Along with the tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and armored fire support and air defense vehicles are needed – this was thought about before

137
Along with the tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and armored fire support and air defense vehicles are needed – this was thought about before

There is much talk now about the need to create a whole complex of front-line combat vehicles, which, in addition to tanks, would include a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with tank-like armor, a fire support vehicle similar to an assault self-propelled gun, and a well-protected air defense vehicle. However, these ideas are often viewed as the result of thinking about modern combat conflicts - especially special military operations.

In fact, this is, of course, not true. This was thought about before - back in 1991, the magazine "Bulletin of Armored Equipment" published an article describing the problems of existing combat vehicles and ways to solve them. We strongly recommend reading it, since today this material, with the exception of the UAVs that were absent at that time, is as relevant as it was more than 30 years ago.




Frontline combat vehicle complex


The tasks of the five elements of the front-line combat vehicle complex are outlined. Complementing each other, these vehicles with an equally high level of armor can significantly increase the combat capabilities of the Ground Forces.

The weapons and equipment of the Ground Forces can be divided into 4 groups:

• Close fire combat (attacking or defending echelons).

• Long-range fire combat (support echelon).

• Airlift (mobile echelon).

• Logistics and special purpose (support echelon).

The Frontline Combat Vehicle Complex (FMCV) belongs to the first group of weapons and equipment of the Ground Forces. It includes vehicles that are used in attack or defense in conditions of direct contact with the enemy, under the influence of virtually all of its weapons, including those firing direct fire.

The tasks of troops equipped with such a complex: in the offensive - to destroy the directly opposing enemy, capture his territory and, if conditions are available, develop success; in the defensive - to repel the enemy's attack, inflict heavy losses on him, hold the territory and, under favorable conditions, counterattack the enemy and defeat him.

The depth of the first echelon with the BMPK complex, as a rule, can be limited by the depth of the battalion formation (up to 3 km, and sometimes more). This complex should be formed taking into account a systematic approach to the optimal distribution of combat missions between the vehicles included in it and a complex communication system between BMPKs of various purposes.

The successful operation of each of them depends on the properties of the other machines. Such a complex can include five machines: a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, a direct fire support combat vehicle, an air defense combat vehicle, and a target reconnaissance and battle management vehicle.

All vehicles of this complex will be in approximately equal conditions of exposure to fire during combat and therefore should be similar in protection and mobility, i.e. they should be created on the basis of a tank.

The first element of the BMPK - This is a tank that is the basis of this complex.

Its purpose is to destroy and suppress targets by direct fire, various opposing enemy weapons. Immediate use of the results of fire, rapid forward movement. The tank solves its tasks, as a rule, in conditions of organized enemy fire, being under fire from all available weapons. These conditions determine the need for an optimal combination of its main combat properties: firepower, protection and mobility.

The tank must be a universal system. weapons. The wide range of fire missions assigned to it predetermines the multi-purpose designation of its weapons complex, otherwise the tank will degenerate into a highly specialized weapon. To a large extent, this has already happened: the weapons of modern tanks have acquired a clearly expressed anti-tank focus.

The tank has essentially become a tank destroyer. Although half of its ammunition is made up of high-explosive fragmentation shells (HES), firing them is ineffective. Certain hopes are pinned on new types of HES, improvements in their design, and further development of the fire control system. But many complex technical problems need to be solved for this.


The main method of firing tanks is direct fire on the move and from a place (from short stops) at observed targets. The most typical firing ranges for this are 3 m, and when using guided weapons - up to 000 m. However, it should be taken into account that the probability of visibility at this distance is low (significantly less than 5).

With a relatively small crew, functionally tied to the vehicle and the weapon, the tank is of little use for taking over territory. The failure of even one crew member makes the tank incapable of combat. This significantly complicates the tasks of reconnaissance, security and traffic control for tank units.

These issues are especially acute when conducting combat operations in populated areas and wooded areas. Having powerful weapons, but specialized for defeating tanks, tanks solve the tasks of fighting enemy manpower and its fire weapons, including anti-tank weapons, with great difficulty.

The task of protecting tanks from air attacks is difficult, since it is difficult to place effective weapons and a system for detecting air targets on a tank. The tank commander, who is usually assigned the task of fighting these targets, can only do it in between times, since he has many other duties. This shows the need to create other combat vehicles that can closely and continuously interact with the tank on the battlefield.

The second element The complex should be an infantry fighting vehicle with the same level of armor protection as a tank. The tasks of this vehicle are to combat enemy infantry and its fire weapons, including anti-tank weapons, support the actions of dismounted infantry, repel attacks by low-flying aircraft and helicopters, and, if necessary, combat enemy tanks.

However, the tasks of the BMP cannot be reduced to fire support only, since it must support tanks with the actions of motorized riflemen, who can be disembarked from the BMP. Therefore, the BMP cannot be confused with the fire support vehicle, which will be discussed below.

However, the idea of ​​creating an IFV with a high level of armor is still only making its way. Due to historical inertia and insufficient insight into the essence of the problem, many experts believe it is possible to use a floating, air-transportable, lightly armored infantry fighting vehicle in combination with a tank. It is emphasized that buoyancy and air transportability complement the capabilities of tanks.

This is true when it comes to certain types of combat operations, such as pursuing a retreating enemy. However, in the most difficult combat conditions, when breaking through the enemy's prepared defense, such an IFV cannot help tanks due to its high vulnerability to almost all fire weapons.


The long range of tank guided missiles (TUR) in defense can provide a significant advantage over an advancing enemy, again, if there is visibility. This can be achieved by early deployment of firing positions at dominant heights and the use of an advanced target reconnaissance system operating in the visual, thermal and radar emission ranges.

Given the complexity and high cost of such a system, as well as the relative rarity of long-range visibility, it is useful to consider the advisability of having a guided weapon on each tank. It is also necessary to resolve such problematic issues of ensuring firing from a tank gun in defensive combat conditions as the formation of a dust and smoke cloud, the ejection of soil from the parapet when firing from cover, gas contamination, limited firing time with the engine off, etc.

Thus, the tank’s appearance should feature some new design features, conditioned by the need to more fully utilize its capabilities in defensive combat.

A characteristic feature that distinguishes the tank from other VGM is a significantly higher level of armor protection. Increased tank protection stimulated the rapid growth of specialized anti-tank weapons (ATW) and led to the fact that even general-purpose weapons acquired an anti-tank focus. The problem of ensuring the necessary level of tank protection has become more acute in recent years due to the continuous increase in the range, quantity and effectiveness of ATWs that affect the least resistant elements of the structure - the roof and bottom.

The reliance on lightly armored IFVs leads to the tanks being deprived of infantry support and, left alone, unable to perform a combat mission. The solution is to create two types of IFVs: with an increased level of protection based on a tank for joint operations with it as part of the BMPK complex and a floating air-transportable IFV for a group of airlift vehicles or a mobile echelon.

The third element The complex should be a direct fire support vehicle. In essence, it is a mobile artillery front line, capable of operating under enemy fire. Its task is to detect distant fire weapons and destroy them with direct fire. Such a machine must have significantly more ammunition than a tank and more powerful shells.

The introduction of a combat vehicle of direct fire support into the units will not only increase combat capabilities, but also reduce the number of artillery firing from closed positions. It should be emphasized that we are not talking about a lightly armored VGM, but about a vehicle with the protection of a main tank of the SPG type from the Great Patriotic War, but at a new technical level.

Model of a combat artillery vehicle based on the Armata platform
Model of a combat artillery vehicle based on the Armata platform

Fourth element complex: the air defense combat vehicle must provide reliable cover for the combat formations of the complex from enemy air attacks, day and night, on the move and in place. These combat vehicles must fight enemy aircraft and helicopters at ranges of up to 8–10 km. Since tanks and infantry fighting vehicles are capable of fighting enemy aircraft and helicopters at short ranges under favorable conditions, using their guided weapons, small-caliber guns, and anti-aircraft machine guns, but have very limited capabilities for detecting air targets, this vehicle must provide target designations to tanks and infantry fighting vehicles for group fire at these targets.

It is necessary to study the possibility of detecting, with the help of such machines, carriers of high-precision weapons combat elements at the moment of their disclosure or separation and impact on them with the purpose of sharply reducing their effectiveness. An additional task of the air defense machine may be to fight, under certain conditions, enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.

The fifth element The complex may be equipped with a target reconnaissance and combat control vehicle. Modern means of reconnaissance of ground and air targets must provide target search, coordinate calculation, target distribution calculation and transmission of commands to other machines of the complex. It must be possible to receive information about the tactical situation (with its visual display) from higher-level control facilities, as well as from reconnaissance facilities of the corresponding levels.

The vehicles deployed in the second echelon (3–15 km from the front line), but occasionally moving to the front line, have a significant impact on the conduct of combat operations by the BMPK complex in terms of their support. These are vehicles of the engineering and chemical troops, command and control and communications equipment of the regimental, divisional and higher levels, means of rear, technical, medical and other support.

Final World


The creation of a complex of combat vehicles, consisting of a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle developed on its basis, a direct fire support vehicle, an air defense vehicle, as well as a target reconnaissance and battle management vehicle, should increase the combat effectiveness of the Ground Forces.

Source:
Safonov B. S. Complex of combat vehicles of the forward edge / B. S. Safonov // Bulletin of armored equipment. - 1991. - No. 7.
137 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    25 September 2024 05: 19
    not a word about UAVs... and about the "king of barbecues". Realities are different now, the article has fallen behind.
    1. +4
      25 September 2024 05: 30
      Article 91 and how is it so backward in essence?
      1. AAK
        +6
        25 September 2024 15: 10
        I would say it differently: the article (considering the time it was written in 1991) contains very rational thoughts that have not found real implementation in the Russian army in 33 years (the nature of combat operations in the SVO and, in particular, our losses testify to this). And to this day, the RA does not have a single type of military equipment that would fully meet the requirements set out in 1991. This is what happens when for 30 years the army has been busy only with parades, biathlons and churches, and all sorts of crap is often foisted off on the armament, as in the behind-the-scenes struggle of the design bureaus under the USSR...
        1. +1
          27 September 2024 13: 29
          Today, the most pressing issue is a TBTR with a tank protection level, for assault infantry and for operations in the same combat formations with MBT. UVZ is already testing such a prototype, if everything works out as it should, then most of the problem is solved. If necessary, it can be equipped with an unmanned BM from the "Kurganets" and you will get a gorgeous TBMP. But for most combat missions, the unmanned BM from the BTR-82A will be quite sufficient - with a 300 mm cannon and machine gun.
          We already have the BMPT/ShMPP (assault infantry support vehicle) and its level of protection is even higher than that of the MBT, so there is no special need for the TBMP by definition, it is enough to use the TBTR and BMPT/ShMPP in uniform formations.
          But it is worth thinking about an assault SPG with a 152 mm rifled gun of reduced ballistics - for the destruction of enemy fortifications and urban development by direct fire or along a flat trajectory. It would be best based on an MBT but with a different - larger and specially designed turret. The problem could be the limited ammunition of such an assault SPG and the new design of the automatic loader. But it is definitely worth thinking about it ... but think quickly, solve simply, implement quickly.
    2. +3
      25 September 2024 07: 49
      The grill and the UAV are a slightly different topic, you see... wink
      All the problems of modern armed struggle cannot be described in one article.
      And dividing the front line combat vehicles into groups is correct, but not new. It is not the Herald of Armored Vehicles in 1991 that is the pioneer here.
      During the Great Patriotic War there were heavy tanks for direct infantry support, for tank support, self-propelled guns, anti-aircraft guns based on armored fighting vehicles (especially in the Wehrmacht). Another thing is that these machines were not always used for their intended purpose.
      It's time to revive such a complex now. Heavy tanks with powerful screens, electronic warfare and active protection systems instead of makeshift Tsar-Barbecues, heavy infantry fighting vehicles for breaking through defenses, protected howitzers-mortars and anti-aircraft missile and gun systems.
      1. +1
        25 September 2024 09: 47
        Thus, in N. Tagil, a heavy armored personnel carrier based on the T-90 was spotted with a front MTO, a rear troop compartment and a ramp
        I understand that the T-BTR will also be wrapped in a circular 3-layer: built-in and spaced DZ Relikt + DZ Frame + gratings + they will also put a barbecue on top
        They will probably also install the Arena-M KAZ like on the T-72B3M
        perhaps a panoramic commander's sight with a DPU only for the Kord and a 12,7 mm pump with belt feed from FPV drones will be added
      2. -2
        26 September 2024 10: 43
        The grill and the UAV are a slightly different topic, you see.

        The article is outdated, UAVs were not even known at the time. In the current conditions, the first unit will be knocked out like in a shooting gallery with the help of drones.
        In those days they also loved formations and half of the battalion would fall under the chimars, at the stage of advancement...
    3. +1
      26 September 2024 07: 25
      Quote: Aerodrome
      not a word about UAVs...

      Regarding the 4th element of the BMPC, read carefully, especially the second paragraph. The essence of the question does not necessarily have to be expressed in direct instructions.
  2. +5
    25 September 2024 05: 20
    An IFV based on the Armata is quite a barge. But an IFV based on the T90 would be fine.
    In general, the T90 (T72) base has not yet exhausted its resource - it can be improved with the help of GOP, a new V12, a turret-mounted ammunition rack, etc. Or take the developments from the T80 and Armata and make something new with a manned turret. And then on this base make a new IFV and SPG, and then after that an IFV based on the T90.
    Armata is too big and heavy base, I think it weighs closer to 60 tons, if you hang on it additional armor packages, barbecues, turret protection, etc., which is now fashionable in SVO. Armata base looks more like the base of SPG Coalition. But this does not make much sense without a normal engine.
    1. IVZ
      +4
      25 September 2024 06: 50
      In the 2000s, the Ukrainians created a hybrid of sorts on the T-84 platform. Between the combat (the standard armament was retained) and MT compartments, they inserted a troop compartment of unknown capacity. The troop exit was made behind the turret onto the roof of the MTO. Structurally, it was designed like the BTR-T. Apparently, they were trying to imitate the Merkava. But nothing was reported about the tactics of combat use.
      1. -2
        25 September 2024 07: 13
        He was a real hoopoe. The entry and landing of the troops was especially funny. Well, what's surprising, the country was losing personnel and ended up with the same crafts as AVTOVAZ in the 90s.
    2. IVZ
      +4
      25 September 2024 06: 57
      https://topwar.ru/163-btmp-84-ukraina-simbioz-tanka-i-bronetransportyora.html А это только что нашёл. Значит работы продолжаются.
      1. 0
        25 September 2024 23: 41
        This is a 2001 project..no work is ongoing. Initially it was a hoopoe, where the entry for the landing force is even more acrobatic than in the BMP3. Reminds me of an extended Priora.
        1. 0
          27 September 2024 13: 48
          Give such a hybrid a frontal placement of the MTO (as already done at UVZ for the TBTR) and the troop compartment will get a normal convenient exit through a ramp or aft door. That is, you will get the same "Merkava" - heavy, bulky, with a higher hull (so that the troops can sit normally), with worse cross-country ability than a normal MBT. In a word, ugliness.
          The tank should remain a tank, the TBTR should deliver the assault infantry to the dismounting point and provide cover fire during that time. And if you still want to have a TBMP, you can install the BM "Kurganets". But the latter is impractical, because the BMPT/ShMPP "Terminator" is already in production, which would be just right in the same order as the MBT and TBTR - the best vehicle to support the assault infantry.
          In summary, the key element of high-quality reinforcement and protection of assault infantry is the TBTR. And if UVZ really does produce a successful vehicle, then we will need several thousand of these TBTRs for mass production.

          And we already have a floating and airborne infantry fighting vehicle - BMP-3. Which in the form of BMP-3M "Manul"\"Dragoon" is the best of the possible solutions. And combat modules for it were composed - for every taste and combat mission.
          1. +1
            27 September 2024 21: 13
            We need an IFV based on the T90 with a 30mm module on top, for approximately 8-10 troops.
            1. 0
              27 September 2024 21: 27
              Well, put the "Kurganets" module on the new Uralvagonzavod TBTR, and you've got yourself a TBMP. But as a TBTR, the module from the BTR-82A is more than enough - the same 30 mm cannon and machine gun. It's simpler, faster, cheaper. And the "Terminators" will provide even better fire support.
              1. 0
                27 September 2024 21: 37
                An armored personnel carrier can be penetrated with a machine gun
                1. 0
                  27 September 2024 23: 23
                  TBTR based on T-90 ??
                  Or did the module from the BTR-82A confuse you?
                  Now for the SVO it is the TBTR that is much more important to us, not the TBMP, because for fire support there are already tanks and "Terminators". And a 30 mm. machine gun + machine gun is quite enough for a TBTR with a tank level of protection. If desired, the armor of the module can be strengthened, this is not essential.
                  1. 0
                    28 September 2024 16: 59
                    To avoid confusion, I mean we need a heavy tracked armored personnel carrier based on the T90 with 8-10 troops + a 30mm module on top.

                    A new wheeled armored personnel carrier on old parts, but with a ramp was shown, but it is not on the conveyor yet, but it is also extremely needed.

                    And we need a new IFV based on the old BMP3, but like the Manul. Better with a 57mm module, but for now we can use a 30mm one, but it needs a BOPS like the Bradley.
                    1. 0
                      28 September 2024 19: 07
                      Well, you and I are talking about the same thing, and not once. For the TBTR, a light module with a 30 mm cannon and machine gun will be just right - from the BTR-82A, the module's armor can be reinforced.
                      Quote: Totor5
                      A new wheeled armored personnel carrier on old parts, but with a ramp was shown, but it is not on the conveyor yet, but it is also extremely needed.

                      It was called by different names, first BTR-82B, then something else. A very correct and technologically proven solution - the same wheelbase, front MTO with a compact engine from the BMP-3 for 500 horses, a continuous interior space, a rear ramp. And armor protection that can withstand even a 30 mm projectile in the front, and large bullets of 12,7 and almost 14,5 mm on the sides. But the main thing is that they can be launched into series production right now without particularly restructuring production chains and assembly lines.
                      Quote: Totor5
                      And we need a new IFV based on the old BMP3, but like the Manul.

                      It is being finished. Any module can be installed, but the best option is the BM from the "Kurganets" (30 mm cannon, machine gun, 4 ATGM missiles and, apparently, even a 30 or 40 mm grenade launcher for high-angle fire). The old module with 100 mm and 30 mm twin cannons and a machine gun is also good for variety and the corresponding tasks, but the BMP-3 already has a lot with such a module, so maybe later, as needed.
                      Quote: Totor5
                      Better with 57mm module

                      There are some downsides - low rate of fire and relatively small ammunition capacity. As an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun, but with a radar and good OLS, it is quite an option, but as an assault vehicle... no. Or as a niche vehicle for a certain range of tasks.
                      To combat highly protected enemy infantry fighting vehicles?
                      Maybe, but then in the version of a light tank with an automatic 57 mm. cannon and increased ammunition for work in unified formations of light armored vehicles based on the BMP-3. That is, as an integral part of the fleet of armored vehicles of infantry units on a single BMP-3 base.
                      1. 0
                        29 September 2024 03: 15
                        The 30mm has a very short range and is very inaccurate and does not have a BOPS and does not have a programmable detonation, which the 57mm has.

                        I would put 30mm on the tank.
                      2. 0
                        29 September 2024 06: 08
                        Quote: Totor5
                        I would put 30mm on the tank.

                        I would have the same - instead of an anti-aircraft machine gun, a combat module from the BTR-82A with circular fire and controlled by the tank commander.
                        Quote: Totor5
                        30mm has very short range and is very inaccurate.

                        For close and medium range combat, the accuracy is quite sufficient, especially if we are talking about the BM "Kurganets-25". The gun on the BM BTR-82A does have a barrel that wanders, but it is sufficient for close combat. If desired, you can make an openwork frame with a barrel collar, as the Sumerians did on their BM BTRs, and their accuracy immediately became much better, and the gun is the same. On the BMP-3, the barrel of the same gun is paired with a 100 mm. gun, also fixed with a pipe-collar and also gives quite decent accuracy.
                        Here, a fundamental approach to evaluation and comparison is important. The 30 mm cannon provides a high density of fire, is capable of hitting tank-hazardous and not only enemy infantry behind an obstacle, is quite effective in dismantling buildings and light fortifications, is fed by belts, and easily switches from HE to armor-piercing. The issue of a projectile with programmable detonation is urgent and topical, but it can be resolved, because the enemy already has such and they have demonstrated their effectiveness.
                        The 57 mm. unitary projectile is quite large, it is very difficult to use it in belts and the ammunition of such projectiles, especially in the IFV will be limited. It has much greater penetration and high explosive effect, but several 30 mm. caliber projectiles achieve approximately the same effect. If you want to increase the penetration of a 30 mm. armor-piercing projectile, then why not work on the projectile itself so that it takes modern enemy IFVs head-on. In addition, there are standard ATGMs for such a tasty target. But the best option would be to leave the Kurganets-25 module (for IFVs) as the main one and the modernized BTR-82A module (with a supporting/stabilizing frame for the barrel) for the TBTR and maybe as a module for the MBT turret, and to have some percentage of the BMP-3M with a 57 mm module as a fire and quality reinforcement. guns... let's say 25% of the total number of BMPs in units. And use the BMP-3M with a 57 mm. gun not for delivering troops, but as a light fire support tank, where the troop compartment will be loaded with additional ammunition. But such decisions need to be tested at training grounds, checking the correctness and feasibility of such a decision.
                      3. 0
                        30 September 2024 01: 35
                        We don't have APFSDS for 30mm, but Bradley has it - that's a problem. Another problem is that even Bradley can't penetrate BMP3 head-on, so if we add our APFSDS for 30mm, it still won't penetrate Bradley head-on from 2km.

                        57mm is crowbar, against which the BMP will have no reception, as well as the sides of the tank from several kilometers, and fortifications too. Again, programmable detonation.

                        BMPs are long, nothing prevents them from making a 57mm ammunition rack behind the turret in an unmanned turret.

                        NATO already has guns larger than 30 mm, like the Swedes, for example, and I think it will still be necessary to come to some larger caliber, but it would be better, of course, to create a new gun of about 40 mm, but I think 57 mm is still simpler.
                      4. 0
                        30 September 2024 13: 24
                        Quote: Totor5
                        We don't have BOPS for 30mm, but Bradley does - that's a problem.

                        So maybe make a new ammunition, rather than blame it on the gun? The Bradley has 25 mm, we have two 30 mm guns. So maybe make a 30 mm shell with a remote detonation and APFSDS? And thus qualitatively strengthen and expand the capabilities of existing armored vehicles?
                        Quote: Totor5

                        BMPs are long, nothing prevents them from making a 57mm ammunition rack behind the turret in an unmanned turret.

                        And thus expose the "softest spot" to FPV and detonation? After all, we are not talking about a tank, but about light armored vehicles.
                        I still think that there is no need to do any wholesale rearmament of IFVs with 57 mm., the module from "Kurganets-25" is quite sufficient. But to make a light tank/fire support vehicle on the basis of the BMP-3M with a 57 mm. gun and increased ammunition due to the lack of troops, looks much preferable. Because for the overwhelming majority of the list of targets of a modern IFV, the 30 mm. caliber is quite sufficient. And for targets that are resistant to 30 mm. shells, there are standard ATGMs on the same BM "Kurganets", and for the standard BMP-3 module with a 100 mm. gun, such a problem does NOT stand at ALL. And the high explosive effect of 100 mm. is much higher than 57 mm.
                        Quote: Totor5
                        It would be better, of course, to create a new gun of about 40 mm, but I think 57 mm is still simpler.

                        For a 40 mm. cannon, you first need to develop a whole line of ammunition, then the cannon itself, conduct a whole cycle of tests... but why? To penetrate the Bradley? Well, its 100 mm. cannon BMP-3 will crack it like a Nutcracker cracks a nut. And the question is, what is the point of all this debate? The BM BMP-3 has simply EVERYTHING you need for happiness:
                        - 100 mm. gun for direct fire and overhead fire, as well as for firing cross-fire at mortars.
                        - 100 mm. ATGM will take any armored target, except NATO MBT (all NATO IFVs).
                        - 30 mm twin gun for massive fire impact on all targets accessible to it.
                        - rifle caliber machine gun.
                        - if desired, an automatic grenade launcher module of 30 or 40 mm caliber can be placed on the turret.
                        And why bother then? We already have the BMP-3, we already have the BMP-3M "Manul" with the BM from the "Kurganets-25" (it is finishing testing) - WE ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING. A module with a 57 mm cannon can supplement and give some flexibility in choosing a tool for a specific task, but this will entail / lead to serious difficulties with logistics, maintenance, training of personnel, maintenance of arsenals ... I would not rush the horses with 57 mm now - there is a war going on, two modules that fully satisfy the needs of the infantry are there ... Just because NATO got a 40 mm cannon, and we wanted more?
                        Give the designers of this gun several BMP-3 hulls to install the module - let them finish it and prove at the proving grounds the USEFULNESS of this caliber for the army. In practice! Let them send at least a couple of them to the SVO so that real soldiers and commanders can appreciate it.
                      5. 0
                        1 October 2024 02: 52
                        A 100mm cannon can only hit a stationary target, and that's with a lot of luck. 100mm is almost a mortar with the lowest flight speed. At the same time, any penetration of armor or, for example, running over a mine leads to a terrifying detonation, and there are many videos of this with the instantaneous complete destruction of the BMP3. A 100mm cannon on an BMP is a mistake.

                        There is no 30mm APFSDS and why there isn't one is not a question for me. We still have a World War II level armor there, and Bradley had APFSDS back in the 2s.

                        The 40mm cannon was developed somewhere in the early 2000s, it was shown at an exhibition, but it did not go into production. The 30mm cannon, even with an APFSDS, cannot penetrate the new NATO IFVs in the front, this is the main requirement for armor in the new NATO IFVs. So the effectiveness of the 30mm will soon be insufficient.
                      6. 0
                        1 October 2024 03: 41
                        Quote: Totor5
                        A 100mm cannon can only hit a stationary target, and even then, you have to be very lucky.

                        It is difficult to hit a moving target at a long distance with any gun, but this gun has standard ATGMs and they will be quite sufficient for any BMP. But the ability to conduct high-elevation cross-fire on a mortar in urban combat, in the mountains, on rugged terrain and in the forest is a huge advantage in terms of infantry fire support.
                        Quote: Totor5
                        At the same time, any penetration of the armor or, for example, running over a mine leads to a terrifying detonation.

                        Unfortunately, this happens with tanks too, and regularly. You have to pay for everything, for a large caliber - the possibility of detonation of the ammo.
                        Quote: Totor5
                        100mm cannon on an infantry fighting vehicle is a mistake.

                        I don't think so. I think that it is necessary to have both the BMP-3 with 100 mm + 30 mm, and the BMP-3M with the "Kurganets" module (where 4 "Kornets" are included), and if it can prove its usefulness and necessity, then with the 57 mm. automatic gun module. Because for each case and each combat mission, its own special tool may be needed. 30 mm. provides a high density of fire, which is very important for suppressing tank-dangerous infantry behind an obstacle, when every second is precious and it is necessary to very quickly transfer fire from one target to another, 100 mm. The gun is useful for fire support during assaults to hit protected firing points, destroy buildings and structures (if there is no tank nearby), for capturing bridgeheads after overcoming a water obstacle by swimming, when there are no tanks on the bridgehead yet, for fire support from a closed position, for hitting well-armored vehicles with ATGMs, up to a tank in the side
                        For the 57 mm. gun I see only one purpose and purpose - fighting heavy enemy infantry fighting vehicles and defeating them with direct fire... Everything else 30 mm. and 100 mm. guns will do better. And ATGMs are now being installed/equipped on all modern infantry fighting vehicles.
                        As for the 30 mm. BOPS, there is no difficulty in making such ammunition, but you first need to check whether it will take Bradley and Marder head-on and how effective it will be. If the effect is insufficient, then there is nothing to be clever about - the ATGM will do its job, in extreme cases, you can use FPV. In addition, even a good burst of 30 mm. HE shells can knock out all the optics on an enemy BMP and even a tank, which will make it blind and harmless, there are plenty of such examples. It is the fire density of 30 mm. that makes this weapon optimal for BMPs, everything else is just for reinforcement. A pair of BMP-3 and BMP-3M "Manul" will make any BMP and even a tank in no time. 40 and 57 mm. with a low rate of fire will lose to such a pair in a duel situation 2 on 2, or even 2 on 3. Simply because ours have ATGMs and a barrage of 30mm shells.
                      7. 0
                        Yesterday, 02: 26
                        57mm can work at tank distances, but for 30mm - 1,5 km, 2 km is already a strain.
                        I think that 100mm does more harm than good. It is because of this gun that they go into assaults with it, and not with a tank. And without tank armor. I would leave 100+30 for the BMD VDV, given their specifics.
                        Many people have ATGMs, but with an ATGM you lose mobility and become a target yourself. There are videos of head-on duels between a Brady and an APC, a Bradley and a tank.
                      8. 0
                        Yesterday, 03: 26
                        Quote: Totor5
                        There are also videos of head-on duels between Brady and an armored personnel carrier, Bradley and a tank.

                        Bradley has 25 mm. and that's enough for her. Our infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers have 30 mm. and strange reasoning sounds. For the majority, the overwhelming majority of tasks and cases, the 30 mm. machine gun is sufficient and very effective. Against tanks and armored targets at long range - ATGMs. If you want to use 57 mm. and hunt for heavy armored vehicles (but not tanks) of the enemy, then maybe put it not on the BMP-3M hull, but on the TBTR, making a kind of TBMP or SHMPP ... and all the same, this turns out to be an exclusively niche tool, devoid of flexibility of use and a breadth of possibilities. Therefore, regarding the 57 mm. I'm not sure. Not against, but precisely not sure. Serious field tests and training of an experimental batch in active troops are needed to confirm its effectiveness, flexibility, versatility. I would rather modernize the "Hell Thresher", strengthen its armor and use it as a fire support vehicle, but this... I look and see that it will create a lot of hassle for the troops, and the efficiency of its presence will be lower than that of any other vehicle. Therefore, confirmation by practice and a petition from the military are necessary - from ordinary soldiers to the commanders of the unit where such a thing will be trained.
                        Quote: Totor5
                        I think that the 100mm does more harm than good. It is because of this gun that they go into assaults with it, and not with a tank.

                        what Have you mixed something up? If BMP-3 is used for assaults because of its twin gun, then this most likely speaks of its EFFICIENCY and VERSATILITY. So if the BMP-3's insufficient protection for assaults is confusing, then who's stopping you from installing this module on the new Uralvagonzavod heavy armored personnel carrier, strengthening the armor of the module itself or making it autonomous/unmanned? The twin gun is very good, I don't even know what better thing can be invented for an infantry fighting vehicle. Specifically for an assault infantry fighting vehicle. At the same time, such a module is good for both BMDs and BMP-3Ms and even heavy infantry fighting vehicles. But this is specifically for assault infantry fighting vehicles, as for so-called regular infantry fighting vehicles, the "Kurganets" module provides all the possibilities. And for the APC (including the TBTR), the module from the BTR-82A is simply gorgeous. It would also be nice to have the barrel stabilized with an openwork frame so that it doesn’t wander – for accuracy, and it would be simply a gorgeous module for ANY APC.
                        Everything else is from the Evil One and one must try very hard to prove that someone needs it.
                        Maybe this (57 mm.) module could be installed on the T-55 hulls and they could be turned into a fire-enhancing vehicle to combat armored vehicles... Well, so that the module doesn't go to waste and the old tanks can find a use... Although they can handle it even better with their old cannon.
                        I don’t know where to put it, it’s like a 5th wheel everywhere. request
                      9. 0
                        Yesterday, 03: 35
                        A heavy armored personnel carrier based on a tank is needed, and nothing prevents us from installing different modules on it for different tasks.
                        But I would definitely put 2*57mm on the Terminator and remove the mortar men, since the 57mm is essentially the same mortar, especially with programmable detonation.
                      10. 0
                        Yesterday, 04: 29
                        Quote: Totor5
                        But I would definitely put 2*57mm on the Terminator and remove the mortar men.

                        On "Terminator 2" they removed the grenade launchers, built either 200 or 300 units and delivered them to Algeria. The Algerians are VERY happy.
                        But why change 30 mm. to 57 mm.? The density of fire decreases, the ammunition load is reduced many times over, the recoil simply increases brutally, which will rock the vehicle when firing, you can’t install an ATGM - and there’s nowhere to put it (the module will become simply enormous), and the recoil will tear the missiles off their mounts or simply disable them... or even detonate them altogether... We’ve already compared the 57 mm. machine gun with the 30 mm. machine gun, and it beat the 30 mm. cannon in almost all respects. The density and accuracy of fire at distances up to 1,5 km, the weight of shells fired per unit of time, the speed of transferring fire to a new target, the effect/impact produced on the target, the cost of ammunition, the possibility of organizing a belt feed for the cannon, the time and complexity of reloading... As wonderful as our 30 mm. cannons are in this, it’s all so terrible with the 57 mm. cannon. After all, it was not installed on the BMP-2, although its (gun) designers really wanted it... But comparative tests resulted in SUCH a disgrace for the 57 mm. gun... and the demonstration of the capabilities of the 30 mm. machine gun made SUCH a furor among the top brass... that they ordered the 57 mm. gun to be hidden and never mentioned again, otherwise - Tribunal.
                        So let THEM PROVE IT first. hi
                      11. 0
                        Yesterday, 19: 27
                        The tank base can withstand a lot of things and there will be room for an ATGM there. The ammunition will just be behind the turret.
                        2 barrels will give an acceptable rate of fire and, most importantly, range and destructive power. The density of fire can also be increased by special cartridges with shrapnel or programmable detonation.

                        I don’t know where and who compared 30 and 57, because before we had 57 mm only in cassettes, which are still fired from trucks and for some reason the trucks don’t fall apart.
                      12. 0
                        Yesterday, 19: 39
                        Our trucks are strong.
                        A BM with two 57 mm. guns turns out to be quite bulky, it even looked bulky on the T-15 chassis. I understand that you want "something bigger", but this something must prove its usefulness and viability. And one of the most inconvenient questions is how and with what to feed these guns? Clips of 4 shells? And who will reload if the module is uninhabited? How reliable will the automation be and is it worth it? But belt feeding with SUCH large unitary shells is VERY difficult to organize. So maybe forget it? After all, the 40 mm. Swedish gun on the IFV is fed from clips of 4 or 5 shells and is reloaded manually, and the 40 mm. shell is much smaller in size and weight.
                      13. 0
                        Yesterday, 23: 13
                        There is a patent for the AZ for 57mm. It seems they even wanted to put it on the derivation. The box is loaded from the back and forward.
                        But the fact that people are willing to use 57mm even when reloading magazines from a truck speaks to the demand for the caliber.
                      14. 0
                        Yesterday, 23: 54
                        So the module with this gun on the BMP-3 chassis has been known for a long time, it would have been good, they would have started scaling it up a long time ago - they would have made at least a company set and transferred it for military testing, and now for combat. However, it is not visible. Everyone has seen it, but the troops do not require it. That is why I say - I must prove it.
                      15. 0
                        Today, 03: 35
                        AK-725 has been in use for a long time
                      16. 0
                        Today, 14: 43
                        Now put this beauty on a BMP-3M chassis or even a tank chassis, armour it properly, with DZ, screens and barbecues, and see what you get.
                        Therefore, if you install such a gun on a BMP/BMPT/ShMPP, then only one... and try to prove that it will be better or at least it is advisable to have such vehicles in the amount of 10-12 units per motorized rifle regiment.
                      17. 0
                        Today, 19: 53
                        Well, I attached a photo of the tank chassis, although the tank there is smaller than the T90. And we must not forget that in the ship versions there is a hidden locator.

                        There is no need to armor this, because the 2*30 Terminator is not armored, as is the Armata turret. Bulletproof is enough.

                        The PT-76 was equipped with a 76mm cannon and it was fine, it rolled and even floated, and its weight was the same as the BMP2, so the BMP57 base would definitely withstand a 3mm cannon.
            2. 0
              28 September 2024 09: 37
              You won't be able to fit a lot of troops into the T-90 chassis, unless you're stacking guys in there like firewood.
              We need a normal heavy IFV, without useless buoyancy and without dozens of 100mm high-explosive shells that turn the box into a fireball if the hit is unsuccessful.
              For armament, we need an unmanned module with a 30-mm cannon, ATGMs and a remote-controlled machine gun.
              Taking into account the new realities, it is high time to develop a universal anti-drone system based on large shotgun cartridges or AGS, with remote detonation, controlled by a high-speed guidance system based on an OLS or mini-AFAR, if necessary, capable of quickly switching to the main 30-mm gun, to combat large UAVs.
              It is already clear that electronic warfare does not always save the day, especially against drones controlled via fiber optics.
              1. 0
                28 September 2024 17: 02
                If you make a new one from scratch, you can make any. But the base will still be T90.
  3. -4
    25 September 2024 05: 35
    And the Armata itself needs to be produced with a 152mm rifled barrel and maximum unification with the Koalitsiya self-propelled gun. The Armata will work as a close-range self-propelled gun with a 10-20 km ZOP, for launching Krasnopol and as an assault tank, approximately as Akatsiyas worked in cities in Syria.

    The tank will have a shortened barrel (compared to the SPG), but the caliber will be the same 152 mm on a separate charge, similar to these new round lugs of the Coalition. For shooting with a ZOP, it will be possible to reduce the charge, preserving the resource of the rifled table, similar to how Challengers operate now, but in the Armata, all this will work in automatic mode, as in the Coalition. This will make it possible to unify the shells of the Armata and the Coalition, the difference will only be in the number of these round powder charges and there will be no need to produce a new 152 mm smoothbore shell and gun.

    The advantages are that we will get an assault 152mm tank that will be able to operate accurately from closed positions. In Syria, the 152mm Akatsiya was used in urban battles to storm especially fortified areas of cities in urban battles, because 125mm was not enough.

    Even the developer of the T95 said that it makes no sense to adopt it with a 125 mm barrel. This is logical because a caliber similar to the T72 will give the same as the T72.. but the T92/Armata platform is the size of the Abrams - expensive and heavy, requires new ARVs and other transportation problems. What is the point of the Armata with a 125 mm gun and identical combat effectiveness?

    Another thing is that there are problems with the 152mm gun - low barrel life (3 times less than 125mm), because it always shoots with a full tank charge (unlike the self-propelled gun). But in this war we see that tanks often operate from closed positions at 5-10 km. Moreover, having low accuracy on a smoothbore, unlike the same T55. The result - lunar landscapes.

    A 152mm gun with an increased elevation angle of a rifled barrel on a variable charge will provide accuracy of fire with a ZOP and an acceptable barrel life, and a howitzer-like trajectory of arrival. In addition, a 152mm gun will allow the use of a Krasnopol shell and Kornet-type missiles. Let me remind you that 125mm caliber missiles are ineffective against the frontal armor of NATO tanks!

    A 152mm rifled barrel with a variable charge like the SPG should give the Armata a resource for firing with a ZOP and accuracy (!), and will also provide unification for barrels and shells. At the very least, there is no need to master a new type of shell for a 152mm smoothbore. Krasnopol will make it possible to hit tanks and other things at ranges of up to 50 km, when GLONASS is finally configured.

    Armata will be a heavy tank with a 152mm barrel and a Koalitsiya self-propelled gun, and the T90 or the new T90/80 will be light tanks and will have an IFV on their base.
    1. +3
      25 September 2024 05: 57
      The idea may be sound, but how do you fit a shot with a variable charge into the AZ? Here you need a fourth crew member. Which, as you can easily guess, will lead to a complete pre-design of the vehicle. And also an increase in the space behind the armor, an increase in weight, load on the chassis, etc. The T-90M is the most optimal in this regard.

      T-14 and T-15 are not suggested. We never saw them in action. Although the concept of the TBMP itself looks quite sound.
      1. +2
        25 September 2024 07: 25
        Well, in the Coalition, there is precisely this variable charge, and the charge selection is automatic. And the Coalition is too big for the T90 base - there is only Armata.

        About T90 I meant the turret-mounted stowage like Leclerc or Oplot Yatagan. There was also an experimental T90.

        The problem with the T90 (apart from the quiet reverse) is that the under-turret stowage has reached the limit of the APFSDS length and can only handle Svinets, which even the old Abrams from the 1980s cannot penetrate. And even for Svinets, the T90 (T72m and T80m) has to bore out the hull for a larger APFSDS.

        And 125mm HEAT shells also do not penetrate Abrams. But against 152mm HEAT shells like Kornet - all are powerless, as well as against Krasnopol.

        In fact, our new tanks can only hit NATO tanks in the sides, and NATO tanks have armor-piercing shells of killing power and length. Luckily for us, Ukraine has mostly Soviet tanks!

        The only options for increasing the penetration capability of our tanks are:

        1) Removal of ammunition stowage (Leclerc) or removal of the crew (Armata)

        2) Transition to 152mm.
        1. +3
          25 September 2024 07: 47
          I have bad news. Loading and unloading of the BC is carried out exclusively by crew members. Who will carry 152 mm shells? This, as I understand it, is beyond the physical capabilities of a person.
          1. +3
            25 September 2024 10: 34
            And who is carrying them to the sau right now, in boxes and every day?
            Moreover, the 152mm Coalition does not come in a unitary form, but with bosses.
        2. +4
          25 September 2024 08: 05
          Quote: Totor5
          1) Removal of ammunition stowage (Leclerc) or removal of the crew (Armata)

          2) Transition to 152mm.

          We had already thought of everything, moving part of the ammunition stowage from the AZ to the aft niche, this is the Omsk "Black Eagle" (object 640).
          Transition to a 152 mm gun (crew in a capsule), almost ready from the UVZ T-95 (object 195).
          There was no need to be clever, there was an AZ and a 2A83 smoothbore gun, from which it was possible to fire the Krasnopol.
          Effective firing range (2A83):
          - shells - 5100 m;
          - URS Krasnopol 2K25 - 20 000 m;
          - URS "Krasnopol" ZOF38 - 12 000 m.
          Rate of fire: 10-15 rounds per minute. At that time, the gun barrel resource was 280 rounds, ammunition was 40 shells, and the automatic loader had 24 shells.
          1. +1
            25 September 2024 10: 44
            For itself There is no such resource of the gun, 280 shots. Add zero.
            1. +2
              25 September 2024 11: 57
              Quote: stankow
              Add zero.
              I would be glad to add. To make it clear, we will have to recall Sergei Aleksandrovich Mayev, who from 1996 to 2003 held the position of the Chief of the Main Armored Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and led the development of the tank ("Object 195"). It was noted that not everything was simple with the new gun, the first 152-mm gun for "Object 195" exploded on the 86th shot. During the tests, they could not understand the reasons for a long time, it turned out that the internal pressure increased to 7500 atmospheres, on 125-mm tank guns it was 3000. The aggressiveness of the gunpowder and the initial velocity are very high. It was necessary to change the thickness of the barrel walls to change the amplitude of metal vibrations, we got 280 shots per barrel.
              1. 0
                27 September 2024 00: 47
                3000 atmospheres are already the norm for a tank gun. But these 280 shots, as we understand, are obtained on the second experimental sample. Not on a production one.
          2. +2
            25 September 2024 11: 12
            You can't help but notice the fundamental difference between a 152mm shotgun with a constant tank charge and a 152mm rifled with a variable charge. The rifled charge is much more accurate for shooting from closed firing positions, and the variable charge allows you to not kill the barrel so much. And also - the supply and production of ammo will not require separate efforts as the introduction of a 152mm smoothbore.

            The Black Eagle is a strange unfinished tank (who has ever seen it inside?) with variable crew seating in the turret and hull and its dual AZ has 2 minuses and 2 vulnerabilities at once - behind the turret system and under the turret! And most importantly - it does not separate the crew from the shells! This war clearly shows that isolated ammunition stowage gives at least a chance to the driver.
            The Armata's BC is still in the hull and the armored capsule will not save the crew if the AZ is hit - the BC needs to be moved to the compartment behind the turret so that the shock wave does not enter the hull. Partial separation of the Armata's BC is also possible - for example, high-explosive shells in the turret, and in the hull, for example, APFSDS or gunpowder with blowout panels.
            1. +1
              25 September 2024 12: 10
              Quote: Totor5
              Rifled is much more accurate for shooting from closed firing positions, and variable charge allows not to kill the barrel so much.
              That's true, but we were talking about using the Krasnopol. There is a self-propelled gun, don't forget the difference between a howitzer and a cannon, a tank gun will be heavier. If we accept your vision of an isolated ammunition rack, a "black" loader comes to mind again, but handling 152 mm shells without an AZ is a very dubious decision. In addition, an isolated ammunition rack is also not a panacea, everything burns and explodes. Here, as a "trick" for the crew will lie in military fortune and personal training.
              About object 640, a close solution is in the French tank "Leclerc". There is no photo of the "Eagle" from the inside, but I can give a diagram from the patent.
              1. +1
                25 September 2024 23: 30
                And who in the Coalition is handling the shells, considering that all three are sitting in the front in an armored capsule?
                1. +1
                  26 September 2024 08: 13
                  Quote: Totor5
                  And who in the Coalition is moving the shells?
                  Yes, the "Coalition-SV" has an automatic fire and ammunition stowage in the turret, but you've seen the size of this turret. At the same time, we mustn't forget that this is a self-propelled gun, not a tank with its armor, and this self-propelled gun has a 2A88 howitzer, and with a cartridge loader, that is, other 152 mm shells won't fit it.
                  I agree that such a division of the crew and ammunition is the safest, but how to implement such a scheme on a tank without distorting its dimensions and weight is an interesting question. My personal opinion is that it is impossible to increase the tank caliber indefinitely, probably 152 mm is already the limit, and such a tank will no longer be the main one, but a reinforcement tank.
                  In the navy, battleships have sunk into oblivion, main caliber guns have been replaced by missiles, it seems that something similar awaits land "battleships". We had a "missile tank", IT-1, even a little serially produced. If we revive this topic, on the basis of the T-90 it is quite possible to get an interesting machine, combining a 57 mm automatic cannon with an arsenal of missiles. Missiles have become more compact, more powerful, lighter. The weight gained from the failure of a heavy and large cannon can be used for additional protection. Something similar already exists in the form of BMPT. The new "missile tank" can be like the one in the picture.
                  1. 0
                    26 September 2024 23: 48
                    Well, the Coalition has twice as many shells! And now everyone has only seen the Coalition on the microscopic T2 chassis, on which the turret and barrel look unnatural. The Armata is very tall and longer than the Abrams.

                    In the Coalition, the propellant charges are round, so it's logical that they won't fit anything else...except the Armata 152mm tank with the same caliber.

                    Initially, the transition to a smoothbore had its reasons - the higher speed of the APFSDS and HEAT. Now our APFSDS cannot penetrate NATO tanks due to the length limitation of the APFSDS (caused by the dimensions of the AZ) and our 125mm HEAT can't penetrate NATO tanks either. So what's the point of a 125mm smoothbore then?

                    Judging by this war, tanks operate from closed positions, which is 5-10 km, and a smoothbore is not designed for these ranges due to low accuracy + it also kills the barrel's life with a constant full tank charge.

                    Armata has an increased length of the APFSDS, but how much exactly and what is the limit? No one will say. But at the same time, Armata has the same 125 mm caliber and, accordingly, an ineffective cumulative charge, which means that its 125 mm guided missiles are also ineffective against NATO tanks.

                    Removing the shells to the turret compartment will increase the length of the APFSDS. And this will work for both the Armata and the T90! But since the Armata is essentially a prototype, its layout can and should be revised. And since the Armata base is larger than the Abrams base - what prevents you from making it 152 mm on a rifled barrel, unifying it with the Koalitsiya + Krasnopol gives + moving the shells to the turret compartment - especially since the meta is a lot - the Armata essentially has no turret! In addition, an enlarged turret will allow you to cover the engine compartment with a long barbecue, which you can't install on a tank without a turret!

                    The T90 should be left with a 125mm caliber as a light mass tank, but again with the help of a turreted AZ, we will separate the ammunition stowage from the crew (at least the driver) and give a chance to place long BOBS (instead of the ridiculous box behind the turret) that will be able to destroy the newest NATO tanks. Well, the GOP + steering wheel on the T90m are very necessary.
                    1. 0
                      27 September 2024 23: 08
                      Quote: Totor5
                      In the Coalition, the propellant charges are round, so it's logical that they won't fit anything else...except the Armata 152mm tank with the same caliber.

                      We have been discussing these topics for so long recently that I am even a little tired of it, but if there really are such problems with the 152 mm smoothbore for the "Armata" (and in addition to them, the entire line of shells will have to be composed and accumulated), and a return to a rifled gun (which is almost there, if you take the "Coalition") makes sense, then ... You did not think that even an ordinary high-explosive shell of this caliber, having hit the turret of the "Abrams" or "Leopard" of the latest models, will either simply blow off their turret, or jam / crush / distort completely - kinetic energy + charge power. So it may turn out that a rifled gun for the "Armata" can, in principle, do without a sub-caliber shell. And the barrel length can be slightly reduced if the energy is excessive ... But here you need to try, count, test - this is not a topic for a quick solution.
                      Quote: Totor5
                      The T90 should be left with a 125mm caliber as a light mass tank, but again with the help of a turret-mounted autoloader, we will separate the ammunition stowage from the crew (at least the driver) and give a chance to place long BOBS (instead of the ridiculous box behind the turret)

                      This will require a completely new turret and a new automatic firearm. If the entire ammunition rack is moved to the turret compartment, the commander and gunner can be seated lower... i.e. everything like the "Black Eagle". I don't know if the T-90 (even if on the same chassis and with the same engine) will remain "inexpensive for mass production"... I don't know. Perhaps it makes sense to invent something like this on the T-80 chassis. But to start all this for the sake of a longer APFSDS... when tanks fight tanks less and less often, and NATO tanks are hit in the rear and side projections by anything at all... Does it make sense? The turreted ammunition rack is vulnerable to all means of destruction and FPV and other UAVs will target it first of all. After all, the goal is not to kill the crew, but to disable the tank. And if tanks are considered as a tool for breaking through and reinforcing infantry fire during assaults, then the existing models cope with this quite well. As a high-quality reinforcement tank, the "Armata" with a 152 mm., even a rifled gun, can be used - after all, it also mainly works with high-explosive shells. And when meeting tanks ... they now have a lot of different tools - cheap, mass-produced and effective. So perhaps you shouldn't bother your head too much with new wonder weapons, they will still turn out to be much more expensive and complex than the current ones, and they may not be of any more use than the T-90M, T-72B3M and T-80BVM.
                      And by the way, the idea of ​​a tank armed with conventional 152 mm ATGMs and a small-caliber gun, in the hull and on the chassis of the same T-90, may turn out to be much more sound, accessible and economically acceptable. Than building a monster with a 152 mm gun on a seven-wheel chassis and weighing 60+ tons.
                      Don't forget that we need a LOT of tanks, so they must have an acceptable price and be made using technologies available for mass production. hi
                      1. 0
                        28 September 2024 16: 54
                        A rifled gun is needed mainly for accuracy - for working with ZOP at long ranges of 15-20 km. A smoothbore gun is designed for direct fire of +-2 km or +-5 km for indirect fire - anything further is luck.
                        It is clear that the rifled Armata 152mm will not be the main tank, for the sake of mass production you can leave the light 125mm, but here you can not do without a turreted AZ, because you need a long BOP. Regarding the T80 or T90 base, you already need to look at what is simpler and more technologically advanced.
    2. 0
      25 September 2024 10: 39
      Totor5 Where did they come up with the idea that GLONASS is "not configured"? The grouping is complete, the coverage is complete, the accuracy is good. We work every day. Iskanders hit the canteen exactly, Geranki fly regularly.
      1. 0
        25 September 2024 23: 32
        GLONASS is not configured for Krasnopol, because of this the range is less than Excalibur. Roughly speaking, the brains cannot calculate deviations at long ranges +-50 km and coordinate via GLONASS. Therefore the range is less than 30 km.
        1. 0
          27 September 2024 01: 05
          GLONASS does not coordinate with anyone. The system users are thousands of different models, military and civilian. They adapt to the system. GLONASS does not even know about them.
          The range does not depend on the aiming method.
          GLONASS is a global system. You can calculate and control at least 5000 km. Even an 8-bit processor is sufficient.
          30 km is more than enough for an artillery shell. Further there is the Uragan and Iskander.
          Excalibur, by the way, also has 23 km
          1. 0
            27 September 2024 02: 11
            It's too long to explain, read some article about Krasnopol and GLONASS. About GLONASS guidance chips for long-range correction.
            1. 0
              27 September 2024 10: 05
              I don't read articles about global satellite navigation systems, I write them. Since 1997. hi
              1. 0
                27 September 2024 21: 06
                Then what is there to talk about?
  4. +1
    25 September 2024 05: 51
    Whose dissertation? Theorists... deduced as many as 5 elements. And they didn't even remember about mines.
    1. +1
      25 September 2024 07: 59
      Someone's dissertation? Theorists... deduced as many as 5 elements.

      it looks like the whole "mental construction" is hanging in the air...
    2. +1
      25 September 2024 10: 52
      Why? The UR-77 already existed then, and not in single copies, and, like the "Bukhanka", the "Gorynych" turned out to be good right away.
  5. +4
    25 September 2024 05: 54
    ...even for modern combat control systems with continuous exchange of information - there are too many of these "levels", classes and subclasses...

    ...But it is absolutely necessary to include in the tank units mobile and universal self-propelled air defense systems and radars for direct support on the battlefield, with a high degree of protection against modern weapons, and similar armored vehicles for motorized riflemen...
    Perhaps it makes sense to return to the concept of a heavy, medium (main) and light (possibly!) tank...

    ...Moreover, armored vehicles (APCs) for infantrymen (assault troops) do not necessarily have to have the capacity for a squad...
    Since this leads to a significant increase in their dimensions, a decrease in maneuverability, speed (etc.), and therefore: to an increase in their vulnerability during modern combat...
    ...Perhaps we should choose the path of creating small, well-protected combat vehicles for a group of attack aircraft (two - three (maximum) attack aircraft), with high speed and excellent cross-country ability, maneuverability... and, of course, powerful weapons...
    ...I admit that their cost can be comparable to the cost of conventional infantry fighting vehicles (APCs), but the result of their use will certainly justify all the expenses!)))))))))...

    (Development is going along the Spiral! It looks like another turn of It has begun!)
  6. 0
    25 September 2024 06: 11
    Final World
    Creation of a complex of combat vehicles....

    So the tasks don't change much, the troops must either conduct offensive or defensive actions and for this a lot is needed...
    Here are just a few inventions used as weapons that make significant changes both in the tactics of military operations and in the urgent need for specific, specific weapons!!!
    1. +1
      25 September 2024 07: 05
      As a result, we get the concept of an assault group, only in a technical form.
      And probably the structure of troops will change as a result of the SVO.
      1. -2
        25 September 2024 08: 04
        As a result, we get the concept of an assault group, only in a technical form.

        This is a vicious tactic of storming enemy positions, although it is forced due to the lack of some... The main task is to identify targets for subsequent destruction using appropriate weapons such as aviation and artillery without direct fire contact with the enemy.
        And tanks will disappear like armored knights, expensive, and of little use. They will disappear as armies become saturated with new types of weapons.
        1. 0
          25 September 2024 11: 16
          Serdyukov also thought - we'll saw up all the tanks, leaving only 1,000 Armatas. And the wars will be smart missiles with a mini army.

          A tank is the main striking force of the infantry during an attack, essentially it is a gun on wheels, what can replace this artillery?
          1. +1
            25 September 2024 15: 16
            Quote: Totor5
            Serdyukov also thought: let's cut up all the tanks, leaving only 1,000 Armatas.

            Yeah... and immediately ordered the T-72B3, of which more than a thousand were produced in five years. smile
            And leave the tales about 1000 Armatas to the UVZ representatives. They are still voicing these fantasies, passing them off as a "cancelled order from the Ministry of Defense". Although they were immediately told that there will be no rearmament of the BTV with a new tank - the Armata will be a tank of high-quality reinforcement.
            Quote: Totor5
            And wars will be smart missiles with a mini army.

            Small wars. Serdyukov-Makarov's contract army of permanent readiness brigades was intended for wars of small and medium intensity.
            And for a big war, the same reform prepared a mobilization reserve based on one-year conscripts from training centers and units, and a BHVT to pair with them. And training sessions, where both pairs were to meet regularly. smile
            1. 0
              26 September 2024 00: 06
              "
              The Russian Defense Ministry has decided to prepare 6 old tanks for return from arsenals. Previously, former Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov demanded that all obsolete vehicles be scrapped, and now this decision has been revised.

              In 2011, Anatoly Serdyukov approved a plan for an unprecedented program to destroy surplus Soviet-made armored vehicles. It was planned to scrap 2,5 T-62 tanks; 2 T-64 tanks; 3,5 T-80B tanks and 7 T-72 tanks of various modifications. The program was partially completed.

              The seven-year-old disposal list also included thousands of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, repair and recovery vehicles, and engineering vehicles on tracked chassis. It was planned to replace these combat vehicles with only modern armored vehicles, while sharply reducing the number of armored vehicles. Thus, the total number of tanks, most of which were to become modern "Armatas", should not exceed 2 thousand units.

              However, this year the concept of using obsolete tanks has suddenly and radically changed. Now it has been decided to stop large-scale disposal. Most of the armored vehicles will be updated taking into account modern technologies.
              "
              1. +1
                26 September 2024 10: 26
                Yeah... and two years later the same journalists wrote that the disposal of T-62s would begin in 2013, and the Ministry of Defense only had 950 of them. And a year later, journalists again found 2500 T-62s in the Ministry of Defense warehouses.
                Quote: Totor5
                It was planned to replace these combat vehicles with only modern armored vehicles.

                Oh-ho-ho... so the Ministry of Defense considered the T-72B3 a new and modern tank. But this is just a T-72B taken from storage, which underwent a major overhaul and modernization.

                And yes, T-62 and T-64 were scrapped under Shoigu. They were saved only by the Syrian campaign and the North Wind. And the furniture maker was right about the T-80 - we don't have the USSR with its four heavy factories, each of which wanted to eat, there's no point in producing different types of chassis.
                1. 0
                  27 September 2024 02: 04
                  Initially, there was a plan for +- 2,000 tanks, and Armata was at the core of the park. They started sawing - the decree was signed. Then the plans changed and the sawing was stopped, but they managed to saw a lot.
                  In addition to the embezzlement, under Serdyuk they started closing schools and training grounds, for example, in the Northwest they were completely taken off the balance sheet and sold through shell companies, etc., etc., and these crooks also messed with housing for the military. I personally saw how dozens of units and military airfields were closed in the Northwest with the embezzlement of everything that was there, and there were thousands of trucks, infantry fighting vehicles, T80 tanks, etc. The entire army hated Serdyuk for this and for the fact that combat officers had to salute all his whores, whom he dragged from the tax office. And he appointed his mistresses to such hefty posts, including in nuclear weapons.
                  1. 0
                    27 September 2024 10: 49
                    Quote: Totor5
                    I personally saw how dozens of units and military airfields in the North-West were closed down and everything that was there was cut up, and there were thousands of trucks, infantry fighting vehicles, T80 tanks, etc.

                    That's right. Because most of these units and formations were skeletons - a handful of personnel and military equipment that had been permanently laid up due to non-compliance with storage conditions. And all this horror year after year sucked money for its maintenance, taking it away from units of constant readiness.
                    Moreover, the assigned personnel for these divisions remained in the USSR.
                    The situation with the Air Force was even worse - from three air regiments included in all plans and considered alive according to documents, in fact one regiment was assembled (an excellent example is the 22nd Guards Air Regiment "named after the swan, crayfish and pike"). But all three had to be maintained.
                    Quote: Totor5
                    The entire army hated Serdyuka for this and for the fact that combat officers had to salute all his whores, whom he dragged in from the tax office,

                    Nope. That's not why they hated him. But because he deprived the staff officers who held Soviet staff positions and commanded dead souls of their cozy offices. And he drove them out into the field, giving them living personnel to subordinate to.
                    And the gentlemen officers have settled in comfortably: 300 officers in the army - every fourth serviceman, and from battalion and below, field positions are 000% filled with sergeants and two-snake scumbags. There are 90-20 people in platoons, but the staff is fully filled.
                    That same day at night I was sent to the Yushun-Simferopol road to the units retreating from Tavria.
                    Arriving there, I found: 256 bayonets, 28 guns and with them 2 division headquarters and 1 corps headquarters.
                    I directly stated to all these headquarters that in such a situation only a company commander was needed, and not a layering of some headquarters on top of others.
                    © Slashchev-Krymsky
                    1. 0
                      27 September 2024 21: 10
                      That is, to seat 20 year old women, their mistresses, at posts instead of officers - this is normal in your opinion, to convert tank ranges for building summer houses, and to withdraw money through intermediaries is also normal, to close tank and other schools is also normal, to write off thousands of tanks is also not so good... Well, I have no more questions for you.
          2. 0
            26 September 2024 19: 14
            A gun on wheels (or tracks) is a wheeled self-propelled gun, wheeled or tracked infantry fighting vehicle.
  7. +1
    25 September 2024 06: 56
    A path as ancient as history. First, the fleet moved from the actions of groups of different ships to specially organized squadrons. Then the Air Force moved from the actions of individual aircraft to the actions of air squadrons. Now it's time for armored vehicles.
  8. +7
    25 September 2024 07: 19
    I always write here that we need heavy IFVs so that the fighters sit inside and not have additional armor on top. And it doesn't need to float, it should protect. So here they furiously downvote, is it better to sit on old shells or something?
    1. +4
      25 September 2024 08: 24
      Quote: Vadim S
      Is it better to sit on old shells?
      A tank or an infantry fighting vehicle is not a bomb shelter. It is necessary to distinguish between tasks and equipment for these tasks. What is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle? First, it is an armored transport vehicle, after dismounting the infantry, it is a fire support vehicle. That is, there is universalization, in addition to the transport function, the volume of ammunition, the weapons themselves in the turret. This is additional weight and dimensions, in addition, if it is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, it is also reinforced armor, and everything "in one bottle". If you only add, you will have to increase the dimensions and weight of the vehicle. It is much better for heavy equipment to separate the functionality, that is, to specialize. We will get a heavy armored personnel carrier on a tank base, with good protection. Second, a BMPT is for specialized fire support of tanks and infantry. A heavy armored personnel carrier should not be a "bus" for 10-12 people, on the contrary, an airborne assault group, 5-6 attack aircraft. This optimizes the dimensions, comfort of placement, and will allow to strengthen the armor. This is if we are talking about heavy equipment on a tank base and for working with tanks. Neither the heavy BMP nor the BMPT really need to swim anymore, for this purpose the universal, fast and maneuverable BMP-3 and BMD-4M, the best in their class, will remain.
      1. -1
        25 September 2024 08: 59
        Most likely, 5-6 is a lot. 4 people. In the terminology of our opponents, a fire group.
      2. +2
        25 September 2024 11: 20
        5-6 people is not enough, you need at least 8 in a group. If someone gets injured, a small group will essentially lose combat capability.
        1. 0
          25 September 2024 12: 20
          Quote: Totor5
          5-6 people is not enough, you need at least 8 in a group.
          There is nothing to stop a group from being placed on two heavy APCs. It should also be noted that if a vehicle with unmounted infantry is hit, the losses will be less than losing 8 to 12 people at once.
          1. +1
            25 September 2024 23: 54
            And the budget can be immediately multiplied by 2
    2. +1
      25 September 2024 15: 13
      You don't understand! New heavy IFVs need to be designed first, and then bought, that costs money! Or you can take a BMP-1 from the warehouse, and use the money saved to build yourself a mansion
  9. +1
    25 September 2024 07: 26
    The idea is crazy. No country in the world can handle thousands, or rather tens of thousands of IFVs with the level of tank protection, plus a sharp drop in mobility (weight, fuel) and all this against the backdrop of threats from which this protection is, well, to put it mildly, almost useless.
    1. +4
      25 September 2024 07: 47
      A heavy IFV is needed not instead of light amphibious vehicles, but in addition to them for interaction with tanks.
      This same IFV must be equipped with air defense systems to protect against enemy drones.
      1. +2
        25 September 2024 07: 57
        Yes, the swimming function is not needed at all, it is not used. The issue is not swimming, but weight, fuel consumption, price. What is the functionality of the IFV in the field? The IFV should not go on the attack, its task is to take soldiers to the battlefield and escape. For ATGM it makes no difference whether there is a tank or a BMP2 in front of it, the same for UAVs. What is needed is not to increase armor, but active means of protection such as electronic warfare, smoke screens, infrared and ultraviolet suppressors, mine detectors, and perhaps something from air defense, moreover, automatic, allowing drones to be shot down without human intervention at a short distance.
        1. +1
          25 September 2024 09: 00
          Here I am looking at how the Ukrainian Armed Forces use Bradley and everything is fine with them. Both on the battlefield and with transportation.
          1. -2
            25 September 2024 11: 22
            And it doesn't fall apart from land mines like the BMP3. Who even came up with the idea of ​​transporting troops hugging land mines under the cover of foil?
        2. 0
          25 September 2024 11: 19
          Somehow you easily get away from everything. You don't need fire support from an infantry fighting vehicle, you don't need the ability to swim, and you don't need a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle.
  10. +3
    25 September 2024 08: 01
    Well... I also suggested the 3rd and 4th "elements" when the need for the BMPT "Terminator" was discussed at the Military Council... I stated that one "Terminator" in the proposed equipment would not be enough! At least 2 vehicles are needed: 1. A fire support combat vehicle (FSB) and 2. A close air defense combat vehicle (a kind of platoon group APS). So, in this part, the author's reasoning is clear to me...! Yes
    1. -1
      25 September 2024 11: 24
      The request to have a fire support vehicle is not very clear. What do you actually imagine? Do you want a Katyusha for direct fire, like in the movie "Hot Snow", in the form of a TOS on a tank chassis or a 160-240 mm mortar with an automatic loader in the form of a tank with a large turret?
      Both are there, but they are not very suitable for close combat.
      1. +1
        25 September 2024 13: 08
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        The desire to have a fire support vehicle is not very clear

        Well, I don't really feel like "spreading my thoughts around" right now! I'm lazy... because when the feasibility of "Terminators" was being actively discussed on VO, I wrote a lot about my vision of combat support vehicles...
        1. 0
          25 September 2024 13: 21
          I saw those discussions, they ended in nothing, because the issue was not made clearer. In particular, it remained unclear what would have to be sacrificed to increase the barrel elevation angle and how big this gain would be compared to classic tanks and self-propelled guns.
  11. 0
    25 September 2024 08: 13
    They also write about robotic tanks and modular turrets. It turns out to be a powerful thing, when the drone provides target designation, and the tank operates on the targets identified by the drone. Well, and a separate machine for delivering troops. It can be made without guns.
  12. +9
    25 September 2024 08: 21
    Until the problem of destroying or neutralizing drones is solved, all these efforts are useless. Tanks and other armored vehicles are now more vulnerable than ever. It's the same as if you are armed to the teeth, you have the best ammunition and equipment, but there is a minefield ahead, and you don't have a mine detector. You will blow up on a mine while moving forward and nothing will help, neither the most modern equipment, nor the super-duper weapon in your hands. IMHO.
  13. +2
    25 September 2024 09: 35
    The issue of robotics and automation of combat operations on the front lines received very little attention in the comments.
    1. +4
      25 September 2024 11: 26
      First of all, we need a connection for all types of Starlink. Without a connection, what can we even talk about?

      In the meantime, they call and correspond on Telegram, and the tanks don’t have GLONASS positioning and all those things from network-centric wars.
  14. 0
    25 September 2024 10: 45
    In my opinion, what is needed now is military equipment produced on a conveyor belt, based on the principle of lots-simple-fast.
    I would suggest this option: take the chassis of any of our tanks, T-55 or T-72. Put another turret with an automatic 57-mm cannon, like the 2A90. More ammunition, 2 crew members - a driver, and a commander - an operator of the weapons system.
    And let these thresher guns go behind the infantry, dismantle field fortifications, comb bushes and forest belts with fire, destroy any armored vehicles except tanks. They hit the windows of buildings so that the OFS are configured to explode inside the building.
    Drone protection should already be standard.
    With night and infrared sights they will be even better.
    1. +1
      25 September 2024 11: 27
      If only there were enough armored personnel carriers here. Judging by everything, there aren't even that many at our disposal.
    2. +1
      25 September 2024 15: 20
      Quote from gribanow.c
      In my opinion, what is needed now is military equipment produced on a conveyor belt, based on the principle of lots-simple-fast.

      Where will we find personnel based on the principle of many-simple-quick?
      1. +1
        25 September 2024 18: 14
        Where does the 1.5 million army go? If it can't be used, then additional mobilization
        1. 0
          26 September 2024 10: 27
          Quote from gribanow.c
          Where does the 1.5 million strong army go?

          And in the same place as usual: for every 1 active bayonet there are 10-15 support, maintenance and supply ones.
      2. 0
        27 September 2024 00: 20
        Where will we find personnel based on the principle of many-simple-quick?

        Well, in all honesty, for the same personnel, if they have equipment, it should be easier to fight than if they don’t.
  15. VlK
    0
    25 September 2024 12: 38
    It is not at all obvious from the article that there is a need to separate the equipment for work at a direct fire distance into two different types - tanks and fire support vehicles (assault self-propelled guns, as they are described here). Rather, it is obvious that by removing the tank's bias towards excessive anti-tank specialization, it is logical to combine these two types into one - an assault tank. Probably by replacing the gun with a shorter-barreled 152 mm low ballistics with a higher elevation angle and the ability to launch an ATGM through the barrel, possibly adding a remotely controlled module-pair of a 30 mm gun with an anti-tank guided missile in a separate turret on the main turret (then the main gun can be paired with a CC machine gun, for example), a standard installation of a bulldozer blade and a mine trawl, and, most importantly, by revising the principles of armor, we will get a universal assault vehicle of the front line, the need for a BMPT in this case automatically disappears. However, in turn, the question arises about the fundamental necessity of the parallel existence of the MBT in its modern form - what tasks is it called upon to solve that the new assault tank cannot handle?
    Also, the combination of two functions - infantry transporter and fire support vehicle in one vehicle (BMP, and now in the BTR 82) - was most likely an initial mistake, leading not only to a significant deterioration in performance in both directions, but also to the fact that when losing equipment in battle while performing a support task, the infantry is automatically left without a regular transport (neither catch up nor escape), losing all mobility. In addition, the issue of the cost of a single transport with additional weapons and the ability to mass-produce it in wartime is also not superfluous, in my opinion.
    As a result, based on the article and modern realities, it becomes necessary to divide brigades (and possibly divisions) into heavy assault and conditionally light raid brigades, in accordance with specialization. The former, most likely on the basis of modern tanks, for assaulting well-fortified positions and breaking through defense lines, with heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank base and assault tanks as breakthrough and fire support vehicles. And the latter, including as rapid deployment and reaction forces, for developing an offensive during a breakthrough of defense or stopping a breakthrough of their own defense - possibly on the basis of modern airborne brigades and divisions. In which there are no tanks at all, and relatively light equipment, unified by base, consists of wheeled/tracked armored personnel carriers and separate infantry fire support vehicles with weapons like the BMP3. Moreover, such vehicles should be either immediately included in the platoon’s staff (2 infantry transport vehicles and 3 infantry carriers, for example), or in the fourth platoon in a motorized rifle company to facilitate maintenance and assign them to specific units if necessary.
    1. -1
      25 September 2024 12: 48
      You are not the first to try to disarm the BTR-82A. What is wrong with the 30 mm gun module, is it really its firepower and effectiveness? And in Ukraine, hasn't anyone suggested disarming the BTR-3 and BTR-4?
      1. VlK
        0
        25 September 2024 12: 56
        obviously, it simply provokes sending such a weakly protected transporter into battle and leaving the infantry without regular transport, which is not surprising in the absence of other means of reinforcement.
        1. -1
          25 September 2024 13: 00
          And does an unarmed box, essentially a coffin on wheels, look better to you? The infantry will be glad that they were left without fire support and a chance to fight back.
          1. VlK
            -1
            25 September 2024 13: 03
            not completely unarmed, but for example, for defense on the march, a CC machine gun is most likely enough. Especially if the commander has at his disposal a specialized fire support vehicle for the actual combat.
            1. -3
              25 September 2024 13: 07
              So, do you want to return the wretchedness of a turret without a hatch and a drive with a KPVT machine gun with a 50-round belt? Don't you want to try it out on your own skin, what it's like to try to fight off an ambush in such an APC?
              1. VlK
                0
                25 September 2024 13: 15
                what prevents you from installing it in a normal tower or even better in the form of a remotely controlled module, why do you have to go back to the past?
                1. 0
                  25 September 2024 18: 35
                  The elementary presence of common sense and the presence of reason will not allow installing a much weaker machine gun in the form of a module, and especially in a turret, where a 30 mm automatic cannon is perfectly suitable.
                  Push your inadequate views in Ukraine, offer them to disarm the BTR-4, you will learn a lot of interesting things about yourself from non-brothers.
      2. +1
        25 September 2024 15: 26
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        You are not the first to try to disarm the BTR-82A. What is wrong with the 30 mm gun module, is it really its firepower and effectiveness?

        Because an APC should be an APC - armored conveyor infantry. Not an infantry fighting vehicle.
        And here we have stuck the APC into the combat formations of the MSO under the USSR, and we continue this tradition. Only the armament was improved, but the armor was left as armored personnel carrier. Instead of making a normal wheeled BMP, since we really want to give the MSO wheeled vehicles.
        By naval standards, the BTR-82A is a Renown squeezed into a line of battleships.
        1. +2
          25 September 2024 18: 29
          Is it better to be practically unarmed than armed? This is some new word in military affairs. I would like to ask the motorized riflemen how it is better for them to be unarmed or with an effective 30 mm cannon, all other things being equal.
          And I doubt very much that the Marines will agree to disarm a vehicle like the BTR-82A, I doubt very much. To exchange the BTR-82A back for the BTR-80, you have to be really crazy.
          1. 0
            26 September 2024 10: 45
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            Is it better to be practically unarmed than armed?

            No. It's better not to push the armor.conveyor into the niche of combat armored vehicles.
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            I would like to ask the motorized riflemen how it is better for them to be unarmed or with an effective 30 mm cannon, all other things being equal.

            I wish I could ask the motorized riflemen what would be better for them - to fight on a foil-clad cartonium with a 2A72 or on a normal KBM? But no, we installed a 2A72 on the hull of an infantry transporter and decided that there were no more problems with fire support for the MSO. Although our armored tractor also became a combat vehicle - apparently, installing a 30-mm cannon magically solves all problems with protection.
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            To exchange the BTR-82A back for the BTR-80, you have to be really out of your mind.

            I am not calling for replacing the cannon with a machine gun in vehicles used to support the MSO on the front lines. I propose returning the BTR-80 back to the rear, giving the MSO a normal KBM. And not pretend that the BTR-82A is the same as the "Stryker", "Boxer" and others.

            I wonder what our BTR-82A fans would say if overseas they installed a DUM with a "Bushmaster" on an M-113 and made it a combat vehicle for a motorized infantry squad. wink
            1. 0
              26 September 2024 11: 01
              Should the APC return to the rear and become almost unarmed as before? No, there will be no return to the past. The APC was not in the rear before, but its armament was weak, which led to unjustified losses, sometimes very large losses, when the APCs could not even cope with escorting. The concept of toothless and unarmed vehicles requiring escort and support as if they were a hopeless burden, and not combat units, is wrong.
              Once again, try to disarm a BTR-4 in Ukraine. There you are guaranteed not to remain unpunished.
              1. 0
                26 September 2024 16: 37
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                The concept of toothless and unarmed machines requiring escort and support as if they were a hopeless burden rather than combat units is a mistake.

                So the BTR is not a combat unit. It is a means of safely delivering infantry to the front line. A sort of armed MRAP. Plus a platform for self-propelled guns and auxiliary equipment.
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                Once again, try to disarm a BTR-4 in Ukraine.

                Just look at the evolution of the BTR-4 - it is getting closer and closer to an armored fighting vehicle. smile
                We have the same problem with the APC as with snipers: we stubbornly try to cram two completely different meanings into one term: a front-line combat vehicle for transporting infantry and supporting them in combat, and an armored infantry transporter for LBS.
                1. 0
                  26 September 2024 17: 15
                  If you need an unarmed vehicle as a frontline transporter, it exists, it's called the MTLB. And in the wheeled version, there are three-axle Typhoons, Akhmats and other wheeled vehicles.
                  1. 0
                    27 September 2024 10: 38
                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                    If you need an unarmed vehicle as a frontline transporter

                    Nope. I need the BTR-80 to be pulled out of the front line and not confused with the AFV, using it only as an APC.
                    And to solve his problems without going into the LBS, 14,5 mm will be enough.
        2. +1
          25 September 2024 19: 18
          This is the latest version of the Stryker APC and the latest Israeli APC Eitan.

          It is extremely timely (sarcasm) for you to call for the disarmament of the BTR-82A, while unfriendly countries have begun to arm their newest wheeled APCs with 30 mm automatic cannons.

          The biggest problems with the BTR-82A are not the "excessive armament" of the 30 mm automatic cannon, and replacing the 30 mm cannons with machine guns on the BTRs assembled in Arzamas (the BTR-82V variant for the Russian National Guard) will not solve these problems.
          1. +1
            26 September 2024 10: 37
            Quote: AlexanderA
            It is extremely timely (sarcasm) for you to call for the disarmament of the BTR-82A, while unfriendly countries have begun to arm their newest wheeled APCs with 30 mm automatic cannons.

            This is not an APC. This is a new class - BBM. Combat armored vehicle. And not just an infantry transporter to the front lines. By the way, the Eitan and Stryker only have one Ma Deuce in their basic version.

            I propose to give the infantry a KBM with normal protection. And return the APC to its original purpose. And not mount a 2A72 on a foil-clad cardboard and send it to the front, deciding that it will do.
            It won't do. We don't have a mass conscription army, for which a cheap mass transporter was created. And we don't have the Soviet mobilization potential either.
            1. 0
              26 September 2024 17: 02
              There is no need to try to return the BTR to its original purpose, which in fact did not exist. The BTR is not a bus or a covered truck. It is a combat armored vehicle.
              The BTR is initially a vehicle for operations on the front line. This is indicated by its 4-axle design and high cross-country capability.
              At the very beginning of its creation, a conceptual mistake was made when, based on foreign models, they focused on small turrets with machine guns, even without hatches.
              The error was not corrected in the mid-80s of the last century, when the BMD-2 armed with a 30 mm cannon appeared, the turret of which also fit the BTR-80.
              Insisting on a mistake made in the 60s is not just strange, but suspiciously strange.
              1. 0
                27 September 2024 11: 00
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                The BTR is initially a vehicle for operations on the front line. This is indicated by its 4-axle design and high cross-country capability.

                What, is cross-country ability only needed at the front line? And a little deeper into the rear, equipped roads immediately begin?
            2. 0
              Yesterday, 16: 33
              Quote: Alexey RA
              This is not an APC. This is a new class - a BBM. Armored combat vehicle.

              What generally accepted classification are you relying on? Provide a link. I have the impression that you are relying on your own.

              The only fundamental classification difference between the BTR-82A and the M1296 Stryker Dragoon and Eitan with a cannon is that the BTR-82A is still a light-weight AFV (combat weight up to 25 tons), while the Stryker Dragon and Eitan are medium-weight AFVs (the combat weight of the M1296 with all the extra equipment exceeded 25 tons).

              I propose to give the infantry a KBM with normal protection. And return the APC to its original purpose.

              Are you proposing to immediately stop production of the entire BTR-82 line? In favor of immediately establishing over many months or even one and a half to two years which particular BBM?

              What could be the "original purpose" of an APC in the era of expensive loitering munitions and cheap FPV drones?
  16. 0
    25 September 2024 13: 33
    The solution to the problem is to create two types of IFVs: one with an increased level of protection based on a tank for joint operations with it as part of the BMPK complex, and a floating air-transportable IFV for a group of airlift vehicles or a mobile echelon.


    No. The real solution is not in 2 types of IFVs, but in a combination of a lightly armored IFV and a well-armored APC. The tanks should be accompanied by an APC that combines good armor with a tracked chassis. Since an armored vehicle weighing 30 tons or more in our conditions (soils, climate, chronic off-road conditions) on wheels has no prospects.
    In short - do you need armor? "Gusli is our everything!"
  17. +1
    25 September 2024 14: 27
    So what do we have:
    1. T 90 in the latest configuration.
    2. T 15 Barberry in dreams it fits the concept.
    3. BMPTiP. Mythical beast. Fire support vehicle. Tanks essentially have 2 weapon channels. A gun and a 12,7 mm machine gun. The TBMP also has a gun and a XNUMX mm machine gun. The support vehicle
    There should be more channels. And these should be full-fledged rifle complexes. With stabilization and sights that allow working in any conditions. And most importantly, the main caliber should be optimal for high-angle fire. Targets that do not have a clearly expressed vertical projection are the most difficult to hit, and high-angle fire on them is the most effective. It's empty here. The 57 mm LShO seems to be a good thing, but the 100 mm is somehow better, especially with a programmable detonation. You want it above the ground, you want instant action, or you want it with a delay. Unfortunately, such machines are not in sight. Everyone prays to the unfinished business called the Terminator.
    4. According to rumors, there is Derivation.
    Moreover, there is a munition with a programmable detonation. With a controlled detonation. And a controlled munition.
    It is clear that all this exists in homelpathic quantities and somewhere there in secret and very underground laboratories. But if you think about it, then derivation on a tank chassis would have coped well with covering a zone of 2-2,5 kilometers in radius. Closing it from all threats. This is a machine that was needed the day before yesterday and it is a very big question why it is not there. Even in its original form on a light chassis.
    5. Operational reconnaissance vehicle. This vehicle should definitely not be on the battlefield today. It is much more reasonable to collect information from cameras and sensors of other equipment. And conduct reconnaissance with specialized UAVs from the near rear. Simultaneously coordinating requests from the BM to attached reinforcement units such as artillery, ATGM,
    And about drones. This can be solved comprehensively, whatever you want. But each machine should definitely be protected. Otherwise, there will be unpleasant surprises. Rare, but regular and tragic. Each individual BM should be protected.
  18. +1
    25 September 2024 17: 15
    Judging by the footage from the SVO, the main BMs of the battlefield should have a cart from the MBT and armor like the MBT... with a cargo compartment for the anatomy of modern people in modern equipment.
  19. 0
    25 September 2024 18: 41
    Have you been thinking about this for a long time? - and what did this thinking end in - scratching your head? laughing
  20. -1
    25 September 2024 21: 10
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    The idea is crazy. No country in the world can handle thousands, or rather tens of thousands of IFVs with the level of tank protection, plus a sharp drop in mobility (weight, fuel) and all this against the backdrop of threats from which this protection is, well, to put it mildly, almost useless.

    Gold words.

    For the manufacturer, this is an opportunity to develop and earn money by creating a technically advanced product, producing it and selling it in hundreds of pieces with a high margin due to its uniqueness. Hence all these Leo A7, Pumas, etc. And UVZ dreams, consonant with what is written in the article.
    At the same time, not a single country in the world has yet bought into all this in significant quantities, and in quantities adequate to a serious conflict, it will not be able to afford it at all. Conventionally, 10 machines x 000 million dollars each = 10 billion, unrealistic. Especially considering the vulnerability to mines and UAVs.
  21. 0
    25 September 2024 21: 49
    It can be like this. A single armored tracked chassis. With the MTO located in the front and the crew located in the rear.
    And the purpose is determined by the turret. 125 mm smoothbore gun - tank. 152 mm. Short-barrel rifled gun - front-line fire support vehicle. DUBM with a large-caliber machine gun, grenade launcher and a pair of ATGMs, but with an expanded internal volume for an infantry fighting vehicle.
  22. 0
    26 September 2024 01: 56
    It's strange, but for some reason everyone forgot that in the USSR they thought not only as written in the article. In particular, in the USSR they came to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove infantry from the battlefield altogether. Because it hinders the actions of tanks. Machines capable of moving across the battlefield at a speed of up to 70 km/h are forced to "move" at a maximum speed of 7-9, otherwise the infantry "on its feet" simply will not be able to keep up with it.
    This is how the BMPT concept appeared. However, what is now called "BMPT Terminator" is absolutely not what was in the assignment.
    In fact, the BMPT was supposed to perform all the functions of a motorized rifle squad with an infantry fighting vehicle. That is, there should have been no infantry or infantry fighting vehicles next to the tank during an offensive. Why was this decision made? Because it is technically unrealistic to create an infantry fighting vehicle with tank armor and normal weapons. Such an armored bus would weigh 60 tons or more and would fundamentally change the mobility of tank units for the worse.
    Those who say that the TBMP concept is utopian are right. Either a transporter or an infantry assault vehicle is needed. Combining these functions in a mass-produced vehicle of acceptable weight is technically impossible. The Americans have already approached this problem three times and each time unsuccessfully. The last time they came up with a 70-ton brontosaurus.

    If we make a new BT system from scratch, then the BMPT should be paired with the tank. And the IFV should be relegated to the second echelon.
    As for a heavy assault vehicle with tank armor, let me remind you that the Germans tried to do something like that during WWII. It didn't gain mass popularity. A tank is good not only for its armor, but also for its versatility. And what about building a tank with a howitzer? And is it really possible to squeeze a 152-mm gun with ammunition into a tank's dimensions, and even one that can be deflected at howitzer angles? We won't get a KV-2? The coalition carries a "shed" of a cabin for a reason, otherwise all the machinery wouldn't fit. Now imagine this, but with tank armor. 60 tons again?
    And yes, the question of loading ammunition is not idle. Let me remind you that it is loaded into the Coalition from a special vehicle...
    Perhaps it would be more correct to establish interaction between the front line vehicles and the self-propelled gun batteries in the rear?

    And yes, I agree with the front-line air defense vehicle. But there is a question, what is the point of it, a tank? It cannot be placed in the same line with a tank: it has a radar and other detection devices. They will be destroyed in an instant. And if it goes behind, does it need a tank chassis and tank armor? What's wrong with Tunguska? And I think it is impossible to solve the problem with UAVs from one air defense point. I believe that armored vehicles should have a universal module for self-defense against UAVs. A radar with a shotgun.

    And to support assault groups, we need an assault infantry vehicle based on a tank. But a tank for assault troops, without the ability to transport.

    Let me repeat, my opinion is that the idea of ​​a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is not technically feasible. And even more so, it is not economically feasible. Let me remind you again that even the USSR with its enormous military-industrial complex was not able to completely transfer motorized units to infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. It would be even more unrealistic to do this on heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Just in case, I would like to remind you that more than 1 thousand BMP-20s were produced. Another 11 thousand BMP-2s. If they were made on the T-72 chassis, it would DOUBLE the number of this chassis. Even for the USSR, this would not have been realistic. And even more unrealistic for the Russian Federation.
  23. 0
    26 September 2024 03: 59
    As soon as I saw the drawing with the caption "based on Armata", I didn't read any further.
    Everyone has different fantasies. Some dream of a young Sharon Stone, and some of the real one.
  24. 0
    28 September 2024 16: 56
    The creation of a complex of combat vehicles, consisting of a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle developed on its basis, a direct fire support vehicle, an air defense vehicle, as well as a target reconnaissance and battle management vehicle, should increase the combat effectiveness of the Ground Forces.

    It is correctly stated that we need a COMPLEX OF COMBAT VEHICLES operating in a Single Information Space at the level of a mechanized assault company.
    All armored vehicles of the assault company based on the T-90M main battle tank consist of three types of vehicles:
    1. The company commander's vehicle is a heavy armored personnel carrier with a crew of 7 people.
    1. Company commander
    2. Mechanic driver
    3. Operator - shooter of the combat module (30 mm 2A42 + 7,62 TPK + KAZ, including against drones)
    4. Two operators of reconnaissance and strike drones, 8-10 launch drones.
    5. two operators for target distribution and combat control.

    2. Three shock-assault tanks with 152 mm guns, twin 30 mm 2A42 and remote machine gun module Kord-12,7 mm + APS, including against drones.

    3. Six heavy infantry fighting vehicles, similar in design and armor protection to heavy armored personnel carriers, but with a more powerful combat module:
    - automatic cannon 45-57 mm
    with 3 types of ammunition:
    - fragmentation with remote detonation,
    - armor-piercing subcaliber,
    - high-explosive fragmentation.
    Launcher for 4 ATGM "KORNET"
    -Remote machine gun 7,62
    - KAZ, including against drones.
    .
  25. 0
    28 September 2024 19: 42
    Next year marks 10 years since the Victory Parade showed samples of new equipment so necessary on the front line. Armata, Kurganets, Koalitsiya, Barbaris, Boomerang, where is all this in the troops? In the old days, this was called eyewash!
  26. 0
    29 September 2024 16: 22
    I was always embarrassed to ask, but now stupidity overcame embarrassment:

    "What fundamental objections could there be (except that there is no particular money to be made from this)П"I'll tell you) about the equipment (here and now, instead of R&D on the topic of the BM family) of the existing standard tanks and other "TBMPT" on their chassis with well-armored landing modules for several people (for example, at least three/five people, but for each BM (as in the Great Patriotic War))?"

    Versions
    1. A rigidly connected module to the stern with a single-axle passive chassis (like a half-truck in reverse).
    2. Armored (active/passive) semi-trailer similar to the Merkava.

    Both options can/should be with a ramp +- suitable for transporting additional payload instead of troops, up to a controlled drone launcher module.

    Thanks for the detailed answer.
  27. 0
    29 September 2024 17: 21
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Nope. I need the BTR-80 to be pulled out of the front line and not confused with the AFV, using it only as an APC.
    And to solve his problems without going into the LBS, 14,5 mm will be enough.


    The issue is probably not that he is being forced to the front lines (and perhaps, unfortunately, this is precisely the case), but that there are no other, more suitable “tools available in commercial quantities.”
  28. 0
    29 September 2024 17: 35
    Quote: Maxim Davydov
    Conventionally, 10 cars x 000 million dollars each = 10 billion, unrealistic.


    The price tag is a question of the series size and (accordingly) the development of more or less automated assembly lines (+ well, naturally, the appetite for money of the manufacturer's management).

    A rough example is R&D costs
    10 units of production = 10% markup per unit
    10 units = 000% markup per unit

    well and so on