Military Review

Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T

45
Heavy armored personnel carrier based tank The T-55 was first shown at the 2nd VTTV-97 exhibition. Designing the car, taking into account the heavy urban battles of the first Chechen campaign, the Omsk Design Bureau of Transport Engineering in a fairly short time designed and built a tracked armored personnel carrier, "utilizing" the chassis of the outdated T-55 medium tank. It should be noted that the work was carried out on an initiative basis, based on our own funds. The result was a combat vehicle that was not inferior in terms of protection, but superior to the main battle tanks T-80 and T-90 in terms of mine protection. The prototype was demonstrated at Omsk exhibitions with various weapon systems: 30mm 2A42 gun + ATGM or 12,7mm Utes machine gun + ATGM. The name also “sailed” from BTR-T to the DPM patrol and patrol car and back, the first option took root, because in fact, this is a highly protected vehicle designed to deliver soldiers to the battlefield. In the current conditions, the price of a “product” is also of no small importance, and in this case it is relatively low. T-55 in large enough quantities are still stored in warehouses, but their "stock" is gradually harassed anyway, either cut into smelting, or handed out to new "friends." (Apparently, no one was apparently looking for a financial component in the transfer of tanks to the Afghan “northern alliance”, from the very beginning it was clear that the Afghans had nothing to pay, not in dollars from the sale of drugs, in fact.) A whole series appeared about BTR-T critical articles in which the authors fairly, in general, pointed out flaws, they say, the landing is not enough, the armament is weak.


A heavy BTR-T armored personnel carrier during a demonstration at the exhibition VTTV-2003, Omsk, June 2003


Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T on the track of the landfill. Omsk, June 2003


BTR-T enters the conveyor to be sent to the landfill. Omsk, July 1999


Someone demanded to install dynamic protection also on the roof, while others, on the contrary, demanded that the roof be removed completely for a better view.

But the army in Chechnya continues to ride the BMP-1 / 2 and the BNR 70 / -80, and, moreover, on horseback, because their armor practically does not save anything.

The Israelis, whose experience in the KBTM was probably taken into account, are in a state of prolonged armed conflict with the Palestinian population. In urban military operations, heavy tracked armored personnel carriers “Ahtsarit” are widely used, converted from medium-sized T-54 / -55 tanks captured during previous Arab-Israeli conflicts. According to the Western press, the number of such machines reached, almost to a thousand! This is not surprising if we consider that the first BTR of this type appeared already in 1987. From 44 t. The total mass of the vehicle is more than 14 t. It comes to protection, and the armament consists of one remotely controlled machine gun FN 7,62 М240 (three more can be installed in the simplest mounting at the upper hatches, but shoot from them can only leaning to the waist). The more compact Detroit Diesel 8V071 TTA engine, combined with the Allison XTG-411-4 semi-automatic transmission, allowed developers to re-arrange the MTO, providing space for the rear "tunnel" to ensure the safety of leaving the car under fire. Well, yes, by the way, you can’t even project for unlimited American loans. We need to proceed from our real capabilities, and not from good wishes, to install the Arena system, a thermal imager, a more powerful gun, a mortar and MANPADS. Directly "Mure and Meriliz" turns out, as Comrade Stalin rightly noted in one of his works (albeit for a completely different reason). And who will pay for all this "splendor"?

BTR-T on the track of the landfill during the show at the exhibition of ERW-2003. Omsk, June 2003


Heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T at the exhibition platform of the exhibition VTTV-2003. Omsk, June 2003


View of the tower with the armament of a heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T from the left side. Omsk, June 2003


The BTR-T armored personnel carrier has enhanced protection not only in the front, but also along the sides. Omsk, June 2003


On the BTR-T additional fuel tanks DPM, in contrast to the base tank T-55, hidden under armor. Omsk, June 2003


The lower part of the body of the BTR-T, in addition to rubber-fabric screens, has additional protection in the form of steel plates for the entire length of the transport-combat compartment. Omsk, June 2003


In the meantime, the BTR-T, remaining in a single copy, was used by the KBTM officers when traveling to the landfill as a super-passable "taxi". During the demonstration of new images of heavy flamethrower systems to the customer’s representatives, the car caught the eye of one of the generals of the chemical defense forces, who, having familiarized himself with the technology closer, immediately declared that he wanted the same, only better. Moreover, he managed to “break through” the financing of the new theme, and as a result a BMO-T flamethrower fighting machine appeared on the T-72 chassis. Until now, flamethrowers in battle were forced to move on BMP, which deciphers as "infantry grave of infantry," and even the additional stuffing from "Bumblebees" and undermined, guaranteed to destroy all life, not only in the car, but around.


The drawings of the heavy armored personnel carrier based on the T-55 tank were completed by V. Malginov. 1 scale: 35


The place of the tank turret was occupied by a larger cabin than on the BTR-T; instead of a specially designed turret, a standard commander's hatch with a turret for the 12,7 mm machine gun, used on “seventy-twos”, was installed on the roof. Steel screens (T-90 type) now cover the lower part of the body for almost the entire length. The increased height of the armored boxes with additional fuel tanks on the futon shelves on the sides of the logistic platforms not only increases the safety of leaving the car through the rear hatches. A kind of armored "trench", resulting from the wheelhouse and the sides around the roof of the logistic system, allows you to fire "Bumblebees", not dismounting. The target range of fire is up to 600 m, and the maximum is up to 1000 m, which gives advantages in battle with the defeat of pillboxes or firing points in urban areas. Production of BMO-T can be called small-scale.

It was not accepted for service and was not exported. Initially, an insufficient number of paratroopers — 5 people — were attributed to the main shortcoming of the BTR-T.
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t_btr_russ.htm


Tower BTR-T. right view. In front of the commander's hatch is the mounting bracket for the ATGM unit. Omsk, June 2003


The left front part of the BTR-T hull, visible hatch and viewing instruments of the driver. Omsk, June 2003


The front sheet of the BTR-T hull is equipped with dynamic protection units of the T-80U type tank. Omsk, June 2003


View of the tower BTR-T in front. To the left of the remotely controlled machine-gun, the 1PN22M is visible. Omsk, June 2003


On the starboard hull of the BTR-T on the starboard side there are access hatches to the internal equipment of the vehicle. Omsk, June 2003


BTR-T rear view. The hull's stern leaf remained unchanged, the same as on the T-55 base tank. Omsk, June 2003
Author:
Photos used:
Author
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rennim
    rennim April 24 2013 08: 58
    12
    Give the Russian Army such a machine ... please. How much can I ride on cardboard?
    1. self-propelled
      self-propelled April 24 2013 09: 09
      10
      Of course, the army needs a slightly different machine - re-arranged, with a front-mounted MTO, etc. (This was repeatedly written on this resource). but for not having the best (or rather lacking at all) we get a relatively cheap means of transporting infantry on the battlefield. and at the same time, obsolete tanks can be disposed of.
      1. tttttt
        tttttt April 24 2013 09: 44
        +6
        This concept is more correct. I put a plus. In Ukraine, a good BTR-T is at the Malyshev factory, there have already been articles on it.
        1. ramsi
          ramsi April 24 2013 09: 57
          +1
          Well, again, not that. But what are they, in the end, thinking there ?!
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr April 27 2013 22: 36
            +2
            Quote: ramsi
            Well, again, not that. But what are they, in the end, thinking there ?!
            The article also says that it was carried out on an initiative basis. But looking at her, the military made an order for a similar, but more modern for flamethrower (BIO-T) that looks pretty decent.

            "... In the area of ​​the fighting compartment and the control compartment, a box-shaped armored superstructure is installed, the walls of which, together with the control compartment hull, form a habitable compartment with crew seats: the commander and driver's seat and a flamethrower compartment (7 people) with ammunition for RPO launch tubes in two pipes in a pack (a total of 32 missiles in the habitable compartment and additional stowage on the left fenders), which take up a significant volume and are fastened during transportation in quick-release racks mounted inside the habitable compartment. ... "
            http://btvt.narod.ru/4/bmot/bmot.htm
            1. ramsi
              ramsi April 28 2013 08: 54
              0
              we have long needed a "correct" armored personnel carrier, not a heavy vehicle for flamethrowers
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr April 28 2013 09: 29
                0
                Quote: ramsi
                we have long needed a "correct" armored personnel carrier, not a heavy vehicle for flamethrowers

                And who knows which armored personnel carrier is "correct"?
                An order from TK should be received from the military, which states what they want, and only then will the industrialists create the right one (of course, if these works are paid). If there is still no heavy armored personnel carrier, then such an order has not been received by industrialists. Or wait for a single platform.
                1. ramsi
                  ramsi April 28 2013 10: 40
                  0
                  First of all, you need to correctly prioritize:
                  1. BTR - a protected vehicle, including - for the delivery of infantry to the leading edge
                  2. BTR - fire support infantry
                  3. Everything else: protection against WMD, the ability to swim, landing, etc.
                  That is, when trying to implement a compromise, you should clearly understand what you can sacrifice and for what.
                  And so, this is an infantry vehicle, a kind of analogue of cluster munitions, which means, first of all, the most convenient landing and disembarkation of the assault force into the vehicle should be provided. And for this you can sacrifice everything else. That is, hinged doors in the stern, hinged doors in the middle of the sides and an individual hatch for each in the roof. That is, people must be confident that in any case: on their own, or "feet first," they will leave the car and plunge into it. Further, the combat compartment of the assault force should assume a central passage, a height of no less than 1.70 and a space partitioned off by centimeter partitions into individual cells.
                  There are only two places for engine location: in front, or immediately behind the control compartment.
                  Reservations must provide all-round protection against heavy machine gun fire
                  As a combat module, a large-caliber machine gun that works remotely and from open landing hatches is enough; preferably a couple of ATGMs and air defense systems.
                  And only after such a "spatial scheme" should one begin the actual design of the machine - and then how it goes.
                2. Retriever
                  Retriever 3 May 2013 15: 28
                  0
                  Tk, I can get it right now. Since the main area where they need to be used is the city, well, as a last resort, he will drive on roads. That is protection and protection again. It must withstand all types of portable anti-tank ammunition and mines. That is, he must have the maximum possible armor, plus dynamic armor from all sides (roofs too. In cities like to shoot on the roof), and do not forget about the arena. And a fast-firing cannon with large angles to shell windows in skyscrapers. In Rodi there would be nothing complicated, that’s the task, it’s not necessary to swim, the speed is also not very important, it’s overweight (that’s how it will mainly go on roads).
      2. Patton5
        Patton5 April 24 2013 10: 51
        +2
        The concept is so-so. It’s better, like in Kharkov, to turn the stern to the front and make it unified from the T-72 both for your army and for sale (for me, such a heavy bmp can replace a bmpt on the battlefield)
    2. Professor
      Professor April 24 2013 10: 42
      +5
      Give the Russian Army such a machine ... please. How much can I ride on cardboard?

      Radish horseradish is not sweeter. How will the fighters dismount? Through the top hatches? No, thanks.
      1. avt
        avt April 24 2013 13: 13
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        Radish horseradish is not sweeter. How will the fighters dismount? Through the top hatches? No, thanks.

        Well, the campaign for this was wrapped up request The device is weak, such as a concept. Only why the heck is a concept needed instead of a full-fledged machine? But the article is good.
      2. bask
        bask April 24 2013 16: 37
        +7
        Quote: Professor
        Ren radish is not sweeter. How will the fighters dismount? Through the top hatches?

        This is the main thing. BTR-T needs a full feed input, output.
        Until there is a full re-arrangement of the tank body, this will only be the appearance of the BTR-T. For the past 15 years since the creation of the BTR-T, it was impossible to develop technologies for the re-installation of the tank body. There is no real competition among enterprises, a monopoly.
        Re-arrangement of the T-64. (((BTR-T 64)) Why in Russia they do not do this ????
        1. Canep
          Canep April 24 2013 17: 05
          +1
          This is much better than displayed in the article. And the commander’s hatch with a machine gun went into action, and it should be easier for the cross section of more favorable angles for installing frontal armor. And the boys do not have to climb through the roof. Hang dynamic protection, and go!
        2. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. April 24 2013 23: 32
          +1
          Dear, make a discount on the fact that the T-64 used a new type of armor (combined multilayer), and the T-54/55 is monolithic, breaking through which will not be difficult even for a weaker caliber than 120 mm. It makes sense to remake the T-72 into a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, and the T-54/55 into support vehicles or into an ARV (in general, not for the front line, but for work in the rear). When in Kharkov the T-54/55 was converted to Typhoon2 for Peru, a lot of work was done there with a reservation so that it could withstand at least some modern shells. The car became so heavy that I had to put a 1050 hp engine.
          1. bask
            bask April 25 2013 00: 20
            0
            Quote: Alexander D.
            -54/55 monolithic, breaking through which is not difficult even for a weaker caliber than 120 mm

            What are you talking about. ,, Ahzarit, BTR-T, based on the T-55. The undercarriage of the T-55 tank, which consists of five road wheels, the driving wheel at the rear and the steering wheel at the front on each side. The undercarriage of the BTR-T, ,, Ahzarit, has been modernized. The suspension units of the track rollers are equipped with new torsion shafts, which allowed to increase the dynamic stroke of the roller, and the first and last suspension units are equipped with hydraulic stops of the company's production, which increased the load capacity and increase the speed over rough terrain.
            1. Die-hard
              Die-hard April 25 2013 00: 22
              +3
              Ahzarit is a bad example. From the T-55 there was only the lower armor plate and elements of the chassis.
              1. bask
                bask April 25 2013 01: 12
                +1
                Quote: Inflexible
                Ahzarit is a bad example. From the T-55 there was only the lower armor plate and elements of the chassis.

                There are few active-warring examples of BTR-T in the world and all in Israel. I will not list.
                As an example, for the BTR-T base, I cited the example, Object 216 ,, GSh, self-propelled guns, Peony, With such a load-carrying capacity of GSh, any BMP / BTR-T can be made.
                "" "Non-standard design and technical solutions and techniques made it possible to carry out the layout of the machine in such a way that, with its own weight of 65 tons, it allows lifting a load weighing 80 tons (during tests, the weight of the load reached 100 tons), and the automated control system (using an on-board computer ) takes into account the loading of the crane, boom reach, weight of the load and makes it possible to introduce restrictions on the angle of rotation and lifting height, ensuring safe work. "" [media = lternathistory.org.ua / kogda-tsvety-ne-strelyayut
                -mirnaya-zhizn-gusenichnogo-shassi-sau-2s7-]
                Ready platform for BTR-T

    3. vladsolo56
      vladsolo56 April 25 2013 07: 38
      +1
      the machine does not meet the requirements of the BMP. This is not a tank or BMP. The fact that internal troops need it is understandable, but not like that. the crew should be two people, a driver and a commander. Instead of a tower module, the good choice for today is quite rich. The troop compartment is also larger by at least 8 fighters. Everything else: protection, weapons, electronics, all the most modern and then the car will really be useful and irreplaceable. What is offered here is just cheap modernization, essentially useless.
    4. Retriever
      Retriever 3 May 2013 15: 16
      0
      Why does the army need another coffin on the tracks. Think for yourself what the main task of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is, Protection and how it performs it even if tanks in cities click like nuts. That is, taking armor from a medium tank is not enough at all, you need to make it impossible to hit it from portable mounts. That's when they solve this issue then it will be possible to have a conversation and not shout praises over what clever developers have come up with where to put the old tanks. I also want to note that the armament from the machine gun for fighting in the city is something. In the city you need a quick-firing gun, with large elevation angles, or similar to Shilka.
      And the weak armor of the current infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is due to the possibility of landing them from an airplane and swimming. Now, if these qualities are not needed for fighting in the city, then it is possible to develop an infantry fighting vehicle with the highest possible security from all sides and the roof, including a normal gun.
  2. Canep
    Canep April 24 2013 10: 10
    -4
    Still, on the basis of the T-34, something "new" was done.
    1. tttttt
      tttttt April 24 2013 10: 22
      +7
      And what is wrong? Saw on nails? And so how much equipment they drank. And this is the work of thousands of specialists. Do you think a tank to build it like a pie to bake? Great tanks and T-55, albeit old, but it's still tanks. Learned to store normally. They do not take up much space. In a modern war, when high-tech products with advanced electronics can be disabled in a matter of minutes, the old people will fight, and even they know how to ride them half the Soviet Union, no one needs to be taught.
      1. Canep
        Canep April 24 2013 10: 54
        0
        Papuans to sell, but to yourself something newer to rivet. Although there were so many rivets at one time ...
      2. Canep
        Canep April 24 2013 13: 38
        -2
        Ask the soldiers whether they need such a machine, or is it better to put nails on it. Looks like a cheap Chinese fake "Bradley", even the color is appropriate.
  3. Gorko
    Gorko April 24 2013 10: 58
    +4
    I like the Israeli version of the modernization and rearrangement of the T-55 "Akhzarit" more, at least it is easier and safer to dismount in an Israeli car. So finalize and refine !!!
    1. ramsi
      ramsi April 24 2013 12: 12
      +1
      let this "miracle" remain for the Jews; they are the authors of this idea, they need
    2. Chicot 1
      Chicot 1 April 24 2013 12: 42
      +4
      Quote: GORKO
      I like the Israeli version of modernization and rearrangement of the T-55 Akhzarit more.

      As soon as a compact diesel engine (like the one installed on the Akhzar) appears, then (but not earlier) it will be possible to think about the device for the stern dismounting of the landing force. But while the regular and native dviglo T-55 will be registered on the BTR-T, then you shouldn't even stutter about this ...
      And most likely they will not develop a new diesel engine for the BTR-T. And they will not buy Akhzarite (if I am not mistaken - American-made) from abroad either. Otherwise (in both cases) the cost of such a "restructuring" of the T-55 into the BTR-T will increase. And they are in no hurry to carry out it even with the current prices ...
      1. Die-hard
        Die-hard April 25 2013 00: 26
        0
        Quote: Chicot 1
        then you don’t even have to stutter about it ...

        In general, it’s not worth stuttering about the BTR-T. It’s worth burying it and ..
        As far as we know, armata is not only a tank, it is a platform on which there will be a tank, a self-propelled gun and what interests us is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
  4. Strashila
    Strashila April 24 2013 10: 58
    +2
    The worst part is that hundreds of tanks go into smelting annually. On their base you can make BMPTs, BTR-Ts, fuel trucks, command posts ... but our MO leadership will prefer to send them to the furnace.
    1. Krasnoyarsk
      Krasnoyarsk April 24 2013 20: 41
      0
      Tank truck on a meringue tank? 0_o
      1. Argon
        Argon April 25 2013 02: 03
        0
        Yes fuel truck, and you think this is superfluous
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn April 25 2013 20: 47
          0
          And the projectile would not be bad, otherwise the tanks would come off even without shells behind enemy lines, and then bam.
          1. Die-hard
            Die-hard April 25 2013 21: 53
            0
            TZMku? By itself.
  5. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 24 2013 11: 12
    +3
    The article is wonderful. You can publish a monograph. By the way, in the armies of the Russian Chemical Forces Defense there is practically a similar specimen in the armament - the combat vehicle of the BMO-T flamethrower. No need to invent anything. Upgrade for infantry and troops.
    1. avt
      avt April 24 2013 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: VohaAhov
      By the way, in the armies of the Russian Chemical Forces Defense there is practically a similar specimen in the armament - the combat vehicle of the BMO-T flamethrower. No need to invent anything. Upgrade for infantry and troops.

      So it was created in a firefight, thanks to the general - I saw what was being done with the flamethrowers in the BMP during the storming of Grozny and ordered a quick bang for our own. Yes, I got out of the situation, but this is not the way to victory! You need to do a normal car so that the landing can dismount and boot without problems, and not work out under fire miracles of acrobatics in full combat! To the delight of the governors that they are supposed to be such a fine fellow, they turned out of such shit so famously.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev April 24 2013 19: 54
        +2
        Sami, I suppose, you know that it’s too late to dismount under fire. Yes, from the BTR-T, or Ahzarit. As they said in Israel, it was not the Arabs' technique that failed, but they always ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time ... wink
        But for operations in special conditions, highly protected machines are needed. But this, of course, is not an armored personnel carrier. That is, transportation facilities. In addition to the landing, they must also have the appropriate weapons. And used tactically competently, and not travel along mined roads and are substituted by ambush fire.
        make at least a 100-ton BTR-T shell (grenade, high-explosive) everywhere will make it stronger. It is much simpler. And cheaper.
  6. Massik
    Massik April 24 2013 11: 27
    +1
    The armor is strong and our tanks are fast, their RPG does not hit from around the corner !!! laughing
    the machine is heavy, but against the tank gun or tank, it still will not pull, so they will ride around the city until the trucks are knocked out.
    1. Akim
      Akim April 24 2013 11: 45
      +2
      Quote: Marssik
      the machine is heavy, but against the tank gun or tank cann’t pull anyway

      Why did you decide so. And elements of remote sensing for what? An RPG is definitely not a threat to her forehead and sides, and her tank gun gives a 100% guarantee of defeat.
  7. Akim
    Akim April 24 2013 11: 48
    0
    Quote: Akim
    Quote: Marssik
    the machine is heavy, but against the tank gun or tank cann’t pull anyway

    Why did you decide so. And elements of remote sensing for what? An RPG is definitely not a threat to her forehead and sides, and a tank gun does not give a 100% guarantee of defeat.
  8. -Dmitry-
    -Dmitry- April 24 2013 11: 55
    +2
    Quote: Marssik
    The armor is strong and our tanks are fast, their RPG does not hit from around the corner !!! the machine is heavy, but against the tank gun or tank, it still will not pull, so they will ride around the city until the trucks are knocked out.


    Well kag be, the armored personnel carrier is not intended for this at all, for this there are tanks (against tank guns), but against the anti-tank systems it is either BMPT or infantry.
    In my opinion, the BTR-T is a very good option. Only in my opinion, it is not necessary to set the cliff, but 2A42 + ATGM, and preferably 2A72, ATGM and AGS.

    . How will the fighters dismount?


    Well, in general, as I understand it, they are dismounting both from BMD and BMP-3.
  9. Maximus
    Maximus April 24 2013 13: 17
    0
    Maybe something similar will be created on the basis of Almaty? It’s hard to believe the truth, because everyone is waiting for Kurgan.
  10. Tourist Breakfast
    Tourist Breakfast April 24 2013 13: 30
    +3
    Well, yes, however, you can’t design for unlimited American loans. We need to proceed from our real capabilities, and not good wishes to install the Arena system, a thermal imager, a more powerful gun, a mortar and MANPADS. Directly “Mur and Merilis” is obtained, as Comrade Stalin rightly remarked in one of his works (though for a completely different reason). And who will pay for all this "splendor"?


    Well, yes, of course - it is much more economically profitable to have thousands of outdated tanks rusted in countless cemeteries. We will show at exhibitions year after year the only copies of "no_analogues_in_the_world" (tm), like the BTR-T or the Terminator, which will never be put into service.
    Well, the lives of soldiers, they’re generally free.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi April 24 2013 14: 05
      0
      as for obsolete tanks, in principle, there are two ways: in wartime - a valuable reserve of any quality; in peace - either a base for engineering machines, or for controversial experimental concepts (like a terminator, combat drones, etc.), or - tractors in the national economy
      1. Professor
        Professor April 24 2013 14: 12
        +1
        valuable reserve in any quality

        It will not work, it was possible to put a tractor driver on the T-34, and the crew and technical services must be constantly trained in a modern tank otherwise they will be killed and cripple others.

        in peace - either a base for engineering machines

        It is economically unprofitable to carry tons of armor where they are not needed at all, ergonomics like in a tank, noise and exhausts do not correspond ...

        or for controversial experimental concepts (like a terminator, battle drones, etc.),

        Fit into existing boundary conditions instead of creating new technology?

        either - tractors in the national economy

        Again, pull tons of armor instead of payload?
        1. ramsi
          ramsi April 24 2013 15: 23
          +1
          It will not work, it was possible to put a tractor driver on the T-34, and the crew and technical services needed to be constantly trained in a modern tank otherwise they would be killed and crippled others. [/ Quote]

          Generally speaking, the reserve is supposed, first of all, for knocked out main (modern) tanks, the crews of which have survived, although I don’t see any problems for the reservists. Anyway, at least something is better than nothing


          [quote = professor] It is economically unprofitable to carry tons of armor where they are not needed at all, ergonomics like in a tank, noise and exhausts do not correspond ... [/ quote]

          I wouldn’t say that for a bridge-laying machine, a trencher, a mine clearing machine or a free tractor it’s such an obstacle

          [quote = professor] Fit into the existing boundary conditions instead of creating a new technique? [/ quote]

          But where did you see her? !!

          [quote = professor] Again, pull tons of armor instead of payload? [/ quote]

          But in the last paragraph I agree - without proper maintenance, due to the lack of spare parts, qualified personnel and a common rotten system - they most likely, after the first breakdown, will rust somewhere in the open, in the vast expanses of our homeland
          1. Professor
            Professor April 24 2013 15: 48
            0
            in fact, the reserve is supposed, first of all, for knocked out main (modern) tanks, whose crews survived

            Only not in Soviet tanks with AZ where penetration of armor is almost guaranteed to lead to detonation of ammunition and to the death of the crew. Smaller damage is repaired on site and does not require a replacement tank.

            I wouldn’t say that for a bridge-laying machine, a trencher, a mine clearing machine or a free tractor it’s such an obstacle

            The laws of physics apply to military equipment. Excess weight is excess solarium. Regarding the trencher, there was such a case in the Akhalkalaki region. The locals needed to dig a trench under the cable. They turned (privately) to sappers. They expressed their willingness to help the local population, dug a trench with special equipment in a split second. Both sides were just happy. However, after laying the cable, it became necessary to dig this trench, and the soil turned out to be beautifully scattered 30 meters from the trench ...
            The moral of this fable is this ... everything must be used for its intended purpose.

            But where did you see her? !!

            Who is her? Border conditions. The chassis of the existing tank is going to be redone, here you have the boundary conditions.
            1. ramsi
              ramsi April 24 2013 16: 06
              +1
              I'll start with the latter, although I did not quite understand:
              Quote: Professor
              Who is her? Border conditions. The chassis of the existing tank is going to be redone, here you have the boundary conditions

              And what is there, so revolutionary, that has changed in the chassis so that it can steal any innovative idea?

              Quote: Professor
              Only not in Soviet tanks with AZ where penetration of armor is almost guaranteed to lead to detonation of ammunition and to the death of the crew. Smaller damage is repaired on site and does not require a replacement tank.

              Suppose, however, as far as my modest experience allows me, I dare to say that it is, as a rule, much easier to drive a modern machine than an obsolete one

              Quote: Professor
              The laws of physics apply to military equipment. Excess weight is excess solarium.

              So after all, it’s free, almost ... (But in conditions of shortage?)
              1. Professor
                Professor April 24 2013 19: 44
                +1
                Suppose, however, as far as my modest experience allows me, I dare to say that it is, as a rule, much easier to drive a modern machine than an obsolete one

                Yes, quit. In a modern tank like in a spaceship, there is so much electronics ... No wonder they study in tank schools for several years. The materiel has become very complicated.

                So after all, it’s free, almost ... (But in conditions of shortage?)

                Well then, as they say in the lack of fish, you yourself will become a cancer. laughing

                And what is there, so revolutionary, that has changed in the chassis so that it can steal any innovative idea?

                For example, I had to use the engine in the stern and got pornography as in the pictures in the article.
            2. beard999
              beard999 April 24 2013 18: 14
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              Only not in Soviet tanks with AZ where penetration of armor is almost guaranteed to lead to detonation of ammunition and death

              Do you have any specific numbers (the number of penetrations / detonations of tanks with AZ)? Or simply decided to drag another snowstorm, from the crow's bark, here?
              Soviet tanks from AZ, for example, recaptured in two Chechen campaigns. Including in the conditions of protracted urban battles. Through penetrations there were enough, including and with the death of crews. But this did not always lead to detonation of the BC. There are enough examples http://btvt.narod.ru/2/tanks_in_grozny.htm (pictures are clickable there).
              1. Professor
                Professor April 24 2013 19: 41
                0
                Do you have any specific numbers (the number of penetrations / detonations of tanks with AZ)? Or simply decided to drag another snowstorm, from the crow's bark, here?

                Optical GOS on Spike satisfied? wink

                There are enough examples http://btvt.narod.ru/2/tanks_in_grozny.htm (pictures are clickable there)

                Just one picture of a torn tower? Not much. sad I had been collecting such photos especially from the Russian-Georgian war, but after the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, I quit, there will not be enough space on the hard drive. lol
  11. _KM_
    _KM_ April 24 2013 14: 01
    +2
    The machine leaves an impression more thoughtful than BMPT.
  12. lazy
    lazy April 24 2013 15: 00
    0
    and yet 5 people will not be enough, it would be better if they called it a "patrol vehicle DPM", especially since we have nothing worthy to replace the brigade?
  13. Bongo
    Bongo April 24 2013 15: 51
    +5
    Is it worth it to "fixate" on the armored personnel carrier? Obsolete tanks can be used in another way. For example, mount instead of a tower ATGM or SAM. Security, in any case, will be higher than that of MTLB. Or make tractors and ARVs on their basis, at one time, a large number of T-34s were converted in this way.
  14. Denis
    Denis April 24 2013 18: 51
    +1
    It is clear that it was not invented from a good life. But there are too many of these "but". All the same, the tank was designed, from there and the layout. And this is not enough troops and the notorious exit. With mine protection is good, but frontal like a tank is needed? Not a tank, an armored personnel carrier, though armored, is primarily a transporter. Armor will have to pay for weight and power reserve.
    Never a good moped was obtained from a bicycle, and in our case a bicycle from a moped
    New under these requirements it is necessary to design
    1. Die-hard
      Die-hard April 24 2013 19: 33
      +1
      Quote: Denis
      All the same, the tank was designed, and from there the layout

      If the% designers here had the name kb%, the task was to make a unified platform consisting of a tank, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle and say sau - it would have an MTO in the face for this very layout.
      Well, the BTR-T in terms of layout .. This is what is called the word in letter p.
  15. bublic82009
    bublic82009 April 24 2013 22: 28
    0
    in order to create a technique you need to understand, and why is it needed? Why do you need a heavy armored personnel carrier? in the forest and in the swamps do we need it? whether he creeps on bad bridges and roads with which our Motherland abounds. are we able to provide fuel with such a number of engines. enough for special operations. but not in battle. for such a machine will be fired not from RPGs but from the Competition or 120 mm guns. and then goodbye to the car and the compartment.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. April 24 2013 23: 46
      0
      This machine is suitable for urban battles with a certain DZ (Doublet) and KAZ (Barrier). Kharkovites represented BMPT-64 with DZ Doublet mixed with DZ Knife. For complete happiness, you need the Cleaver module (in the Russian version) or the Sturm module (in the Ukrainian version). Just a 30-mm gun should have a large elevation angle, and replace the rockets with thermobaric.
  16. Skuto
    Skuto April 24 2013 22: 49
    0
    so many photos and there’s not even one where inside.
  17. ramsi
    ramsi April 24 2013 22: 59
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Yes, quit. In a modern tank like in a spaceship, there is so much electronics ... No wonder they study in tank schools for several years. The materiel has become very complicated.

    how they teach is a separate song. But something tells me that in a war, this process will easily shrink to a week of practical dragging, and if something is really missing, it’s a combat experience, not knowledge.

    Quote: Professor
    For example, I had to use the engine in the stern and got pornography as in the pictures in the article.

    Are you talking about Ahzarit?
    1. Professor
      Professor April 25 2013 07: 49
      +2
      Ahzarit is just an example of how these boundary conditions force one to cast out. Look at Namer, everything is there in a bundle. By the way, when manufacturing Namer, it turned out that it was cheaper to create an armored personnel carrier from scratch than to remake old tanks. Therefore, they decided to produce Namers from scratch.
  18. ramsi
    ramsi April 25 2013 09: 27
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Ahzarit is just an example of how these boundary conditions force one to cast out. Look at Namer, everything is there in a bundle. By the way, when manufacturing Namer, it turned out that it was cheaper to create an armored personnel carrier from scratch than to remake old tanks. Therefore, they decided to produce Namers from scratch.

    to use a tank chassis under an armored personnel carrier was generally not a very sound idea, just like the concept of a heavy armored personnel carrier. And if you look at specific samples - it’s so easy to give up
  19. The comment was deleted.