Military Review

Errors of the domestic military-industrial complex: BMPT "Terminator"

192
Errors of the domestic military-industrial complex: BMPT "Terminator"

The Military Review has already published two very interesting articles with analytics regarding the Terminator BMPT:


1) Ukraine. Again, light vehicles replace the BMPT;
2) BMPT "Terminator": expensive, unnecessary and old?

It is noteworthy that these articles consider the issue from different angles, which is undoubtedly good. Each individual person certainly perceives the world through the prism of his personal experience, which does not always reflect the full picture. Thus, the more points of view, the greater the chance that it will be possible to describe the phenomenon more or less close to reality.

In this regard, I would also like to comment on the situation around the "Terminator" - adjusted for my habit of perceiving any human activity exclusively as a team game. That is, with an emphasis on how each element (in this case, BMPT) fits into the big picture.

Logic errors


It is necessary to start by mentioning one common error in reasoning, which was not mentioned in the articles mentioned, but often flashes in the comments. I'll give you an example.

Just yesterday I watched a video where an armored personnel carrier covered the removal of the wounded.
The thought flashed once again: “Where is the BMPT ?! After all, just right!”

Arguing in this way, one can say in any situation - but there would be a tank there! Would the guys be "protected" tank armor" - they would not die. And you can't argue. It's just impossible to replace all vehicles with tanks.

Moreover, even in the United States, the country with the largest military budget, the number of tanks is an order of magnitude smaller than that of medium and lightly armored vehicles.

And since there are dozens of times more light equipment, there will also be more episodes with its participation. And no BMPT will change this situation.

But what it will really change, in the case when we already have a not too large military budget, is to reduce the number of modern tanks. And by modern tanks, I mean not only the level of protection, but also modern fire control systems, commanders' panoramic sights and a gunner's thermal imager.

As a result, it is necessary to clearly separate “speculations”, the reason for which will always be simply the fact that there are always more lightly armored vehicles, from real combat situations where our equipment lacks armor.

Play on the contrast


One of the main arguments in favor of the "Terminator" is the lack of security of the means that today provide support for tanks.

But the whole point is that the targets for calibers up to 30 mm are most of all in the combat zone. But a normal, protected carrier of this weapons no.

As you can imagine, the phrase "normally protected media" is rather vague. From the fact that the protection of the BTR-82 weighing 15 tons is not enough, it does not follow in any way that a 50-ton machine must certainly become the solution. Between the numbers 15 and 50, as you understand, there are more options.

Since we have already decided that we will talk about efficiency and optimality on an army-wide scale, the question arises - what degree of armor is optimal?

To do this, we must take into account a lot of factors - the degree of saturation of the modern battlefield with weapons, as well as the fact that an increase in the mass and complexity of protection inevitably reduces the number of such types of equipment.

Fortunately, we can not get carried away with the calculations, but simply write off the result from those who were engaged in these studies professionally - the US Army.

The optimal solution is a machine weighing 25–30 tons, with the possibility of increasing up to 30–35 tons due to factory (!) Additional protection kits, including dynamic ones. The number of such vehicles in the troops must be at least (!) equal to the number of tanks, so that everywhere (!) the possibility of their joint action is provided. It is better if you can achieve more.

This mass (unlike the 15 tons of the BTR-82) is already enough to "curb" the recoil of the 30-mm gun in its full version, and not with the recoil momentum stretched over time, as on the BTR-82A. With all the consequences in the form of shot energy, rate of fire and accuracy.

At the same time, such a machine should confidently (at close range) “keep” 30 mm in the forehead and 12,5 in the sides.

Now I propose to consider an example from Mariupol.


After watching this video, let's analyze the quote:

The crews of the BMP-2 in the second video and the BTR-82A in the third are Heroes whom I would respectfully hug and say to them a long phrase, where of all the words, only two were not obscene, these are “complete psychos”. A crazy risk cans. Which worked precisely in these cases not as infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, but as a cover firing point in the first case and a means of destroying an object in the second. That is, like a BMPT.

Firstly, the definition of "tin cans" is quite appropriate.

Secondly, the sentence is structured as if this risk was due to the fact that they performed "atypical" roles for themselves. While on the video, the BMP cannot fulfill its direct duties on the battlefield due to the extremely low security.

What we saw makes us draw a very disappointing conclusion - we “for starters” do not even have a normal infantry fighting vehicle.

Thirdly, none of the above can replace the tank as a "means of destroying an object." The 30mm cannon is not a competitor to the 125mm. Ideally, the overall picture of the battle should look like this - the infantry, moving under the reliable protection of the BMP, occupies the buildings, carrying out observation from there and imposing a small-arms battle on the enemy. During the battle, the positions of the enemy and the key elements of his defense are revealed, which are eventually broken by the tank.

What should be a normal infantry fighting vehicle?


In his article, Aleksey Kuznetsov tried to convey the fact that the performance of even the simplest combat missions on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles often borders on a feat. And it shouldn't be.

We have already clearly seen how our most massive BMP is shot in the “forehead” from a 30-mm cannon, not at the training ground, but directly in combat conditions.

While back in the early 80s, the same Germans attended to the creation of an infantry fighting vehicle that would hold 30 mm in the forehead and be protected from the sides from the KPVT (14,5). And this is by the time of 1980!


German "Marder" 1A3 weighing 33,5 tons and with a capacity of 6-7 paratroopers

Why is it so important? Because the infantry is still involved in the battles and, despite the progress in robotization, it will do so for a long time. In order for the infantry to enter the battle, it must be delivered to the 1-2 line of contact. At the same time, the vehicle should not only deliver the infantry, but also provide it with a comfortable, safe landing. Having delivered the infantry, the infantry fighting vehicle, unlike the armored personnel carrier, should not immediately retreat from the dangerous area, but, on the contrary, should remain in order to take an active part in the battle. Since in this case the time spent on the contact line increases, it becomes necessary to provide an appropriate level of protection.

Based on the foregoing, the American Bradley can serve as an example of a truly normal BMP.


Another improvement that is urgently needed in our army is the installation of a commander's machine gun turret on tanks, combined with a panoramic sight. Such a solution began to be implemented only recently, so only the latest batches of T-90M are equipped with a machine gun.

123

Analysis of a specific combat mission


A tank and a BMP-2 take off. Together they rush to the “problem” object. The infantry fighting vehicle conducts practically continuous fire on everything from where a gift to the tank can fly.

The task is clear. Let's think about whether the "Terminator" is the most effective tool for solving it?

The task can be solved with two tanks instead of a tank + BMPT pair. Caliber 12,7 is enough to fire suppression on enemy manpower in urban combat. But at the same time, the tank remains a tank and, in addition to a machine gun, has a 125-mm cannon.

That is, the first tank works on the windows that it was aimed at, while the commander, due to the panoramic observation device, will be able to control what is happening, correcting the actions of the gunner, and will also fire on suppression from a machine gun at the moments of reloading the main caliber.

The second tank also "prophylactically" waters dangerous areas of 12,7 mm, which, as we understand, in urban combat and the task at hand does not differ much from a 30 mm gun. But at the same time, this second tank can also periodically "throw" land mines into the windows. And this is a completely different “song” than “30”.

An example of working with different calibers is shown in the video below.


The task can also be solved by the combination of "tank + infantry fighting vehicle".

The tank also fires a machine gun in addition to the cannon. The infantry fighting vehicle fires from a 30-mm cannon and machine gun, while being able to use various grenade launcher systems mounted on the turret as modules.

The security of the BMP, taking into account all the screens and sets of remote sensing, is enough to protect against 99% of wearable RPGs. The Javelin cannot be fired from the depths of the building. TOW complexes are massive, their indoor mobility is limited, and preparation for battle takes a long time, which is a unmasking factor. Only shots with a tandem warhead pose a real danger, but they are not very common among “wearable” systems, plus they still need to be hit.

In the announced options, we do not have to "mutilate" the tanks, and we get a normal infantry fighting vehicle, which provides the infantry with greater safety and saves significantly more lives than the Terminator.

Conclusions


One may wonder - what does this have to do with BMPT? After all, we are talking about the shortcomings of the BMP.

Yes, the most direct thing.

Since the "Terminator" in a number of examples is presented in a favorable light solely against the background of the available models of equipment.

I urge you to pay attention to the fact that this “favorable light” is due to a greater extent not at all to the “success” of the Terminator itself. He is conditioned unacceptable a low level of compliance of modern Russian infantry fighting vehicles with the modern realities of the battlefield.

Thus, trying to argue the usefulness of the "Terminator", you can very easily shift the focus and emphasis from the truly critical gaps that lead to colossal casualties among personnel.

You should first saturate the troops with really modern infantry fighting vehicles, which will cost less than a tank, provide greater versatility due to the troop compartment, and at the same time be able to carry a comparable set of weapons (30 mm + missiles). Fill the troops with modern tanks - with commander's panoramic sights and a machine gun.

And after this saturation, evaluate the real expediency of the BMPT! Which will be extremely doubtful.

It is dangerous to argue the advantages of the Terminator against the background of the available BMP samples for two reasons at once:

1. The appearance of the “usefulness” of such a machine is artificially created.

2. As if the issue of the absence of modern infantry fighting vehicles in Russia is becoming insignificant. After all, if the "Terminator" appeared, then the problem was solved? And it wasn't even close to being solved. Worse, it hasn't even been truly updated. And today, thousands of Russian soldiers on the line of contact are forced to move around the battlefield on all the same "tin cans". And against such a background, I'm not afraid of this word, disaster I really see blasphemous reports of how well the "Terminators" protect tanks (!) With their 30-mm guns.

As for the BMPT itself, I am convinced that the concept acquires at least some common sense only (!) When armed with a more powerful caliber (for example, 57 mm) with the ability to fire at a high rate, both with high-elongation kinetic ammunition and projectiles with controlled detonation (according to enemy manpower).
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia, MO RF.
192 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 21 September 2022 05: 35
    +1
    Derivation on a tank chassis. Then one vehicle will be able to cover the tanks from danger from the air and cover them from tank-dangerous targets, working on infantry with shells with a remote detonation and a machine gun. Only the coaxial machine gun should be replaced with 12.7. And so we need a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, the author is right, the best defense against a grenade launcher is the eyes and weapons of infantrymen. By the way, BMO-T with a modern combat module is quite an option while Kurgans and T-15s are ripening
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 21 September 2022 05: 52
      +19
      Quote: Bodypuncher
      Derivation on a tank chassis.

      So it's still a special vehicle, only with an anti-aircraft bias. And in the city, anti-aircraft sights are vulnerable and there will be no ATGMs.
      Caliber 12,7 is enough to fire suppression on enemy manpower in urban combat.
      The author makes a gross mistake, 12,7 will not suppress the upper floors in the city that are inaccessible to the main gun of the tank, because it does not give high-explosive fragmentation, unlike guns even 23 mm, not to mention 30 mm.
      1. Bodipancher
        Bodipancher 21 September 2022 06: 51
        0
        I've been asking myself a question for a long time. Why don't they put 23 mm on tanks? it is much more effective as an anti-aircraft installation, and it is an order of magnitude better for suppressing tank-dangerous targets. The commander, having found the target, can immediately open fire, the high-explosive action of the 23 mm projectile reduces the requirement for aiming.
        1. Dmitry Ivanov_8
          Dmitry Ivanov_8 21 September 2022 08: 35
          +5
          Why don't they put it? They put. Slovak tank T-72 "Modern".
          1. BigMaxMack
            BigMaxMack 21 September 2022 09: 10
            +1
            Yes, only you forgot a small nuance. He was in a single copy and did not go into the series because of his high cost.
            1. chetvertak
              chetvertak 21 September 2022 10: 51
              +8
              Even in the comments it often began to be written “expensive”! It’s easier to produce frying pans at military enterprises Maybe then they won’t produce anything at all, then it will be absolutely fine, both cheap and cheerful? One gets the impression that they want to create aliexpress from the defense industry
              1. Alexei
                Alexei 22 September 2022 10: 36
                -1
                Quote from: hetvertak
                Even in the comments it often began to be written “expensive”! It’s easier to produce frying pans at military enterprises Maybe then they won’t produce anything at all, then it will be absolutely fine, both cheap and cheerful? One gets the impression that they want to create aliexpress from the defense industry

                They thought they would get by with missiles. It’s even expensive for them to modernize, and if (don’t bring Poseidon), mass-produce something ... belay
            2. user
              user 26 September 2022 10: 30
              0
              He was in a single copy and did not go into the series because of his high cost.


              This is the main problem for the RF Ministry of Defense, and everything else is our Wishlist.
              The only worthy way out in terms of money, timing and quantity is the modernization of tanks in storage in the BMPT with a new engine, a 57-mm cannon and the installation of a new optoelectronic filling (I don’t list everything because it will be different depending on the project and purpose) .

              Well, in a nutshell, we get a heavily protected vehicle and medium-caliber shells with a radio fuse, machine-gun and other weapons can be any.
              The main thing is that we will get a large number of machines with many years of experience in maintenance and well-established supply, and the price is clearly much lower than those made on the conveyor (which still needs to be built and launched.)
        2. User_neydobniu
          User_neydobniu 21 September 2022 09: 25
          +1
          Why don't they put 23 mm on tanks?

          Why don't they put it, the same T-72M2 "Moderna"
          1. BigMaxMack
            BigMaxMack 21 September 2022 11: 35
            +2
            Stop writing about Art Nouveau, it was a prototype in a single copy! Compared to him, Armata is mass production!
        3. Thorvlobnor IV
          Thorvlobnor IV 21 September 2022 10: 55
          +3
          The AMX-30 has a 20mm autocannon paired with a 105mm main gun.
        4. nonsense
          nonsense 21 September 2022 12: 43
          0
          Quote: Bodypuncher
          the high-explosive action of the 23 mm projectile reduces the requirement for aiming.

          wassat explosive the action of a 23 mm projectile? -- It's 5! There is probably no 20 grams of hexogen in the HE shell ... In a hand grenade (some kind of RGD-5) there are three times more explosives! However, no one mentioned its high-explosive action ...
          But your idea is close and understandable to me. Something needs to be changed in the tanks ...
          PS: I would suggest to finish the LShO-57 (AGS-57) into a tank grenade launcher - AGT-57 (with tape feed shots) and put it as an additional weapon in the rear niche of the tower. By removing all 125mm tank rounds outside the autoloader. Sight from the tank commander (as on "modern"). Anything more effective than 23mm AP ...
          1. vadim dok
            vadim dok 21 September 2022 17: 09
            +5
            The explosive weight of a 23 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile is 37 grams!
            1. nonsense
              nonsense 21 September 2022 17: 35
              0
              37? how she just got in there ... But this does not change the essence of the matter.
            2. Kurva18
              Kurva18 21 September 2022 18: 31
              +5
              This amount of explosives was quite enough for 2 two-hundredths and 3 three-hundredths. There was such a case in my battery.
              1. nonsense
                nonsense 21 September 2022 21: 06
                -5
                2 Kurva18 (Vladimir)
                fragmentation action was enough, but not high-explosive. None of the victims was shell-shocked...
          2. barbos
            barbos 21 September 2022 19: 01
            +1
            Quote: nespich
            high-explosive action of a 23 mm projectile?

            This is probably because they landmine))
            Accordingly, there is a shitty action when they fuck))
          3. insafufa
            insafufa 22 September 2022 13: 49
            0
            There is already a 40mm Baikal, an excellent device against infantry and a decent high-explosive action on par with F1
        5. Sergey824
          Sergey824 21 September 2022 16: 19
          +2
          "The commander, having found the target, can immediately open fire ..."
          What a good song that sounds. After all, you represent the range of tasks of the commander. He is a plowman, he is a reaper ... And why then air defense, if everything is so easily solved? Without speaking, what will he discover?
      2. Bodipancher
        Bodipancher 21 September 2022 07: 11
        +5
        I agree, the second tank is not a replacement for the Terminator. An anti-aircraft machine gun cannot create such a flurry of fire that two 30 mm cannons will create, you can’t turn the upper floors normally, and the ammunition is not enough. I don’t agree about the optics, visually it is no larger than a bucket on the T90 M, unnecessary sensors can be covered with shields in the city
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 21 September 2022 08: 35
          0
          Quote: Bodypuncher
          unnecessary sensors can be covered with shields in the city

          No, Derivation is not good, it is not cheap to make it on the basis of current tanks, there is simply nowhere to place three people in the T-72-90 hull, and the module will have to be armored up to at least the level of side armor.
          1. Bodipancher
            Bodipancher 21 September 2022 08: 44
            +2
            Well then, the hull and the module must be armored. If Derivation is supposed to cover tanks on the march, then it does not need to swim. Leave the floating version to the marines and the landing force.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 21 September 2022 09: 52
              +1
              Quote: Bodypuncher
              If Derivation is supposed to cover tanks on the march, then it does not need to swim. Leave the floating version to the marines and the landing force.

              It is logical! hi
            2. insafufa
              insafufa 22 September 2022 13: 52
              +2
              we have one problem, the generals from the Airborne Forces at the General Staff with their mania to make everything airborne and floating. You need to drive them all from the General Staff for a start, and then we will have normal infantry fighting vehicles and tanks, and not ersatz samples
    2. AG-76
      AG-76 21 September 2022 14: 44
      +5
      Only neither the Kurganets nor the T-15 have been put into service, and, most likely, they will not be accepted as unsuitable for the Moscow Region for some reason ... There is and will not be anything else, and the troops will continue to move on the ancient "cannery banks", which apparently suit the MO ...
      1. barbos
        barbos 21 September 2022 20: 23
        -7
        Quote: AG-76
        Only neither the Kurganets nor the T-15 have been put into service, and, most likely, they will not be accepted as unsuitable for the Defense Ministry for some reason.

        Already obsolete. There is no more sense in them except for parades. The BMPT showed that a large, long gun and an equally huge turret were not needed. ATGMs make it possible to fight both tanks and fortifications.
      2. bayard
        bayard 22 September 2022 04: 25
        +2
        Quote: AG-76
        Only neither the Kurganets nor the T-15 were accepted into service.

        "Kurganets" is more expensive than a tank, and the size is so simple fellow a grenade launcher's dream ... raw and unreliable. No . Instead, the BMP-3M "Dragoon" will go into series with the same level of protection as the "Kurganets" (on the "Dragoon" the side screens are the same as those of the "Kurganets"), only a multiple of cheaper, because the production of the BMP-3 has been mastered in the series.
        The T-15 will never go into production, because it will cost, as it were, no more than the "Armata" ... which is also not needed.
        Quote: AG-76
        There is and will not be anything else, and the troops will continue to move on ancient "tin cans", which, apparently, suit the Moscow Region ...

        I'm not sure that the Defense Ministry in its current qualitative form suits Russia and its Armed Forces ... But this is a digression from the topic.
        The assault units of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (BTG) need, like air, not even TBMPs, but TBTRs - simple and roomy, but with the protection of ... a tank. On a tank chassis. And it is now possible to make them using tank hulls at storage bases that are not suitable for modernization and use in modern conditions. The simplest thing is to use a huge number of T-64 tanks with a little spent resource.
        Yes, welders will have to work on them, digesting the frontal part of the armor ("wedge") on the stern, which will become our forehead, on the new stern, build up the stern with some offset beyond the caterpillar section and attach a ramp there. Raise the sides and cover everything with an armored roof. And light artillery module on top (uninhabited) Side screens Dynamic protection Such an armored personnel carrier will be able to transport up to 12-14 people equipped troops to the very front line, support them with fire during the landing, and evacuate in case of an unsuccessful course of battle, take the wounded out of the field battlefield, bring ammo and other equipment.
        The weight of such a TBTR will be about 30-35 tons.
        If desired, a TBMP can also be made on its basis, but it is better to refuse this, because the BMPT (aka ShMPP - an assault infantry support vehicle) will provide direct support to the infantry in battle - the same "Terminator" that the author so unconvincingly criticized in the article.
        For the information of the author, the "Terminator" has already gone into mass production, its need on the battlefield and in urban battles has been recognized and recognized as critical.
        Now about the timing and price.
        We are not so rich as to "cast tanks from gold", but we are not so poor and naive as to refuse them. In a war (and Russia often fights and will fight along the way, even more often than before - the "partners" will take care of it) it is necessary that the equipment be:
        - mass,
        - not too expensive to manufacture and operate,
        - as simple as possible to operate and repair (repairable),
        - the most effective in combat (high fire performance, situational awareness, the presence of a variety of weapons),
        - rely as much as possible on the backlog of previous generations and have a novelty coefficient of no more than 15% (a higher novelty coefficient sharply reduces reliability, increases the price and generally reduces combat effectiveness).
        And what have we come to?
        And besides, in order to create a new technology in terms of goals and objectives, we need to rely as much as possible on the existing backlog and production capacities.
        That is - we use the existing chassis !!
        Fortunately, we have a very good choice:
        - T-64 chassis (only those that are available at storage bases, but there are about 4000 of them there),
        - the T-72 chassis (there are also a lot of them at storage bases and you can use vehicles of the first modifications, which are no longer suitable for modernization as a tank ... but they can also be used to build the Terminator-2 - without grenade launchers on the fenders .. .),
        - the T-80 chassis (the most successful of all Soviet chassis, it’s not for nothing that platforms for artillery and anti-aircraft systems of the USSR were created on the T-80 chassis ... it would be tempting to use for this chassis early modifications of the T-80, which will not go into modernization) .
        And all work on the transformation of old tank hulls into TBTRs can be carried out at the facilities of tank repair plants deep in the territory of the Russian Federation. The combat module for the TBTR can be taken from the BTR-82A - light, compact, but 30 mm. ... Or take a combat module from the BTR-82AM for this (introduced with a new module at Army-2022) ... but then it will already be a full-fledged highly protected TBMP, because the module is good there, and the gun is excellent (also 30 mm., but with good accuracy and ballistics).
        Such an TBTR will be relatively inexpensive, can be produced at tank repair plants, will be easy to learn, maintain and operate, and with these it is possible to saturate the RF Armed Forces with highly protected armored vehicles for assault units relatively quickly and inexpensively.
        The required quantity is about 1000 pcs.

        And the existing light armored vehicles must be strengthened with additional armor. First of all, the BMP-1 \ 2 - with side screens, strengthen the forehead with armored boxes (as the Finns did with our BMPs). Even if mobility suffers somewhat, the survivability of the crew and landing force will increase.

        The proposed measures are of an emergency \ fire nature, in view of the identified problems in the current SVO. If later we talk about the mass production of such machines from scratch, then they will also not be too expensive, but quite effective. The armored personnel carrier is generally a simple machine, its main function is transport. And the tank chassis and the same level of armor will provide high security.
        1. cold wind
          cold wind 22 September 2022 08: 03
          -2
          I think that if you do BMPT, then from the hulls of tanks from storage + BM Benezhok.
          Algeria has modernized its T-62s in this way. This is a multiple cheaper than the production of current BMPT variants and training people, but the possibilities are the same.
          1. bayard
            bayard 22 September 2022 12: 58
            +5
            Quote from cold wind
            but the possibilities are the same.

            Security is not the same, and did not spend the night close. The turret of the BMP-2 and KPVT will break through, the 30mm gun is one, the tower is inhabited. There can be no question of the security of the tank for such a homemade product.
            But if using tank chassis (at least from the T-55), instead of a tank turret, put a combat module from the "Terminator-2" (BMPT-72), then everything will be both inexpensive and fast, and meet all the requirements and tasks.
            But we did not look for easy ways and began to build expensive "Terminators" of the first appearance - on the T-90 chassis and with two grenade launchers on the fenders. Expensive, difficult, crew as many as 5 people, longer construction (production) cycle.

            It’s just that Algeria didn’t have a BMPT combat module, and they piled up the Berezhok. And we have modules, and there are a lot of old tanks at the bases. And there are repair plants for such work.
            1. cold wind
              cold wind 22 September 2022 13: 09
              +2
              We place the crew below the turret shoulder strap, we strengthen the hull with armor and DZ, the turret can also be strengthened, the mass reserve is sufficient. Two BMPT cannons cannot fire together, only in turn.
              Algeria bought berezhki from us and our specialists were engaged in modernization. They also have BMPTs, they could also purchase them and modules.

              The original concept of the BMPT was a cheap, fast-to-produce vehicle to work alongside tanks. Then the designer perverted it.
              All over the world, infantry fighting vehicles are used for these purposes.
              1. bayard
                bayard 22 September 2022 14: 28
                +2
                Quote from cold wind
                The crew is located below the shoulder strap of the tower,

                The Berezhka tower is habitable, and if you convert it to remote control and lower the crew below the turret shoulder strap, then how does this concept differ from the BMPT module? Only less security and less fire performance. And the optical sighting system of the BMPT is a cut above.
                Quote from cold wind
                Algeria bought berezhki from us and our specialists were engaged in modernization.

                Algeria carried out modernization based on its interests, goals and objectives. For this, the "Berezhok" on the T-62 hull is sufficient for them.
                We have tasks for the BMPT - supporting infantry in assault operations, supporting tanks, covering them from ATGM and infantry with RPG crews, protecting columns on the march, destroying enemy tanks and other armored vehicles from a greater range of their tank guns.
                Quote from cold wind
                The original concept of the BMPT was a cheap, fast-to-produce vehicle to work alongside tanks. Then the designer perverted it.

                The designers shoved everything they had and wanted into the BMPT, although initially it was supposed to be a whole family of specialized and relatively inexpensive vehicles.
                What the troops wanted was implemented in the BMPT-72 - only the T-72 chassis and the combat module (without grenade launchers), with a crew of 3 people. Such a module can be put on the chassis of any tank, even the T-55. Cheap, fast and what the Army needs.
                Quote from cold wind
                All over the world, infantry fighting vehicles are used for these purposes.

                We also use infantry fighting vehicles, and even armored personnel carriers. That's just the security of our light armored vehicles is insufficient. Because it's a waterfowl.
        2. bulava74
          bulava74 25 September 2022 21: 46
          +1
          Yes, you are right.
          The main criterion for the suitability of future military equipment is sufficient simplicity, sufficient firepower and ... a fairly low cost.
          If you think about it, then all those goodies from the surplus of cash receipts from gas and oil are swelled into a war. It is important for us to manage existing opportunities wisely.
          There is a competition between the economies of Russia and Europe. Whoever has more margin and efficiency in spending money will win.
        3. AG-76
          AG-76 28 September 2022 11: 39
          0
          So far, these are all ideas and theories. And what will come true, based on the considerations of the Ministry of Defense and the capacities of the military-industrial complex, is not clear. Especially in the conditions of NWO, when everything needs to be decided and done quickly ...
          In the meantime, infantry, paratroopers, as they rode for 40 years on armor, they still ride ...
          1. bayard
            bayard 28 September 2022 20: 04
            +1
            Quote: AG-76
            So far, these are all ideas and theories.

            Well, we are not here as presidents and their defense ministers, that's what the forum is for discussing the problems we have, suggesting ways to solve them, pointing out methods and means, comparing and brushing aside erroneous decisions. But all this is a "storm in a teacup", while the Moscow Region is headed by a "marshal" who did not serve in the Army, and of his eight deputies ONLY TWO have a military education and served in the Army. Until the High Commands are restored in the fullness of their functions and staff, until order is restored in the Logistics Services, and only competent and responsible officers remain in general positions ...
            And until that happens,
            Quote: AG-76
            infantry, paratroopers, as they rode for 40 years on armor, they still ride ...

            Well, here we are bubbling little by little - in our "glass".
            Quote: AG-76
            And what will come true, based on the considerations of the Moscow Region

            MO has already embodied his fantasies, see and enjoy.
            Quote: AG-76
            and capacities of the military-industrial complex

            Even what is left of the previously infinitely powerful military-industrial complex of the Land of the Soviets can be used to the benefit of the cause, for reasonable money and within a reasonable time frame. The question is DESIRE and WILL.
            Quote: AG-76
            Especially in the conditions of NWO, when everything needs to be decided and done quickly ...

            There were 7 months for reflection, this is in addition to another 10-11 months from the moment when it became known about the plans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and NATO to launch an offensive against the Donbass and Crimea in early March 2022 (the DPR intelligence obtained the plans for this operation in March 2021).
            And how was the NWO prepared?
            How do you escape from near Kyiv? With the abandonment of 3 areas ?
            And 7 ... SEVEN MONTHS of almost complete inaction in terms of mobilization (albeit partial, but timely!), while the personnel Army and the corps of the republics were shedding blood ... HOW did they (the Defense Ministry and the Supreme High Command) take advantage of this time to make the RIGHT decisions?
            No
            Up to the defeat and flight from Kharkov ... Balakleya ... Raisins ... And now our grouping in Krasny Liman is under the most real and obvious threat of encirclement.
            Why is that ?
            Except for the outrageous planning, provision and management of the NWO?
            Nonsense, incompetence, greed (because mobilization is difficult and EXPENSIVE ... and the Supreme High Command so cherished the idea of ​​​​a SMALL, but well-provided and trained army ...), irresponsibility (! First of all, leadership, which results in the darkness of an abandoned completely serviceable and combat-ready equipment, ammunition, the latest (and secret) equipment) ...
            The fish rots from the head .
            ... And to fight like a human being ... does not want to.
            1. AG-76
              AG-76 30 September 2022 11: 48
              +1
              Unfortunately this one is...
              It seems that the entire NVO was planned according to the principle that we would be met with flowers, the Ukrainian army would quickly scatter home, and the political "ylits" and officials would immediately go over to the Russian side after the entry of Russian troops, etc., etc.
              In short, not a plan, but pink dreams mixed with Russian maybe ...
              And it was clear that the entire unfriendly West, NATO with all their capabilities stands behind Ukraine...
              All this is painfully reminiscent of the pre-war time before the Second World War:
              - The Red Army is the strongest of all,
              - We will beat the enemy with little blood on his own territory.
              Similar plans...
              1. bayard
                bayard 30 September 2022 18: 48
                0
                Quote: AG-76
                All this is painfully reminiscent of the pre-war time before the Second World War:

                This is more reminiscent of the beginning of WWI, when the unmobilized army of the Republic of Ingushetia (in order to save Paris) was thrown into East Prussia and Austria ... And then, in the battles of 1914, rejuvenate the regular Army and ... Guards.
                And the mobilized peasants recalled all this to him (Nikola-2) in 1917.
                Statistics - Science Queen.
                And the Science of Kings.
                And Logic!
                Non-friendship with them is fraught with lords and states.
                And that "There will be no flowers!" , everyone told them ... but soaring in the sky with cranes is so ... nice ...
                1. AG-76
                  AG-76 3 October 2022 19: 26
                  0
                  I agree, although it also looks like the situation before the Second World War ...
                  1. bayard
                    bayard 3 October 2022 20: 58
                    0
                    At the beginning of the Second World War, there was a betrayal of the generals. Pavlov with his headquarters and the entire command of the Air Force were shot not in vain, but with edification. There is information that Kirpanos was also shot by the verdict of the Tribunal, by the SMERSH group for the "Kyiv Cauldron".
                    1. AG-76
                      AG-76 4 October 2022 10: 49
                      0
                      Incompetence and cowardice in war, in the end, is not much different from treason ...
      3. Dimcor
        Dimcor 29 September 2022 17: 55
        0
        Infantry fighting vehicles are cheap, there are many of them, they will not be abandoned. Yes, and it’s safer than driving in a KAMAZ where instead of armor there is fabric, consider that bullets and some fragments are quite holding back. Calling them ancient is debatable, weapons have no statute of limitations, there is an efficiency parameter and it is impossible to quickly create a replacement for them. Of course, if I were put in an infantry fighting vehicle, it would be scary for me - here is the "ancient tin can", but I'm not ready to walk for kilometers, and the choice to ride in an infantry fighting vehicle or a Kamaz is of course better than an infantry fighting vehicle. And so we come to the fact that the BMP is quite alive and very relevant.
    3. Bulgarian_5
      Bulgarian_5 30 September 2022 23: 37
      -1
      BMPT using a long line of correct shells will easily gouge the first DZ and then the tank itself.

      Probably only Abrams with the help of uranium armor can hold it, but the BMPT will break its optical devices (if the gunner is not a hand-ass, of course)
  2. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 21 September 2022 05: 38
    +3
    I saw this video with a Ukrainian infantry fighting vehicle three months ago.
    What to say... what our BMP was ambushed ... there is no way to effectively respond to it or quickly maneuver in a narrow alley ... in this situation, the enemy has an advantage in any case.
    The commander's mistake is obvious ... without reconnaissance, he poked his head into this place.
    Here it would be nice to use loitering ammunition with 3 kg of explosives like the Iranian Shahid or our Geranium ... I propose to introduce this weapon into the BMP ammunition load.
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 21 September 2022 08: 21
      +2
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      our BMP was ambushed

      In this video, she stands abandoned. If there was a crew there, then the armored personnel carrier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine would have been destroyed. The place was chosen normally, this confirms that the Armed Forces of Ukraine passed in front of our side, and they themselves fired in the forehead.
      1. Prometey
        Prometey 21 September 2022 14: 47
        +2
        Quote: qqqq
        In this video, she stands abandoned

        Or without ammunition and people inside. And how many bursts did it take Bucephalus to set the car on fire.
        1. Dost
          Dost 21 September 2022 15: 28
          +2
          There were some soldiers hiding behind her. She had something to answer, the same gun as the Ukrainians. But no one. I didn't see a tank there.
    2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 08: 58
      -4
      Rather, the problem is the lack of course machine guns in the BMP-1. If there were any, the driver could well extinguish the offensive impulse of the enemy, while the gunner turned the turret and was busy with another target.
      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 10: 53
        0
        But it suddenly became interesting to me, the active minusers of my message, are they ready to sit in the driver’s seat and calmly watch how they shoot you, without having a course machine gun and the possibility of return fire?
        One of the silent minusers in the rank of marshal, I immediately lost two hundred ratings.
      2. Hitriy Zhuk
        Hitriy Zhuk 21 September 2022 11: 58
        +7
        The course machine guns were already passing, rigidly fixed on the hull.
        The driver, enthusiastically wagging his hull, will knock down the gunner's sight and piss off the commander, get a scolding and calm down.
        At the same time, the accuracy is more likely "somewhere there" (well, that is, to suppress, if they do not guess that it is all by.
        But to do like the KV-1 and other old people - this is a place, and ideally a special person, they refused.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 12: 09
          -4
          Write right away that you have no idea how a modern course machine gun works.
        2. storm
          storm 21 September 2022 16: 49
          -1
          We need a remotely controlled AGS + PKT module installed on a fender like a BMPT.
          Then the driver will not shoot in the direction of something, but normally aiming to hit tank-dangerous infantry and ATGM crews
    3. d1975
      d1975 21 September 2022 19: 16
      0
      The answer about the ambush is true, it would be possible to put at least a rear-view camera and teploki. Look at the battles of Mariupol, it's terrible how 82 make a retreat and not only.
  3. ism_ek
    ism_ek 21 September 2022 05: 42
    +16
    We have BMPT. There is a UVZ where in a short time it is possible to implement the conveyor assembly of these machines. But the new BMP has to wait a very long time. Kurganmashzavod, after a series of bankruptcies, when there was no heating in the shops for several years, is lying on its side. The scientific and engineering base is lost.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 21 September 2022 06: 15
      +3
      Not the worst option.
      Native factory: half was dismantled for concrete chips, and fences for different owners were separate workshops
      1. guerilla707
        guerilla707 21 September 2022 11: 09
        +1
        Volgograd Tractor?..,....
        1. frog
          frog 21 September 2022 12: 20
          +1
          If only he. Although it is a pity, it was a good factory ....
    2. cold wind
      cold wind 21 September 2022 08: 42
      +4
      Quote: ism_ek
      But the new BMP has to wait a very long time.

      This is not true. We already have everything.
      Medium platform based on the BMP-3. Dragoon/manul is no worse than Kurganets, the mantra “this is a new car” does not work by itself. On the basis of dragoons / manuls, a tracked armored personnel carrier is made by removing or replacing the combat module with a cheaper one. There is a variant with a 57 mm gun. But I consider the Manul variant with the BM Boomerang to be optimal: an uninhabited, modern SLA, a 30-mm 2A42 cannon, 4 Kornet anti-tank systems, PKTM would only add an AGS like on the coast. It is necessary to provide for a factory hinged reinforcement of the reservation, with the loss of the ability to swim.
      Heavy BMP - BMO-T with the same BM Boomerang. An ideal twin for tanks with the ability to carry infantry and the firepower of BMPTs. Let me remind you that a pair of 30 mm cannons fires in turn, which does not differ from one cannon on a boomerang or a bank.
      Everything that I have already indicated in metal and on the basis of serial machines, if desired, is launched into a series in half a year.
      There is another quick option, take the example of Algeria. They put BM Berezhok on the T-62. We can also put it on tanks from T62 / 72 / 72A storage, there are really a lot of them, BM Berezhok in a large series, identical in its capabilities to the BM of the BMPT.
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 21 September 2022 10: 22
        +1
        Quote from cold wind
        Dragoon/Manul

        Yes, this is the same BMP-3, with alumel armor and the inability to hang dynamic protection. They planned to hang dynamic protection on Kurganets, but, as I understand it, problems arose with it. It breaks through thin armor.
        1. Hitriy Zhuk
          Hitriy Zhuk 21 September 2022 12: 03
          0
          Quote: ism_ek
          It breaks through thin armor.

          The solution is obvious, thicken the armor. laughing
          I heard a bike saying that Bradley was originally supposed to become something like a counterfeit clone of the BMP-1 (and even without a tower), floating.
          But in the end it became something like a fat-light tank landing.
      2. musketon64
        musketon64 21 September 2022 15: 18
        +3
        Quote from cold wind
        On the basis of dragoons / manuls, a tracked armored personnel carrier is made by removing or replacing the combat module with a cheaper one. There is a variant with a 57 mm gun. But I consider the Manul variant with the BM Boomerang to be optimal: an uninhabited, modern SLA, a 30-mm 2A42 cannon, 4 Kornet anti-tank systems, PKTM would only add an AGS like on the coast. It is necessary to provide for a factory hinged reinforcement of the reservation, with the loss of the ability to swim.

        We are right with you like-minded people. hi I wanted to leave exactly the same comment. This is the best option for today. I would just like to add that in order to reduce the cost and strengthen the armor, the hull must be assembled from steel armor, instead of expensive aluminum alloy.
        Removing the 100-mm cannon from the weapon system will simplify and reduce the cost of the system itself. Well, plus, to win the additional weight that this gun with AZ gives, as well as the explosion safety of the machine itself due to the removal of 100-mm rounds from the ammunition load.
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 21 September 2022 08: 52
      +15
      Quote: ism_ek
      Kurganmashzavod, after a series of bankruptcies, when there was no heating in the shops for several years, is lying on its side. The scientific and engineering base is lost.

      Do you have an old manual? recourse
      After the nationalization of KMZ in 2018, the plant’s business is only going uphill, now it employs 9000 people!
      1. ism_ek
        ism_ek 21 September 2022 10: 25
        -2
        Quote: Serg65
        After the nationalization of KMZ in 2018, the plant’s business is only going uphill, now it employs 9000 people!

        And how many people worked there when the production of the BMP-3 started? How many scientific institutions worked on the BMP-3? Now they just don't exist.
        Of course, BMP-3, BMD-4 .. octopuses, etc. factory can produce. But fundamentally new cars .... I doubt
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 21 September 2022 10: 39
          +7
          Quote: ism_ek
          I doubt it

          I repeat to you once again...before crying sobbing, ask what holding KMZ is now part of and what this holding is like!
          1. ism_ek
            ism_ek 21 September 2022 11: 01
            -4
            Quote: Serg65
            and what is this holding!

            JSC NPO High Precision Complexes?
            Well, this is a hybrid of "bean and pig", I'm sorry. The only serious scientific organization is the Tula Design Bureau named after Shipunov. But he has a completely different profile.
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 21 September 2022 11: 26
              +3
              Quote: ism_ek
              Well, this is a hybrid of "bobby with a pig"

              Well, yes .. Dartagnan, we only have you bully
              hi Successful work!
      2. frog
        frog 21 September 2022 12: 31
        +2
        They're coming. Until the beginning of this year - 7 boxes per month. This is better than before, but there is still a lot of noise around the factory. They switched to .... enhanced mode not so long ago. At the same time, there were no more people. But, of course, anything is better than what it was .....
    4. Alexey Lantukh
      Alexey Lantukh 21 September 2022 16: 24
      +2
      Very, very unlikely to happen quickly. It is possible to quickly establish the production of armored personnel carriers based on old tanks. The chassis is there, the engines have to be repaired. Weld thicker sides than in the BMP.
    5. bulava74
      bulava74 25 September 2022 21: 56
      0
      Don't get hysterical. All design is available. All technical cards, all drawings are available. Those people who worked there are all registered. When production is resumed, they will definitely try to attract them.
      And yes, the buildings are in place, the equipment is on conservation. It is possible to restart production any day.
  4. Amateur
    Amateur 21 September 2022 05: 46
    +5
    The security of the BMP, taking into account all the screens and sets of remote sensing, is enough to protect against 99% of wearable RPGs.

    Wow! It is said that bridge builders used to stand under the bridge during the first passage of heavy equipment, thereby guaranteeing the quality of their work.
    A good example for the authors of such articles.
    1. Ivan 1980
      Ivan 1980 21 September 2022 09: 51
      0
      In the BMD, during the first landing with the crew, Margelov's son was sitting in it
      1. The comment was deleted.
  5. igorra
    igorra 21 September 2022 05: 47
    +4
    Putin said yesterday about the defense industry, work is underway, the experience of using different types of weapons is being studied. He especially drew attention to the use of domestic components, it can be seen that processors from Ukrainian washing machines are running out. No matter how they began to go from house to house to demand from ours. But seriously, there are a lot of questions regarding the conduct of the CBO. After all, in fact, this is a civil war, and again, as then the Whites, they brought the interventionists to Russian soil.
    1. Igor K
      Igor K 21 September 2022 08: 04
      +2
      The interventionists themselves come with pleasure whenever they expect a suitable situation.
  6. Architect
    Architect 21 September 2022 06: 01
    -8
    A critical attitude towards BMPT in VO is not welcome.
    Apparently hurts someone's financial interest.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 21 September 2022 12: 52
      +3
      This is not true. BMPTs on topwars are constantly criticized (primarily for the controversial composition of weapons), but this does not negate the need for a combat vehicle capable of fighting tank-dangerous targets in line with tanks and capable of suppressing these targets with continuous fire. Existing infantry fighting vehicles are not suitable for this because of their weak armor.
      And taking into account the prospects for the introduction of KAZ, there will be no place for infantry next to the tanks.
  7. sergo1914
    sergo1914 21 September 2022 06: 37
    +7
    The CBO has identified such a moment. The concept of developing weapons systems for our army (both long and short) is below the plinth. She just doesn't exist. The American Himars has been in production since 2003. Has anyone seen him from the military-industrial complex before? M777. In operation since 2005. Has anyone studied the experience of combat use? Why are these not the newest systems a surprise to us? And how does our army respond? Systems adopted for service in 50-60-70. And where is everything that has no analogues? What the Supreme likes to talk about. Where are the developments? We will omit the topic of first-aid kits and drones.
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 21 September 2022 07: 55
      +13
      Why surprise? The M777 is an ordinary howitzer, not the best one due to its lightweight design .. The FCS for it - yes, you should take a closer look, there is one. But - as I understand it, it is by no means everywhere there.

      The hyped Himars is also a rather controversial weapon. The essence of the MLRS is the cheapness of the shot, but due to the number of launchers, the covering area. Why make a hybrid MLRS with an expensive high-precision? I don’t think that Himars salvo is so much more effective than, say, Tornado salvo .. Especially when you consider the difference in caliber and number of launchers ..

      Batch loading - well, MLRS one hell no one reloads at launch positions? Shoot back and run. Then what's the difference?

      The whole problem is in tactics. That the apparatus moves into position, sneers and quickly dumps. Fuck you'll catch. But Tornado can do exactly the same thing! Not? What then is the declared advantage?

      Our main problem is target designation of the ukrovermacht .. For all NATO systems work for it, with which we cannot do anything, since we are not officially at war with NATO. Otherwise - hell, all these AWACS would fly over Poland, like satellites over Tsegabonia .. And here - a reasonable question really arises - where are all our vaunted electronic warfare equipment ??? Why is the same GPS still working quietly in those parts? They said that it was like crushing him - just spit?
      1. Igor K
        Igor K 21 September 2022 08: 07
        +3
        "Smerch" solves its problems, "Tochka-U" its own, and why cross them? winked
        1. Igor K
          Igor K 21 September 2022 08: 08
          0
          Savings on using the universal chassis just now.
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 21 September 2022 08: 18
            +1
            Universal - by no means always means good .. I strongly doubt that Himars' cross-country ability is even close to the Tornado chassis ..
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 21 September 2022 10: 50
            +3
            Plus identification problems for the enemy.
            Everything is simple with us: this is the MLRS "tornado" from the Ready, and this is the OTRK "Iskander" from the RBR. And from the other side, before the launch, it’s impossible to understand what it is - either a pseudo-MLRS with 227-mm tactical missiles, or an OTRK with ATACMS.
      2. Igor K
        Igor K 21 September 2022 08: 09
        -1
        The charging speed of "Himars" is not higher than that of "Smerch"?
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 21 September 2022 08: 16
          +4
          What about the meaning? Anyway, no one reloads the MLRS at the firing position. At least in a package, at least one at a time .. For they will cover it right there. And on the spare - what's the difference, in half an hour it will be recharged or in 10 minutes?
        2. Skif
          Skif 21 September 2022 19: 02
          +1
          I don’t know about reloading, but Tornado’s salvo speed is 12 shells per 40 seconds, and Hymers’s is 6 per minute. Draw your own conclusions.
      3. Bodipancher
        Bodipancher 21 September 2022 13: 58
        +5
        Target designation is a pain, the problem, as I understand it, is to track these Hymars and aim missiles at them. Russia, being a space power and an aircraft manufacturer, cannot cover Ukraine with a round-the-clock surveillance and target designation cap.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 September 2022 10: 46
      +4
      Quote: sergo1914
      M777. In operation since 2005. Has anyone studied the experience of combat use?

      Why study the experience of using a towed howitzer? Its main advantage is air mobility, but it is impossible to use it on the NWO. And without a helicopter, "port wine" is essentially no different from the old M198. He even has an old barrel - 39-caliber.

      The question is actually different - why can't our invincible and legendary one fight systems that were considered not enough tenacious for a big war back in the days of the late USSR?
    3. Hitriy Zhuk
      Hitriy Zhuk 21 September 2022 12: 13
      +3
      Well, no need to play up on brands and PR.
      And then they set up "oh iPhone", oh "baikatarchik" and other "khimarsiks" \ "777ki".
      About Turkish UAVs, the main stream was until they began to use them, then it turned out, if not a pumpkin, then at least not what it was painted with.

      Khimarsik - so you can hammer a peacekeeper from anything, even with airships, at least V-2.
      The coolness of self-loading is just like a toy or for show.
      Coolness as a weapon - for some reason there is no data on gorgeous results.

      Axes - so there the whole point is in the calculator (and then, to understand where there is PR for the sake of "raising the price tag" and where is reality).

      In general, I’m talking - it’s like with an iPhone, it’s kind of unremarkable shit, but it’s like they advertise something outstanding.
  8. Doctor
    Doctor 21 September 2022 06: 49
    -6
    We need to change the organization of the troops. Instead of "universal" divisions with 2 tank regiments, make universal companies. Tank platoon + 2 platoons on infantry fighting vehicles. And perhaps even universal platoons.
  9. ramzay21
    ramzay21 21 September 2022 06: 50
    -1
    The author is right, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We really need heavy infantry fighting vehicles, and the tank-IFV combination will also solve the problem with the delivery and protection of infantry during the battle, unlike the tank-Terminator combination.
    And this must be done quickly, preferably from the hulls of Soviet tanks that are in storage and are already in a state of little use for restoration, for example, from the T-62, T-64 and early versions of the T-72.
    1. frog
      frog 21 September 2022 07: 07
      0
      And you have to do it quickly.

      You still say - inexpensively ... Together we laugh. Our military-industrial complex does not know such words.
      1. ramzay21
        ramzay21 21 September 2022 08: 42
        0
        Our military-industrial complex does not know such words.

        The leadership of the military-industrial complex and those in the army who are responsible for weapons have already worked out the most cruel articles of our Criminal Code, and I agree with this.
        But this is the most reasonable, economical and fastest way out.
        1. frog
          frog 21 September 2022 09: 10
          -1
          The leadership of the military-industrial complex and those in the army who are responsible for weapons have already worked out the most cruel articles of our Criminal Code, and I agree with this.

          Others, apparently, did not work?)
          In addition, purely IMHO, BMP cords are still a palliative solution. If the generals do not observe their own charter, and the capabilities of the Armed Forces are "not enough" for ..... "communication" even with independents, these Russian Names will not help here ....
          Knowing how the current military-industrial complex works, the solution is at least not a quick one. Yes, and not cheap, in fact ..... If we assume that three years old is fast, then yes ......
      2. Dost
        Dost 21 September 2022 16: 06
        +1
        And you can find out which military-industrial complex knows? Let's laugh together?
        1. frog
          frog 21 September 2022 16: 51
          0
          And you ask how long it took to create a ground-based harpoon launcher for the wide ones .... Or to spear the charms on the MiG-29, of the same accessory. And for more serious things, we'll talk after your opinion ....
          1. Dost
            Dost 21 September 2022 17: 09
            0
            and you attribute all this to the speed of the military-industrial complex. And how much did the American military-industrial complex saw Raptor remember? Or the same F-35? or do you know how well Harm works from this bolted pylon?
            1. frog
              frog 21 September 2022 17: 30
              0
              Uh ...... How would it be in Russian something .....
              EMNIP, this is not about developing a new product, especially, so to speak, a breakthrough one that has no analogue, so to speak .... But about compiling already known things. And goose neck with other things to confuse as it is inappropriate.
              The speed of construction is quite a series of staffers we know. Our unparalleled speed in the world - too. As well as the time of creation of shamanized samples and their speed in production. With a severe shortage of trifles, until this year, with not sickly infusions, we sculpted as many as 7 pieces per month ... Approximately, the stump was bright. If there is a fierce desire to crackle for patriotism - not for me.
              And yes, about the work of harms - take an interest in the losses of our air defense systems. Only not at Konashenkov, pliz. Either he will not say, or he will also click on "comrades" wink
              1. Dost
                Dost 21 September 2022 21: 36
                -3
                And about the compilation of already known things. Here I am about the F-35, which is still being finished.
            2. ramzay21
              ramzay21 21 September 2022 18: 56
              -1
              Or the same F-35?

              People like you also laughed at the Neptunes and Harpoons, and they sank our RRC Moscow with a blow from land. A few Hymers who were also laughed at became a nightmare for our aircraft. And thank God that our aircraft did not meet with the F-35, because a couple of F-35 squadrons would have landed our VKS in a month.
              F-35s in training battles dry out F-15s of the latest modifications with much more modern avionics than on the Su-35. And more than half a thousand of these F-35s have already been produced.
              1. cold wind
                cold wind 22 September 2022 08: 09
                0
                Quote: ramzay21
                And more than half a thousand of these F-35s have already been produced.

                Already released 840+. This is more than we have fighters in principle.
        2. ramzay21
          ramzay21 21 September 2022 19: 09
          +3
          And you can find out which military-industrial complex knows? Let's laugh together?

          Israeli knows, American knows. Americans are not at all the fools about whom our media are cracking. At the end of the 70s, they realized that the BMP invented by us was a valuable technique, saw the results of its application and concluded that a heavy BMP was needed, so they immediately made a human Bradley BMP and did not produce a tin can and its modifications for 40 years in a row, unable to fight in modern wars. Therefore, we urgently need to do what the Americans have been doing slowly for 40 years.
          And it’s sad not that you don’t understand this, but that those who were supposed to rearm our army don’t understand.
          1. Dost
            Dost 21 September 2022 21: 34
            -6
            And where did Bradley fight in full-scale databases?
            1. ramzay21
              ramzay21 22 September 2022 03: 29
              +1
              Two wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. And in the same Afghanistan in Bradley, much fewer Americans burned down than ours in the BMP-1/2. Although for you it is still not an argument.
              1. Dost
                Dost 22 September 2022 17: 19
                0
                There they did not participate in full-scale hostilities. as they already entered the suppressed zones.
                1. ramzay21
                  ramzay21 22 September 2022 19: 27
                  0
                  And that there were full-scale hostilities in Afghanistan?
                  This is the same war in which their soldiers burned down in the BMP much less than ours, and they fought much longer. And this is just a fact.
                  1. Dost
                    Dost 22 September 2022 22: 28
                    0
                    In Afghanistan, sometimes there were full-scale ones. The United States did not really use its own in Afghanistan, only in the initial period, when they bombed all the way.
    2. fiberboard
      fiberboard 21 September 2022 07: 10
      +9
      Correctly. The author planted a garden in the article. There are good reviews about BMPTs from the front, which means we urgently need to take tanks from storage bases and make BMPTs. Theory and practice do not always agree with each other. 57mm is certainly good, but the rate of fire and ammunition are not great. All the same, there are hundreds of old tanks at the bases, rotting slowly. So you need to make BMPTs and heavy infantry fighting vehicles from them.
      1. Lech from Android.
        Lech from Android. 21 September 2022 07: 14
        +2
        Israel has experience in creating a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on a tank platform.
        1. fiberboard
          fiberboard 21 September 2022 07: 35
          0
          We have developments, and in Ukraine (in KhTZ).
        2. cold wind
          cold wind 21 September 2022 08: 45
          -1
          Quote: Lech from Android.
          Israel has experience in creating a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on a tank platform.

          We have this experience. It is called BMO-T. There was even a small batch production.
      2. storm
        storm 21 September 2022 17: 23
        -3
        Heavy infantry fighting vehicles are needed first
        in shock tank divisions.
        Two tank regiments and two regiments of heavy infantry fighting vehicles.
        BMPTs should be used in motorized rifle brigades in the first echelon with tanks.
        -Tank Battalion
        - BMPT battalion
        - two battalions on BMP-2/3

        Firstly, BMPTs will provide cover for tanks from tank-dangerous infantry.
        Secondly, they compensate for the understaffing of infantry (20-30%), which is practically
        in all motorized rifle divisions.
    3. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 09: 21
      -4
      But didn’t it occur to you that by campaigning for the conversion of tanks in storage, don’t understand what, you are campaigning for a decrease in defense capability? And why are you clinging to the tanks in storage. There are much more suitable chassis, for example, the same self-propelled guns 2S3 "Acacia", a front-mounted engine and a relatively spacious hull. When strengthening the reservation, due to the removal of a heavy gun, you get the very thing. There is also the already mentioned BMO-T.
      1. fiberboard
        fiberboard 21 September 2022 19: 29
        +1
        And how do we campaign for a reduction in combat capability? The fact that we propose to turn a bunch of scrap metal into a fighting vehicle and protect the lives of fighters? Well, these tanks will stand for another twenty years, so what. They have been standing on the Kuril Islands since the war. Then they are still disposed of for remelting.
    4. Hitriy Zhuk
      Hitriy Zhuk 21 September 2022 12: 20
      +2
      Considering that the tank does not often hold an RPG grenade in the barrel, and that there is also a roof, they get tired of booking it.
      After all, they draw from a heavy infantry fighting vehicle assault tank but with a landing inside.
      Something of the level of circular armor of the KV-1 \ IS-4 (at the time of their appearance, well, that is, roughly speaking, it is like the top of the forehead of the T-72 \ T-90 of the best modifications, but also on the sides and back) can no longer be done.
    5. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 22 September 2022 00: 39
      0
      Quote: ramzay21
      The author is right, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. We really need heavy infantry fighting vehicles, and a tank-infantry fighting vehicle combination will also solve the problem with the delivery and protection of infantry during the battle

      Exactly: no need to reinvent the wheel. True, the Jews invented it for themselves a long time ago. Their MBT "MERKAVA-4" combines a tank and a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, delivering 8 troops under tank armor in its troop compartment. True, there is a plain there and there are no buildings in which Mujahideen with RPG-7 are sitting on the upper floors ... But nevertheless, the "chariot" regularly delivers IDF fighters with small arms safe and sound to the line of the task. The Jews nevertheless embodied "in one bottle" a tank and a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with MBT armor protection.
  10. PXL
    PXL 21 September 2022 07: 25
    0
    Question to the author. Who is this article for? For the same sofa experts?
    1. sergo1914
      sergo1914 21 September 2022 08: 02
      +4
      Quote from PXL
      Question to the author. Who is this article for? For the same sofa experts?


      I think it's universal. For all. Including for the greatest minds of our time. Like you.
      1. PXL
        PXL 1 October 2022 18: 03
        0
        If it is universal, then it must be sent to the GABTU, to the Cuban Research Institute of BTV and to UVZ. Here, you all will not do anything anyway, nerds.
  11. Edward Vashchenko
    Edward Vashchenko 21 September 2022 08: 05
    +8
    with a focus on how each element (in this case, BMPT) fits into the big picture.

    And with this one cannot but agree with the author. Absolutely correct approach.
    Another thing is that both an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle, and some kind of knight in armor, does not itself defend itself on the spot, but participates in hostilities. All armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles “greetings from the USSR”, and the tactics of the offensive of tanks with the support of armored personnel carriers and infantry were linear, well, just like now in the Vostok exercises. After striking all artillery systems at enemy positions with the support of attack helicopters, attack aircraft and fighter cover, if necessary.
    They should also have acted during flank strikes.
    With regard to armored personnel carriers, for example, no one suspected that the blow would be delivered from the flank, there was simply nowhere to take the enemy there. Only on the forehead. And an armored personnel carrier with the power of 14,5 mm KPVT and a paired 7,62 mm PK hits the enemy located frontally.
    The tactics have changed, firstly, heavy losses occur on the march, when armored personnel carriers with other equipment are in a column, but here no armor will help when you are pinned down, the same thing if an armored personnel carrier is ambushed on a narrow street, and secondly, The "offensive" is carried out by the forces of the "battalion", or rather the "super tactical squad", well not a separate motorized rifle.
    The conclusion is simple, the technique should be improved, but without changing tactics, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and even a tank will simply become a delivery vehicle for infantry fighting with legs.
    Obvious conclusions on tactics have not been drawn, at the Vostok exercises everything was taught as we, motorized riflemen, were taught thirty years ago.
    "Armor Up" is good in theory, but in practice it is impossible and does not work. This is just one component that does not work without others.
  12. Tjecktjeck
    Tjecktjeck 21 September 2022 08: 52
    0
    I fully support.

    In my sofa view, the current version of the BMPT is made according to the principle of pushing-not pushing. Initially, this machine was made to counter helicopters, only, apparently, helicopters of the 60-70s, given the effective range of 30k. It got into service in a roundabout way, because the military rejected it.

    She can really fulfill certain goals well. However, the question of expediency arises here. The machine goes as an appendage to the tank, while it costs more than the tank itself and cannot perform the work of an infantry fighting vehicle.

    If you do something that will protect the tanks, then something as simple as possible: remove rods, grenade launchers. For the base, take not the t-72, but the t-55 or t-62. Although even in this case, a normal BMP is much more priority, since it can perform the same BMPT functions and at the same time be a universal tool.
  13. Dimax-nemo
    Dimax-nemo 21 September 2022 08: 53
    +5
    1. Modern infantry fighting vehicles (Puma, Lux) may already weigh FOR 35 tons. And even for 40. At the same time, they do not have the firepower of the Terminator. However, as well as security at the level of at least the old T-72. An armored "minivan" with two even light domestic 30s and a thick skin does not work. Too large internal volumes are needed, after which the mass already exceeds all reasonable limits.
    2. The 30-mm 2A42 fired quite well and shoots from a tracked chassis up to 15 tons. Actually, it differs from the 2A72 mainly in the presence of a "high" rate of fire (500 rds / min), which was intended for firing at air targets and greater "omnivorous "A new type of ammunition, on which the 2A72 was simply not debugged.
    3. BMP-3 has approximately the same security that the author describes - a domestic 30-mm projectile in the forehead, NATO 12,7 sides. It weighs less than 20 tons.
    4. The terminator may well be "received" by a radical modernization of old T-72s from storage bases. "Simply" the old tower is changed to a combat module. In view of the abundance of these chassis, it makes no sense to discuss this at all.
    5. Have you seen this panoramic sight on the T-90? How long do you think he will live in battle? Here, either you need to remove the cross, or put on underpants. The tank must be a protected and low-vulnerability vehicle. And the same must apply to its means of observation-detection, which for the same reasons will be limited.
    1. Hitriy Zhuk
      Hitriy Zhuk 21 September 2022 12: 26
      +3
      Quote: Dimax-Nemo
      How long do you think he will live in battle?

      By the way, yes.
      If the lezd is forward, then a little more than not at all.
      If we don't climb, we come to the concept of "sniper tank" and "assault tank", and lose versatility.

      Ideally, stick it out of the tower when necessary, but then it will increase.
      Engineers truly push the unpushed.
  14. Sergey Aleksandrovich
    Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 09: 08
    -5
    The main function of the BMPT should be the evacuation of the crews of damaged tanks, in addition to anti-aircraft fire from small-caliber guns. This is what it should be prepared for. But the existing five-seat vehicle does not quite meet these requirements, it is really better to have a heavy infantry fighting vehicle like the T-15.
  15. wlkw
    wlkw 21 September 2022 09: 21
    0
    In my humble opinion, "not a tanker", they would have given old tanks, of which we have a hell of a cloud, for rework in the BMPT. They have a decent level of protection from 20 mm, add any hinged armor and protection there, and on top - habitable or not habitable combat modules, of which a bunch have already been designed.
    That is, to do everything from the already existing components. Or already ready for immediate production.
    For example, there is a tank - "Russia - Withdrawn from service in 2010. 2800 T-55s in storage as of 2016[114]."
    Here and give them for "reforging". Remove the tower, put there, for example, a tower from the BMP-3. A lot of weight will be released, which can be used for different and necessary things.
    Everyone, throw cons.
    1. Diverter
      Diverter 22 September 2022 00: 03
      0
      plus catch))))
      I also agree with the same decision.
  16. Kirill Valkovsky
    Kirill Valkovsky 21 September 2022 09: 33
    +5
    It seems that all 3 articles were written by one person, embittered at the bmpt, and pretending to have diverse opinions.
    1. Hitriy Zhuk
      Hitriy Zhuk 21 September 2022 12: 29
      +4
      They just don’t let him ride the BMPT, so he’s mad!
      (joke) wassat
  17. Georgy Sviridov_2
    Georgy Sviridov_2 21 September 2022 09: 43
    +2
    The author makes even more controversial statements...
    BMPT is a vehicle of tank units, and yes, they are not mass-produced precisely because there are no staffs for them. Most likely they will be introduced as a staff or by the 4th platoon into a tank company or by the 4th company into a tank battalion of tank brigades.
    BMP is a vehicle of infantry units. One will have nothing to do with the other.
    The tank battalion as part of the motorized rifle brigades will indeed cover the infantry fighting vehicles, there will be no infantry fighting vehicles there, it is already 4-company and, as a single unit, almost never participates in battle, and each tank company will have a corresponding motorized rifle battalion.
    The 4th, either falls on the direction of the main attack or is in the reserve of the brigade commander.
    In tank brigades, tank battalions of 3 companies. There is only 3 infantry battalion for 1 tank battalions, that is, 1 company for that cover of such a battalion, that is, 1 infantry fighting vehicle for 3 tanks, and this is at best, because the infantry still needs to be issued to guard warehouses, air defense brigades, artillery, headquarters with communication ... As a result, it turns out 1-2 infantry fighting vehicles per dozen tanks ... This is clearly not enough. And it is precisely here that BMPTs are needed, which, with a small number, will be able to give a high density of fire against the enemy’s dispersed manpower.
    And from the text of the author one gets the impression that he is against BMPs replacing BMPTs in motorized rifle units ...
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 September 2022 11: 02
      +6
      Quote: Georgy Sviridov_2
      In tank brigades, tank battalions of 3 companies. There is only 3 infantry battalion for 1 tank battalions, that is, 1 company for that cover of such a battalion, that is, 1 infantry fighting vehicle for 3 tanks, and this is at best, because the infantry still needs to be issued to guard warehouses, air defense brigades, artillery, headquarters with communication ... As a result, it turns out 1-2 infantry fighting vehicles per dozen tanks ...

      * thoughtfully Isn't it easier to change the states of tank units by adding infantry to them? For 80 years, tankers have been complaining about the lack of infantry, four wars (including one world war) and a cloud of conflicts have proven that a tank cannot live without infantry. According to the mechanized corps arr. 1940, except that the lazy one did not trample. The Berlin operation, with its loss of tanks due to the lack of full-time motorized infantry, was almost dismantled to the level of companies.
      But in our country, military theorists continue to sculpt purely tank states with a handful of motorized riflemen.
      And this despite the fact that the last negative experience of such a construction of states ours by the military from the active army was received in 2015:
      They had before their eyes a full-scale experiment on the use of armored personnel carriers "with a bias towards tanks" in modern warfare. Not against the devil understand what, but against the more or less mobilized Ukrainian army in the winter of 2014-2015. They formed OMB "August" consisting of four tank companies, one motorized rifle company, a reconnaissance platoon, an IIS, an anti-aircraft platoon, a communications platoon and a support platoon. With its own artillery - with a battery of 6 Gvozdika self-propelled guns and a battery of 6 Grads. Outcome? Stretched during the transfer through several intermediate bases right before the operation, the rear of the battalion safely "gobbled up" most of the motorized riflemen on guard. Well, we want surprise, don't we? We want! Let's go like this, then like this, and then like this! And that's it. To hell with it with refueling a tank column with buckets due to the fact that the only tanker is out of order, not for the first time, but for 13 or 14 tanks going into the first attack we had one infantry platoon, those same scouts "Chis", and "lichka" battalion commander. What happened with the second attack, on the VOP behind Sanzharovka, is well known. I saw the first motorized riflemen who were released from the guards at Sanzharovka after our best tanks and tankers died, shot with dagger fire from RPGs in the attack, into which they were thrown without infantry cover. Roma "Iron" sat on the mound with his RPK and envied my decathlon gloves with a folding mitten.
      © Murz, who else sad
      Result? But nothing - we continued to form tank divisions with a bias in tanks.
      1. Georgy Sviridov_2
        Georgy Sviridov_2 23 September 2022 16: 44
        +1
        Well, the staff will change and they will give BMPT.
        There is a lot of infantry in motorized rifle brigades. There are 40 infantry fighting vehicles for 120 tanks.
        Tank brigades and divisions are needed to reinforce motorized rifle units and formations with tanks in the direction of the main attack and the development of the offensive after breaking through the enemy defenses. Therefore, no one will saturate tank brigades with infantry.
        This is just the whole point of the BMPT, so that a minimal increase in the staff of personnel, give maximum opportunities to fight dispersed infantry.
        1 bmpt - 5 people. 1 BMP is 10 people ...
        2 bmpt in terms of the number of personnel is 1 bmp.
        And in terms of efficiency, at least 3.
        We have huge territories and a relatively modest mob. Resource.
        It is China that can have a 2,5 million army in peacetime and easily double and triple during mobilization, with a 1,5 lard population, an army of 10 million. This is like our million with 150 million.
        They have no problem with infantry at all.
        We have to look for an alternative.
        BMPT is just a way to cover tanks with a limited human resource.
  18. Alexander Razin
    Alexander Razin 21 September 2022 10: 02
    +3
    On the one hand, there are excellent reviews from the front about the use of the terminator. On the other hand, there are theoretical reflections of the author that the terminator is not needed, but a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is needed.
    There is only one problem - the terminator is made from old tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles are made from scratch
  19. certero
    certero 21 September 2022 10: 08
    +1
    after watching this video, even when I saw it for the first time, the question immediately arose - Why is the BTR-4 Ukrainian tin can still not burning?
    She has even worse armor than the BMP.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 10: 50
      -1
      In the video, the barrel of the BMP-1 is turned away, which means that the gunner-operator does not see the enemy armored personnel carrier. Just for such cases, there are course machine guns on the BMP-3, so that the driver can also fire, especially when the BMP is stationary.
  20. Negruz
    Negruz 21 September 2022 10: 22
    +3
    I urge you to pay attention to the fact that this “favorable light” is due to a greater extent not at all to the “success” of the Terminator itself. It is due to the unacceptably low level of compliance of modern Russian infantry fighting vehicles with the modern realities of the battlefield.

    Tell me, Alexander: when your "ideal" infantry fighting vehicle will cover the tank, performing the functions of an infantry fighting vehicle, will its troop compartment be empty?
    hi
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 10: 47
      -2
      And why are you embarrassed by the empty landing bay? It will be possible to put evacuated and wounded tankers there. The dimensions of the troop compartment on the BMPT are already a matter worthy of discussion.
      1. Negruz
        Negruz 21 September 2022 11: 02
        +2
        And why did you decide that something "confuses" me?
        hi
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 11: 04
          -1
          Then the meaning of the question about the empty troop compartment is not clear.
          1. Negruz
            Negruz 21 September 2022 11: 28
            +1
            If you don't understand it, can I do something about it?
  21. Name Surname
    Name Surname 21 September 2022 10: 30
    +2
    need more identical articles about BMPT to the god of articles about BMPT
  22. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 21 September 2022 10: 30
    +1
    Thirdly, none of the above can replace the tank as a "means of destroying an object." The 30mm cannon is not a competitor to the 125mm.

    The BMP-3 kit is not so bad. The 100mm gun is light and the HE is powerful thick-walled.
    And with 30mm something needs to be done. Plus or minus in the same mass and dimensions you need 35-45mm.
  23. tank64rus
    tank64rus 21 September 2022 10: 52
    +4
    The BMPT was generally created to escort convoys based on the experience of Afghanistan. Before drawing conclusions, you need to study the history of the issue. Then the war ended, the car was suspended in the air. They decided to save it by using it to support tanks from TOZhS. The TOS-1 system then found itself in the same position. BMPT is the first machine where a modular weapon installation takes place. And let this dispute be resolved on the battlefield, by those who are fighting.
  24. Dedok
    Dedok 21 September 2022 11: 08
    -1
    More mistakes than achievements
    and as the old people said: "cadres determine - Everything",
    those. All questions - to the people who make decisions in the military-industrial complex, who are they?
    and why their decisions do not correspond to the realities of the day?
    Let me remind you - "going to work" and "serving the Motherland" are two big differences
  25. fiv
    fiv 21 September 2022 11: 16
    -1
    Restrictions on the actions of troops during the period of the Northern Military District during the capture of settlements create specific requirements for the types of equipment used.
    It seems to me that problems should be solved by improving unmanned reconnaissance and destruction means, including those protecting the tank from fighters and "pickup trucks" with ATGMs and conducting reconnaissance for it. For the money spent on BMPT, a lot of such good can be done. The future is in limited warfare behind swarms, not tank wedges.
  26. Urs
    Urs 21 September 2022 11: 27
    +8
    I fundamentally disagree. At one time, indirectly, well, like a spectator, he participated in military tests of the BMPT2. I am a professional tanker and after 20 years I can quite cope with modern models, and so without the support of the "terminator" the effectiveness of a tank platoon in the offensive drops significantly. The terminator may well practically suppress all resistance in the form of PTS, and I will tell you a "package" of two barrels , and this is 3 shells from each for 3 seconds, when it hit a practical target, it caused its complete paralysis. I already wrote about this in other reviews and I repeat, the target is a real T72 battle tank, though of an old modification, after exposure to a fire "package" from an BMPT the sight is not functional, the aiming axis is knocked down (the sight is for repair), the dyne is practically washed away. protection, of course, the lighting devices outside were scrapped, the radio station was torn off from the mounting brackets !!!!!.
    Yes, the tank did not receive penetration and even remained on the move, although with some restriction on the type of external fuel tank and caterpillar shelf torn to shreds.
    My opinion soldier Pts BMPT is needed right now and right today and is included in the staff of a tank platoon.
    And I’ll add, it makes no sense to put 57 mm, this is weighting, less ammunition, less rate of fire (the main advantage of a 30mm machine gun), the task is not to “kill” a heavy armored target, but to temporarily immobilize or concuss, which is equal to subsequent incapacitation.
    Once again, THIS IS MY OPINION as a BTT specialist with good practice in the troops. soldier
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 21 September 2022 12: 15
      +2
      . less ammunition, less rate of fire (the main advantage of a 30mm machine gun),

      Hello.
      Well said.
  27. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 21 September 2022 12: 02
    +5
    The author of the article:

    Hello, Alexander!
    I am grateful that you are so interested in my work as in the topic itself.
    Yes, I write this material on the basis of personal experience.

    I emphasize once again that a BM with ANTI-SHELL armor (tank level) with small-caliber automatic artillery is needed. 2x30mm is a very effective combination.

    = Yes, in the line of the Armata platform, the current BMPT is not needed, or a vehicle with a different caliber is needed, for example, the same 57mm.
    But the Armata platform is not in the troops.

    = Yes, if a TBMP based on the same T-72B with a 72mm barrel appears in conjunction with the T-30B, then the BMPT is also not needed.
    But the MO is not even going to make TBMP, even in limited (!!!) quantities, although the BMO-T will not be remade for very long.

    Dear readers, please hear the MAIN aspect of the concept:
    Introduce the BMPT into the T-72B bundle, and specifically (!!!) the BMP-1,2 (!!!).
    Use the BMPT with the T-72B in those directions where the BMP-2 is a clear (!!!) death.
    After all, everyone is well aware that the BMP-2 will serve for a VERY long time. So? So.
    .........
    For your article:
    New BMP in 30 tons? Wonderful. Only she is not. Kurganets-25 hung up, but even they need time to saturate the troops. Lots of time and lots of money.

    Work with a bunch of two tanks, where 12,7mm commanders act as a cover?
    Firstly, yes, you are right - we still don’t have normal DUMs on tanks, except for the T-90M.
    Secondly, a pair of 30mm is still 30mm and these are Guns. 12,7mm machine guns will not replace them.

    But the most important thing is different: they constantly want to hand over some other "caliber" to the tank crew and puzzle the commander (!!!) of the tank with it.
    And such an opinion is universal.
    This is the main mistake.
    The commander is not a gunner. He has other tasks and they are head and shoulders above the tasks of a tank gunner.
    The weapon in the hands of the tank commander is AUXILIARY, i.e. additional weapon.
    I have been writing about this for a long time.
    I had to put down the keyboard for a while.
    The article will be out soon.
    I will wait for you in the discussion.
    Alexey
    hi
    ............
    ps
    Cons of the current BMPT:
    - they tried to make a child prodigy out of it.
    - there is no anti-shell reservation of the DUM itself.
    1. Urs
      Urs 21 September 2022 15: 54
      +4
      Yes, no one tried to make a "fuwaflu", there was an attempt to make a well-armored vehicle with wide angles of fire and view, as well as the ability to cover an area and not a point target. Why tank support? Because, as you said, "The commander is not a gunner. He has other tasks and they are head and shoulders above the tasks of a tank gunner." and his "commander", the presence of a cover vehicle is very unloading and allows you to focus on searching for and targeting targets for a tank gun. It turns out a tandem that completely complements each other. You can’t say the same about the BMP2, and this vehicle cannot afford to go on a par with tanks due to the low degree of armor. And according to the DUM armor, the silhouette of the DUM is far from being for a tank gun (hard to hit), and what for there are tanks nearby if they allow you to shoot at the "cover" from a cannon, but let's say a heavy machine gun this protection will survive. Only trouble is for that machine gun after unmasking. In short, a lot topics for discus, especially considering that I have seen in nature how this "terminator" works.
      I repeat once again for the tank-bmpt tandem, the separate use of the "terminator" for example with infantry is another topic.
    2. Dost
      Dost 21 September 2022 16: 13
      -1
      If the DUM is booked, we will get a tank.
  28. Pavel57
    Pavel57 21 September 2022 12: 41
    +1
    In vain, according to the BTR-90, adopted for service.
  29. Pavel57
    Pavel57 21 September 2022 12: 44
    +2
    And the video with the shooting at point-blank range of the BMP-1 is about nothing. Point blank 30mm is dangerous for any infantry fighting vehicle and even a tank.
  30. Genry
    Genry 21 September 2022 12: 47
    +1
    The BMPT concept is very relevant and is aimed at quick response and suppression of small targets ..
    The implementation of the "Terminator" is still very raw and frozen in its infancy.
    The 30mm cannon has a very weak high-explosive and fragmentation effect (even 40mm infantry grenade launchers).

    Two turret modules are needed, which will improve target control during distracting fire and increase survivability under fire (it is more likely that at least one module will be operational or allow you to combine serviceable components two into one).
    New weapons will be required: a 40mm grenade launcher and a 9-10mm machine gun.
    Of the existing weapons, the Bulat ATGM (a radically reduced Cornet) is appropriate.

    For understanding:
    New short gun-grenade launcher 40mm, for work / prevention of open targets and windows of buildings, powered like AGS-40 but more powerful / longer projectile with controlled detonation.
    A new 9-10mm machine gun for confidently penetrating body armor and suppressing the enemy behind sandbags, metal and concrete fences. A compromise caliber will allow you to have sufficient damage with a large ammunition capacity.
    ATGM "Bulat" - to destroy medium-armored, highly mobile targets, close-flying UAVs and targets that the 40mm gun cannot handle.
    Targets like "tank", "bunker" - are only highlighted for accompanying self-propelled guns (projectile "Krasnopol", ...) or tactical missiles (LMUR, "Germes" ...).
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 14: 00
      0
      An attempt to place two tower modules was made only on experimental 82-mm mortars "Drok". But the car has not yet gone into production. Of the implemented design solutions, only a machine-gun module on a tank turret. So for the time being, there are no ready-to-implement solutions in sight.
  31. EvilLion
    EvilLion 21 September 2022 14: 13
    0
    There is no point in disassembling the BMP-1/2 now, they will decrease as combat losses, corrals in the army way into swamps and the banal consumption of resources.

    Is the BMP-3, according to the author, a good car, or not? And what about the BTR-82A, which actually also became an infantry fighting vehicle, and how does practice show that formal armored personnel carriers fight regularly? At the same time, the same Bundeswehr is a very small army, they built about 500 new infantry fighting vehicles and that’s enough for them. Like, because if they had received their CBO, they would have been left without equipment in 2 weeks. For the Russian army, 500 of the same BMP-3s (I'm not saying now whether they are good or bad) is nothing, even the staff list cannot be filled. To release, let's say, 5000 new infantry fighting vehicles within, say, 10 years, in order to completely get rid of Soviet cans and have a reserve in case of a big war and, let's say, "incidents during operation" our military-industrial complex will not pull. At the same time, if we compare a primitive 13-ton BMP-1, and some conditional promising BMP weighing 30 tons with sophisticated modern weapons, then their labor intensity will, as it were, differ significantly. And the fact that there in the USSR these tins were riveted in thousands of series is not an argument for us at all. Moreover, even an increase in the mass and required engine power in themselves increase fuel consumption, which means that the number of tankers in units must be increased, i.e. the number of auxiliary equipment is also growing.

    Many would like to put infantry in 50-ton steel boxes, but I have doubts that such an economy with logistics will be pulled. And the possibility of reliable protection of such machines from 30-40 mm shells and RPGs seems doubtful

    What I agree with is that a 30mm cannon can be fired from something simpler than a 50-ton vehicle based on a tank.
  32. Per se.
    Per se. 21 September 2022 14: 44
    +2
    1. The appearance of the “usefulness” of such a machine is artificially created.

    2. As if the issue of the absence of modern infantry fighting vehicles in Russia is becoming insignificant.


    What does the author mean by modern infantry fighting vehicles? It must be assumed that this is certainly something "indestructible", because, - "And today, thousands of Russian soldiers on the line of contact are forced to move around the battlefield on all the same "tin cans"". What is not a "tin can", something like the German tank "Maus" or at least a heavy BMP T-15?
    The fact of the matter is that there is no understanding in the first place, but what is an infantry fighting vehicle.

    It should be noted right away that this is an initially universal vehicle that combines a transport function and a combat one. If you don’t rave about the ideas of World of Tanks, where you can “pump” equipment in the most magical way, you need to understand that you can’t add one without damaging the other in order to maintain a reasonable balance.

    Ideally, separation, specialization, transport functions and firepower are needed. In this BMPT, the very heavy BMP, which, after the infantry dismounts, begins to use its specialized weapons for support, only it is much better than any BMP in this, both in terms of protection and the capabilities of weapons and ammunition. Simply, it needs a heavy armored personnel carrier, where, by removing the combat module, you can free up weight and volume for better protection and comfort of the landing force, which will be delivered to battle in the second line by well-protected armored personnel carriers.

    It is a pity if people stubbornly do not want to understand that the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle with troops on board should not climb next to the tanks, otherwise it will become a "mass grave" in case of defeat.
    It’s a pity if they don’t want to understand that the BMP is not a bomb shelter, and you still have to crawl out under the bullets and shrapnel after dismounting.
    It’s a pity if they don’t want to understand that not only thick armor protects, but also maneuverability, a low silhouette, and there are more chances to burn out in a clumsy “two-story” mastodon than in a high-speed and squat “tin can”.

    In my understanding, for action with tanks, a single tank base is needed, a tank (T-72 / T-90), on its basis BMPT (fire specialization), heavy armored personnel carrier (transport specialization).
    The BMP (BMD) itself should remain a universal, maneuverable vehicle, like the BMP-3 and BMD-4M.
    With the right technique, everything will fall into place.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 15: 23
      -1
      BMPT only for fire specialization in itself is not a very good direction. As already mentioned, a tank with a machine gun module will still be stronger. BMPT should be able to transport either a small landing, or at least be able to evacuate the crews of damaged vehicles. It should be something on the BMO-T chassis with a remote combat module like "Epokha" with a 57-mm cannon.
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 21 September 2022 16: 28
        +3
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        BMPT only for fire specialization in itself is not a very good direction.
        Why? A "small landing", that is, an airborne squad, plus a combat module, and, again, we get something that will be weaker than the BMPT in terms of the fire component, and more flawed in front of the armored personnel carrier, as a transport.
        If we talk about the BMO-T chassis, then here you can get a heavy armored personnel carrier. Moreover, it is wiser to immediately focus on 5-6 paratroopers, like an assault group. This will optimize the dimensions of the machine, without sacrificing comfort and protection. Secondly, it minimizes possible losses in the event of an armored personnel carrier being hit with troops on board. Thirdly, it will reduce the dismounting time, by the time the landing force becomes active with tanks on the group field.



        On the basis of the BMO-T, it is possible to create a variant without landing, for a combat module, a fire specialization.

        We get a divided or "tandem" heavy "BMP", where the fire function will not depend on the "pregnancy" of the infantry, and the transport function will be devoured, in the living space of the landing force, by the combat module.

        As for the BMPT itself, one must soberly understand that it is the tank gun that gives a significant increase in the weight of the tank. BMPT, as a "rocket" tank, having lighter specialized weapons and missiles, can have greater protection than a tank. Roughly speaking, the BMPT can climb ahead of the tanks, clearing grenade throwers and enemy infantry.
        As an option, a BMPT (or rocket tank) with a 57 mm automatic cannon and a multi-shot rocket launcher.
        1. Konnick
          Konnick 21 September 2022 16: 45
          +2
          As an option, a BMPT (or rocket tank) with a 57 mm automatic cannon and a multi-shot rocket launcher.

          It would be ideal even against tanks with KAZ. The rapid-fire cannon takes the KAZ system off the tank, or the KAZ expends its charges on 57mm shells, and the ATGM does the rest.
        2. cold wind
          cold wind 22 September 2022 08: 15
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          .On the basis of BMO-T, it is possible to create a variant without landing, for a combat module, fire specialization.

          Why no landing? BM Boomerang, which is in the picture, does not take up space inside the vehicle. If we put it on the development of the BMO-T, we get a full-fledged heavy infantry fighting vehicle with a landing force of ~ 6 people.
  33. Prometey
    Prometey 21 September 2022 14: 51
    +2
    But what if instead of 2 30mm cannons on the BMPT we put one quick-firing 57mm with a good elevation angle? I'm not an expert, I'm wondering - is it possible to do this option? And the caliber is more solid and is able to wag already well-protected targets. And for tanks, leave a couple of ATGMs.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 September 2022 15: 14
      +2
      When the Epoch module with a 57-mm cannon is brought to mass production, it will most likely be so.
    2. Urs
      Urs 21 September 2022 16: 15
      +3
      And if you screw two "miniguns" fellow
      There are a lot of variations, the question is different until the answer to the question "but what for is it necessary" belay then the concept of application has been developed, you can put something in there, even launch tubes from the "sun" fellow
  34. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 21 September 2022 15: 07
    +2
    The author first needs to understand the terms. What is the relationship between BMP and BMPT? BMP - infantry fighting vehicle, there is a direction as TBMP (heavy infantry fighting vehicle). BMPT is a tank support fighting vehicle, a new niche and it does not compete with anyone, especially with BMP and BTR-T, not to mention tanks.
    1. Urs
      Urs 21 September 2022 16: 21
      +2
      I agree, not only the author himself is lost along the way. There are no offs yet. the concept of application, as in my opinion this is a tank-bmpt tandem, will not be understood. An answer will be received to the question "what for is it needed?" then the task from the Moscow Region will be issued.
  35. Vladimir Michailovich
    Vladimir Michailovich 21 September 2022 15: 17
    0
    Quote: Bodypuncher
    Derivation on a tank chassis. Then one vehicle will be able to cover the tanks from danger from the air and cover them from tank-dangerous targets, working on infantry with shells with a remote detonation and a machine gun. Only the coaxial machine gun should be replaced with 12.7. And so we need a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, the author is right, the best defense against a grenade launcher is the eyes and weapons of infantrymen. By the way, BMO-T with a modern combat module is quite an option while Kurgans and T-15s are ripening

    Oh, you stinking cattle, the war is on, and you are still pushing shit from Rostec, the shelter of thieves and traitors ...
  36. nikanikolich
    nikanikolich 21 September 2022 17: 54
    -3
    Nonsense, sorry that frankly and without embellishment. Did you fight in Afghanistan? I think no. So that's what the spirits were afraid of, the spirits were afraid of the "shaitan-machine" - SZU, and not tanks, and even more so armored personnel carriers with infantry fighting vehicles. "Terminator" is a miserable semblance in terms of firepower. Yes, "The Terminator is associated as a defender of tanks, there are Shmurs guns there, but this is not enough for the infantry - four barrels turn stone into dust, this is the kind of power and support that infantry and tankers need
  37. SSA
    SSA 21 September 2022 18: 17
    -2
    I agree with the author on the following.

    BMP -1, 2, 3, 4 have long ceased to meet the requirements of modern combat. All their amphibious and aeromobility in general are never used anywhere. No one will cross rivers on these boxes and fight in isolation from tanks, etc.
    Kurganets-25, I consider it an ideal replacement for all this junk, for motorized infantry units.
  38. odisey3000
    odisey3000 21 September 2022 19: 14
    -2
    what nonsense. We have a BMP - 3 respected author. And the terminator is money thrown to the wind, someone's voluntarism and incompetence.
  39. Devil13
    Devil13 21 September 2022 20: 20
    -1
    An interesting point of view.
    But you're getting off topic.
    Neither Bradley, nor a marauder, RPG shots can withstand. Only a tank.
    Protection against 30mm obps and 57mm obps will still require very high protection.

    Only TBMPs have tank armor.
    And "cheapness" can be ensured by the uniformity and serial production.
    The tank should also put the engine in the nose, the turret back or the crew back. And the protection is higher, and the tank crew has the opportunity to exit through the ramp.

    Just in case, I will repeat what the MO will not reach in any way. Good weapons are expensive. A good soldier is even more expensive.
    So don't be shy.
    Throw away (melt down) already partially destroyed and exhausted armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles 1,2.
    To withdraw there (or to reserve warehouses) t-72.

    Do you want a normal army and equipment? Do not produce 10050x modifications and versions.
    I see a normal composition like this:
    1000 t-14. At least 200 in the 152mm version for storming cities. Add a normal turret and a 30mm barrel to the AA gun.
    1000 t-15 with 57mm with remote detonation of the charge.
    If the module from derivation-air defense is too expensive (in terms of guidance systems, target tracking), then to hell with it - just put the same 57mm, but without aiming. Enough of the thermal imager and motion sensors, 360 cameras.
    Light derivation as air defense with 57mm (defeat of drones, helicopters); and missiles, bringing together into one system that covers everything, on 2 chassis: tracked and wheeled. And not a shell, torus, beech, derivation and something else there in the form of a wasp.
    But still, if not much more expensive than the guidance system, make the T-15 normal with air defense functions.

    Light infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers with protection against 30mm OBPS are of course needed.
    But in the case of an armored personnel carrier, it is worth thinking about combining it with MCI - it is good that in non-war time it combines functions.
    And to make armored personnel carriers based on typhoon protected armored vehicles.
    Required DN 30mm, the ability to install ATGM, kaz, ramp.
    BMP - consider only with kaz and dz, because the modern battlefield is oversaturated with RPGs and anti-aircraft guns.
  40. Alemax
    Alemax 21 September 2022 20: 50
    -2
    Fortunately, we can not get carried away with the calculations, but simply write off the result from those who were engaged in these studies professionally - the US Army


    It's good that this phrase is almost at the very beginning of the article.
    I just didn't read further.
  41. Dost
    Dost 21 September 2022 21: 38
    0
    Quote: frog
    And yes, about the work of harms - take an interest in the losses of our air defense systems. Only not at Konashenkov, pliz. Either he will not say, or he will also click on "comrades"

    I asked. They know about a couple, but about 10 pieces about the downed Harmas
  42. Jan
    Jan 21 September 2022 21: 39
    0
    I didn’t quite understand why thoughts about infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have such a strange heading? After all, no one opposes BMPT BMP / BTR!
    Probably, the BMPT offends purely aesthetically ... perhaps, but not a handsome man ... but there is no alternative, it still needs to be created !! But BMPT already exists and you need to learn how to use this tool correctly !!!
  43. staer-62
    staer-62 22 September 2022 00: 40
    0
    How many of our infantry fighting vehicles and the rest are floating, landing, transporting infantry? In general, not at all, and everything there is designed with these capabilities in mind to the detriment of the main functions for combat.
  44. abc_alex
    abc_alex 22 September 2022 03: 56
    0
    Throughout the article, the author is engaged in speculation. Having put the BMPT in the headline, he talks about the BMP. And speaking about the BMP, it unjustifiably absolutizes foreign experience.
    Meanwhile, the BMP-1 did not appear out of the blue. And from the experience of the Second World War. And those who gave TK on it perfectly understood that it was not a tank and would not be a tank. And they knew better than us, why the BMP needed amphibious capability.
    Speaking about the shortcomings of domestic infantry fighting vehicles, the author diligently avoids the fact that this is primarily a means of transporting infantry. And only then a means of fire support. And I don't know if it's even possible to book a 10-seat car like a tank. All stories about some kind of analytics from the United States do not hold water. Because for some reason no real samples appeared on their basis. And the last attempt by the United States to create an infantry fighting vehicle, by a strange coincidence, "gave birth" to a project of a 70-ton block, and not a 30-ton vehicle.
    In addition, I don’t think I’ll discover America if I say: for modern infantry means there is not much difference between 15 or 30 tons a vehicle weighs. And heavy ATGMs have armor penetration under a meter of homogeneous armor. Therefore, there is simply no point in waiting for a 10-seat tank. Even if such a machine appears, it cannot be mass produced.
    By the way: 30 tons is almost T-34-85. Do you think this tank is capable of withstanding modern infantry anti-tank weapons? So a weighted BMP will not be able to.

    The author is right about one thing: the BMPT performed well due to its high firepower and heavy armor. BUT! How does the author derive the idea of ​​a heavy infantry fighting vehicle from this?
    In my opinion, it is quite obvious that the infantry does not need a 50 ton armored car. She needs an assault combat vehicle. Or, if you like, a specialized tank. Whether on the basis of the T-72, whether on the basis of the T-90 and on the basis of the Almaty - it does not matter. But it is a tank, not an infantry fighting vehicle. No troop compartment. With a set of weapons suitable for action in the city. Need 30mm? So 30 mm. Two guns? Two guns. Perhaps even the BMPT will be the basis for it, only the weapon system needs to be properly configured so that it does not stick out with all the lenses to the delight of the machine gunner and sniper.
  45. Graz
    Graz 22 September 2022 06: 10
    +1
    for combat in the city there should be specialized mechanized units in a couple of divisions
  46. garri-lin
    garri-lin 22 September 2022 07: 48
    0
    Here a hypothetical battle was described when a spark from a tank and a carrier of 30 mm guns stormed.
    And the author just does realize that the "CORRECT" BMPTiP will be able to do this in one person.
    Tired of repeating a thousand times. BMPTiP as a concept is:
    1. Reduced reaction time.
    2. Multi-channel weapons.
    3. Greater situational awareness.
    And you need to make a car based on this concept. Then it will be good. Then a really useful technique will appear on the battlefield that does not duplicate the capabilities of the existing one.
    Everything else is from the crafty and crafty people with saws.
    Russia has the opportunity to create such equipment.
  47. Eugene Zaboy
    Eugene Zaboy 22 September 2022 09: 50
    -3
    Good article. Reasonably convinces of the need for the Terminator. Everything, literally, arguments for, including video. Why Americans have Bradleys and we don't. We have large stocks of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles of various modifications. There are no heavy ones, attack aircraft, but this is what the Terminator was created for. Too bad it's not enough. High rate of fire complemented by quick reaction of guidance systems in combination with tank armor. What else do assault units need in an attack?
  48. decimalegio
    decimalegio 22 September 2022 09: 55
    -1
    If the BMPT is useful, it will be discovered when the war is over. If it is ordered, it means that it is made, it means that it was appreciated. Otherwise, it will sink into oblivion, like many other types of weapons. This conflict will undoubtedly affect the weapons and technology of the future. However, in my humble opinion, regarding the APC, I must say that I never understood why 10/12 people should be less protected than 3/4 people in a tank.
  49. Archimedos
    Archimedos 22 September 2022 10: 08
    0
    Well, most of the armchair analysts-experts have gathered here, I will also fit in.
    1) As for me, no armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle will give such a density of varied fire as the BMPT.
    2) The tower at the BMPT is not inhabited, that is, a plus for the survivability of the crew.
    3) Built-in AGS - the idea is very interesting, but I would still put it on a controlled turret. Against infantry - a wonderful weapon, here you just need to create pointing accuracy and preferably a large ammo.
    3) Here the speed of turning the gun turret could be increased.
    4) Well, from fiction: it would be nice to have a "friend or foe" target recognition system, at least at the level of radio signals, let's say a bracelet on a soldier's hand can emit a certain signal ... this would allow coordinating the work of infantry and infantry fighting vehicles and at the same time identify targets faster.
  50. t200404
    t200404 22 September 2022 11: 52
    0
    Damn again it goes wrong for us in the west right, when will it be the other way around?
    1. frog
      frog 22 September 2022 12: 09
      -1
      When they start thinking. And not the stomach or the heart there .... Or some other organ, such as a dupa .... And before that - alas, we repeat
      1. t200404
        t200404 22 September 2022 12: 49
        0
        Yes, you are right, but it is not very pleasant to feel like an idiot, although many do not even have this. So they will die.
        1. frog
          frog 22 September 2022 13: 09
          -1
          If only they were dead, to hell with it. But they drag others. And often - not behind yourself, but in front of .....
    2. Herman 4223
      Herman 4223 22 September 2022 13: 05
      0
      Right there or right here it depends on the orientation of the author.
      1. t200404
        t200404 22 September 2022 13: 55
        -1
        I think primarily from the results at the front.