New batches of equipment for the Russian army

BTR-MDM, prepared for transportation

The Russian defense industry continues to fulfill orders from the Ministry of Defense and build various armored vehicles. In particular, recently the next batch of BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles and newly built BTR-MDM armored personnel carriers were handed over to the customer. The annual plan for the supply of such equipment has been fulfilled, and the manufacturer continues to work so that the army can quickly receive the next combat vehicles.

Latest news

The latest successes in the construction of armored vehicles were reported on December 13 by the press services of the Kurgan Machine-Building Plant, the High-Precision Complexes holding company and the Rostec state corporation. It is reported about the transfer of a large batch of combat vehicles, the delivery of other products, as well as the development of production capacities in order to increase the output of certain products.

Kurganmashzavod writes about the shipment of a batch of BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles and BTR-MDM armored personnel carriers. We are talking about the last vehicles built under government contracts for the end of 2023. Accordingly, the current government order has been successfully completed. The size of the latest batch, as well as the total volume of orders for this year, for obvious reasons, have not been specified.

BMP-3 on a platform

The company is also involved in other projects and is successfully completing its part of the work. The successful fulfillment of obligations within the framework of the construction of BMP-2M combat vehicles with the Berezhok combat module is reported.

Interesting photos and videos were attached to the official message. The video shows the process of assembling armored vehicles and loading finished products onto railway platforms. The photo, in turn, shows two trains with combat vehicles, ready to be sent to the customer. About two dozen BMP-3s and several BTR-MDMs were simultaneously captured in the frame.

Having completed orders for 2023, Kurganmashzavod continues to work. The production of the next batch of combat vehicles has begun as part of the commitments for additional volumes. The enterprise is ready to provide all the needs of the Russian army in light armored vehicles for transporting personnel.

Rostec notes that Kurganmashzavod has recently significantly increased the pace of work and is showing great success. Thus, over an unspecified period, the production of armored vehicles increased several times. Back in September, the plant completed the current order for the repair of combat BMP-3s. To maintain and increase this pace, production facilities are being modernized and staffing is being expanded.

Infantry equipment

Kurganmashzavod mastered the production of BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles in the mid-eighties, and soon began mass shipment of such equipment to the troops. Subsequently, production continued, although due to various factors its pace varied, and there were also minor interruptions. Despite all the difficulties, the troops managed to create a fairly large fleet of new vehicles and bring their share to the required values.

Production of the BMP-3 does not stop, but now it solves slightly different problems. First of all, new batches of equipment must compensate for the wear and loss of vehicles during the Special Operation. In addition, with their help the planned increase in the number of ground forces will be ensured. A significant part of the BMP-3s under construction or so far only ordered will go to newly formed units and subunits.

Despite its age, the BMP-3 still remains a convenient and effective model and is capable of solving all assigned tasks. At the same time, the need and possibility of modernization by replacing individual units and installing new devices is not excluded. As a result of this modernization, the BMP-3 will be able to remain in service for a long time, until the mass appearance of similar next-generation equipment.

It should be noted that the real potential of the BMP-3 depends not only on its design, but also on the characteristics of the enemy’s equipment fleet. Thus, during the current hostilities, the real potential of light and medium-sized foreign-made vehicles became known. In addition, it became possible to evaluate the ability of our BMP-3 and other equipment to fight them. In general, high combat performance and the ability to solve all expected combat missions were demonstrated.

The combat potential of the BMP-3 largely depends on the level of protection. The vehicle has spaced-out hull armor, providing protection from 30-mm shells from the front corners, as well as from bullets and shrapnel from other angles. It is also possible to install mounted screens to combat anti-tank weapons and improve ballistic protection. Experiments were carried out with the installation of dynamic and active protection.

A characteristic feature of the BMP-3 is its weapon system with two cannons and several machine guns. The 100-mm gun-launcher 2A70 can use high-explosive fragmentation shells and guided missiles of the 9K116 “Kastet” complex with a flight range of up to 5,5 km and penetration of up to 600-750 mm of homogeneous armor. For targets with a lower level of protection, the 30-mm 2A72 cannon is intended, and manpower is attacked by three machine guns.

The BMP-3 has a combat weight of approx. 19 t (without additional protection) and is equipped with a 450 hp diesel engine. (660 hp in the modernized version). High specific power, tracked undercarriage and water cannons provide the necessary characteristics of mobility and cross-country ability, and also allow sailing (as standard).

Landing vehicle

In turn, the BTR-MDM “Rakushka” airborne armored personnel carrier is a fairly new model. It was developed at the beginning of the last decade and was adopted by the airborne troops in 2016. The goal of the project was to create a modern replacement for the older BTR-MD with an increase in all basic technical and operational characteristics.

Production of the Shells began in the middle of the decade, shortly before its official adoption. Over the past time, Kurganmashzavod has transferred a large amount of such equipment to the army, which made it possible to completely re-equip some airborne formations and create the groundwork for a similar renewal of the fleet of other units. Now, these production tasks have also been supplemented by the need to replenish fleets due to the write-off of worn-out or damaged vehicles, as well as due to an increase in the number of troops.

BTR-MDM is intended for transportation of military transport aviation and parachute landing, which affected its dimensions and weight, as well as other characteristics. This vehicle has only bulletproof/fragmentation-proof armor, and the installation of additional protection is not provided. At the same time, high mobility on roads or terrain is ensured.

The “Shell” is standardly equipped with a mount for a normal or large caliber machine gun. Embrasures for firing from personal weapons from under armor are not provided. In this case, various improvised solutions are possible with the installation of other weapons available to the Airborne Forces. In particular, the BTR-MDM can be a carrier of anti-tank systems, provide mobility for mortar men, etc.

Challenges and responses

Last year, for objective reasons, the needs of our armed forces for military and special equipment, weapons, etc. have grown noticeably. The domestic defense industry was ready for this and was able to increase the rate of production of the necessary products within a reasonable time. In addition, it managed to master a number of new areas and classes of products that were needed by the army, but were not available in mass production.

Recent ones news from Kurganmashzavod and Rostec show how our enterprises cope with the increased workload and increasing order volumes. The industry adapts to such conditions, and even manages to get ahead of the established schedule. All this is a reason for optimism and positive forecasts in the context of the prospects for the army and national security in general.

Comments

[Vladimir80]

I wonder if something modern from the “May 9 parades” will be supplied to the troops, or all these Kurgans, etc. not accepted for service?

[Ivan Seversky]

What Kurganets? They can’t even master the production of BMP-3m.

[ramzay21]

The BMP-3 has long been obsolete. It was necessary to start production of the Bumerang armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle long ago and finalize the Kurganets infantry fighting vehicle, taking into account the experience of the Northern Military District. The BMP must ensure, first of all, the survival of the crew and troops inside the armor from various types of threats, and in this regard the BMP-3 is hopelessly outdated. Moreover, for new infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, buoyancy must be completely ignored; it was not useful either in Afghanistan or Chechnya, or in Georgia or in the Northern Military District, but booking restrictions due to the ability to float ruined tens of thousands of lives of our guys.
And to force water obstacles and operate in coastal areas, it is necessary to create separate motorized rifle units with amphibious armored vehicles and various boats.

[Ivan Seversky]

BMP-3 is outdated. But in its place is the Kurganets - an infantry fighting vehicle with a normal size fighting compartment, better mine protection but the same weak armor protection - it weighs only 25 tons in its base, versus 19 tons of its compact predecessor. And Kurganets also knows how to swim...
Taking into account the SVO, I believe that we need an infantry fighting vehicle with the dimensions of the Kurganets and a completely different level of armor - 40 tons in the base, with a reserve for modernization. I think that the chassis of the Kurganets will not cope with this and neither will the engine.
As for crossing water barriers, 22 months of the Northern Military District did not show examples of crossing water barriers by swimming on amphibious armored vehicles. I think that the BMP-3 would be useful to the Airborne Forces instead of the BMD. Landability turned out to be a paper characteristic, and the BMP is light enough for air transport

[ZeeD]

Doesn’t it bother you that these 40-ton vehicles are destroyed by any anti-tank weapons, MLRS, large-caliber artillery and tanks (exactly the same as the BMP-3), and all of them are equally not penetrated by small-caliber rifles and large-caliber machine guns and small-caliber autocannons with heading angles?
Mine-resistant bottom - yes, it is necessary. And changing the reservation, following the example of Bradley or Namer, will, in principle, not change anything when fired from something that hits the BMP-3.

[bayard]

Quote: ZeeD

Doesn’t it bother you that damn these 40-ton vehicles are destroyed by any anti-tank weapons,

Actually, not by any means, especially if the level of protection corresponds to the T-90M. If we take as a basis the configuration of the Kharkov tractor TBTR-64 ​​(created exactly on the eve of the 2014 coup in Kyiv), then such a TBTR will be protected from the sides even somewhat better than the MBT, because from the sides it will have in addition to 80 mm. armor of the “citadel” itself (the usual side of a Soviet MBT), another 30 - 40 mm. inclined outer armor (from the upper corner of the “citadel” to the outer cut of the fender) + side screens with dynamic protection like the T-90M. So not every cumulative will take such a board. Especially if fuel is poured into the space between the outer and inner armor plates of the side (triangular cross-section), which also extinguishes the cumulative jet quite well. And the frontal part is a classic “chisel” without any break, multi-layered with dynamic protection on top - everything is like an MBT. Such a TBTR (and/or TBMP) will be lighter than a tank, with a base of about 35 tons. And the combat module for the TBTR will be sufficient from the BTR-82A.
WILL NOT float, the price will be (if made from old MBTs from storage bases) like the same BMP-3, and all work can be carried out by a regular (but properly equipped) repair plant.
Such TBTR and TBMP are necessary for arming heavy assault formations (brigades) as part of almost every motorized rifle and tank division.
And for everyone else - the BMP-3M, which is certainly good.

[ZeeD]

The T-90M does not weigh 40 tons. And he doesn’t have a troop compartment for 6-10 people. And if it appears and is normal, then the weight of the vehicle, even without the turret, will also not be 40 tons.
And another question: why doesn’t anyone in the world make such infantry fighting vehicles, although technically they can?

[bayard]

Type “TBTR-64” and “TBTR-55” into the search engine, there are also videos on YouTube. This is a development by Kharkov designers published in recent years before the coup in Kyiv.
Look at the Swedish infantry fighting vehicle with 40 mm. gun, they supplied it and the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the German infantry fighting vehicle. Although they are not converting old tanks, the layout is the same as that of the Kharkovites.

Quote: ZeeD

The T-90M does not weigh 40 tons.

Remove the tower from it and weigh it again.
The TBTR-64 ​​from Kharkov turned out to be in the range of 32 - 35 tons. With a full body kit and equipment it will be 37 tons, and even 40 tons, especially if it is already a TBMP with a larger combat module.
And the capacity of TBTR-64 ​​is 14 people in the troop compartment + 3 crew members.
The TBTR-55 has a slightly smaller troop compartment - 12 troops.
Fully equipped attack aircraft take up more space, so in reality there will be fewer landing spots. But you look at the photographs from all angles and from the side of the folded-down ramp of the TBTR-64, there is a continuous space from bow to stern, like in a bus.

Quote: ZeeD

And another question: why doesn’t anyone in the world make such infantry fighting vehicles, although technically they can?

Everyone is already doing it. And even more so, they will do it based on the results and experience of the current SVO. You can only play with nonsense with paper armor in peacetime. In war, the thickness of armor is constantly growing.

[abc_alex]

Quote: bayard

Type “TBTR-64” and “TBTR-55” into the search engine, there are also videos on YouTube. This is a development by Kharkov designers published in recent years before the coup in Kyiv.

So what did they do? A hefty fool weighing 35 tons. Welded from boiler iron for exhibition purposes. The main caliber is 30 mm. Armor NATO level 4 - from 14,5 with a steel core. The car did not go into production or armor production.
Now remember what was the main problem for tank developers in the last half century. The unshakable rule is that each person inside the car represents 10 tons of its mass. Less is possible, but then the vehicle will not be protected from basic weapons. All the tricks with “modern means” themselves, as it turned out, only work against bearded people in slippers, and in the movies. But the front line vehicle needs armor. 10 tons per person. And on top you can even make whistles.
This is practice. And this practice says clearly: BMP tank protection is simply IMPOSSIBLE. The US people have been trying to refute this rule of thumb for almost 20 years. It’s impossible to get less than 70 tons.
So what did they cook in Ukraine? Weighing 35 tons, it is only slightly more armored than the BTR-90. Armed in exactly the same way. This “miracle of technology” was not made for combat, but for the sale of a large number of T-64s, which, no matter how hard they tried, could not be installed either inside or outside the country.
This is not a front line car. But not an escort car either. The BMP-3 is better armed; in terms of firepower it is a light tank. BTR-80 - floats and is faster.
The Kharkov cadaver does NOT float, is poorly armed, it is not clear what it is like on the move and is not suitable for operations even in the second line, behind the tanks. This is not an infantry fighting vehicle, it is a tracked armored personnel carrier “according to NATO standards.”

As for the Israeli experience, we have to repeat over and over again: Israeli equipment is not intended for normal combined arms combat. These are highly specialized samples sharpened for one single theater of operations and war with bearded men in slippers. They made armored personnel carriers out of tanks. They need it. Their enemy is such that neither a bomb from above, nor a BOPS will hit you in the forehead, nor will it lead you into a minefield. Even if he sets up an explosion, he will not leave an ambush for finishing off. The Americans in Afghanistan also became interested in super-armored “armored rake”. And when they left, they all abandoned them as unnecessary. And there the price is a million - a thing. Because such machines cannot be used anywhere else.

Let me summarize. An attempt to create an infantry fighting vehicle with a tank level of protection is a technical utopia. You can't make a tank out of a bus. What our infantry really needs is a heavy assault vehicle on a tank chassis assigned specifically to infantry units. Perhaps the same "BMPT" but modified. So that the BMP-3 is not dragged to the front line like a tank.

Well, if anyone wants it, then google BMO-T. They made it, tested it, and accepted it back in 2001. While no one has fallen from delight...

[bayard]

Quote: abc_alex

So what did they do? A hefty fool weighing 35 tons. Welded from boiler iron for exhibition purposes.

Well, this is primarily a demonstrator of the TBTR hull. It is the TBTR, not the TBMP, although everything there depends on the combat module. Moreover, pay attention to the outer contour of the side armoring - the same plate from the upper cut of the citadel to the outer cut of the fender. If the thickness of the citadel side (internal, vertical) is at least 40 mm. rolled armor, and the outer plate is say 25 mm. , and filling the triangular cross-section space with fuel will work out quite well. Especially if you hang dynamic protection on the outside, and on the side screens too (like modern Russian tanks). This is already a very good onboard, and spaced armor with excellent dynamic protection.
Everything is clear with the forehead too - the layered armor of the forehead of a modern tank is under dynamic protection.
The roof armor (if I’m not mistaken) was also made by the Kharkovites (as well as the side) spaced apart.
And the stern ramp.
Inside the citadel there is a continuous space, like in a bus.
The combat module for the TBTR in our case will be sufficient from the BTR-82A. Not submersible in the troop compartment hull.

Quote: abc_alex

Each person inside the car is 10 tons of its mass.

This is for a tank. The proposed TBTR will freely include 8-10 equipped airborne soldiers and crew members. And even if the weight of such a TBTR becomes 40 tons, it will definitely be worth it.

Quote: abc_alex

This “miracle of technology” was not made for combat, but for the sale of a large number of T-64s, which, no matter how hard they tried, could not be installed either inside or outside the country.

Yes, Ukraine had 4000 T-64s, and Yanukovych was very opposed to their disposal, which the United States insisted on and even offered money for this.
But Russia also has about 2500 such tanks at its storage bases. And they are guaranteed not to be used as tanks.

Quote: abc_alex

Let me summarize. An attempt to create an infantry fighting vehicle with a tank level of protection is a technical utopia. You can't make a tank out of a bus.

It is possible, very possible. A TBTR is not a tank, it does not have a turret, a cannon, an automatic loader, or a supply of shells, but the entire configuration is optimized for accommodating troops, protecting them, as well as convenient loading and dismounting.

Quote: abc_alex

What our infantry really needs is a heavy assault vehicle on a tank chassis assigned specifically to infantry units. Perhaps the same "BMPT" but modified.

That's exactly how it already is. It is enough to rename the BMPT to ShMPT (assault infantry support vehicle). And the combat module can be installed in any way, in accordance with the tasks at hand and the upcoming nature of the hostilities. And use these vehicles together - one purely combat / assault vehicle and a TBTR with a landing force of attack aircraft.

Quote: abc_alex

BMO-T.

Not .

[Diverter]

Jews can show you their equipment, among which there will be many discoveries for you.

[vova1973]

This equipment was created for a global war; after a tactical nuclear weapons strike on a company stronghold, it is only necessary to drive through all sorts of small bodies of water in a protected transport.

[bayard]

Quote: vova1973

and all sorts of small bodies of water.

This is the main thing why Soviet infantry fighting vehicles are so poorly protected, but they all float - there are a lot of rivers in Europe. And to pass through contaminated areas, it is enough to seal the housing, create excess pressure inside the infantry fighting vehicle and suction the compressor through a powerful filter.
But this can be installed on any heavy equipment, but for sailing, the armor can only be bulletproof, especially for a hull made of armored steel and not aluminum alloys. According to Soviet doctrine, our troops in Europe were supposed to immediately cross rivers, lakes and other bodies of water (ponds, reservoirs, small bays) and advance at maximum speed to the sea and ocean coasts of the European peninsula.
For a modern conflict, such a technique is irrelevant and can be easily knocked out by any means of destruction the opponents have. I am sure that all assault formations should be armed exclusively with heavy armored vehicles on a tank chassis. Floating BMP-3M should be left only for vanguard units, Airborne Forces, Marine Marines of the Navy and maybe also the Coastal Defense Forces.

[abc_alex]

Quote: bayard

This is the main thing why Soviet infantry fighting vehicles are so poorly protected

Not only. The main thing is that these vehicles are not designed to fight in the same line as tanks. Their task is to deliver infantry to the line of contact and disembark.
But this task was also called into question in the 70s. This is how the Tank Support Combat Vehicle project was born. Soviet infantry fighting vehicles are auxiliary vehicles and were made as such.

[bayard]

Quote: abc_alex

Their task is to deliver infantry to the line of contact and disembark.

This is a function of the BTR. The BMP is a combat vehicle because it is designed for combat, but not in the same line as the tanks, but behind them. And the customer set the main condition - water navigation. For the war in Europe was meant to be offensive and swift, and all water obstacles had to be overcome immediately, seize bridgeheads and develop success. The abundance of small (and not only) rivers and other bodies of water dictated these conditions. The war was meant to be atomic, offensive and very fast. Therefore, cars were needed to be fast and waterfowl.

[abc_alex]

Quote: bayard

This is a function of the BTR. The BMP is a combat vehicle because it is intended for combat, but not in the same line with the tanks, but behind them

\

And NOT with troops inside! The landing party had to enter the battle dismounted. And still they decided to make BMPT, that is, to completely remove both infantry fighting vehicles and infantry from the same line with tanks.

[bayard]

Quote: abc_alex

And NOT with troops inside!

Exactly . But the car took part in the battle.

Quote: abc_alex

And still they decided to make BMPT, that is, to completely remove both infantry fighting vehicles and infantry from the same line with tanks.

So many arrows and spears have been broken about the place in battle and the scope of tasks of the BMPT that this became the reason for its non-adoption into service right up to the Northern Military District. Although the same Algeria purchased about 300 of these vehicles, and he liked it so much that he also changed the turrets of all his old T-62 turrets to the Berezhok BM on the podium, turning them also into an ersatz Terminator.
But all that was needed was to rename the BMPT to ShMPT and all the disputes would have ended by themselves. The name itself would determine the "Terminator"'s place in battle, formation and staffing.

[bayard]

Quote: Ivan Seversky

Taking into account the SVO, I believe that we need an infantry fighting vehicle with the dimensions of the Kurganets and a completely different level of armor - 40 tons in the base,

Why do we need to repeat the dimensions of a “grenade launcher’s dream” if we can take an ordinary tank chassis (or just the hull of any tank from storage bases) and weld on its base a classic TBTR with a front MTO, a frontal part in the shape of a classic “chisel”, a ramp convenient for dismounting and a fairly spacious and comfortable troop compartment for 12-14 people in the TBTR version, and for 8 people in the TBMP version. The only difference is in the combat module - the TBTR has a module from the BTR-82A, which will be more than enough, but in the TBMP version there can be any options, fortunately we now simply have tons of modules to choose from.
No aluminum, only rolled steel armor, multi-layered in the forehead. Armor and roof - double spaced armor with side screens and dynamic protection. Such TBTR and TBMP are necessary for arming assault units and formations. The price of such equipment will be at the level of the BMP-3\3M (fortunately, it is not aluminum alloys).

Quote: Ivan Seversky

40 tons in the database

The base of such a TBTR will be about 35 tons, with the prospect of increasing the weight by 5... 7... and even 10 tons, depending on the body kit and the composition of the weapons.
As a base, use MBTs from storage bases that are not suitable for returning to service as tanks. These are all T-64 (2500 units at storage bases), early versions of T-72 and T-80, especially those from which the guns and turrets have already been removed. As a result, for the price of a BMP-3 (without M), we can get several thousand (up to 4000 - 5000) TBTR and TBMP. And if you use the T-55 as such a base... then another 1000 - 1500 units. more . And all this can be done by the repair plant. With proper equipment, of course.
We still have up to 10 years of wars and military worries/threats ahead, so we need to use all available capabilities and reserves.

Quote: Ivan Seversky

I think that the BMP-3 would be useful to the Airborne Forces instead of the BMD.

Absolutely right. And for new divisions and brigades of the Navy Marine Corps.
No more than a third of the airborne equipment should remain in the Airborne Forces. The rest is normal BMP-3M and armored personnel carriers based on them. It will be more rational this way.

[Ivan Seversky]

Why do we need to repeat the dimensions of a “grenade launcher’s dream” if we can take a regular tank chassis (or just the hull of any tank from storage bases) and weld a classic TBTR with a front MTO on its base?

Heavy Israeli armored personnel carriers are, after all, precisely armored personnel carriers with very weak weapons and a not very large troop compartment:
-Akhzarit (from T-55) 7 people landing, armament: 7.62 machine guns;
-Namer (based on Merkava) 9-man landing party, very narrow landing ramp, weapons: 12.7 machine gun or AGS.
Regarding the cost of Akhzarit - I read that in the IDF there is an opinion that the modification was more expensive than the development of a new vehicle, but they did just that because it turned out to be easier to get funding for modernization rather than for the creation of a new vehicle. The Namer was originally designed as an armored personnel carrier with maximum unification with the Merkava.

Use MBT from storage bases as a base

In my opinion, T-72 and T-80 from storage bases after modernization would be useful as a basis for creating unmanned tanks.
T-55 and T-64 only as scrap metal: the T-55 is outdated, there are no engines for the T-64.

[bayard]

Quote: Ivan Seversky

-Akhzarit (from T-55) 7 people landing, armament: 7.62 machine guns;

It was simply the use of captured tanks, they did the best they could and for their conditions it also turned out to be useful. But this is definitely not our case and is not an example for us.

Quote: Ivan Seversky

-Namer (based on Merkava) 9-man landing party, very narrow landing ramp, weapons: 12.7 machine gun or AGS.

In Israel, neither the Merkava nor their TBTR can be considered a model for copy-paste. Neither in terms of survivability, nor in general in terms of combat qualities. But for their conditions, they are quite suitable for the time being. Moreover, the goal was maximum protection for the crew and landing force. But now we see how vulnerable they are to anti-tank weapons, even from Palestinian rebels.
To see the optimal configuration of a TBTR, take a close look at the Swedish and German infantry fighting vehicles. And in terms of transforming MBT (and T-55 too) into TBTR, look at the experience of Zarkov engineers, they presented their TBTR-64 ​​and TBTR-55 back in 2012. A very interesting solution, VERY good result, very capacious and comfortable troop compartment ( essentially a minibus with tank armor). And there is no need to reinvent any wheels. They simply turned the tank hull backwards to the front - making the stern the frontal part, swapped the travel gears (so as not to ride at reverse speed), transferred the front armor to the former stern and extended the upper frontal part to the upper cut of the new hull ("chisel"). Raised the sides "citadels" to the normal level (for the convenience of landing troops) and a ramp was installed at the rear on the new sloping stern. Just type in the search engine "TBTR-64" and "TBTR-55" and see what they got. Instead of scrapping, they wanted 4000 T tanks -64, convert them into TBTR for export to those who wished to. But the United States demanded that they be disposed of, and even gave money for disposal. But Yanukovych insisted on converting the T-55 and T-64 into TBTR.
So we just need to do the same.

[Ivan Seversky]

And in terms of transforming MBT (and T-55 too) into TBTR, look at the experience of Zarkov engineers, they presented their TBTR-64 ​​and TBTR-55 back in 2012. A very interesting solution, VERY good result, very capacious and comfortable troop compartment ( essentially a minibus with tank armor)

The cars are interesting. As I understand it, the landing force there is not 12 people, but 8 people (8 landing forces for the newer Kharkov development of 2021 Babylon based on the T-64), but this is quite normal. The question of price remains, if the modernization according to the Kharkov version is budgetary (say, like a new BMP-3 in price), then the normal option, at least for the transition period of developing a separate heavy infantry fighting vehicle and completely saturating the troops with it, is a couple of decades and for further placement in the reserve .

[bayard]

Well, “Babylon” is still an infantry fighting vehicle, and with a hybrid power plant, which is hardly optimal for mass production now, and this is of course a further development of the TBTR-64 ​​theme. And yes, this is an example of converting tank corps into TBTR and TBMP.
An infantry fighting vehicle, as you know, has not only a troop compartment, but also a fighting compartment, which takes up space and reduces the volume of the troop compartment. My main emphasis was on the creation of an armored personnel carrier (which is more relevant now), while in an armored personnel carrier the troop compartment occupies almost the entire internal space. That’s why the TBTR-64 ​​could accommodate 14 landing troops and had a lightweight combat module that was not submerged in the hull. In our case, it is worth using for this purpose the combat module from the BTR-82A, the firepower and ammunition of which will be quite sufficient for fire support of the landing force at the time of landing or evacuation from the battlefield.
Why, in our case, is it most reasonable to use T-64 tanks in the first place for the production of such TBTR?
Yes, because we definitely won’t use them as tanks, the guns are removed and I’m sure that all will be removed to replace the used guns of other MBTs, the turrets can also be used as a replacement when repairing damaged and restored equipment (they have the same shoulder straps and the turrets are interchangeable) during a military conflict, but the hulls and chassis themselves CAN and SHOULD be used for transformation into a TBTR. Welders will, of course, have to work hard, but it’s definitely worth it. Moreover, such a transformation can be designed immediately for the most accessible propulsion system. If there are a sufficient number of engines from previous T-72 models available, they should be used. And when time and resources allow, you can think about using the engine developed for the Kurganets on such TBTR/TBMP. This engine is half of an Armata engine, or a twin BMP-3 engine - all of these engines have the same base. And they are very compact with a high power density. But this idea (with an engine from the Kurganets) is already for peacetime conditions, when such work can be done slowly and the ergonomics and technological processes can be carefully worked out and there will be enough time for testing and fine-tuning - to perfection.

Quote: Ivan Seversky

a normal option, at least for the transition period of developing a separate heavy infantry fighting vehicle and completely saturating the troops with it

There are T-64 stocks at storage bases (2500 pcs.), There are T-55 and T-62 (which are better used as a tank/self-propelled gun for fire reinforcement of infantry units, fortunately there are a lot of shells for them), there are early versions of the T-72 and T-80s, which are also irrational to use as tanks, but very good TBMP and TBTR can be made. And all this work can be carried out by the tank repair plant without burdening the main production facilities.

[cast iron]

“Just type “TBTR-64” and “TBTR-55” into a search engine and see what they come up with.”

There are no Kharkov heavy infantry fighting vehicles. All that exists in reality is the chassis of the T-64 tank with a mock-up of the troop compartment made of thin ST-3 sheet steel welded on top. Again. All that exists in reality are running models that will have nothing in common with real performance characteristics.

[bayard]

Quote: cast iron

There are no Kharkov heavy infantry fighting vehicles. All that is in reality is the chassis of the T-64 tank with a model of the troop compartment welded on top from thin ST-3 sheet steel.

With welded on top?? You seem to have no idea about the topic of discussion. Study the issue, carefully study the video materials, drawings and technical descriptions, test materials.

Quote: cast iron

troop compartment made of ST-3 sheet steel of thin thickness.

The fact that the experimental vehicles used ordinary steel instead of armor is not surprising. When the layout diagram is being worked out, weight-dimensional compliance is sufficient. The main thing in this matter is solving the problem of transforming the tank hull into a TBTR with front-mounted MTO and a fairly spacious troop compartment. And this problem was solved. True, this required swapping the travel gearboxes so as not to drive forward at reverse speed. All decisions are rational and do not raise doubts about their rationality.
For educational purposes, I’ll add that the base weight of the T-64 of the first modifications was 34 tons. With a turret, a cannon, an automatic loader and a full ammo. So it is not surprising that the TBTR-64 ​​ended up with a base weight of 30-34 tons. The added height of the citadel (80 mm on the sides), side inclined plates from the upper cut of the citadel to the outer cut of the fenders and side screens + dynamic protection (contact -1) the entire forehead, sides and side screens, with a light BM, ammunition, crew and landing force, gave a weight of 34-35 tons. Which is quite realistic and optimal for the T-64 suspension, designed for a tank weight of 34-38 tons.
For TBTR-55, recorded weights ranged from 28 tons (naked) to 32 tons total weight.
In our case, higher quality dynamic protection and a large selection of combat modules can be used. The main thing is that such vehicles will easily hold heavy fragments, heavy bullets and light projectiles. And also the vast majority of RPGs, and some ATGMs at heading angles.
And it will cost no more (in the case of TBTR - cheaper) BMP-3, without M.
On the basis of such a TBTR, you will get a good CVM, reconnaissance and adjustment vehicles, TBMP with any of the available and possible modules. But the main thing is combat vehicles for assault infantry.

[vova1973]

Every infantryman needs a drone with F1 and why these heavy infantry fighting vehicles?

[bayard]

So that more infantrymen remain alive.
And they were able to complete the task.

[bayard]

Quote: Ivan Seversky

T-55 and T-64 only as scrap metal: the T-55 is outdated, there are no engines for the T-64.

For a TBTR, a speed of 50 - 60 km/h is quite sufficient (it won’t be able to do more due to the characteristics of the chassis), the armor for a TBTR as a base is sufficient, because it (the armor) will be strengthened during the work, and the hull will be completely digested and covered with dynamic protection and side screens.

Quote: Ivan Seversky

T-64 has no engines.

And what difference does it make what kind of engine will be on the TBTR if its body is completely digested and the MTO is located in front? Put any one, even from the T-72 of previous modifications, of which there should still be enough stored on the styling. 860 l/s for a weight of 35 - 38 tons is more than enough. Or you can take the engine developed for the Kurganets (840 hp), if it is already ready. The MTO is located at the front and can accept any of the available engines.
And T-64s are still fighting in the Northern Military District on both sides. Both corps of Donbass have such tanks, and before the start of the Northern Military District they were the majority in the tank parks of the republics.

[abc_alex]

Quote: bayard

The base of such a TBTR will be about 35 tons, with the prospect of increasing the weight by 5... 7... and even 10 tons, depending on the body kit and the composition of the weapons.

I read you and can’t understand. What are you planning to do? Transporter? A combat vehicle? Light tank? For a 35 ton transporter and a caterpillar it is a bad choice. Why tank armor for infantry fighting vehicles? Are you going to put her in the front line? Light tank? Why does he need a landing?
You are talking about the conversion of the T-64. But these vehicles were sent to storage bases for a reason. exactly what you are going to keep - the chassis and the engine - is their weak part. TWICE in Nizhny Tagil and Leningrad they tried to do something based on the chassis. And both times they threw everything away and did it again.
The T-72 and T-80 tanks are packed quite tightly so that you can just take and shove in an airborne squad somewhere, and even for 12 people. Below is a diagram of the T-80. Do you see where 12 people can sit? The tank will most likely have to be completely rebuilt. Which is unlikely to be simple and quick.
Shall I give you a diagram of the T-72 so that you can make sure that this car cannot be easily and quickly converted into a bus?
To understand, when the BMPT-1 was made, it was difficult to squeeze two additional crew members into the T-72. At the same time, we still had to reduce the fuel tanks, which is why the vehicle’s range was almost halved from 700-900 to 500 km. At the same time, it did not even hint at the task of quickly landing and landing 12 people.

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

The BMP-3 has long been obsolete. It was necessary to start the production of the Bumerang armored personnel carrier/infantry fighting vehicle long ago and bring the Kurganets infantry fighting vehicle to fruition, taking into account the experience of the Northern Military District

"Boomerang" and "Kurganets" are crude cars and they have problems with an unfinished engine. In addition, due to the high novelty factor, they are too expensive (Kurganets is at the level of the T-90M MBT or even more expensive). For a real military conflict they are extremely suboptimal. And the security of the Kurganets is at the level of the BMP-3M, and due to its larger size it will be MUCH more vulnerable on the battlefield. In addition, the Kurganets also floats, which is unnecessary for a mass-produced infantry fighting vehicle. . . as the experience of the current and previous conflicts has shown.
The optimal infantry fighting vehicle today is the BMP-3M in the "Dragoon" or "Manul" configuration, and a tracked armored personnel carrier on its base with front-mounted MTO.
As for a wheeled armored personnel carrier with increased security, today the optimal armored personnel carrier is based on the BTR-82A, but with a front MTO, aft ramp and reinforced armor, shown this year at the Army exhibition. Using the well-developed BTR-82A chassis and spaced but continuous two-layer armor, this armored personnel carrier will be very quickly put into production and will ensure its (production) mass availability. And also a low price.

Quote: ramzay21

And to force water obstacles and operate in coastal areas, it is necessary to create separate motorized rifle units with amphibious armored vehicles and various boats.

Not units, but reconnaissance and vanguard battalions as part of motorized rifle and tank divisions - for crossing water obstacles on the move, capturing and holding bridgeheads until the main forces arrive. . The main forces must cross rivers and other water obstacles on pontoon bridges or on separate pontoons with their towing to the opposite bank.

[RusGr]

What is this “shell” for? Some kind of civilian scavenger, nothing more.

[Gusikhin1]

Well, maybe just for the delivery of goods, removal of the wounded, etc.? The thing is certainly strange, the specific topic of landing equipment from airplanes has already been criticized more than once and there have been calls for a revision of the entire concept of the Russian Airborne Forces, maybe the day will come when this happens and all these shells and BMD will become history

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Somewhere you need to transport heavy small arms, heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, disposable grenade launchers and ammunition. And now it is also a vehicle for transporting drones and a communications repeater.
Motorized riflemen have vehicles for the same purposes.

[cast iron]

Russian generals spent 70 years laughing at the “bad” M113 armored personnel carrier in order to eventually make its domestic complete copy of the BTR-DM “Rakushka”. But unlike the “bad” M113, the “Shell” is a much more inconvenient vehicle for landing. And so the same aluminum and no protection. But it swims and flies! And you can also throw her out of a plane with a parachute :)

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The BTR-D has been produced since 1974. The period of 70 years somehow does not fit with the facts.

[cast iron]

What does the BTR-D have to do with it, if in my commentary we are talking about the M113. M113 is almost 70 years old since it was invented. Everyone laughs at him - they say the technology is outdated, the protection is poor and in general complete garbage. At the same time, they made exactly the same box BTR-D and its modernized version Rakushka, which are exactly the same as M113 - aluminum tin cans.

[Codett]

I’m wondering why some infantry fighting vehicles are in camouflage (with spots), and others are plain green, these are different manufacturing plants, or different customers, for example for export or something like that. I don’t understand why this de-unification is needed.

[Diverter]

The northeast of former Ukraine is covered in greenery. Therefore, the color is solid green.
the southeast and south are gray-red steppes. Therefore the stains.
I assume that this technique goes to already defined parts.
Although, on the other hand, one type of equipment is for the Airborne Forces, the other for the Ground Forces. And they may have different technical requirements for the manufacturer

[Zufei]

Thus, over an unspecified period, the production of armored vehicles increased several times.

For Wednesday compared to Saturday?
Or was night and day compared?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

So it's a military secret . For disclosing immediately that ,..kirdyk !

[Yaroslav Tekkel]

the need to replenish fleets due to the write-off of worn-out or damaged vehicles
What a fun euphemism for loss.

[Fangaro]

Will going sandy green in December really help? To whom?

[Diverter]

I do not know why. But lately I have become very attentive or demanding about everything Russian. Here is this article. Couldn't the author have checked her literacy? Well, what kind of tongue-tiedness is this? Unpleasant.

[Totor5]

Quote: bayard

Type “TBTR-64” and “TBTR-55” into the search engine, there are also videos on YouTube. This is a development by Kharkov designers published in recent years before the coup in Kyiv.
Look at the Swedish infantry fighting vehicle with 40 mm. gun, they supplied it and the Ukrainian Armed Forces to the German infantry fighting vehicle. Although they are not converting old tanks, the layout is the same as that of the Kharkovites.

Quote: ZeeD

The T-90M does not weigh 40 tons.

Remove the tower from it and weigh it again.
The TBTR-64 ​​from Kharkov turned out to be in the range of 32 - 35 tons. With a full body kit and equipment it will be 37 tons, and even 40 tons, especially if it is already a TBMP with a larger combat module.
And the capacity of TBTR-64 ​​is 14 people in the troop compartment + 3 crew members.
The TBTR-55 has a slightly smaller troop compartment - 12 troops.
Fully equipped attack aircraft take up more space, so in reality there will be fewer landing spots. But you look at the photographs from all angles and from the side of the folded-down ramp of the TBTR-64, there is a continuous space from bow to stern, like in a bus.

Quote: ZeeD

And another question: why doesn’t anyone in the world make such infantry fighting vehicles, although technically they can?

Everyone is already doing it. And even more so, they will do it based on the results and experience of the current SVO. You can only play with nonsense with paper armor in peacetime. In war, the thickness of armor is constantly growing.

Again this masturbation with prototypes coming out. It’s no longer even interesting to discuss this.

[storm]

For the front, three types of infantry fighting vehicles are needed:
1. Heavy assault infantry fighting vehicles of the T-15 type based on the Armata and possibly based on the T-90, weighing 40-50 tons with armor protection at the level of the main tank.
These heavy infantry fighting vehicles operate in the same formation with tanks, hitting tank-dangerous infantry and throwing forward assault groups to occupy a bridgehead.
2. Medium infantry fighting vehicles weighing 20-30 tons. such as Manul and Kurganets. These infantry fighting vehicles should form the basis of motorized rifle units. Without additional armor protection, they have the ability to independently cross water obstacles afloat, with additional protection only along the crossing or along the bottom with an air intake pipe, like tanks.
3. Light, amphibious infantry fighting vehicles for reconnaissance and landing units; their role can be performed by BMP-2M and BMP-3 without additional armor protection.

[Ionescu Popa]

it is obvious even from the distance: right now, with the new assistance package, coupled with even more internal Ukrainian production and uav protection, russia shouldn't even reach psychological levels of loss, so they need many reactivated (and sometimes slightly converted for cheap and fast) pieces, from towed artillery to tanks, to check the enemy and when possible, overwhelm it, plus very modern pieces to give the final strike; instead, we see mediocre new vehicles and no recovery. you have the same amount of communication, protection, aiming etc., so it matters very much if you mount it on a koalitsiya (or at least msta), on a bmd or on an ice cream truck.