Ways of modernization: BMP "Manul" with a combat module "Baikal"

98
Ways of modernization: BMP "Manul" with a combat module "Baikal"
"Manul" with "Baikal" and wrong signature. Photo "Kurganmashzavod"


A few years ago, the Russian defense industry presented a promising Manul combat vehicle based on the serial BMP-3. At the same time, it became known that various combat modules with one or another weapon could be mounted on the chassis of this vehicle. In particular, it is proposed to sharply increase the firepower indicators by installing the AU-220M Baikal module with a 57-mm automatic gun. The existence of such a project became known only a few days ago.



Modern developments


The Manul project based on the BMP-3 is being developed at the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant PJSC. Work on this model began at the end of the 2020s, and the first prototype in its original configuration was presented at the Army-XNUMX forum. Now it became known about the new version of this BMP.

In recent weeks, Kurganmashzavod, on its page on the Vkontakte social network, talked about armored vehicles of the BMP-3 family, developed and produced by it. January 17 in the next issue of such historical chronicles mentioned the last few representatives of this line, which appeared in recent years. It should be noted that all these samples are already known to the public, but there was also new interesting information.

Among the modern developments, they mentioned the option of upgrading the serial BMP-3 with the installation of the Epoch combat module, equipped with a 57-mm low ballistics cannon. They also talked about the Derivation project, which proposes to install an original combat module with a long-barreled 3-mm cannon on the BMP-57 chassis.


Another new development is the BMP-3 Derivation. Photo "Kurganmashzavod"

The list of new developments includes the product "Manul". This is a deeply modernized version of the BMP-3, which is distinguished by the front location of the engine compartment. The vehicle is reportedly equipped with an uninhabited weapon station with a 30mm cannon and missiles.

However, the illustration of the material does not match the description. The photo (or high-quality photo collage) shows the Manula chassis with the Baikal combat module and a characteristic long-barreled automatic gun of increased caliber. At the same time, a 30-mm gun is again indicated on the slide with such a machine.

Apparently, an error crept into the Kurganmashzavod publication, and therefore the photo and description do not match. However, in this case, the picture is of great interest. It shows that the development company continues to develop both the entire BMP-3 family and the new Manul project. This ensures the growth of the main characteristics and maintains a high degree of unification with other equipment of its family, incl. with the latest developments.

Basic platform


The Manul project provides for the restructuring of the BMP-3 with a radical change in layout to obtain a number of characteristic advantages. At the same time, all the main units of the base vehicle are preserved, and the same level of performance characteristics is achieved. In addition, Manul, like the BMP-3, has significant potential for modernization.

Unlike the Troika, the new Manul is made front-engined. The engine compartment was moved to the bow of the hull, and because of this, the three-seat control compartment was moved back. The center of the vehicle is occupied by a fighting compartment with room for a turret or a combat module. The stern is completely given under the troop compartment with boarding and disembarking through the aft ramp / door.


An experienced Manul with the Epoch combat module at the Army-2020 forum. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Own protection of the machine as a whole remained the same; all booking changes are related to the new layout only. This provides for the installation of hinged booking modules that enhance the protection of the onboard plane.

Despite the restructuring, Manul retains the UTD-32T diesel engine with an HP 660 power. Transmission units are located next to it and drive the front drive wheels. The design of the chassis as a whole has not changed - with the exception of the transfer of the drive wheels and sloths. Despite all the improvements, driving characteristics, mobility and cross-country ability generally remained at the level of the base BMP-3. The speed on the highway reaches 70 km / h, on the water with the help of water cannons - 9,5 km / h.

The reconfiguration did not have a fundamental impact on the capacity of the hull. The front compartment still accommodates up to three people - the driver and a couple of paratroopers. Six more seats are located in the aft troop compartment. The placement of the commander and gunner-operator depends on the type of fighting compartment. Depending on the availability of appropriate volumes, they work in a tower or in a hull.

Pluggable modules


BMP "Manul" can be equipped with different combat modules. Apparently, it is possible to install a standard turret from the BMP-3. In this case, the armored vehicle will receive a 100-mm gun-launcher, a 30-mm automatic cannon, a machine gun and smoke grenade launchers.

During the premiere at the Army-2020 forum, the vehicle was demonstrated with an uninhabited TKB-945 Epoch module. It carries a 2 mm 42A30 automatic cannon and a coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun, and also has launchers for four Kornet-D missiles. The module is also equipped with modern optical-electronic sights and a digital fire control system.


Updated feed "Manula". Photo by Wikimedia Commons

In a recent picture, a promising machine is shown with the AU-220M module, also known as the Baikal. This is an uninhabited turret with a oscillating mount for a 57 mm 2A91 automatic gun. It has a rate of fire up to 80 rds / min. and is capable of hitting armored targets at ranges of several kilometers, depending on their protection. Also on the module is placed a coaxial machine gun and optical-electronic sights of the commander and gunner.

A promising combination


A published photo or collage of a Manul infantry fighting vehicle equipped with a Baikal combat module predictably attracts attention. If this is a real development, and not a graphic demonstration of the fundamental possibilities, then such a project is of great interest from the point of view of technology. In addition, the army may be interested in them - with understandable consequences in the form of testing and launching production.

A curious feature of the new modification of "Manula" is to obtain completely new opportunities through the use of only existing units. So, the front-engine BMP is as similar as possible to the serial Troika, and it is proposed to install a combat module on it, which is already being tested and has been used in several projects. In fact, the new version of "Manul" is maximally unified with other equipment, which will give well-known advantages.

The Manul project was developed with the aim of improving the ergonomics of the base BMP-3 and increasing the level of protection. Thus, the transfer of MTO to the nose of the hull made it possible to strengthen the actual protection of the habitable compartment. The damaging element will now have to penetrate not only the frontal armor, but also the engine with units, which increases the safety of the crew and troops. In addition, the troop compartment has been redesigned. It has become larger and more comfortable, and the stern ramp / door makes it easier to get on and off.


Experienced "Manul" at the manufacturing plant, 2020. Photo by the Government of the Kurgan region

Obvious advantages are provided by the Baikal module. Modern armored vehicles of a potential enemy are designed for shelling from guns with a caliber of up to 25-30 mm. The larger 57mm projectile is guaranteed to penetrate such armor from a distance of up to several kilometers. High performance is also achieved when firing at other targets, incl. buildings and tanks.

Thus, the new version of "Manula" combines a fairly high level of protection, increased firepower and a certain ease of production and operation. At the same time, he is able to solve the same tasks as the base infantry vehicle BMP-3. Probably, such a combination of characteristics and capabilities may be of interest to the customer.

With unknown prospects


Over the past years, the prospects for the development and modernization of the existing BMP-3 have been actively discussed. In parallel, various options for upgrading this machine are being developed to obtain certain advantages. In addition, work continues on a promising combat module AU-220M with an increased caliber gun. "Baikal" must ensure the superiority of our equipment over enemy vehicles.

BMP "Manul" with "Baikal" is at the junction of these areas and ideas. So far, it is known only from one photograph, and it is not known whether a real sample was taken, or if it is a collage to demonstrate its capabilities. Nevertheless, all the necessary components are already there, and there is a fundamental possibility of creating a real sample of such a look. Whether such an infantry fighting vehicle will be of interest to the armed forces, time will tell. She probably has a chance.
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    2 February 2023 05: 35
    In conditions of saturation of the LBS with all sorts of grenade launchers and ATGMs, light armor should work mainly from a closed firing position, with mounted fire. The 100 mm BMP-3 gun already knows how to do this, and now this option is actively used. The "Manul" variant with 57 mm LSHO howitzer ballistics ("epoch") is also interesting, primarily by removing the ammunition load from the fighting compartment.
    But I don’t see the point in putting 57 mm high ballistics - as soon as it goes into direct fire, an ATGM will fly over it.
    Why is it? Such a module is good for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle or for Derivation-Air Defense, which still does not work on LBS.
    1. +5
      2 February 2023 07: 13
      Quote: keleg
      The "Manul" variant with 57 mm LSHO howitzer ballistics ("epoch") is also interesting, primarily by removing the ammunition load from the fighting compartment.

      I doubt about the removal, look at the photo! The niche in the first photo is clearly shorter than the projectile, albeit of low ballistics, which means the ammo is in the turret compartment, as in the case of the Derivation.
      1. -9
        2 February 2023 09: 48
        1. Now we need to release what we can quickly collect from what we have. Though BMP-2.
        2. New infantry fighting vehicles will need to be designed already taking into account the NWO. After SVO, respectively.
        1. +22
          2 February 2023 10: 54
          Now we urgently need to start production of heavy infantry fighting vehicles Boomerang and Kurganets in simplified versions without frills like Afganit, and the modernization of existing BMP-3s as well as BMP-1/2 in BMP Manul should be carried out at repair plants. Only for a start it is necessary to change the Minister of Defense and Rostec for more competent and putting the interests of the Motherland above their own. And Rostec needs to send an investigation team and counterintelligence to open a hotbed of traitors and saboteurs in Rostec.
          1. +4
            2 February 2023 11: 30
            Quote: ramzay21
            Now we urgently need to start producing heavy infantry fighting vehicles Boomerang and Kurganets in simplified versions without frills like Afganit,

            Fir-trees! But why would the simplified Kurganets praised by you be better then "Manula"? request But more expensive ... yes! And for "Manul" you can apply a set of additional armor, and spaced side panels ... Do this, and you will get "new Kurganets" in the guise of "Manul". Once upon a time, the BTR-90 "Sleeve" was made in a "similar" concept ... But they refused, forgetting the wisdom: "It's better to have a "tit" in your hand than a "crane" in the sky, holding the "Boomerang". But the "stone" did not come out flower "! And now ... neither the BTR-90, nor the "Boomerang"! PS There was also a "proposal" instead of the BTR-90 of the BTR-87, which could be "riveted", as you say, at "repair plants" And sho? Netyu!
            1. +3
              2 February 2023 12: 13
              But why would the simplified Kurganets praised by you be better then "Manula"?

              Firstly, much better crew protection, simply because Boomerang's puff armor is many times better than rolled aluminum armor and even thicker.
              Secondly, 8 people are placed in the Kurganets and Boomerang in the troop compartment and not 6 as in the BMP-3 or BMP Manul
              Thirdly, Kurganets and Boomerang have a ramp from which a medium-sized fighter in Ratnik equipment can safely exit, unlike the rear doors of the BMP-3, which it is simply not realistic to climb into in Ratnik
              Fourthly, the absence of the BMP Boomerang and Kurganets in the troops is not due to the unavailability of these vehicles, but to sabotage and sabotage in the Moscow Region and Rostec. The production of the BMP Boomerang could have been started as early as 2017.
              1. 0
                5 February 2023 22: 27
                BMP-3 (M) is the only track BMP that is on the conveyor, but no, they do not leave attempts to ruin it by altering it. Either by moving the engine to the nose (which was already well tested on the BMP-1/2), or they are trying to replace the chic combat module with 100mm + 30mm cannons with a BM with a 57mm caliber spittoon. Evil is missing. You need an infantry fighting vehicle with a front engine - so take the BMP-1/2, which the sea is in storage and upgrade to different new BMs.
                BMP-3 needs only good bulwarks and normal optics, everything else is normal. They would ask at least once for the opinion of those who fight on them.
                1. 0
                  6 February 2023 00: 01
                  Why is she so travel?
                  Nothing will help her, she was still being developed according to the erroneous concept of a "universal" and floating and airborne infantry fighting vehicle, but no one will offer anything worthwhile now, everything will be the same in the troops
                  1. 0
                    6 February 2023 10: 40
                    Quote: Materialist
                    Why is she so travel?
                    Nothing will help her, she was still being developed according to an erroneous concept ....
                    You fought on it and do you have specific claims to the developers of this machine?
                    1. -1
                      8 February 2023 11: 22
                      In order to understand what it should be like and what it actually represents, you don’t need to fight on it
                      Having never dealt with the machine itself, I can conclude that a machine that has stupid abilities to swim and land, while being an infantry fighting vehicle and not an infantry fighting vehicle, must operate in conjunction with tanks, firstly, it must certainly be quite light, and secondly, with the presence of a machine that duplicates the function of the BMP-3 in terms of weapons, it may be worth doing a machine that implies the transport functions of the first
                      In view of the above, it is very doubtful that anyone can positively and at the same time objectively characterize this car, so you will receive critical comments on security from combat experience in small doses from the lucky ones, if at all
                      1. 0
                        15 February 2023 01: 32
                        Quote: Materialist
                        In order to understand what it should be like and what it actually represents, you don’t need to fight on it .....

                        Unlike the theorists, those who fought on it (or at least exploited) praise this car.
                        https://2009-2020.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/maintheme/2013/0513/113510702/detail.shtml
                      2. -1
                        15 February 2023 19: 05
                        It is clear that they praise, from my own experience this car can only be compared with the first series
                        From all that has been said, it follows that the car is well balanced, comfortable on long marches, I note that the article deals only with its "peaceful" operation, so there are no combat qualities directly (as a combination of security and armament)
                        First: As I already wrote, the BMP-1 at one time became revolutionary due to the combination of cannon armament and the transport function of the armored personnel carrier, than this class of vehicles began to approach tanks in terms of characteristics, it was supposed to be used after tanks
                        The development of these vehicles led, in turn, to the division of their functions according to the place of application, that is, on the BMPT and BTR-T, it was this specialization of the first-line echelon armored vehicles that had already been partially implemented that made the concept of combining their functions in the face of the previous generation vehicle obsolete
                        Second: the theater of operations for all Soviet infantry fighting vehicles (and all BMPs in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are precisely Soviet ones) was supposed to be Europe, and not deep defense in central Russia or the forest-steppes of Ukraine, the use of infantry fighting vehicles as vehicles (including) fire cover for tanks , does not give them the opportunity to use their buoyancy, a very small number of fans of armored vehicles, judging by the comments, realized that the entire development of armored vehicles used in the same battle formation with tanks comes from these tanks themselves, as the founders of all armored vehicles in general (a clear analogy of the very first Infantry fighting vehicles in the world, or, more precisely, the BTR-Mark 9, which, despite their pioneering, more, if not fully, correspond to the concept of unification of the combat platform of front-line armored vehicles than their distant heirs)
                        The same thing as about buoyancy can be said about the airborne suitability of infantry fighting vehicles, the Navy and Airborne Forces do not have armored vehicles in the front line, and their armament / armor balance is conceptually (!) Different
                        Everything I have stated is quite sane and feasible even by the bourgeois Russian Federation (in an industrial way), although it will never be due to the degradation of the personnel of the army, navy, state structures and the whole society in general, and not only Russian, the unification of combat vehicles can be done with labor resources to restore all the T-72/80 carts, on the basis of the first, a quite worthy BTR-T can be obtained (its mass should be slightly lower than that of the BMPT / MBT), for the eighty, the chassis of which should be designed for a maximum weight of about 55 tons, the prospect of developing a rolled-welded turret and permanent bulwarks, consider that the turret already exists, if I understand correctly, the width of the shoulder strap for the T-72 and T-80 is the same, it remains only to adapt the autocannon into it; in terms of the engine, the Kharkov one has always been the most promising, with large series it could be brought to the proper level of endurance
            2. +6
              2 February 2023 12: 16
              PS There was also a "proposal" instead of the BTR-90 of the BTR-87, which could be "riveted", as you say, at "repair plants"! And what? Netyu!

              As you say, there are no repair plants that Chemezov's organized crime group actively bankrupted and destroyed for many years and just a month ago, Chemezov's organized crime group bankrupted and sold for scrap a plant in the Moscow region, capable of modernizing and repairing up to 500 BMP-1/2 per year
              1. +1
                4 February 2023 10: 07
                Quote: ramzay21
                Secondly, 8 people are placed in the Kurganets and Boomerang in the troop compartment and not 6 as in the BMP-3 or BMP Manul

                Actually, the landing capacity of "Manul" (and "Dragoon", if this is not the same thing) is 8 people, you read inattentively.
                And security ... I won’t say how "Manula", but the BMP-3M "Dragoon" is at the same level as the "Kurganets" - it holds 30 mm in the forehead and sides (with a screen). shell . But the price ... it is the same for the "Kurganets" as for the T-90M, if not higher, and even the dimensions fellow the dream of a grenade launcher, that one is a bus. Well, and most importantly, the UNREADiness of the industry to produce equipment with such a coefficient of novelty in series and in large quantities ... not to mention the price. Therefore, the most optimal option is to launch the BMP-3M "Dragoon" into the series (perhaps this is renamed to "Manul" because the lineup is the same) - it is several times cheaper, the production and technical process are debugged, there will be no problems and delays with mass production. Moreover, it is possible to install various combat modules.
                57 mm. the gun can be useful on the battlefield in light of the hundreds of highly protected infantry fighting vehicles promised to the enemy that hold 30 mm. and the need to support infantry in assault operations and urban combat. 57 mm. will dismantle enemy buildings and firing points much more fun than 30 mm. But only a part of the new BMP-3M should receive such a module, for even 100 mm. gun + 30 mm. also a very good combination , proving its usefulness in NWO .
                Quote: ramzay21
                there are no repair plants that Chemezov's organized crime group actively bankrupted and destroyed for many years and just a month ago, Chemezov's organized crime group bankrupted and sold for scrap a plant in the Moscow region, capable of modernizing and repairing up to 500 BMP-1/2 per year

                But for this bestiality it is necessary to shoot right at the Kremlin wall ... right behind the Mausoleum ... and without burial - to feed the pigs ... and with complete confiscation.
            3. -8
              2 February 2023 19: 34
              where did your boomerang fail? A? the machine, like the Kurgan and Armata, is finished. Yandex how long did it take to finish the BMP-3, if you don’t understand what you are talking about at all.
              1. +7
                2 February 2023 19: 44
                Quote from Savage3000
                the machine, like the Kurgan and Armata, is finished.

                Well ... "saw, Shura ... saw further!" ...
              2. +2
                2 February 2023 22: 54
                Quote from Savage3000
                where did your boomerang fail? A? the machine, like the Kurgan and Armata, is finished. Yandex how long did it take to finish the BMP-3, if you don’t understand what you are talking about at all.

                Sawing is not finishing
              3. +4
                3 February 2023 23: 31
                Let's say we learned how to make hulls from steels within 600 Binels, but where are the motors? Where is the optics-electronics? I am tormented by vague doubts about the full cycle of production of modern armored vehicles. Judging by what is now available, or rather not available, then, in about 2011, when the projects Armata, Kurganets and Boomerang were laid down, they really hoped for partners from Germany and France, that is, the machines were designed for German MTU and French optics-electronics. Cooperation was abruptly broken off in 2014, although judging by some of the padded BMD4m, the French supplied matrices and other devices until at least 2020. The same situation is with the T-90 and T-72 from Sosna-U, which are from the Republic of Belarus, and before that licensed French. And by chance, Belarus itself does not depend on the supply of components from France? I stand up for the Israeli experience of converting old tanks into TBTRs in the likeness of Azkharit, whose passive armor holds even Mango-type BOPS and cumulative ones in the forehead, unless the Cornet and Chrysanthemum can not stand it, and on the sides all the guns of the BMP-BTR and RPG. Such protection is achieved due to thick, multi-layer modular armor, which is hung on the sides immediately before the assault, and in the base it is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with tank armor and is transportable by rail or tractors. All these "new" projects are good in peacetime, but now we need simple ones, and within the limits of a possible solution, I can design such an TBTR in the shortest possible time and having thousands of T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, etc., several hundred within a year, the military-industrial complex could master, theoretically.
            4. 0
              2 February 2023 21: 23
              Maybe I'm wrong, but the Belarusians processed the mess into caimans. Why can't we do this with so much iron?
              1. 0
                5 February 2023 22: 17
                Quote: d1975
                Maybe I'm wrong, but the Belarusians processed the mess into caimans.

                You are wrong. The Belarusians claim that the Cayman is purely their development, and not the modernization of the BRDM.
          2. +2
            2 February 2023 12: 53
            and the modernization of the existing BMP-3, as well as the BMP-1/2 in the BMP Manul, must be carried out at repair plants.
            BMP-1/2 also upgrade in Manul request These repair factories will definitely not pull. Here it is necessary to produce the BMP-3 Manul with the Epoch and Bakhcha modules, instead of the usual three.
            1. +1
              3 February 2023 11: 44
              BMP-1/2, too, in Manul to modernize the request, this repair plants will definitely not pull it.

              BMP-1/2, together with repairs, can be equipped with hinged plates of additional protection, which will greatly strengthen their cardboard armor, this was done in the distant 80s during Afghanistan. This is much better than nothing that is being done in this direction now.
              1. +1
                3 February 2023 23: 56
                Quote: ramzay21
                BMP-1/2, together with repairs, can be equipped with hinged plates of additional protection, which will greatly strengthen their cardboard armor

                Well, "a lot" it sounds like a lot, in fact, serious screens, as they are weighed on outdated samples of NATO armored vehicles, thick and heavy, and neither the suspension nor the BMP-2 engine will pull them. We need protection against fragments in the first place, equivalent to protection against B32 14,5 and 2A42, and this has long been achieved with additional armor, but for this it is not bad to have a body initially welded from armored steel and a suspension with an engine with a long load resource. It is difficult, or impossible, to make an assault BMP out of a BMP once created for navigation. We need an armored personnel carrier that can deliver troops with ATGMs and machine guns behind tanks to enemy positions and not be unwound by mines and artillery along the way to the target.
          3. -2
            2 February 2023 15: 29
            And what is the conceptual difference between Boomerang and Kurganets? The first is the heir to the BTR concept, the second is the BMP-3 with the same cardboard armor
            Do they somehow complement each other, in the image of the BTR-T and BMPT, one is a transporter, the other is a BM?
            There is no point in upgrading the BMP-1,2,3, the vehicles were already created at that time according to the erroneous concept of a universal amphibious airborne combat vehicle, they simply will not pull a different level of security in terms of carrying capacity, they will be burned by the same means, but they will cost more
            You can rant here for a long time, but no one will conduct any R&D for the sake of creating balanced vehicles, it has already been said that now it is easier to get an order for more massive, cheap and tested vehicles, no matter what nominal armor they have
          4. 0
            2 February 2023 20: 29
            I agree about "Kurgan". There they swung at something unthinkable. They wanted to cram too big an engine, which is more suitable for a wheeled armored personnel carrier. Well, "Afghanit", again ... We need to take the developments of Kurganets and make some kind of intermediate version, with an utd-32t engine and a simpler transmission, the same 7 rollers from "Kurganets" and leave approximately the same "interior", as well as combat modules. As for Rostec ... I now think that soon it will be easier to train some AI to design an infantry fighting vehicle than Rostec will do it.
          5. AAK
            +3
            2 February 2023 20: 32
            Neither Kurganets, nor, especially, Boomerang can be called heavy infantry fighting vehicles (exclusively in terms of armor protection), in contrast to the experimental T-15. BPM-3, in my opinion, should be done with the already worked out BM 100 + 30mm, but it is advisable to switch to the front-engine version in order to increase the survivability of the crew and troops. The module with the 57mm long-barreled cannon (due to its high energy) should only be installed on the heavier T-15s and the Kurganets with the Boomerang. With this cannon, the BMP-3 will also fly like the BTR-82a with 30mm, taking into account the average size of the ammunition load, firing should be carried out in single - short bursts, but with high accuracy. Plus, it is with 57mm that it is already possible (with our technical base) to create shells with remote detonation, which makes it possible to work on helicopters and UAVs at a distance of 10 plus / minus 2 km.
            1. +1
              3 February 2023 12: 04
              Neither the Kurganets, nor, especially, the Boomerang can be called heavy infantry fighting vehicles (exclusively in terms of armor protection), in contrast to the experimental T-15. BPM-3, in my opinion, should be done with the already worked out BM 100 + 30mm, but it is advisable to switch to the front-engine version in order to increase the survivability of the crew and troops.

              Generally disagree. All our infantry fighting vehicles, including the BMP-3, are morally obsolete, the times when it is safer to ride on armor have already passed.
              The Boomerang infantry fighting vehicle is a vehicle of a completely different generation, with good armor protection, which allows the landing force in full gear to be inside in greater safety than on armor, it can be produced for a long time, and if our army had at least a couple of thousand of these infantry fighting vehicles, then our losses would be much lower than now.
              1. +1
                5 February 2023 03: 18
                What means of destruction and what logic do you proceed from, arguing that the Boomerang has better armor than all Soviet armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles?
                How long does it take to destroy any armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle from those trunks that Boomerang has protection against?
                When it comes to their own lives, no infantryman or gunner will waste time firing rounds from a machine gun or autocannon at a target with a probability of hitting less than "for sure"
                All armored vehicles are knocked out with hand grenade launchers and ATGMs, in the city, in the field, anywhere, but this remains a secret in the dark for the townsfolk and an unnecessary truth for manufacturers
                1. +1
                  7 February 2023 10: 57
                  What means of destruction and what logic do you proceed from, arguing that the Boomerang has better armor than all Soviet armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles?

                  The main losses of military personnel in the Chechen wars were from land mines and mines, and in the NMD from fragments of the MLRS and artillery. Not a single infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier in service with our army will protect the crew from undermining an anti-tank mine or a land mine in 5-6 kg of TNT, but the BMP Boomerang will protect. The armor of any existing infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier will not protect the crew from fragments of the MLRS or 152 mm projectile, while the armor of the BMP Boomerang will protect.
                  That is, the BMP Boomerang is able to safely deliver personnel to the LBS, unlike our modern infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers.
                  In addition, having much better armor and having an athematic 30 mm cannon, the BTR Boomerang will work much better in tandem with a tank on targets than BMP-2 or BTR-82A with cardboard armor.
                  All armored vehicles are knocked out with hand grenade launchers and ATGMs, in the city, in the field, anywhere, but this remains a secret in the dark for the townsfolk and an unnecessary truth for manufacturers

                  According to your logic, tanks are also hit by ATGMs, but for some reason you do not propose to abandon them. And then you have to try to knock out a tank or BMP Boomerang, and if the crew and troops on the BMP are experienced, then the big question is whether the ATGM operator will survive when trying to zaptur the BMP or get a burst of 30 mm guns.
                  1. 0
                    8 February 2023 12: 15
                    I will proceed from the fact that the protection of all vehicles of the first echelon should be unified, like the cart, this is first
                    Secondly, as far as I know, the armored personnel carriers of the 70-80s series hold well the detonation of land mines, which tear tracks on tanks
                    Not to mention the other chassis, it is also wheeled
                    Any technique with passive protection that does not involve the use of built-in remote sensing is additional losses, by the way, as far as I understand, Boomerang's protection against autocannon fire is only frontal
                    I will use the BMO-T / 2 as an example of imitation, as a machine that conceptually (!) Meets all the necessary characteristics for an advanced transporter (the machine needs to add bulwarks unified with the T-80BVM and T-90M, based on what is already available, although they are, to put it mildly , have insufficient structural strength, and modify the protection of the hull, make more or less inclined sides, add on-board booking packages and built-in dz, the latter, it would be desirable also on the roof
          6. TIR
            0
            4 March 2023 17: 17
            If we want to have an infantry fighting vehicle with protection against mines and RPGs, we need to remove the restrictions on mass and positive buoyancy. CBO showed that the ability to swim is not necessary at all for an infantry fighting vehicle. Better good defense and firepower. This should be emphasized. And move away from light alloys in armor to steel metals. Moreover, in the form of a body, you also need to get away from complex forms, where you need to bend and adjust many details.
      2. +1
        2 February 2023 13: 19
        In the first photo, it’s clearly not LSO, but 57 mm high ballistics based on the C60. See module on BMP B-19
        1. -1
          3 February 2023 03: 15
          Quote: keleg
          In the first photo, it’s clearly not LSO, but 57 mm high ballistics based on the C60. See module on BMP B-19

          This is understandable, which is why I made a reservation about a low ballistics shot.
      3. 0
        2 February 2023 19: 01
        The niche in the first photo is clearly shorter than the projectile, albeit low ballistics

        m .. so it seems that in the first photo "Baikal" and not LShO, now anyway.

        And so on Courage they once disassembled the drawings from the patent of the loading mechanism from the "Epoch", with the layout according to the photographs of the module.
        1. 0
          3 February 2023 03: 19
          Quote: alexmach
          m .. so it seems that in the first photo "Baikal" and not LShO, now anyway.

          This is understandable, which is why I made a reservation about a low ballistics shot. But according to the drawings and photos, at least two-fifths of the aft niche is given over to the retractable missile launcher. Well, maybe some kind of stacking of the 57 mm BC of a complex configuration was applied, I will not insist on its placement under the tower. Although compared to the 30 mm version, where the entire niche is under 30 mm ammo, the total mass of shots has greatly decreased, two times.
    2. -1
      2 February 2023 07: 45
      "Manul", is this a cat? He is so cute. They called it that in contrast to all sorts of "marders" And "foxes" With "cougars"?
    3. +8
      2 February 2023 09: 16
      If you are going to work primarily from indirect firing positions with mounted fire, why do you need armor at all? For work from closed positions, there are 122-mm Acacia self-propelled guns and 152-mm Gvozdika self-propelled guns, and they have a sight for direct fire.
      If you are hoping to hide from closed positions, then I dare to disappoint you, there is the possibility of detecting counter-battery combat by radar.
      For light armor, indirect fire is an additional and essential feature, but by no means the main method of firing.
      1. +2
        2 February 2023 12: 46
        There is an error in the text, 122-mm self-propelled guns "Gvozdika" and 152-mm "Acacia".
      2. 0
        2 February 2023 13: 12
        122 and 152mm are already a completely different level (emnip, battalion), a different firing range and different ammunition logistics. 100 mm / 57 mm with PDO is like a mortar for direct support of infantry (which the BMP carries), armor is needed primarily to protect against fragments of unguided projectiles during the same counter-battery fire. The mobility of the infantry fighting vehicle is here to help, it is possible to quickly change position.
        1. 0
          2 February 2023 22: 44
          I propose to return to reality, and remember how many shots are required to hit direct fire and how many when firing at a single target. Recently I posted a similar sign myself, check it out, you will learn for yourself a lot of things previously unknown.
          1. +1
            3 February 2023 06: 24
            I am a howitzer artilleryman for VUS, so I know that the number of shells to hit a target depends heavily on whether there is an adjustment, for an unobserved yes - it is prohibitively large, the ammo is not enough. It is clear that in the BMP-3, firing from the PDO, you need a full-time UAV with an operator (and there is a place for it inside!) And it would be nice if the weather was good, and yes, it’s more difficult than direct fire, thank the programmers that now all calculations are automated.
            Correction from a UAV is especially effective just for mounted shooting, and this should be used. Roaming armored mortar with a spotter - a very large force and a very difficult target.
            1. 0
              3 February 2023 08: 54
              BMP 3 is not a nomadic mortar. For these purposes, Nonu must be given. A couple per platoon.
              1. 0
                5 February 2023 15: 03
                Nona is 120 mm, there are smaller mortars.
    4. +3
      2 February 2023 11: 33
      When LBS is saturated with ATGMs, any armored vehicles should have active protection and shoot it all down, including kamikaze UAVs. Definitely off. The second stage - part of the charges should become longer-range. To work on drones (like mini air defense) and destroy shells (trajectory deviations), the first detonation is at 200-500 meters, the second at 50-100.
      An army that creates this in commercial quantities will dominate the battlefield.
      1. +2
        2 February 2023 13: 14
        Active defense is dangerous for its own infantry, therefore it is of little use for infantry fighting vehicles.
        1. +3
          2 February 2023 19: 42
          tanks and infantry fighting vehicles often go to their tanks one at a time and without infantry at all.
    5. 0
      2 February 2023 23: 44
      So the infantry is attacking, but he closed with a closed one? To "not fly"? Nitsche himself supported his native infantry ... And who will correct him? Is there a panorama for guidance?
      1. 0
        3 February 2023 06: 40
        Adjustment from the UAV, since there is a place for the operator and materiel in the BMP, and such an adjustment is just the most effective for mounted shooting (view from above).
        Imagine - the infantry does not have the right to call for artillery through all instances, but its own attached mortar, and - almost at the squad level! This is a very serious boost.
    6. 0
      3 February 2023 09: 23
      keleg
      A closed firing position is only for defense.
      What about offensive? Here on the offensive, and when assaulting firing positions, just such a gun will come in handy. She can not only disassemble tanks, but also fortifications. In general, the fight against tanks is not the task of the BMP. The task of the BMP is to deliver the infantry to the battlefield and support it with fire. And this is where a powerful gun comes in handy. And 100mm will come in handy and high ballistics of 57mm. On the battlefield, different situations can develop. And there are not always tanks and self-propelled guns "at hand"
      1. 0
        5 February 2023 15: 07
        No, a closed firing position is just for attacking positions that are not very technically equipped. Infantry in the trenches and behind the folds of the terrain is much easier to carry out "from above". It is clear that this will not be enough to storm serious pillboxes, they already need a 120 mm mortar and tanks or heavy infantry fighting vehicles for direct fire. But these are already specialized assault units, most tasks are completely solved by a bunch of mortar + UAV.
        And once again - substituting light armor for grenade launchers is very wasteful and inefficient, with a closed OP it can do an order of magnitude more.
  2. +7
    2 February 2023 09: 00
    Where are all these manuls in the troops. Already the modernization of the machine is planned, and where is it generally available and operated. Again, a ceremonial model?
    1. -1
      2 February 2023 10: 08
      And what are they put into service and do they have a state defense order? This is not even a parade one, what is adopted for service (although the state defense order may not be), but this is an exhibition model. The concept, which will be finalized and sent for testing, if the customer is interested in domestic or foreign.
      1. +3
        2 February 2023 10: 46
        Are they put into service and do they have a state defense order? It’s not even a parade one, what is accepted for service goes to the parade
        BTR Boomerang, BMP Kurganets for example. Adopted?
        1. 0
          5 February 2023 13: 56
          Boomerang is definitely on trial operation in the army, and this is just a concept that can be produced if someone orders at least an experimental batch.
  3. +9
    2 February 2023 09: 58
    It would be better to give up buoyancy in favor of booking. There have already been a lot of articles about this. They swim only at the landfills. And of course, in the troops, one and two would be mined by threes, but so far only one word. I am glad that at least developments are being carried out, otherwise the Kurgan plant was almost ruined.
    1. 0
      2 February 2023 14: 38
      Kurganmashzavod at one time offered a heavy version of the BMP-3 (BMP-4) with steel armor.
      1. +3
        2 February 2023 19: 44
        aluminum armor gives better protection, for the same weight, than steel. That's what she was created for. and steel can be hung in the form of additional reservations.
        1. +1
          2 February 2023 20: 56
          aluminum armor gives better protection, with the same mass

          Here again begins a set of compromises.
          Aluminum armor is more expensive than steel.
          But at the same time, there is a customized production of hulls for the BMP-3.
          The best protection for the same mass - giving up buoyancy may not save so much weight ..
          1. +1
            3 February 2023 06: 44
            if you increase the mass, you will have to redo the chassis and install another engine. In the end, we will get a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, but this does not negate the need for a light and mobile one - you just need to use it differently, not on direct fire.
            1. 0
              3 February 2023 18: 25
              Well, of course, it’s better to make thousands of cheap, light infantry fighting vehicles that pierce any machine gun and argue this with buoyancy, simple repairs, etc. No.
        2. 0
          5 February 2023 03: 22
          What alloys are we comparing? Or any aluminum armor with an order of magnitude (!) Larger thicknesses is fundamentally superior to any steel, all other things being equal, of course
  4. +3
    2 February 2023 10: 05
    The Magina will be good, but it’s either rather a light floating tank (well, it’s much cooler than the pt-76 in terms of capabilities) or a light BMPT ... If you replace 1 more machine gun with an AGS, then it’s generally beautiful.
    This is rather not a full-fledged infantry fighting vehicle, but a light tank with the ability to take fighters inside. (from analogies with the mi-24 helicopter)
    It would be logical that the number of troops will decrease, but there will be more BC.
    It is logical to assume their delivery to the marines. There they can either partially replace the Octopus or, on the contrary, supplement it, as the BMPT complements the tanks.
    In general, if such a vehicle is unified with Derivation, but the derivation will have a radar, an opto-location station and a specialized suo, and a "light tank" crew with course weapons (the opto-location station would be left to detect and hit equipment at a great distance , and if something can get to a hung turntable). Then the project has prospects.
    Moreover, the marines and the combination (replacement) with the octopus is the first thing that comes to mind, but such a technique would be interesting, including in light units of the SPN, as well as in reconnaissance companies of motorized rifle brigades (although a wheeled platform would probably be more interesting there, but not fact), that is, units for which the buoyancy of equipment is really important, and the firepower of regular infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and other tigers is not enough.
    If the derivation, like air defense, is not finalized and does not go into series, then such a machine most likely will not work either ...
    1. 0
      2 February 2023 23: 53
      The octopus with its cannon cannot be replaced by anything. Generally !
  5. -7
    2 February 2023 11: 10
    Down with 57 mm guns and ammunition with low ballistics only AU-220M, also known as "Baikal". With high ballistics and full unification of ammunition with Derviation 57 mm
  6. +2
    2 February 2023 12: 01
    57mm is, of course, good, but there is not a word about the ammunition for this gun in the article. And it will obviously be a little, compared with 30mm. And not to make a 57mm projectile with remote detonation is a mortal sin and a mockery. Laser rangefinder + detonation above the trench = the best way to smoke infantry out of there. The same is true for helicopters and drones - there will be absolutely no need for a direct hit, a programmable detonation will give the necessary cloud of fragments.
    1. +3
      2 February 2023 14: 17
      This has already been described 100 times. Ammunition 80 shots near Baikal. It would not hurt him to increase the BC, to the detriment of reducing the troop compartment. Since armored personnel carriers serve as a bus for the landing. And in theory, you need to go to the NWO zone for a platoon of all three equipment options. And in the fighting to see xy from xy. There it will immediately become clear who is what and who is needed where.
  7. +3
    2 February 2023 15: 59
    Something tells me that the MO will not accept BMPs in this form. The triple engine was moved back for a reason, but because the front was too loaded, which ultimately led to an imbalance. The car rocked when firing, and the handling suffered. Will watch.
    1. 0
      3 February 2023 06: 47
      So the automated module does not stick out into the fighting compartment, because it can be placed closer to the stern - it will not interfere with the exit of the infantry. With this arrangement, the balance will be normal. This is the main feature of Manul, in the 80s of the last century, when the BMP-3 was made, it was still impossible.
  8. 0
    2 February 2023 16: 22
    Manul is the right concept, though it’s five years late ... Now I would like to make more modernized BMP-1/2: put on them the simplest combat modules with thermal imagers and a 30mm cannon, make normal communication, including with infantry through the phone in the stern so that you can adjust the fire and install the simplest rear-view cameras in order to quickly maneuver in urban conditions
  9. -1
    2 February 2023 19: 26
    Yes, such a machine is very necessary.
    But knowing our rusty bureaucratic machine and how the MO works, there are big doubts that Aria will get it.
    At best, they will show it again at an exhibition in Patriot Park.
  10. 0
    2 February 2023 21: 17
    Again the same thing! BMP-3 and Manul are heavily armed tin cans, while BMP-1/2 are just tin cans. We need a serious heavy infantry fighting vehicle! And then they take the BMP-3 and change its combat modules in turn negative
    1. 0
      3 February 2023 09: 01
      We need a TBTR based on the same BMP 3. In a pair. Remove weapons and put all the released weight on armor.
      And yes, I know that there is an armored personnel carrier based on BMP 3. But he does not shine with armor.
      1. -1
        3 February 2023 18: 06
        Something in general, not one of our armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles does not shine with armor
        1. 0
          3 February 2023 21: 40
          T 15. The only truly needed copy of those presented several / many years ago.
          But alas.
          The same BMP 3 with a set of additional armor is also not bad. But alas. There is an infantry fighting vehicle, but no additional armor.
          1. 0
            5 February 2023 14: 03
            The T15 thing is really promising, but obviously it will not be mass-produced. It is logical to assume that such vehicles will be delivered primarily to motorized rifle units of tank brigades and divisions. Well, maybe they will put him in the Taman division, and I think this will end.
            The rest are more likely to be re-equipped with BMP-3Ms and, in the future, with Kurnanese ... Maybe I'm wrong and they will equip 1-2 more motorized rifle brigades, sharpening them for urban battles, but I think this is unlikely.
            And both options are optimistic.
            Now the topic of artillery is developing very much, how perfect suos are being put up, capable of hitting moving targets with conventional ammunition, and high-precision ammunition guided by UAVs ... A suitcase 152/155 and even 120/122 with an accurate hit, I don’t care what the T15 or BMP 1 is ... Modern birds from turntables and in the near future from mass UAVs also don’t care about BMP 1 or T15 ...
            Reservation is likely to be medium for a mass vehicle, aimed at protecting the landing force from mines, from old RPGs (a fly, an SPG-9, it can fire an RPG-7 beam, although it is unlikely), from automatic guns 30-40 mm ...
            You won’t be able to protect yourself from the rest anyway, but it will be heavy, difficult to manufacture and expensive crap ...
            What is needed in the war is not mice and tigers 2, but t-34s and shermans, something that industry can easily and massively produce in large volumes, without depending on foreign suppliers.
            1. 0
              6 February 2023 08: 08
              The concept of using T 15 may be somewhat different. Haste at the last moment. And this means you can use KAZ. It does not eliminate most threats. Well, except for the artillery.
              But the fact that it will not be moss is for sure. Alas.
  11. 0
    3 February 2023 03: 44
    This infantry fighting vehicle is simply obliged to see the target in any weather conditions. Automatically capture the target and instantly destroy it. The principle of target detection should be the same as the frame at the airport. There is metal "alarm" moving metal "shot". There must be a locator on the battlefield that sees all targets at once and automatically determines the danger to the BMP and aims the existing weapons at the target.
  12. 0
    3 February 2023 03: 46
    At the moment, we see a spinning turret with a shell-shocked gunner and a driver. Then the death of the crew and the burnt out BMP.
  13. 0
    3 February 2023 10: 14
    A larger 57mm projectile is guaranteed to penetrate such armor from a distance of several kilometers
    Written by a schoolboy or is it a translation by a machine translator?
  14. +2
    3 February 2023 10: 23
    You read all the reasoning .. and it becomes bitter.
    Well, why do we need a 57mm module with a new lineup right now ??
    Well, when will our warriors start thinking with their heads ??
    We need just such a technique - BMPT with the ability to take troops.
    Reasoning about a heavy infantry fighting vehicle - they begin to cling armor, equipment and weapons to the infantry fighting vehicle, and also so that the landing force sits there.
    Well, what do we end up with?
    And we get BMPTs with the ability to take several shooters into our troop compartment.
    Why is that.
    And therefore...
    How is TBMP different from BMPT ??? But in principle, the composition of weapons and the ability to take troops.
    If you fence an infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank, then it is more necessary then to close up the BMPT.
    Do our rifle units ride BMPs in battle ??? Or does the infantry run with its legs ???
    So it turns out that it is better for the infantry to give the BMPT than the BMP. And so that the BMPT had the opportunity to take troops inside.
    We need a vehicle that will replace the BMP in combat formations, because the BMP is cardboard. We need equipment that can both withstand a blow and carry troops and support tanks.
    Although there are doubts - it's hard to make a universal machine ... here's a plug.
    1. 0
      3 February 2023 18: 13
      Normal BMP and should be like BMPT but with the ability to take troops hi it does not require inventing a new useless machine.
    2. 0
      5 February 2023 03: 32
      From your bitterest
      BMPT-development of the BMP, which takes from the latter a high-quality component of weapons and does not need landing, because, imagine, the BMPT is one of the vehicles for separating the functions of the BMP, while the functional ancestor of the BMP-BTR should take on the cargo-transport function (on the same base )
      If you really want to, you can generally give everything in a row an autocannon and an airborne compartment, and reconnaissance motorcycles in internal garages, to heighten the effect
      Is the BMP just fundamentally weak? I consider machines by their conceptual functionality and not by their specific implementation.
  15. +1
    3 February 2023 11: 20
    Someone can explain in what situations 57mm high ballistics can be more practical than 30mm. I ask because: firstly, there is no ammunition for this 57mm system with remote, programmable detonation. This means that they are ineffective against UAVs and against entrenched infantry. Secondly, the real combat distances are currently limited by means of target detection and aiming. In other words, 57mm flies further than 30mm, but this advantage is not realized in any way if the crew is literally "blind". And finally, let's say tomorrow the troops will receive vehicles with 57mm, without effective communication, these vehicles will be "deaf" on the battlefield, and therefore useless.

    To summarize: in most of the videos that I saw, the BMP-3 could not realize the firepower of a 100mm gun, because. the crews were "blind and deaf": the BMP could slip through the desired intersection in the city, the UAV operator had to sit on the armor and yell at the gunner to correct the fire.

    Therefore, in my opinion, you need to give the old infantry fighting vehicles

    1) the existing 30mm cannon (as an example, the BMP-1AK project) and a long arm in the form of an ATGM are effective

    2) communication and sights and observation devices. Communication as if by wire from an external telephone at the stern, so that the infantry could reach the crew, and communication with a conditional spotter from the UAV. Surveillance devices in the form of a thermal imager and the simplest rear-view cameras to maneuver in the city.

    3) the last thing we need in the troops is a mess with another caliber and untested vehicles. You shouldn't create logistical hell for the sake of a beautiful solution. Let a simple and working solution be better
    1. 0
      3 February 2023 23: 50
      57 high ballistics in theory is the role of a bmpt or light tank ...
      That is, that is, at a distance of up to 3-4 km, it kills everything that is not a tank ... Moreover, if leopards 1 are brought on board, then it kills them on board, and due to the rate of fire it is quite effective ... But it will not be able to completely replace the 30mm gun ... And the ammo is smaller and the rate of fire ... This is, roughly speaking, a sniper machine ...
      But why is everyone drowning for 57mm low ballistics, I xs, there’s not even a cumulative for it ... If such a machine meets head-on with a BMP-2, it’s a corpse ... A long line at point-blank range from 30mm will even tear it apart with fzshki, and if there in the tape, every 4-5 armor-piercing is for sure, without a chance ...
      There is a war, then a city, then dismantling oporniki, in this regard, melon-u is an ideal weapon ... Calmly from afar, dolby and dolby, in which case he then drove up and finished off with direct fire ...
      1. 0
        4 February 2023 14: 16
        In theory - yes, 57mm kills everything except the tank at a distance of 3-4 km. In practice (from what I see on the video about NWO), the combat distances of armored vehicles do not exceed 1-1,5 km. And in most cases, armor is like a blind kitten who needs to shove a bone under his nose. That is, the main problem is communication with the tank, and its sights and observation devices. And this is sad because, in fact, without proper communication, all armor acts within the radius of destruction of the same javelins.

        Another scenario is a kind of sniper weapon for hitting single oporniks, machine gun crews, ATGM crews, etc. But again, the question is how realistic it is to get from 57mm to a small target at a distance of 3-4km.
    2. 0
      10 May 2023 01: 03
      Tours become ineffective a little, and they are expensive, plus you shouldn’t look back at your own, it’s still a local conflict, and the infantry needs artillery, at least 100, and preferably 125mm, but I completely agree with you about communication
  16. 0
    3 February 2023 14: 40
    I would urge the Moscow Region to abandon the idea of ​​having all equipment for motorized riflemen - waterfowl. For these purposes (capture on the move) I propose to leave the 1st battalion of the division on the BMP-3 with Bakhchei-U.
    For the Marine Corps and the Airborne Forces BMP-3 BMD-4M with Bakhcha - As it is (but for operations on the ground, the installation of additional armor). For motorized infantry BMP-3 Manul with Epoch. For units with MANPADS - Derivation. 57 mm gun for BPM-T 15.
    Modernization of the BMP-1, 2 in terms of armor into a variant with at least the letter D. In terms of firepower, the BMP-1 module "Cleaver", the BMP-2 "Berezhok".
    1. 0
      3 February 2023 23: 36
      Well, manul is the same floating.
      Why is the Epoch with a 57mm low ballistics gun better than a 100mm melon low ballistics gun? LSO is extremely specific crap. And you can’t find shells for it, and there’s little use from it ... And from a hundred square meters you can also loosen the opornik and suppress mortars with a canopy, 120 may not always, but 81/82 completely. Pturom to knock out an infantry fighting vehicle and not new tanks like t-55/62, leopard 1, French wheels ...
      You can take something light like btr70 / 80 / m113 / motorized league with land mines, but even a bmp-2 in the forehead will most likely not care about them ...
      1. 0
        10 May 2023 00: 53
        9m117m there can be modern obt
    2. 0
      10 May 2023 00: 57
      57mm is very weak for motorized riflemen, 100mm is a minimum, but 125mm is better, because sometimes you have to meet with serious equipment, and TOURs become less effective, so MSVs need infantry fighting vehicles with a 125mm gun
  17. 0
    6 February 2023 15: 25
    The army needs a new heavy infantry fighting vehicle on the T-72 / T-90 platform
    Why the army and UVZ sabotaged this vehicle for 15 years is understandable, everyone was waiting for the T-14 Armata + T-15 Barberry, but now that it has become clear to almost everyone that there will be no serial Armata platform and the T-90M has been appointed as the main tank, it is a pair you need a heavy infantry fighting vehicle on the T-90 chassis, as well as for the T-72B3M on the T-72 chassis.
    The layout of both BMP-72/90s should be of the same type, in front of the engine, behind the troop compartment, on top of the remote weapon station with a set of weapons like the BMP-3 100 to a machine gun), above the tower there is a visor with remote sensing for protection against roofers ...
    1. 0
      10 May 2023 00: 52
      Quote: assault
      a remote weapon station with a set of weapons like the BMP-3 (a large turret that stores all the ammunition of 100 mm and 30 mm shells, turrets and 7,62 cartridges for a machine gun),
      I believe that the armament of the BMP 3 is not enough, a bunch of 125mm + 57mm would look good, the tower can be taken from an octopus and modified taking into account the installation of an additional 57mm gun, since even a 3mm gun was already installed on the BMP 125 chassis, the question is also with the chassis, but you are right interesting either from the T90 or from the octopus only with reinforced armor, because we must remember that it is very important for the BMP to maneuver.
  18. -1
    6 February 2023 19: 29
    Potential enemy weapon. Programmable munition.
    Just to understand that trench tactics are not so reliable.
    1. 0
      April 4 2023 10: 05
      Everything is beautiful, of course, but why are the trenches so small? Do they dig such depths in a war? And all because shrapnel 35 mm shells in direct fire trenches are so-so ... It's another matter if you use a beam-fragmentation projectile along a hinged trajectory.
  19. -1
    11 February 2023 15: 11
    I think that the release of machines with the ability to sail and land is wrong. Those who will fight on such vehicles are just suicide bombers who will die faster than an infantryman, and the funds will be wasted. Boost your defenses.
  20. 0
    12 March 2023 00: 51
    BM "Baikal" only with an enlarged turret to accommodate 200-250 rounds of ammunition and a 57 mm cannon on the T-62 chassis can become a long-range "sniper screw" against the calculations of anti-tank systems, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and other lightly armored vehicles on inaccessible to 30 mm cannons range 5-7 km.
  21. 0
    April 10 2023 16: 52
    dispersion of efforts - sabotage during the bd! leave 100 mm alone, develop bmp3 consistently, implementing improvements, and not radically shoveling a project working at the front !!! there are thousands of infantry fighting vehicles 1-2 in warehouses, repair plants + 57 mm and into battle.
  22. 0
    10 May 2023 00: 42
    I don’t quite understand why a bike is needed in terms of lowering the caliber, the BMP 3 with 2A70 is beautiful, I think the 57mm gun is rather weak for the BMP, the 57mm weapon is only interesting as an additional one, to replace the 2a72, you need to understand that 100mm is one of the lowest thresholds for entering good OFS shells