Progress of the BT-3F project

120

BT-3F with additional armor


The Russian industry continues work on the prospective amphibious armored personnel carrier BT-3F. To date, the bulk of the necessary tests have been carried out, which allows us to move to new stages and prepare for production in the interests of certain customers. In addition, additional devices and special configurations of equipment are being developed and tested.



Project progress


The ongoing work and successes of the BT-3F project were discussed on the eve of the Army-2022 forum. On August 12, the TASS agency published a long interview with the executive director of the Kurganmashzavod enterprise, Petr Tyukov. The topic of conversation was modern and promising models of armored vehicles, incl. new floating armored personnel carrier.

TASS recalled that in February, preliminary tests of the BT-3F were reported. At that time, these works were nearing completion. According to P. Tyukov, to date, this stage of testing has been successfully passed. Now the enterprise-developer draws up the regulatory and technical documentation necessary for assigning the letter “O” to the project.

After that, BT-3F will be able to fully enter the international market. Having the necessary permission, the manufacturer will start looking for buyers, and will also negotiate and sign contracts for equipment. At the same time, the representative of Kurganmashzavod noted that the current international situation could affect the commercial prospects of the new machine.

The issue of possible deliveries of BT-3F to the Russian armed forces is being clarified. The Ministry of Defense plans to conduct state tests, according to the results of which the armored personnel carrier will be able to enter service. At the moment, according to P. Tyukov, the customer and the contractor are discussing the possible volumes of equipment supplies.


Arctic variant introduced in 2021

They also remembered the Arctic version of the BT-3F, presented last year. The prospects for such a modification also depend on the future passage of state tests. Deliveries of this option can be started only after the completion of development work and all the required checks.

Unfortunately, the exact timetable for follow-up activities has not been named, and only general formulations have been dispensed with. BT-3F will be able to enter the international market "soon." The timing of the start of testing in the interests of the Russian army is unknown.

New equipment


In early August, SKBM JSC from the High-Precision Complexes holding (Rostec) told what samples it plans to show at the future Army-2022 forum. So, they announced several options for additional protection for existing armored vehicles. One of these kits, developed jointly with Kurganmashzavod, was intended for the BT-3F floating armored personnel carrier.

As promised, an experimental BT-2022F with a new set of protection and other equipment was shown at one of the static sites of Army-3. The exact characteristics of the hinged booking are not reported. It is likely that frontal barriers still withstand small-caliber projectiles and all-aspect protection against large-caliber bullets and shrapnel has been preserved. In this case, the shelling can be carried out from a shorter distance.

Additional booking is made in the form of sheets of the required shapes and sizes. They are bolted on top of the machine body with the creation of the necessary clearance. The project provides for the use of add-on armor for the upper frontal sheet - the front element of the hull superstructure. The function of additional booking of the lower part of the forehead is still performed by a wave-reflecting shield. Two large composite panels are also used, covering the sides of the hull with the superstructure and, in part, the caterpillar chassis.


Basic version of BT-3F

In such a modernization project, measures are taken to improve visibility. So, three protected video cameras are installed on the frontal armor of the superstructure. They are directed to the front hemisphere and should simplify the work of the driver.

Installing additional armor, increasing the level of protection, should lead to some increase in combat weight. The growth of this indicator remains within acceptable limits and does not adversely affect mobility, both on land and on water. Otherwise, the BT-3F with additional protection is practically no different from the basic modification presented several years ago.

Choice


Thus, Kurganmashzavod and SKBM are doing everything possible to complete the development work as soon as possible, and can already boast of some success. In addition, the development of the original project is carried out, aimed at attracting the attention of potential customers and meeting their requirements.

First of all, the development companies managed to create a successful modern armored vehicle based on the existing model. The BT-3F is based on the BMP-3 design and retains a number of its advantages, such as the level of protection or high mobility. At the same time, the transportation and landing of an assault force of 14 people was ensured. with the possibility of fire support by various means.

Several options for refinement and improvement of the BT-3F with certain tasks are proposed. So, in the basic configuration, the armored personnel carrier is equipped with a remotely controlled combat module with a 12,7-mm KORD machine gun. Such a DBM can be replaced by another product with other weapons, up to a small-caliber gun.


BT-3F has sufficient protection, but it can be strengthened. Recently, an overhead booking kit was shown that improves the stability of the car without loss in mobility and other characteristics.

The inhabited compartment is initially equipped with ventilation and heating systems. The arctic equipment of the armored personnel carrier, designed for the harsh climate, has also been developed. In this case, the habitable volume is insulated and receives more powerful climate control equipment. In addition, wider tracks are used to reduce ground pressure and improve flotation.

Apparently, developments and innovations of various modifications can be combined. The customer has the opportunity to choose the optimal configuration of an armored personnel carrier with the required capabilities and components. So, one buyer can purchase the BT-3F in the original configuration, while the other will request additional armor, insulation and another combat module.

Commercial plans


Testing and refinement of the BT-3F is still ongoing, but the future of the project is already known. So, in April 2019, Rosoboronexport and the Indonesian Ministry of Defense signed a contract for the supply of BMP-3F and BT-3F. In accordance with it, the Indonesian marines in the foreseeable future should have received 21 armored personnel carriers of a new type.

Deliveries were supposed to begin after the completion of development work and basic testing. Despite the well-known difficulties of recent years, this stage is nearing its end. Accordingly, in the near future, the Russian industry will be able to start production and ship serial BT-3Fs to the first foreign customer. It is likely that Russian-Indonesian cooperation will not end there, and then new orders for additional batches of amphibious armored personnel carriers will appear.


In addition, Kurganmashzavod is already openly talking about the interest of the Russian Ministry of Defense. In the near future, the start of state tests is expected, and after that we can expect the placement of a new order. The required number of BT-3Fs has not yet been determined. It is possible that at least dozens of such machines will be ordered for rearmament.

It can also be expected that our Ministry of Defense uses all or almost all the capabilities of the BT-3F in the context of configurations. In this case, vehicles in the basic configuration, with additional protection, with different weapons, etc. will be put into operation.

Obvious progress


Thus, the project of the floating armored personnel carrier BT-3F is successfully moving forward. The necessary work and tests are being carried out; currently with an eye on export. Plans are also being drawn up to meet the needs of the Russian army. At the same time, the development of the project in technical terms continues.

All this means that in the near future the BT-3F will reach mass production, and then customers will receive the desired equipment. So far, we are talking about only one contract and one more potential customer, but in the future, new buyers with certain requirements and wishes may appear.
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    2 September 2022 04: 29
    So, in the basic configuration, the armored personnel carrier is equipped with a remotely controlled combat module with a 12,7-mm KORD machine gun.
    This is excellent, it’s only a pity that it will apparently be impossible to put something more serious on such a large combat vehicle, since the space on the roof is limited by the covers of a large landing hatch ...
    1. +17
      2 September 2022 05: 51
      As I understand it, all technical thoughts go in circles and periodically return in a new quality (does not mean at all that it is better).

      Quote: svp67
      it’s only a pity that it’s apparently impossible to put something more serious on such a large combat vehicle

      1. -5
        2 September 2022 07: 12
        What? Floating again? Yes, as much as possible...
        1. +21
          2 September 2022 08: 54
          as our ensign said - only a new motorcycle league can be better than a motorcycle league.
        2. +19
          2 September 2022 11: 33
          But for the Marine Corps, do you really need a sinking one, and not a floating one? smile
        3. +16
          2 September 2022 11: 57
          Quote: Civil
          What? Floating again? Yes, as much as possible...

          This vehicle is being created for the marines, if not floating, then what equipment should it have?
          1. +6
            2 September 2022 14: 53
            Quote: svp67
            Quote: Civil
            What? Floating again? Yes, as much as possible...

            This vehicle is being created for the marines, if not floating, then what equipment should it have?

            This person just needs to blurt out something ... And what he blurted out, he himself does not understand ... Words jump out faster than thoughts .. wassat fool
          2. -4
            3 September 2022 07: 31
            BT-3F also has a self-digger
            got out of the water - 30 seconds and dug in along the machine-gun turret - that's the stronghold
            the minimum will create an arc in the form of an earthen rampart - what is not strengthened for separation
            1. +1
              3 September 2022 12: 02
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              here is the anchor point

              A firing position, a stronghold is somewhat larger wink
              1. -3
                3 September 2022 12: 28
                there are different designations - KNP or NP
                AFVs will be of different configurations - ammunition, tanker, medical, air defense system, armored personnel carrier, command, mortar, infantry fighting vehicles
                the position of an armored personnel carrier without heavy weapons is better called a strong point where the squad fighters replenish the ammo. + this is a reference point for the relay of communication between the department and the command vehicle (CNP)
                1. +5
                  3 September 2022 15: 08
                  Quote: Romario_Argo
                  the position of an armored personnel carrier without heavy weapons - it is better to call it a strong point

                  Our stronghold appears from the platoon ... Slang
                  1. -4
                    3 September 2022 15: 15
                    just below my comment it describes the answer to your claims
                    it turns out that this comment is not related to the topic of the article - well, perhaps indirectly
                    1. +5
                      3 September 2022 15: 27
                      Quote: Romario_Argo
                      just below my comment it describes the answer to your claims
                      it turns out that this comment is not related to the topic of the article - well, except that

                      I don’t know who and when put this nonsense into your head, but a stronghold is far from just an armored personnel carrier buried in the ground ... located in its firing position.
                      1. -2
                        3 September 2022 15: 51
                        I agree that the stronghold of the squad is more related to motorized rifles (Chita), and not to marines
                        I call an armored personnel carrier in a caponier - a position, this can be traced in the text,
                        But, when around the position of the armored personnel carrier there are firing positions of shooters
                        this is already called the stronghold of the branch
                        But due to the fact that the firepower of the BMP-3 is redundant
                        the concept and stronghold of the detachment appears in the defense of small settlements. or heights, hills, difficult terrain - where one BMP-3 is enough
                        especially when cross-shooting the terrain by other squads
                        here you need to build a platoon fire map - in your understanding of a platoon strong point
                        But, again, in our case, the dispersal of branches will NOT be 250 meters, but more than 1 km. - that's why it is called the stronghold of the branch
                        in Chita, motorized rifle exercises were held to defend the border with China - just the focal strongholds of the squads (need to know)
                      2. -1
                        3 September 2022 16: 05
                        Quote: Romario_Argo
                        I agree that the stronghold of the squad is more related to motorized rifles (Chita), and not to marines

                        Do the Marines have their own Combat Charter, where is this clearly indicated?
                        Quote: Romario_Argo
                        just focal strongholds of departments (you need to know)

                        Hmm, and where can I read about the HOME stronghold, is it with a hearth or a stove?
                      3. 0
                        4 September 2022 00: 07
                        Hmm, and where can I read about the HOME stronghold, is it with a hearth or a stove?
                        Aha laughing The department gathered at the fire (hearth) to warm up the stew ... - here you have the HOME STANDING POINT OF THE DEPARTMENT. laughing laughing
                      4. -2
                        4 September 2022 10: 56
                        CBO is also carried out in accordance with the charter (?) (!)
                        Good:
                        platoon stronghold - 3 squads
                        2 squads destroyed - defense is held by 1 squad
                        what is the name of the base (?)
                        or is it just the firing position of the 1st squad (?)
                        or is it still a stronghold of the branch (?)
                      5. +1
                        4 September 2022 13: 10
                        Quote: Romario_Argo
                        platoon stronghold - 3 squads
                        2 squads destroyed - defense is held by 1 squad
                        what is the name of the base (?)

                        You have a childish idea about this issue. A platoon that has suffered losses is still a platoon, not a squad, since it is forced to perform the task for a platoon, and not for one squad.
                        Each division has its own breadth and depth of the task to be solved.
                      6. -1
                        4 September 2022 13: 18
                        You just answered yourself that the platoon stronghold as part of the one remaining squad - performs tasks for the platoon
                        In fact, this is the stronghold of the branch
                        - what you want to call it is not important
                      7. +1
                        4 September 2022 16: 14
                        Quote: Romario_Argo
                        In fact, this is the stronghold of the branch

                        But in fact, this is a stronghold of a platoon, since it performs its task of defending a piece of terrain or an object, and no one will give it any concessions.
                      8. +1
                        4 September 2022 22: 29
                        But in fact, this is a stronghold of a platoon, since it performs its task of defending a piece of terrain or an object, and no one will give it any concessions.
                        That's right! good
                      9. The comment was deleted.
                      10. 0
                        4 September 2022 23: 32
                        In fact, this is the stronghold of the branch
                        - what you want to call it is not important
                        Dear Roman, this is not Sergey as he wanted to call it, it has long been named by much greater authorities than you, me or Sergey! I repeat once again, read the BATTLE REGULATIONS at your leisure and do not carry this gag of yours about some strong points of the squads there! A squad (tank) has only a POSITION!


                        It is quite clear everything is painted here, what's what! And don't think of anything!
                      11. +1
                        4 September 2022 22: 36
                        platoon stronghold - 3 squads
                        2 squads destroyed - defense is held by 1 squad
                        what is the name of the base (?)
                        or is it just the firing position of the 1st squad (?)
                        or is it still a stronghold of the branch (?)
                        We develop your "logic" further. Only one fighter (shooter) remained in the platoon, continuing to perform a combat mission ... So what? Following your statement, what should we call the stronghold now? Maybe the stronghold of the shooter ??! winkAnd we will prove to everyone that there are even strongholds of one shooter? laughing
                      12. -1
                        4 September 2022 00: 04
                        I call an armored personnel carrier in a caponier - a position, this can be traced in the text,
                        But, when around the position of the armored personnel carrier there are firing positions of shooters
                        this is already called the stronghold of the branch
                        But due to the fact that the firepower of the BMP-3 is redundant
                        the concept and stronghold of the detachment appears in the defense of small settlements. or heights, hills, difficult terrain - where one BMP-3 is enough
                        especially when cross-shooting the terrain by other squads
                        here you need to build a platoon fire map - in your understanding of a platoon strong point
                        This is what you, sir, composed something ... some kind of nonsense ... !!! laughing Read the BATTLE REGULATIONS for the coming sleep, so that you do not rave at night as the SUPPORT POINTS OF THE DEPARTMENT! laughing fool
      2. -1
        2 September 2022 09: 04
        What is this technique?
        1. +1
          3 September 2022 16: 06
          Quote: MegaWattExpert
          What is this technique?
          BTR-50
      3. +7
        2 September 2022 15: 12
        Well, they didn’t install it on the BTR-50, so the landing hatch is different
      4. +1
        2 September 2022 21: 27
        ..... So, in the basic configuration, the armored personnel carrier is equipped with a remotely controlled combat module with a 12,7-mm KORD machine gun.

        The combat module "Hunter" ("Narwhal") received the letter "O1" in 2017. It is equipped with a remote control and is stabilized in two planes. This makes it possible to hit targets in motion at a distance of more than one thousand meters. The module has a television sight, which allows you to detect a target at a distance of 5 thousand meters, and a thermal imaging sight - up to 2,5 thousand meters. In addition, a laser range finder is used in the module for reconnaissance and observation of the enemy. When creating module modifications, the type of military equipment on which it will be used (land or sea) is taken into account. For example, in the marine version, you need to take into account the angles of heel and the effect of sea water.
        1. +1
          3 September 2022 12: 03
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Combat module "Hunter"

          Yes, this is GREAT, but will there be enough free space for him on the roof of the armored personnel carrier? There is a lot of space occupied by the landing hatch
          1. +1
            3 September 2022 12: 47
            Quote: svp67
            Yes, this is GREAT, but will there be enough free space for him on the roof of the armored personnel carrier?
            This is the performance characteristics of what is already there.
            If I'm not mistaken, then this remote-controlled module used to be called BM-03, and they wanted to put it on Typhoon-U. The one on the BT-3f is a modernized version (with a new 6P49 Kord machine gun)
            BM-03
          2. 0
            3 September 2022 15: 49
            Yes, this is GREAT, but will there be enough free space for him on the roof of the armored personnel carrier? There is a lot of space occupied by the landing hatch

            The deterioration of stability and buoyancy will also take place with the "Hunter" module.
            1. +1
              3 September 2022 19: 44
              Quote: Sharky
              The deterioration of stability and buoyancy will also take place with the "Hunter" module.
              But he is standing there (BM-03, aka "Hunter").
              In the description of the BM it is written
              Due to its small size and weight, this product can be installed on various armored vehicles, including light ones....
              1. 0
                4 September 2022 15: 43
                In comparison with a remotely controlled weapon station with a 12,7 mm KORD machine gun, buoyancy and stability will deteriorate. You can put a "hunter", but the mass of a small-caliber gun is clearly higher than the mass of a machine gun. And it (the module) is mounted on the roof. This increases the overturning moment. Wave on board and overkill. With a full load of troops and ammo, the vehicle will sink deeper into the water. You will either have to reduce the BC, or the number of paratroopers. Since the deeper it sinks (the waterline drowns), the less water needs to be drawn through the hole for sinking (the buoyancy margin will deteriorate). The theory of the device of the ship, nothing new.
                1. +1
                  4 September 2022 19: 59
                  Quote: Sharky
                  In comparison with a remotely controlled weapon station with a 12,7 mm KORD machine gun, buoyancy and stability will deteriorate. You can put a "hunter", but the mass of a small-caliber gun is clearly higher than the mass of a machine gun.
                  I will try again.
                  The BM that is currently on the BT-3F (photo in the article itself) is called the "Hunter" (previously appeared under the name BM-03).
                  https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10491153?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
                  1. 0
                    5 September 2022 03: 18
                    Okay, I agree with you. I overlooked that a machine gun is also installed on the "Hunter".
      5. 0
        4 September 2022 23: 17
        Well, yes! Only a few years ago, information about the moderation of the BTR-50 slipped through. And something in commercial quantities did not appear.
    2. +1
      2 September 2022 09: 23
      BTR. Why does the APC need teeth? To be driven into battle? DBMS for such equipment has long needed to be developed with a logical composition of weapons. KORD and AGS 30 mm. For self-defense on the march. And that's it.
      1. -2
        2 September 2022 11: 32
        A drone and a large monitor to track it will also be useful.
        1. +5
          2 September 2022 17: 36
          BTR. Just a transport for the infantry. Why does he need a monitor and a drone. It's just a bus for armed men.
          1. +1
            2 September 2022 19: 05
            And really, why a drone and a monitor? We will carry drones under our armpits and launch them from our knees. wassat
            1. +3
              2 September 2022 20: 54
              Again you are trying to cross a snake with a hedgehog. The armored personnel carrier is essentially the most massive vehicle in the army. They need tens of thousands. Why does a simple "bus" need a drone?
              Yes, this technique is not an ordinary armored personnel carrier. Highly specialized. For Marines. But this does not change the essence. It is better to introduce a specialized Situational Awareness vehicle at the company level with a pair of drones, operators and a minimal set of reconnaissance equipment.
              Lump on Typhoon chassis. Although it is possible on a smaller chassis.
          2. +1
            2 September 2022 19: 15
            Quote: garri-lin
            BTR. Just a transport for the infantry. Why does he need a monitor and a drone. It's just a bus for armed men.

            And now we open the Charter and / or read how and why armored personnel carriers are used by all the armies of the world from the 20s of the twentieth to the present. And then, surprise, we learn that an armored personnel carrier is not only a "bus" at all, but also a means of fire support, and it is also intended for combat without dismounting (!).
            1. +3
              2 September 2022 20: 43
              And what is the usual result when armored personnel carriers go on the attack? Ordinary lungs?
              It is high time to adequately assess the capabilities of technology and use them accordingly.
              And the charter, as you put it from the 20s, is in fact a little outdated. Since then, the infantry has increased its anti-tank weapons many times over.
              1. 0
                2 September 2022 23: 06
                Quote: garri-lin
                And what is the usual result when armored personnel carriers go on the attack? Ordinary lungs?
                It is high time to adequately assess the capabilities of technology and use them accordingly.
                And the charter, as you put it from the 20s, is in fact a little outdated. Since then, the infantry has increased its anti-tank weapons many times over.


                1. What does the "charter of the 20s" have to do with it? Open the charter current.
                2. A normal result, if you do everything according to the charter, according to tactics and wisely, and not in the "berserk" mode. Even taking into account the oversaturation of anti-tank systems among the Sumerians, armored personnel carriers are used both in defense and offensive. The fact that they need to be equipped with protective equipment is another story.
                3. And what about many armies that have heavy armored personnel carriers? Hint - there are only 2 (Israel and India). At the same time, both the Yankees and ours have been on the attack for the last 70 years.
                4. From the 20s, not anti-tank weapons have increased, but the ranges of these weapons have grown: what was previously hit by a grenade, a large-caliber rifle or a cocktail with an AP (and almost everyone had these weapons in a squad) is now hit from RPGs and ATGMs. Only in the state of ATGM and RPG 1 per department.
                1. +2
                  2 September 2022 23: 37
                  1. The reality is that it is high time to edit the charter.
                  2. It is more logical to use a more adapted infantry fighting vehicle. Better firepower and protection.
                  3. Do they go on the attack on armored personnel carriers or on infantry fighting vehicles ???
                  4. Added anti-tank weapons. It just increased. When you are sitting in a trench and cannot throw a "kilogram" to an armored personnel carrier crawling nearby, then the aforementioned "kilogram" is not an anti-tank weapon.
                  5. An armored personnel carrier is not a battle, but a close rear, a periphery and a convoy.
                  And for the battle you need normal infantry fighting vehicles in the required quantity.
                  1. +2
                    3 September 2022 10: 01
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    1. The reality is that it is high time to edit the charter

                    Not only the charter, but also the staff of units, and equipment, incl. combat vehicles. But first you need to know the charter and use it wisely, and not create game.

                    Quote: garri-lin
                    3. Do they go on the attack on armored personnel carriers or on infantry fighting vehicles ???

                    Actually, yes. And on the armored personnel carrier, incl. From the 20s to the present. And for some (USA), in general, 50% of the infantry "goes on the attack" on light armored cars. Even in the Union there was a ratio of 2 to 1 in favor of armored personnel carriers. This, oddly enough, now we have the vast majority of infantry fighting vehicles.

                    Quote: garri-lin
                    5. An armored personnel carrier is not a battle, but a close rear, a periphery and a convoy.

                    This is your opinion, I must respect it, but it does not correspond to reality. For the battle (as you yourself correctly notice) is only part of the combat work, and there is also advancement, maneuver and much more.

                    Quote: garri-lin
                    And for the battle you need normal infantry fighting vehicles in the required quantity.

                    Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are needed only in tank units. For ordinary motorized riflemen, the same BMP-3s are enough (ideally in the Manul version and with protective equipment) and as a reinforcement - BMPTs. And all because motorized rifles are not only "on the attack", but also "capturing a bridgehead", and our region is a river on a river, it drives the river.
                    We are still silent about the light infantry (which we have, at best, scouts and the National Guard).

                    Actually, the main claim to our armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles and the reason for the constant disputes and the spread of the myth that "an armored personnel carrier is a bus" is precisely in the absence of protective equipment on these same armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles: fire detection systems, KOEPs (the first two are ideal) and KAZs ( although the latter is dangerous for infantry). This I'm not talking about the fact that modern armored personnel carriers have long evolved into wheeled infantry fighting vehicles.
                    1. +1
                      3 September 2022 14: 16
                      1. The charter must correspond to realities. First of all, the actual capabilities of the main enemy.
                      2. This ratio is logical just because the fight is only part of the work. Most of the service, even during the war, is not a battle, but a maneuver, waiting, guarding / cleaning. Where there is little shooting, re-equipped equipment is not needed. Just for such an armored personnel carrier. Instead of armament in the form of a 30 mm gun, it is better to take care of the armor. 12,7 is enough.
                      And even in battle, armored personnel carriers did not go to the first line. And roughly speaking, they brought reinforcements.
                      3. Exactly. Infantry maneuver to dismount point.
                      4. I'm not talking about heavy. BMP 3 I consider optimal. I disagree with Manul. It needs to be looked at closely. Overweighted nose and landing in a suboptimal location.
                      BMPT infantry is not really needed. Especially in its current form. A couple of tanks yes.
                      0. It is precisely the fact that the armored personnel carrier is evolving into an infantry fighting vehicle that is just bad. All mixed up. And you need separation. Where they shoot and you need to shoot, you yourself need an infantry fighting vehicle.
                      Where they shoot a little and you can not shoot, but you need an armored personnel carrier to shoot back. Minimum armament. More troops and more equipment than in the BMP. More comfortable conditions for landing.
                      1. +2
                        3 September 2022 17: 40
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        1. The charter must correspond to realities. First of all, the actual capabilities of the main enemy.

                        IMHO, that the Charter just corresponds to them by 90%. But some people just put a bolt on the Charter on the state.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Instead of armament in the form of a 30 mm gun, it is better to take care of the armor. 12,7 is enough.

                        The 30 mm cannon on the armored personnel carrier just appeared because the military realized that only an autocannon allows you to quickly suppress a firing point and / or pin down the enemy. But the machine gun in this capacity is worse. Moreover, this requirement appeared back in the 80s, and already in Chechnya it turned out that an armored personnel carrier with a 30-ton lives longer and often survives compared to a conventional one.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Most of the service, even during the war, is not a battle, but a maneuver, waiting, guarding / cleaning

                        + There are requirements for mileage and march time on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, incl. in combat conditions.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And even in battle, armored personnel carriers did not go to the first line. And roughly speaking, they brought reinforcements.

                        They carried, suppressed the enemy with fire and supported the infantry after the landing. What is not in the first line - I agree. Only now our behi do not go in the first line.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        I'm not talking about heavy ones. BMP 3 I consider optimal. I disagree with Manul. It needs to be looked at closely. Overweighted nose and landing in a suboptimal location.

                        The fact that the manul needs to be checked is yes, but it, and the BMP-3, and the armored personnel carriers, must be equipped with a COEP. Without active protective equipment, it's all a target. Let it be toothy.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        BMPT infantry is not really needed. Especially in its current form. A couple of tanks yes.

                        This is a separate dispute. IMHO the BMPT itself in the BMPRT-72 variant with protective equipment is an excellent and very good means of fighting enemy infantry and supporting its own armor and infantry. At least due to the rate of fire and large ammunition. And if the tank makes 1 shot in 7 seconds, then the BMPT is capable of flooding with fire. Actually, for this, now they are taking in support of MBT - BMP / BTR.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        It is precisely the fact that the armored personnel carrier is evolving into an infantry fighting vehicle is just bad. All mixed up. And you need separation. Where they shoot and you need to shoot, you yourself need an infantry fighting vehicle.
                        Where they shoot a little and you can not shoot, but you need an armored personnel carrier to shoot back. Minimum armament. More troops and more equipment than in the BMP. More comfortable conditions for landing.

                        I agree, but now the role of the armored personnel carrier is increasingly assigned to armored vehicles - the same Akhmats, Typhoons and Spartaks. And the fact that they began to actively buy them is only wonderful. The same Akhmat is 9 paratroopers + scrub.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Here it is in this case that it is better to use a more wired technique. Type BMPTiP.

                        I agree. But in conditions when there are 10-20 infantry fighting vehicles, and infantry fighting vehicles do not have active protection means, you have to get out.

                        PS: I could be wrong, but along the way - we mostly have the same opinion about the same thing, but we voice it with slightly different words.
                      2. +1
                        4 September 2022 21: 06
                        These are some who use technology to the maximum. They simply cannot send a poorly armed armored personnel carrier to storm.
                        2. An armored personnel carrier should not participate in combat. For this there is a BMP.
                        3. Here I agree.
                        4. Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles acting together can be considered the first line.
                        The APCs follow.
                        5. A lot of things need to be equipped. A lot of things have already been tested. But piece by piece at exhibitions.
                        Oh, how embarrassing this is. But there is no money
                        6. This is more than a separate dispute. I personally consider the existing sample a poor embodiment of a good idea.
                        7. But this is just bad. An ersatz infantry fighting vehicle is fired from an armored personnel carrier with a 30 mm cannon. An ersatz armored personnel carrier is obtained from an armored car. And so on downward.
                        This saves money, but it is not clear how it will affect the lives of soldiers.
                        The armored car is definitely worse than the armored personnel carrier
                        8. Approximately yes. I also realized that our views are about the same. Little things differ.
                      3. 0
                        25 February 2023 22: 52
                        Well, MCIs occupy this niche.
                        The only thing I don't know is why there are more people in the car. The departments of the increased staff did not seem to be announced, well, again, a lot of fighters in one car is bad, because if heavy weapons get into it, there will be big losses ..
                    2. -2
                      3 September 2022 18: 57
                      Quote: Blackgrifon
                      . And on armored personnel carriers, incl. From the 20s to the present.

                      And now in more detail about the armored personnel carrier in the 20s ...
                      1. +1
                        3 September 2022 19: 53
                        The first: Mark IX and Jeffery - Poplavko (the latter was created as an armored personnel carrier, but was used as an armored car).
                        The concept in the series fully matured by the end of the 30s: Universal Carrier, German armored personnel carriers, a few of our projects, etc.
                  2. +2
                    3 September 2022 10: 16
                    Quote: garri-lin
                    3. Do they go on the attack on armored personnel carriers or on infantry fighting vehicles ???

                    By the way, military correspondents (on the Older Edda TG channel, for example, and on a couple of TG channels) described our latest actions like this:
                    Option 1. Bundle Tank + armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle + armored car (in the original - MRAP) with a landing force. Press the armor with fire, and the infantry advances and disembarks from the armored car.
                    Option 2. Tank + BMP / BTR. The armor goes forward, crushes with fire, and the infantry moves on its own, while the enemy is bound by the fire of the armor.
                    Only in the second variant is it described that the armor goes without landing and in some separation from the infantry.

                    Again, you can fit into the Combat Charter of 2005. He also does not make a fundamental difference between the MTS unit on BMPs and armored personnel carriers. The differences are already in tactics - landing distances, etc. I don’t remember exactly which ones, but you can always look.
                    1. +2
                      3 September 2022 14: 19
                      So it doesn't matter what goes. BMP or armored personnel carrier. They go empty. So as not to become a mass grave. Here it is in this case that it is better to use a more wired technique. Type BMPTiP.
          3. 0
            4 September 2022 00: 56
            Yes, Marik showed what was what, especially in conjunction with the korobas, I was also "just a bus"
            1. 0
              4 September 2022 21: 10
              There will always be arguments both for and against
      2. -1
        3 September 2022 08: 51
        on the BT-3F march, it is 5 minutes from the BDK to the shore - then he needs a shovel
        because n having heavy weapons like the BMP-3F 100 mm and 30 mm
        BT-3F only delivers and disembarks
        those. it has a self-digger it's big +
        at least create an arc from an earthen rampart to defend the squad
        the maximum will create a caponier for itself - and this is already a stronghold
        usually BDK pr.775 or pr. 11711 I land a battalion consisting of 36 BMP-3 (shock)
        those. you can choose different landing configurations,
        - for a local conflict: 27 BMP-3F and 9 BT-3F - without reconnaissance companies
        - difficult terrain, cliffs, rocks: 18 BMP-3F and 18 BT-3F (predominance of infantry)
        1. +1
          3 September 2022 14: 02
          A self-tapper is definitely needed.
          1. +1
            3 September 2022 17: 47
            Quote: garri-lin
            A self-tapper is definitely needed.

            There are at least THREE of them in the crew, plus a SELF-DROPPING squad in the landing
            1. 0
              4 September 2022 21: 07
              It is too long.
      3. 0
        3 September 2022 15: 06
        Quote: garri-lin
        For self-defense on the march. And that's it.

        Yes, only the "march" of this machine will often be specific, from the ship afloat to the shore, and believe me, the "teeth" will definitely not be superfluous
        1. 0
          3 September 2022 15: 18
          BT-3F is just an armored personnel carrier for delivering troops to the shore
          and the BMP-3F has teeth
          a couple of scenarios for intensity or relief are described above
        2. 0
          3 September 2022 17: 25
          If the shore "snarls" at the equipment afloat, then the weapons will not help much. But seaworthiness will worsen. Or the number of landing. That on the shore on which equipment located on the water can fire should be suppressed ahead of time. From ships and helicopters.
          On the water, in addition to armored personnel carriers, there will also be infantry fighting vehicles, and most likely in greater numbers. And there the gun was directly created to suppress firing points.
          Everyone should mind their own business.
          It makes no sense to overweight the armored personnel carrier with excessive weapons. 12,7 and AGS 30 is enough.
          1. 0
            3 September 2022 17: 49
            Quote: garri-lin
            If the shore "snarls" at the equipment afloat, then the weapons will not help much.

            To do this, there is a ship group, which, with its artillery and MLRS, provides artillery preparation for the landing, but single "revived" fire weapons must be crushed by ourselves
            1. 0
              4 September 2022 21: 08
              For such single means, you should not put a tower weighing about a ton on an armored personnel carrier. .
  2. -1
    2 September 2022 05: 41
    It seems that they did it haphazardly and in a hurry not the body, but it was scary - the welded box was not even processed seams, and rear-view mirrors on two thin tubes for whom, rear-view cameras could not be installed? In a hurry to stick to the budget?
    1. +4
      3 September 2022 10: 03
      Just because you don't like the look of a car doesn't mean it was born out of a desire to stick to a budget. The same BTR-50 is even more terrible, although it has the same scheme and many years of hard, but respected service.
  3. +1
    2 September 2022 06: 34
    People will still ride on armor. So it can already make for this the most convenient car with folding sides (for quick landing) .... wink
    1. +7
      2 September 2022 12: 35
      what folding sides. the machine should be airtight as much as possible, it is for the marines and in particular for landing from the sea, the fewer holes and slots the better, especially in the sides
  4. +7
    2 September 2022 06: 35
    Still didn’t understand what was there to design? BTR-50 was designed 70 years ago
    1. +2
      2 September 2022 14: 09
      Still didn’t understand what was there to design? BTR-50 was designed 70 years ago
      Approximately it was designed, just on the basis of the BMP-3. Only, I don’t understand why they left course machine guns.
      1. +1
        3 September 2022 04: 10
        As far as I understand, they were made specifically for Indonesia. They liked the BTR-50 very much. It seems like the recently existing ones have been upgraded. They didn’t look for good from good and asked for something similar. Other buyers, apparently not expected. I understand that we do not really need it either.
        why did they leave course machine guns
        let it be...

        Traditions that have stood the test of time
  5. 0
    2 September 2022 06: 41
    By the way, another argument for floating armored vehicles is the Arctic!
    1. +3
      2 September 2022 11: 19
      For the Arctic, the ancient MTLB is better suited, its tracks are wider.
      1. +2
        2 September 2022 11: 30
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        For the Arctic, the ancient MTLB is better suited, its tracks are wider.

        Well, caterpillars are such a thing, quite interchangeable. I'm talking about floating in principle.
        1. +4
          2 September 2022 14: 59
          Also with both hands for buoyancy, especially for the marines, plus on a message from me.
          1. 0
            2 September 2022 16: 39
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            Also with both hands for buoyancy, especially for the marines, plus on a message from me.
            hi
      2. -5
        3 September 2022 19: 04
        MTLB does not float ... this is a minus.
        1. ada
          +1
          3 September 2022 21: 42
          MT-LB or multi-purpose tractor light, armored, originally MT-L, all letters of tractor modifications are initially floating. Nice, simple car. hi
        2. -1
          4 September 2022 04: 12
          MTLB does not float

          Since when?
          And, nevertheless, yes, you deserve a minus
          1. -2
            4 September 2022 07: 21
            The minus is for you ... "Motolyga" is conditionally floating, it is a snow and swamp vehicle, and plus it can overcome small rivers. It is not suitable for the Marine Corps, especially since it is just an all-terrain vehicle-tractor with light armor.
            1. -1
              4 September 2022 11: 43
              Not suitable for Marine Corps
              that's all the marines in the Arctic on MTLB laughing
  6. 0
    2 September 2022 07: 00
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    By the way, another argument for floating armored vehicles is the Arctic!

    That's where and in the Arctic this miracle is definitely not needed.
    And in general, there is a PTS for the Arctic, this is the limit.
    1. +3
      2 September 2022 11: 31
      Quote: Architect
      That's where and in the Arctic this miracle is definitely not needed.
      And in general, there is a PTS for the Arctic, this is the limit.

      Those. if in the Arctic, then armor is not needed at all, did I understand you correctly?
  7. 0
    2 September 2022 08: 13
    Another cardboard box and even toothless.
  8. -1
    2 September 2022 09: 02
    No bars or screens. Easy target for any type of weapon
    1. +2
      2 September 2022 15: 36
      Quote: MegaWattExpert
      No bars or screens. Easy target for any type of weapon

      Well, it's not a tank. This is an armored personnel carrier. His task is to deliver the Marines to the front.
      1. -1
        4 September 2022 04: 14
        deliver the marines to the front
        In this particular case, deliver from the ship to the island (if we are talking about Indonesia)
  9. +4
    2 September 2022 09: 52
    To re-equip the existing six brigades of the Marine Corps, 18 battalion kits are needed. + 2 sets for the Caspian flotilla.
    For the Airborne Forces, the battalion set is 31 BMD-4M + 16 BTR-D Rakushka.
    For MP battalion set
    this is 31 BMP -3F + 16-20 BTR -F
    For convenience and ease of operation, it is desirable that the undercarriage of the BMP-3F and BTR-F be the same.
  10. -1
    2 September 2022 11: 50
    And if it is made non-floating, then everything, the heavens will fall to the ground?
    1. +5
      2 September 2022 12: 38
      you don’t need to deal with nonsense, and the airborne forces and marines should have 2 sets of equipment
      1 set specialized for their specialization
      2 set of combined arms like motorized riflemen
      accordingly, they should use the one that is relevant in the situation in which these units are used.
      1. -3
        2 September 2022 12: 39
        They will tell you, but it's "VERY EXPENSIVE" laughing
      2. +4
        2 September 2022 19: 21
        Quote: Graz
        Must have 2 sets of equipment
        1 set specialized for their specialization
        2 set of combined arms like motorized riflemen

        Why not just 10 sets? Under each biome and spare? Isn't it time to understand that the main work in conflicts is done by the SV and Marines. Both those, and those use ONE set. The Airborne Forces - along with the Marines and Special Forces - are the elite, but there is no need to skew them.
  11. 0
    2 September 2022 12: 28
    So, three protected video cameras are installed on the frontal armor of the superstructure.

    Finally thought up.
  12. -1
    2 September 2022 13: 39
    Looks like a farm. As if in the garage they did welding and the mother of God.
    Why did they leave a kink between the "hood" and the "windshield"?
    The date on the back is also not very clear.
    With such a basic silhouette, the entire top easily fits into one line with very smooth transitions.
    And so the "windshield" and "rear window" will collect problems
  13. +1
    2 September 2022 14: 04
    The military will then want to do something like Nona on a common base.
  14. -3
    2 September 2022 15: 16
    For such ugliness, one should be put up against the wall. Clearly, effective managers from Rostec saved money.
    It is clear, after all, that it is necessary to make one inclined solid sheet (like the M113 armored personnel carrier), instead of two with a kink.
    Seaworthiness will increase significantly, and the shift in the center of mass can be corrected by lengthening the chassis by 500 mm, you can even add one roller.
    No, they are molding another freak ...
    1. +1
      2 September 2022 21: 52
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      .Obviously effective managers from Rostec saved money.
      It is clear, after all, that it is necessary to make one inclined solid sheet (like the M113 armored personnel carrier), instead of two with a kink.
      Maximum unified with the BMP-3: only the central part of the vehicle has been changed. Otherwise, the hull is the same, the driver and gunners are sitting regularly, as in the BMP-3. The BMP-3 has been produced for a relatively long time, the alterations to the armored personnel carrier are insignificant, which means that the cost of this armored personnel carrier will not be sky-high, which should have a positive effect on the quantity purchased for the Army.
  15. -1
    2 September 2022 15: 18
    Quote: Graz
    accordingly, they should use the one that is relevant in the situation in which these units are used.

    Absolutely correct statement.
  16. +2
    2 September 2022 15: 19
    According to such an armored personnel carrier, it should also be added to motorized rifle platoons on the BMP-3. You can seat a platoon commander, a drone operator / signalman and a grenade launcher or machine gun compartment with additional ammunition there. It is precisely such an armored personnel carrier that is lacking in the ground units, except that the armament should be strengthened.
  17. 0
    2 September 2022 18: 02
    I didn't quite get the logic. If the Marines need to get from the ship to the shore, maybe it's better to go by boat?
    1. +4
      2 September 2022 19: 10
      The boat will then be difficult to drag along the shore. wassat
      1. -1
        2 September 2022 21: 51
        And why drag this box? If the landing is under fire, the boat is faster, get to the shore and dig in. And if there is no shelling, withdraw a normal infantry fighting vehicle or mrap from the ramp.
  18. -1
    2 September 2022 18: 09
    Oh, they made an expensive motorcycle league)
    1. +2
      2 September 2022 19: 12
      Only thicker, better armored and more roomy. love
  19. +1
    2 September 2022 23: 17
    In contrast to the likely approach to parachute-landed equipment in the form of depriving it of this ability in favor of security, the Marines clearly retain the requirement to move afloat, so one can only welcome such a machine.
  20. 0
    3 September 2022 08: 11
    In the current campaign, there were repeated river crossings and landings on the island. There were also BDK calls to the port.
    Does anyone have statistics on how many armored vehicles overcame water obstacles by swimming, and the ratio to those transported on pontoons, bridges, unloaded by a crane?
  21. -2
    3 September 2022 09: 26
    Quote: Bad_gr
    the cost of this armored personnel carrier will not be sky-high, which should have a positive effect on the amount purchased for the Army

    What are you carrying? An armored personnel carrier is a transport vehicle and a margin for seaworthiness and buoyancy is simply necessary - this is after all an extra load for the landing force. As for the price, there will be nothing difficult in production, since the proposed modification will also be unified in terms of chassis, engine, transmission .
    1. +2
      3 September 2022 09: 56
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      What are you carrying...
      Probably in my text there are too many technical terms and it turned out to be difficult to understand ...
  22. -2
    3 September 2022 16: 35
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Those. if in the Arctic, then armor is not needed at all, did I understand you correctly?

    Absolutely.
    Problems need to be addressed as they come up.
    In the Arctic at the present time, the only threat comes from stray polar bears. And it makes no sense to invest in armor. They need load-lifting all-terrain tracked vehicles with the ability to force rivers of lakes and swamps .. And in my opinion there should be a specification with an emphasis on on-site repairs. That is, even beams should be for the dismantling of large components and assemblies.
    1. -5
      3 September 2022 19: 11
      And then people like you will yell where they looked and why they didn’t do anything ...
  23. -3
    3 September 2022 19: 36
    The most interesting thing is that the BT3 is similar to the BTR 50.
    1. 0
      3 September 2022 21: 50
      The question is, why did the ROC start to make an armored personnel carrier out of an infantry fighting vehicle? (in fact, I know with a high degree of probability). The customer’s technical specifications are enough, changes are made to the design documentation, then the manufacture and conduct of type tests (TI) if everything is fine, the launch of the BMP series in the performance of the armored personnel carrier. OCD is hemorrhoids (R&D is happiness), a bunch of technical documentation that no one needs, about which no one remembers after the completion of ROC, conducting PI, MVI. My practical opinion is that if the idea is to make changes to an existing production car, then R&D is not needed. OKR is needed if something new is really being done, where there is a technical risk that it will not work. Regarding the lettering of the documentation, the letter "O1" means that the design documentation has been approved by the customer for mass production. And then try to introduce it into a series, it’s not a fact that the output will be a product in its original form. In general, our entire system for the development of V and VT is excessively regulated, formalized, overgrown with all sorts of pieces of paper since 91. Now it turns out to design something easier than to draw up all sorts of papers and hand over the work.
      1. -3
        4 September 2022 07: 32
        Well, hypersonic weapons work on unknown principles. Soviet engineers knew it because they came up with it. Thanks to galoshes from the USSR, Russia has something to fight, and this infantry fighting vehicle is almost a copy of the BTR 50, but how much dough was cut.
  24. -1
    3 September 2022 22: 03
    another water...
  25. 0
    4 September 2022 13: 40
    A modern version of the BTR-50.
  26. 0
    4 October 2022 07: 50
    What is there to argue about? BMP and welder washed down? We are going to war T62. This is reality . Fantasize about reworking the BMP? And the alterations are not clear what?
  27. -1
    4 October 2022 08: 23
    Searchlights, searches for foreign orders .... and hang extra. protection for equipment in the troops so no one had a desire ..... Women still give birth?
  28. 0
    2 November 2022 05: 30
    It's kind of a throwaway. Call the designer into the army and make him feel on his hump what kind of xxx he blinded.
  29. 0
    2 May 2023 23: 11
    why create a machine that duplicates a similar one called the Shell?
    and in general, the army has not yet understood that all these floating boxes are not needed ??