Repair and recovery vehicle T-16 "Armata": in production and in the army?

BREM T-16 during transportation. The boom of the crane-manipulator and the combat module are clearly visible

One of the most interesting domestic developments of recent times is the Armata unified tracked platform and equipment based on it. Each appearance of such machines invariably attracts the attention of specialists and the public. A few days ago, promising armored vehicles again hit the lens, and this time, together with tanks - after a long break - one could see the T-16 recovery vehicle.

Technique in the frame

In early March, a new curious video showing promising armored vehicles was distributed on specialized resources and blogs. An unknown operator filmed a whole echelon with vehicles on the Armata platform. The date and location of the shooting, for obvious reasons, are not specified - and even measures have been taken to prevent them from being determined.

Several railway platforms with T-14 Armata tanks got into the lens - there are 10 such vehicles in the short video. At least one T-16 armored recovery vehicle was transported along with the MBT. The equipment stood on the platforms in the open; only individual units were covered with covers. On the sides of all cars there was a railway marking "H2300", applied by hand.

Where the echelon with armored vehicles was heading is unknown. Three versions can be offered. First, tanks and armored vehicles were taken to some military unit for development or to a training ground for practical activities. It can also be assumed that promising vehicles have already been decided to be sent to the Special Operations area for testing in real conditions.

Finally, you should pay attention to the calendar. March has begun, and soon the preparations for the future parade on May 9 on Red Square should start. Removed MBT and BREM could go to the Moscow region to participate in training, and then in the parade itself.

Tank T-14 and BREM T-16 (in the background, partially closed by "censorship")

It should be noted that in a recent video, it is the new BREM of the T-16 type that is of greatest interest. The T-14 tank does not appear too often in official materials and open publications, but is already well known to specialists and the public. In turn, the unified recovery vehicle has not received such attention over the years. Obviously, her supporting role and the lack of breakthrough technologies related to combat use affected her fame.

On a unified platform

The unified platform "Armata" has been developed by enterprises from the NPK "Uralvagonzavod" since the end of the XNUMXs. On its basis, in the future it was planned to create a number of armored vehicles of different classes - a tank, self-propelled guns, heavy infantry fighting vehicles, engineering equipment, etc. In particular, to work with the new MBT and TBMP, an BREM project with the appropriate characteristics was being developed.

In 2013-15 the first prototypes were built for testing. In 2015, several machines of the Armata family were shown to the public for the first time, and at the same time the main technical features of the projects were revealed. Also at that time, approximate plans for the future production and operation of equipment in the troops were mentioned. In the future, such data was repeatedly refined taking into account the current situation.

So, at the very end of 2020, Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko announced that in 2022 the development of a number of new models of armored vehicles, including several vehicles on the Armata platform, would be completed. A few months later, in March 2021, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke about plans to supply new MBTs, TBMPs and ARVs to the troops. A pilot batch of such equipment was expected in 2022.

Probably, the industry produced the required batches of new armored vehicles on time and handed over the equipment to customers. If so, then the MBT and BREM from the recent video could have been built precisely within the framework of the pilot batch. In addition, it can no longer be ruled out that Uralvagonzavod has begun shipping armored vehicles of full-fledged serial production.

One way or another, the T-16 BREM should reach the series and enter the troops. The production of such equipment will be carried out in parallel with other samples on a unified chassis. Machines of the new family should come in one connection, which will not only improve the performance of the parts, but also make it possible to realize the full potential of the unification of equipment.

General view of the T-16

With special equipment

T-16 is an armored recovery vehicle on a tracked chassis of a unified design. Due to special equipment, it is able to provide assistance to stuck, damaged or wrecked armored vehicles of all classes. At the same time, the unified platform gives the BREM high technical and performance characteristics.

The BREM is built on the Armata chassis in its "tank" version with the aft placement of the engine compartment. The front half of the hull received a large superstructure-cabin, shifted to the port side. The cabin is made of armor and carries overhead modules. Inside it are the crew jobs and part of the target equipment. It was reported that ballistic and dynamic protection is supplemented by an on-board electronic warfare system that covers the car from high-precision systems.

Like unified vehicles, the T-16 BREM receives a 12N360 multi-fuel engine with variable maximum power - 1200 or 1500 hp. The automatic transmission is interlocked with the engine. Also, units that ensure the operation of the target equipment are attached to it. The seven-wheel running gear with active hydropneumatic suspension has been retained.

On the frontal part of the body of the BREM is a bulldozer blade with a hydraulic drive. When pulling out the equipment, it is used as a stop, and when the crane-manipulator is running, it performs the functions of an additional support-jack. To the left of the wheelhouse is the main crane, capable of lifting loads weighing at least 2 tons. In the stern, on the starboard side, there is another crane with a lower capacity. The main winch is placed inside the hull to work with stuck equipment.

The crew has a set of various tools and devices necessary for minor repairs in the field. Repair is carried out incl. due to the transported set of spare parts.

The exact performance characteristics of the T-16 equipment have not yet been disclosed. The full composition of the functions provided by the onboard equipment is also unknown. However, it is clear that such an BREM is capable of performing all the same tasks as its predecessors, and could also receive new functions. At the same time, the technical and performance characteristics have grown - primarily due to the parameters of the unified platform.

BREM T-16 is not intended for active combat, but can protect itself. To do this, the machine has a set of smoke grenade launchers. In addition, a remote-controlled combat module with a heavy machine gun is placed on the roof of the cabin.

The crew of the T-16 includes three people. From the previous domestic BREM, the new one differs in increased internal volumes, due to which it was possible to improve the working conditions of the crew. The economy of the habitable compartment has been optimized, there is a full-fledged climate control. For extended duty and/or work, there is a kitchenette with appliances for boiling water and heating food.

For the benefit of the army

For obvious reasons, auxiliary armored vehicles, such as the T-16 ARV, do not receive the same attention as combat vehicles - tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, etc. However, it is also of great importance for the troops. Repair and recovery vehicles make a great contribution to the timely restoration of military equipment and its subsequent return to service.

As a result of the Armata program, the Russian ground forces will have to receive several new armored vehicles for various purposes. They will differ from the current technology not only in higher performance characteristics, but also in other requirements for maintenance and repair. In this regard, not only combat, but also auxiliary equipment is being created on the new platform.

Official information from the recent past and the latest evidence from the field hint that the T-16 ARVs are already being produced by industry and are entering the troops. This means that the program for rearmament of armored units has started and is gradually being implemented. And samples of auxiliary purposes, not the most noticeable against the background of combat vehicles, take their place in it and help the further development of the army.

Comments

[SergioPetrov]

Probably doesn’t appear, because everyone already understood everything about the T-14, but the T-16 type hasn’t set its teeth on edge yet?

[svp67]

Quote: SergioPetrov

because everyone already understood everything about the T-14

And what did you understand? Explain your specific vision.

[SergioPetrov]

Everything is fine, you can sleep peacefully, tomorrow, maximum the day after tomorrow, hordes of T-14s will liberate Kherson, Odessa and everything else.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: SergioPetrov

you can sleep peacefully

Well, here you sleep peacefully, as you slept until the 22nd year ..

[Ray]

Well, here you sleep peacefully, as you slept until the 22nd year ..

Well, what did you do until the age of 22 that you slept so restlessly?
Were the weapons developed? Have the tanks been repaired? Cross-country running with equipment?

[svp67]

Quote: SergioPetrov

Everything is fine, you can sleep peacefully, tomorrow, maximum the day after tomorrow, hordes of T-14s will liberate Kherson, Odessa and everything else.

What a strange you are ... Even when Medvedev was recently at UVZ, there were only a few on the Armat assembly line, the T-90M is now in charge there.
And the hordes of "Armat" are not needed now, we will not be able to provide them to everyone quickly. In this matter, both haste and slowness are only to the detriment

[parma]

Quote: svp67

Quote: SergioPetrov

Everything is fine, you can sleep peacefully, tomorrow, maximum the day after tomorrow, hordes of T-14s will liberate Kherson, Odessa and everything else.

What a strange you are ... Even when Medvedev was recently at UVZ, there were only a few on the Armat assembly line, the T-90M is now in charge there.
And the hordes of "Armat" are not needed now, we will not be able to provide them to everyone quickly. In this matter, both haste and slowness are only to the detriment

Of course, where to rush, there are still a lot of T-62s (and not only M, but also ordinary ones) in the warehouses, and the BTR-50s have already got out ... there is nowhere to rush, there will be enough "artifacts of the ancient socialist civilization" ... probably ...

[Zaurbek]

T90M is our everything. At the moment, the RF can do it on its own and a lot. The best thing about the T14 is to test new solutions and implement them with upgrades to the T90M.
The introduction of such machines as the T14 is a matter of peacetime. Technologies that can be transferred to the T90 still in bulk. The gun and KAZ are at first glance ...
And between the T-14 and T90M, for a smoother implementation, you can make an intermediate option: a T14 trolley (with increased GPU and power, compared to the T90) and a manned tower from the T90M. This will reduce the risks in the development of a new tank and allow you to add heavy options.

[Mikhail Maslov]

Well, you somehow turned down the T-14 tank in peacetime. While we finish it, we will need a new tank, a new concept, and it is already on the way. and will remain equipment for parades. All these publications and stuffing say only one tank is not ready. My personal opinion is that the direction of the echelon should be one Ukraine. Yes, we can lose, but there may be other problems. Why did we create it then.?

[Zaurbek]

What's new? Fundamentally, the T14 does not differ much from the T90m, except for the protection of the crew. And the transition to a new cart is best done at a quiet time. And in the military, you need to do a lot and the same way.

[bayard]

Quote: Zaurbek

In principle, the T14 does not differ much from the T90m, except for the protection of the crew.

The layout scheme is completely different - the placement of the crew in a capsule in a row and an uninhabited tower. But in terms of combat capabilities, the differences are really small. At the same time, the price, the complexity of the production and operation of the "Armata" + the price, make the tank in its current form a dead end solution.
If we are to make a new tank, then it must have radically greater combat capabilities and justify its much higher price. This could be a tank with 152 mm. cannon. But not even on a hull like the T-14, but on a hull like the T-15 with a front-mounted MTO, a turret shifted back (for weight balance) and a stern door like the Merkava's. So we get a more comfortable fighting compartment with a large margin of fairly large 152 mm. shells, their convenient loading through the aft door and the possibility of leaving the car through the same door when the tank is hit. The security of such a tank will be higher than that of the T-14 (for the same T-15 it is already higher), and the combat capabilities are simply incomparable. At the same time, the need for a tool larger than 125 mm. caliber, has already manifested itself and been realized, especially during assault operations of urban development and capital fortified areas.
But this is really a task for peacetime, then the experience of the war will be rethought, and the conclusions can be generalized, and the terms of reference can be formulated. That's when a new cart comes in handy.
And now - only time-tested and well-mastered by industry solutions. Only T-90M at the maximum rate, modernization of all T-72Bs to T-72B3M, all T-80BVs to T-80BVMs. The rest of the vehicles (T-72 and T-80 early versions) can be transformed into BMPTs by installing a combat module from the BMPT-72 "Terminator-2" instead of a turret and saturating the battle formations with as many of these assault vehicles as possible. Also, this module can be installed even on T-55 hulls, strengthening its armor (including side screens) and installing an engine from T-72 (860 l / s) of which there are many in warehouses.
Convert T-64 from storage bases into TBTR.
And only after the Victory and the end of the war, you can take up new tank platforms.
Wars are not won by PR.

[Pravodel]

now - only time-tested and well-mastered by the industry, solutions

Agree. In war, everything should be like in war: the maximum production volumes and the maximum reduction in the cost of production. As during the Second World War, when all changes were made only to existing samples and new weapons were created on existing samples: SAU-75, SU-100, SU-122, IS-1, KV-2. A fundamentally new IS-2 machine appeared at the end of the war, when our army was completely saturated with equipment and restructuring could be carried out, production readjustment for the production of a new machine.

[Georgy Sviridov_2]

To test - they will test, they are even already testing, but massively introduce them into the troops after the victory.

[Bad_gr]

A few more photos on BREM:

"Russian weapons" 18.08.2021/2021/08 https://rg.ru/18/16/XNUMX/t-XNUMX-v-podrobnostiah-kak-vygliadit-department-upravleniia-novejshej-brem.html

[svp67]

Quote: parma

Of course, what's the hurry, T-

The sad experience of the USSR shows that there is certainly no need to show too much haste here, it is better now at the testing stages to bring the components, assemblies and the tank as a whole to the maximum, than to do it later during production, stopping it in order to urgently make changes, and already released temporarily decommission machines in anticipation of the receipt of modified components and assemblies.
The T-14 is in many ways different from previous combat vehicles, which means that for its operation and combat use, at the same time, the required number of the same ARVs, bridge layers, repair and maintenance vehicles, simulators for training and maintaining skills, etc., must be supplied to the troops, and tp

[Alexey RA]

Quote: svp67

it is better now at the testing stages to bring the components, assemblies and the tank as a whole to the maximum, than to do it later during production, stopping it in order to urgently make changes, and temporarily decommission already produced vehicles pending receipt of the changed components and assemblies.

He-he-he... how well do you think about the relationship between the army and the promotions. Urgently make changes, Yes...
The sad experience of the USSR showsthat the industry will fight like lions - just not to make any changes to the product launched in the series.
Here, for example, is Morozov's response to comments on the test results of the T-34 in 1940.

At the present time, the plant cannot offer any other design of viewing devices... The all-round viewing device, although it does not provide a 360-degree view, but, being an additional observation device, fully satisfies its purpose. Since the commission, except for the conclusion that the device is unsuitable, does not give any other shortcomings of the device itself, and the plant does not have another design for the device, we cannot offer a new design of the viewing device for the 1940 program ...

That's lovely, a - the all-round vision device does not provide all-round visibility, but this is generally normal. And the fact that the viewing devices installed on the T-34 tank do not provide observation and driving of the tank (with closed hatches), and the protective glasses of the viewing devices and partially their mirrors break when fired - well I couldn't ©, take what they give, there will be no other anyway.
And what an epic correspondence there was between GABTU and KhPZ about the main clutch, the service life of which, due to an unsuccessful design, was so short that it did not even allow checking the operation of the gearbox, steering clutches and gears in terms of their reliability.

And even if the army team manages to push through the promotions, then these changes will appear in the products of the next year's release, and the units accepted by the troops will wait for the UKN to the last.
KhPZ in 1941 began to eliminate the comments of the army on the T-34 only after Kulik announced for the second time that the acceptance of tanks had been stopped (and even then, the plant promised to make changes only from the 1001st vehicle). And LKZ, before the start of the war, did not eliminate at all any of the comments on the HF listed in the report on testing serial HF in the summer of 1940.

[W-12]

Dear friend, hordes of these tanks are not needed. The Armata base and the T14 itself are not just military equipment for the battlefield. It was created to conduct network-centric warfare. And this requires not just the presence of hordes of tanks, but changes and modernization of the entire structure of the ground forces. From the T14 tank itself on the current battlefield, there will be no more benefit than from the same T90m breakthrough. Is that a capsule for the crew.
Network-centric warriors mean the unification of command and control of troops into a common network, with constant control and receiving information directly from the battlefield in real time. Close communication and an abundance of information will make it possible to make the fastest possible tactical decisions, speed up and improve interaction between units and branches of the armed forces, bring intelligence to a new level, even including satellites, and all this in a single digital space, under a unified command. Of course, logistics and evacuation will also be included in the system.
This entire system will still need to be protected from cyber attacks, etc. The concept is not new, created back in the late 70s in the USSR. Something similar was carried out by the United States in 2003 in Iraq, read about the connection and organization of this operation, and much will become clear. Although, of course, all this was raw and unfinished, but the attempt was interesting, for which I respect them.
In a world with nuclear weapons, cruise and ballistic missiles, and aviation, hordes of any equipment, this is an uncontrollable mess that will be methodically destroyed by the enemy, even without the use of a ground component.
The organization, structure and debugging of the system is the key to success.
The army of the Third Reich was so formidable and strong precisely due to the new controlled structure of the military machine, and the new tactics used on its basis. The notorious Blitzkrieg.
This is the military doctrine of the future, which requires new technology, the germ of which is t14.
This must be understood. It is now necessary to send to the front what is easier to produce and what has already been tested in battles. T90 is a great option. Armata is simply not needed there. Since for it to get into the troops, these troops need to be reformed and very deeply. The current government does not have the resources, opportunities, and even desire to do this.

[sgrabik]

For your information, the T-14 is already mass-produced, so your ridiculous sarcasms are completely out of place here.

[Mikhail Maslov]

Well, what are you going to do now or how to fight on the "Armata"? Do you have a situational awareness system deployed in the troops at all levels, do you have excellent interaction with intelligence, artillery, the Air Force? That's why I am writing while we finish the project "Armata" ", alas, it will not be needed from the word at all. Therefore, it is now and precisely in the war that it is necessary to check and look for new approaches, new concepts. Understand "Armata" is good here and now to verify the correctness of the requirements that are laid down in it. Tomorrow will be completely different a tank and another battlefield and "Armata" with platforms there simply will not be a place.

[svp67]

On the forehead armor and sides of the T-16, additional DZ blocks are installed outwardly VERY similar to those that are now being installed on the sides of the T-72B3 after modernization. If so, then that's good. So the process of unification has passed

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

So the process of unification has passed

Yes, the fact that there is an ARV for 10 linear tanks in the echelon is a very good indicator. Still, the T-14 gauge trawls were trained and used when going out into the field ...

[insafufa]

Quote: svp67

On the forehead armor and sides of the T-16, additional DZ blocks are installed outwardly VERY similar to those that are now being installed on the sides of the T-72B3 after modernization. If so, then that's good. So the process of unification has passed

Actually, these are blocks from the BMP-3 for the first time they were shown back in 2013. if I am not mistaken. DZ cactus on bram

[svp67]

Quote: insafufa

Actually, these are blocks from the BMP-3 for the first time they were shown back in 2013. if I am not mistaken.

They may be structurally similar, but far from identical. Just look at these blocks installed on the BMP-3

to understand that they are more massive and large. Well, this is understandable, since the main armor protection of the BMP is inferior to the tank

[insafufa]

Quote: svp67

They may be structurally similar, but far from identical. Just look at these blocks installed on the BMP-3

So the variant for heavy armored vehicles has a different design from the same variant for light armored vehicles. If you look at the turret of the T-72 tank, doesn’t it remind you of anything from your photo of the BMP-3 ?.
So for me the same cactus blocks that are on the BMP-3 tower without rubber mugs.

[svp67]

Quote: insafufa

If you look at the turret of the T-72 tank, nothing reminds you of your photo of the BMP-3

In general, this design reminds me of this, from the arsenal of strengthening the armor of the T-62M

[insafufa]

Quote: svp67

In general, this design reminds me of this, from the arsenal of strengthening the armor of the T-62M

Brezhnev's eyebrows remind me of such I observed at 42 MDS in Shali in 2001-2002.

[insafufa]

Quote: Carat

SAU 2S35 "Coalition-SV"

Coalition based on the T-90 made

[UltraTotenkopF]

The Coalition-SV was put on the T-90 base for preliminary tests, apparently they wanted to test the combat module before production, and the fact that the T-90 base is small for the 2S35 self-propelled guns is clear even to a non-specialist!

[insafufa]

Quote: UltraTotenkopF

Coalition-SV delivered to the T-90 base for preliminary tests

So the tradition of the developer’s cable is like this, for example, the 2S19 msta based on the T-72 chassis was lengthened, the running gear from the howling native from the T-72 was not suitable for the elongated hull, they took the running gear from the T-80, added another skating rink voila, our favorite MSTA turned out. And I forgot I also had to fasten 2 more shock absorbers to combat the swaying of the chassis.
2S3 acacia based on the T-55, first the chassis was modernized for the KRUG missile corps, then 2S3 and Hyacinth with Tulip were stuck into it. Unification by nodes in all variants reached 70%.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: insafufa

2S19 msta based on the T-72 chassis was lengthened, the running gear from the T-72 was not suitable for the elongated hull, they took the running gear from the T-80 added another rink voila, our favorite MSTA turned out.

This is how fiction is born. Count the number of road wheels for MSTA-S and T-72

.
The MSTA-S has its own chassis: they took the chassis from the T-80 as a basis, on which they installed the engine compartment from the T-72.

[insafufa]

Initially, the 2S19 self-propelled guns were developed on the basis of the T-72 tank, however, during the tests, serious shortcomings were revealed, among which was a large buildup of the gun during firing. To eliminate the comments, it was decided from the base of the T-72 tank to leave the hull geometry, engine, transmission and control drives. At the same time, the torsion bars and rollers of the ACS undercarriage were replaced with new ones developed on the basis of those used in the T-80 tank.

Wrong with the number of rollers. I apologize.
T-64 basis for T-72 or T-80

[VicktorVR]

Is there some kind of confusion, is the cabin shifted to the port side? And to her left is the main faucet?
Lifting capacity of the main crane 2 tons? Maybe you forgot the zero?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: VicktorVR

Is there some kind of confusion, is the cabin shifted to the port side? And to her left is the main faucet?

Interesting, but what is this?

[Tima62]

Quote: Bad_gr

Interesting, but what is this?

Have you noticed that in the first and second photos the crane is installed from the STARboard side. Is photo No. 3 with a crane on the port side not T16?

[insafufa]

Quote: VicktorVR

Is there some kind of confusion, is the cabin shifted to the port side? And to her left is the main faucet?
Lifting capacity of the main crane 2 tons? Maybe you forgot the zero?

No, everything is correct on an extended boom with a load capacity of 2t. A different type of hoisting arm is needed to lift a tank. This manipulator for removing armored elements is no more.

[Sergey Samkov]

I am very upset by the lack of military censorship and SMERSH ... These authors should be covered in the taiga as chips fly and under an ax ...

[1 z1]

Taiga must be protected. As a nature lover concerned about the lack of environmental censorship.

[aars]

Most likely a prototype.
It will not appear in the troops in noticeable numbers.

[Tagan]

Quote: SergioPetrov

Everything is fine, you can sleep peacefully, tomorrow, maximum the day after tomorrow, hordes of T-14s will liberate Kherson, Odessa and everything else.

What, in Georgia they were not very welcome? We rejoiced that your brethren would remain there forever.

[NDR-791]

Quote: Tagan

We rejoiced that your brethren would remain there forever.

Wah!!! It was necessary for Konoshenkov to say about the "possible mobilization" on March 8, as soon as the horses began to gallop in Tibilisi. And then, panimash, they gathered back!

[SergioPetrov]

You will agree among yourselves here, whether I fled to Georgia, whether I am writing from Kyiv.

[bddrus]

It's funny - but it's not clear what Russia is named for you?

[Zaurbek]

BREM always follows on a similar tank chassis, which is adopted ... or BMP.
Much more important for the army is not the T14, but the T16 (heavy infantry fighting vehicle). Even if it is accepted, it will not be a mass model. On the other hand, the mass of tanks of the T90M type is also growing and will continue to grow, and the power of the B92 diesel engine has reached the bar of 1180ls ... and you need to carry them.

[Tagan]

Quote: NDR-791

Quote: Tagan

We rejoiced that your brethren would remain there forever.

Wah!!! It was necessary for Konoshenkov to say about the "possible mobilization" on March 8, as soon as the horses began to gallop in Tibilisi. And then, panimash, they gathered back!

That's right! MO defect.

[Ohsetin]

after long break

Neighing. There is no war with Ukraine in the Kremlin universe.

[APASUS]

There is no need to release this BREM based on the T-14. This is not a combat unit, but a purely evacuation technical version of the tank. Although the evacuation is carried out directly on the line of contact, it was enough to equip the ARV with active protection

[Alexey RA]

Quote: APASUS

There is no need to release this BREM based on the T-14.

Chassis unification. Which is useful not only in terms of simplifying the supply and repair, but also in terms of improving the combat capabilities of the unit. So that it doesn’t work out like in the Soviet army, when they got up in the same column with the latest generation MBT swan, cancer and pike engineering and repair and recovery vehicles based on the T-55, T-44, and even on the basis of the SU-122-54 or ISU.

[APASUS]

Quote: Alexey RA

Chassis unification. Which is useful not only in terms of simplifying the supply and repair, but also in terms of improving the combat capabilities of the unit. So that it doesn’t work out like in the Soviet army, when a swan, a crayfish and a pike got up in one column with the latest generation of MBT engineering and repair and recovery vehicles based on the T-55, T-44, and even on the basis of the SU-122-54 or ISU .

The T-90 chassis is quite modern, worked out to universality. Several times cheaper than the T-14 and maintainable, unlike the T-14

[Bad_gr]

Quote: APASUS

The T-90 chassis is quite modern, worked out to universality.

Nobody argues with this. But it is customary (seemingly, there are reasons for this) to make ARVs on the same basis as the main military equipment in the unit. For example: where the T-72-90 are in service, they complete the BREM-1M


Where the T-80 is - BREM on the chassis of the T-80 (BREM-80U)

Where BMP-3 - BREM-L "Fugitive"

[astra wild2]

I heard from my son that Armata is already in the war zone.
He saw 2 Sashas

[Tagan]

Quote: SergioPetrov

You will agree among yourselves here, whether I fled to Georgia, whether I am writing from Kyiv.

Do you think there is a significant difference?

[SergioPetrov]

Not for me, because I never left Moscow.

[garri-lin]

We should not forget that the last thing an BREM can do is serve as a donor for a tank. Unification is good.

[opposite28]

The economy of the habitable compartment has been optimized, there is a full-fledged climate control. For extended duty and/or work, there is a kitchenette with appliances for boiling water and heating food.

Not a machine in a song, it is a pleasure to work on such an apparatus, and then as an encouragement. Also, the concern for the crew in terms of ergonomics cannot but rejoice. Ask why ergonomics? So because the presence of an air conditioner and means for arranging field life provided by the manufacturer indicates that the machine is intended for the crew and not vice versa. Before boarding, please take off your shoes, leave your shoes in a special compartment, carpets on the floor.

[Meaning of life_]

Quote: Alexey RA

Quote: APASUS

There is no need to release this BREM based on the T-14.

Chassis unification. Which is useful not only in terms of simplifying the supply and repair, but also in terms of improving the combat capabilities of the unit. So that it doesn’t work out like in the Soviet army, when they got up in the same column with the latest generation MBT swan, cancer and pike engineering and repair and recovery vehicles based on the T-55, T-44, and even on the basis of the SU-122-54 or ISU.

So first make a normal number of tanks and (especially!) BMPs on this chassis, and then think about unification. An ARV on the T-72 chassis can also evacuate Armata. When the front needs massive infantry fighting vehicles and tanks with normal crew protection, spending money, resources and engineering man-hours to create a new BREM is just wrecking and sawing the dough.

[MSWTO]

Of course, I’m not a genius in tank building, and I’m only 18 years old, but in my opinion the T14,15,16 platform is not promising, of course, the similarity of the units and the overall structure of combat vehicles will facilitate logistics and repair, and possibly production. But for example, the T15, a very heavy infantry fighting vehicle, while the combat module does not reach the level of firepower of the "melon", and to be honest, I'm a little skeptical about the remote control of the combat module, I also want to note the price of these combat vehicles, of course someone then he may object that there is nothing more valuable than the life of a fighter, and the most important resource of any military operations is fighters, but unfortunately we live in a real economy, and it’s probably better that our troops will be completely on good combat vehicles than half or even less on super-technological combat vehicles, and the rest is on the Soviet legacy, for example, I see an ideal infantry fighting vehicle (although I agree my opinion is as stupid as possible since I have not been to the troops yet, but this year I am going to collect documents) this is a direct continuation of the integration between the BMP 3 and " octopus" under the protection of the implementation of the infantry fighting vehicle as an infantry cover in battle, because the infantry fighting vehicle is not particularly suitable for this, the infantry fighting vehicle 3 is very convenient for installing various combat modules (the manufacturers themselves, namely the engineers of Uralmashvagon, spoke about this), for example, the already existing prototype of the infantry fighting vehicle 3 dragoons with roofing felts 2a46m-5 roofing felts 2a75 is not known (it seems that there were both options), but for embedding for the future, you can try to screw in 2A82, since the mass and stroke of the gun are not much different, and some kind of automation in the form of 57s or 30s, automation can be put into the "spread cheeks of the octopus", but at the expense of BC everything is difficult, but this is better than the doctrine of Western countries in terms of infantry fighting vehicles, since missile weapons (TURs) in the form of our cornets, lassoes or Western TOWs or spikes are not suitable for the use of infantry fighting vehicles, firstly, the meager ammunition (except for the lasso and brass knuckles (9i117 and 9m177m tandem) in the face of 8 pieces), the cost of these same TOURs leaves much to be desired, also in any case, the OFS through the window is much better than the TOUR, and from the automation through the window it is extremely inefficient to work, and the cost of such an infantry fighting vehicle, I don’t think it will increase much in comparison with the BMP 3, I think no more than 25-50%. For the sake of confirming my idea, I can give an example with an American striker and a 105mm gun, although it was ultimately abandoned, but this is due to the design features of the Stryker, and its class of vehicle is closer to the armored personnel carrier of the 80s, though for this I suppose I will have to add stiffening ribs in the BMP body, if not completely redoing it (although I repeat, such a prototype already exists). And as tanks, I see the development of the T95 (of course, converted to modern realities) with the 2a83 gun, it only remains to solve the problem of gas removal from the combat compartment.
PS I immediately apologize if any people with professional or simply much better knowledge of armored vehicles will cause a storm of negativity from my comment. I'm just fond of armored vehicles and small arms from an early age, and looking at the knowledge of my peers, I was sure that I was very horseshoe in the matter, but when I saw this forum, I realized that I was very far from ideal, and I really want to learn as much knowledge as possible from mouth of more knowledgeable people

[George Sviridov]

On the T-15, you can put any uninhabited combat module.

[George Sviridov]

I’m waiting for the first battalion of the Kantemirovskaya division to be re-equipped with armats, and the engineering units will also begin, maybe 1 company on the T-15 ... This will already be interesting.