“Namer” in Russian: control vehicle on a tank chassis
Patent image of the industrial design “Control vehicles on a tank chassis.” Source: new.fips.ru
Ural armor for special operations
It is premature to talk about the applicability and effectiveness of heavy tracked armored personnel carriers in special operations. Simply because none of them managed to fight. With the exception, of course, of the Omsk flamethrower combat vehicle BMO-T, which appeared in the chronicles of the Northern Military District.
This is probably one of the most paradoxical combat vehicles in the Russian Army. A highly specialized armored personnel carrier designed to support tank offensive and defensive units. Why exactly BMO-T was delegated the mission of transporting flamethrowers is not completely clear. Perhaps they can effectively destroy enemy bunkers and pillboxes - thermobaric grenades are very good for destroying precisely such targets.
They can, but the main calibers of tanks and BMP-3 cope with this no less successfully. Moreover, flamethrowers must leave the vehicle to work on the enemy, which makes such thick BMO-T armor pointless. Approach the front line under hurricane fire, including artillery, in order to parachute soldiers to certain death? And you have to really get close to the enemy - the firing range of the Shmel flamethrower does not exceed 200 meters.
It is interesting that the second flamethrower vehicle, the TOS-1A Solntsepek, having a much greater range, does not require personnel to dismount to fire. If we ignore the specifics of the machine for flamethrowers, then the BMO-T requires creative rethinking and adaptation to the needs of special operations.
Heavy armored personnel carrier BMO-T
The appearance of a patent for an industrial design “Control vehicle on a tank chassis” is very good news. The application by Uralvagonzavod specialists to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property was submitted on October 13 last year, and sketches of the car were shown to the public on the last day of January 2024.
At first glance, the product is very similar to the Israeli “Namer”, although it is noticeably different in functionality. It is not entirely clear what rank of command personnel will transport the product, but preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the published images.
The first thing that catches your eye is that the layout solutions are noticeably different from the BMO-T.
Patent image of the industrial design “Control vehicles on a tank chassis.” Source: new.fips.ru
The interior space of the tracked armored car from Nizhny Tagil is clearly larger than that of the flamethrower vehicle from Omsk. The control department, integrated with the combat and command department, is shifted forward. The driver of the control machine is located directly between the first two torsion bars, while in the BMO-T he is moved at least a meter back to the third and fourth rollers. From the point of view of mine resistance to the vehicle from Nizhny Tagil, this does not bode well, but it allows you to place more people and equipment in the armored space.
The control armored vehicle is noticeably taller than the Omsk product for flamethrowers - judging by the photo, the overall height can reach 2,5 meters or more. In order not to excessively increase the final cost of armored vehicles, the engineers left the general layout solutions from the mother T-72 the same - first of all, the rear arrangement of the MTO.
Advantages and disadvantages
The survivability of the control vehicle from Uralvagonzavod is most likely the highest possible among the entire T-72/90 armored tank family. Only the Terminator BMPT can argue with this. The patent images show developed screens on the sides, reliably covering the vulnerable parts of the armored hull with dynamic protection from the side projection. The engine and transmission compartment is covered with anti-cumulative grilles. Even the rear part of the armored vehicle was covered with dynamic protection units.
The absence of ammunition from shells predictably increases the survivability of the crew and armored vehicle when penetrated by cumulative ammunition. Now even a cheap kamikaze drone with a grenade attached can scrap a tank worth several hundred million rubles. From operators drones it is possible to carefully choose the place and time of impact on vulnerable parts of the tank, which are sufficient for now.
Patent images of the industrial design “Control vehicles on a tank chassis.” Source: new.fips.ru
Among the advantages, the convenience of landing command personnel (troopers) through the double-leaf aft hatch clearly stands out. According to good tradition, you have to get to it through the engine and transmission compartment.
The advantages of a control vehicle based on the T-72 include the remote-controlled combat module BM-03 “Okhotnik”. The product cannot be called a new product - the first samples from NPO Elektromashina were demonstrated back in 2016. The module with a 12,7-mm Kord machine gun is stabilized in two planes and equipped with a guidance system with a night vision channel or a thermal imager. Also included in the BM-03 kit is a laser rangefinder. Directly on the module, up to 250 rounds of 12,7x108 mm ammunition are placed - the total ammunition load can reach a thousand or more rounds. Let us recall that the BMO-T was equipped with a simple open turret with a Utes machine gun without any frills.
In the patent images, attention is drawn to the abundance of communication antennas - you can count ten of them on the roof of the car at once. In addition, six antennas for anti-drone electronic warfare systems are located at the stern. The latter is a mandatory element of all modern armored vehicles.
There is no ideal technology, especially military technology. The “control vehicle on a tank chassis” is not without its drawbacks.
Let's start with weapons.
The placement of the BM-03 module with a heavy machine gun practically prohibits firing backwards. The palisade of antennas interferes, which, even being flexible, will still be damaged when fired. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine what solution engineers can choose to level out such a feature. Why not raise the machine gun onto the mast for full circular work?
Mine warfare, which has become the calling card of the special operation, should already have an impact on design decisions in new armored vehicles. Of course, it will not be possible to avoid all threats, but small-sized roller trawls should become the gold standard for any tank and vehicle based on it. At least for protection against anti-bottom and anti-track ammunition. There is nothing like this in the patent images.
Someone will say that the control vehicle is unlikely to go on an assault as part of a strike group. This is fair, but no one has canceled remote mining, including in the operational depths of the front. Wheeled Robots The enemy has long learned to install mine barriers in the most unexpected places. The day is not far off when anti-tank mines will be secretly planted in the rear by heavy Baba Yaga-type drones. Considering that the control vehicles will be staffed almost entirely by officers, a hunt for them by the enemy is guaranteed. This, by the way, is another minus of the platform.
The control vehicle is seriously different in appearance from the rest of the armored vehicles, which cannot but attract enemy attention.
And this is where the difficulties begin.
The fact is that, apart from the electronic warfare system, the heavy tracked platform is not particularly protected from air attack. In the images, the roof of the car is completely devoid of remote sensing blocks. This, of course, will be dealt with by the troops, but why not solve this issue at the factory?
There are also no notorious “barbecues” or simple frames for mesh barriers against kamikaze drones. The experience of the special operation suggests that such solutions should be present on the equipment from the very beginning of design.
A heavy tracked armored personnel carrier is always good. Any additional protection, even at the cost of some reduction in mobility resource, pays off handsomely in the lives saved.
Therefore, it seems quite logical to continue the theme of “control vehicles on a tank chassis” in a variation for transporting infantry and airborne forces. It won't be cheap in the end, but such vehicles are highly anticipated by the troops.
Information