About what a BMPT should be: a view from the last century

121
About what a BMPT should be: a view from the last century

Availability of support combat vehicles tanks in the Russian troops has long been the subject of fierce debate. Some say that these products fit perfectly into the existing army structure and show excellent results during practical use. Others, on the contrary, speak out about significant shortcomings in the concept of this type of armored vehicles and miscalculations in the choice of main weapons.

Well, machines are indeed used very effectively - there is no doubt about it. However, the appearance of the existing BMPTs is actually very different from how they were seen in the 80s and early 90s. You can verify this by looking at the developments and samples implemented in metal. Some theoretical justifications for the existence of this class of “armor” dating back to that time are also of interest. In 1991, they were published in an article in the “Bulletin of Armored Vehicles” - we are posting it here.




Tank Support Fighting Vehicle


The necessity of developing a tank support combat vehicle to combat tank-dangerous manpower is substantiated. A possible layout solution for such a machine is proposed.

At the present stage of development of the Armed Forces, the number and effectiveness of mass-produced anti-tank weapons (PTW) have increased significantly. Calculations show that 60...70% of the targets opposing the attacking echelon are tank-dangerous enemy personnel, equipped with man-portable ATGMs of the "Dragon" and "Milan" type, hand-held anti-tank, as well as rifle grenade launchers. They have a cumulative warhead, the armor penetration of which is 300...730 mm of medium-hard steel armor.

At the same time weapon tanks has a clearly expressed anti-tank orientation. Firing from them at small, easily camouflaged targets is ineffective. Finding them is not so easy. But even if one of the crew members detects such a target, as a rule, the tanks do not have time to destroy or suppress it. Infantry, advancing together with tanks, can successfully destroy manpower and massive PTS. However, when on foot, it is not protected by armor, has a low attack rate and cannot keep up with tanks.

When interacting with main tanks, infantry must have a combat vehicle capable of effectively destroying enemy personnel, withstanding the fire effects of main weapons and moving at the same speeds as tanks. Modern infantry fighting vehicles do not meet these requirements mainly due to the lower level of armor protection compared to tanks. As the experience of local conflicts has shown, when traveling with tanks, these vehicles suffer heavy losses. Infantry fighting vehicles also have a lower level of radiation protection. It should be noted that in some infantry fighting vehicles it is difficult to fire from the vehicle. Thus, firing from all types of weapons under sealed conditions can lead to 1% poisoning of personnel within 50 minute. The smoky side exhaust unmasks not only infantry fighting vehicles, but also tanks operating together with them. These shortcomings mainly led to the fact that the infantry fighting vehicle became ineffective in the fight against a well-organized, PTS-rich enemy defense.

To effectively destroy enemy firing points and tank-dangerous manpower, you need a tank fire support vehicle with a tank-like high level of armor protection, capable of operating in the same battle formation as the main tank.

Installing additional weapons on a production tank is the simplest and cheapest way to create such a vehicle. For example, it is possible to additionally install an AG-17 infantry grenade launcher on an existing tank. But all the functions of a tank crew in battle are strictly regulated; crew members have their own responsibilities. In addition, the driver and gunner do not have all-round visibility and the static viewing angle is relatively small; it is simply inconvenient for them to aim such a weapon at the target. This is partly why, after the T-54, domestic tanks do not have a machine gun mount for the driver. It would seem that it is possible to install a grenade launcher on the commander's cupola, but the commander's ability to detect small targets is also limited, especially when observing from the left side. Due to the layout conditions, it is difficult to install an anti-personnel complex with a machine gun or grenade launcher and sufficient ammunition for it on a tank without significant modifications to the vehicle.

It is more preferable to have a special tank support combat vehicle (BMPT). It is desirable that it be, if possible, unified with the tank with which it must operate. Therefore, one of the options for such a vehicle could be the BMPT-1, in which the fighting compartment of a serial tank is replaced with a new one with an infantry destruction complex (Fig. 1). Replacing a heavy tank turret with a low-profile turret with a remote small-caliber automatic cannon will lead to a significant reduction in the weight of the vehicle compared to a tank and a decrease in the likelihood of being hit (primarily due to a reduction in the frontal projection of the turret), improving mobility characteristics and fuel efficiency.

However, on the battlefield, motorized riflemen are needed, who can act both dismounted and fire directly from a combat vehicle. To fire from a vehicle while overcoming a well-organized, PTS-rich enemy defense, a BMPT-2 vehicle is needed not only with a high level of armor protection, but also with large free volumes to accommodate troops. Landing with its own firepower increases the likelihood of detecting targets and destroying enemy infantry. The following requirements apply to the machine:

1. The ability to move under enemy fire in the same battle formations as tanks, that is, to have protection no worse than on a tank.

2. The ability to conduct combat operations and march together with tanks, that is, the same characteristics of mobility and maneuverability.

3. The number of crew (combat crew) must be at least 9 people: commander, driver, gunner - ATGM operator, 6 motorized riflemen - this is the minimum landing force in the case of dismounted combat operations.

It is necessary to actively deploy troops by firing in the direction of the vehicle's movement (in the sector where the enemy is likely to appear). He must be able to quickly and safely enter and exit the vehicle; The most convenient exit is at the rear of the hull.


Rice. 1. Tank T-72B (a) and a possible variant of BMPT-1 (b) with a new fighting compartment and a complex for defeating enemy personnel

4. BMPT-2 weapons must hit tank-dangerous manpower and massive PTS, lightly armored targets, airplanes and helicopters. This weapon may include an automatic cannon and machine guns against infantry, lightly armored vehicles, low-flying airplanes and helicopters, grenade launchers for hitting infantry open or hidden behind a vertical wall or in trenches, as well as ATGMs for fighting tanks.

5. Unification of components with the main tank. This primarily applies to the engine, transmission and chassis components.


The possible layout of the BMPT-2 (Fig. 2) can provide it with a high level of protection. This is facilitated by the spaced-out design of the engine-transmission unit with a front-mounted engine and a rear-mounted transmission and drive wheels. This provides additional protection for the crew when the frontal armor is penetrated and reduces (by approximately 500 mm) the length of the vehicle by combining the troop compartment with the transmission compartment.

Characteristic of this layout scheme is the use of the main components of the tank chassis (engine, transmission, chassis) and well-proven weapons systems in mass production (30-mm automatic cannon, AG-17 anti-personnel grenade launchers, Konkurs ATGM, PKT machine guns ) and fire control systems.

The driver is located in the front part of the hull, behind the engine installation and the engine bulkhead, and to the left and right of him are two shooters for firing from machine guns located on the fenders.

The 3-seater turret contains: the commander-grenade launcher (on the right), the gunner-ATGM operator (in the center) and the grenade launcher (on the left). Placing the crew in the turret increases the likelihood of detection (they sit at the highest point of the vehicle) and destruction of the enemy, and also provides the ability to fire at several targets at once.

The main armament is a 30-mm automatic cannon installed in a remote armored capsule, stabilized in two guidance planes; To the right of the gun is a coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun. The gun's ammunition is located in a special armored compartment on the floor of the fighting compartment. The shape of the compartment allows the crew to move from the combat to the troop compartment.


Fig 2. Possible layout diagram of BMPT-2: 1 – AG-17 grenade launchers; 2 – PU “Competition”; 3 – remote 20 mm automatic installation; 4 – armored compartment for ammunition; 5 – PC machine guns; 6 – onboard gearboxes; 7 – gearbox; 8 – cardan shaft; 9 – engine installation; 10 – body; 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23 – paratroopers; 12 – PKT machine guns; 13 – driver; 14 – commander; 16 – radiators of the cooling system; 20 – grenade launcher; 21 – gunner; 22 – main fuel tank

The feed is 2-belt, the tapes come from two sections of the magazine. An armored launcher for two Konkurs ATGMs is installed above the gun. The launcher is reloaded by one of the shooters through the landing hatch in the roof of the hull. In this case, the turret is strictly in a certain position, and the rear end of the launcher must be lowered. In addition to the two ATGMs on the launcher, the troop compartment has four more in containers. The turrets of the commander and the grenade launcher are equipped with AG-17 anti-personnel grenade launchers, which are stabilized in the horizontal plane by stabilizing the turret, and in the vertical plane by simple electromechanical stabilizers. The declination angles of the weapons installed in the turret range from -10 to +60°.

The troop compartment is designed to accommodate four (if necessary six) riflemen. For quick exit there are 2 doors in the stern. To fire from the airborne squad, two 7,62-mm PK machine guns are installed on remote shoulder straps.

The use of weapon installations (guns, machine guns, grenade launchers) removed from the inhabited compartments allows one to completely eliminate contamination by powder gases. This scheme allows, if the BMPT-2 is damaged in the defense, to quickly remove some of the weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers) for use on foot.

The hull and turret are welded from armor steels. The spaced armor of the hull and turret increases the rigidity of the structure (primarily the roof and bottom). The gap between the armor plates can be filled with anti-radiation material (RAM), which allows this material to be used as a filler in combined armor and, in addition, increase the anti-radiation protection of the crew by approximately 10% compared to a conventional lining installation of equal mass. Placing weapons in an armored capsule removed from the habitable compartment makes it possible to reduce the mass of the turret's armor protection and the number of weakened zones compared to a tank turret.

Torque from the engine is transmitted by a driveshaft to the transmission at the rear of the vehicle. The engine installation occupies the entire width of the BMPT-2 bow. The engine used is a new X-shaped multi-fuel diesel engine 2V-12 with a power of 735 kW.

Water radiators for the engine cooling system and exhaust gas system are located in the rear of the vehicle, which reduces the possibility of detection of the vehicle by enemy thermal imaging devices and eliminates haze in the front sector of the vehicle. The creation of a box-shaped tract in the fender niches for the release of exhaust gases increases the rigidity and strength of the fenders.

Hack and predictor Aviator


For a support combat vehicle, in order to effectively destroy tank-dangerous manpower and ensure a high level of tank protection, it is most advisable to use a layout solution with a forward engine and aft transmission, which makes it possible to strengthen the frontal projection, ensure the activation of some paratroopers, and the convenience of exiting and landing paratroopers through stern doors.

Source:
Gusev, S.A. Tank support combat vehicle / S.A. Gusev // Bulletin of armored vehicles. - 1991. - No. 7.
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    12 May 2024 05: 22
    The topic of protecting enemy UAVs armed with grenade launchers, mines and IEDs has not been covered. what
    How to deal with this? They are gored by the crowd like a mammoth.
    1. +26
      12 May 2024 06: 57
      The topic of protecting enemy UAVs armed with grenade launchers, mines and IEDs has not been covered.

      What UAVs? Article from 1991!
    2. +1
      14 May 2024 10: 39
      In 1991, they were published in an article in the “Bulletin of Armored Vehicles” - we are posting it here.

      Read carefully.
  2. +5
    12 May 2024 05: 50
    All this will not work without UAV reconnaissance with direct communication with the tank. Maybe it’s time to return 4 crew members in a promising tank, a UAV operator, you can even put him in the T80 next to the driver, anyway, this tank and the stacking of shots are useless in trench warfare. Maybe the turret could be rearranged; with my 170 cm, it was quite spacious for me in the gunner’s position, this with the huge ancient sights and equipment.
    1. +5
      12 May 2024 09: 10
      Everything is a little more complicated.
      The third crew member, if placed in the turret, will require an increase in the reserved volume by one and a half times, because the turret was a two-seater, but has become a three-seater.
      This entails an increase in the turret, as a consequence an increase in the shoulder strap, as a consequence, reworking of the chassis, and so on.
      Well, that is, we get the Abrams in size. And this means either an increase in mass by a quarter, or a decrease in the thickness of the armor..

      A full-time UAV operator who constantly sits “behind the armor” is more likely to be a T-15 or other heavy infantry fighting vehicle. There, for the sake of this, we “sacrifice” one place in the troop compartment, which, although unpleasant, is quite acceptable.
      1. +1
        14 May 2024 10: 44
        Read more carefully, the person writes about the placement of the fourth crew member not in the turret, but to the right of the driver, in the place where the tank rack is located, but here there is also the problem of how he gets into the tank and leaves it, behind the autoloader carousel, if through the hatch driver, then military commissars throughout the country will have to look for dwarf acrobats for this matter laughing
    2. +12
      12 May 2024 12: 19
      Why do you need a UAV operator inside a tank? Why put him there?
      You just need to create a platoon of UAVs in each tank company that will act in the interests of their company. And it makes no sense for them to sit right inside the tank. I also understand giving a small copter to the commander in case of emergency situations when the tank is hit or operating in isolation or is assigned to some other unit where no one can provide them with a UAV, but this is purely for insurance purposes. And so UAVs should not operate from tanks, but in their interest, I explain... If we put a jammer on a tank and turn it on, then it’s logical that we won’t launch anything... And without a jammer, your copter won’t save you - you’ll just be destroyed ...
      Therefore, the copter must be separate, and the communication between the operator is not jammed by the jammer on the tank.
      Then it will be effective.
      1. +3
        12 May 2024 13: 49
        Why do you need a UAV operator inside a tank? Why put him there?
        You just need to create a platoon of UAVs in each tank company that will act in the interests of their company.

        Each company must have a command and staff vehicle armored and protected at the level of a tank.
        In addition to the company commander and 2-3 of his assistants, who are involved in coordinating the actions of the platoons, two UAV operators should be placed in the KShM, responsible for reconnaissance, search and illumination of priority targets.
        1. +5
          12 May 2024 15: 08
          Perhaps so, although I think that there should be a separate unit, where there will be a department with eagles, which will provide a general environment for the officers (company commander and his deputy), for the general control of the unit in battle, and there will be quadcopter operators who act in combat in interests of platoon commanders, or even each tank, increasing its awareness on the battlefield.
          But these are nuances, in the main thing we agree that UAVs should be separate full-time specialists who are not part of the tank crew, because their tasks can be much broader, this includes preliminary reconnaissance of the battlefield and the organization of unit security and work in in the interests of other units of the unit (for example, artillery units, although not necessarily, for example, in the interests of engineering units that conduct mine clearance or provide crossings), when the tanks themselves do not directly participate in the battle. That is, their functionality is much broader and is associated not only with direct combat, and assigning this functionality specifically to tankers is not very rational. This is not to mention the fact that during a battle the tank is quite bumpy and controlling the copter will be either very difficult or even impossible.
        2. +3
          12 May 2024 20: 36
          Quote: assault
          Each company must have a command and staff vehicle armored and protected at the level of a tank.

          Whoa. And we again come up against the urgent need for a armored personnel carrier on a tank chassis and with a tank level of protection. According to the NORMAL layout with front placement of MTO, a spacious troop compartment and convenient landing/dismounting through the aft ramp or door.
          It is possible to convert into such TBTR those tanks at our storage bases that cannot be used as a tank (T-64 - there is no engine for them). The hull will require a complete rearrangement, the stern will become a forehead, and the running gearboxes will have to be swapped (so as not to go forward in reverse gear). There will be a lot of work for welders and mechanics, but it is definitely worth it and the work can be done by the repair plant. As a combat module, the module from the BTR-82A is sufficient for the classic TBTR. For the KShM on the same base, you can make the troop compartment more spacious.
          Why not on a new chassis and from scratch?
          production lines are busy with the production and modernization of tanks, BMPTs (which are long overdue to be renamed ShMPT - assault infantry support vehicle), because it is in this capacity that it is much more useful. It is they, the BMPT/ShMPT, that must accompany and support the assault infantry, and the MBTs, from a slightly greater distance, support the infantry and the ShMPT with the fire of their guns.. The assault units must be armed with TBTR and ShMPT\BMPT, and reinforced with tanks.
          We have about 2500 T-64s at our storage bases, which can be transformed into TBTR. And some of the old T-72, T-62 and even T-55 can be transformed with a somewhat simplified ShMPT with the installation of a BM from the BMPT-72 (Algerian version... This is exactly the kind of conversion of old Soviet tanks into BMPT that UVZ once offered to its foreign clients. I think now is the time for such machines in the Northern Military District. Because you need a LOT of them, FAST and inexpensive.
          1. +1
            13 May 2024 23: 32
            Quote: bayard
            And we again come up against the urgent need for a armored personnel carrier on a tank chassis and with a tank level of protection. According to the NORMAL layout with front placement of MTO, a spacious troop compartment and convenient landing/dismounting through the aft ramp or door...


            ...the mass of which will inevitably be 70 tons or more, and the maneuverability will be lower than that of the main tank.
            So far, no one has canceled the empirical rule of tank mass: for everyone inside the “tank protection level” - 15 tons. The car you dream of, even without weapons, will weigh as much as two tanks. You want to make an armored bus. Which will do what? You won't send him into battle - he has no weapons. And the infantry coming out of it is no more protected than those dismounted from an infantry fighting vehicle.
            1. +1
              14 May 2024 03: 57
              Quote: abc_alex
              ...the mass of which will inevitably be 70 tons or more, and the maneuverability will be lower than that of the main tank.

              He (TBTR) will never have such a mass.
              How much does the turret, ammunition and automatic loader weigh on a modern domestic MBT?
              From 8 to 10 tons?
              Subtract from the mass of the equipped MBT.
              Rearranging will not affect the remaining weight, but increasing the height of the body will add, but not that much. With the thickness of the side of the citadel at the level of the side of the tank + the outer armor plate from the upper cut of the citadel to the outer cut of the fender will provide additional passive armor (it would be good to equip the resulting cavities for fuel tanks, because diesel fuel extinguishes the cumulative jet well), on top of which (the outer plate) of course dynamic protection. Light combat module from the BTR-82A. Spaced armor of the hull roof. Side screens like MBT. All this beauty without additional body kit will weigh (you will be surprised, but I’m talking about real samples based on the hull of that same T-64) about 35-37 tons. With body kit and some frills - 40-42 tons. That is. still less than a modern MBT (45-48 tons).
              The internal layout is "bus". Those. continuous space from the mechanical drive to the stern ramp. The capacity of the troop compartment is up to 12-14 soldiers. But taking into account the heavy and voluminous equipment of assault units, it is desirable to limit the number of troops to 8 soldiers, in favor of additional ammunition and portable weapons.
              Such a TBTR can be sculpted from any old tank, even from the T-55 (but I still don’t recommend using these). The same T-55 and T-62 can be quickly and inexpensively converted into somewhat simplified BMPT/ShMPP. With module from "Terminator-2" BMPT-72.
              All this can be done by repair plants, without loading or distracting the main tank-building enterprises.
              Quote: abc_alex
              The car you dream of, even without weapons, will weigh as much as two tanks.

              Of course not . In the most extreme case, its maximum weight will only approach the weight of a loaded MBT.
              Quote: abc_alex
              You want to make an armored bus.

              That's what everyone does. But we can do better. And cheaper (priced like an armored personnel carrier based on the BMP-3).

              Quote: abc_alex
              Which will do what? You won't send him into battle - he has no weapons.

              How do you mean “you won’t send”??
              Why does he need such armor and security then?
              And why are there “no weapons”? Very much so - 30 mm. cannon and machine gun, like the BIR-82A. To cover the landing during dismounting and evacuation, a TBTR is quite sufficient. And if you need something heavier, we install an uninhabited module from the Kurganets and get a TBMP. But if the assault infantry and their TBTRs are covered by BMPT/ShMPP, then the need for the TBMP itself disappears - the Terminators will cope better with support.
              Quote: abc_alex
              the infantry leaving it will be no more protected than those dismounted from an infantry fighting vehicle.

              The task of any armored personnel carrier, and armored personnel carrier in particular, is to deliver assault infantry under enemy fire to the dismounting line, cover the moment the landing party dismounts and retreat to the starting point. BMPTs/ShMPPs can/should (depending on circumstances) remain with the infantry for fire support in battle. During the combat mission, TBTR ensure the timely delivery of reinforcements, ammunition, evacuate the wounded, and if the situation requires, evacuate the landing party itself.
              But a “regular infantry fighting vehicle” under such fire will not even reach the dismount line, much less support it in battle.

              In the end, we are not talking about an “absolutely invulnerable” TBTR, but about a HIGHLY PROTECTED one, capable of withstanding almost any anti-tank ammunition in the forehead and at heading angles, and on the side - a hit from a grenade launcher, ATGM, FPV, automatic cannon shells and heavy shell fragments and bombs
              Instead of aluminum and watercraft - rolled steel armor and dynamic protection.
              Look at the infantry fighting vehicles of Western countries, they make their chassis based on a medium tank. And it's high time for us. The passion for amphibious properties for infantry fighting vehicles/armored personnel carriers is now the blood of our soldiers.
              1. -1
                16 May 2024 03: 53
                Quote: bayard
                All this beauty without additional body kit will weigh (You will be surprised, but I’m talking about real samples based on the hull of the same T-64) about 35-37 tons.

                The Americans thought so too. Until we started doing it. We've already been on this topic THREE times. It’s impossible to get lighter than 50 tons. And the projects of the CVG program weighed up to 70-80 tons.

                Quote: bayard
                Of course not . In the most extreme case, its maximum weight will only approach the weight of a loaded MBT.

                Once again, there is a rule of thumb for modern armored vehicles with tank armor. Each person inside the armor is 15 tons of mass. And so far no one has jumped out of this rule. You know, the loader in a tank is hardly heavier than the entire structure of the automatic loader. But it doesn’t work with a tank lighter than 50 tons. So, either the vehicle will not have tank armor, or, if you please, eat 70 tons of mass.
                And so far no one has been able to prove otherwise.

                Quote: bayard
                That's what everyone does. But we can do better. And cheaper (priced like an armored personnel carrier based on the BMP-3).

                Well, they don’t do it because they have a good life. It just doesn’t work out lighter and more compact. It's just that if you want a 10-seater tank, you'll get a 70-ton behemoth. Because it's a tank.
                And a landing module for 10 people, or for 8 with ammunition, will not fit on the MBT chassis. Look at the same BMPT-1 based on the T-72. There are 5 people behind the armor. And then they almost sit on each other’s shoulders.


                Quote: bayard
                Why does he need such armor and security then?

                So I don’t understand. Why does a transporter, which is not intended for combat in the first line, need tank armor? And why does the infantry, especially assault groups, need transport that not every bridge can withstand and is also a tank that really has nothing to fight with. Well, it’s not just that they put 3+100 mm on the BMP-30.

                Quote: bayard
                But if the assault infantry and their TBTRs are covered by BMPT/ShMPP, then the need for the TBMP itself disappears - the Terminators will cope better with support.


                Somehow you didn’t end up with assault infantry, but a reinforced tank company :)
                Terminators can't handle it on their own; they're poorly designed—all their weapons and sights are on the outside. And it’s generally better not to take ATGMs into “close” combat. In addition, they only have one firing point.
                In my opinion, there is no need to create mutants from tanks and buses. There is an infantry fighting vehicle - a tracked transporter. His task is to deliver fighters, land them outside the oncoming fire zone and provide fire support. And not to storm positions. Of course, systematic work to strengthen the protection of these machines must be carried out. But precisely within the framework of this concept, without attempts to create a “passenger tank”. And as a reinforcement based on the MBT or deep processing of the BMPT, it is necessary to make an assault tank. Without any turbulence with the airborne squad, capable of conducting full-fledged reconnaissance and surveillance, with combined weapons (artillery with low and high ballistics, SD).
                Then the assault group will receive a strike vehicle at the forefront, 1-2 fire support vehicles (BMP-3).

                Quote: bayard
                The task of any armored personnel carrier, and armored personnel carrier in particular, is to deliver assault infantry under enemy fire to the dismounting line, cover the moment the landing party dismounts and retreat to the starting point.

                And why then do they need heavy armor?

                Quote: bayard
                capable of withstanding almost any anti-tank ammunition in the forehead and at heading angles

                Will not work. The capabilities of modern ATGMs are too great.
                1. +1
                  16 May 2024 05: 56
                  Eh Alexey, Alexey... as much as I wrote on this topic, 5 years before the North Military District I began to justify the need for heavy armored vehicles for infantry to increase its survivability, because everything that I foresaw happened... and something else was added.
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  The Americans thought so too.

                  Who are you looking at?? Where have you seen their successful armored vehicles? If they take their seven-wheel tank chassis and put a bunch of additional armor on it (otherwise they don’t know how), they could even end up with a 100-ton monster. Look at the Germans, Swedes, and even better - at the work of Kharkov designers, who already have everything basic they did, and just on the eve of the coup in 2014. They have 4000 T-64 tanks left at their storage bases, which cannot be sold for export (they never liked them and never wanted them), the Americans demand they be disposed of and even give money for disposal, which is a pity It’s a waste to part with such good stuff. Since the 90s, work has begun on converting the T-64 and T-55 hulls into TBTR and TBMP. Mostly initiative ones with an export sight. Google yourself TBTR-64 ​​and TBTR-55.
                  If we talk about the result, we got the most successful version of TBTR/TBMP at that time (the difference is in the combat module) with a tank/almost tank level of protection, excellent spaciousness, convenient dismounting/landing, and at the same time the weight with a moderate body kit was for the TBTR-55 28-32 tons, for TBTR-64 ​​32-35 tons. At the same time, with a capacity of troop compartments of 12 people for TBTR-55, and 14 people. for TBTR-64. The paratroopers were obviously without armor and all the heavy personal equipment. The combat module was uninhabited, non-submersible/slightly submerged in the hull. The interior space is solid. There are videos when the camera moves around him, from different angles..
                  So in real life, using this scheme it is quite possible to get a moderately priced TBTR for 12 landing troops, or a TBMP with an airborne compartment for 8 people. , uninhabited module. The TBTR only has a body, chassis, engine and a light armored vehicle, so the weight will be small - 35-37 in a medium body kit, and 40-42 in a heavy one.
                  But there is a subtle question - the Kharkovites had a very compact but powerful engine. We also have one, but there is a question about its implementation. This is an engine from Kurganets-25 with 820 - 860 hp. For a TBTR this will be enough, the T-90 had that much initially, and the TBTR is lighter. In the future, its power can be increased to almost 1000 hp, but there is no need to rush.

                  To be continued .
                2. +1
                  16 May 2024 17: 18
                  Pay attention to the contours of the TBTR-64 ​​hull.
                  The nose is a chisel, a solid inclined plate, easily covered with Kontakt-5 dynamic protection.
                  Particularly interesting is the reservation of the sides, it is spaced apart. A solid internal citadel of rectangular cross-section. From the upper cut of the citadel, a continuous inclined slab along the entire length to the cut of the fender, can be used for fuel tanks. Solarium also extinguishes the cumulative jet well. From the outer edge of the fender downwards there are side screens, like those of the T-90M and T-72B3M. With dynamic protection like MBT. The inclined side slab is covered with "Contact-5".
                  Roof .
                  It is also interesting and it also has spaced armor (of course, it is much thinner). The top can be covered with “Contact-1”, like the turrets of modern tanks. The activation of the less powerful elements of Kontakt-1 will not cause the roof to break, but it will provide protection from roof-breakers flying at an angle.
                  Combat module from BTR-82A. The advantage is that it is light, compact, but powerful enough and does not eat up the internal space of the troop compartment (the spaced roof armor will also contribute to this).
                  Stern.
                  Beveled, with a ramp. On the sides there are two cabinets for transportable property, additional ammunition, and possibly an APU. . These cabinets will cover the paratroopers from the flanks when dismounting, allow them to look around when exiting, and hide from bullets if they find themselves under fire from the flanks while leaving the vehicle. And also these cabinets, placed outside the TBTR clearance at the rear, will balance the heavy nose of the vehicle with its massive frontal armor and mechanical support - so as not to be a jerk.
                  And all this can be obtained from the hulls of old tanks that are no longer suitable for service (the T-64 is definitely not), but life can and should be continued with benefit, in the guise of TBTR and TBMP.
                  I repeat - the weight of such a TBTR in a heavy (tank) body kit will be about 40 - 42 tons. In an average body kit - less.
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  And why then do they need heavy armor?

                  For guard .
                  Even in the near rear from heavy shrapnel, when advancing to dismount lines, when evacuating the wounded and supplying the front line under enemy fire. I’ll ask you another question - why do we need armorless armored personnel carriers (all) and infantry fighting vehicles (-1\2)? Just like transport? Have you ever wondered why our soldiers have been riding armor since Afghanistan? And look at the survival rate of the crew and troops of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in heavy armored vehicles compared to Soviet FLOATING armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Remember how often it happened since last year, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine advance in heavy armor, while dismounting or before reaching the line, they are knocked out, and the soldiers climb out and continue to carry out the task. Armor is not just about preserving the lives of our best men, but also about carrying out tasks with a much higher probability. A trained fighter of four recruits costs . They must be protected.
                  I am writing this from the experience of the battles in Donbass and the entire course of the Northern Military District.
                  As for the Assault Infantry Fire Support Vehicle, it is definitely a “Terminator”. It already exists, from the experience of combat use, just such a (complete) line-up is praised, although I have always believed that it is better to build a large number of simpler BMPT\ShMPP in the "Terminator-2" configuration, aka BMPT-72 - based on the T- hull 72, where instead of a tower the combat module is on a podium. That's all! Fast, simple, with much less labor, but without two grenade launcher turrets. The crew is only 3 people. For battles in the city and difficult terrain - just right. Especially if shells with programmable detonation appear. This version is specifically for mass production and use.
                  But from the experience of combat use, everyone unanimously claims that the complete package is needed - better visibility, two extra pairs of eyes, the ability to fire in three directions at once. I think that both versions are needed - one as “maximum stuffing”, the other as a mass version - for maximum saturation of battle formations. It is precisely these vehicles that should provide direct support to infantry in battle - during assaults. And TBTR deliver them to the line of combat contact under heavy enemy fire, evacuate the wounded and troops from the battlefield under enemy fire, combat supply to troops at the front line, serve at checkpoints in the near zone and safe movement in the near rear, where sudden shelling is possible .
                  At the price, a TBTR, even when produced from scratch, will not be more expensive than a conventional BMP-3M, because an aluminum armored body is expensive and difficult to produce, while rolled armor is cheaper, but an order of magnitude stronger and thicker. The experience of 2,5 years of the Northern Military District showed that the water navigation of our armored vehicles was never particularly useful, although there were more than enough water obstacles in the theater of operations. Therefore, I am sure that about 70% of the armored vehicles of motorized rifle and especially assault formations should consist of heavily armored vehicles, and no more than 30% - of waterfowl - BMP-3M and armored personnel carriers based on it.
                  I also liked the re-arranged and reinforced wheeled armored personnel carrier based on the BTR-82A chassis from the last exhibition. But with the front MTO from the BMP-3 (engine) and the aft ramp, it already holds quite heavy fragments, with sides of 12,7 and 14,5 mm. bullets, and even 30 mm on the forehead. shells It is the proven and serial chassis that makes it inexpensive and convenient for mass production, so it is several times cheaper than the long-awaited and obscenely expensive and complex “Boomerang”. At the same time, its security, dynamic characteristics and overall combat capabilities are almost equal to the “Boomerang”. Therefore, it is necessary to build them.
      2. +3
        12 May 2024 18: 03
        Because a UAV on a wire above a tank is easier to organize than normal communication. There are plenty of videos where our UAVs see a threat to a tank, but have no connection with it. Ideally, of course, your option is better, but when will it be done and will it be?
        1. +1
          13 May 2024 13: 21
          Lighter, more reliable, you can power it via wire and don’t have to carry a battery.
          But before the first power lines/branches/overpasses.
          1. -1
            13 May 2024 23: 35
            ??? You will raise the UAV at least 10 meters above the tank. This will already push the horizon back by kilometers. Power transmission lines and overpasses are no more dangerous than rivers, swamps and ditches. Why do the crew have eyes?
            1. +1
              14 May 2024 13: 29
              Quote: abc_alex
              Power transmission lines and overpasses are no more dangerous than rivers, swamps and ditches

              Much less noticeable.
              Especially when you need to look for a target.
              And branches are everywhere in the forest, there is a chance to wind the drone’s wire around a branch.
              In short, you need 3 replacement coils and 3 cheap drones, otherwise it will be a shame. laughing
        2. +1
          15 May 2024 00: 10
          Communication: how to rivet 10000+ tanks of a new design? It seems to me that the connection is much simpler. Moreover, it is not needed with everyone, it is needed specifically with the crew of the UAV... And here the tanks are in one unit, the ball is from another, so there is no connection...
  3. 0
    12 May 2024 06: 08
    Thanks to the author (and his Russian language teacher) for the Russian language.

    The difference is unfortunately noticeable.
    Wars in the Pacific or Atlantic are harder to read about.


    L thick is not enough for them
    1. -10
      12 May 2024 06: 18
      You are the virus against the Russians, more than a hundred nationalities live in Russia and there are places where there is not a single Russian...
    2. +2
      12 May 2024 12: 59
      The difference is unfortunately noticeable

      Really.
      And the writer's surname is written with a capital letter
      1. +1
        13 May 2024 21: 41
        Have you changed your calling? - teacher of Russian language. There is Tolstoy Lev and Tolstoy.
        Albanian, SMS, cursive writing spoils the style and comments make the politics of the Russian Federation and the world.
  4. +2
    12 May 2024 06: 25
    With the SVO, it is necessary to change combat tactics and we must begin to change the tank and its support system.
    1. +7
      12 May 2024 10: 49
      The tank was “buried” only 2 times during my lifetime. Now it's the third one. At the end of the 70s they shouted “a dozen helicopters will defeat a tank army.” Then they shouted “ATGM - and all tanks are screwed.” And in some places even newborn girls were called Javelins. Now they are yelling: “two Lancets for 3 million rubles - that’s all.” Forgetting one simple thing - nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Shall we go on foot through the contaminated zone, or fly on a quadcopter with Aliexpress?
      1. +4
        12 May 2024 11: 12
        Quote: dauria
        The tank was “buried” only 2 times during my lifetime. Now it's the third

        They buried a lot of things, only the Phoenix bird doesn’t die, as it turns out, the tanks are driving, that’s what they’ve done to the tanks (I think it’s a temporary solution) and they’re driving. Armor and projectiles have always been in opposition and only allowed each other to develop, and drones and electronic warfare, together with the means of destroying them, are just beginning a confrontation that will show in which direction to improve.
        PS: Everything is returning at a new level of development, I believe that the battleships were buried too early, I don’t know how and when, but there is a feeling that we will remember.
      2. +2
        12 May 2024 14: 40
        Forgetting one simple thing - nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Shall we go on foot through the contaminated zone, or fly on a quadcopter with Aliexpress?


        On armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles with anti-radiation protection.
  5. +2
    12 May 2024 07: 17
    Oh, how many minuses I picked up and even a warning from the admins when I questioned the very need for the so-called. Terminator.
    Sorry, it turns out he was needed... he was needed in 1991.
    1. +2
      12 May 2024 09: 59
      1. There is no need to create a “special” BMPT! But a BMOP (fire support combat vehicle), created in the interests of “line” troops (both tank and combined arms) would be useful in the troops! It is desirable that the BMOP be equipped with “modular” weapons... This would also be the BMOP for assault units! 2. The troops also need an assault tank for urban battles and the destruction of support forces... “Heavily armored self-propelled guns” are not all the requirements for an assault tank! 3. Tank units need not only “individual” KAZs! “Collective” KAZs would also be “useful”... a kind of “air defense systems” to protect a tank platoon from “long-range” anti-tank guns and drones (Ka-band radar, “many” small “htk” missiles, "30" with shrapnel shells...)
      1. +1
        12 May 2024 20: 03
        Point by point you have stated incompatible requirements.
        If it is an assault tank, then the armament is 120 mm (Nona) or 160 mm and above. With a 120 mm gun there will be room for landing, but with a 160 mm gun there will be no more room.
        If the emphasis is placed on air defense and KAZ, then it will no longer be possible to effectively fight enemy infantry; you will have to forget about fire support.
        And if the vehicle is in its current form, then it is an independent unit that has very little to do with supporting tanks. It's better to have a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
        1. +1
          12 May 2024 21: 39
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          Point by point you have stated incompatible requirements.

          Actually, this “incompatibility” is apparent! Considering that I did not mean a “3 in 1” combat vehicle, but 3 “separate” vehicles! As they say in such cases ... "it hurts!" I just remembered that earlier I defended my opinion that the troops need 2 different "combat support combat vehicles": 1. "Combined arms" BMOP (fire support combat vehicle), suitable for assault units both tank and "infantry" ... 2. "Collective" KAZ or an active protection complex for platoon-order armored vehicles ("Platoon" KAZ). Well, in battles in urban “agglomerations” you will have to bring in “assault tanks”!
          PS I once considered the American concept of active protection of armored vehicles with KAZs... This protection was divided into 2 “echelons”! 1st echelon - protection from anti-tank precision weapons at a distance from 500 m to 2000 m ... 2nd echelon - close-in protection with “individual” KAZs ...
          1. 0
            12 May 2024 21: 55
            Of all the above, only the assault tank is really ready to be discussed; there is simply not enough data on everything else. In particular, it is unknown whether there is a drive for a turret with a small-caliber gun capable of turning and aiming at a speed sufficient to destroy FPV drones.
            But with an assault tank it’s more or less clear. The armor is comparable to that of a tank. A weapon with a large vertical guidance angle and, preferably, greater power.
            They will make a prototype in six months or a year. The question is whether it is necessary. Will a tank with a 120 or 160 mm low-ballistic mortar gun be in demand?
            1. -1
              12 May 2024 22: 48
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              Will a tank with a 120 or 160 mm low-ballistic mortar gun be in demand?

              “They do not seek good from goodness”! Perhaps it will be a 152 mm howitzer with suitable ballistics... (There is experience in attempts to install a 152 mm tank gun...)
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              It is unknown whether there is a drive for a small-caliber gun turret capable of turning and aiming at a speed sufficient to destroy FPV drones.

              Repeatedly, experimental tanks were equipped with “anti-aircraft” 23-mm and 30-mm turret guns... I would like to mention the English development of active protection of tanks against cumulative grenades and anti-tank guns at the end of the last century! It is a turret with 2 Ka-band radars and a coaxial machine gun mount... mounted on the main turret! The RPG-7 was still considered ineffective against anti-tank guns and grenades; but maybe it will be just right against FPV drones?
              1. 0
                12 May 2024 23: 04
                A 152 mm howitzer with a high barrel elevation angle will not fit in a tank turret. It will be a tower like Msta or the Coalition. It is basically impossible to book such a volume. It is possible to repeat the 152 mm Acacia, but then it will not be possible to isolate the ammunition. This is definitely not going to happen easily with a howitzer.
                Mortar guns look preferable due to their lower recoil.
                Although this is all a matter of specific development.
                The main question is whether a tank is needed for fighting purely in the city or in the mountains.
                In my abstract opinion, a simplified BMP-3 with an 82-mm mortar in the turret is needed instead of the expensive Bakhcha or Sinitsa module. Or resume production of the BMP-2.
                The BMP-3 in its current form is also needed; production, it seems to me, is hampered by the lack of combat modules with 100 and 30 mm cannons.
                1. 0
                  13 May 2024 10: 06
                  Currently, in the Northern Military District, tanks are often used as self-propelled guns, and not as assault weapons of the 1st echelon! Moreover, it is noted that rifled tank guns would be “more useful” in such cases than smooth-bore ones! This is where you involuntarily remember that when the issue of arming main tanks with “smooth” 125 mm guns was being decided, “combined” weapons were also proposed! That is, new “mass” tanks should be armed with both smooth-bore 125 mm guns and rifled 122 mm guns! Moreover, there was no need to change the entire gun! It was enough to change the barrel and “some little thing” (I don’t remember...)! Alas, we decided to save money... we didn’t adopt this “combination”! But I think that such weapons would be in great demand now in the Northern Military District!
                  1. +1
                    13 May 2024 12: 43
                    In this case, wouldn’t it be easier to use the 122-mm Gvozdika self-propelled gun itself? Why would a tank with such a gun be used for indirect shooting?
                    1. 0
                      13 May 2024 17: 01
                      Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                      In this case, wouldn’t it be easier to use the 122-mm Gvozdika self-propelled gun itself? Why would a tank with such a gun be used for indirect shooting?

                      Why, in particular, are tanks with a 125-mm cannon currently used in the Northern Military District “for firing from closed positions”? what If they use it, then “someone” needs it! In addition, there may not be enough "Gvozdika" ... there may not be enough crews for the "Gvozdika"! (And at this time the tank crews are calmly “smoking on the sidelines”!) So, you are clearly wrong about “isn’t it simpler...”!
                      1. 0
                        13 May 2024 18: 39
                        "Gvozdika" has been withdrawn from service, but is used in the air defense system. Both the 122 mm Gvozdika and 152 mm Akatsiya cost about three times less than the tank. So they can't be missed. Another thing is that they don’t have enough ballistics to fire along a flat trajectory.
                        According to this parameter, the tank can replace the Giatsint-S, but the vehicle is huge and clumsy. The 130 mm M-46 on a tracked chassis might have looked a little lighter, but such a vehicle was not produced.
                        In general, the situation in this area looks sad.
                        And I’m so smart now, but five years ago I didn’t know about “Hyacinth” at all. The gun was either secret or rare and outdated at the same time.
                      2. 0
                        13 May 2024 20: 50
                        You did not pay attention to my next argument from the previous comment! Namely: a certain “shortage” of human resources! Let the "Carnations" not yet run out of storage facilities and troops inside Russia! But we need people to crew self-propelled guns! And there shouldn’t be “extra” people in the SVO! Will the tank crews, remaining, at least temporarily, “without work” drink tea? Or will you transfer them to Gvozdiki, and assign “Uncle Grisha with a Berdan gun” to the tanks left without crews? And then vice versa...to self-propelled guns? So...will tankers easily agree to leave thick tank armor and willingly sit in Gvozdikas with thin armor? belay
    2. +2
      12 May 2024 13: 52
      We came to the conclusion that we needed not BMPTs, but heavy infantry fighting vehicles with a weapon system against tank-dangerous infantry and an airborne squad for 6-10 infantrymen.
      1. +1
        12 May 2024 18: 05
        So you need an analogue of Bradley?
        1. +1
          12 May 2024 21: 58
          No, we need an even thicker BMP, we need a T-15 type BMP.
      2. 0
        13 May 2024 23: 49
        No. Absolutely not. You read in the article about the fraudulent project of a BMPT with an airborne squad. Have you heard anything about its development? The authors did something crazy, radically distorting the very concept of the BMPT.
        It was not conceived as an infantry vehicle. Its essence was to remove infantry from the front line altogether. Replacing it with a fire system capable of moving across the battlefield at speeds of tens of kilometers per hour. And it didn’t slow down the tanks. This is not a vehicle with infantry. This is a vehicle INSTEAD of infantry.
        That is why the BMPTs, which are Terminators, were not accepted into service by the Ministry of Defense. Since this is not a BMPT, this is a weapons store, who knows what it’s needed for. Made from something that was used for something.
        The idea of ​​a "tank" infantry fighting vehicle simply makes no sense. After all, the problem was and remains not how to safely deliver infantry to the battlefield. And the fact is that infantry does not live on the battlefield. And it hinders the movement of the tank. And having died heroically, he leaves the tank without cover.
        Infantry must be removed from the same line with tanks; this was understood back in the 70s.
        And for independent actions, the infantry does not need a TBMP, it needs an assault tank.
  6. -2
    12 May 2024 07: 30
    What UAVs? Article from 1991!

    How sweet...and it’s 2024...and how to understand this article here. request
    1. 0
      12 May 2024 08: 01
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      What UAVs? Article from 1991!

      In 1982, the Israelis, using UAVs, tore the Syrian air defense to pieces! The necessary conclusions were not drawn by the military leadership of the USSR..."they swept" the problem "under the rug"!
      1. 0
        12 May 2024 18: 18
        In 1982, the Israelis, using UAVs, tore the Syrian air defense to pieces! The necessary conclusions were not drawn by the military leadership of the USSR..."they swept" the problem "under the rug"!

        Nikolaevich, to be honest, the Syrians made a number of systemic mistakes that were not hidden. The USSR took exceptional measures to create a helicopter-type UAV of the Ka series and an aircraft-type UAV - the Bumblebees. Their mass implementation did not take place due to the collapse of the Union. For example, a helicopter-type UAV with a tether was considered for the first Terminators, but the dimensions of the prototype failed.
        1. +2
          12 May 2024 22: 25
          Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
          The Syrians made a number of systemic mistakes,

          Alas, I cannot completely agree with you... There were certainly mistakes, but were they systemic? (I mean, is it only Syrian?) The defeat of the Syrian army in the world was regarded as the defeat of Soviet weapons... the demand for Soviet weapons fell, a number of contracts were broken! What should the Soviet leadership do then? Recognize system errors as your own (at least in a “get-together”...) and start correcting them? It’s long, tedious, not easy, not everyone agrees with this... and how can you “rebuild on the fly” an accelerated “colossus”? It would have been easier to blame everything on the “stupid and cowardly” Syrians! Which was done with the help of numerous “journals and experts”! wink And no one noticed (didn’t want to!) “the loss of a fighter”; that is, the fact that Soviet military science and training, based on the experience of the Second World War, began to lag behind the then modern realities (requirements)! But the United States and Israel did not ignore the military innovative realities that were “tapping on their heels”! So it happened, what happened! And expert articles about “stupid and cowardly Syrians”, “Syrian system errors” still live on the Internet and in the minds of some experts! Moreover, “there is only a grain of joke in every joke” and “there is no smoke without fire”! recourse
          1. -1
            14 May 2024 00: 18
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            And no one noticed (didn’t want to!) “the loss of a fighter”; that is, the fact that Soviet military science and training, based on the experience of the Second World War, began to lag behind the then modern realities (requirements)! But the United States and Israel did not ignore the military innovative realities that were “tapping on their heels”! So it happened, what happened!


            Like what? Have tanks disappeared from the battlefield? Are there “laser Boeings” flying in the sky? Do ships fire railguns? Are US infantrymen running around the battlefield with machine guns and grenade launchers? Maybe American-Israeli missiles/aircraft were invented that were invulnerable to the “failed” Soviet air defense systems?
            What innovative realities have the United States and Israel not ignored? Can you really appreciate what conceptually new things Lohokid Martin has created over the past 40 years? And the incredible “creative potential of Israeli engineers” has somehow faded in recent years, don’t you think? Apparently, the “potential” has retired... :)

            Take a good look at the modern battlefield. Apart from the massive use of small UAVs, there is nothing new. BUT the USA and Israel did not foresee this either. In both places there was development of large reconnaissance UAVs, loitering or long-range. And the Americans have their own "Lancet" in service No. Everything is in prototypes. That is, they didn’t foresee it either. And the most sophisticated air defense/missile defense systems of the Jews and Shatovites, as before, break through the massive launches of NURS and Soviet missiles.
            Correctly noted uv. Kote pane Kokhanka (Vladislav), the Syrians screwed themselves up. And it is not surprising that at some turn the USSR (and the Jews themselves did almost nothing at that time) beat the USSR in the race. The race did not start at that moment and did not end then. And the Soviet military-industrial complex had a sufficiently developed scientific base to distinguish a systemic failure from the crookedness of the Syrians.

            And let me remind you, if anything, in 1990, the Yakovlev Design Bureau created a full-fledged complex of round-the-clock monitoring of the battlefield in the visible and thermal spectrum, with online data transmission to the Stroy-P control center. That is, everyone took everything into account and did what they could. And if it weren’t for the “era of the humpback” with the subsequent collapse of the USSR...
    2. +4
      12 May 2024 09: 20
      I understand the meaning of the article this way: it is very difficult to imagine a future war based on the last war and what specific means of warfare are needed.
  7. +4
    12 May 2024 08: 05
    But the Algerians are delighted with the BMPT
    1. +2
      12 May 2024 11: 42
      They have other priorities. They have security at the expense of firepower.
      1. 0
        13 May 2024 19: 42
        It solves their problems for them and very well, since they still want to buy
    2. +1
      12 May 2024 17: 13
      Quote: Victor19
      But the Algerians are delighted with the BMPT

      “I suspect” that they are used there not as BMPT, but as BMOP (fire support combat vehicle)!
    3. 0
      14 May 2024 00: 22
      So they don’t use it to support tanks, but as a strange tank. The car itself is not bad, its firepower is fierce. She is not suitable for her original role.
  8. +1
    12 May 2024 08: 56
    Thank you very much for the article. A very interesting concept for supporting tanks on the battlefield. But it seems to me that in the digital age it is already outdated. Today, the main enemy of a tank on the battlefield is an ATGM, while the “fire and forget” principle is increasingly being used, when the striking element is actually aimed at the target independently, and the operator can be located at a fairly large distance. I think that the solution to the problem of protecting armored vehicles will be precisely the use of KAZ, capable of detecting and destroying attacking ammunition.
    1. +2
      12 May 2024 09: 14
      Weapons are a common problem for all technology. Kaz, dynamic protection, grilles and barbecues - this is universal and applicable to any car.

      The very idea of ​​an BMPT assumes (in theory) not some kind of increased resistance to weapons (it is essentially the same tank), but the ability to destroy an enemy weapon (launcher, grenade launcher position) BEFORE firing.
      1. -1
        12 May 2024 10: 37
        Yes that's right. Only the intended target today may be within a few kilometers of the battlefield.
        1. +3
          12 May 2024 11: 51
          No matter where it is, a tank gun will reach you better than anything else.
          The problem is to detect it in advance, and not to destroy it in principle.

          That’s why they wanted to put a couple of additional operators with a surveillance device and a “personal” automatic transmission system into the first editions of the armored vehicle. The most important thing is an extra pair of eyes.

          But as a result, during the “optimization” process, the extra observers were thrown out, and the meaning of the original idea was lost.
          1. 0
            12 May 2024 20: 25
            Very true about additional observers. But observers also need access to weapons. At the very beginning of the Northern Military District, there was a case when a Ukrainian armored personnel carrier drove out directly in front of a BMP-1, whose turret was turned to the side. The driver-mechanic probably saw the enemy armored personnel carrier, but could not do anything; the BMP-1 does not even have front-mounted machine guns.
    2. 0
      12 May 2024 09: 21
      In my opinion, at the moment the main problem of the UAV tank is
  9. +5
    12 May 2024 09: 04
    BMPT is a dead end thing. It was invented for specific tasks, where there is a lot of equipment, equipment from storage (not from production), and few people. For various such "limited" conflicts.

    In the event of a large-scale conflict (even if it’s like now), the choice will be between producing a tank at the factory, producing a heavy infantry fighting vehicle or producing an infantry fighting vehicle, because the cost of the vehicles is comparable.
    1. 0
      12 May 2024 12: 43
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      BMPT is a dead end thing. It was invented for specific tasks, where there is a lot of equipment, equipment from storage (not from production), and few people.

      Well, yes, it is. If by BMPT we mean Terminator. But the article in fact describes a heavy infantry fighting vehicle optimized to support a tank. The need for TBMP seems to be not disputed by anyone today.
      1. 0
        12 May 2024 13: 09
        True, it is not clear why the author of the BMPT-1/2 is compared with the BMP-1, although there have been BMP-2/3 for a long time. Compared to 2/3, the BMPT no longer has any advantage in firepower and the question comes down to the security of the vehicle.
        1. 0
          12 May 2024 14: 30
          But here again, the production of the same BMP-3 does not significantly affect the production of tanks, different factories, different units.

          But the BMPT, most likely, will need to be manufactured instead of a tank.
        2. 0
          14 May 2024 00: 26
          Quote from: blackGRAIL
          True, it is not clear why the author of the BMPT-1/2 is compared with the BMP-1, although there have been BMP-2/3 for a long time.


          But because the author is weird. The BMPT was designed to remove infantry from the battlefield, and not to transport them across it. He begins the article with the right thought:

          Infantry, advancing together with tanks, can successfully hit manpower and massive PTS. However on foot, it is not protected by armor, has a low attack rate and cannot keep up with tanks.

          The BMPT was never tasked with landing troops.
          1. 0
            14 May 2024 01: 17
            So the main message of the author is that what is needed is not armored vehicles to support tanks, but heavy infantry. But tanks do not capture cities, and it is safer for infantry to enter populated areas with the BMPT-2 than with the BMP-3.
            1. 0
              14 May 2024 01: 30
              Yes, it is impossible to create an infantry fighting vehicle with tank armor. Well, you won’t be able to book a 10-seater vehicle like a tank. It will weigh prohibitively. The US people have already tried THREE times to create such a car. And every time it was a failure. The last time a 70 ton hippopotamus was born. And we won't succeed. An infantry fighting vehicle with tank armor is a dead end and a utopia.
              The infantry needs an assault tank. Now soldiers in the Northern Military District are praising the Bakhcha BMP-3 weapons module. And based on the experience of using BMPTs, its 30-mm machine guns are praised. So, I think, we need to take the T-90, replace the armament with the equivalent of Bakhchi, equip it with reconnaissance and target designation devices, by reducing the dimensions of the turret, increase its armor relative to infantry fighting vehicles and give it to assault troops. Then you can fantasize about a tethered reconnaissance UAV. But this is a fantasy.
              1. 0
                14 May 2024 01: 43
                BMO-T. Another question is that this is a heavy armored personnel carrier - the product’s task is to deliver infantry to the line of dismounting and a sea of ​​weapons directly on this vehicle. This problem should be solved by the interaction of a tank and a heavy armored personnel carrier. If necessary, then the long-suffering BMPT. Hello Israel. And one universal BM 2in1 is beautiful, but...
                1. 0
                  14 May 2024 02: 10
                  Israel's experience is flawed by definition. Wars with bearded men in slippers have a fundamentally different character. Please note what foreign mercenaries leaving Ukraine write. They did not expect that the war with the army and the war with bearded men in slippers so very different from each other. Well, compare, at least the tactics of using tanks. The Jews drive them into cities and conduct military operations there. Can you imagine this in Ukraine? There, tanks do not reach the line of combat contact every time. In addition, the Merkava is a purely niche vehicle, tailored for one single theater of operations. At the same time, it is monstrously heavy by our standards (~70 tons) and its troop compartment is not that convenient for long-distance raids.
                  And the IDF’s heavy armored personnel carriers are good only as long as there are no enemy attack helicopters over the battlefield. If they appear, it won’t matter.

                  It just so happens now that it is practically impossible to hide infantry behind armor. Well, honestly, the Chrysanthemum ATGM makes holes about a meter and twenty centimeters of armor behind the dynamic protection. Even Yamato carried only 41 centimeters. Triple fold Yamato armor for an armored car? If they find out, they'll ruin it. In my opinion, speed and maneuverability are more important for LBT.
                  But maybe I'm wrong...
                  1. 0
                    14 May 2024 21: 36
                    The enemy’s analogue will be HOT-3, but these are heavy ATGMs, which you can’t get enough of. This is a means of reinforcement, not standard weapons. In Ukraine there don’t seem to be any of them at all, but if there were, it would just be a smearing of the enemy’s limited firepower. Have you seen the reports about our “sheds”? This is exactly how they fight when they go inside a populated area. And one of their tasks is to call fire on themselves so that the infantry can enter it. In the case of current infantry combat vehicles, they do not have a protected weapon and the combat vehicle is damaged absolutely anyone Anti-tank weapon of the enemy. BMO-T arose precisely because flamethrowers simply had no other chance to survive. Stormtroopers need assault transport.

                    Yamato carried homogeneous armor. "n-meters HOMOGENEOUS armor behind dynamic protection" - and this is an outdated criterion, such purposes are only in museums. For a long time, only the outer cover and rear armor plate of a tank have been homogeneous. And after dynamic protection comes NERA (or intumescent/reflective sheets in our opinion). That is, 80-90% of the entire thickness of the armor is designed to withstand cumulative ammunition. And I have not heard a single brave statement that something can penetrate “n-meters of NERA behind dynamic protection.” Naturally, we are talking about the frontal armor of assault equipment. head-on
      2. 0
        12 May 2024 14: 28
        Actually, the T-15 or something similar is such a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
        But here again is a difficult point: the choice is either T-14 or T-15. The cost of the machines is comparable and the production capacity is the same.

        And if you compare which is better, a tank + TBMP or TWO tanks, the choice may not be so obvious.
        1. 0
          12 May 2024 18: 52
          The cost of the machines is comparable and the production capacity is the same.


          They will inevitably be exported someday in the future, which means that excess production capacity still needs to be built in.
        2. 0
          12 May 2024 19: 48
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          Actually, the T-15 or something similar is such a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.

          Well, sorry... The T-15 doesn’t look a bit like an infantry fighting vehicle. No opportunities for landing, no visibility... Just a cart.
        3. 0
          13 May 2024 16: 05
          the choice is either T-14 or T-15. The cost of the machines is comparable and the production capacity is the same.

          In my opinion this is a plus and not a minus.
          Unification of the base, its components and assemblies, firstly, increases the serial production of each product, and accordingly reduces its cost, and in general will help reduce the cost of both T-14 and T-15.
          And secondly, it will facilitate logistics. If both the tank and the infantry fighting vehicle are made on the same base.

          Well, in general, it is not yet clear whether at least one of this couple will go into a normal series...
          1. 0
            15 May 2024 08: 41
            Well, after all, two tanks are much more unified among themselves than a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle based on it)
            1. 0
              15 May 2024 09: 30
              But without infantry fighting vehicles and other “light” armored vehicles, fighting is also not very good. And with light equipment from 60 years ago, it’s also somehow not very good.
  10. -2
    12 May 2024 09: 27
    I suppose that the time of tanks with crews is passing, the time of robot tanks is coming. Apparently, the same fate awaits the BMPT. Taking into account that it will not be the crew inside the car that will need to be protected, but only its controls, and a new car needs to be designed.
  11. +2
    12 May 2024 09: 28
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    The third crew member, if placed in the turret, will require an increase in the reserved volume by one and a half times, because the turret was a two-seater, but has become a three-seater.

    No, it won’t, the turret doesn’t have a 125mm gun, so there’s plenty of space.
  12. +4
    12 May 2024 09: 38
    Thanks to the author for the interesting material. Conceptual creativity using new ideas is always interesting. Currently, ideas are a bit tight.
    Regarding the BMPT, the best means of supporting tanks is the 152 mm howitzer.
    Which is what the SVO actually proved.
    We need a vehicle based on the T-72, an analogue of the M-60A2 with a 152-mm mortar-PU ATGM. Well, perhaps the body needs to be lengthened by one roller. And so everything was invented before us.
    1. 0
      14 May 2024 00: 36
      Quote: Dozorny severa
      Regarding the BMPT, the best means of supporting tanks is the 152 mm howitzer.
      Which is what the SVO actually proved.


      You did not understand the essence of the BMPT concept. We were talking about DIRECT support of the tank in combined arms combat, in the line of sight. And from BOTH flanks at once. There is already someone to throw 152 mm, but a tank gun is already powerful enough to pick apart everything that can be seen from the tank. What is the point of dragging a howitzer if the range does not exceed 5 km?


      Quote: Dozorny severa
      We need a vehicle based on the T-72

      We need a remote target designation system for self-propelled guns in the rear. Mounted on a tank. So that the tank commander could “order” a battery salvo without delay. Ideally, self-propelled gun batteries should be made robotic. And not to drag expensive artillery systems to the forefront.
  13. 0
    12 May 2024 09: 38
    Thanks to the author for the interesting material. Conceptual creativity using new ideas is always interesting. Currently, ideas are a bit tight.
    Regarding the BMPT, the best means of supporting tanks is the 152 mm howitzer.
    Which is what the SVO actually proved.
    We need a vehicle based on the T-72, an analogue of the M-60A2 with a 152-mm mortar-PU ATGM. Well, perhaps the body needs to be lengthened by one roller. And so everything was invented before us.
  14. 0
    12 May 2024 09: 42
    Quote: Victor19
    But the Algerians are delighted with the BMPT

    And also from BMPT based on the T-62.
  15. +1
    12 May 2024 10: 20
    For its time, the look is perhaps fresh. Thanks for the historical excursion.
    The main thing that has not lost its relevance is the TBMP with tank armor, powerful weapons and landing forces. Which in the text is called BMPT2.
    A car that is really in short supply today. A machine that essentially already exists but is still not in mass production.
  16. 0
    12 May 2024 11: 06
    An interesting layout, of course - but how should 4 poor fellows fit in the back, plus a gearbox and final drives? It is necessary to move the gearbox forward, and at the back there is a full-fledged compartment for troops.
    1. +1
      12 May 2024 20: 57
      It is necessary to move the gearbox forward, and at the back there is a full-fledged compartment for troops.

      There is no need for either a control unit or radiators in front.
  17. +3
    12 May 2024 11: 20
    Bulletin of armored vehicles. — 1991.
    So you tell me. Gentlemen esperDs, why the hell have you been making articles with TV shows on Central Television for decades, with rare exceptions. And they praised it. In general, you can’t drive closer than 4-5 km to the front edge. I would like to gather all of you who love swimming and jump out of an airplane into one big pile. To be seated in equipment that is not normally seated for a normal person. All these infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have no analogues. And send him once into a real battle. And then we'll talk. Everything could and should have been done under Tsar Pea. Yes, there must be elite units. And they must have appropriate equipment. And then when they took the bridgehead. They should advance towards them in a heavy way. Well protected. Convenient. Reasonably armed equipment, infantry. Or when you need to hold the front. Or fortify areas to storm. There is no place for anything to swim on. Yes, everything would be fine. But there was such a Minister of Defense. Which Pavel Grachev was called. He was certainly a dashing guy. From the Airborne Forces. Now we have what we have. With all the consequences, so to speak. Now it’s clear for those who don’t understand why Shoigu? I think it's clear.
    1. 0
      13 May 2024 16: 14
      Yes, there must be elite units. And they must have appropriate equipment. And then when they took the bridgehead. They should advance towards them in a heavy way. Well protected. Convenient. Reasonably armed equipment, infantry.

      There is a counter-argument on this topic - if only elite amphibious/landing units can occupy a bridgehead, then firstly, planning becomes more complicated and, secondly, the number of places in which such occupation of a bridgehead is simultaneously possible is reduced. (one elite unit - one can only be stormed in one area). And this, in turn, will make it easier for the enemy to prepare defenses.

      But of course, the BMP should be such that it could fit a paratrooper, and the security should correspond to the level of threats.. The BMP-1 was created at a time when its main enemy was the 12,7 machine gun. At that time, her armor was adequate and sufficient. Another thing is that now ATGMs even fly against jihad vehicles, well, at most against armored vehicles, without any regrets.
  18. -1
    12 May 2024 11: 31
    Remove 1 course AGS, and turn its operator into a UAV operator, place several copters at the stern, possibly 1-2 in the strike version or kamikaze. For copters, work on software for machine vision - recognition of equipment, anti-tank weapons, manpower
  19. +8
    12 May 2024 11: 31
    BMPT is unnecessary for the army, the army needs a HEAVY infantry fighting vehicle!!!

    So that, pushing a trawl in front of itself through a minefield under artillery fire, it could take/pick up infantry and support it in battle.

    Just tank armor + 30mm cannon + the ability to transport a squad.

    Landing and disembarking should be at the rear, the engine at the front, and the drive train protected from being blown up by a mine.

    Все.

    All this has already been invented and tested, and the BMPT is an irrational waste of resources on a low-functional vehicle.

    The survivability of the BMPT is due to the fact that the vehicle has tank armor and does not have high-explosive shells of large caliber, so it is difficult to hit it, while tanks and BMP-3s with a useless 100-mm cannon often burn and explode from the first hit.
  20. +3
    12 May 2024 12: 40
    At the same time, the tanks' weapons have a clearly expressed anti-tank orientation. Firing from them at small, easily camouflaged targets is ineffective.
    Seriously? And who might not be satisfied with a 125-mm HE projectile? And why suddenly 35 mm is enough for him?
    It should be noted that in some infantry fighting vehicles it is difficult to fire from the vehicle.
    This militaristic onanism should be stopped altogether, it only leads to reservation problems and wastage of ammunition: while moving from the airborne squad, the fighter will still not get anywhere (because it shakes and is hard to see), and the vehicle should not stand in battle.
    These shortcomings mainly led to the fact that the infantry fighting vehicle became ineffective in the fight against a well-organized, PTS-rich enemy defense.
    To combat a well-organized, PTS-rich enemy defense, not an infantry fighting vehicle should be used, but an artillery or nuclear strike.
    This is partly why, after the T-54, domestic tanks do not have a machine gun mount for the driver.
    In addition to general uselessness, it weakened the armor.
    To fire from a vehicle while overcoming a well-organized, PTS-rich enemy defense, a BMPT-2 vehicle is needed not only with a high level of armor protection, but also with large free volumes to accommodate troops.
    The landing force must be in an infantry fighting vehicle. There should be no landing in the BMPT. BMPT should go in the ranks of tanks, have pity on the people.
    The number of crew (combat crew) must be at least 9 people
    The number of combat crews should be a squad plus a crew.
    In general, I would like to remind you that the main idea of ​​the BMPT was multi-channel surveillance and weapons. That is, the task was to notice and destroy grenade launchers in time. On a tank chassis, make 4 turrets in a circle with AGS and KPVT and above them a turret with a 35 mm gun. The crew increases by 4 people, each of whom controls his own sector and destroys the spotted grenade launchers. An BMPT with one turret and 2 35 mm guns is a profanation of the idea. And the very relevance of the vehicle in conditions of saturation of troops with ATGMs and UAVs raises serious doubts (no one will climb onto a tank with a grenade launcher when there is no need to climb): the range of use of ATGMs is too long.
    1. +1
      12 May 2024 18: 57
      A very competent and balanced answer to yet another Baron Munchausen!
    2. 0
      14 May 2024 00: 52
      Quote: bk0010
      In general, I would like to remind you that the main idea of ​​the BMPT was multi-channel surveillance and weapons.


      Greetings to a knowledgeable person. Finally, in the topics about BMPT, someone else noticed that the task was not to create a firing point with incredible power, but to create several autonomous firing points. A task that UVZ simply stupidly ignored.
  21. +1
    12 May 2024 12: 53
    You just need to read articles in military magazines and look at patents on this topic in recent years and the truth will be in place somewhere nearby. BMPT has a present and a future.
  22. +2
    12 May 2024 13: 07
    Interesting article, many thanks to the author! Speaking truthfully about the BMPT, the author actually describes in detail the design and layout of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, capable of supporting a tank on the move and transporting infantry to the desired point.

    However, there are questions; the author above essentially considers the main problem of the tank to be poor visibility and, as a consequence, poor situational awareness of the crew. The lowest possible layout of the new proposed vehicle will not improve the visibility situation. There is a feeling that the armor itself should be low, but it makes sense to place weapons on high turrets with cameras. Well, or even have separate lifting chambers, perhaps with light weapons (such as PP) on a quick-retractable rod. By the way, for a tank, a high turret with a camera will not be superfluous in terms of visibility.

    And I don’t see any proposals for KAZ. The current helplessness of KAZ against low-speed drones is a temporary phenomenon associated with detection problems. No flares are visible during launch, nor is the Doppler effect used for tracking. However, drones are generally highly visible and only wait for a guidance system tailored for such purposes. In the layout of the new TBMP, space for KAZ and electronic warfare must be provided in advance.
    1. +1
      12 May 2024 14: 47
      DZ, KAZ, 25-40 mm cannon, plus a machine gun, capable of firing, including at drones, ATGMs can also be installed on a heavy armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle, reconnaissance vehicle.
      And it will obviously cost several times less than a tank or an infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank.
  23. 0
    12 May 2024 13: 12
    “For a combat support vehicle for the purpose of effectively defeating tank-dangerous manpower,” first of all, optical and electronic means of detection, surveillance, etc. are needed. Normal communication is needed. There is no sense in armor, engine location, ease of entry and exit - if you are blind and deaf.
  24. +1
    12 May 2024 13: 24
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    BMPT is unnecessary for the army, the army needs a HEAVY infantry fighting vehicle!!!

    Maybe an BMPT is needed, but a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank is definitely needed!!!
  25. 0
    12 May 2024 13: 42
    There is so much we want from this car. The article and comments mention at least:
    1. Fighting tanks.
    2. Fight against other tank-dangerous ground targets (ATGM crews, etc.).
    3. Heavy assault weapon.
    4. Air Defense
    5. Transport for local self-government.

    Opinion:
    - For tasks 1 and 3 the tank itself is suitable; BMPT will add little.
    - For tasks 2 and 4, the tank lacks detection equipment, just like the current BMPT. If these tasks are technically solvable, they are a priority.
    - If we implement the previous point with an uninhabited combat module located above the hull, why not put an MCO inside.
  26. 0
    12 May 2024 13: 50
    It is not clear why the landing force must be packed in with the gun. Why can't he ride in separate armor? Together with the UAV operator. Although it is better to keep the UAV operator separately at a distance. It will be more wholesome.
    If you change the 125mm to a rapid-fire 57mm, reduce the crew to 2 people (optionally without a crew), reduce the external size and increase the armor due to the reduced weight, then the question will arise whether a classic tank is needed on the battlefield.
  27. -2
    12 May 2024 14: 18
    Enough of the nonsense, perhaps. Adopt a simple principle: do not consider combat vehicles with a crew. As soon as you get rid of the stereotypes from the last century, it will immediately become clear to you what a combat vehicle should be like. Both the BMPT and the tank, having lost their crew, will become ten times cheaper, and their combat effectiveness will increase significantly.
    .
    It is cheaper to invest once in electronics and optics than to build at least a hundred armatures.
  28. +1
    12 May 2024 14: 26
    The main problem with the BMPt is that it is not an infantry fighting vehicle. If it could carry infantry, it would make sense - a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with tank protection and weapons.
    Although, of course, 30mm cannons are already outdated, 57mm cannons are needed - they are longer-range and more powerful, they can work on trenches, on oporniks, and on drones.
    1. 0
      12 May 2024 15: 44
      we need 57mm guns - they are longer-range and more powerful, they can work on trenches, on support positions, and on drones.

      And also a sharp reduction in b/c and manual feeding of cassettes.
    2. -2
      12 May 2024 16: 26
      Did you read the article carefully? 6 landing personnel can carry BMPT.
  29. +1
    12 May 2024 16: 01
    It’s good that this article reached a wide readership.
    The layout of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle using used units is great.
    A rear landing is mandatory when attacking a prepared defense. The BKP input shaft is not an obstacle for this.
    Only with the engine the author “didn’t guess”. The X-shape is a product of armchair fantasies.
    You need to put the V12 across. An extra tip is not a problem.
  30. 0
    12 May 2024 16: 35
    Holy shit!!! Article 91... What could have gone wrong, why in the end they settled on the modern Terminator, which “didn’t sew a tail on a mare.” The BMPTs described in the article could at least transport troops, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle for urban combat, something that is lacking today. The layout is very successful. Maybe machine guns with a grenade launcher on the sides are superfluous, maybe just like the Israeli Namer, with simple weapons... But! We need a car like this. Awareness can be solved with circular cameras on the sides with image output on VR glasses - operators of FPV drones and Maviks have been using these for a long time.
  31. 0
    12 May 2024 16: 51
    Quote from: ln_ln
    we need 57mm guns - they are longer-range and more powerful, they can work on trenches, on support positions, and on drones.

    And also a sharp reduction in b/c and manual feeding of cassettes.


    The feed is automatic, there is room for the BC, it’s not 100mm.
    30mm is useless, considering that all the new NATO infantry fighting vehicles are holding it head-on.
    1. +1
      12 May 2024 21: 47
      Automatic feeding

      Data source please. The PT-76 with a 57 mm gun was manual. Even on the CV9040 it is manual. The 57 mm shot is quite large.
      The maximum caliber that allows belt feeding is 37 mm, if you don’t chase energy. BOPS need not be considered since this vehicle is advancing along with the tanks.
      And in 37 mm caliber, although it is not easy, it is now possible to make a remote detonation (shrapnel). Such shrapnel will be much more effective in terms of manpower than 30 mm.
  32. 0
    12 May 2024 17: 59
    As a result, if we do everything suggested by the author, we get the concept of a light tank with protection from the frontal projection of the main tank level, the rest will be as it turns out. Merkava and Israeli BMP? Light American tanks, Bradley ala Russ? Perhaps this is a frontal solution to the problem. BMPT Terminator or others like it with good capabilities for reconnaissance of targets along the way and around on the march.
  33. -1
    12 May 2024 18: 04
    That is, the author has no doubts about the need for the existence of this crap? - Although Arzakhites appeared 50 years ago and there is still no data on the benefits of BMPT tongue
  34. 0
    12 May 2024 18: 58
    Why does this car even need landing?
  35. -1
    12 May 2024 21: 42
    The evolution of technology is always interesting. It looks like the time has come for another tank support vehicle to appear on the battlefield. Most likely, a BZMPT (anti-aircraft combat tank support vehicle) will appear. It is unknown what it will look like, but the massive use of UAVs suggests this.
  36. 0
    12 May 2024 22: 50
    Quote: Dozorny severa
    Thanks to the author for the interesting material. Conceptual creativity using new ideas is always interesting. Currently, ideas are a bit tight.
    Regarding the BMPT, the best means of supporting tanks is the 152 mm howitzer.
    Which is what the SVO actually proved.
    We need a vehicle based on the T-72, an analogue of the M-60A2 with a 152-mm mortar-PU ATGM. Well, perhaps the body needs to be lengthened by one roller. And so everything was invented before us.


    Yeah, only here is the problem of weight and the absence of a V12 at 1,500 hp

    And so, it is obvious that we need a 152mm Armata with a separate charge, unified with the Coalition
  37. -1
    12 May 2024 22: 53
    Quote from: ln_ln
    Automatic feeding

    Data source please. The PT-76 with a 57 mm gun was manual. Even on the CV9040 it is manual. The 57 mm shot is quite large.
    The maximum caliber that allows belt feeding is 37 mm, if you don’t chase energy. BOPS need not be considered since this vehicle is advancing along with the tanks.
    And in 37 mm caliber, although it is not easy, it is now possible to make a remote detonation (shrapnel). Such shrapnel will be much more effective in terms of manpower than 30 mm.


    Derivation, etc. with a shortened gun. There are several options and have been for a long time.
  38. 0
    13 May 2024 00: 00
    Quote: evgen1221
    As a result, if we do everything suggested by the author, we get the concept of a light tank with protection from the frontal projection of the main tank level, the rest will be as it turns out. Merkava and Israeli BMP? Light American tanks, Bradley ala Russ? Perhaps this is a frontal solution to the problem. BMPT Terminator or others like it with good capabilities for reconnaissance of targets along the way and around on the march.

    Bradley's armor is like a BMP3... what kind of tank is this... more like a BMP3 tank, at least it is used as a tank due to the presence of a cannon.
  39. -1
    13 May 2024 02: 56
    Everything has long been invented - for an assault you need... an assault weapon. Recently a barn tank with a non-rotating turret showed itself. We are making an analogue of ISU 152, with a large wheelhouse and a multi-layer shed above it. We hang it with electronic warfare, set up the trawl and move on. Leading a column, sweeping the road and ensuring the landing of assaults near landings or buildings - this is the task of this machine. She doesn’t need a large BC either; urgently extinguish the firing point and bring down the house before the FPVs arrive. And behind her, yes, the infantry is riding on a heavy armored personnel carrier-infantry fighting vehicle. And outside the battlefield, you generally drive trucks with light armor, so as not to kill the resource of heavy equipment.
  40. 0
    13 May 2024 11: 29
    Quote from olgherd
    Everything has long been invented - for an assault you need... an assault weapon. Recently a barn tank with a non-rotating turret showed itself. We are making an analogue of ISU 152, with a large wheelhouse and a multi-layer shed above it. We hang it with electronic warfare, set up the trawl and move on. Leading a column, sweeping the road and ensuring the landing of assaults near landings or buildings - this is the task of this machine. She doesn’t need a large BC either; urgently extinguish the firing point and bring down the house before the FPVs arrive. And behind her, yes, the infantry is riding on a heavy armored personnel carrier-infantry fighting vehicle. And outside the battlefield, you generally drive trucks with light armor, so as not to kill the resource of heavy equipment.


    It is better to move the ammunition rack to the turret compartment and thereby lengthen the turret. And on this long tower you should already install spaced armor with remote sensing.
    So the armor will be better, the engine will be covered and the ability to rotate the turret will remain.
    This is an approximate view of the new Armata. And it will make room for the new V12, instead of the ridiculous X engine.
  41. 0
    13 May 2024 12: 24
    Quote: assault
    Why do you need a UAV operator inside a tank? Why put him there?
    You just need to create a platoon of UAVs in each tank company that will act in the interests of their company.

    Each company must have a command and staff vehicle armored and protected at the level of a tank.
    In addition to the company commander and 2-3 of his assistants, who are involved in coordinating the actions of the platoons, two UAV operators should be placed in the KShM, responsible for reconnaissance, search and illumination of priority targets.


    ...and it would be nice if these “heavy” CVs were as similar in appearance as possible to “linear” vehicles. Otherwise they will become the primary target...
  42. 0
    13 May 2024 20: 23
    An absolutely stupid invention, just a waste of money. And this monster was given a start in life by the former head of the GABTU, Mayev
  43. 0
    14 May 2024 11: 25
    Quote: Totor5
    Quote from: ln_ln
    Automatic feeding

    Data source please. The PT-76 with a 57 mm gun was manual. Even on the CV9040 it is manual. The 57 mm shot is quite large.
    The maximum caliber that allows belt feeding is 37 mm, if you don’t chase energy. BOPS need not be considered since this vehicle is advancing along with the tanks.
    And in 37 mm caliber, although it is not easy, it is now possible to make a remote detonation (shrapnel). Such shrapnel will be much more effective in terms of manpower than 30 mm.


    Derivation, etc. with a shortened gun. There are several options and have been for a long time.


    They also downvote insults, haha.
    Well, to the point - who said that the feed must be in the feed? In a tank, is the feed in the tape, but in the BMP3? Feed from a box for an automatic cannon has long been patented.
  44. 0
    16 May 2024 07: 48
    Quote: abc_alex
    You did not understand the essence of the BMPT concept.

    There is no need to endure blizzards. How to suppress an ATGM crew in a trench? 30-mm whistles? What will happen to an ATGM from the outside of the hull. The BMPT was originally intended for Afghanistan, and not for escorting tanks.