The BMP I would take into battle
Over three years of medium-intensity military operations in Ukraine, the idea of creating a heavy infantry fighting vehicle (HIFV) has become increasingly popular in public opinion. Let's try to understand what this idea and its embodiment in metal will give the Armed Forces and what will have to be abandoned, how the logistical and budgetary features of maintaining and using units and subdivisions in peacetime and in combat will change, what role the heavy IFV will have to take on on the battlefield.
Немного stories with a touch of the economic potential of the country we lost. The BMP-1 was created in the era of the ideas of “La Manchism” with the prospect, if necessary, of “washing soldiers’ boots in the Indian Ocean.” The vehicle was produced from 1966 to 1983 in quantities of more than 20. From 1968 to 1991, more than 10 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns were produced. But the apogee of militarism probably became танк T-72 in quantities of about 30 thousand in the period from 1973 to 2005 (five tanks in two days in peacetime).
The correctness of the conclusion is far from universal “approval”, but on the front line the number of 122- and 125-mm guns was twice as high as the number of BMP-1s with a weak 73-mm smoothbore gun, which were supposed to clear the breakthrough area after the artillery preparation and tank strike that followed the use of tactical nuclear weapons. weapons. There was nothing similar in the 13-ton BMP-1 weight category in the world or in the armies of the potential enemy at that time, except for the German HS.30 APC (14,6 tons) with a 20-mm cannon and the American M113 APC (10,91 tons) with a 12,7-mm machine gun.
The first to react, five years later, was the gloomy German genius, beaten in WWII and sensitively keeping his nose to the wind. Relying on the network of autobahns and traditionally giving preference to good armor, the Germans did not bother with amphibious capabilities and built the Marder IFV, immediately stepping into the 28,2-ton weight category. But German gunsmiths with vast military experience realized the futility of the Soviet 73-mm smoothbore gun with a firing range of up to 1,3 kilometers and a subsonic muzzle velocity of 290 m/s (it flew to the specified range in about 5 seconds).
And in 1970, the Marder IFV was released with an excellent 20-mm automatic cannon Rheinmetall Mk 20 Rh-202 (firing range on ground targets 2,5 km; muzzle velocity of the projectile 1044 m/s). Even based on hindsight, the author does not quite understand this choice, because already in those years the German military-industrial complex had access to the 35-mm Oerlikon KDA cannon (we know it better as part of the ZSU Gepard, which entered service with the Bundeswehr in 1973). With such a weapon, the heavy Marder 1A3 IFV (weight 33,5 tons) would be relevant to this day. A total of 1969 Marder IFVs were produced from 1975 to 2136, of which 55 units of the 1A3 model were delivered to Ukraine.
France began to create IFVs for its army after the first serial BMP-1 vehicles appeared in the Soviet army. The AMX-10R IFV can be called a BMP-1 clone in an aluminum hull. They were slowly produced from 1972 to 1994 (1750 units) and sold to allies (for example, Saudi Arabia - 570 units, why would the Saudis need a floating IFV?). But the French installed the gun under the same type of 20x139-mm cartridge as the Germans.
The US M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle was created in the second half of the 1970s, taking into account the combat experience of the Soviet BMP-1, the design features of the German Marder IFV as a better protected and armed replacement for the M113 armored personnel carriers. Adopted into service in 1981, the M2 Bradley IFV was not overweight (22,3 tons), it was as much as ten tons lighter than the latest model of the German vehicle and at the same time more than seven tons heavier than the new Soviet BMP-2 vehicle (14,7 tons), adopted by the SA on 15.10.1980.
A brief but informative excursion into the history of the creation of the IFV can be supplemented by another fact confirming the importance of the concept of using weapons adopted by the state and the Armed Forces as a whole. Since 1972, another "air IFV" appeared in the USSR - the Mi-24 attack helicopter, nicknamed "Crocodile". The machine with a crew of three people could deliver a landing force of eight fully equipped fighters, and the ammunition lifted into the air significantly exceeded the ammunition of the main tank. The helicopter's armor made of bulletproof glass and add-on metal armor plates protected the crew cabin, engines and the most critical elements of the design from large-caliber machine gun bullets.
The experience of the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 and the Soviet war in Afghanistan showed that the armored hull of the BMP-1 could not withstand hits from 12,7 mm bullets in the sides, and a hit from an RPG anti-tank grenade, as a rule, caused the vehicle to catch fire followed by an explosion of ammunition. Contact with anti-tank mines also led to fatal consequences. Thus, the "chariot of nuclear Armageddon", designed and built according to the concept of a light combat armored vehicle, became a revolutionary breakthrough in the post-war armament of ground forces, but at the same time it did not correspond to the realities of conventional conflicts in the last quarter of the 20th century. A series of international SALT and START treaties somewhat cooled the heat of the nuclear arms race. And now our contemporaries, such simple guys as Seryozhka from Malaya Bronnaya and Vitka from Makhova, really need something different.
Twenty years have passed since the appearance of the infantry fighting vehicle as a class of combat vehicles. In 1987, the USSR adopted the third model of the BMP. Germany is armed with the Marder BMP, stopped their production and switched its efforts to modernizing the vehicles. At the peak of Gorbachev's perestroika and disarmament, the American military-industrial complex improves and produces new modifications of the Bradley BMP. With the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe, the British create their FV510 Warrior BMP and the neutral Swedes design the Strf90. Ahead are conflicts in the Balkans and the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq War and in Kuwait, the Chechen campaigns ... But has the concept of using the BMP-3 changed in a quarter of a century and have the requirements for an infantry fighting vehicle changed?
It cannot be said that nothing has changed. Aluminum armor and a new powerful engine, a new layout and weapons system, the ground clearance has been increased once again and water cannons have appeared. But everything is the same:
"The BMP-3 is a Soviet and Russian combat armored tracked vehicle designed to transport personnel to the front line, increase their mobility, armament and protection on the battlefield in conditions of the use of nuclear weapons and joint actions with tanks in combat."
Already then, in the mid-80s, advanced military science began developing an unconventional combat vehicle, the Terminator. Yes, by and large the fate of this vehicle is still unclear, but there is an attempt to change the concept of conducting combined arms combat using new tools. The latest version of the Terminator is not inferior in weight and protection to modern versions of Russian main battle tanks, although initially it even surpassed them in these parameters.
The special military operation in Ukraine, mind you, not even a war, forces us to reconsider the concept of using and building an infantry fighting vehicle. In order to create something relevant not for a season, but for the future, we will have to objectively rethink what we have created, recognizing the shortcomings and achievements, study the development trends and world experience and correctly assess the potential enemy in the future theater of military operations. Further, the selection of arguments, the evidence base and the methodology for solving non-obvious problems represent only the personal vision of the problems inspired by the author.
First of all, it is necessary to decide on the weight category of the proposed heavy infantry fighting vehicle. The abstract Russian main battle tank has reached a psychological and symbolic limit in the modern era at about 50 tons with industrial and home-made modifications to protection, starting from additional dynamic protection, installation of various active protection options, non-standard EW systems and ending with various "barbecues". Judging by the experience of using Western-made heavy tanks in Ukraine, it is unlikely that there will be supporters of further growth of the Russian main battle tank's weight beyond 50 tons.
On the other hand, the relatively new wheeled BTR-82A, with an initial weight of 15,4 tons, firstly, surpasses the first and second models of the IFV in this parameter, which may indirectly indicate some better protection for the crew and troops with comparable weapons and mobility, and secondly, against the background of foreign analogues, it remains one of the lightest. One of the latest examples, the Finnish BTR "Patria" 6x6 in the basic configuration retains the ability to swim up to a weight of 21,5 tons, and the reinforced version increases this parameter by 2 tons. In other words, if the weight of a tank is conditionally limited to 50 tons, then for the BTR class, a limit of 20 tons is quite acceptable. Thus, the golden mean for the Russian TBMP can be taken as a weight limit of 35 tons.
This average weight category of the general table of ranks will allow and require the development of an independent concept for the creation and use of IFVs. In this weight category, it will be necessary to flatly abandon the amphibious nature of the vehicle and parachute landing. Let the newly created airborne (or more precisely, airmobile) divisions and marine divisions overcome water boundaries and land on the sea coast. Existing units are not deprived of combat equipment and weapons adapted for this. Ground forces will not lose any of their combat capabilities if, with the gradual withdrawal of the BMP-1 and BMP-2, floating armored personnel carriers of the weight category up to 20 tons are put into service. But the appearance of heavy IFVs with the appropriate protection, mobility and firepower will allow company commanders to depend less on interaction with tanks and artillery.
In order to create something new, necessary and effective, it would be a good idea to first define the evaluation criteria and customer requirements. It is proposed to digitize the quality of the machine to compare it with similar samples, abandoning the impersonal criterion of "satisfactory and unsatisfactory". The basis is the simplest formula of three components, each of which represents the relationship of interrelated specific characteristics of the machine.
The relations in the formula are applied with the sign of influence on the combat characteristics of the vehicle directly proportional or inversely proportional. These are the widely known: specific power (hp/t), the higher its value, the better the acceleration characteristics of the vehicle, its mobility on the battlefield, the speed of movement - a direct relationship; specific ground pressure (kg/cm2), the higher the value, the worse the off-road performance - an inverse relationship.
The third ratio will be unusual - specific armor (t/m), where the combat weight of the vehicle is traditionally measured in tons, but the perimeter is measured in meters, that is, the doubled value of the sum of the length and width of the object. I will not reveal the truth if I remind you that the armor of the vehicle is usually located exactly along the perimeter of the vehicle, somewhere thicker, somewhere thinner. The armor of the bottom and upper projection of the vehicle is usually uniform and much inferior in specific weight to the frontal and side projection, and in general for the vehicle they can be accepted as uniformly distributed along the perimeter. The only confusion is that each individual ratio has a weight category.
Having decided on the weight category, the next logical step would be to discuss the overall dimensions of the future TBMP. From the table below, it is clear that if you compare the BMP-3 and M2A1 Bradley contemporaries, it is easy to notice that the perimeter of the domestic vehicle is 1,5 meters larger than that of the American. Here, the influence of a long-standing template is felt: the desire to minimize the area of the frontal silhouette of the vehicle, which traditionally has the best armor protection both due to the thickness of the armor and due to the choice of optimal angles of its inclination according to the version of the developers of the Soviet school of tank building.
The second component of the silhouette of both the frontal and side projections and secondary in importance is always the height of the vehicle, but it is the same for both sides of the protection consideration. Purely theoretically, if we increase the weight of the BMP-3 by four tons due to the increase in armor (which, in fact, is done when installing ERA and additional armor screens) and equalize the weight with the Bradley, then still, due to the larger perimeter, our vehicle will be inferior to the American one in terms of specific armor. Therefore, we must conclude that the new vehicle needs to reconsider the length-to-width ratio. Of all the weapons in the table, the length-to-width ratio is greater than that of the BMP-3 only in the ancestor of the BMP-1 class, which is indirectly confirmed by the lowest specific armor value.
After coordination with the railway workers, the width of domestic main battle tanks has been increased along the tracks to zero oversize, which is 3450 mm. Without running into the maximum permissible parameters of the railways, we will limit ourselves to choosing the width of the heavy IFV along the tracks to 3400 millimeters. Theoretically, this will allow "packing" two vehicles into the cargo cabin of the Il-76MD-90A transporter. At the same time, in order to prevent the perimeter from growing higher than that of the BMP-3, we will voluntarily and forcibly reduce the length of the vehicle to 7 meters. Thus, in terms of specific armor, the new TBMP will be inferior only to the latest German fresh product!
Taking the honorable second place in specific armor, losing only to last year's German newcomer with a combat weight of 44 tons, in this particular case does not even look like a defeat. But on the battlefield and in the frontline zone, our vehicle will flutter like a butterfly thanks to the excellent specific power of 34,2 horsepower per ton of live weight! Where does such agility come from? Well, it is indecent to keep domestic developments on the engine for the Armata platform under wraps for several years. The Russian four-stroke diesel engine 12N360 in the simplest version of the A-85-3A model range with a capacity of only 1200 hp.
Once upon a time, they were not afraid to introduce gas turbine engines on tanks, two-stroke opposed diesel engines were less successful, why not test a 12-cylinder four-stroke X-shaped diesel in one block with an automatic transmission on a new heavy infantry fighting vehicle? By the way, an automatic transmission is already used on the main tank T-90 MS, which has already conditionally crossed the red line of the 50-ton weight category, and continues to operate the next "improved version" of the 12-cylinder V-shaped diesel V-92S2F2 with a capacity of 1130 hp.
Let's try to reasonably justify the use of a new engine on a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. Firstly, the layout of the new heavy infantry fighting vehicle assumes an unconventional engine location. The combined power unit of the engine and automatic transmission is located in the center of the armored hull under the remotely controlled weapon module (RCWM). The width of the ring for installing the RCWM is provided at 2005 millimeters, which corresponds to an opening area of 3,15 square meters. The A-85-3A diesel, with its compact dimensions (length - 81,3 cm; width - 130 cm; height - 82 cm), is smaller in volume even than its two-stroke brother - the famous 6TD2, and even less than the V-92S2F2.
It is known from available sources that the Leclerc tank engine can be replaced within 30 minutes. Let's assume that the same operation on a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will take 1,5 hours, of which 45 minutes will be spent on dismantling and returning the combat module to its place. But this will be significant progress, considering that replacing the engine on a T-72 takes experienced technicians up to 10 hours. Secondly, as can be seen from the table, the record-breaking specific power of the vehicle is guaranteed to provide superiority in speed both on the battlefield and on public roads, which will result in a tactical advantage for both an individual crew and the unit as a whole.
The speed characteristics of the vehicle, which will be comparable to the now popular motorcycles, quad bikes and buggies, combined with armor protection provided by 35 tons of metal and firepower at the level of a light tank, combined with unrivaled cross-country ability will provide assault units with depth and surprise in breaking through enemy defenses with minimal losses. Thirdly, it is due to the compactness and power of the new engine that it becomes possible to create an infantry fighting vehicle capable of providing a degree of protection for the crew and troops at the level of the best analogues of a potential enemy and equip it with a weapons system capable of withstanding all existing types of weapons on the modern battlefield.
Now let's take a closer look at the chassis and hull of the heavy IFV. The use of an engine that is more powerful than all serial models of domestic tank building will obviously require the chassis of the new vehicle to be no less durable and reliable than on the main tanks in order to maximize the achievable speed characteristics and unique cross-country ability. In order not to waste funding on developing a chassis from scratch, as a new model of armored vehicles, in the conditions of the military economy, it is proposed to creatively approach the solution to the problem, using, if possible, serially produced and mastered by military-industrial complex units and parts of the existing main tanks T-80 and T-90.
The 172.55.010sb-2 track with increased service life and traction properties, parallel rubber-metal hinges (RMSh), with stamped tracks, developed during the R&D "Ramka-99" (BMPT) is an excellent choice as a propeller. Since the TBMP will be significantly lighter than either of the two main tanks, reasonable weight savings should only be welcomed. As the first and sixth road wheels on each side, we will use regular road wheels (not reinforced) from the T-90 with a diameter of 755 millimeters and a weight of 194 kilograms. At positions 2-3-4-5, we will install road wheels from the T-80 with a diameter of 670 mm and a weight of 120 kg. This unusual combination allows the overall weight of the chassis to be slightly lightened and the rolling resistance of the tracked drive as a whole to be somewhat reduced by increasing the diameter of the first and last road wheels, as on the British Valentine tank.
For the same reasons, we select 14-tooth drive wheels and guides, although the latter can be unified with the road wheels from the T-80, following the example of the Leopard-1 tank. We install all twelve relatively short torsion bars from the T-80 on the relatively narrow hull of the BMP, despite the fact that they are heavier and more expensive than the torsion bars of the T-90. But we save on the price of four hydraulic shock absorbers and six support rollers from the T-90. The rockers on the inner road wheels are native, but for the outer ones, apparently, new ones will have to be made due to different mounting holes on the torsion bars. Such a combination of existing components and units from different types of tanks allows us to create a chassis for the BMP that is approximately 500 kilograms lighter than any of the aforementioned tank models, and with a minimal expansion of the range of new elements.
The hull of the heavy IFV is very close to the BMP-3 in terms of linear dimensions and perimeter. This is where the similarities end, because the layout, material and manufacturing technology are completely different. If armor plates of five to seven denominations of different thicknesses were used to build the hulls of previous generations of vehicles, then only four are used in the new vehicle. Without belittling the merits of aluminum armor and the advantages of spaced combined armor, as well as the hype in the advertising campaign from promoting such high-tech products, let's not forget about the "cost-effectiveness" criterion.
If the Soviet Union could afford to release tens of thousands of BMP-1/-2, then modern Russia currently has only about five hundred BMP-3 vehicles of various modifications. But the United Arab Emirates (UAE) purchased 390 vehicles, tiny Kuwait went broke on 225 units, and even poor Venezuela acquired 123 units... In 2019, the price of one BMP-3 was 85 rubles. At the same time, according to military analyst Henry Shlottman, the export cost of the BMP-944 is $658, while the BMP-3 is only $1. So maybe it is better to have four BMP-100s on the battlefield instead of one BMP-000? Therefore, the hull of the TBMP will be steel, and its rigidity will not suffer in any way due to the design and layout.
Armament. After half a century, it has become generally accepted that the BMP-1's armament with a smoothbore 73-mm gun is a weakness. However, in the recent sensational comparison of the BMP-3 with the Bradley IFV, the armament complex of the domestic vehicle was presented as almost the only real advantage over the product of the American military-industrial complex. In my opinion, the rifled 100-mm gun/launcher 2A70 does not have any fundamental advantages over the 2A28 Grom gun and its extended version 2A41 Zarnitsa, except for those that are attached to the increased caliber by definition.
The latter, with a light hint from Wikipedia, is not called a smoothbore gun at all, but a smoothbore semi-automatic grenade launcher. Nowadays, the effectiveness of 100-mm guided anti-tank projectiles from the BMP-3 ammunition against modern tanks is significantly inferior to the 152-mm American ATGM BGM-71F TOW IIB, and the possibilities for modernization are limited by the same caliber of the gun/launcher. And only thanks to the creative combination of two guns of 100 and 30 mm calibers with a rifle-caliber machine gun in one turret, the high rating of our machine is maintained.
The fact that the BMP-3 armament system, developed in the early eighties of the last century, will have to be recognized as obsolete and gradually losing relevance on the modern battlefield, is evidenced by facts that are difficult to ignore. There are already versions of a deep modernization of the vehicle under the names "Dragoon" and "Manul". Indirectly, this is confirmed by the developments based on the BMP-3 chassis "Derivation-Defense" and "Sprut-SDM1". The first emphasizes the weakness of the declared capabilities of both individual vehicles and motorized infantry units to counter modern air threats, and the second - about the need for support in the fight against modern tanks, although it is still believed that the BMP-3 weapons system is still capable of confidently mitigating emerging threats. The only good news is that in both cases, the designers see the achievement of greater efficiency in increasing the caliber of the guns: 57 mm in air defense and 125 mm in anti-tank defense.
Let's approach the approach to choosing the armament of a heavy IFV from afar. There is a contradictory drawing available on the Internet with a detailed image of the BMP-1 armor, but a comparison of the armor penetration of the guns of the BMP "Marder" and BMP-2 (the same gun is installed on the BMD-3 and BMPT "Terminator").
If we are to believe the graphic information in the drawing, the shells of the Western gun in seven cases out of eight variants have better armor penetration indicators in comparison with domestic ammunition. The second disappointing conclusion is the assertion that the BMP-1 at a distance of less than 1000 meters has no armor at all that would prevent penetration of the hull and turret by 20-mm armor-piercing shells.
Judging by the specific armor parameter, the BMP-2 is not far from its predecessor in terms of protection. And there is information that the M242 gun on the Bradley IFV with a 25-mm armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile is capable of penetrating 75 mm of homogeneous armor at a right angle. And if we believe some experts that the better accuracy of the M242 gun in comparison with the 2A42 is achieved due to its greater weight, rigid mount, thicker barrel, the use of an electric drive instead of a gas bleed, and the installation of a muzzle brake, then it becomes clear that the very concept of arming the BMP-3 with a 100-mm gun/launcher with a 30-mm 2A72 cannon (inferior in some parameters to the 2A42 cannon) requires updating and replacement. The Russian Ministry of Defense is also forced to acknowledge this fact, as in 2020 it began upgrading the BMP-2 to the BMP-2M level by installing the Berezhok universal combat module (B05Ya01), which can also be installed on the BMP-3 chassis.
The Berezhok complex consists of (the combat kit is given in brackets): 30-mm automatic cannon 2A42 (500 rounds); 30-mm automatic grenade launcher AGS-17 in the rear part of the turret (300 rounds); 7,62-mm machine gun PKT (2 rounds); guided weapons (000 ATGM "Kornet") - all this was very relevant for the Algerian Armed Forces 4 years ago!
When creating and arming a new heavy infantry fighting vehicle for the future RF Ground Forces, we must remember that, starting with the Bradley IFV, all Western armor models are designed to withstand the Soviet 2A42 automatic cannon. The option of increasing the firepower of the BMP-3 by installing a Baikal combat module with a 57-mm rifled gun was considered. But this was the middle of the last century, because the new gun is supposed to fire ammunition from the 1953 model! In addition, 40 years ago, the Germans also considered the option of upgrading the Marder IFV with a 57-mm gun.
In the article "Universal MPC or anti-submarine corvette" the author already touched upon the topic of creating a new 75-mm gun for the Navy and its unification with the ground forces and the Russian Aerospace Forces. The main reason is the lagging characteristics of the ammunition of the AK-726 and AK-176 naval artillery mounts, developed and adopted for service fleet in the 60s of the last century, from modern analogues of Western countries. Russia already has experience in inter-species unification of weapons, it is dictated and requires implementation in life by the economy and logistics of a warring country.
If we remember that it is mid-2025, we can confidently assume the reason for the indifference of the Armed Forces service command to the initiative developments of the 57-millimeter gun industry, and, most likely, this can be explained by the lack of progress in the development of modern, in-demand, high-tech ammunition that could clearly demonstrate the advantages of the new system over the existing ones. Therefore, it is proposed to begin the development of a new inter-service artillery system of 75 mm caliber with the selection and definition of the nomenclature and characteristics of the ammunition used. The initial ammunition load of the 75-mm TBMP gun should include, first of all, conventional high-explosive fragmentation shells, in quantity they will surpass the programmable (air) detonation ammunition of the English abbreviation AHEAD and close the minimum necessary trinity for TBMP subcaliber armor-piercing shells with a uranium core.
Thanks to the easy submission of political scientist V.R. Solovyov, the thesis that we must fight with modern weapons, not legendary ones, became popular. The naval artillery mounts from the table are quite modern and in demand by the fleets of different countries, and in the future they may even receive the status of legendary. But the Soviet anti-aircraft gun and the German tank have long been legendary. In the table, they are combined as examples of weapons of 75-76 mm caliber with outstanding characteristics for their time. And our attempt to create a gun for TBMP should absorb all the best from world experience.
It is impossible not to mention the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle, which has become a “legend”, first shown at the Victory Parade in 2015. Weighing 55 tons, the vehicle’s armament with a 57-mm automatic cannon causes a feeling of discomfort, as if the BRDM-2’s main armament was a 5,45-mm machine gun! There were hopes that the automatic cannon and 2-4 ATGMs, either Kornet or Ataka, would be able to combat air targets and main battle tanks… The planned range was up to 500 km and a fuel reserve of more than two cubic meters – why this gigantomania?
The concept of armament of the TBMP should be designed for a quick decisive throw, conducting a short combat clash with any possible enemy, in which victory is ensured by the ultimate superiority of the characteristics of the weapon and the speed of its use, and an equally rapid retreat behind stationary protected positions to help evacuated wounded soldiers, replenish ammunition and fuel supplies.
What attack aircraft now “perform” on motorcycles and buggies without armor protection and with portable ammunition, without a large-caliber machine gun, without an automatic grenade launcher, without an ATGM and MANPADS, should take place under the cover of the armor of a TBMP and with the provision of fire destruction of threats that suddenly appear or are detected along the route. Two threes or three twos of paratroopers should enter the battle not exhausted on the route, and even having received concussions or wounds when approaching the enemy in a wide gray zone. The vehicle crew is four professional people capable of using the combat capabilities of the vehicle and weapons to the maximum: a driver-mechanic, a DUBM operator, an operator of a reconnaissance and attack UAV, a commander.
The main armament of the new TBMP is a 75-mm automatic cannon with a high initial velocity and muzzle energy of the projectile. It should be optimized for maximum efficiency to combat any targets at a range of up to 2-3 kilometers. The vertical guidance angle should be limited to -5 to +25 degrees. With an inclined range of 2,4 km, the destruction of an air target can be ensured up to an altitude of 1000 meters, and this, by the way, is the border between low and medium altitudes according to air defense concepts, and we should not take away bread from the units of the army air defense by increasing the height of the TBMP's DUBM turret and deteriorating the accuracy characteristics.
In this case, it is preferable to introduce the Verba MANPADS into the vehicle's ammunition load. In addition, at ranges above three kilometers, it is much more expedient to use the Ataka ATGM with supersonic flight speed on the route. To finally close the topic of the TBMP air defense, we will open a certain intrigue of its armament. Along with the large-caliber gun, twin large-caliber Kord machine guns will be installed on the left and right, and the landing force on the route will use two automatic shotguns to prevent attacks drones, which will be included in the vehicle's ammunition and stored in a box on the roof of the troop compartment. Anticipating a question from fans of creating a universal miracle weapon for all occasions of army life: how to conduct combat operations in the mountains and during the assault on high-rise urban development? At least mid-level commanders should have enough common sense not to send TBMPs into mountain gorges and passes, and to fire at buildings up to 200 meters high (if anyone encounters such) from a distance of no closer than half a kilometer!
The maximum technical rate of fire of the gun is limited to 15 rounds per minute. Four seconds is enough for the automatic system to return the spent cartridge case from the previous unitary cartridge to the ammunition rack, rotate it according to the selected type of projectile for the next shot, feed the cartridge and close the gun breech. During this time, the vibrations of the barrel and the machine as a whole from the impact of the recoil of the previous shot will disappear, the operator will be able to evaluate its results and make the necessary adjustments or begin retargeting the gun at another object.
Theoretically, the 2A42 gun from the Berezhok module can empty two ammunition belts in a minute to run out of ready-to-fire ammunition for the Kinzhal module, this period of time is also enough. Moreover, the weight of the ammunition for 30-mm shells is slightly more than 400 kg, and the ammo pack of 57-mm shells already exceeds 525 kg. The compact carousel ammunition rack for the 75-mm gun, which fits into the 2005 mm diameter turret ring of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, can accommodate 30-32 shells of various purposes. And these can even be shells similar to the German model with a flange diameter of the case up to 125 mm. The figure schematically and proportionally shows the ammunition rack for 16 shells.
The author prefers a 30-unit ammo pack with a total weight of less than 375 kg and a technical rate of fire that will provide a two-minute fire cycle. This solution will eliminate cases where the BMP-3 is loaded with only shells in the automated ammunition stowage (22 pcs.) for assault operations, leaving empty space for a transportable ammunition supply of another 18 shells to avoid their detonation in the event of a mine explosion.
If the main armament of the BMP is a 75-mm gun, then the auxiliary armament can be conventionally called two 12,7-mm machine guns 6P49 and 6P51 "Kord" - tank machine guns with right- and left-hand feeding. With almost the same initial bullet velocities in comparison with the traditional twin PKTM machine gun, the energy of a large-caliber bullet is five times higher than a rifle-caliber bullet. At a distance of 600 meters, this advantage is even more impressive: the flight speed of a large-caliber bullet is 150 m/s higher, and its energy is already nine times higher.
The list of targets that can be hit by a large-caliber machine gun, and especially a pair, is much wider than that of a rifle-caliber machine gun, and the guarantee of hitting is higher. Two such twin assistants will make life much easier for the crew and will allow saving ammunition for the main gun and its resource. It is quite reasonable to limit the ammunition for each barrel to five hundred rounds (the total weight of the ammo is about 135 kg). With two machine guns paired with the main gun, equipped with an electric trigger, it becomes possible to try out the option of firing each barrel in turn while maintaining the nominal rate of fire, like one machine gun. This will solve the problem of overheating of the barrels, which was warned about in advance by concerned readers.
The Internet occasionally sparks debates about the advisability of installing so-called course machine guns in the front of the vehicles on tracked shelves on IFVs. The author will join the supporters of these autonomous installations with PKT machine guns. The presence of four crew members of the TBMP assumes the expansion of their functionality in various combat conditions with the possibility of duplicating duties, including in the control of weapons, reconnaissance and communications.
For example, the driver and the UAV operator in the front row of the control compartment can equally control either their own machine gun mount on board, or each in turn, the coupled system of two machine guns at once. In extreme cases, when they are both loaded, they are set to the stop in the marching position, the machine guns turn into course guns and can be used for firing by the driver-mechanic only when convenient. Also, the UAV operator and the vehicle commander located behind him can, if necessary, intercept control of the "bird" or ATGM from each other. Of course, control of the turret armament is duplicated between the DUBM operator and the commander.
Returning to the autonomous machine gun mounts, the TBMP has the ability to expand the firing angles due to the use of 580 mm wide tank tracks on the vehicle (on the BMP-3 this value is 380 mm), and therefore wider fenders of the hull. In the combat position, the machine guns on the BMP-3 have depression and elevation angles of -5 and +15 degrees, respectively, in the horizontal plane the firing angles are: towards the side 5, from the side 30 degrees. On the TBMP, without changing the vertical angles, we expand the horizontal angles towards the side to 8 degrees and away from the side to 34 degrees. The ammunition load of the machine guns is 2000 rounds per barrel.
The main caliber of the remote-controlled combat module of the heavy infantry fighting vehicle will be four 130-mm controlled missiles "Attack". A wide range of modifications of both the missiles themselves and their warheads ensure reliable destruction of enemy heavy armored vehicles using a tandem cumulative warhead (which is not available on the BMP-3), the destruction of fortified firing points and defensive structures is guaranteed by the use of a combined warhead - high-explosive and volume-detonating action (the accuracy of the guided projectile is higher than that of the 100-mm OFS BMP-3); a modification of the missile with a rod warhead for destruction of aircraft is relevant at a range of up to 7 km (inaccessible to the air defense systems of the BMP-3). The missiles are located in pairs in the armored volume of the module's turret.
Having conducted an unbiased comparison of the anti-tank capabilities of the BMP-3 and new TBMP weapons systems, preference should be given to the combination of long-range supersonic cumulative ATGM "Ataka" and the irresistible power at short combat distances of sub-caliber shells with a uranium core of the 75-mm gun on the new vehicle. In combination with better armor protection with comparable dimensions and superior mobility and cross-country ability, the vehicle can claim priority equipment for assault units of the Ground Forces.
To form the final conceptual appearance of the new heavy IFV, let's put the finishing touches. For all three types of domestic IFVs, the cruising range is defined as 600 kilometers. To understand what this is and where it goes from here to where, I will give specific figures: the distance from Sevastopol to Donetsk by road is 622 km, and in a straight line - 502 km. Of course, I am wildly surprised, but would anyone in real life really plan a combat operation with the transfer of any of these tracked vehicles under its own power over such a distance!
In order to save the armored space of the TBMP and increase the vehicle's resistance to fire, we will limit the cruising range to 300 km (the distance from Sevastopol to Melitopol is 326 km along the highway, and 289 km in a straight line). This solution correlates well with a similar characteristic of the T-80 tank, which is considered "gluttonous" (the cruising range on the highway is 350 km, on rough terrain - 250 km). That is, when tanks and TBMPs operate together, the logistics will be almost the same. The specific fuel consumption of the 12N360 engine is slightly, but less than that of the UTD-29 engine of the BMP-3.
If you paid attention to the drawings of the chassis and hull of the TBMP, you should have noticed that the fuel supply is partially located outside the armored hull. Four tanks with a capacity of 30 liters each are located between the support rollers in the space between the side and the small-diameter road wheels. This was made possible by the large width of the tank track. The total volume, of course, is not impressive, but for primary consumption when moving to the line of combat contact, it will save fuel behind the armor, and in terms of an additional obstacle when a cumulative projectile hits, it will play a certain role.
The relative reduction in the ammunition load and the vehicle’s power reserve will require more frequent contacts with combat units from the support units, weapons services and rear services. In this regard, it makes sense to think about creating universal transport and loading vehicles that could not only supply fuel and lubricants separately, ammunition separately, and technical assistance separately, but also try to comprehensively provide all elements of technical and rear maintenance at points of contact. The issue of transferring units armed with heavy infantry fighting vehicles over long distances will need to be considered separately. If strategic redeployments are traditionally provided by the navy, the railway and heavy military transport aviation, then in operational and tactical terms it will be necessary to create units or subdivisions with special equipment and infrastructure that have a dual purpose with a commercial component.
Such simple, economical and reliable vehicles should appear for a much more massive and somewhat larger IFV. In addition to combat vehicles, such equipment will easily ensure the delivery of goods in standard 20-foot containers with maximum load or modular equipment based on them.
Information