Military Review

BMPT: work on the bugs

62
Two weeks ago, so to speak, “going to a meeting of the exhibition”, we began a series of publications about BMPT (“Ural Terminator”, “Oh, these“ thirty ”...”), the main leitmotiv of which is the recognition of its mistakes made by UKBTM for one reason or another, when creating the “Terminator.” The most deadly criticism of the BMPT “Terminator” sounded in the magazine “Arsenal” No. XXUMX / 1 year in the article “The Fate of the Terminator”. This article, the staff of the corporation "Uralvagonzavod" was perceived very painfully. But as we see, studying the materials of the UKBTM workers themselves, in the "half-closed" publications, they themselves are well aware that creating the BMPT, they, to put it mildly, "overrepresented." Here is another great article on this topic.


COMBAT COUNTER-TERRORISTIC MACHINE

V.M. Nevolin, D.G. Kolmakov (Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering")

Raran. Actual problems of protection and security. Armored vehicles and weapons. Proceedings of the Eleventh All-Russian Scientific Practical Conference. Tom 3. NPO Special materials. SPb, 2008. C.123-127.

The last 20 years have become a time of significant change in the socio-political situation in the world. With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the bloc standoff ended, and the likelihood of a global armed conflict using nuclear weapons weapons faded into the background. At the same time, other threats escalated and came to the fore. Among them are terrorism and separatism. Against this background, regional armed conflicts became more frequent, a characteristic feature of which was the conduct of hostilities in the city, in suburban areas and in mountainous areas with the active use of a large number of fairly modern anti-tank weapons, heavy artillery (mortars, artillery pieces), and often armored vehicles . The fighting in Iraq and Chechnya clearly showed the absence in the armies of economically and economically developed countries of special combat armored vehicles (BBVs) capable of conducting effective combat operations with irregular armed formations in the new conditions. Meanwhile, according to experts, the likelihood of such conflicts on the basis of political, economic, religious, ethnic, territorial and other contradictions in the near and medium term remains quite high [1]. Therefore, in a number of states, including the Russian Federation, quite active work has been carried out over the past five to ten years to adapt the existing BTT, including tanks, to the conditions of warfare in the village and in the highlands, and to create special, for the most part, wheeled vehicles. However, despite some successes achieved in this direction, so far in almost all countries involved in the development of such equipment, it has not been possible to create a special combat vehicle capable of effectively solving assigned tasks in new combat conditions. The only machine capable of effectively solving these combat missions at present is the tank support combat vehicle (BMPT), developed by the FSUE “UKBTM” and preparing to be put into serial production at the FSUE “PO Uralvagonzavod” (Fig. 1, 2, 3) . Its distinguishing feature is the combination of powerful multi-channel weapons, unique to armored vehicles, capable of hitting all kinds of targets on the battlefield and a modern all-weather, all-day fire etching system with all-round armor protection. At the same time, this combat vehicle inherited small dimensions and mass from the T-72 base tank. In addition, in comparison with the German “Leopard-2” PSO, the French “Leclerc” AZUR kit or the American “Ambrams” modernized under the TUSK program, the BMPT looks more preferable due to its much smaller overall dimensions and better maneuverability, since its armament at turning the tower does not go beyond the hull, and the pointing angles make it easy to hit targets on the entire height of urban buildings (from basement to upper floors of buildings). High performance characteristics allow the use of BMPTs as a multi-purpose vehicle both for providing direct fire support to tanks and for counter-terrorism and peacekeeping operations. Therefore, it is no coincidence, almost immediately, from the moment of its first demonstration at the arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in 2000 that the BMPT attracted close attention from specialists from leading countries producing armored vehicles - the USA, Germany, France, and Israel.


Figure 1 BMPT view from the front



Fig.2 BMPT side view



Fig.3 BMPT view from the rear



Nevertheless, despite its unique capabilities, the BMPT, as a combat counter-terrorism machine, according to the authors, has:
a) a complex and expensive fire control system (LMS);
b) an armament complex not sufficiently balanced for solving the tasks of combating illegal armed formations;
c) excessive range on the highway (at least 550 km);
d) the presence on the product of systems and equipment that are not relevant in the performance of counter-terrorism and peacekeeping operations (the OPV system, etc.).

Consider the possible options for combat counter-terrorism machine, which can be developed on the basis of BMPT

BMPT: work on the bugs

Fig.4 BKM-1


Option 1. This option (the conventional name of the machine BKM-1) is a modification of BMPT and involves the installation of a simplified, more adapted to the new conditions of warfare, the sighting and observation complex, equipment of the MSA and armament (Figure 4). The experience of combat operations with the participation of armored vehicles during counterterrorism operations indicates that the speed of movement of combat vehicles is low, and shooting is usually carried out from a place. In light of this, the use of such a complex and expensive instrument as a multi-channel gunner's sight, which has an independent 2-x planar stabilization of the visual field, is considered unreasonable in the authors' opinion. In addition, the specificity of the special operations shows that for the successful implementation of combat missions it is quite enough less expensive and complex sight. Therefore, instead of a multi-channel gunner's sight, it is proposed to install a low-level television sight (or a combined optical-electronic sight) with independent single-plane stabilization of the visual field, or a similar, but unstabilized sight. A panoramic sight for CCM is certainly needed, since it provides a circular view for the crew, which, under the conditions of combat in the city, significantly increases the possibilities for detecting and hitting targets. However, it seems expedient to use it, like the gunner’s sight, on a BKM with a single-plane stabilization of the visual field, or unstabilized. Taking into account the above, it will be quite logical for the system to stabilize the main armament to also perform a single-plane one. All this will lead to the need for simplification, including the equipment of the JMA. Taking into account the fact that up to 70% of the cost of modern BTT models is the cost of a fire control system, it can be stated unequivocally that the proposals put forward to simplify the sighting and observation complex and the equipment of the control system BKM-1 will reduce the cost of the product as a whole, while maintaining the tactical and technical characteristics characteristics at the required level, and thereby increase its attractiveness for domestic and foreign customers.

In order to optimize the complex of weapons for special operations, it is proposed to replace the guided missiles with armored containers with unguided missiles (C-8) with high-explosive fragmentation or volume-detonating warheads (CU). At the same time, the armament block consisting of two 30-mm 2-42 cannons and an X-NUMX-mm PKTM machine gun paired with them is borrowed from BMPT. The turret modified in this way is mounted on a tank corps, also refined (with installation of AG-7,62D course grenade launchers) similar to the BMPT corps.

The experience of fighting in the North Caucasus, in Iraq and Afghanistan showed that the main means of destruction of armored vehicles, including tanks, in irregular formations are reactive anti-tank grenades, anti-tank graname gunners (RPG), rocket-mounted infantry flame-throwers RPO-A “Bumblebee”, infantry and sniper weapons, including large-caliber weapons, as well as anti-tank mines, radio-controlled (RVU) and improvised (IED) explosive devices. Speaking about melee weapons, I would especially like to note that there is a high probability of using an illegal armed formations in the short and medium term RPGs with tandem combat units. Moreover, such samples are currently developed both in our country, abroad and abroad. Examples include domestic RPG-7 with PG-7ВР, PI1Г-27 "Tavolga" grenade, RPG-29 "Vampire", German RPG "Panzerfaus-3" and Swedish RPG AT12-T [2]. No less dangerous during special operations, mainly during patrols and when escorting columns of motor vehicles and armored vehicles, are mines. RVU and IED directional with a striking element of the type "shock core". RVU was most actively used in Chechnya and Iraq. In Iraq, IEDs and at the present time remain the most effective means of combating coalition forces. So, if in 2004 they caused about 30% of the total number of soldiers and officers killed in this country, in 2006-2007. the share of losses from the VCA was 80% [3].

Based on the above, it seems advisable to install on BKM-1 a set of protective equipment in the following composition:
- forehead projection of the hull and turret - the VDZ “Relikt” complex, including a removable module on the upper front part of the hull;
- on-board projection of the hull - rubber-fabric screens with DZ "Relikt" and additional fabric screens similar to BMPT, latticed protivokumulyatny screen in the area of ​​engine exhaust;
- feed projection of the hull and turret - lattice protivokumulyativnye screens.

The experience of combat use of armored vehicles during the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya showed that the installation of aerosol curtains on threatened areas reduces the loss of BTT several times. Therefore, it is proposed to install a 902A type smoke screen installation system using “Purga-3” launchers (50 mm caliber) on the product. This will allow to place on the product a larger number, compared with SDR of the TSHU-1 complex, the number of PUs with an increase in the veil production sector.

To improve the mine resistance (ICP) at BKM-1, it is proposed to introduce measures already implemented at BMPT in the department of management. install racks (pillers), and on the bottom of the machine additional protection, which can be made in the form of a removable module. In addition, in order to reduce the likelihood of an explosion on an RVU, it is proposed to install a radioelectronic suppression system (CRED) of the “Pelena-6” type, developed by KOBRA CJSC (Vladimir). This complex showed high efficiency when operating on various samples of motor vehicles and armored vehicles during the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya [4]. To ensure stable radio communication with other machines, the crew members of the BCM are equipped with a special helmet, developed by the above company, providing communication at a distance of at least 200 m with the RVU blocker operating. To ensure the protection of the upper projection of the product from cumulative PTSV above the hatches of the commander and the grenade launchers, additional armor screens with DZ containers are installed.

In order to enhance the crew’s ability to monitor the environment, it is proposed to introduce an outdoor video surveillance system at BKM-1. In addition, it seems advisable to install a telephone on the product, to ensure communication with departments. interacting with CCM. The installation of the phone, according to the authors, will contribute to a better orientation of the crew in the context of urban combat and the selection of priority objectives.

Taking into account the specifics of the use of CCM, it seems appropriate to significantly reduce the fuel stock carried on the product. According to the authors, the power reserve in 200 km (against 550 on BMPT) will be sufficient for the proposed car.

This will reduce the volume of transportable fuel at BKM-1 compared to BMPT by 2,7 times. At the same time, about 80% will be under reliable protection in the body of the product, part in the armored compartments (similar to BMPT), and the remaining 20% - outside the product in the armored compartment, providing protection against small arms fire, including from the upper hemisphere. The proposed event will significantly reduce the vulnerability of BKM-1 and increase ammunition course grenade launchers.

In order to maintain mobility and maneuverability at a high level of BKM-1, which is an important factor during combat in the city, a power plant with an B-92СXNNXX engine of 2 hp power is installed on the product.

Taking into account the possibility of using illegal armed formations during combat operations within the city or in mountainous areas, artificial obstructions or barricades on BKM-1, mounting points for a TBC-86 tank mounted bulldozer intended for clearing the area should be provided. As an option, the possibility of installing an original built-in armored dozer blade on the product (instead of the standard one), intended not only for clearing the area, but also an additional means of protecting the frontal projection of the hull, can be considered.

Option 2. This option (the conventional name of the machine BKM-2) is more simplified compared to the first version of the version of the combat counter-terrorist vehicle and involves installing the BKM-1 turret on the tank hull without modifying the latter for mounting course automatic grenade launchers. Based on this, BKM-2 has significant differences from BKM-1. For example, the set of security tools on BKM-2 is installed in the same composition and similarly to BKM-1. However, in order to install on-board screens with a remote "Relikt", there should be a revision of the fenced shelves, in the rear part of which, in the armored compartments, a diesel generator set, a KREP lock and some fuel are placed. Part of the systems and assemblies (collective protection system, batteries) remain in their regular places in the housing, and part (OPV system), similarly to BKM-1, is removed from the product. In order to increase the survivability of the product, the front right and left fuel tanks installed in the hull are placed in armored compartments.

On the BKM-2, as well as on the BKM-1, there should be places for the installation of a bulldozer TBS-86 to ensure clearing the area from debris and barricades. In addition, similarly to BKM-1, the possibility of installing an original built-in armored dozer blade on a product can be considered.

Summarizing the above, it can be argued that the proposed variants of the combat counter-terrorism machine are the most optimal variants of the anti-aircraft missile defense system thanks to the FCS adapted to the specific conditions of the battle, the weapons complex, as well as the high level of protection. BKM-1 and BKM-2 will be able to conduct effective hostilities with illegal armed formations in various conditions, such as: in urban areas, in mountainous areas, when escorted by convoys of road and armored vehicles and when patrolling. At the same time, in the opinion of the authors, such machines, after minor modifications, can be in demand during peacekeeping operations, including in the framework of the CSTO. Moreover, the intensity of such operations tends to increase.

Literature

1. “Military Industrial Courier” № 46, 2007 g., P. 12.
2.The catalog “Weapons of Russia 2006-2007” edited by А.М. Moscow: Moscow, Military Parade LLC, 2006 g., 1030 p .; “Foreign Military Review” No. 8, 1995 g, s.20 -24.
3. “Foreign Military Review” №2, 2008, s.39.
4. Promotional materials of CJSC KOBRA (Vladimir).
Author:
Originator:
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/
62 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Marek Rozny
    Marek Rozny 5 September 2013 08: 47 New
    +8
    Gurkhan, as always, gave out a bunch of information for the brain. Respect. I hope his thoughts reach those to whom they are intended.
    1. Tot-enot
      Tot-enot 15 September 2013 18: 39 New
      0
      Stupid information ..........

      The very idea of ​​BMPT deserves attention but not in the form as it was created.
      They refused to take it into service at all for the invented reasons that are indicated in the article.
      Other problems
      1. Openly located and not as unprotected missiles and SLA devices, the overall vulnerability of the combat module to fire even small arms.
      2. The lack of the possibility of firing at different targets at the same time, the MSA is there and the weapon system does not allow its proper use ...
      3. Large crew
      In this form, the machine can be effective only in rare cases.
      Those revision options that are proposed here are good for banana republics unless
  2. Michael_59
    Michael_59 5 September 2013 09: 14 New
    +9
    Side, back, front. Write without errors, author.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 5 September 2013 11: 04 New
      +1
      laughing
  3. Michael_59
    Michael_59 5 September 2013 09: 25 New
    +1
    and firing is usually from a place

    And how is this option?
    Fight in the city block. Shoots along the axis of the street. The car on the move (and at speed) slips the street and at the moment of passing the intersection (affected area) suppresses the firing point.

    Further. Why is there not a word about “Curtain” and “Arena”? Wrong.

    The rest I agree.
    1. Vlad 1965
      Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 09: 40 New
      10
      With what?
      With this- "a) a complex and expensive fire control system (LMS);
      b) an armament complex not sufficiently balanced for solving the tasks of combating illegal armed formations;
      c) excessive range on the highway (at least 550 km);
      d) the presence on the product of systems and equipment that are not relevant when performing counter-terrorism and peacekeeping operations (the OPV system, etc.). "
      Then what the hell is this clunker needed for? Then it’s easier to have something like the BTR-40 and BTR-152 and enjoy life.
      The cruising range is 200 km ??? Is this generally the case for a car based on a tank ??? Really, how much will it take at such a gas station, in the mud, in the city, 100 km?
      That we always chase after big names-BKM, from those here, what a thunderstorm for terrorists ...
      Should a local conflict happen, all these BKM, why the hell would they be needed if they were initially, limitedly suitable for military operations?
      1. Michael_59
        Michael_59 5 September 2013 10: 13 New
        +2
        Well, I just objected to the SLA - on the sights.

        The power reserve is small - it is supposed to bring it, as I understand it, to the place of the CTO.

        OPV - this, if I understand correctly, diving equipment - well, hardly necessary ...

        Here, I first looked at the expediency of replacing guided projectiles with unguided ones, indicated in the article — here I also disagree with the author, the more precisely the better.
        1. Vlad 1965
          Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 11: 32 New
          0
          Michael_59
          OPV is not necessary?
          Yeah, that means when the battles in the city limits, in a large city, and all the bridges are blown up, and there is no way to build pontoon crossings, these so-called BKM, will fly through the air?
          Aiming systems, stabilizers to remove, or simplify, yeah, so then it’s easier to carry the ZIS-3 on your hands, and transport it through the river is simpler and the stabilizer is not needed, and its accuracy is acceptable.
          1. IS-80
            IS-80 5 September 2013 12: 38 New
            0
            Some terrorists you have are too scary. sad
            1. Vlad 1965
              Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 12: 43 New
              +3
              soldier Yes?
              Well, would you tell us that they are not “terrible and inept,” for example, a shot column in Yaryshmardy, or a destroyed Tungusok column in Grozny, together with an reinforced battalion of 136 brigades.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 5 September 2013 12: 46 New
                +1
                Quote: Vlad 1965
                or destroyed Tungusok convoy in Grozny

                How interesting. Do not tell?
                1. Vlad 1965
                  Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 13: 35 New
                  +2
                  Six units of Tungusok, destroyed in January 96, as a result of an attempt to use them to defeat spirits in high-rises, were burnt by shelling from grenade launchers from the adjacent five-story buildings, where the spirits had prepared communications, including through underground ones, created during the preparation of the Dudaev to repel our attack troops. essentially Grozny was like a fortified area.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 5 September 2013 13: 37 New
                    0
                    Ah, is this a show? I heard from the participants. But this is clearly not a “column annihilation," is it?
                    1. Vlad 1965
                      Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 17: 15 New
                      +1
                      It was the columns that went and burned, not reaching their destination ...
              2. IS-80
                IS-80 5 September 2013 13: 30 New
                +1
                Do not be offended, but you just painted some completely apocalyptic picture with destroyed bridges and cities, hurricane fires on pontoon crossings and crossing rivers. It’s just interesting how often OPV was used in counter-terrorism operations.
                1. Vlad 1965
                  Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 13: 40 New
                  +5
                  Ask the officers who fought in the formidable winter of 95 how they crossed the Sunzha River. Yes, without the ATV, but this makes it no easier.
                  and if this did not happen, you give a guarantee that this will not happen? And who told you that?
                  Do you think that trained and motivated separatists, crossing points, bridges, etc. will be ignored? Do you really take them for idiots?
                  Then why were crossing points on the way of extending the columns of the West group in the year 94, with an attempt to provide fire, mined? Why did the Assinovka field on the right to the left of the bridge was dotted with PTM?
                  Each, as you put it, "apocalyptic picture", unfortunately, in one form or another has a place to be.
                  1. IRBIS
                    IRBIS 5 September 2013 18: 53 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Vlad 1965
                    Ask the officers who fought in the formidable winter of 95 how they crossed the Sunzha River. Yes, without the ATV, but this makes it no easier.

                    In overalls with light-diving equipment. After guidance of the crossing (code name - "Thread"), PTS and ferry dragged. The use of military vehicles for overcoming almost all the rivers of Chechnya along their entire course is impossible for many reasons.
                2. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 5 September 2013 13: 40 New
                  +1
                  Quote: IS-80
                  It’s just interesting how often OPV was used in counter-terrorism operations.

                  Polio vaccines? Infrequently. I didn’t know that they were helping.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 5 September 2013 14: 04 New
                    +1
                    For those who did not understand, "OPV" is "equipment for underwater driving", "OPVT" is "equipment for underwater driving of tanks."

                    Dear readers, if you need a translation from the sofa-theoretical to Russian, write in a personal, I will try to answer.

                    We were drunk at our school for expressions like “twelve zero zero”, our teachers were sure that “twelve hours” was informative enough for non-idiots. And more and more, gained from films about the Second World War, is too much.
            2. Yazevdvailitri
              Yazevdvailitri 6 September 2013 00: 03 New
              0
              ..no b..there are children of flowers
          2. Jin
            Jin 5 September 2013 14: 53 New
            +4
            Quote: Vlad 1965
            OPV is not necessary?
            Yeah, that means when the battles in the city limits, in a large city, and all the bridges are blown up, and there is no way to build pontoon crossings, these so-called BKM, will fly through the air?


            In order to overcome the water obstacle with ATVT, preliminary preparation and sealing are necessary, and the depth is limited ... Such a crossing is relevant on marches with preliminary thorough reconnaissance, and not under fire in the city.

            Quote: Vlad 1965
            Aiming systems, stabilizers to remove, or simplify, yeah, so then it’s easier to carry ZIS-3 on your hands


            The thing is that the "expensive" SLAs are relevant precisely in a duel with a "high-tech" opponent with a similar "equipment". This will not give him an advantage. Under CTO, battles are fought mainly with manpower in fortified areas (cities and towns) with light weapons. The sight, or rather the SLA, about which the author writes, is cheaper, easier to manage and maintain, and provides informative parameters acceptable for these conditions.
          3. Michael_59
            Michael_59 5 September 2013 20: 32 New
            0
            You again about the SLAs and sights - look carefully, I immediately objected to their "simplification". Are needed! The more accurate - the better)))

            According to the OPV - if all the bridges were blown up by these terras, then a full-scale military operation is needed. And this BKM where should creep out? To the beach???
  4. Slotxnumx
    Slotxnumx 5 September 2013 09: 54 New
    +1
    Good morning everyone!
    Interestingly, to combat manpower, what would be more effective - a pair of 30mm cannons, or a pair of 40mm grenade launchers and 30mm cannons? Yes, yes there are already grenade launchers on the BMPT, but they are like term papers.
    With respect.
    1. IS-80
      IS-80 5 September 2013 10: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Slot46
      Good morning everyone!
      Interestingly, to combat manpower, what would be more effective - a pair of 30mm cannons, or a pair of 40mm grenade launchers and 30mm cannons? Yes, yes there are already grenade launchers on the BMPT, but they are like term papers.
      With respect.


      http://gurkhan-nt.livejournal.com/41143.html вот статья упомянутая у тов. Хлопотова. Почитайте, очень интересно. В статье сказано что на башенный модуль устанавливали в одном из вариантов автоматический гранатомет, но потом от этой идеи отказались в пользу второй пушки. Два курсовых АГ на БМПТ 30 мм.
      1. Slotxnumx
        Slotxnumx 5 September 2013 11: 01 New
        +2
        Thank you for the link, having read it fluently (I'm sitting at work), questions arise, in principle, like the author of that article. Course AGs provide too small a firing angle, including in height, which, when operating in an urban environment, + 2 extra operators is critically important ... IMHO you need these AGs there, it’s better to allocate this space to an increase in BC. We don’t have an automatic gun of 40-45mm caliber, and 40mm AG will not replace it, but in a pair with a 30mm cannon, it will provide greater firing angles than course ... yes the caliber is greater. That's my opinion. I ask you not to throw chairs)))
        With respect.

        ps And why reduce the power reserve ... an extra headache to ensure + what real consumption will be in difficult road conditions. + All the fuel still can not be placed in the body ...
    2. uwzek
      uwzek 6 September 2013 19: 10 New
      0
      Grenade launchers are not course, they are controlled by operators. The shelling sector is limited to the front hemisphere, in fact, this is a sponsored weapon.
  5. tank64rus
    tank64rus 5 September 2013 09: 58 New
    +6
    The mistake was originally when the main purpose was to support tanks on the battlefield. Why they did it, because the then leadership would not have perceived the machine differently, but now there are big problems. However, you need to look at the BMPT in a slightly different way. Now in the world there is a rapid development of special forces that are designed to destroy units and subunits of operational-tactical missiles, air defense systems, communications, electronic warfare, etc., both at the deployment site and on the march. The problem of escorting strategic mobile soil complexes of the Topol type is especially acute. The times of the USSR, when the BTR-60 was enough to accompany them, were long gone. Therefore, if we consider the BMPT as an escort machine, and this class of machines, judging by foreign publications, begins to have a great future for the BMPT, except for using it as a support machine.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 5 September 2013 10: 25 New
      +8
      Quote: tank64rus
      Therefore, if we consider the BMPT as an escort machine, and this class of machines, judging by foreign publications, begins to have a great future for the BMPT, except for using it as a support machine.

      Meaning? Punish enemy special forces for destroying expensive equipment on the march?

      Here you are the commander of the saboteurs, who received the task to destroy the "Poplar". Are you setting up an ambush in the style of Chechen fighters? No, you put sniper pairs with antimaterial rifles on possible extension routes and calculations of something like “Javelin” - “Spike” - “MMP”, which choose convenient positions, are masked, including in the thermal spectrum, and will sit in this bed. like a mouse. And even the natural needs to be sent on the spot in plastic bags. A convoy will go, a couple of shots or a launch, and again will be quiet. Then the departure.

      And BMPT, which will only complicate the life of drivers of soil complexes, breaking the road in Mr. Goose, you will not be afraid at all.
  6. ed65b
    ed65b 5 September 2013 09: 59 New
    +6
    I propose the third option, to give the slingshot to the crew and put in a trough, then in general everything will be cheap and cheerful. The whole world creates high-tech machines, but as always, we don’t need it, it’s not expensive, it’s difficult. and then we sit turnips weighed why the losses are big. But because they saved not there.
  7. Per se.
    Per se. 5 September 2013 10: 12 New
    +4
    BMPT, of course, can be successfully used as a "combat counter-terrorism vehicle", becoming a kind of tank of internal troops, but also directly in its design, it is relevant for our tank units. How much can you only criticize, build a test batch, run in parts, draw conclusions. In the end, the army, aviation and navy do not exist for the "counter-terrorism struggle", there are more dangerous enemies. There was an idea of ​​a super tank with an 152 mm gun, but the T-95 was buried, as it turns out, an almost ready-made machine, someone convinced and insisted on developing a cheaper, universal, but no longer unique in the concept of “platform”. I would not want the BMPT to be so redrawn that we would lose everything for which the machine was created in the first place, lowering it to the level of foreign crafts, to the delight of our enemies.
    1. Vlad 1965
      Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 12: 53 New
      +4
      Per se.
      So the fact of the matter is that, unlike the times of the Union, there are no experimental units and, accordingly, the practice, testing and use of these machines in the states of the units, were not and are not expected.
      To the goat who rotted this car, motivating that it was either heavy, excessively armed, or the power reserve with the SUV was complicated, I would recommend that you experience what a battle is in the city, like in the formidable in the year 95, and not only there, to For example, at the stations St. Achkhoy and Orekhovo, in the same place at 96, where one motorized rifle company was knocked out in five minutes, with competent perfume fire from grenade launchers and RPO.
      In SMEs, what is there to strengthen? NOTHING, and this SME has to be reorganized into BTGr, with a bunch of dowries and supporters, who will understand what is required of them, a lot of losses ... And who took care of running the STATE, according to the results of military operations, including using a new same BMPT?
      I don’t argue, it’s very necessary, but did you even see the project, not to mention the metal? But any attack machine, by itself, will be defenseless, if they didn’t support it, and as usual, we have Vanya Solntsev in a shattered armor and a half plates in front of the tank will run ...
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 5 September 2013 13: 56 New
        0
        Hmm, isn't BMPT planned for TB? And in what sense does SMEs have nothing?
        1. Vlad 1965
          Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 16: 08 New
          +3
          And what does SME have?
          Is it hard to look at the state? In the real situation on the database, have you been?
          I’ve been here somehow, so I’ve taken the experience from that, you won’t take care of yourself, no one will take care, and therefore I had three LNG-9s in the MCP, which has been operating forever in isolation, which weren’t laid out for the state, because I excluded some in 86 from the MCP states, the 4th machine-gun and grenade-throwing platoon, three AGS 17, which, as you understand by state, are not put in the company, and something else on the little things, such as 58 pieces GP25, how it was delivered and where it was taken is not important. that firepower, the company was enough.
  8. Jarserge
    Jarserge 5 September 2013 10: 14 New
    +5
    The Uralvagonzavod continues the advertising campaign of its products. Everything would have been fine, but there was already such a thing in history that a promising tank was destroyed due to the ambitions of this organization and three more vehicles were adopted for the USSR’s armaments that played an important role in the collapse of the economy. One of which under different names Tagilians trade now. Now this shaitan arba (BMPT) is presented as a solution to all problems. I wrote and will write BMPT thing necessary, but it will not replace the infantryman, and never BMP. Infantryman - because BMPT on the battlefield is deaf and blind, like its progenitor tank is at least deaf and blind than an infantryman. A BMP is a BMP, primarily an infantry vehicle, and only then a fire support vehicle. So BMPT is just a small “brick” in the structure of the Armed Forces and overestimating it means washing your face with blood in a real battle
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 5 September 2013 11: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: Jarserge
      Now this shaitan arba (BMPT) is presented as a solution to all problems. I wrote and will write BMPT thing necessary but it will not replace the infantryman, never

      Absolutely accurate definition!
      Counter-terrorism or non-terrorism military operation: what's the difference?
      Tanks or infantry need support. The question is: which? In the words of a soldier from the movie "In the war, as in the war" support what, shtaniv? " wink
      The BMPT is surrendered not needed in order to hide in it, or behind it, from the fire of bandit formations (namely, formations, and not an individual terrorist), but as a highly protected firearm that complements or replaces the tank’s armament, BMP.
      That is, on this machine, a Nona-type mortar-howitzer must be installed, it is possible to fire with a guided projectile both with high-explosive / fragmentation (thermobaric) and with a cumulative warhead (for hitting the enemy in bunkers), an automatic gun, a machine gun maybe AGS.
      That is, armaments intended mainly for the destruction of not tanks, but infantry in the field, as well as in fortifications, on vehicles.
      The Germans called the assault tank a semblance.
  9. duke
    duke 5 September 2013 10: 19 New
    +6
    with all due respect to Gurkhan, and the support of his view on the protection of BMPT, I believe that the machine should have a tank, well-protected turret, the gun of such a machine should be protected by armor, while the caliber of the gun (necessarily with a high elevation angle) should be 57/76 mm (the case is the same for them, the 76mm caliber will not affect the ammunition) with an automatic gun of the AU-220m type, a powerful 40 mm automatic grenade launcher is required, and preferably two, remotely controlled, like a 12,7 machine gun mm, regarding 7,62 mm machine guns - how many of them can be installed is good. All the same, the 57mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile has a power superior to the low-power 30 mm HE shells, it is guaranteed that one helicopter will hit the helicopter with modern SLA, and the armor-piercing shell will take on board even a modern tank at a distance of 1 km, and the ammunition for the 57 mm cannon will be decent, which is extremely important in a guerrilla war. For firing suppression and over areas, you need a 40-mm grenade launcher (including for saving cannon ammunition), which has a firing range of 2 km, large ammunition and increased fragmentation power of grenades. I don’t understand why the ATGMs - “mestizos” or “cornets”, systems with high accuracy of aiming at a target, did not please the author. can be used as powerful, comparable to 152 mm OFS, thermobaric, and cumulative missiles, depending on the tasks. Under the loading mechanism of the AU-220m, it would be nice to develop a modern 45mm automatic gun, but I understand Petrel does not create a line of automatic guns with a caliber up to 76 mm, except for 57mm, but in vain - so the question is no longer needed. I believe that all the same there should be a modern SLA, with an automatic target tracking (otherwise how to deal with helicopters or armored vehicles, for example), good sights, quick reaction and thermal imagers or night vision devices, and without fail, as Dushmans basically "work" in the evening and at night. It is imperative that you have a modern communication system with encryption and topographic location, the ability to round-the-clock transmit to the base, or at least to the command vehicle, your coordinates and the coordinates of the detected enemy, or even better a picture, for quickly making a decision on causing fire damage, by all means of connection. Of course, a modern fire extinguishing system is also required. We must not forget that often such a machine, not only a “combine harvester” for supporting tanks and infantry, but also often a kind of reconnaissance machine and really a terminator (colloquial English - a killer) —which can be one soldier in the field.
    1. IS-80
      IS-80 5 September 2013 10: 46 New
      0
      I don’t quite understand you, so what caliber should the 45, 57, 76 gun be? And why do you need to shoot a cannon at a tank from a BMPT? And how effective will this 40 mm AG be?
      1. duke
        duke 5 September 2013 11: 46 New
        +3
        Dear IP - about the range of calibers, I talked about their need to equip not only BMPTs, but also other modern armored vehicles. If there were 45 mm machine guns, you could think about installing 2 such guns, instead of one 57 mm, I personally think that 76 mm, of course, would be preferable for such a machine, but since we don’t have such machines not about anything yet. There remains a really existing 57mm gun, type AU-220m. By the way, experts working on 2-link BMPs are talking about the optimal caliber of automatic guns (in terms of power and ammunition) - 45mm. Of course, the BMPT is not intended to shoot at tanks, or replace a tank with itself, but the situations are different ... No question - 40mm AG is more effective for infantry than 30 mm AG, as well as a 40/45 mm gun in range and power exceeds 30mm. In addition, it is important that ammunition is not reduced much. On some western infantry fighting vehicles they put exactly 40 mm guns and 40 mm AG. But since we did not use a 40 mm cannon caliber, I was talking about 45 mm. They wrote a lot about 40 mm caliber AG, I won’t repeat it, but only in terms of firing range it is 500 meters higher than 30 mm AG, not to mention the power of the grenade. I ask you to be indulgent, I just expressed my opinion, I hope then the forum exists.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 5 September 2013 12: 14 New
          +1
          You are a little on the wrong side of the caliber. Here the issue of modern ammunition comes to the fore. It is difficult to make shells in a 30-mm caliber with electronic fuses that effectively hit infantry, for example, in a trench when a shell bursts above them. Or infantry in buildings when breaking indoors. And do not shove the electronics, and the fragmentation effect in the presence of modern PPE will be, to put it mildly, weak.
          1. duke
            duke 5 September 2013 20: 31 New
            0
            I agree with you about the electronic filling of shells and grenades. But this is understandable, still not from kindergarten, a little up to date on modern developments and requirements. In any case, thank you for the comment.
        2. IS-80
          IS-80 5 September 2013 14: 15 New
          0
          Why two 45 mm guns? Will this make the car too heavy and bulky, will the ammunition decrease greatly? Why is a 76 mm gun preferable? Situations are different, but is it justifiable to the detriment of the main task? I wonder why the AG did not put in the tower module, your version?
          1. duke
            duke 5 September 2013 20: 43 New
            +1
            Well, why bulky, for example, was a beautiful Z S U -57-2 - on a light chassis. I'm not talking about the Coalition double-barreled self-propelled gun. Not so much increased BMPT weight with 2 30 mm guns. In addition, the guns have separate power and are independent of each other, so if one of them fails, the second will work, and if necessary, you can double the density of fire. As for the 76 mm gun, I repeat, the shells for the shells 57 and 76 mm are the same, the refinement of the machine will be minimal, the ammunition will also not decrease, but the power of the 76 mm HE shell will be more than 57 mm. Consequently, ceteris paribus, why not put a more powerful gun? In addition, as Lopatov correctly noted, the electronic filling of ammunition also matters.
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 5 September 2013 22: 39 New
              0
              Quote: duke
              for example, there was a beautiful Z S Y -57-2 - on a light chassis.
              Dear duke, maybe the ZSU-57-2 was an excellent anti-aircraft gun when it was launched in the 1955 year, but what remains of the BMPT idea if you put a couple of 57 mm guns in there?
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 5 September 2013 22: 48 New
                0
                And this is the ship 45 mm quadruple machine SM-20-ZIF1, it has been produced since 1953 of the year. Take away a couple of barrels, it's still hard, and why, if the infantry is well mowed by automatic grenade launchers?
  10. makst83
    makst83 5 September 2013 10: 23 New
    +4
    I didn’t think that an excessive cruising range of at least 550 km could be a drawback for a combat vehicle, even when participating in counter-terrorism operations! since in urban conditions the fuel will be consumed several times faster!
    1. KG_patriot_last
      KG_patriot_last 5 September 2013 15: 51 New
      +2
      and advanced SLAs were attributed as a flaw (in a century when even pocket phones can recognize a person’s faces and accompany them to a picture) ...

      for me, the only thing that needs to be changed is the ammunition exploding behind an obstacle (possibly with the replacement of 30mm, with a larger caliber) and the management of gram-throwers.
      1. nick-name
        nick-name 6 September 2013 08: 55 New
        0
        Quote: KG_patriot_last
        and advanced SLAs as a flaw attributed

        You are wrong, as you wrote down the price of this suo, which is comparable to the cost of the whole machine.
    2. uwzek
      uwzek 6 September 2013 19: 29 New
      0
      Cruising range is provided by shelf tanks and fuel in barrel containers. According to the charter before the battle, these tanks are removed from the car ...
  11. BARKAS
    BARKAS 5 September 2013 10: 34 New
    +1
    Recently, you have been reading articles about armored vehicles and it seems that we have two problems with existing and promising models of equipment in this direction, or a lack or excess of capabilities and characteristics of the vehicle is flawed or, on the contrary, overly complicated!
  12. IS-80
    IS-80 5 September 2013 11: 02 New
    0
    In order to optimize the complex of weapons for special operations, it is proposed to replace the guided missiles with armored containers with unguided missiles (C-8) with high-explosive fragmentation or volume-detonating warheads (CU). At the same time, the armament block consisting of two 30-mm 2-42 cannons and an X-NUMX-mm PKTM machine gun paired with them is borrowed from BMPT. The turret modified in this way is mounted on a tank corps, also refined (with installation of AG-7,62D course grenade launchers) similar to the BMPT corps.


    This is incomprehensible. Why on such a machine course grenade launchers and NURS? Can then, in general, put a 100 mm gun in a pair with 30 mm?
    1. duke
      duke 5 September 2013 20: 55 New
      0
      the idea is not bad, if we are talking about a complex like "melon", but the ammunition for a 100 mm gun, albeit with an excellent OFS, is too small -40 rounds, it’s also better to have a full-fledged tank tank, and not from BMP / BMD ... The idea is good only that it will not be necessary to provide the machine with shells of other calibers, unification with the BMP-3, so to speak ... I think the 100 mm gun’s power will be excessive for BMPT purposes — if there are also AGS and machine guns and Cornets (but certainly not course, but with remote control, with good sighting equipment). But in principle, experts should consider the idea. Carry out tests of prototypes and with 45, 57, 76 and 100 mm guns and experimentally establish which is better.
  13. IS-80
    IS-80 5 September 2013 11: 19 New
    0
    Quote: Slot46
    Thank you for the link, having read it fluently (I'm sitting at work), questions arise, in principle, like the author of that article. Course AGs provide too small a firing angle, including in height, which, when operating in an urban environment, + 2 extra operators is critically important ... IMHO you need these AGs there, it’s better to allocate this space to an increase in BC. We don’t have an automatic gun of 40-45mm caliber, and 40mm AG will not replace it, but in a pair with a 30mm cannon, it will provide greater firing angles than course ... yes the caliber is greater. That's my opinion. I ask you not to throw chairs)))
    With respect.

    ps And why reduce the power reserve ... an extra headache to ensure + what real consumption will be in difficult road conditions. + All the fuel still can not be placed in the body ...

    About course grenade launchers, I basically have the same opinion. The 40 mm grenade launcher in the tower module, however, is also in doubt. Remove operators, if you remove the exchange rate AG? But will the crew be enough to control the machine, shoot, control the situation, make decisions?
    1. Slotxnumx
      Slotxnumx 5 September 2013 12: 29 New
      0
      If I’m not mistaken, the Defense Ministry called one of the claims a large number of crew members ... and apparently Coursework serves 2 people ... the general crew is 5 people, and 3 in the MBT. I think 3 people should be in the BMPT. A 40mm I call the AG in the tower only because we don’t have 40-45mm automatic cannons ... and at least it has a large mass of explosives in the grenade, it has more power than 30mm, fish are biteless and cancer ...
      1. Vlad 1965
        Vlad 1965 5 September 2013 12: 39 New
        +1
        Slot46 RU
        Do not remember how the crew of a German tank was advantageously different from ours?
        The fact that each crew member performed only his function, we have a bunch of functions, but in the end?
        T34 crew of the first issues, what was it, and the T34-85 crew? Was it affected by efficiency or not?
        How will the operator manage a bunch of weapons if the situation in the battle is such that it is necessary to plant ATGMs and the heavy machine gun in the shelter at once and put down the infantry squad with the grenade launcher in the enemy’s infantry fighting vehicle?
        1. Slotxnumx
          Slotxnumx 5 September 2013 15: 10 New
          +1
          I do not pretend to be a connoisseur of armored vehicles ... but I wrote the fact of one of the claims of the Moscow Region about the crew size. Yes, and guidance systems, etc. have already gone far from T34 .... but any situation on the battlefield may arise (based on your own example). And in this case, these crew members should be able to work out all 360 degrees and not sit in this corridor allotted for the course AGs (and in the case of an attack from 2 flanks and 5 people will not help, based on the characteristics of the deployment of weapons). The truth is born in the dispute ... but I'm not going to argue, I just expressed my opinion.
          With respect.
          1. duke
            duke 5 September 2013 21: 04 New
            +1
            at that time there was no electronics, modern target detection and fire control systems, remote control systems, thermal imagers, automatic guns and AGS, etc. If you played military. games on your computer, your task is only to switch weapons systems in relation to the target and shoot, here it’s about the same, but of course adjusted for real combat. Therefore, the task of the modern crew is greatly simplified, although the psychological burden remains. If you had the opportunity to try to aim even from an old tank like t-64 or 72, then I think it would be interesting for you to aim the sight at a conditional target, it is so simple.
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 5 September 2013 21: 48 New
              +2
              Quote: duke
              If you had the opportunity to try to aim even from an old tank like t-64 or 72, then I think it would be interesting for you to aim the sight at a conditional target, it's so simple.


              I tried (T-72).
              And what will it be interesting for me to “induce” in the new conditions?

              I just did not understand your comment, but it became curious.
              1. duke
                duke 5 September 2013 22: 07 New
                0
                Yes, it was about Vlad’s previous comment, about WWII tanks, SLA and crew training, so I said that these are not comparable things, don’t bother yes
      2. IS-80
        IS-80 5 September 2013 13: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: Slot46
        If I’m not mistaken, the Defense Ministry called one of the claims a large number of crew members ... and apparently Coursework serves 2 people ... the general crew is 5 people, and 3 in the MBT. I think 3 people should be in the BMPT. A 40mm I call the AG in the tower only because we don’t have 40-45mm automatic cannons ... and at least it has a large mass of explosives in the grenade, it has more power than 30mm, fish are biteless and cancer ...

        The quantitative composition of the crew, it seems to me, in this case should differ greatly in the specifics of combat missions from the composition of the MBT crew, the need to control many small targets and small ones, too, and the ability to quickly respond to the appearance of a sudden threat. And for this, again, as it seems to me, at this stage in the development of targeting tracking equipment, etc. the people in the crew need more than 3 people. 45 mm guns we are developing somewhere flashed articles. Although at what stage this is all, it is unknown. smile
  14. _KM_
    _KM_ 5 September 2013 11: 52 New
    0
    The article is good. Especially if you break it into paragraphs ... otherwise such bricks are hard to read.

    There are big doubts about the S-8 missiles. The caliber is small - the volume-theonating warhead in such a caliber is complex and not particularly effective.

    It is more logical in this case to install a 100 mm gun similar to the BMP-3 or a large-caliber howitzer. Preferably with an automatic charger. Only in this case we again come to something like reinforcement tanks or assault tanks.

    In addition, for counter-terrorist operations booking is excessive. Enough armor to protect against 20 mm guns and heavy machine guns, but with a full set of active / dynamic protection.
  15. Tankomaster
    Tankomaster 5 September 2013 11: 56 New
    +1
    And I thought that the authors of the article "V. M. Nevolin, D. G. Kolmakov (FSUE" Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering ")"
    Although the ideas they express are an attempt to alter Trishkin's caftan.
    It is a pity that we can not express our ideas, since the work is not finished yet.
  16. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 5 September 2013 12: 04 New
    +2
    A correctly posed task contains half the answer.
    The tank support machine solves what problems. Where, in the city or
    outside the settlements. She supports or protects tanks. From whom,
    at what distance. Should it solve target designation tasks for tanks,
    or hit all targets on your own. Do I need the ability to run or receive data from the UAV. Where is her place in battle formations, in front or behind the tanks.
    Why not understand the concept of dancing around the charismatic and beautiful, but not understandable for the use of the machine. It is enough to give a stable connection, equip electronic warfare systems, with the best reconnaissance and observation devices, select an operator for observation and target designation, or better two, and all problems can be solved by a nona weapon with a full set of ammunition and an increased ammunition, and a pair of different machine guns caliber.
  17. Beon
    Beon 5 September 2013 12: 38 New
    +3
    I believe that it is necessary to consider the BMPT as the first pancake, which by the way was not at all lumpy! And in the future to create a unified family of combat vehicles based on the experience gained in the design of the BMPT. That is, to decide on a single armored hull and transmission, and on this single base to develop the necessary number of modifications (both for its own aircraft and export), with various versions of weapon modules and ASF corresponding to specific combat missions. Thus, as part of one family, we get both BMPTs, a heavy escort vehicle, and a heavy support vehicle for assault units. Main create a line of interchangeable combat modules and SUV for various tasks. It would certainly be nice to have universal armored missile launchers with the ability to use both anti-tank, anti-aircraft, anti-aircraft and flamethrower type Bumblebee, according to the knowledge base and situation.
    Of course, an automatic grenade launcher is needed in certain conditions, preferably with remote detonation of ammunition. Accordingly, we get options from top to cars for sale to the Papuans (which again can easily be upgraded by replacing modules and other equipment, to the top option) according to the financial capabilities and needs of the customer. In general, a car is needed as air, especially its own aircraft.
    PS
    The competitors' interest in this model is not accidental. I am sure that work in this direction will soon be conducted not only with us. The question is, who will solve the problem faster, more efficient and more promising?
  18. gallville
    gallville 5 September 2013 14: 13 New
    +1
    Essentially the article.
    1. To simplify the sight, in principle, I agree.
    2. Replacing ptura with unguided missiles is wrong. Because the first birds can already shoot thermobaric ammunition (like Bumblebee), the second - accuracy, the third - Petra need to be booked.
    3. In BKM-2, it is proposed to remove the exchange rate AGSs. I would not leave them in BKM-1. It is optimal to place the AGS behind the armament unit (clearly depicted in the module of carriages). It:
    a) reduce the crew from 5 to 3
    b) reduce the cost of remaking the hull.
    But in general, the car is specific. As a reinforcement for units equipped with old equipment T-72 and BMP-2, it is acceptable. By reducing the mass, it would be in demand in the forces of quick reaction.
    Again, it is clearly not suitable for escorting columns. There is no such margin of safety in kilometers as with wheeled vehicles. This means that the escort of the columns is more the lot of ups (let it say fire support ups).
    1. Jin
      Jin 5 September 2013 15: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: gallville
      . Replacing ptura with unguided missiles is wrong. Because the first birds can already shoot thermobaric ammunition (like Bumblebee), the second - accuracy


      A ATGM shot is more expensive than a NURSA shot, and the objectives are different. As practice has shown, for example, of Grozny, high-explosive high-explosive shots were used, as the most effective in those conditions. Shots with guided projectiles were few ...
  19. USNik
    USNik 5 September 2013 14: 27 New
    +4
    However, despite its unique capabilities, BMPT, as a combat counter-terrorism machine, according to the authors, has:
    Uh, pru, stop, do not drive the chef. On the face is a classic substitution of concepts. The authors take BMPT and criticize it as BKM. Wonderful, what a scope for creativity! For example, let's take the BTR-80 and blame it for its poor ability to shoot down planes and helicopters? What gun is there? UVN allows you to lift the barrel? So I have to shoot down flyers! But you can go even further and criticize, for example, the Su-34 as a poor fighter or run into the Peter the Great for the inability to be a container ship! BMPT is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, it must have a power reserve like a tank and be able to hit MBT, even on the go!
    1. commentor
      commentor 5 September 2013 14: 46 New
      +4
      BMPT - tank support combat vehicle. Otherwise, you are right, everything is far-fetched.
      1. USNik
        USNik 5 September 2013 14: 50 New
        +1
        Of course, just in VK now I argue for the Ukrainian heavy IFV, that's aboutбwobble, whimper recourse
    2. IS-80
      IS-80 5 September 2013 14: 51 New
      0
      Something you are completely wandering in the wrong place. In fact, the authors are simply considering one of the options for using BMPT and all the disadvantages of the current configuration that come out in connection with this, and what's so criminal? BMPT - tank support combat vehicle. If anything, hit MBT is not the main task for her.
      1. commentor
        commentor 5 September 2013 15: 09 New
        0
        The author did not bother to describe how he sees the purpose of such machines, their tasks, methods of application. Based on the results of the proposed improvements, the BMPT results in a machine for conducting local CTOs, very limited in scope.
  20. commentor
    commentor 5 September 2013 15: 02 New
    0
    If BMPT is adopted, then the car should replace the chrysanthemum.
  21. Prohor
    Prohor 5 September 2013 15: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: _KM_

    In addition, for counter-terrorist operations booking is excessive. Enough armor to protect against 20 mm guns and heavy machine guns, but with a full set of active / dynamic protection.

    RPG-7 among terrorists in all corners of the world is an order of magnitude greater than 20 mm cannons and heavy machine guns! And active defense flies off in the city first thing ...
  22. Bugor
    Bugor 5 September 2013 15: 23 New
    +1
    This .. I’m looking at the whole fuss, and trying to understand: why do we need this car? To support tanks in the city? or on the battlefield? In the city you need one thing - in the field another. And fundamentally different. Well, is it worth it in one "product" to try to combine all this? Maybe we’ll wait for the notorious “platform” to appear, and we’ll create something based on it? Having learned from the Moscow Region what he needs at the moment and in the future. At the same time, kick the Academy of Sciences, let them come up with some kind of wunderwafel thread for the city and its environs.
    In general, it seems to me that the coolest version of the anti-terrorism device was in Star Wars. Remember these WALKING monsters? Figuratively got up on his feet, and leaning out of = the fifth floor of an eight-story building, planted a thread of detonating volume-detonating thread into the nest of terror. And after the shot he squatted down and scraped through the rubble in a step, hiding behind the debris. Fantasy, of course, but that would be very convenient. And the tanks in the city do not burn, and the infantry easier - no need to stick to the streets ...
    1. ed65b
      ed65b 5 September 2013 18: 30 New
      0
      Pleased with Star Wars laughing
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 6 September 2013 09: 31 New
        0
        I once saw something similar in the picture: an armored car, and behind a folding (or extendable?) armored tower, like a scorpion’s tail
  23. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 5 September 2013 15: 30 New
    +4
    ... instead of a multi-channel gunner’s sight, it is proposed to install a low-level television sight (or combined optical-electronic) with independent single-plane stabilization of the field of view, or a similar but unstabilized sight ....

    ... Subject to the foregoing, it will be quite logical to carry out the stabilization system of the main armament as single-plane ...


    Let the gurkhan himself “work” on this, since he is so smart.

    The modernization of BMPT that he proposed ... but he did not propose anything. Absolutely.
    This is not a modernization.
    He just threw out the electronics, threw out the birds, hanging nurses and reduced the transportable fuel supply ...
  24. chenia
    chenia 5 September 2013 15: 32 New
    +3
    Separate the concepts of BMPT and heavy BMP. There is a crew in the BMPT and the structural equipment of the heavy infantry fighting vehicle (at the same time, the command vehicle, for example, in the SMP platoon-3 tanks, 2 BMPTs, in the tank 2 tanks 1 BMPT.), And the TBMP is also an airborne assault force.

    Since BMPT has the main task of supporting tanks, then it is necessary to close the distance between tanks and infantry (200m), taking into account support for artillery (the boundaries of safe removal (200 tanks, 400 chain)). And here you need a sea of ​​fire at a strong point, after the transfer of fire.

    For me, the most suitable object is 787, just add in the center 82mm automatic gun-mortar paired with 30mm. , and from the sides along the KPVT paired with 7,62. on top of the turret for 12,5 (for target designation), well, like a terminator for AGS with the possibility of horizontal guidance paired with FCT.
  25. Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 5 September 2013 15: 46 New
    +1
    Without changing the caliber of automatic guns in the direction of increase, the BMPT will not be able to qualitatively support either tanks or infantry in battle.
  26. abc_alex
    abc_alex 5 September 2013 18: 03 New
    0
    Once again I read about BMPT and opinions in the comments. And once again I did not understand the logic of the authors of the BMPT in the issue of choosing weapons. Well, neither the concept of course grenade launchers, nor open containers with SDs, nor a pair of 30 mm cannons fit into my head. Not separately, it is all clear, but collected in one place and thus puts the brain at a standstill.
  27. ed65b
    ed65b 5 September 2013 18: 34 New
    +1
    need to run in. Send to Syria 2-3 pieces at the expense of the plant and a couple of specialists to train the Syrians and all. Yes, at least 1 piece. all immediately manifested and armament and good power reserve, flooded the solarium and forgot the number of crew.
  28. uestlend
    uestlend 5 September 2013 19: 02 New
    0
    The armor should be increased to the maximum and you shouldn’t look at the weight not off the ski jumping platform and the sight is not needed for the fields, it should work in such a spectrum through at least some obstacles to see in a tall building who you will notice with RPGs in one of hundreds of windows.
  29. Bugor
    Bugor 5 September 2013 19: 19 New
    +1
    If 2-3 pieces are sent to Syria, then, judging by YouTube, they will immediately be there, since there are no infantry on the set of damaged tanks. And they will say that the Russians give out a piece of iron for super equipment. And there is no experience, and they will glorify the whole world.
  30. niklev65
    niklev65 5 September 2013 22: 29 New
    +3
    Friends! Here's a video, in my opinion in the subject ... Also, like "BMPT" leaves !!!
  31. niklev65
    niklev65 5 September 2013 22: 33 New
    +2
    By the way, the video was posted under the title “Allah heard!” I wonder what it flew in? As I understand it, they still saw THIS in the air ...
  32. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 6 September 2013 00: 37 New
    0
    I propose this option weapons:

    - a six-barrel machine gun and an automatic 30/40 mm grenade launcher in the tower
    - increase the number of launchers to 4 on board
    - 12,7 / 7,62 machine gun combined with a sight

    and maximum armor ...
  33. nick-name
    nick-name 6 September 2013 08: 53 New
    0
    Quote: makst83
    I didn’t think that an excessive cruising range of at least 550 km could be a drawback for a combat vehicle, even when participating in counter-terrorism operations! since in urban conditions the fuel will be consumed several times faster!

    Are you aware that 550 is with external fuel tanks and aft barrels? That is, it is precisely with those tanks that are always empty in combat conditions, and the range is accordingly becoming 200 km.
  34. beifall
    beifall 7 September 2013 04: 34 New
    0
    And we as the last bought this tarantas !!!!!!!!!! Accurate - we are!
  35. mirag2
    mirag2 8 September 2013 18: 49 New
    0
    Yes, an apparatus with dual 30-40mm cannons (with a large vertical angle), launchers that can be equipped with HE and thermobaric missiles, and even grenade launchers, based on a well-protected tank, are best suited for urban battles.