region

As for the BMPT, there is currently no information about their participation and effectiveness.

Already there , but no details yet .

Quote: 28st region

Confronted in this direction are fresh, just mobilized units, in which people do not want to serve. Surrendered not by tens but by hundreds.

And this is also a factor. But this does not detract from the importance and necessity of such assault vehicles. And you need a lot of them.
For there is no end to the work ahead of them.

[28st region]

Quote: bayard

"Octopus". His true floating (and SDM and airborne) self-propelled gun was called ...

And where do these light tanks, according to your classification, regularly enter? How many of them are in our army

Quote: bayard

So it is enough to have a vanguard battalion in the regiment - on floating equipment. In the BTG, you can have a vanguard company ... and two assault companies on heavy equipment.

Interesting. So you are proposing, in addition to everything else, to specifically keep a certain vanguard battalion. So two assault battalions and one vanguard.

Quote: bayard

In the BTG, you can have a vanguard company ... and two assault companies on heavy equipment.

I will reveal the secret. BGT is American terminology, well, journalists also use it to enhance their reporting, in our Russian army it is called a reinforced battalion. The battalion is given a tank company, an artillery battery, and a mortar battery. You are proposing a well-coordinated combat unit, a battalion, to split it up. Leave two of your companies, remove one somewhere and add a company from another battalion, with different equipment, with a different commander, who have not passed coherence with other companies. You think this is chess, and all these swarms, battalions are figurines that, wherever you poke, will walk through the cells as they should.
About BMPT

Quote: bayard

Already there , but no details yet .

But you know if you wrote, share the information, just don't confuse their location anymore.
OK. I'm finishing. It can be seen that I communicate with a man who is too young, who did not serve in the army, who has no idea about it. All dreams, dreams, dreams.
I bow out. Goodbye

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

It can be seen that I communicate with a person too young

Quote: 28st region

who did not serve in the army,

Quote: 28st region

having no idea about it

Cheered up.

Quote: 28st region

But you know if you wrote, share the information, just don't confuse their location anymore.

But this is rudeness. For such ears would kick.

Quote: 28st region

. Goodbye

And you do not have to be ill .

[28st region]

Quote: bayard

But this is rudeness. For such ears would kick.

Why rudeness? Statement of fact. A person has no idea about the structure of units, the actions of units in battle. Moreover, the person writes a frank hmm let's say unverified information about the BMPT, some kind of heresy, and suddenly transferred them to another direction.
It will probably be too late for me to tear my ears. I'm too old for such experiments.
Do not be offended by what he wrote. Good luck to you.

[bayard]

Quote: 28st region

A person has no idea about the structure of units, the actions of units in battle.

He served in another branch of the military - an officer of the combat control of an air defense formation. Even under the Union.
And 8 years as in Donetsk. Comrades are still fighting, but I'm no longer fit - I won't pass the medical examination.

Quote: 28st region

. Moreover, a person writes frank hmm, let's say unverified information about BMPT,

We have already rinsed this topic so much on this site that if it were not for the war and the need for such a machine, we would have missed the publication by.

Quote: 28st region

A person has no idea about the structure of divisions,

Yes, I have an idea, although not an infantryman. You only understand the value of highly protected equipment when you find yourself in a war. then you will hang it with logs, and you will overlay it with sandbags, and you will compose self-made screens from a conveyor belt.
I have an example of the lack of normally protected equipment before my eyes. And the consequences of her absence. That is why I am writing based on the experience of this war.
And this war is still ahead.
And he goes to my window.

Quote: 28st region

and suddenly threw them in another direction.

This is in Lugan, my comrades do not fight there, but I did not look / clarify. The main thing is that even though this company has appeared, it may still be launched into the series, and it is in a simplified version, without unnecessary bells and whistles - guns, a machine gun, ATGMs as needed (they are not needed during the assault).

[stankow]

Sprut-S. Tank destroyer but also a amphibious tank.

[Ovsigovets]

leave a limited amount of floating equipment for the marines +% on top ..... people are more expensive

[Vladimir_2U]

A few saved tons should have gone into millimeters of additional armor.

Seriously? Does the author imagine that these millimeters will save you from ATGMs? Although what's wrong: the author considered the ideal BMP-hoi lightly armed transporter.

Oddly enough, but in the Russian army there is an example of an ideal infantry fighting vehicle - this is the BMO-T flamethrower combat vehicle, created on the basis of the T-72

Well, with a cherry to write about the lack of examples of the use of buoyancy of armor and immediately show two photos with such examples!

In general, the author does not care about the marines, reconnaissance and airborne forces, and even more regrettable, the author is not aware of the hinged armor and the methods of maintaining the buoyancy of such armor.
In short, the dead-end here is not at all a branch of technical evolution!

[Maxim Davydov]

A few saved tons should have gone into millimeters of additional armor.

A few millimeters will do nothing; progress will be like BMP-2 -> 3, that is, say, protection from 7.62 -> from 12.7; there is no question of protection against anti-tank systems or at least a 40-mm gun. To protect against shells and anti-tank systems, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles in the MBT weight category are needed. We only have them potentially, on the Armata platform and in the form of the mentioned BMO-T; "partners" have more of them: Azkharit, Puma, Lynx, Bradley of the latest versions ...

[strannik1985]

At the same time, the BMP class will never be saved by active protection systems

At KAZ, the light did not converge like a wedge, photo from 2004.

On the M113 DZ L-VAS, on the "Bradley" DZ "BRAT".

[spektr9]

The problem we have is not the buoyancy of the equipment, the problem we have is that, in fact, the troops are armed with equipment and equipment of the 60s. The same BMP-3s and those are not enough, motorized rifles ride BMP-1s.

[Vyacheslav Dokuchaev]

In short, it is necessary to make an infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank, instead of a turret with a gun, put a controlled module with an AGS-17 and a landing compartment for 6 people ...

[Rome]

The budget is not enough for such an amount of iron! An army armed only with heavy equipment is a very expensive pleasure! Starting from the cost of purchasing this equipment and ending with the costs of its operation therefore, there will always be light vehicles and there is a choice: an additional opportunity in mobility, or a bit of survivability strategic mobility gives more chances to save equipment in adverse circumstances, survivability gives chances in tactical situations. So they choose, which more often leads to losses or victory, in my opinion, mobility plays a stronger role.

[Vadim Voroshilov]

in April alone, a foreign trade surplus of more than $40 billion - 1,5 billion per day or 300 T-90 tanks or the cost of 1 nuclear submarine of the Yasen type ... heavy armored personnel carriers are enough for 700 - 800 units ...
this is in one day ..... you can still build housing for 150 thousand Russians or .....

[Rome]

Trade surplus and net income are two different things! And you wrote some fantastic numbers!

[Vadim Voroshilov]

in 22, the Russian Federation was supposed to pay $ 120 billion on Eurobonds and dividends on shares to non-residents - they will not pay, the bonds are still serving + in 21, the withdrawal of capital from the Russian Federation was $ 50 billion, in connection with the attack on the assets of Russians in the West - the withdrawal of capital there makes no sense .... + The West will lose on services and patents for servicing debt, refusal to pay to unfriendly residents, on the refusal of imposed services - Russia will save 200 billion; foreign exchange earnings in the Russian Federation of about $ 50 billion in 22 .... plus the loss of the Russian market - Europe alone exported its goods for $ 250 billion in 21 ...
that is, the Russian Federation will save only on the refusal to service its debt, pay dividends to unfriendly non-residents, the refusal of Western Services is about 200 billion. $ at 22..

[max702]

4 (four) annual budgets of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ..

[Grits]

Quote: Vyacheslav Dokuchaev

In short, it is necessary to make an infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank, instead of a turret with a gun, put a controlled module with an AGS-17 and a landing compartment for 6 people ...

There is already such a thing. TBMP T-15 is called. Or Barberry. Moreover, she is armed more abruptly than what you offer.
But it is not in the troops ...

[bayard]

Quote: Gritsa

There is already such a thing. TBMP T-15 is called.

She has the price of several modernized tanks, or two T-90Ms. There will not be enough of these in the troops.
But the BMP-3M "Dragoon" is already much closer to the desired one - the security is at the level of the "Kurganets", but the price is a multiple lower. If you abandon the option of water navigation in it in favor of strengthening the reservation and strengthening the dynamic protection, it will be just what the doctor ordered. Moreover, you can put a variety of combat modules on it, because some variety in the means of destruction is never superfluous. And there are such modules.
For floating equipment in motorized rifle units should be no more than 25 - 30% - for arming reconnaissance and avant-garde units.
All remaining BMP-2s and "Basurmans" can be retrained into well-armed tracked armored personnel carriers, or remain in service with units of the 2nd, 3rd line.

[Odysseus]

The article is highly questionable. The author tries to pass off need as a virtue.
The problem with non-floating technology is not that it doesn't need to float. BUT
1) The fact that the technique is extremely old and simply cannot swim. It was these pennies that were near Belogorovka.
2) The level of training of l / s also does not allow competently crossing on this technique.
3) We are extremely short of people, so even if the equipment floats there is no one to back it up.
In the 70s, a river like the Seversky Donets would not have been a significant obstacle for a standard division of the Soviet army. Now we need a crossing.
By the way, if you get rid of floating equipment in general, then you need to have a powerful air force and a link between UAVs and artillery to reliably ensure crossings. And with this, it is even more difficult for us than with floating equipment.

[Aag]

"... 1) The fact that the equipment is extremely old and simply cannot swim. It was these pennies that were near Belogorovka ..."
And where did you get so much extremely old technology from? Or did you skip the news (half a year ago) in all domestic media? Indeed, on all channels they cheerfully reported how much percent of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were updated! And you are talking about some "penny", my year of birth ... Ah-ah-ah!
By the way! Happy Veteran's Day of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation! (It turns out that such a holiday was also invented ...).
With the 2nd, 3rd points of your comment, it seems to be a bullshit at all ... (in the sense not with the points, but with the problems indicated in them) ...

[arkadiyssk]

You can't throw out words from the Internet. According to the most important reports, everything was just modern and reliable!
March 14 2021
Shoigu: The Russian army has the highest percentage of modern weapons and equipment in the world
Moscow. the 14 th of July. INTERFAX.RU - The Russian Armed Forces have the highest percentage of modern weapons and military equipment among the armies of the world - almost 71%, said Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu.
"Today, everyone - some with anger, some with approval - understand and state that the Russian army has more than 70 percent, or more precisely, almost 71 percent of modern weapons and equipment. This is the highest percentage among all the armies of the world," he said. Shoigu on Wednesday at a meeting with the staff of the company "Rostvertol".

[Alexey RA]

Quote: AAG

And where did you get so much extremely old technology from? Or did you skip the news (half a year ago) in all domestic media? Indeed, on all channels they cheerfully reported how much percent of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation were updated! And you are talking about some "penny", my year of birth ... Ah-ah-ah!

Seems to me that in new technology recorded everything that came from the factories - including overhauled and slightly modernized cars. Pomnitsa, the arrival of the Mi-24P / PN and BMP-1AM units was also reported as the arrival of new equipment.

[max702]

Well, the battalion would definitely have been drowned .. The Afghan showed the combat readiness of the army of the 70s ..

[couch]

if those who go into battle were responsible for receiving military equipment, then, probably, everything would change quickly! in addition, it is direct military operations that lead to the fact that the technique is changing (although someone has already paid for this with their lives!)

[Negruz]

The author has not decided: does he need a stagecoach or a cart?

[bk0010]

Close interaction with tanks - is this when both tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are subjected to comparable fire effects?

No, this is when infantry fighting vehicles go 0.2-0.5 km behind tanks. And the tanks - behind the fire shaft.

If we exclude the option of swimming, how many tons of armor could be added to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles? The question is rhetorical.

Not at all rhetorical: the limitations are also the capabilities of the suspension, engine and transmission and the capabilities of the state (infantry fighting vehicles (armored personnel carriers) are required one for each department, so there should not be anything outrageous there - the country will not build so many prodigies). And a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will not pass through the ruins of the lesion without a tank engine.

As soon as work began on third-generation ATGMs in NATO countries, allowing every half-wit to shoot from around the corner, it was necessary to immediately abandon the option of buoyancy for light armored vehicles

In this case, armor is not needed at all: the BMP will not go far, which means that it can simply be dug in. Open the hydrography layer on a detailed map of the European part of Russia, you will see that it is all blue - there are rivers everywhere. In addition, for floating equipment, the river is not an obstacle, but a road.

In the 60s, launching an ATGM was a whole science - the equipment was unreliable, heavy, the rocket went to the target for a long time. This at least partially offset the weak armor of the first generation

Even tank armor does not hold ATGMs.

An infantry fighting vehicle, by definition, operates in close proximity to foot gunners, and any active defense is deadly to those around it.

Undermining ATGMs on the armor of the surrounding infantry will not add health either.

How much will light armored vehicles do for victory on the other side?

Many, very many . The crossing of the Dnieper showed that a light tank on the other side was better than a heavy tank on ours.

And do not say that we are not shown.

You confirmed with your photos that the buoyancy of the BMP is used in operations, not everyone is waiting for pontoons.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: bk0010

Many, very many . The crossing of the Dnieper showed that a light tank on the other side was better than a heavy tank on ours.

[Bobik012]

The saturation of the Soviet ground forces with floating equipment came from the experience of the Second World War, where such equipment was extremely lacking. Perhaps, by inertia, there was some distortion. When something is available, it is not particularly noticeable, the absence of floating armor will be felt immediately. And questions will disappear.

[Mint Gingerbread]

It seems to me that the problem is not in the buoyancy of the technique. Probably the problem is in the development of a fundamentally new type of armor, materials and alloys. Less weight, more protection. Floating equipment is still useful, its purpose is still delivery, and not a battle on the first line.

[infantrefir]

For me, a professional has his own tool for every job. This is where you need to get away from it.

[Vadmir]

For me, a professional has his own tool for every job.

I agree, but it's very expensive. Therefore, the requirements for universality have been and will be.

[infantrefir]

Universality has led and leads to unjustified losses. And so a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, tank escort, was needed yesterday.

[komvap]

Quote from: Infantrefir

Universality has led and leads to unjustified losses. And so a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, tank escort, was needed yesterday.

The very concept of the BMP is the "universality" you criticize.
Accordingly, BMP is not needed as a type of BT.
In theory, 2-3 types of tanks are needed (on the same platform)
differing only in armament (for example, the classic 125 mm and similar to the BMPT, but not with 30 mm farts, but with 57 mm), and several types of armored personnel carriers, including well-floating and heavy ones.

[infantrefir]

The BMP concept was born as a result of the experience of the end of the Great Patriotic War. The main enemy of the tanks turned out to be PTA light guns, grenade launchers, and sappers. The main means of counteraction was the tank assault, which lagged behind the tanks, and a minuscule was placed on the armor. The BMP justified itself in this regard, the infantry did not lag behind. But the games of the generals in "universality" ruined the idea. You would like to visit the battle as a tank landing, you will immediately stop dreaming and fantasizing.

[komvap]

Quote from: Infantrefir

BMP justified itself in this regard

The BMP did not justify itself anywhere.
Better armored personnel carrier + tank with rapid fire weapons,
than an infantry fighting vehicle with full-time versatility.

Quote from: Infantrefir

You would like to visit the battle as a tank landing, you will immediately stop dreaming and fantasizing.

You should first understand what they write to you, than throw stupid
accusations based on fantasies about the opponent.

[Sergei 777]

The author writes everything correctly. In the 21st century, when even the Mujahideen in Afghanistan have modern means of defeating non-technical equipment, riding an armored personnel carrier 80 and an infantry fighting vehicle 1/2/3 is nonsense. They can be left in the airborne crossing battalions of army subordination, if such are revived. Oh, and the Marines. But we are saving again...

[nonsense]

I agree. amphibious battalion per division. Call this floating technique -- BRM. The BMP-3 is quite suitable for these tasks.

[Negruz]

driving an armored personnel carrier 80 and infantry fighting vehicle 1/2/3 is nonsense

Hussites and ISIS in RPG slippers destroyed Turkish leopards, Arab Leclercs, American Abrams and Russian T-90s ....
What's next?

[Evgeny Fedorov]

Any vehicle can be destroyed. It's all about probability. Any tank can withstand several hits from RPGs and ATGMs. This has been repeatedly proven in Chechnya, and in Syria, and in Ukraine. BPM and armored personnel carriers only by very, very lucky chance remain "alive" after anti-tank weapons.

[Sergei 777]

We are discussing infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, and write about the Abrams and Leclercs. At least read the article.

[Negruz]

We are talking about what to flaunt, they say, old infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers do not pull, because they are easily affected by modern anti-tank systems, I retort that the most modern tanks are affected by ancient Soviet RPGs ....
Therefore, the author's argument is rather weak ...

[Vadmir]

The requirements for the buoyancy of equipment did not arise from scratch, but according to the experience of the Second World War, one had to pay too high a price when forcing each river. Not to mention the loss of momentum. And the European theater is replete with rivers.
Any military equipment is a combination of armor, firepower and mobility. Strengthening one inevitably weakens the other. Armor is good, but in modern wars, firepower and mobility are more important.

[Evgeny Fedorov]

Armor is good, but in modern wars, firepower and mobility are more important.

With your logic, the ideal weapon is a combat pickup truck with an ATGM. And fast, and firepower on the level. Why armor?

[Vadmir]

With your logic, the ideal weapon is a combat pickup truck with an ATGM.

That is why pickup trucks with ATGMs and machine guns and mortars, trucks with twin anti-aircraft guns have become so widespread in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
I do not urge to repeat this experience, it is from the poverty and fanaticism of those who fight on this. But if there were no efficiency, there would be no such distribution of such garage crafts.
I am for armor, but a slow, clumsy vehicle is a target and a mass grave for the crew. The modern battlefield is too saturated with ATGMs and grenade launchers, from which even tank armor does not save. Considering the BMO-T an ideal infantry fighting vehicle and the 60-ton Namer armored personnel carrier, created as a mobile checkpoint, for specific, desert conditions, where all battles take place only in cities where maneuverability is not really needed - is not to see the experience of all the wars of the last century, except Israel's wars.
It is no coincidence that there are practically no machines like Namer in other armies of the world.
Gone are the days of armored personnel carriers. Now firepower, multiplied by the means of detecting the enemy, decides. Speed ​​and maneuverability, allowing you to quickly change positions and get out of the shelling. And in the conditions of the European theater of operations, high cross-country ability, the ability to drive through our swamps, peat bogs, mud, and yes, overcome water obstacles on your own, also decides.
Armor is also needed, but not at the expense of firepower and mobility. In the competition between projectile and armor, the projectile always wins in the end.

[Pavel57]

Has the experience of using the BMP-2D in Afghanistan been forgotten by the military?

[Sergei 777]

What experience? Each military conflict is individual. Since the 80s, the means of destruction have taken a big step forward, but our technology has not.

[strannik1985]

In general, the topic is quite multifaceted, strengthening protection is not only an increase in booking, but also an improvement in situational awareness, not only of one car individually, but also as part of a unit.

Two-channel (laser + thermal imager) reconnaissance device "Zarnitsa", equipment in motion up to 5 km, height figure 650 meters, PSO sight 1 km. Development no later than 2009 (!!!) year. Can work in automatic mode.

[stankow]

And the plastic-aluminum tripod of the device is just a dream of an amateur ornithologist. For counting seagulls, that's it. Art. a scout on an NP with this will not crawl for anything.

[Ross xnumx]

As already tired of this "picking" in the problems of booking, buoyancy, or weapons ...
The main thing in the b / d is the developed strategy and tactics of warfare. The infantry fighting vehicle was created to increase the mobility of ground units, the ability to overcome water barriers at once, and as a source of additional firepower.
What do you specifically offer? Increase armor protection at the expense of buoyancy? And what if you use armored vehicles in areas "cleared" from the enemy by rocket and bomb strikes? If you treat the area with shock UAVs?
The advancement of columns of equipment on the march must be provided by the Air Force cover. The time of multi-kilometer columns has passed. You need to break through into the concentration area in small groups ...
The fact that today armored vehicles do not meet all the requirements, and the movement of l / s is an anachronism, was clear even without this article. That is why today they raise questions and make demands to create equipment for war, and not for parades.
And from those same uncles with big stars on shoulder straps, I would also like to hear about the shortcomings of the new equipment being developed (modernized) by our military industry. The results should be summed up in a timely manner and organizational conclusions should be drawn more carefully so that citizens do not get negative from what they see plywood shields and various gratings on equipment that is passed off as “analogue in the world”.

[Evgeny Fedorov]

I'm not suggesting anything. I show that the special operation uses a technique that is not intended for the realities of the special operation. We have been talking about the weak protection of floating armored vehicles since the 80s. But the inertia of thinking among the military is very strong.

And what if you use armored vehicles in areas "cleared" from the enemy by rocket and bomb strikes? If you treat the area with shock UAVs?

Show me where in recent history this has happened. Or expected. But the spread of light anti-tank weapons in Ukraine is everywhere. And this could not have been foreseen.

[CTABEP]

And again, like 80 years ago, the main burden of the war lies with Ivan from the Queen of the Fields. Which, without fashionable berets, on the technique of half a century ago, in sweat and fuel oil, crush the enemy.

[Usher]

so it will always be

[smaug78]

Author, what is your military specialty?

[Usher]

general of sofa troops

[Bobik012]

What is your military specialty?

I guess a psychologist. From the military department. And that is a trio

[sh3roman]

What's the use of generals with big stars??? There are no conclusions from the Afghan war, it’s not our generals who ride infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers like Indians on buses

[smaug78]

Exactly, there is more sense from the sofa analyst. And the generals are all bad...

[alstr]

The author, recalling that we are in the 21st century and therefore we do not need floating equipment, forgets that in the 21st century, hitting a stationary target even 10 * 10 meters in size is a trifling matter if there are target coordinates.
But hitting the same moving target is much more difficult.

Therefore, we need floating technology, but perhaps it needs to be re-developed taking into account the latest trends in military science.

[Iris]

Oddly enough, but in the Russian army there is an example of an ideal infantry fighting vehicle - this is the BMO-T flamethrower combat vehicle, created on the basis of the T-72. We can say that this is a lightweight analogue of the Israeli 60-ton Namer armored personnel carrier.
An armored personnel carrier weighing 60 tons does the author give as an example? What is that supposed to mean?

[Usher]

The article is nonsense. The author substitutes concepts, that is, he engages in sophistry. There are also individuals here who complain, for example, that the optics are not protected from small arms, I have a counter question, so what? Refuse optics? It is the same here, bad preparation is presented as a lack of concept, things that are not related at all.

[Al_lexx]

A lot of words, in the discussion of a non-existent problem, in the format of a wandering consciousness.
Each technique has its own tasks. Over time, the number of the same boomerangs will be brought to a distinct level. But boomerangs are unlikely to cancel the old infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which have proven their effectiveness more than once, as well as the fact that they alone are not enough.
The ability to swim is not a prodigy, but a convenient option, in case - "if anything" and you urgently need to see where the thread leaks with small forces, and on the way there is a river or a lake. Massive assaults on water barriers, on floating equipment, are nothing more than feverish nonsense, another couch field marshal of the entire planet. And for the same BRDM, the ability to overcome water barriers does seem absolutely necessary. However, as for all airborne equipment being airborne.

[jngus]

When the option in the form of buoyancy directly worsens the security of a vehicle designed to engage in direct combat, this can only be justified by the "women are still giving birth" approach.

[Mordvin 3]

In order to build a pontoon bridge, it would be necessary to have a foothold on the enemy shore. How will you get across? On rafts and boats, as in the Second World War? That's certainly a tactic - women still give birth.

[Al_lexx]

.
Judging by the date of registration, either a dill bot, or a couch generalissimo, from the WOT universe.

[jngus]

The sofa generalissimo is also determined by the date of registration?) Do you find some kind of numerology?)

[jngus]

Do you think it makes sense to send these under-infantry fighting vehicles without tanks to break through enemy positions? )

[Mordvin 3]

Quote from jngus

without tanks to break through enemy positions?

How are you going to transport tanks through the water barrier?

[jngus]

No way, they stand by the water until the end of hostilities)

[ZeeD]

Is that why the newest Polish BMP Barsuk can swim?

[Alexander Vorontsov]

Quote: ZeeD

Is that why the newest Polish BMP Barsuk can swim?

As far as I know, it is created in 2 versions initially, 25 tons floating and 30 tons non-floating.
Those. the question is either/or not worth it.
And even the floating version of 25 tons is far from our BMP 2 with 15 tons and BMP 3 with 19 in terms of booking.

[ZeeD]

Well, that is, this is not an atavism, and not only because "women still give birth"? Apparently someone needs this, since "enlightened Europeans" do this in the latest car?

[Usher]

And what about the Germans? Women are still giving birth, the German general said.

[ZeeD]

Actually, this is unsubstantiated attributed to Zhukov. And in a slightly different version (but with the same meaning), the Frenchman spoke. There were no Germans, as far as I remember.

[Usher]

Either Hinderburg, or Tirpitz, in short, one of the Germans blurted this out.

[stankow]

The first mention of the phrase in a letter to the tsarina to Nicholas II at the front. In the form of concern, heard on the side.

[Bobik012]

That is why the newest Polish BMP Barsuk can swim

can - too loud. Plans to be able

[ZeeD]

But constructively laid. So this is not atasism, as we are told here.

[Bobik012]

The lack of the ability to swim will be felt very quickly in its absence ....

[Usher]

he can't swim, don't lie. This is an option at the expense of other options.

[sh3roman]

And how many times over the past 70 years have our airborne troops parachuted equipment, not in exercises ?????

[jngus]

Well, finally, a sane article in a pile of garbage

[Arabfun]

Nature is the General Staff, where nature commands - there is not a single Gene for free. the headquarters will not slip through, if at all someone with comforts in mind ..
if the whole country lived in their own villas like grandfathers, and not in apartments in Moscow with an elevator, maybe they would know how and with what it is difficult to cope with nature ..

[FoBoss_V]

When I see photos like this, everything just boils inside me right away !! Well, bl ... well, how is it that Mr. Shoigu and Mr. Borisov?!! Well, this is PPC in the 21st century !! Cartoons hypersound, laser, Poseidons, and here are bags and gratings welded on. Well, how is it in general? Some kind of bastard will answer for this chaos with armored armored units, or again, as if we don’t notice? As for me, I would hang responsible persons from the RF Ministry of Defense for Faberge on poles in Mariupol. How many lives have been lost

[Negruz]

Yes, what are the problems?
It is necessary to transfer 3,5 trillion rubles annually (out of 8,5 trillion rubles) from the "health care" item of the federal budget and the pension fund, and in 10-15 years we will put things in order in armored vehicles !!

[FoBoss_V]

And I would withdraw funds from their salaries and bonuses

[Negruz]

We call them "them" and the size of "salaries / bonuses" ....

[sh3roman]

This is sacred !!!! and with the current red-haired man, inviolable

[jngus]

Easy, corruption in the country is ubiquitous, and in the army it just goes off scale due to the almost complete closeness of expenditure items

[ZeeD]

You have to go to Navalnyat and cry. Show at least one country where they were able to defeat corruption "everywhere"?

[sh3roman]

Are you at the feeder too ?? so you justify

[ZeeD]

I just don’t like whiners and empty talkers who are “for everything good, against everything bad”, “take everything and divide” and “everything is bad, we will all die”.
And then crowing about "corruption", this is to the combed oval, which quietly cuts and crows donuts sometimes, doing nothing.

[jngus]

So you do not understand what it is and what harm it brings. By the way, now we see one of the demonstrations of what this leads to in Ukraine

[ZeeD]

The same as everywhere else. But shouting that everything is because of corruption is ordinary populism, designed for fools. It’s worth fighting with it, it’s a pity they didn’t learn how to defeat it anywhere, the only question is in volumes. And if you want to know about its scale, the amers have a wonderful film about bungling, stupidity and corruption in the defense industry - "The Pentagon Wars". Since they themselves are ironic on this topic, I think everything is clear to everyone?

[jngus]

Not the same. The level of corruption in the Russian Federation is extremely high, but there are ratings of the corruption component in different countries. Just don’t say that everything is bought and engaged there, you generally back up your words with a comedy film)

[ZeeD]

I reinforce my words by ridiculing a certain phenomenon. So it is present. The issue of corruption is often raised in films / books, which clearly indicates that this problem is familiar to society firsthand and topical.

But I don't believe "western ratings". Their ratings reflect the political component. Someone is not pleasing - away from the first places in a good rating and closer in a bad one. Only someone is objectionable, immediately there is no democracy, corruption and human rights are violated. In general, the default rating was assigned to Russia immediately, as happened on 24.02. Because there was a default on the nose, or because they wanted to hit economically?

About nepotism ... How many Bushes hung around in power? I know about 3 George Bush (older and younger) and Jeb Bush (my younger brother). 2 Clintons (husband and wife). And there are many more such examples. I am generally silent about the official institution of lobbying (legalized corruption, in fact).

Whoever makes the ratings determines the places there, as it is beneficial for him.

[jngus]

Corruption is not only torn pea jackets, stale stew or equipment that fails at a critical moment. This is nepotism, kickbacks in departments - which leads to negative selection, when those at the top are not those who can best of all, but who are immoral enough to rob their own country. They don't care about the soldiers, they don't care about everything except their place and income

[sh3roman]

Well, let's tell what it is, if not corruption, the salary of Shuvalov's daughter at 2.2 yards of wood in 19, in the state bank, Kabaeva at 765 lyams in the state bank of Russia, the salary of Sechin, Gref, Kostin in government offices, well, let's enlighten ka

[jngus]

This is either a Kremlinbot, or just a narrow-minded individual

[jngus]

Do you have any data on the level of corruption, say, in the Pentagon?) I doubt it very much

[Negruz]

corruption in the country is ubiquitous, and in the army it simply goes off scale due to the almost complete closeness of expenditure items

There is no need to broadcast nonsense here ....

[jngus]

Where did I go wrong?) And what's the nonsense here?

[Negruz]

In this, April bot....

corruption in the country is ubiquitous, and in the army it simply goes off scale due to the almost complete closeness of expenditure items

[jngus]

Seriously? Do you live in Switzerland?

[Negruz]

No, I don't live in Switzerland...

[jngus]

It’s strange then why frenzied corruption in the Russian Federation is nonsense for you)

[Negruz]

Because I don’t give bribes to anyone, and for some reason no one gives them to me ....

[jngus]

It is very commendable, with all hands for your such position. But you are a drop in the ocean, alas.

[Negruz]

Do you take bribes?

[jngus]

No, but I regularly encounter this when they are asked. Or hinted

[Negruz]

And how many times did you go to the prosecutor's office?

[jngus]

What about the meaning? It’s easier for me to tell them either take it on normal terms or go to hell. This is usually the initiative of several people, but there is no desire to quarrel with a company with which you have been working for many years. I am leading to the fact that at the household level, corruption is very small, but where big money is spinning, kickbacks are a common thing

[Negruz]

It is clear: the time of drop dead stories has begun ....

[jngus]

It's reality, I don't know why it surprises you so much

[Negruz]

Do you give bribes?

[jngus]

I wrote no. The case is under jurisdiction

[Negruz]

I asked before - do you take bribes....
Be careful!
So, do you give bribes?

[jngus]

So I wrote more than once that no, be careful)

[Negruz]

Today, 12: 31
You take bribes?

Today, 12: 32
No, but I regularly encounter this when they are asked. Or hinted

Today, 12: 43
You give bribes?

Today, 12: 44
I wrote no. The case is under jurisdiction

Do you have any difficulty understanding short texts?

[jngus]

Possibly, but you have a problem with the relatively long:

What about the meaning? It’s easier for me to tell them either take it on normal terms or go to hell. This is usually the initiative of several people, but there is no desire to quarrel with a company with which you have been working for many years. I am leading to the fact that at the household level, corruption is very small, but where big money is spinning, kickbacks are a common thing

[Negruz]

Okay, now you read the text normally....
Now the question is: I do not give / do not take bribes, you do not give / do not take bribes, the author of the article does not give / does not take bribes ....
Where is the "rabid corruption"?
Isn't this a paradox?
And since this is never a "paradox", it means that this is nonsense ...

[jngus]

April God, I like it better, if you don't mind

[Mustached Kok]

You can talk for a long time about whether it is worth increasing the security of equipment or leaving mobility through the possibility of swimming. But the result of the conversations is the same - no one is developing anything to solve this dilemma.
But the soldiers in the rank and file, who directly use this technique on the battlefield, change it on their own. At what they change its protection - making the car stronger. Something I have never seen that someone, on the contrary, would weaken the BMP in order for it to swim even better.
The conclusion is that the soldiers on the front line have long understood that protection is much more important than buoyancy. This is not clear only to those who sit in the leadership.
If soldiers, since the time of Afghanistan, have been constantly, on their own, increasing the security of infantry fighting vehicles, then maybe it’s worth doing more protection ?!

[Evgeny Fedorov]

Bravo! You can’t say better.

[sh3roman]

Since WWII, they strengthen themselves as best they can

[Jacket in stock]

But I, as a couch warrior, believe that the problem is not in the buoyancy of the equipment, but in its improper use.
If she can swim, let her swim, don’t send her to storm the pillboxes, that’s the whole answer.
And then we are shown footage of how our marines heroically storm the city in general, not even on infantry fighting vehicles, but on armored personnel carriers, which were not originally intended even in theory for this.
As I see it, a car for the city is the same tank, only instead of a long zhlyga, something like Nona is inserted into the turret, so that it can be direct fire, and hitched, and in parallel a 30-caliber "machine gun", so that for all cases.
In general, from poverty all this.

[riwas]

Floating armored vehicles - a dead end branch of evolution

A modular design is required. If necessary, floating equipment should be quickly converted into a heavily armored non-floating version.

[jngus]

It would be better than nothing, I agree, but it will not allow to increase security in principle - because. the mass of the undercarriage will still be limited

[Bobik012]

Here, just, the dead end of the modular design has been repeatedly proven. And the balance of floating / heavy equipment is being rethought after each war, after each theater. I don’t think that anyone after the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 doubted the need for a floating tank ...

[guerilla707]

Quote: Bobik012

Motolyga Forever! Replaces everything. Masterpiece. and very cheap. And the author simply did not fight. When a stream of three meters becomes an obstacle, you really regret that the tanks cannot swim

And the author works out his bread, writes all sorts of crap, offers to turn everything into tanks, and contradicts himself. On tanks, dz is dangerous for infantry, on batks and behas it is not, but there is no armor as such. The bottom line is to remove the water jet systems to hell, throw in armor, plus a dz and voila, the tank is ready, but where will the little brothers go?

[jngus]

She is not on the BMP due to poverty in the first place

[the47th]

Booking, like the M2, will in no way protect the BMP from RPGs and ATGMs. Protects maximum against autocannons by reducing tactical flexibility. Every infantry fighting vehicle now has anti-tank systems, so the need for armor from automatic guns also remains open.
At the same time, the operational flexibility of lighter armored vehicles is higher.

[jngus]

Protection against heavy fragments apparently also does not play a role?) Well, since this is all from the evil one, you can generally ride loaves along the front line

[the47th]

It also protects Soviet floating infantry fighting vehicles from bullets and shrapnel.

[jngus]

Art does not protect against heavy fragments

[ZeeD]

Hinged spaced armor can also protect against heavy fragments and autocannons if it is hung on an infantry fighting vehicle. This does not require new machines. You can modify old ones.
And from the side (from the sofa), in hindsight, just yell "how long" and "everything is gone."
And each subsequent conflict makes new demands on technology, tactics and strategy. And it seems that the "wunderwaffles" turn out to be ineffective.

[jngus]

In any case, do not hang a lot on a light chassis. It's better than nothing, but it doesn't really solve the problem.

[Soldatov V.]

Whether floating military equipment is needed or not is a very controversial issue. There is simply a transport type PTS-3 or 4, and there is a lightly armored one with a machine gun or a cannon. In my opinion, you can not refuse from both. War is unpredictable. Here they report an unsuccessful crossing of the NWO with heavy losses, but what if the floating equipment had seized the bridgehead and destroyed the artillery positions of the Nazis with a cavalry attack? And armor and lightly armored vehicles are not a panacea for defeat.
By and large, before advancing, especially in modern times, different types of reconnaissance to the depth of the enemy’s fire weapons determine the coordinates of military equipment, destroy it, and only then move forward making crossings.

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

As for "fighting in close cooperation with tanks."
He served in the GSVG in the 80s. In SMEs as part of a separate tank regiment.
Regimental exercises - once every one / two months. With departure to landfills throughout the GDR.
At the first few exercises in which I had a chance to participate, after deploying into battle formations from the march, our BMP-1 occupied positions behind the tanks (100-200m), the infantry parachuted.
According to the results of the exercises, more than once bullets from PKT combat vehicles and infantry fire pierced the tanks in front of the T-72. Since the tanks are aluminum, it was not easy to patch them.
Some time later, at the next exercises, the tactics of battle formations were revised. Not least because of the threat to tank tanks. And at the next exercises, BMPs were already moving forward. And the tanks were 100-200 meters behind. After dismounting, at first it was not very comfortable to "cooperate closely with the tanks" - greetings from 2A46 regularly flew overhead. And after each shot, of course, you will stall for a while if the tank is close. But then you get used to it.
Once a tank turned up behind, which scooped up dirt on the march with a cannon - the gunner removed the cover from the barrel early. And along with the shot, a considerable piece of a cannon flew over us like a boomerang.
In order not to think that I'm lying, I bring a photo - it was taken exactly after the stage of the exercises. My friend Oleg is on the tank. The numbers in the photo were forced to cover up.

[Bobik012]

Well, before the battle, the tanks are dropped from the tanks. Bo enemies also shoot. And I would like to look at the exercises with live tank shots over the infantry chain. Those. a machine-gun burst in the ass of a tank is horror, but 125 mm (albeit inert) in the ass of an infantry fighting vehicle is garbage? (Stirlitz flogged nonsense ... Nonsense squealed softly. Anegdot). It seems that you served as a bathhouse attendant in a rembat, where you dragged this tank with a broken cannon

[Bobik012]

STOP! What separate tank regiment!? In SMEs? What t-72 in the GSVG !? It feels like it's not even a rembat here. Smells like a builder....

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

Critical thinking welcome.
And then the grandchildren believe everything that is laid out on the Internet.
3 Shock Red Banner Army
115 separate tank regiment
RF PP 59210
Google it.

[Bobik012]

1. I do not dispute that someone once served in the GSVG as a squad leader (and there are many of them).
2. There were no separate tank regiments in the composition of motorized rifle brigades. And the motorized rifle brigades themselves, as far as I remember, were not located in the GSVG.
3. T-72 tanks were never supplied to the GSVG, only tanks of the "first line" t-64, then t-80
PS I also have a "mortar gunner" on my military ID. For before his dismissal he was withdrawn from the state and was listed in the Minbat. According to the last position and entered.
Communicate better with grandchildren

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

SME - motorized rifle battalion meant. As part of 115 OTP.
Tank - yes, I agree, most likely the T-64. At that time, they did not particularly enlighten us about what did not concern us. A grenade launcher platoon carried AGSs in cases, anti-aircraft gunners also dragged Arrows in cases so as not to advertise.
I'm not going to prove something with foam at the mouth. Don't believe me, don't.
He just told what he saw.

[EvilLion]

The defeat of the external tank with a solarium does not threaten the tank with anything at all, the tank will drop or the solarium will simply leak out.

[Olgerd Gediminovich]

In real combat, of course, not fatal. But after the exercises - the deputy head of the technical department needs to close up the problem.

[jngus]

To brew aluminum, you need a cylinder of inert gas

[Mikhail Maslov]

For some reason, everyone needs to immediately immediately adopt this and that. And such a question, what was and is now being used to prepare at least lattice screens, but to buy copters, that’s what you need to think about now. And of course, draw conclusions and not only in within the framework of the Moscow Region, but the entire system from kindergarten education to the president.

[EvilLion]

If the author had been a little interested in the issue, he would have easily found episodes with serious tactical successes of floating armored vehicles, especially the PT-76.

Yes, and when the unit approaches the river and immediately crosses by swimming - no one takes it off, but the broken crossings, in which the burnt iron can then rust for months - this is always welcome.

[9lvariag]

How you zadolbali sect of Azkharit and Namer.

[Swiffer25]

Please stay grounded :D

[Roman Efremov]

That's right - the original requirement to provide infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers with the ability to swim was a mistake. Although due to this error was good intentions. But that doesn't stop it from being a mistake.
A highly specialized "line" of armored vehicles should float - the Airborne Forces, intelligence. It is really necessary there, you just have to sacrifice a serious level of protection for the sake of the MAIN quality of such equipment.

[Alexey Graff]

Don’t you think it’s strange that they don’t show videos of how equipment is massively transported by swimming? This is probably because there are engineering troops that build pontoon crossings. I support the opinion of many comrades that water cannons should be installed only on highly specialized equipment, and on mass-produced infantry fighting vehicles - additional protection. To date, while work on the design of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is not underway, we need to look for a solution here and now. Judging by the photographs, these solutions are found. At least the logs were issued en masse .....

[EvilLion]

A few saved tons should have gone into millimeters of additional armor.

I'm wondering how the author imagines this? From the fact that the armor will not be 15 mm, but 30 mm, will it stop piercing through ATGMs with a penetration of 1000 mm equivalent? Even the first versions of shots for the RPG-7 pierced well beyond 200 mm.

Most likely, this is why the "Boomerang" cannot go into production, because a wheeled shed weighing 25 tons will simply break roads (heavier trucks have much more wheels, and hence the support area), and the protection is no better than at the BTR-82A. Zeros are equal to each other.

Western tanks have not had any side armor for a long time. 70 tons of weight is enough for a meter equivalent in the forehead, while punching as much as you like out of 30 mm into the sides.

As for Western counterparts, the BMP-2 weighs 14.7 tons and has bulletproof armor. The latest version of the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle weighs 34.25 tons, the non-new British Warrior 23.5 tons. And only the new Puma has grown fat to 43 tons, while its frontal armor is still designed for sub-calibers up to 45 mm, but not for ATGMs or even RPGs.

That is, no one in the world is trying to make an infantry fighting vehicle with the mass and protection of a tank, and there are probably reasons for this. For example, prohibitive cost, which will reduce the number of cars in parts and a bunch of problems.

[jngus]

Of course, there are reasons for this, but notice that no one rivets an infantry fighting vehicle weighing 15 tons either

[iouris]

Manturov is to blame for everything.

[Scharnhorst]

All talk about the poor protection of infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles is literally in the "favor of the poor." Our technology is the best in the world! It's just that the tactics and strategy of its use do not correspond to the concept of warfare (in Ukraine). For the third month after the start of the air raid, shelling of Donetsk from not the most long-range artillery systems continues. Would the American army tolerate this blatant disgrace? Caliber 203 and 240 mm should already be left without operational ammunition, and strategic aviation should be hungry for 500-1000 kg of concrete-piercing ammunition and work from wheels! The same for crossings. Aviation isolates the area chosen for an accessible crossing, MLRS and cannon artillery plows up the bridgehead, and only then massively floating equipment crosses the water barrier under the cover of army aviation. The question is that so far the Russian Federation cannot afford such expensive aviation and artillery in sufficient quantities.

[sh3roman]

And who is interested in appointing our technology the best in the world ???? And you were sitting in an armored personnel carrier 80 in the airborne squad and in full gear, but if you were at least 180 cm tall. And that our infantry on horseback for 40 years with a licher rides on armor, and not behind armor, doesn’t tell you anything?

[Devil13]

tbmp already done. T-15, it remains to start up the series and attach 57mm from the derivation, stopping producing a bunch of everything.

Floating and landing equipment is needed. And important. And in principle, everything with armor resistance below 1500mm against cumulatives can be considered "armorless".
It's just that everything has its own tactics of application.
Such light infantry fighting vehicles are support for the landing in the first hours of the landing (hello gostomel),
Support and fixing of crossings when the pontoon is still being built.
Raid attacks on the rear...
And here, damn it, they are fighting head-on, in columns they go to ambushes, they storm cities .... What do you want?
This is an inappropriate use, it is not surprising that it does not come out effectively

[Kornily]

It can be emphasized from the past on the example of the division of cavalry.
Cuirassiers, dragoons, lancers, hussars, Cossacks.
Find analogues in the application of modern technology.

[hostel]

The author mixed sour with unleavened, the buoyancy of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers and the firepower of infantry fighting vehicles. Infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are just infantry wheels and certainly not their fire support, because the protection is rather weak. Their task is to deliver the infantry to the battlefield. In battle, the infantry should be supported by BMPTs, and light armored vehicles should be located in the relative rear and, if possible, provide fire support. Everything is simple. It's like the actions of the dragoon-type cavalry. They dismounted and led the horses into battle. Crossing is one of the most difficult types of combat activities. The advanced units going to the enemy shore will definitely swim under the cover of their own artillery, and only then by ferry or over a built bridge, as soon as the BMPT approaches. By the way, if the depths allow, then on the BMPT you can install equipment for driving a tank under water, this will greatly facilitate the crossing, but not in all cases. War is a complicated and little predictable thing, therefore, it is not worth abandoning the buoyancy of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, this narrowing of the operational capabilities of motorized rifle units, and even more so, you should not look at the foreign experience of enemy armies, which really have not fought for the last fifty years

[sh3roman]

And who interestingly did not fight???? USA?? England???Canada??France,Italy,Germany

[hostel]

And where have they fought for the last 50 years. On what theater of operations did they cross?

[stankow]

Lots of false arguments. The proposal is to switch to a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, on a tank chassis. But do they rivet a lot and run a lot?

[sh3roman]

On the morning of May 24, in Russia, 24, the news showed a repair base for infantry fighting vehicles and tanks, a soldier talks about BMP2, there are holes on board, this one is from a machine gun, this one is larger than 7,62, probably from a machine gun, on the turret the hole seems to be from MZA. that would be all those who drowns for these tins, put them under fire, at least 7,62, if only they were alive

[Black Colonel]

"... they put the engine in the bow and put the driver. That is, until the first effective defeat, when the BMP is guaranteed to be immobilized and turns into an even easier target. However, at the time of development, no one really thought about it - all thoughts were about nuclear war."
In Israel, on the Merkava, this is exactly the layout, and for some reason no one wrings their elbows about this.

[Sedoy]

there was always the possibility of obligatory overcoming of the water barrier. Moreover, right off the bat

I don’t know how it is now, but in the 70s it was a dubious enterprise, even impossible ... :)
firstly, the banks of the river - if they are not prepared, then either you won’t “drive in” or “you won’t leave” ... :)
almost all rivers have one bank steep and the other flat, depending on the hemisphere of the earth (northern/south) Baer's law...
if the coast is not very steep, you can “jump” into the water from it, but it’s impossible to go to such a coast ...
so, any forcing is being prepared - entrances and exits ...
I myself crossed the Kura on the BMP-1, so I know firsthand about forcing "on the move" ... :)
besides this, the car needs to be prepared - to "cover up" all the "holes - hatches", with special putty, we used zzk ...

[Sedoy]

All that remains is to wait for victory and the necessary conclusions to be drawn about the dead-end branch of technical evolution.

where does this hope come from... :)
neither armored personnel carriers nor infantry fighting vehicles "floated" in Afghanistan - but they burned a lot, and often from old English rifles...
but it never occurred to anyone to increase armor protection against enemy fire...
then there was the Caucasus and the same eggs, only in profile...
Now there's a special op...
and again, all these "Kurgan" and "Armata" are just for parades...
it feels like the army ended with Grechko... :)
then defective managers in uniform arrived...

[neradzurri]

Armored categorical examination. No more.

[storm]

Everything needs balance.
Floating equipment is undoubtedly needed, but only in reconnaissance and landing units.
Let's say one battalion in a brigade with amphibious infantry fighting vehicles, two battalions with heavy infantry fighting vehicles, one battalion with tanks.

[Pukanpein]

Then why is the basis of Russian armored vehicles light vehicles? Sorry here, but either light equipment is capable of performing tasks on the battlefield, or it needs replacement.

[yakisam]

The dead-end branch of (military) evolution is the constant refusal of the “authors” from tactics and specialization.
This is the dream of a shell-resistant helmet for an infantryman (a term from the 30s)
And in general, a dream about an all-piercing, homing, invulnerable weapon. Preferably maintenance-free, airborne and requiring no fuel/energy. Atomic over-the-horizon homing recoilless blaster, damn it....

Motivating the uselessness of amphibious armored vehicles by saying that “they are going on the attack incorrectly as an NPP” is stupid, it is simply incorrect or forced use. That is, the insignificance of tactics or simply their denial. (NPP - direct infantry support).
The equipment is designed to simplify the movement of personnel and weapons systems assigned to them across the TERRAIN. What are the properties of the terrain - these are the properties of technology. And if the terrain is not mountainous or deserted, then the equipment should be floating. Anyone who does not agree with this will never be able to maneuver - only sit still or fight for the tete-de-pont (bridgehead).
Motivating by the fact that “here she floats...” is stupid. Isolated cases of equipment breakdown on the water, the crew’s inability to use self-extrication means and lack of cooperation in the unit - there are THREE infantry fighting vehicles in the platoon, if anyone doesn’t know, 2 will always pull out one that is stuck in a coastal quagmire... All this is provided for and learned at 2nd year military school commander of this very platoon...

Insufficient armor and insufficient security are crazy terms that are caused by the desire to IGNORE tactics.
The essence of tactics is not to be under fire from weapons that can destroy you. BMP/APC armor completely protects against any infantry weapon, and BMP/APC weapons are guaranteed to destroy any infantry weapon on the battlefield, so bulletproof/fragmentation-proof armor for a floating BMP/APC is the right solution. Weapon systems that pose a danger to infantry fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers are scouted and suppressed by reinforcement means - mortar and howitzer fire, attack aircraft and helicopters, or at least neutralized - by jamming, a smoke screen, suppressive fire, and finally, by the work of a sabotage unit. They can also be neutralized by attacking from several directions or by maneuvering into an unprotected direction. If there are NO means of reinforcement, then there is no need to talk about the offensive - it is IMPOSSIBLE, and the problem is not in the armor. If there is NO knowledge of tactics, then you can chat about anything, including “sufficient” reservations.

The chatter about anti-ballistic armor, and ALL ANGLE, which will supposedly appear after the weight limit is abandoned “for the sake of waterworthiness” is nonsense. Even tanks do not have anti-ballistic armor from all projections, and infantry fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers are exposed to fire from all SIX projections, so they cannot carry anti-ballistic armor - this is generally impossible - TECHNICALLY. Just dream...
Finally, the low mass of infantry fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers is not only due to water efficiency. Low weight is important in itself - these are low-power, cheap units, the low cost of equipment means mass production, the ability to transport it by road and air transport, low wear on the chassis when driving on roads, low load on the roads and thousands of other advantages, plus fuel efficiency.

Let's return to tactics. Even tanks with their shell-proof armor DO NOT ATTACK an anti-tank defense (anti-tank) position, although they are theoretically “invulnerable” to anti-tank weapons. If they attack, the commander is shot after the battle, if he survives. Tanks maneuver, bypass such a position, or it is suppressed by means of reinforcement, which requires communications and reconnaissance means. You must understand that ATGMs and RPGs, for all their effectiveness against infantry fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers, are expensive and have limited mobility, therefore, if the battle of an advancing motorized rifle unit is properly organized, there simply will not be any of them or there will be very few of them. Therefore, instead of dreaming about how to have “anti-cumulative protection,” we must be concerned with the high mobility and maneuverability of motorized rifles, so that the enemy does not have time to gain a foothold and drag these very ATGMs and RPGs. For those who want to chat about how “an RPG is carried by one person running,” I advise you to understand that an RPG weighs 7 kg, a grenade another 2.5 kg, a bag with 3 spare ones weighs another 9.3 kg, i.e. approximately 20 kg. BEYOND the usual equipment of a fighter, because he is armed and equipped in the same way as any infantryman. The Javellin TPK, for example, weighs 17 kg, and the entire package weighs more than 22 kg, plus ammunition. This weapon is maneuverable when transported, but not on the battlefield. Moving the attack location 500 meters simply removes them from the battle. If you don’t agree, I recommend crawling and jogging to cover 500 meters across a plowed field, loading yourself with only 2 bottles of cooler water...

The photos with the “additional reservation” are just indicative nonsense. An illustration of a lack of understanding not only by the author, but also by the individual - especially the command - of the REALLY important fundamentals of military affairs. Instead of spending effort, time, and money on these USELESS patches, it is necessary to increase the tactical literacy of personnel. Well, and the execution of the command, which makes such operational decisions that force them to carry out suicidal tactical maneuvers. It’s also useful, they say....

So the author is at a dead end with his perception of the evolution of military affairs.
I wish him to try to cross any river under the fire of a platoon machine gun and discuss the need for an amphibious infantry fighting vehicle - after the crossing.

[Alexander_First]

For successful offensive actions of ground forces, assault infantry on heavy infantry fighting vehicles (with projectile-proof armor and dynamic protection), + tanks, and tank support combat vehicles are required. Floating (amphibious) lightly armored military equipment is needed in limited quantities only for crossing water barriers and in the absence of organized enemy resistance. In other cases, it should be in the rear reserve.

[LuidmilaN1956]

Floating armored vehicles are a dead end branch of evolution

The author agrees with you 100%!