Military Review

BMPT-72 "Terminator-2" tank support combat vehicle

192
At the recent Russian Arms Expo-2013 exhibition, several new developments of the domestic defense industry were shown. Among other things, for the first time demonstrated a new model of support combat vehicle tanks BMPT-72 "Terminator-2". In this project, the designers of the Uralvagonzavod enterprise took into account the experience gained in testing the previous car of this class, which allowed us to correctly update the design, composition of weapons and equipment. At the same time, some measures were taken that could lead to great commercial success of the new combat vehicle.




The main difference of the BMPT-72 car from its predecessor is the base chassis. In the early stages of the project, it was supposed to build the previous BMPT vehicle based on the chassis of the T-72 tanks, but later on a modified T-90 tank chassis was taken as the basis for it. The new version of the tank support combat vehicle is based on the hull and undercarriage of the T-72 tank. As expected, this feature of the project will help promote new machines in the international market. T-72 tanks are operated in dozens of states and each of them may show interest in the new Russian BMPT-72.

According to official data, built or converted from the tank "Terminator-2" has a combat mass of 44 tons. When using an 840 or 1000 engine horsepower (depending on the modification of the base tank), the BMPT-72 is able to accelerate on the highway to 60 km / h and travel along an off-road route at speeds up to 35-45 km / h Cruising range for fuel - 700 kilometers. Characteristics of mobility allow the new BMPT to move and fight in the same ranks with all modern main tanks of Russian production. In addition, the use of the chassis of the T-72 tank greatly simplifies and simplifies the maintenance and supply of spare parts.

The BMPT-72 is heavier than the base tank due to the installation of the original turret with weapons and additional protection modules. Frontal and side hulls are additionally covered with dynamic protection system modules. It is proposed to protect the engine compartment in addition with cumulative grids. In addition, to counter the anti-tank weapons using opto-electronic systems, the BMPT-72 has smoke grenade launchers.



In order to simplify the production or re-equipment of finished machines, the new Terminator-2 has several noticeable differences from the previous model BMPTs. Thus, the crew was reduced to three people: only the driver, commander and gunner-operator of weapons remained in its structure. Two grenade throwers, as well as their weapon, removed. Obviously, this change in the composition of the crew and the armament complex made it possible to simplify the work on retrofitting the finished tank chassis due to the absence of the need for a serious change in the front of the hull. In addition, the withdrawal from the crew of the grenade throwers made it possible to reduce the number of people in the car to the “tank” level. In other words, the crew of the T-72 tank and BMPT at its base consists of three people. In the future this may contribute to facilitating crew retraining.

All the weapons of the updated tank support combat vehicle are mounted on the turret. The unit itself, in turn, is mounted on a standard chase of the T-72 tank without any modifications of the hull. The complex of tower armament and equipment of the BMPT-72 machine is similar to the corresponding equipment of the Terminator machine. At the same time, some technical solutions were used to increase the combat capability and survivability of both the machine as a whole and individual systems. First of all, noticeably developed bulletproof booking of almost all units located on the tower. Two 30-mm automatic guns 2А42 are partially covered with an armored casing. In BMPT-72 ammunition packs, it fits up to 850 projectiles for both guns. For shooting 2А42 cannons, all available 30 caliber millimeters of the Russian standard are suitable. Shooting is conducted in two modes: with a great pace at the level of 550 shots per minute and with a small, no more than 250-300 shots per minute. Above the guns in its own housing is placed a PKTM machine gun with 2100 ammunition ammunition.



The authors of the BMPT-72 project solved the problem of the protection of guided weapons, which caused a lot of complaints about the vehicle supporting tanks of the first model. On the sides of the Terminator-2 tower there are two armored housings inside which are mounted transport and launch containers with 9М120-1 or 9М120-1Ф / 4 guided missiles. Missiles are capable of hitting armored targets at a distance of 6 kilometers. To control the missiles, a complex of means B07C1 is used.

The updated BMPT-72 machine fire control system includes gunner's and commander’s sights, laser rangefinders, ballistic computer and weapon stabilizer. The commander of the machine has a combined panoramic sight with television and thermal channels. Field of sight sight stabilized in two planes. The commander’s sight is also equipped with a laser range finder. The gunner machine uses a sight with optical and thermal imaging channels. This sighting device has a field of view stabilized in two planes, and is also equipped with a laser range finder and a laser control system for anti-tank missiles.

Used aiming equipment when using a television channel allows the commander of a combat vehicle to recognize enemy tanks at a distance of about 5 kilometers. At night, when using a thermal imaging system, the recognition range is reduced to 3,5 km. The target and thermal channels of the gunner's sight provide detection and recognition of the target at approximately the same distances - 5 and 3,5 km, respectively.



Shortly after the first show of BMPT-72 “Terminator-2”, several defense industry officials made statements about its prospects. All of them believe that the updated tank support combat vehicle should interest potential customers. One of the main advantages capable of attracting interest from the Russian or any foreign army is considered to be the base machine. T-72 tanks are operated in many countries, because of which the conversion of outdated equipment of this type into new BMPT-72 can have a beneficial effect on the capabilities of the customer’s ground forces.

An interesting feature of the BMPT-72 project is the fact that it was originally created taking into account not only the construction of new machines, but also the re-equipment of existing equipment. According to official information, the Russian enterprise Uralvagonzavod can supply the customer with ready-made tank support machines or transfer sets of equipment for retrofitting existing tanks by the customer.

The level of protection and firepower of the new infantry fighting vehicle in comparison with the original "Terminator" remained at about the same level. Probably, the refusal of automatic grenade launchers can badly affect the fighting qualities. However, this decision was made in connection with the simplification of the design and production. Probably the absence of two grenade launchers will not be able to push away potential customers. It is worth recalling that in numerous discussions of the BMPT machine, doubts were often expressed as to the advisability of installing two automatic grenade launchers, which should be controlled by individual crew members. The claims of specialists and people interested in military equipment concerned both the quantitative aspects of the crew and the combat effectiveness of grenade launchers with limited pick-up angles.



The firing capabilities of the barrel and guided weapons of the BMPT-72 roughly correspond to these parameters of the first Terminator. This can be explained by the fact that when creating a new tank support machine, the project authors sought to unify it with the T-72 tank, and also to remove the main drawbacks of the previous design. As a result, it became possible to relatively simply convert a tank into a tank support vehicle with sufficiently high performance.

While potential customers did not talk about their intentions to buy new cars BMPT-72 or make them from existing tanks. The first demonstration of the new combat vehicle took place a few weeks ago and therefore it is too early to talk about possible purchases. Possible operators of this technology only recently got the opportunity to get acquainted with the new proposal of the Russian defense industry. Reports of contract negotiations may begin in the coming months.

On the materials of the sites:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/
http://vpk.name/
http://arms-expo.ru/
Author:
192 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Igor39
    Igor39 8 October 2013 08: 01 New
    17
    Myself needs to do a couple of thousand cars.
    1. AVV
      AVV 8 October 2013 10: 45 New
      35
      Yes, and put it for Syria, then things to destroy the militants will go faster !!! Such devices are extremely necessary there !!!
      1. egor 1712
        egor 1712 8 October 2013 11: 33 New
        22
        For one and run in the model, maybe some changes will be required. In battle, you will immediately see the strengths and of course the weaknesses of this model.
      2. Zlyden.Zlo
        Zlyden.Zlo 8 October 2013 18: 49 New
        15
        For the sake of running in and gaining experience in combat operation. It would be possible to send about 10 pieces to Syria. (There will immediately be no doubt whether this device is needed in our army or not)
      3. malikszh
        malikszh 8 October 2013 22: 54 New
        -6
        why the name here is Syria to support tanks and the militants do not have tanks.
        1. Ro-man
          Ro-man 9 October 2013 04: 00 New
          +3
          :). So to support their own tanks, not enemy tanks.
        2. novobranets
          novobranets 10 October 2013 19: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: malikszh
          and the militants have no tanks.
          already have
      4. Mature naturalist
        Mature naturalist 9 October 2013 00: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: AVV
        And put it for Syria

        and film, similar to the one that was a few years ago about the KA-50 - "Black Shark"
        1. xAskoldx
          xAskoldx 9 October 2013 00: 47 New
          0
          Yes it would be nice...
          1. How much will this help Bashar?
          2. Is it possible that a potential buyer will have a reason to doubt the effectiveness of this “ash-bin”?
          3 after the film about the Ka-50, how many and in which country were the helicopters of this brand delivered?
    2. vjhbc
      vjhbc 8 October 2013 22: 47 New
      +1
      here you want it but I don’t like it. this car has something wrong in it, as the Winnie-the-Pooh said it’s not the right bees and their honey is not right. In general, not what I would like to see in such a car
      Quote: Igor39
      Myself needs to do a couple of thousand cars.
    3. air wolf
      air wolf 9 October 2013 07: 20 New
      +2
      It is necessary not to do, but to remake from the T-72, and not to forget to at least put a dynamic defense on one Needle or Arrow, would be a fairy tale.
  2. svp67
    svp67 8 October 2013 08: 10 New
    +8
    Shortly after the first show of the BMPT-72 Terminator-2, several defense industry officials made statements about its prospects. All of them believe that the updated tank support combat vehicle should interest potential customers.
    Until this machine appears in the arsenal of our army, selling it to anyone will be very problematic. And in the end, it would be time for our army to adopt modern weapons as well, albeit through deep modernization of the old ...
    1. Owl
      Owl 8 October 2013 19: 15 New
      +2
      Until changes are made to the staff of the tank (motorized rifle) battalion with the inclusion of such vehicles in the company (platoon) structure, nothing will change. The crew of this facility should be equipped with “contract soldiers”, and this is still a rather distant prospect (while the other airborne forces are not completely “contracted”, and the airborne forces are the most trained units in the Russian Armed Forces, which are quite large).
      1. Alexander Kirov
        Alexander Kirov 20 October 2013 19: 53 New
        0
        The first battalion of such a state to staff of officials and designers on a contract basis. And after the test in Syria, everything will go without our forum.
  3. svp67
    svp67 8 October 2013 08: 11 New
    14
    And honestly, here's a "2 Terminator"

    I like it more aesthetically and I think that this machine has better security than what was shown in N. Tagil
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 8 October 2013 08: 56 New
      10
      Quote: svp67
      here is a "Terminator 2"

      Greetings, Sergey.

      Yes, such a Terminator is more "down to earth" to its immediate goals.
      And easier and more reliable.
      It is a pity that the photo is small, even in this article.

      I hope that we will wait for Almaty, Kurgan and Boomerangs ...
      In the meantime, in those parts where the T-72 and BMP-2 are armed, such a combat vehicle as the BMPT-72 will be very useful.
      Good luck to her in mass production for the needs of OUR Army.
      drinks

      The boom is to wait for the screams of "paper" experts, and even bored without them.
      wink
      1. eplewke
        eplewke 8 October 2013 09: 41 New
        +9
        It would be nice to remake a couple of hundred T-72Bs for these cars. Combat ability will increase significantly. Well, a completely fantastic scenario to remake the entire T-72 armada under the BMPT, and the T-90SM and Armata will take the place of tanks. Then our armored forces will not be the most powerful, but the Hollywood thieves the most ...
    2. nick-name
      nick-name 8 October 2013 10: 17 New
      -1
      Security is the same. The only thing that is not clear is why the missiles were placed horizontally
      1. the47th
        the47th 8 October 2013 13: 08 New
        11
        They can penetrate the armored casing and damage the outer missile, while the inner one will remain unattainable for small arms. Vertical layout will damage both missiles.
  4. pva1964
    pva1964 8 October 2013 08: 14 New
    23
    BMPT need to shoot in Syria with a glove hi
    1. tchack
      tchack 8 October 2013 22: 20 New
      -4
      You would have to send her to Syria with BarAdachy to shoot and those 19 comrades who put you a plus ... I would then look at you, God forbid, not in zinc ...
  5. Regis
    Regis 8 October 2013 08: 34 New
    +1
    Absolutely useless crap.
    If it gets into the troops, the armored containers under anti-tank systems will be removed first of all (for bearded with armored vehicles it’s usually not a lot)
    And the army will receive in the bottom line a tank armed with a 30 mm bullet instead of a 125 mm gun. Yes, it will be better protected than the usual 72-ka, but the enemy is still suppressed by fire, not armor.
    1. Turtles
      Turtles 8 October 2013 09: 48 New
      28
      In fact, the BMPT-72 can use two types of anti-tank missiles and the 9M120F missile - a variant of the missile equipped with a combined warhead - high-explosive and space-detonating. Designed to destroy fortified firing points, defenses, lightly armored and unarmored vehicles, sheltered manpower. Explosiveness of warheads - up to 9,5 kg
      So the containers come in handy against bearded men.
    2. nick-name
      nick-name 8 October 2013 10: 21 New
      +9
      Well, yes, you’re right, the machine is useless, even if they continue to use air defense machines (shilka, tunguska) to fight against enemy infantry. Why is the army a well-protected machine with AP? what
      1. Regis
        Regis 8 October 2013 10: 27 New
        0
        So the army does not know why a terminator is needed, and therefore does not purchase. Maybe at least you explain to the generals how much they are mistaken? You then of course know better.
        1. the47th
          the47th 8 October 2013 13: 18 New
          +4
          They did not purchase the first version of BMPT. There can be many reasons and they have never been voiced. Maybe there is no banal money (it is more useful to buy new helicopters and planes), too large a crew, the same unprotected containers.
        2. nick-name
          nick-name 8 October 2013 17: 06 New
          +4
          Quote: Regis
          So the army does not know why a terminator is needed, and therefore does not purchase. Maybe at least you explain to the generals how much they are mistaken? You then of course know better.

          In fact, the Generals themselves know pretty well why BMPT is needed, otherwise why did the GABTU open the Rama Frame-99? Now everything is stopping most likely because of the reinforcement, it seems that there will be a similar machine on its base, it will then go to the troops
          1. Regis
            Regis 9 October 2013 22: 11 New
            +1
            Maybe, but still it’s categorically incomprehensible what a terminator can of which a tank cannot.
        3. DJEIN8
          DJEIN8 8 October 2013 23: 44 New
          +3
          Regis 08:34, 10:27 (squalor in your photo ... the terminator is resting ....)
          What army are you writing about, about your ...? Yours and don’t need to know what to do with it,
          ... you need to know those who will use the terminator, you are our caring ....
          There was a video, like a tank, standing in the open on the highway turning a tower looking for,
          I don’t know what to call this debelism, through the sight of something, militants, in buildings
          on the contrary ... (the militants were shooting, the distance, if I correctly understood decent,
          50-100 meters ... the militants, of course, did not miss the chance and from the RPG ... exploded ...
          In another ... moreover ... he ran up and threw a grenade at the barrel ... !!! exploded ..
          For SUCH "WARRIORS" and "COMMANDERS" whoever, and whose they wouldn’t be, ... is it a tank,
          is the terminator ... well, in general ... I hope you understand ... But in Grozny ...
          To hit from a 125mm gun at the windows, and if the top of a high-altitude ... only such
          "well-wishers" as you can suggest ... (when there was nothing else ...
          accounted for ... where they could ... and at what cost ...?)
          From a 30mm “fart” as you called it, depending on the projectile and with the LETTER,
          REASONABLE use in the building and not only, it would be "not comfortable" ... to bearded men and
          ... by the way ....
          Want to help, check ..... the building will be allocated to you .., tell me (if you can ...
          ... about the impression ..., you think there is a bunch ..) and they will check at the same time who it is
          there we are mistaken .... ??? ...
          1. Regis
            Regis 9 October 2013 22: 10 New
            0
            Quote: DJEIN8
            There was a roller like a tank

            So you are a little fool on commercials on the Internet to judge what the army needs and what does not.
            Quote: DJEIN8
            I don’t know what to call this debelism,

            By the way, I thought the same thing after reading your post.
            Quote: DJEIN8
            50-100 meters ... the militants, of course, did not miss the chance and from the RPG ... exploded.

            You are probably one of these idiots from the site who believes that any hit on a tank from an RPG is fatal ...
            Quote: DJEIN8
            In another ... moreover ... he ran up and threw a grenade at the barrel ... !!! exploded.

            AAAA here it is ARGUMENT !!! 30mm grenade barrel does not fit! Army Terminator needed !!
            Quote: DJEIN8
            To hit from a 125mm gun at the windows, and if the top of a high-altitude ... only such

            So to the house in which the militants were seated, everyone must drive into a tight one! You can’t leave the tank at a distance so that it can calmly shoot militants on the upper floors?
            Quote: DJEIN8
            From a 30mm “fart” as you called it, depending on the projectile

            With any projectile, the high-explosive action of 125mm guns is greater. Is it clear now?
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 8 October 2013 12: 26 New
        12
        Quote: nick-name
        Well, yes, you’re right, the machine is useless, even if they continue to use air defense machines (shilka, tunguska) to fight against enemy infantry. Why is the army a well-protected machine with AP?

        Yeah, Sla.
        Well, the people are simply longing again for Shilka and the Tungusks to be sent to land combat.
        For example, he simply dreams of climbing in the place of the gunner-operator BMP-2 in urban conditions and boldly entering the city quarters in the forefront when small-caliber fire is needed ...

        Each machine has its own niche of application.
        BMPT-72 has it.

        And such a revised version will be even easier to use and ... cheaper.
        It is possible that this is exactly what the Ministry of Defense will like, and finally they will buy a party for the needs of the NE.
        And as for the tactics of application, they will justify it in an instant. There is no need to think much.
        1. nick-name
          nick-name 8 October 2013 17: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Well, the people are simply longing again for Shilka and the Tungusks to be sent to land combat.

          That was sarcasm wink
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 8 October 2013 17: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: nick-name
            That was sarcasm

            Duc is clear.
            I fully share this your koment.
        2. SkiF_RnD
          SkiF_RnD 20 October 2013 14: 10 New
          0
          Do not take for collision, this is really a question. And what is the advantage of this small calliber? What fire task in urban development 30-mm BMP cannon perform better than a 125-mm tank guns with OF? I simply did not find evidence of effectiveness against, for example, a grenade launcher that suddenly opened fire — from a window, suppose. Recently, ANNA News found interesting shots in a video report - an action movie with an RPG shot from a window at T-72M. At the same moment, the gunner sent the OF into the wall, lower than the window from which the shot was. Apparently, for the shooter it was the final stop. And I'm not sure that two thirty would give the same reliable defeat to an invisible target behind the wall of the house. Trite could have time to bounce to the side, and so on ... And with the tanks, as I understand it, all the same, the assault groups will have to advance. So why not arm these groups with good equipment, flamethrowers like our RCBs. Judging by the information from Syria (primarily the video), the tanks are not doing so badly, with proper use. So all the same, do you need 30s to storm the city?
    3. Aristocrat
      Aristocrat 8 October 2013 12: 17 New
      +5
      Containers without a control system are just containers, and therefore there is no need to remove them. As for the rest of the armament, it is “similar” (if it can be compared with BMP, more precisely, armored personnel carriers), “Ahzarit,” etc. armed at times weaker.
      With tank armor.
      As for usefulness, uselessness, I think that the terminator is not exactly what the RA army needs. The RA Army needs a heavy BMP, which will not replace any BMPT.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 8 October 2013 12: 31 New
        +6
        Quote: Aristocrat
        The RA Army needs a heavy BMP, which will not replace any BMPT.

        Oleg, BMP-T, of course, is needed as air.
        But what about the parts that are armed with the BMP-2? And for a long time they will be in service with the RF NE ...
        The line of expected new cars will not appear so soon, especially in mass quantities.
        1. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 9 October 2013 10: 10 New
          0
          The line of expected new cars will not appear so soon, especially in mass quantities.

          What does the old BMP have to do with it? BMPT does not replace them ... It can strengthen but not replace ...
          And BMPTs are in no hurry to purchase. The question has been going on for a decade.
      2. novobranets
        novobranets 8 October 2013 14: 48 New
        +6
        BMPT and BMP are different things, sharpened for different tasks, and they cannot and should not replace each other. BMP is a transporter with the fire support function for infantry, and BMPT is a vehicle designed to go in line with tanks and protect them from enemy infantry (dead grenade launchers etc.)
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 8 October 2013 18: 03 New
          +5
          BMPT machine designed to go in one formation with tanks and protect them from enemy infantry (dead grenade launchers, etc.)

          Correct a little, not in the same row, but a little behind. Suppress infantry with fire, since in open areas it is better than tanks there are no options. To be honest, I did not see infantrymen following tanks on the battlefields in Iraq, only in urban battles, the Marines provided suppression of the enemy infantry. Usually 1 tank for 1 platoon was walking along the street, if they met resistance, they called support for aviation, if it was not possible, they were hammering on their own. Here BMPT will be in its element. I saw the spirit shied away from the PKT, he hid in the walls of the house worked 30 mm, a sniper sat in a bunker for 2 km, left and worked directly with concrete-explosive high-explosive rockets and that’s it!
          I am for the BMPT in the army. bully
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 8 October 2013 18: 55 New
            +3
            Quote: Ka-52
            Correct a little, not in the same row, but a little behind.

            Depends on the situation, for example light wood, it is better to push forward a little. I think the car is needed. drinks
        2. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 9 October 2013 10: 20 New
          0
          Thank you enlightened! At one time, the men didn’t ride armor, but they didn’t hang around shooting ranges :)

          You voiced the scope of BMPT. And now we remember the lessons that were not learned. And why BMP? And the infantry? Is it not to cover (including) tanks from grant-throwers, LNG and ATGM calculations? Is it not for the purpose of destroying secondary targets (such as infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers) so that the tank is not distracted from the main task - defeating enemy tanks (or will someone challenge the main task of the tanks?).
          BMPT - is fully capable of performing this task, but is not capable of transporting infantry.
          Then the question! Why is BMPT necessary if BMP is still required? The second question is whether BMPT is needed if the tanks will be followed by a heavy BMP armed, for example, with the same weapons module as the BMPT? Well, or a little more ...
          1. Ka-52
            Ka-52 9 October 2013 16: 45 New
            +1
            You voiced the scope of BMPT. And now we remember the lessons that were not learned. And why BMP? And the infantry? Is it not to cover (including) tanks from grant-throwers, LNG and ATGM calculations? Is it not for the purpose of destroying secondary targets (such as infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers) so that the tank is not distracted from the main task - defeating enemy tanks (or will someone challenge the main task of the tanks?).


            I do not dare to challenge your arguments hi But where did you see in modern conflicts (over the past 10 years) that the Abrams and BMP ravings attack in the same order, on the same enemy? IMHO of course, I judge only those frames that dig on the Internet. Even on our site there were a couple of articles about single meetings of the Abrams and Iraqi tanks, where they took them to pieces. The bulk of the armored vehicles was knocked out by Aviation and high-precision Missiles. BMP ravings were used mainly for delivering manpower to the front line and for patrolling the streets on which they suffered major casualties.
            BMPT - is fully capable of performing this task, but is not capable of transporting infantry.
            Your main emphasis is that since the BMPT cannot transport infantry, then it is not needed ...
            But is infantry needed along with tanks? If in the same Iraq, she was mainly involved in the protection of objects and patrolling the streets.
            For me, the future lies with Automated Combat Systems, controlled by operators. A pair of such complexes with thermal imaging cameras and metal detectors, with powerful loudspeakers and a khan to terrorists.

            Here is my amateurish opinion ...
            Ready to listen to you.
            Add: The fewer infantry in battle, the less loss of manpower, and equipment is needed to save the lives of soldiers.
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 9 October 2013 17: 42 New
              +1
              But where did you see in modern conflicts (over the past 10 years) that the Abrams and BMP ravings attack in the same order, on the same enemy?

              Well, firstly, the level of protection of Bradley is significantly lower than MBT. Secondly, reading an analysis of the use of MBT in Iraq, I read what happened Bradley was ahead of the tanks ... Which is not good. But there about specific tactics. Bradley walked with a dozer blade and heaped up the trenches along with Iraqi soldiers.
              And the enemy was significantly more than amyricos ...
              Nevertheless, after Iraq, the Americans started talking about the weak booking of Bradley and especially the M113 ...
              But is infantry needed along with tanks? If in the same Iraq, she was mainly involved in the protection of objects and patrolling the streets.

              What happens to tanks without infantry support, we know ... And the BMPT here is far from ideal. What the operator does not see behind the armor the infantryman sees.
              Say you didn’t use infantry? And who took the city? Bots? :)
              You can’t replace people’s equipment ... Alas.
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 10 October 2013 17: 48 New
                0
                But there about specific tactics. Bradley walked with a dozer blade and heaped up the trenches along with Iraqi soldiers.

                Thanks for the info.
                Say you didn’t use infantry? And who took the city? Bots? :)

                Well, with the current level of technology, my imagination will be too expensive.
                However, why not infantry to go along with specialized equipment for stripping city blocks. Won Israel uses armored bulldozers with the support of tanks and infantry. I understand that the tactics of using BMPT will be fundamentally different from the standards in the Russian Army. I think only practical experience will be able to say whether this technique is suitable and for what conditions.
                hi
                1. Aristocrat
                  Aristocrat 10 October 2013 19: 52 New
                  +1
                  Won Israel uses armored bulldozers with the support of tanks and infantry.

                  Alas, the policy of our state is “tolerant” of thugs and other bearded m.a.a.z.a.m. And bordering on the genocide of their own people.
                  And therefore, does not apply the method of "destruction of the clan nest" that has long been recommended in the east. If someone shot from the house (it doesn’t matter, the owners or those whom the owners allowed to “shoot”), then the house is considered a goddamn grandmother! Bo human rights, inviolability of property and home, blah blah blah and all that ...

                  I understand that the tactics of using BMPT will be fundamentally different from the standards in the Russian Army. I think only practical experience will be able to say whether this technique is suitable and for what conditions.

                  I think it fits. And how and for what, the practice will show. Only the path is wrong ... This is not a step back, but not a step forward. This is a step to the side ...
      3. novobranets
        novobranets 8 October 2013 16: 12 New
        +5
        Quote: Aristocrat
        The RA Army needs a heavy BMP, which will not replace any BMPT.

        Or can the MiG-29 replace the camp kitchen? Why compare things for different purposes.
        1. Alex 241
          Alex 241 8 October 2013 16: 27 New
          15
          Quote: novobranets
          Or can the MiG-29 replace the camp kitchen?
          Yes easily laughing
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 8 October 2013 16: 58 New
            +5
            Quote: Alex 241
            Yes easily

            Sanya, well, I understand there - dry up over the tank fan to warm.
            But you flyers are incorrigible ...
            laughing
            1. bask
              bask 8 October 2013 17: 11 New
              +6
              Quote: Aleks tv
              But you flyers are incorrigible ..

              Greetings Sasha, Lesha.
              And if you add a little bit of gas, you get a Moor grill. wassat
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 8 October 2013 17: 20 New
                +8
                Hi guys, here Seryoga waf laid out. laughing
              2. Aleks tv
                Aleks tv 8 October 2013 17: 27 New
                +3
                Quote: bask
                And if you add a little bit of gas, you get a Moor grill

                Great, Andrey.

                So much more that ...
                laughing
                1. Alex 241
                  Alex 241 8 October 2013 17: 41 New
                  +2
                  .....................
          2. novobranets
            novobranets 8 October 2013 16: 59 New
            +5
            Vertical grill? Ish, as the cook smoked. laughing
        2. Aristocrat
          Aristocrat 9 October 2013 10: 28 New
          +1
          Read my post above and understand that the appointment of a heavy BMP and BMPT intersects, but at the same time the BMP (heavy!) Also carries infantry under armor. I agree! BMPT (especially in the “new body”) is a beautiful car, and you imagine yourself surrounded by spirits and heroically carry them to dust saving the crew of a damaged tank :). But in life, “cool and sophisticated” does not mean the best. The best is the optimal ratio for the totality of qualities. Even if at the same time weaker weapons, etc.
          Recall the story. T-34 is recognized as the best tank. But was he the most protected? Armed? No. He was the best in terms of qualities. And this approach is the only true one in choosing military equipment. And not military either ...
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 9 October 2013 15: 03 New
            +1
            Quote: Aristocrat
            We recall the story. T-34 is recognized as the best tank.

            T-34 recognized as the most massive WWII tank, the best in terms of performance, experts recognized Panzerkampfwagen VI "Tiger I" Ausf E.
            Quote: Aristocrat
            Read my post above and understand that the appointment of a heavy BMP and BMPT intersects

            Already hesitated to talk about different tasks.
            1. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 9 October 2013 17: 27 New
              +1
              T-34 recognized as the most massive WWII tank, the best in terms of performance, experts recognized Panzerkampfwagen VI "Tiger I" Ausf E.

              You distort playing words and this makes sense lost. T-34 is recognized as the "best tank" (And besides, it is the most massive).
              What is the "best in performance" ????
              There is no such thing. Invented on the go.
              The IS-3 is recognized as the "strongest" tank.
              And the most "strong" self-propelled guns and "YagdTiger." (Estimated by Western military experts). You can dispute whether or not the course of history as well as the results of World War II will not change from this.


              Already hesitated to talk about different tasks.

              But don’t have to worry. He who has ears, let him hear.
              You are considering BMPT in isolation from "everything." Consider the maximum in the "kit" with the tank.
              Try to think in a larger way, although at least within the battlefield. If you fight in conjunction with a tank and no more everything seems more or less clear. But this does not happen and will not happen ... I think you will not deny the need to participate in hostilities, even infantry? I think such an indisputable statement do not dare to dispute.
              Why do we need a tank-BMPT bundle? When is the Tank-BMP ligament? It turns out a trio of "tank-bmp-bmpt." It is certainly not bad. But if you think even wider? The state is in no hurry to replace the old-type BMP with something ... Is it possible under these conditions to count on an "incomprehensible" BMP? That's what I'm talking about! Understand the meaning of what is written!
              I write "we need a heavy BMP", you read "your favorite terminator - sucks!".
              1. novobranets
                novobranets 9 October 2013 18: 37 New
                +1
                Quote: Aristocrat
                You distort playing words and this makes sense lost. T-34 recognized as "the best tank"
                Despite all the inherent flaws of the Tiger, it can be considered the most formidable and serious weapon on the battlefield and a meeting with it any WWII tank in an open battle, did not bode well for his rivals.

                Quote: Aristocrat
                What is the "best in performance" ????

                Unfortunately I did not find this article, but I will explain in my own words, this is the average number of goals fulfilled (the soul protests against the word "destroyed") by one tank, the data are, of course, statistical.
                Quote: Aristocrat
                I think such an indisputable statement do not dare to dispute.

                How many infantry have you seen, even in the commercials involved in the tank battle? At what distance should infantry fighting vehicles go from tanks, and can infantry fighting vehicles and infantry protect tanks?
                1. Aristocrat
                  Aristocrat 9 October 2013 20: 41 New
                  0
                  How many infantry have you seen, even in the commercials involved in the tank battle? At what distance should infantry fighting vehicles go from tanks, and can infantry fighting vehicles and infantry protect tanks?


                  Interestingly you raised the question ... Have you seen infantry in a tank battle? How many tanks have you seen in naval battles?
                  Seriously, purely tank battles, as a rule, do not happen.
                  According to the charter, you know, I think. 300m in open area.
                  But given the appearance of a heavy BMP, tactics and charters should be reworked (as with the appearance of the same BMP). Considering that a heavy infantry fighting vehicle is protected at least as well as a tank (and considering a lower profile is better than a tank), an infantry fighting vehicle can go a hundred meters behind the tank in an open area, during a battle in an urban BMP in front of the tank (the tank turns into a support weapon )
                  On BMP-1 and BMP-2 they defend tanks successfully (for example, the article on the site “About the Russian tank put the word“ something like that ...), but on a heavy machine, will it be more difficult for you to do it? :)
                  1. novobranets
                    novobranets 9 October 2013 21: 42 New
                    0
                    Quote: Aristocrat
                    Seriously, purely tank battles, as a rule, do not happen.

                    I think remembering Iraq, you change this opinion. Well, God be with him, with a tank battle, it's not about him.
                    Quote: Aristocrat
                    But given the appearance of a heavy BMP, tactics and charters should be reworked (as with the appearance of the same BMP)

                    Now, you finally understood what I was talking about. BMP and BMPT are two different things, tasks may overlap, but may not combine. The need for BMPT was voiced back in Afghanistan, and it appeared only now. the emergence of any conceptually new, specialized technology. A special tool is always better than a universal one, right?
                    1. Aristocrat
                      Aristocrat 9 October 2013 22: 26 New
                      0
                      I think remembering Iraq, you change this opinion.

                      I didn’t forget about him. Deserts are perhaps the only TVD where this is possible. Although the presence of Bradley already implies the presence of infantry ...

                      You finally understood what I was talking about. BMP and BMPT are two different things, tasks may overlap, but not combine.

                      I always understood you. But understanding and agreeing is not the same thing ...

                      A special tool is always better than a universal one, right?

                      I agree to all 99,9%. Which does not make the issue of the appropriateness of BMPT closed. Has the right to be unequivocal. BUT ... But first of all, it is necessary to "solve" the issue with BMP, and only then include (or not include) in the structure of BMPT units.
                      1. novobranets
                        novobranets 10 October 2013 05: 10 New
                        0
                        Thank God that we have come to something. I have no doubt that the army needs a new BMP that meets modern requirements, but it was not about them, but about the protection of tanks, recent events prove that I need to take some measures other than BMPT-72, I do not see other tools. hi
                      2. Aristocrat
                        Aristocrat 10 October 2013 12: 01 New
                        0
                        I see. What already voiced. A tank should not be left without infantry support. And this requires a modern BMP. If she will need BMPT disappears. If there is a BMPT, the need for a BMP will not disappear ...
    4. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 20: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Aristocrat
      Containers without a control system are just containers, and therefore there is no need to remove them. As for the rest of the armament, it is “similar” (if it can be compared with BMP, more precisely, armored personnel carriers), “Ahzarit,” etc. armed at times weaker.
      With tank armor.
      As for usefulness, uselessness, I think that the terminator is not exactly what the RA army needs. The RA Army needs a heavy BMP, which will not replace any BMPT.

      Because neither Ahzarit nor Namer are intended for use without tanks. Their task is to bring the infantry as close as possible to the place of the planned landing, and the module is installed more for defense than for fire suppression of the enemy in front of the attacking infantry. Nothing better than a tank shell for direct infantry support has not yet been invented. (IMHO)
      1. rero
        rero 9 October 2013 03: 58 New
        +1
        all the same, there is the option of ashingenamera with the Samson module 30 mm automatic gun and guns spike
      2. Aristocrat
        Aristocrat 9 October 2013 10: 38 New
        +1
        I know why the designers deliberately armed their APCs with weak machine-gun weapons. The key to the solution, including in the title. BTR-designed to deliver. ATGM and so on, Israeli designers did not make sure that the BTR commander was not tempted to attack the enemy tank and did not put his car at risk.
        Caring for people.
        But it seems to me more correct to equip a heavy BMP (namely, BMP) and ATGMs, and a 30mm assault rifle in an uninhabited module and provide the ability to shoot an assault from remotely controlled FCT and AGS. I can’t imagine what to do to the commander of the BRT Ahzarit if a meeting with an enemy tank occurs on the battlefield? Will ATGM really be so redundant? Will support for the tank be superfluous? And if the tank is destroyed?
      3. novobranets
        novobranets 9 October 2013 15: 06 New
        0
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        Nothing better than a tank shell for direct infantry support has not yet been invented.

        God save you, catch the eye of the infantry after you support it with a tank caliber, at such a distance.
  6. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 20: 22 New
    -2
    I, too, can hardly imagine the advantages of this machine over a tank.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 8 October 2013 20: 34 New
      +6
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      the advantages of this machine over the tank.

      And they are not, Aron.

      There is a tank.
      There is a BMPT-72. (This is a fire “bundle”.)
      There is a mother infantry who decides EVERYTHING under this “bundle”.
      Plus BMO-T (this is what it is).

      This is about "urban work." Very exaggerated, of course (tactics are always different).
      You have your own experience (with respect).
      But such a machine would not hurt us.
      And not only "in the city."
    2. bask
      bask 8 October 2013 20: 44 New
      +6
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      I also can hardly imagine the advantages of this machine over a tank

      Not what an advantage it should be.
      BMP-T, complements MBT (as you have in the IDF TBR-T).
  7. mehmeh
    mehmeh 6 December 2014 16: 01 New
    0
    All true
    They invent all sorts of perversions, then drive pathos about a new technique ((
    Instead of creating an understandable memory with rockets, this hermaphrodite gave birth to (
    Russia now has a brand whole line
    In aviation in the navy in armored vehicles
    Hermaphrodite (((
  • major071
    major071 8 October 2013 08: 52 New
    +6
    The machine is initially focused on foreign buyers. Whether it will enter our troops is the question.
  • Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 8 October 2013 09: 14 New
    +5
    Useful thing! And together with the tanks this is a very powerful duet!
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 8 October 2013 09: 33 New
    +3
    The name "terminator" stuck to BMPT after its appearance. When BMPT just began to "shine" in the media, no one called it. Someone blurted out, maybe from journalists, but picked up at UVZ. With regards to its weapons and protection, the shortcomings are very significant. In addition, it is still unclear how and in what quantity to include these BMPTs in tank units and subunits, well, with certain tactics of use, certain questions will surely arise. BMPT itself, by the way, besides pushing into the armament of manufacturers, for some reason, General Mayev, who steered, actively defended It seems, by armored control, now he can not hear something.
    If missile weapons are also used on BMPTs, then they are controlled, so that they will most likely get with a more powerful warhead than with suitable unguided missiles. Given the fact that this unit should somehow help the tanks there in urban areas, it would be nice to be able to use missiles with the same warhead as jet flamethrowers.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 8 October 2013 16: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: smiths xnumx
      The name "terminator" to BMPT stuck after its appearance.

      Initial - About .199 "Frame", then more formidable has already stuck.
  • Midshipman
    Midshipman 8 October 2013 09: 58 New
    +3
    Instead of grenade launchers, it was necessary to put one mortar with manual or automatic loading, and instead of missile blocks - a rechargeable installation hidden under armor, or even better to shoot missiles through the mortar barrel. And one gun, but with a caliber of 50 millimeters, to break through concrete walls.
    1. nick-name
      nick-name 8 October 2013 10: 23 New
      +6
      ... and instead of caterpillars put a gravitsapu laughing
      1. Midshipman
        Midshipman 8 October 2013 10: 49 New
        +2
        And call him pepelats, and then a terminator, terminator)))
    2. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 8 October 2013 12: 44 New
      +2
      An excellent gun is the "Petrel" - a shortened 57 mm based on 220M, a land mine. 76, even if desired with guided anti-aircraft missiles up to 8 km.
    3. the47th
      the47th 8 October 2013 13: 13 New
      +3
      Concrete walls 12,7x108 breaks through, and the 30-mm gun and even more so.
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 8 October 2013 14: 52 New
        +3
        Quote: the47th
        Concrete walls 12,7x108 breaks through, and the 30-mm gun and even more so.

        One gun is equipped with armor-piercing shells, a standard concrete wall panel for it is not an obstacle.
    4. Genry
      Genry 8 October 2013 14: 23 New
      +4
      Quote: Midshipman
      Instead of grenade launchers, it was necessary to put one mortar with manual or automatic loading

      You can use a self-propelled gun (howitzer) at a safe distance. There will be no problems with crew bloat and combat power.
      Quote: Midshipman
      And one gun, but with a caliber of 50 millimeters, to break through concrete walls.

      And tanks for what? A 50mm gun is useless garbage against concrete, will make a neat hole but will not destroy it.

      BMPT, in the first place, should fulfill the functions of reconnaissance (combat), fire adjustment while independently suppressing manpower (machine gun, 30mm gun, thermobaric and fragmentation rockets and grenades). For powerful fortifications, aim vehicles with heavy weapons (high-explosive, volume-detonating PSUs) following it at an optimal distance.
      BMPTs really need eyes in absolutely all directions, both in the infrared (through smoke, dust and darkness) and in the terra-hertz (+ through walls).
      Protection is the second most important issue. A combination of passive, dynamic and intellectual (active protection) armor is required.
      Means of salvation. Fire extinguishing is automatic, reusable, external (bringing down the flame by explosion) and internally (cooling with liquefied carbon dioxide). You can immediately fill the reserved space with non-combustible gas, with the crew breathing through masks (helmets), which will protect against smoke poisoning (poisonous, camouflage, exhaust, burning objects, work of ammunition) and respiratory burns. The ability to quickly and without human intervention in tow (front and rear).
      Crew - 2 people (volume in favor of weapons), interchangeable, more experienced - commander. Jobs - fully duplicated with the ability to quickly switch to yourself, for urgent action in battle or substitution of each other on the march.
      The possibility of multi-channel remote control of weapons and movement is required - a virtual crew of at least 5 people (no longer possible, hard to negotiate), from the control machine at an accessible distance.
      In the development of the BMPT theme, it is necessary to introduce artificial intelligence systems to automatically destroy or prevent small targets in possible places of occurrence (for live or robo targets without the “own” mark) and transfer large targets (clusters) to CP and heavy fire support vehicles (tanks, self-propelled guns, multiple launch vehicles, aircraft).
      In fact, it turns out that not the BMPT is a support vehicle, but all other types of equipment (and tanks) should support the BMPT as an offensive assault vehicle, clearing operational space for troops.
      1. DJEIN8
        DJEIN8 9 October 2013 02: 48 New
        +1
        Genry 14:23
        I admired ..., could not resist how everything is thought out, correctly and most importantly ...
        ... EASY .. FAST .. AND .. CHEAP ... AT THE TABLE BEFORE THE COMPUTER .......
        And THEY THERE, there, the designer ....... did not hear anything about all this .....
        And the factories, with a needle, and the latest equipment with skilled workers,
        and a sea of ​​money, time, and those responsible, worrying about allies, such
        the same conscientious worrying about the fate of the MOTHERLAND ... MINISTERS, ... OFFICERS, MILITARY
        tactics .... WHAT IS DISTURBING .... ??? Unclear......
        Well, you have something, there in Ukraine, not that, and not like ours, ....!. ??? Go already in
        IN METAL stands in the yard, and not one ....
    5. Alexander Kirov
      Alexander Kirov 20 October 2013 20: 11 New
      0
      That's right, let the people laugh, and we should fight. 120 mm low-ballistic gun for HE, mines, ATGMs, flamethrower thermobaric capsules for firing with OP and ZP (like NONA) UR shooting at a distance of 20 km against illuminated reconnaissance targets and much more. 30 mm automatic.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 8 October 2013 10: 05 New
    +3
    I watched the shooting BMPT - very impressive.
    And as to whether it is needed or not needed, the tanks also did not immediately accept it, they all hoped for cavalry, and some saber fencers and fans crushed with lava, strangled new ventures. So now with BMPT.
    1. avt
      avt 8 October 2013 10: 58 New
      +6
      Quote: aszzz888
      everyone hoped for cavalry, and some saber fencers and fans crush with lava, strangled new ventures. So now with BMPT.

      Well, you're straight Tukhachevsky. laughing It’s only in real life that horse-drawn mechanized corps passed the whole war, and on the very edge. But in Hungary they were thrown at a meeting of SS tank divisions with the cavalry units of the SS near Budapest. Also to see, “saber" cc with lava strangled. laughing By the way, Pliev’s corps also went through Gobi and Khingan. So before you spit at something, or wildly admire, it’s advisable to collect more information and think about it.
      Quote: aszzz888
      I watched the shooting BMPT - very impressive.

      This is of course an iron argument, but during the holidays the fireworks are even more impressive.
      1. aszzz888
        aszzz888 8 October 2013 12: 34 New
        +3
        On Tukhachevsky I will not pull, as indeed you. Yes, both Dovator, Pliev and Cossacks fought. They fought well. That year, everything was fit, which was at hand.
        As for some spitting and wild enthusiasm, this is already your inappropriate fantasy.
        Well, if you are delighted with the festive fireworks, well then to whom how.
        By the way, I can show where you can buy cheap crackers and sparklers. laughing
        1. avt
          avt 8 October 2013 12: 56 New
          +4
          Quote: aszzz888
          That year, everything was fit, which was at hand.

          “Everything at hand” was only 41 meters away, even the Germans, for mobility of infantry units, selected horses with carts and introduced the concept of light infantry division, for all motorization the tanks could not catch up. And the cavalry corps, however, like the cavalry corps and separate cavalry divisions and the Germans had brigades until the age of 45, and in the Far East, too, but there weren’t any multi-turret tanks so beloved by Tukhachevsky for firing in different directions, well, only as a couple of samples in Norway to intimidate the natives So jokes about cavalry Lava attacks on saber tanks, you leave the liberoids for fairy tales about ,, horse marshals of the tyrant Stalin. "By the way, most Wehrmacht tank generals are generally from World War I cavalrymen. Here Rommel was an infantryman.
  • zadorin1974
    zadorin1974 8 October 2013 10: 12 New
    +6
    In urban conditions and during the assault, to strengthen the regions the necessary thing (1 tank + 1 bmp + 2 bmp or beter + assault platoon). At least I would like such a machine to cover and support me. With a tank, even worse with concrete, in the city (especially with high-rise buildings) you don’t spin very much (when you need to drown out a point and you are close to it? Which one wants to be located 50 meters from the place where the tank shell hits)
    1. avt
      avt 8 October 2013 11: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: zadorin1974
      In urban conditions and during the assault, fortify the necessary areas (1 tank + 1 bmp + 2 bmp or beter + assault platoon)

      Much more useful is an infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank with a module such as ,, Bahchi ",,, Berezhok" nakraynyak than this pepelats with five crew members to which you will eventually allocate people and infantry fighting vehicles to accompany the escort vehicle.
      Quote: chenia
      BMPT should be part of the tank units, in motorized rifle units with a tank platoon 3 tanks and 2 BMPTs, in tank units - 2 tanks 1 BMPTs. And the commanders of units in the BMPT.

      Well, fortune-telling has already begun where to put this miracle.
      Quote: chenia
      And the best option is the object 787, only add in the center 82 mm machine gun-mortar (you also need to create, like a cornflower) paired with 30mm. On the sides of the KPVT spark with PKTM, on top is a turret with 12,5 (for target designation).

      And even better, as I said, behind the thick armor of a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank and with Bahchi. ”
      1. max702
        max702 8 October 2013 11: 56 New
        +3
        I fully support you! In the form that now it is a polygon exhibition model, of course in battle it will be better than BMP-2, but still it’s not perfect yet, the options were much more interesting, the site was considered more than once, the key drawback is the impossibility of fighting with the enemy in two opposite sectors at the same time, and in the early versions it was provided for booking a module with weapons, its insufficiency is evident, a tight queue from a PC, not to mention a grain or an RPG and the whole machine is not operational, I agree with you “Bahcha” for good armor plus a separate post with "Cord" and AGS on the roof and nothing else is needed, why persist in this type of weapon is not clear ..
      2. bask
        bask 8 October 2013 17: 04 New
        +3
        Quote: avt
        And even better, as I already said, behind the thick armor of a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank and with Bahchi

        At GSh, T-72, especially since it has already been made and tested. In the late 80s, early 90s.
        bukhoy and young Gaidarites all poherili. Excellent BMP-T was, and BM ,,, triad ,, specially created for it.
        1. avt
          avt 8 October 2013 17: 25 New
          +3
          Quote: bask
          At GSh, T-72, especially since it has already been made and tested. In the late 80s, early 90s.
          bukhoy and young Gaidarites all poherili. Excellent BMP-T was, and BM ,,, triad ,, specially created for it.

          That's it ! The BMPs were developed in accordance with combat experience, hence, during the times of Afghanistan and BMP-2, it appeared as the development of the BMP-3. Without various jokes, it’s completely within the arms system that you don’t have to figure out where and what kind of machine to attach, everything is in place. having adopted BMPs, they made a machine that drove an armored troop-carrier from the battlefield and now it needs to be developed, the best means of supporting tanks are trained and covered by YOUR armor and means of reinforcing it. By the way, an armored troop-carrier is mutating into an MPI as a means of delivering soldiers in sabotage danger but not a classic battle.
          1. bask
            bask 8 October 2013 18: 04 New
            +2
            Quote: avt
            That's it ! BMP developed in accordance with combat experience, hence the time of Afghanistan

            With this AVT, I completely agree.
            Quote: avt
            By the way, the armored personnel carrier mutates into the MRI as a means of delivering fighters in conditions

            But with this statement it’s not quite, we need the BTR-T (dodging experience) of street battles and our Chechen experience.
            BMPT 2, as a necessary measure, but why, when there is already developed BMP-T, with module ,, Bahcha.. BTR-T / BMP-T, go in the first line, the most armored.
            MCI, this is only a safe delivery of soldiers from point A to point B.
            The engine would be more compact to make the aft door to the fighting compartment (Ahzarit BTR-T), there would be no price for our BMO-T, BTR-T / BMP-t.
            1. avt
              avt 8 October 2013 18: 21 New
              +2
              Quote: bask
              But with this statement it’s not quite, we need the BTR-T (dodging experience) of street battles and our Chechen experience.

              So among the Jews, this is practically in fact a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with weakened weapons. They do not have to meet with really trained and equipped fighters for a long time, unlike us, they limited their armaments by car, they have enough tank barrels and turntables in the air in the complete absence of MANPADS. And we, with the triad, are still ahead of everyone! It’s not for nothing that BMP-3s are bought from us, but this Rogozin miracle is not in the way to anyone except the Kazakhs.
              Quote: bask
              MCI, this is only a safe delivery of soldiers from point A to point B.
              .Well, do not let them line up with tanks in the presence of a normal heavy IFV.
              1. bask
                bask 8 October 2013 18: 34 New
                +2
                Quote: avt
                ahead of all! It’s not for nothing that BMP-3s are bought from us, but this Rogozin miracle is not in the way to anyone except the Kazakhs.

                In general, Rogozin has nothing to do with the creation of the BMPT (if I am not mistaken, the first version with one 30mm gun was shown in the UAE in 2002).
                Quote: avt
                car - enough tank barrels and turntables in the air with a complete absence of MANPADS

                But safe movement, covering with armor, in urban areas, the same is necessary. I would suggest on BTR-T, BDM (whatever the tower would eat up, the volume in the airborne compartment) with 2 23 mm cannons. (Also Afghan and recent Chechen combat experience).
                BTR-T ,, Nagmashot ,, good review. An output like our BTR-T.
                1. avt
                  avt 8 October 2013 18: 49 New
                  +1
                  Quote: bask
                  But safe movement, covering with armor, in urban areas, the same is necessary.

                  Yes, he argues request
                  Quote: bask
                  I would suggest on BTR-T, BDM (whatever the turret would eat up, the volume in the airborne compartment) with 2 23 mm cannons. (Also an Afghan and recent Chechen combat experience).

                  Yes, but here we are talking about the same thing, but in different words. I’m talking about the fact that the first line the machine should work is well-protected, maybe wheeled, well-armed. It’s advisable to use a variety of weapons - well, no worse than ,, Bahcha ", which in my understanding should be called - BMP, of course with the possibility of transporting troops .And an armored car, usually wheeled, designed to deliver troops, weapons are naturally lighter - the general name for the armored personnel carrier, can Mrap.
                  1. bask
                    bask 8 October 2013 19: 28 New
                    +1
                    Quote: avt
                    Yes, but here we are talking about the same thing, but in different words. I’m talking about the fact that the first line should work the car is well protected, maybe wheeled, well armed

                    I agree that AVT, armed with BTR-T / BMP-T machine guns alone, is rather weak for us.
                    There is no difference in booking, only in the combat module, a deserted remotely controlled and inhabited. And the number of troops.
                    Quote: avt
                    .And an armored vehicle, usually wheeled

                    Where heavy soils, like in Chechnya, BTR-S is also suitable (Kurganets 25, medium weight up to 30 tons, with mine protection sewn at the level of MPD and protected from monoblock RPGs)
                    As an example, modern German armored personnel carrier, G-5.
                    [Center]
                    [/ Center]
                    1. Alex 241
                      Alex 241 8 October 2013 19: 36 New
                      +2

                      d9kqNX4Bf2z22NV5TVC4sKzKkVJhG [/ img] [/ center] Andryukh, you and I talked about drones, here’s his niche. And the tactical situation on the tablet commander.
                      1. bask
                        bask 8 October 2013 20: 10 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        A. And the commander on the tablet tactical situation.

                        And who argues. Super UAV-before you go to the gorge, or a quarter of the city.
                      2. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 8 October 2013 20: 16 New
                        +1
                        Here is Andryukh, a big benefit from a buzzman, "Cyclones" in general a thing!
                      3. bask
                        bask 8 October 2013 21: 18 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        great use of a hummer, "Cyclones" in general a thing!

                        Sanya, the Americans have long been fighting technology, at least risking people. As he dodged.
                        They have had tactics since the 19th century (Colt’s words, I'd rather send a bullet than a soldier ,,).
                      4. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 8 October 2013 21: 34 New
                        +1
                        I know Andrei, I know. But as they say, if they can kill us, then we too.
                      5. bask
                        bask 8 October 2013 21: 56 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        But, as they say, if they can kill us, then we

                        Sasha, that’s no question. But I'm talking about the price of victory.
                      6. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 8 October 2013 22: 02 New
                        +1
                        Andryukh, in your last post: stupidity and betrayal, that's what we always pay for! And no armor, and caliber, will save from this.
                      7. bask
                        bask 8 October 2013 22: 17 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Alex 241
                        no armor, and caliber, will save from this.

                        Sasha, that’s what I call fool insurance.
                        Naturally, the Israelis will not go to storm the city, without ...
                        Quote: Aaron Zawi
                        Because neither Ahzarit nor Namer are intended for use without tanks.

                        They have everything strictly according to the charter. And we can have anything you want. And there should be additional insurance. (In the form of thick armor and large caliber). That would give a chance to embroider.
                        Maybe a little messy, but I think for sure.
                      8. Alex 241
                        Alex 241 8 October 2013 22: 19 New
                        +1
                        Andryukh, reinforced concrete arguments, on the contrary you can’t trample. good
          2. Alexander Kirov
            Alexander Kirov 20 October 2013 20: 14 New
            0
            At first I thought that he was showing the middle finger, and then decided to launch the UAV and changed my mind.
    2. bask
      bask 8 October 2013 20: 39 New
      0
      Quote: avt
      a variety of weapons - well, no worse than ,, Bahcha "

      DUBM Lemur, with a gun ATK M230LF 30 mm. Vertical angles, guidance, from -20 ° to + 55 °.

      DBM Rafael weapons can be 30 - 40 mm cannons. Rafael offers towers in 4 versions, depending on the type of equipment installed and the level of protection. But it does not install BTR-T ,, Namer.
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 21: 14 New
        0
        Quote: bask

        DBM Rafael weapons can be 30 - 40 mm cannons. Rafael offers towers in 4 versions, depending on the type of equipment installed and the level of protection. But it does not install BTR-T ,, Namer.

        The SV command desperately resists the strengthening of the armament of the TBTR for they understand that with the strengthening of the armament of the vehicles, no standards will deprive the temptation of the commander on the ground to use them as BMPs. And our "charters" extremely tightly link the bow of tanks and infantry with the engineering troops.
      2. avt
        avt 8 October 2013 21: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: bask
        DBM Rafael weapons can be 30 - 40 mm cannons. Rafael offers towers in 4 versions, depending on the type of equipment installed and the level of protection

        Honestly, I do not share this new fashion and the introduction of 40 - 50 mm barrels, and even with a guided projectile. As a result, the Bahchi set is thought out more cleverly.
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        that when reinforcing the armament of vehicles, no standards will not deprive the temptation of the commander on the ground to use them as BMP.

        request Well, that’s understandable. We’ve got Octopus called a light tank, but you don’t need it at your theater. Why is there such a variety of types and sizes on such a spot?
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        And our "charters" extremely tightly link the bow of tanks and infantry with the engineering troops.
        that is, a specific tactic for the use of technology in conditions worked out by various well-coordinated units was chosen. They don’t look for good from good, especially for extra money. We have a different situation and the places of application, both probable and real, are very different and sometimes difficult to access, so that an extra supply pocket does not pull. Sotochka useful if suddenly the tank is not nearby.
        1. bask
          bask 8 October 2013 21: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          BMP And our "charters" extremely tightly link the bow of tanks and infantry with the engineering troops.

          Quote: bask
          Wrong tactics?

          Quote: avt
          Sotochka useful if suddenly the tank is not nearby.

          Eet precisely AVT, and unpredictability (betrayal and stupidity) of command. They can also send BMP-2 in the first line. (An episode in Chechnya when Hero of Russia, Colonel Budanov rescued reconnaissance, entered the village (,, agreed ,,), which was hammered by militants on BMP-2). They saved their T-62 crew there were only officers.
          Therefore, BMP-T / BTR-T are needed.
          And as much as possible, armored BMP-S (Kurganets).
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 20: 39 New
    0
    Only some reserve parts remained nagmashots. Junk.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 20: 38 New
    +2
    Quote: avt
    Quote: bask
    But with this statement it’s not quite, we need the BTR-T (dodging experience) of street battles and our Chechen experience.

    So among the Jews, this is practically in fact a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with weakened weapons. They do not have to meet with really trained and equipped fighters for a long time, unlike us, they limited their armaments by car, they have enough tank barrels and turntables in the air with the complete absence of MANPADS. .

    I do not agree with that. Maybe you don’t agree, but both Hezbollah and Hamas (after seizing power in the Gaza Strip) are well-trained, with great combat experience and well-armed (including ATGMs and MANPADS, not to mention thousands of NURSs and hundreds of RMDs), armed with in their ranks up to 30 thousand fighters each.
    1. bask
      bask 8 October 2013 21: 24 New
      0
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Only some reserve parts remained nagmashots. Junk.

      Ah ,, Ahzarit ,, not old?
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      I do not agree with that. You may not agree, but both Hezbollah and Hamas (after seizing power in the Gaza Strip) are well trained, with great

      But then why do not they install, on the BTR-T (NAMER), a DBM with a 30 mm gun. There will be a BMP-T.
      And there is a module (I posted) Rafael with 30 - 40 mm guns.
      Wrong tactics?
      1. bask
        bask 8 October 2013 21: 38 New
        0
        DBM, Rafael Samson Mk 2 on the BTR M113. ((Test)) The Samson Mk 2 BDM is characterized by the presence of full armor protection of the installation. The standard weaponry for the Samson Mk 2 turret consists of a 30-mm ATK ,, Bushmaster ,, automatic gun.
      2. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 21: 47 New
        0
        Quote: bask
        Ah ,, Ahzarit ,, not old?
        Of course junk. Even upgrading to the Mk2 level does not make the Ahzarit a modern machine.
        Wrong tactics?

        Yeah. Our tanks and infantry generally should not work separately.
        1. bask
          bask 8 October 2013 22: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: Aaron Zawi
          Of course junk. Even upgrading to the Mk2 level does not make the Ahzarit a modern machine.

          But, the issue of price, quality and security make BTR-T ,, Ahzarit, out of competition.
          The name, of course, is the cool BTR-T, but it’s very expensive. (There will be no large produced cars).
          Probably more likely to see the BTR-T, on the chassis ,, Merkava, 1,2.3.
          As they are decommissioned.
    2. avt
      avt 8 October 2013 21: 30 New
      +2
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      I do not agree with this

      request There is a patch with Gulkin x ... With almost complete technical control of the battlefield and ABSOLUTE air supremacy on all floors, massively use the same MANPADS and ATGMs well, the question of the survival of those who use them is not worth it - you roll them into asphalt elementary. It keeps from complete destruction only the presence of civilians.
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 8 October 2013 21: 51 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        .Keeps from the complete destruction only the presence of civilians.
        Well, what's the difference why we can not roll. One way or another, the hands are tied.
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 8 October 2013 18: 39 New
    +3
    Quote: bask
    especially since it has already been made and tested. At the end of 80's, the beginning of 90's.

    Andrew,
    This is (in the photo) an 781 object with a triple ???, i.e. (Xnumx) ???
    Honestly, at first I smiled when I saw her very by chance a long time ago ...
    Salabon was just then.
    repeat
    And then she dreamed at night ...

    As if - the MOST, the car.
    Eheh.

    ps Honestly, I don’t know what kind of tower reservation.
    1. bask
      bask 8 October 2013 19: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Aleks tv
      .s. Honestly, I don’t know what kind of tower reservation

      Specifically, on a tower with a module, a triad, I won’t tell you offhand (you need to google)
      But there was a variant of the BMP-T, with a tower from the T-72 (correct if not right) in two 30 mm cannons.

      Just now I replaced the remotely controlled, 7,62 mm machine gun on the BMP-T turret, exactly like on the T-90MS (before the exhibition).
      This version of the BMP-T, with a tank tower, the combat module is better protected. DZ covers the guns. There is nothing like that on the BMPT 2, there is the protection of the combat module 00000.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 October 2013 19: 08 New
        +3
        It was developed with two remote combat modules with 30 mm AP 2A72 with two ammunition supplies, stabilized in two planes and paired with them, 7 mm PKT machine guns. Operators of two remote combat modules could independently search for and defeat individual targets and were placed no higher than the roof of the vehicle’s body. To destroy tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles, one of the installations was equipped with the Kornet ATGM in an armored container. Other types of weapons could also be installed on the outer sides of the combat modules, depending on the conditions for the use of the BMPT.
        Two vertical stabilized vertical autonomous installations with an 30 (40) mm automatic anti-personnel grenade launcher and a PKT machine gun were installed in the hull, similar to the first version of armament. To protect the sides and aft projection, an autonomous stabilized installation with FCT was used. General arms control, the distribution of targets between members of the calculation was carried out by the commander of the machine.
        Based on a comparison of BMPT weapons developed by UKBTM and KB ChTZ, the complete superiority of the options developed by KB ChTZ and KBP is evident.
        1. bask
          bask 8 October 2013 19: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          It was developed with two remote combat modules with 30 mm AP 2A72 with two ammunition supplies,

          Object 787, Object 782.
          Object 787, armed with two 30mm 2A72 quick-firing guns and 7,62mm machine guns paired with them.
          Object 782 used a habitable combat module ,, triad ,,,.
          There was also Object 781. and so on, there were many options. At facility 781, a crew of 7 people.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 8 October 2013 19: 55 New
            +2
            Quote: bask
            At facility 781, a crew of 7 people.
            7 Andryukh? It is interesting to look at the layout diagram.
            1. bask
              bask 8 October 2013 20: 05 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              ? It is interesting to look at the layout scheme.

              Sanya, there is no diagram in the internet, only a description, layout.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 8 October 2013 20: 11 New
                0
                Yes, Andryukh, already convinced. But judging by the description, the grenade launchers if that would be very sour.
            2. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 8 October 2013 20: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              7 Andryukh? It is interesting to look at the layout diagram.

              Yes, this car.
              Sorry to answer late ...
              This "fire scheme" belongs to the now deceased legendary Shipunov.
              For our time, there is not enough electronics, stabilization and increasing the angles of fire from firing points.
              1. Alex 241
                Alex 241 8 October 2013 20: 42 New
                +1
                Lesh, you were interested in the T-72 from the exhibition photo review http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-fotogalereya/t72-rae-2013/
                1. Aleks tv
                  Aleks tv 8 October 2013 23: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex 241
                  Lesh you were interested in T-72 from an exhibition

                  Yes, Sanya, was interested.
                  Already wrote about this.
                  T-72B in the "urban body kit" is quite good, but protection can be added.
                  And the most interesting question I have so far is without an answer:
                  To what “horseradish” is this commander’s pretzel in the form of this very remarkable “Defense of the tank commander”? (good piece of iron).
                  To the "hell" of the shoulder strap of the commander’s turret TKN-3?
                  Or to the "hell" of the shoulder strap of ZPU Utes?
                  Well, this simple question interests me very much ... Until now ...
                  winked
                  The Iraqi experience in equipping the T-72 was not impressive.
                2. bask
                  bask 8 October 2013 23: 52 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Aleks tv
                  The Iraqi experience in equipping the T-72 was not impressive.

                  BMP-T, in European.
                  BMP-T / BTR-T on the GS Leopard.
                  BTR-T from the PzH 2000 self-propelled guns (I already posted about this) Here is the confirmation .www.casr.ca / mp-army-combat-systems-hiav.htm
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 8 October 2013 20: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: Alex 241
        Based on a comparison of BMPT weapons developed by UKBTM and KB ChTZ, the complete superiority of the options developed by KB ChTZ and KBP is evident.

        Sanya, Andrey:
        Here is the second photo of Sani - this is the "781 object" (triad), met her designation and as "782".
        Along the way, this is the car that Andrei showed "face" in his koment.
        I sniffed her, being a flyer (by chance).

        At first, she forces her to stand in a stupor:
        Tower with a "triad": 100mm, 30mm, 7,62mm.
        Two course firing points.
        Two side machine gun points.
        It seems to be too much, right?

        But in the end:
        - Tank armor.
        - Short 100mm barrel (like an assault gun).
        - The presence of 30mm automatic farting.
        - 4 infantryman inside: they can dismount and “smile” with fire, or they can thoughtfully “work” with standard weapons - all the conditions for a good “director” of a battle.
        Side firing points reduce the amount of infantry needed for cover (in the city) - I have never met such equipment (with the exception of the airborne machine gun on the German infantry fighting vehicle).
        This would be a mafia to modify ... eheh.

        NOT ENOUGH SOMETHING SIMILAR.

        But while there is what is ...
        Let it be BMPT-72, okay. Reservation module increased, great.
        But let her even be in the army !!!

        ps This is me, about my own, about the girl ...
        1. bask
          bask 8 October 2013 20: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: Aleks tv

          NOT ENOUGH SOMETHING SIMILAR.
          But while there is what is ...
          Let it be BMPT-72, okay. Reservation module increased, great.
          But let her even be in the army !!!

          Lesh, that can be objected. I agree with every word.
          Moreover, you have such a combat experience. (You know everything from the inside (combat vehicle).
          We dream, it would be better.
          It is a pity when compiling the technical specifications, they listen little to the officers who went through the war.
          And even what they produced is not procured by the Moscow Region. In Dagestan, 30 vehicles would be delivered to military tests and fine-tuning.
          Here on the next branch, Amerovsky self-propelled guns, "" "155-mm self-propelled howitzer XM1203 NLOS-C" ""
          From the layout scheme of the armored hull of the self-propelled gun KhM1203, an excellent BTR / BMP could be obtained. Only the MTO is in the nose.
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 8 October 2013 21: 08 New
            +2
            ALGERIAN T-72 AND BMP-1 MODERNIZATION OPTIONS OFFERED BY SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANY IST DYNAMICS
            1. Hauser
              Hauser 8 October 2013 22: 50 New
              +1
              Harshly! Am I just seeing the gun badly, is it a casing or a gatling?
              Yes, it would not be a bad thing to go to a large tower (like Abrams), in front, something like an AK-630 or 45 mm automatic twin, and in the stern 4 or 6 missiles retracted into the tower body.
        2. IS-80
          IS-80 8 October 2013 22: 40 New
          +1
          And what is the bad option with two independent combat modules?
  • smiths xnumx
    smiths xnumx 8 October 2013 12: 56 New
    0
    that's the trick, it turns out that the tank is good for everyone - that's just a little service options. Yes, his gun is very, very sugar, he punishes enemies - only on the road. But the corners again, fire performance, BC. Not for each same soul 125mm in the basement, hollow? It’s a little expensive and it will be greasy ... But to tickle a missile directly from the AP, it’s a sweet thing to stick it right in the nibble. Again - to drive the Karlsson with grenade launchers on the roofs, to make the ambush fall silent with fire from the pile of trunks, to shoot simultaneously in different directions (multichannel armament) - that tank was not given its design.
    The tank is definitely good. By the fact that he can easily take on a bit of grenades from an RPG and, at the same time, of a considerable size, the eldak is slipped into the enemies. But he is not an absolute, not imprisoned for everything.
    Take the knight. In heavy armor and with a spear. Yes, he is a very strong guy, with a very cool piece of iron and he himself - just like a tin can, you just won’t get it. But make him fight in the city, in the woods, in the bushes - and not see him win ... That's the tank.
  • DJEIN8
    DJEIN8 9 October 2013 01: 49 New
    0
    zadorin1974 10:12
    You and many others forgot to MENT, for some reason, to all sets-groups of equipment
    and weapons on it, the presence of such a "Trivia" as BRAINS, without which (GOOD)
    so many different vehicles burned down and so many more soldiers died that ......
    A lot of things were listed, and the PRESENCE OF THE MAIN ONE was only implied ......,
    and (not infrequently or often, I don’t know how to write, WARED, ... ORDERED ..., they will specify
    but judging even by the films ....) on the battlefield was missing exactly ... THEM ..and .. CONSCIENCE ..
    "Shut up" A. Matrosov machine gun, or even a whole unit, one way or another,
    easier than to think over and MUST prepare for battle .....
    Thought ... how many LIVES (strangers) will pay for their own .. AVOS ... ???
    They wrote a lot about technology ... but how are things with THIS ... MAIN ... at which factories
    release and how much ..... SAD ......
  • Russ69
    Russ69 8 October 2013 10: 14 New
    10
    Che guess, I need ..., I do not need .... They would send to Syria, things 3 and everything would become clear. If in a city battle it would be effective, then foreign customers would start to buy for themselves, in line would be lined up ...
    1. egor 1712
      egor 1712 8 October 2013 11: 41 New
      +2
      Very correct decision. Immediately showed which weapons are suitable, which must be removed. Only in real combat can you tell how good it is.
    2. kostya_a
      kostya_a 8 October 2013 12: 06 New
      -1
      Duck BMPT is an offensive weapon. You can’t supply this to Syria, only defensively!
  • chenia
    chenia 8 October 2013 10: 19 New
    +3
    Quote: Admiral 013
    Useful thing! And together with the tanks this is a very powerful duet!


    BMPT should be part of the tank units, in motorized rifle units with a tank platoon 3 tanks and 2 BMPTs, in tank units - 2 tanks 1 BMPTs. And the commanders of units in the BMPT.

    And the best option is the object 787, only add in the center 82 mm machine gun-mortar (you also need to create, like a cornflower) paired with 30mm. On the sides of the KPVT spark with PKTM, on top is a turret with 12,5 (for target designation).

    To leave grenade launchers, to install turrets, or in one way or another to expand the possibilities of horizontal aiming, and even to them by a machine gun 7,62.
    ATGM inside, through the hatch guides on the tower.

    In the battle line - in the intervals between the tanks of 50-70 m a little behind, well, a sea of ​​fire in position, so that the infantry would not even raise its head.

    Well, the weapon should have large vertical aiming angles.
  • Semurg
    Semurg 8 October 2013 11: 00 New
    +4
    a test in combat conditions like Syria would give an answer if there is such a technique in the army, but the equipment itself is half the question the second half of the question is the trained crew and the scheme for using this equipment, but here you can get a very negative result, since in my personal impression the Syrian army not the best applicators of new weapons but to send your "instructors", what kind of kipis will rise around the world?
  • akv0571
    akv0571 8 October 2013 11: 04 New
    +1
    And it’s better before you do it - run in Syria
    1. tchack
      tchack 8 October 2013 22: 16 New
      -1
      What should she do in Syria ???? Do militants have tanks ???
  • morpogr
    morpogr 8 October 2013 11: 13 New
    +1
    I really want to be tested in Syria there, this equipment to support tanks and infantry oh as needed.
  • Metlik
    Metlik 8 October 2013 11: 18 New
    +3
    What you need for bmpt:
    application concept (it is still unclear why and how to use)
    if it is a car for close combat with infantry (including in the city), then it needs:
    - set for action in a city such as Leclerc Azur
    - increased armor (circular), even to the detriment of mobility
    - 40mm grenade launcher with programmable fuse
    - grenade launchers bumblebee
    - kit for sniper detection
  • moreman78
    moreman78 8 October 2013 11: 30 New
    +2
    Quote: Metlik
    What you need for bmpt:
    application concept (it is still unclear why and how to use)
    if it is a car for close combat with infantry (including in the city), then it needs:
    - set for action in a city such as Leclerc Azur
    - increased armor (circular), even to the detriment of mobility
    - 40mm grenade launcher with programmable fuse
    - grenade launchers bumblebee
    - kit for sniper detection


    This machine is needed - ONLY FOR CUTTING BUDGET MONEY BY ITS DEVELOPERS! This is her application concept. The army absolutely does not need it.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 8 October 2013 15: 47 New
      +4
      Quote: moreman78
      This is her application concept. The army absolutely does not need it.

      You, it seems, are a major military specialist, if you so categorically declare what the army needs and what does not.
    2. tchack
      tchack 8 October 2013 22: 11 New
      -2
      Damn, I thought so alone, even refused to write a comment ...

      I do not see the point of such a machine. If the tower from the Terminator was put on an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle, it would be a good addition to the firepower (although this is not necessary on the BMP-3), but on the tank the chassis is generally nonsense.

      In our country, a good fighting machine "Terminator" would not be called !!!

      And if the goal of this PR company is to sell to our poor countries our old restored chassis (of which there’s been a cloud from the Soviet era) with such a complex of weapons, then I am for, but only if the money earned goes to buy new main battle tanks and BMP !!!

      Stop experimenting with our army !!!

      I served on a contract 8 years ago (70 SMEs in Shali) we didn’t have enough new tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, not such crap!
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 9 October 2013 00: 01 New
        +1
        Quote: tchack
        (70 SMEs n. Shali) we lacked new tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and not such crap!

        70?
        Shali, Khankala? .........................................

        Yes, technology was always lacking ...
        And BMPT: this is a fairy tale ... for "Czechs-2".

        Glad for you (8 service years ago).
        Good luck.
        wink
  • Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 8 October 2013 11: 59 New
    +2
    All these weapons were previously presented as turret, only the trunk is missing. This is a really cheap tank - a tank without a gun, which allows any customer to drive many “unnecessary” Russian tanks.
    I hope that after the first pokes, the AGSs will be returned.
  • mithridate
    mithridate 8 October 2013 12: 24 New
    +1
    a trial in combat conditions is necessary, and after that it is already decided whether it is necessary or not
  • Growler
    Growler 8 October 2013 12: 57 New
    +3
    18 modernization of the obsolete tank t-72 ???
    I’m not talking about the name at all ... It seems like adults, but like children, “Terminator”.
    The guns are useless.
    We need shells with a programmable fuse in caliber 40-50 mm.

    Watch from 4: 28
  • parij777
    parij777 8 October 2013 13: 06 New
    0
    http://rencontres.ru
    Photos of beautiful girls 18 Moscow
  • Growler
    Growler 8 October 2013 13: 21 New
    -2
    Quote: Aleks tv

    Good luck to her in mass production for the needs of OUR Army.
    drinks

    Why does our army need this obsolete junk? Do you hate Russian soldiers so much?
    Quote: Aleks tv

    The boom is to wait for the screams of "paper" experts, and even bored without them.
    wink

    Where without us? Someone must kick out the cheers-pozreotichesky nonsense from your brains.
    wink
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 8 October 2013 13: 46 New
      +7
      Quote: Growler
      Do you hate Russian soldiers so much?

      Yes, I'm just one of them.
      Now modestly so, in stock ...
      The body, you know, could not stand it.

      Quote: Growler
      Why does our army need this obsolete junk?

      Many times on this site I talked about specific options for using such a machine in various conditions.
      Tired of repeating, you can look through the comments, if interested.
      Yes, and to prove something a thousand times too tired ...
      I will try differently:

      Take a look on the Internet, how much flew into the state to equip parts with equipment in the form of BMP-1 and BMP-2? And read how all the military-industrial complex was put up with cancer ...
      How fast do you think ALL of these BMPs will be replaced by Kurgan?
      And ALL the tanks in Almaty?
      And ALL the APCs on Boomerangs?
      That's it ...
      And if tomorrow another tsukoshvilli again hungry for ties?
      What are we going to "work" on?

      BMPT-72 is a small caliber protected by tank armor. Here is her skate.
      It is needed in parts equipped with old-generation equipment. And this equipment (T-72, BMP-2) will still have to be left in service ... unfortunately.
      BMPT will not replace them of course, but it will effectively complement it.
      And she is already in the metal.

      Quote: Growler
      Someone must kick out the cheers-pozreotichesky nonsense from your brains.

      I was correct.
      And, really, I’m tired of “butt” at the clave ...
      Get into the BMP-2 yourself and be "brave" as much as you like.
      Personally, my colleagues and I (some still serve) are firmly convinced of the need for BMPT and heavy BMPs. This is not a panacea for all ills, of course, but they have their own niche.

      As for the "cheers-patriot," you are definitely in vain ...
      lol
      I have DOFIG claims to the current government, but this is not your business.
      I will not enter into a skirmish, do not expect, just answered questions.
      1. bask
        bask 8 October 2013 18: 17 New
        0
        Quote: Aleks tv
        BMPT will not replace them of course, but it will effectively complement it.

        We have many GS, GM 123, self-propelled guns, Acacia, Tulip, etc.
        In 1949, on the basis of the SU 100P, the BTR-112 was developed, but it was not adopted for service, after which the 7-wheeled BTR chassis was called GM 123.
        Weight GSh, 20-25 tons, with a carrying capacity of 12,5 tons. You can book up to 35 tons.
        BTR-S, BMP-S (average, as an example of Marder), should also occupy its niche.
        BTR-S 112 (1949) .18,5 tons.
        1. bask
          bask 8 October 2013 18: 53 New
          0
          M113 in the "heavy body kit." They reserve armor plate and DZ, as much as grouping allows.

          M113 in Lebanon. To increase security, sandbags are used in sheet steel (Lesch, which I asked why our armor was not reinforced).
      2. DJEIN8
        DJEIN8 9 October 2013 00: 58 New
        +2
        Alex tv 13:46
        In order to understand your arguments you have to BE ... and WANT ...
        Faster would have come if they were in the trenches, for the brick, for the duralumin ....
        If without brains, then they won’t understand ... without them (brains) and apply
        the listed equipment, and they won’t be able to use any other ...
        others will be killed ...., Then they have billions of dollars, an ocean of time and
        .... at the table, and ... no problem ... with anyone .. and with .. whatever ...
        ORDER WHAT PLEASANT ........ EASY AND QUICKLY ......
  • spirit
    spirit 8 October 2013 13: 33 New
    0
    The video is of course a plague) all the same, the Americans, no matter how bad they are, do such things better)) and for me, for urban conditions, you need to create a highly specialized car with a well-armored turret and put machine guns with anti-tank guns instead of anti-tank vehicles, turned around 360))
    1. Growler
      Growler 8 October 2013 13: 41 New
      +3
      In one of the modes, the projectile can explode after breaking through a concrete wall, killing everyone inside. Very effective for Fast the destruction of fighters with ATGM / RPG in urban conditions.
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 8 October 2013 15: 26 New
        +2
        Or fire from two guns, armor-piercing breaks the defense, high-explosive fragmentation sets silence.
  • Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 8 October 2013 13: 39 New
    +4
    One AGS for this product, in my opinion, is still needed
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 8 October 2013 15: 29 New
      +1
      Quote: Black Colonel
      One AGS for this product, in my opinion, is still needed

      It will be effective for the destruction of manpower in open space. Only need to increase the work sector.
  • Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 8 October 2013 13: 45 New
    +4
    Zdarova, I will express my opinion.
    The need for a tank support machine appeared in Afghanistan, when the role of the anchor was to perform shilka. With the scoop, they began to develop the BMP yet, after the collapse, everything died in this direction unfortunately. Then Chechnya is the first, the second. They drove new tunguska to Grozny, where they were immediately burned.
    here are links to already mentioned cars
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_787
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_781
    as you can see the presence of exchange rate AGSs, rather in the Terminator they got out of there. The first terminator was criticized by all and sundry, and rightly so. 5 bodies + AGS whose range and angles of fire simply simply did not allow their effective use. It is a pity I could not find an article from the Arsenal magazine, there are only screenshots in which BMPT was chewed and trampled in detail.

    Many here IMHO write complete nonsense, to put light combat modules on the heavy chassis, moreover inhabited. Or install a combat module on an armored personnel carrier. you can’t get powerful weapons, armor, long-range, ammunition and even carry a paratrooper at once. You can see someone else's BMPT, BTRT, usually everything that the infantry carries has weak weapons.

    Mutka bmpt is the direct escort of the tanks, the ability to keep ATGMs and sub-caliber. UVZ well done, corrected the shortcomings, but kanencho main armament remained the same. Most likely this is due to the lack of proper 57 machine.

    The army is in no hurry to buy into the 90s, the same thing with the BMP, they will wait at the base of Almaty, and there probably the new combat module will also be riveted.
    1. pawel57
      pawel57 8 October 2013 22: 37 New
      0
      Much is correct. T90-Armata is the same T72 (base T62), I do not insist on my opinion. The main task of tanks is the fight against armored objects and mobility i.e. using air strikes, artillery fire, in cooperation with motorized rifles, break through (defend) the defense (defend). and together with motorized rifles to develop (restrain) the offensive in depth. Tanks alone cannot conduct combat operations for a long time and are destroyed. To the infantry and art did not come off the tanks created (Germans) almost BMP and put art. to self-propelled.
      Our finalized creating bmp. Now, having relatively equal mobility, it was possible to safely conduct modern combat operations effectively. However, the infantry received long-range, compact, light vehicle. The rate of fire, ammunition of the tank’s gun did not provide reliable destruction once the concentrated infantry. the enemy. The battle of tanks in special conditions, the weak armored protection of the BMP, required a new machine with powerful fast-firing weapons and armor. Created the Terminator. Mobility and armor protection have decided, but the armament is weak. It turned out t72 without a tower with 2 me 30mm guns. Combat use of it again requires infantry support. Due to the design features, it is more blind than a tank and the range of tasks is narrow. Now, if you equip it with a 57mm quick-firing gun with electronic bells and whistles, air defense equipment, then as a tank escort machine it is very good. However, all one needs an infantry cover.
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 9 October 2013 16: 49 New
        0
        Quote: pawel57
        Due to its design features, it is more blind than a tank

        Please explain.
  • MrFYGY
    MrFYGY 8 October 2013 13: 49 New
    +2
    The survivability of the combat module with the delivered weapons, for me, is relatively small.
  • godun
    godun 8 October 2013 14: 04 New
    0
    I agree with colleagues about the combat break-in of the product, because It often happens that the equipment at the training ground shows excellent performance characteristics, in a real battle loses. In Iraq, super modern Abrams burned from our RPGs.
  • Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 8 October 2013 14: 24 New
    +2
    Two grenade throwers, as well as their weapons, have been removed. Obviously, this change in the composition of the crew and the armament complex made it possible to simplify the work of re-equipping the finished tank chassis due to the absence of the need for a serious change in the front of the hull. In addition, the withdrawal from the crew of grenade launchers allowed to reduce the number of people in the car to the "tank" level. In other words, the crew of the T-72 tank and BMPT at its base consists of three people. In the future, this may help facilitate the retraining of crews.


    The loss of grenade launchers is a big loss. The effectiveness of hypertension is higher than that of automata, albeit paired (by infantry). I don’t think crew reduction is a big plus. It is rather an "excuse." The efficiency of the "course" grenade launchers with small angles of horizontal aiming is very doubtful. But still...

    Pleased with the protection of the head of the mechanic when driving "on camp." The protruding heads of mechanics from machine bodies were always embarrassed.

    It is not clear why we are talking about a new modification, but photographs of the old ...
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 9 October 2013 21: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Aristocrat

      The loss of grenade launchers is a big loss. The effectiveness of hypertension is higher than that of automata, albeit paired (by infantry). I don’t think crew reduction is a big plus. It is rather an "excuse." The efficiency of the "course" grenade launchers with small angles of horizontal aiming is very doubtful. But still...

      And here, I agree with you.
  • Growler
    Growler 8 October 2013 14: 34 New
    +1
    Quote: Aleks tv

    Take a look on the internet, how much flew into the state to equip parts with equipment in the form of BMP-1 and BMP-2?
    How fast do you think ALL of these BMPs will be replaced by Kurgan?
    And ALL the tanks in Almaty?
    And ALL the APCs on Boomerangs?
    That's it ...

    With such corruption, no money will be enough + Olympiad + APEC Summit 2012.

    The only limiting factor for the United States and NATO is the nuclear missile shield, and it needs to be improved. Especially given the development of the American missile defense. It is also necessary to develop aerospace defense systems and adopt the T-50 (only so that the turbine blades are not visible). For local conflicts (Chechnya) the entire army is not required to rearm (at least immediately).
    Quote: Aleks tv

    BMPT will not replace them of course, but it will effectively complement it.

    BMPT needed, but not in this form (see video, about the CV-90 gun).
    Quote: Aleks tv

    I was correct.

    I put a smiley, in addition, you yourself wrote: “otherwise bored without them."

    Quote: Aleks tv

    Climb into the BMP-2 yourself and “be brave” as much as you like.

    I saw young guys in a military hospital who didn’t have a hand, who had legs (they fought in Chechnya). I hate the attitude of all (politicians, generals, designers) to the life of a soldier ...
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 8 October 2013 14: 56 New
      +1
      Quote: Growler
      watch the video about the CV-90 gun

      Duc, good video, who argues that ...
      40-45 caliber needed. But it still has to be "polished" so that it is suitable for mass production. It is a pity that there is little information about the development of this caliber.
      In the meantime, there is only a little "thirty" and 75mm C-60, which are worked out and do not fail during the "work" ...
      That's all there is today (generalized, of course).
      Hope the situation changes.

      Quote: Growler
      Saw in a military hospital

      Yes ...
      I'm still lucky. Only shell-shocked organism so exhausted.
      He spent the whole summer there, noted, so to speak, “according to plan” ... maps and glasses of tea with conversations.

      Quote: Growler
      I am infuriated by the disregard for everyone (politicians, generals, designers) to the life of soldiers ...

      The first - per count.
      The second - change to sane (they are).
      Still others (constructor) - I don’t think that "in business". What they are ordered by TTZ, they do ...
      After all, they have the "ashtray" not where the customer will be comfortable using it, but where the customer pokes.
      Not special in this, but I had to talk a little.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 October 2013 15: 08 New
        +1
        Hello Lesh, here is a good overview of the 45mm guns. http://army-news.ru/2013/03/rossijskaya-45-mm-avtomaticheskaya-pushka-s-teleskop
        icheskim-vystrelom /
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 8 October 2013 15: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex 241
          here is a good review on 45mm guns.

          Hi Sanya.
          fellow

          Senks for the link, yeah, I read about telescopic shots.
          Good luck with this (40-45mm) caliber.
  • Strashila
    Strashila 8 October 2013 14: 43 New
    +1
    Terminator 2 ... closer to the topic of security ... but you need to work and refine it. And this is the point ... in ancient Soviet times, when there was a discussion about the development of the weapons of the first BMP, after when the anti-tank gun did not quite meet the expectations military in Afghanistan, there was a choice ... and settled on a 30 mm automatic cannon ... it worked great on infantry ... in a battle with tanks ... an experiment was conducted here ... it turned out that when shelling a tank, naturally the armor didn’t made its way through, but due to the dense fire, everything on the outer surface of the tank was destroyed and damaged ... we conclude that it is open to destroy RPGs of any generation ... the same is clearly visible ... the absence of active-dynamic defense of the combat module from all camera angles.
  • chenia
    chenia 8 October 2013 15: 34 New
    +3
    Quote: Metlik
    What you need for bmpt:
    application concept (it is still unclear why and how to use)
    if it is a car for close combat with infantry (including in the city), then it needs:


    It feels like in the comments that no one served in the army above the corporal.
    Tank support (remember tactics) main goal !!! And most of them talk about a special case.

    They do not fight tanks with terrorists (in general, this is the matter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and special units) (you just need to prevent them from turning into the army.)

    Quote: avt
    Well, fortune telling has already gone where to get this miracle


    BMPT is designed to bridge the gap between the tanks and the chain during the transfer of fire by artillery. Otherwise, tanks falling into the fire zone from the simplest means can only respond with a machine gun, and fire from small arms supporting infantry (300m) is not yet effective.
    And it is necessary that there was a sea of ​​fire on the GP, and such a power (caliber), so as not to scare off your infantry.


    Quote: avt
    And even better, as I said, behind the thick armor of a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank and with Bahchi. ”


    A heavy infantry fighting vehicle is an infantry technique that takes place for an assault, and rides in chains. BMPT technique of tank units, has a crew.
    100mm to support the assault group, disperse your infantry.
    1. Metlik
      Metlik 8 October 2013 17: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: chenia

      They do not fight tanks with terrorists (in general, this is the matter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and special units) (you just need to prevent them from turning into the army.)

      The Americans also thought that they would not need tanks in Afghanistan - it turned out the other way around.
      Quote: chenia
      It feels like in the comments that no one served in the army above the corporal.
      Tank support (remember tactics) main goal !!! And most of them talk about a special case.

      The problem is that it's hard to say for sure how events will develop in the conflict between the two high-tech armies. The last such confrontation was quite a long time ago. The weapons of the Terminator are best suited for the destruction of lightly armored vehicles, rather than infantry. And the tank itself can do this very well.
    2. gallville
      gallville 8 October 2013 18: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: chenia
      It feels like in the comments that no one served in the army above the corporal.
      Tank support (remember tactics) main goal !!!

      Something I can’t understand.
      1. The tank is primarily support for the infantry in this case BMPT is support support. A bit strange isn't it?
      2. If you meant that the tactic is the support of the BMPT tank, then as far as I remember this tank supports the infantry, and the infantry covers the tank. I have never seen tactical instructions on the use of BMPT in BUSV.

      Quote: chenia
      They do not fight tanks with terrorists (in general, this is the matter of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and special units) (you just need to prevent them from turning into the army.)

      Well, it depends on what kind of terrorists. There are those that graduated from the Moscow General Academy (Dudaev, Basaev).
      Quote: chenia
      BMPT is designed to bridge the gap between the tanks and the chain during the transfer of fire by artillery. Otherwise, tanks falling into the fire zone from the simplest means can only respond with a machine gun, and fire from small arms supporting infantry (300m) is not yet effective.
      And it is necessary that there was a sea of ​​fire on the GP, and such a power (caliber), so as not to scare off your infantry.

      We read the tactics.
      Equivalent in combat effectiveness is considered the proportion of 1 defending to 3 advancing.
      Total for 1 branch in defense may be:
      1. Tank (to change the balance of 1 tank is 1 compartment)
      2. BMP - 3 pieces and about 24 foot soldiers (platoon, aka 3 squads)
      In addition, the BMP moves in the field behind the chain somewhere in a hundred meters total to the nearest enemy trench to it 100 meters of fire shaft + 200 meters infantry behind the tank + 100 meters interval = 400 meters. With a fire shaft, there are some daredevils to climb out of the trench, and when it passes its infantry in three times superiority (at least) already 200 meters from the first line of defense (and the second is already a fire shaft and they can’t reach RPGs).
      The question is what will qualitatively change the BMPT field? 2 more guns of 30 mm to three already 30 mm and maybe 3 more to 100 mm?

      Quote: chenia
      100mm to support the assault group, disperse your infantry.

      It depends on where and when to shoot.


      In the city of BMPT, as a reinforcement of parts on the BMP-2 or BTR-82, in principle, at least somehow it looks.
      Let's just say one company in the brigade does not hurt.

      And what else prevented sticking in BMPT-72 ags as well as it sticking in Berezhka?
  • Turtles
    Turtles 8 October 2013 19: 08 New
    +3
    At least, the BMPT-72’s accusations of insufficient armament are not clear. UVZ develops and makes armored vehicles based on what is. We do not have 40 mm shells with remote detonation, and there are no 40mm cannons. Is this the trouble of UVZ, that he is developing rocket, artillery, machine-gun systems with us? No order from MO is taken the best of what is.
    1. gallville
      gallville 8 October 2013 19: 21 New
      +1
      what prevented sticking in BMPT-72 ags as well as it sticking in Berezhka?
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 8 October 2013 20: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: Turtles
      We do not have 40 mm shells with remote detonation, and there are no 40mm guns.

      Hooray. Reasonable koment.

      Totally, but sadly agree, the namesake.
      I also dream of a lot ...
      But, not forgetting about the future, you need to serve today and tomorrow.
      Something like this.
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 October 2013 20: 20 New
        0
        In my opinion, 40mm is not a “fashionable" caliber, so the achievements are scarce.
    3. bask
      bask 8 October 2013 20: 19 New
      +4
      Quote: Turtles
      We do not have 40 mm shells with remote detonation, and there are no 40mm cannons. Is that trouble UVZ that he

      Turtles, there is 57 mm, with remote detonation. With a spent gun S-60.

      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 8 October 2013 20: 29 New
        +3
        About S-60, I'm sitting on a stump, and scooping buckwheat with lamb from a can, not far from the artillery base, and then these abnormal ones start pouring from their pipes, I dropped a spoon and thought that my head exploded laughing
        1. Hauser
          Hauser 8 October 2013 23: 31 New
          +1
          Yes, here is the finished sample - ZSU-57-2. Modern chassis, a new tower, ur and forward. New is well forgotten old.
      2. Turtles
        Turtles 9 October 2013 10: 31 New
        +1
        In the BMPT the tower is uninhabited, here, as you can see in the photo, two people. The question is whether a 57mm gun is much more effective than two 30mm guns, the question is mass because the inhabited tower will have to be booked like a tank, in full.
  • DesToeR
    DesToeR 8 October 2013 19: 24 New
    +3
    Why combine this best with the worst than a tank? What is the point of using a tank chassis and getting less firepower than a tank? I think it is precisely because of the mismatch between firepower and chassis that the military will not accept this vehicle. 125mm is clearly more powerful than even two 30mm, through the barrel of a tank gun it is possible to launch SDs, machine guns on the tank are the same in two calibers. And which of the advantages remains - the possibility of more vertical aiming guns for firing. It is modest with the pros for a car cost with MBT. And the portable weapon system is clearly poorly booked for use in line with tanks. By the way, it is not clear why the 2nd gun in 30mm? It was impossible to put a mechanism for changing the ammunition from landmines to armor-piercing ones, and put a reserve of mass on armor or an artillery system of a larger (for example 57mm) caliber.
    1. Turtles
      Turtles 9 October 2013 10: 42 New
      +1
      Here the question is price / efficiency. Is it wise to use a 125mm shell to destroy a single poorly protected target? Two guns are for increasing the density of fire, and not because of the lack of a mechanism for changing ammunition.
  • chenia
    chenia 8 October 2013 20: 00 New
    +2
    Quote: gallville
    Something I can’t understand.


    My mistake, missed should be read- tank support BMPT (remember tactics) main goal !!! There, in the comments, the concepts of BMPT and Tyazh began to be mixed. BMP

    Quote: gallville
    I have never seen tactical instructions on the use of BMPT in BUSV.

    But BMPTs are still at the experimental stage, and they are only trying to shove them into the troops.
    Quote: gallville
    2. BMP - 3 pieces and about 24 foot soldiers (platoon, aka 3 squads)


    The question is what will qualitatively change the BMPT field? 2 more guns of 30 mm to three already 30 mm and maybe 3 more to 100 mm?


    Transfer of artillery fire 200m – tanks, 400-chain –– borders of safe removal. It is considered 1 min. Opponent in prostration after HE. 1min = 100m. our infantry is 300 meters from the first line, the fire is ineffective.

    Quote: gallville
    The question is what will qualitatively change the BMPT field? 2 more guns of 30 mm to three already 30 mm and maybe 3 more to 100 mm?


    You read (there is a post above) what I offer and on what basis, a 82mm automatic gun-mortar spark 30 mm, 2-3 AGS, 4 PKTM, 2 KPVT and a crew of 5-6 people. In this version of the fire will be enough. And so you are right, why the heck 2 -30mm, and ATGMs (open).
    1. gallville
      gallville 8 October 2013 22: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      Пartillery fire transport 200m –Tanks, 400-chain –– abroad safe removal. It is considered 1 min. Opponent in prostration after HE. 1min = 100m. our infantry is 300 meters from the first line, the fire is ineffective.

      Guilty could forget.
      Quote: chenia
      82mm automatic gun-mortar spark 30 mm, 2-3 AGS, 4 PKTM, 2 KPVT and crew of 5-6 people.

      To be honest, the cruiser Aurora turns out =)))
      1. Automatic gun-mortar 82mm, as I understand it, something like Nona. Why if there is a whole mortar company in the battalion?
      Below is a photo of the lovely system of our Finnish friends.
      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS_(%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%91%D1%82)
      2. AGS - get along well even on the BMP-2 in the "Berezhok" version.
      3. Spark 30mm still agree on tank armor unification with BMP-2.
      4. 4ptktm 2 kWh not only that they essentially duplicate each other and they are redundant.
      5. The crew of 5-6 people is in the amount of T-72/90 to be honest just wrecking. There is no place there anyway. And alteration of the case is not so simple. I am already silent about the loss in case of loss.
      In the West, they joked about the reserved volume of our tanks “they will have to create a separate nation for their tanks” - something like that.
  • xAskoldx
    xAskoldx 8 October 2013 20: 36 New
    0
    Having read most of the comments where the people are both "FOR" and "AGAINST", it can be clearly said that a complete assessment of the capabilities and need for this machine is clearly NOT.
    The work on this topic has been counted down since the time of Afghanistan, but has not received a clear result.
    There is an original USSR invention in the person of infantry fighting vehicles and accordingly blows Tank + infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield (infantry)
    under this blow, research was carried out, charters and instructions were written, probably more than one generation of commanders was studying. (the cost system was wow !!! they could afford it at that time) But something did not grow together with the “low-intensity conflicts” - Afghanistan, the Caucasus region. In general, they didn’t bring and identify inaccuracies in the “duet”, they decided to create a “TRIO” TANK + BMPT + BMP (Infantry) so to speak at the moment “purely specifically in RUSSIA” since the others have not yet been noticed in such a “heresy”.
    That is, the problem of interaction between the Infantry and this was aggravated by yet another link, and not to the tanks and not to the infantry (although it may be that the Russians are looking for a new structure where all this is included in one unit ?!) as the issues of maintenance and supply of this unit in the form that is presented to the general public, it personally looks to me as problematic and, to put it mildly, not compatible with the provisions and instructions of BUSV.
  • kirpich
    kirpich 8 October 2013 20: 58 New
    0
    Quote: Igor39
    Myself needs to do a couple of thousand cars.


    Ah, Tukhachevsky also tried to "throw his hats". BTs and others like them. Although late, but stopped. Do you suggest repeating this?
    Dear, look at the BMPT. how will she support the tanks when she herself is an excellent target? As soon as she has her instruments, she will be multiplied by zero in a minute
  • Dronza
    Dronza 8 October 2013 21: 11 New
    0
    BMPT-64 Kharkov BTRZ. The main armament - 30 mm automatic gun 2A42,2 PU ATGM "Barrier".
    1. xAskoldx
      xAskoldx 8 October 2013 21: 38 New
      +1
      Sorry, but this is a different class vehicle. The infantry fighting vehicle is heavy. Its concept goes within the framework of the “duet” TANK + BMP (infantry), just the BMP goes in line with the tank, and does not lag behind by 150-300 m. BMPT-72 is a tank support machine by definition of the Russians
  • pawel57
    pawel57 8 October 2013 21: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Quote: nick-name
    Well, yes, you’re right, the machine is useless, even if they continue to use air defense machines (shilka, tunguska) to fight against enemy infantry. Why is the army a well-protected machine with AP?

    Yeah, Sla.
    Well, the people are simply longing again for Shilka and the Tungusks to be sent to land combat.
    For example, he simply dreams of climbing in the place of the gunner-operator BMP-2 in urban conditions and boldly entering the city quarters in the forefront when small-caliber fire is needed ...

    Each machine has its own niche of application. For more information about the niche
    BMPT-72 has it.

    And such a revised version will be even easier to use and ... cheaper.
    It is possible that this is exactly what the Ministry of Defense will like, and finally they will buy a party for the needs of the NE.
    And as for the tactics of application, they will justify it in an instant. There is no need to think much.
  • Gronsky
    Gronsky 8 October 2013 22: 32 New
    +3
    The BMPT concept may be correct, but in my opinion, the execution is no good. Everything is clear with the tank corps, but here’s a superstructure ... All of these seriously uncovered components of the guns and launchers will turn into scrap metal before they can even be used.
  • samoletil18
    samoletil18 8 October 2013 22: 35 New
    +2
    Quote: aszzz888
    I watched the shooting BMPT - very impressive.
    And as to whether it is needed or not needed, the tanks also did not immediately accept it, they all hoped for cavalry, and some saber fencers and fans crushed with lava, strangled new ventures. So now with BMPT.

    Officially, only the Poles went to battle in World War II against tanks. And then it became clear: they were told before the war that the Germans had plywood tanks. And Cav. The corps brought many benefits to the Great Patriotic War. But not checkers.
  • nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe 8 October 2013 23: 05 New
    0
    BMPT for each tank !!!
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 8 October 2013 23: 10 New
    0
    What is there to argue - BMPT "topic" is extremely necessary in the military and the point !!!

    Here you can only talk about the configuration of weapons and protection ...

    As for me, in short, it is necessary:
    - INCREASE missiles to 8 - 4 on board
    - strengthen their protection due to active armor from the sides and from the top
    - install a MODULE with a machine gun for the commander similar to the T-90MS, adding the AGS there
    - Necessarily external COMMUNICATION (telephone) with infantry which in the city will go under armor ...
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 9 October 2013 00: 48 New
      0
      Quote: sergey158-29
      - Necessarily external COMMUNICATION (telephone) with infantry which in the city will go under armor ...

      Very interesting...
      Really - interesting !!!

      And how to do it?
      About the "outlet" - in the know.
  • Turtles
    Turtles 9 October 2013 10: 22 New
    0
    Quote: sergey158-29

    - strengthen their protection due to active armor from the sides and from the top
    - Necessarily external COMMUNICATION (telephone) with infantry which in the city will go under armor ...

    And the infantry that will be near the BMPT will be killed by KAZ fragments.
  • chenia
    chenia 9 October 2013 10: 49 New
    +1
    I served at a time when we had tank formations, and the concept of tank strikes was relevant.

    I believe that Russia has “friends” in bulk who sleep and see its natural wealth as a world asset. And how will it be?

    But Russia is able to repel all high-tech weapons with electronic warfare equipment (clog up communication channels, and affect on-board electronics). The use of nuclear weapons may not be, and everything will return to the old methods of warfare.
    So, tanks and their annexes are an important element of the army.

    Quote: gallville
    Why if there is a whole mortar company in the battalion?


    Mortar battery 120 mm, fire with ZOMP – boundary BU chain - = 400 m,
    82mm fire is essentially a continuation of OH, direct fire, and without affecting its infantry. And cassettes, not a picket fence. A larger caliber is not needed, because there is a TANK.

    When approaching the object of attack, they throw AGSs with grenades. Light armored vehicles 30mm, sometimes enough KPVT (machine guns outside in gondolas), 7,62 create a sea of ​​fire, 12,5 - target designation (the best way in battle, BMPT - there KV, KR, KB - command vehicle).

    Quote: gallville
    5. The crew of 5-6 people is in the amount of T-72/90 to be honest just wrecking. There is no place there anyway. And alteration of the case is not so simple. I am already silent about the loss in case of loss.


    Naturally, you need to redo, and the best option is the object 787.
  • Marek Rozny
    Marek Rozny 10 October 2013 19: 18 New
    +3
    Well, here is a great testimony of how UVZ relates to customers! To create a BMPT on the basis of the T-72 and improve the protection of weapons was the desire of the Kazakhs. Prior to this, the Russians tried to convince ours to buy BMPTs based on the T-80. But we do not really need such a base, because we have a T-72 shaft in the army, and the T-80 is not found in the Kazakh army at all. We don’t want to buy BMPT at all - after our military appreciated the promising capabilities of this type of vehicle, it was decided to remodel the surplus of old tanks in the BMPT (with the direct participation of UVZ, of course).

    The logic of the Kazakhs is simple. Better usable BMPT in the army than a worthless old tank at storage bases. We have up to 5000 tanks in storage and 1000 in the troops. Part will be redone in BMPT and TOSy with the help of the Russians. Part with the Ukrainians will be upgraded (there are already samples of the T-62 and T-64 upgraded). Some of them will probably be upgraded with the Turks themselves (T-72KZ Shygys). Some may be upgraded with the Russians.
    Our hand does not rise to cut tanks or planes into metal.
    1. xAskoldx
      xAskoldx 10 October 2013 19: 32 New
      +2
      very true You noticed that cutting even the outdated is NOT worth it !!! (everything is good at the farm)
  • Alexander Kirov
    Alexander Kirov 20 October 2013 19: 24 New
    +1
    Absolutely useless machine, as a concept, yes, for other operations I would not send. Returning to the April forum, astronauts and not tankers are still making the machine. Lord designers do not mind, give me a T-72 machine with a T-72 turret, a 120 mm low-ball gun, a CORD or 30mm twin, as in BMP-3, an opportunity remotely control. You have to write the JMA or yourself? KAZ Zaslon-2, built-in dynamic protection, a crew of 3 people in a capsule with a catapult. I myself am ready to sit inside, and you will shoot at me if you have time. The car is painted and painted in LenVoku named after Kirov in 1973, where it is recognized harmful, because it downplayed the merits of Soviet technology (BMP-1), dismantled at the party commission and handed over to the archive. The author is strictly warned. Well, what else are you 40 years old to give odds?
  • zhe602
    zhe602 26 October 2013 01: 09 New
    0
    The new car has become more beautiful and, apparently, more secure than the previous one. It’s good of course that now the crew is 3 people. instead of 5 people, but the fact that two grenade launchers were removed from its armament is bad! Against the infantry, they would be just right! Moreover, they can hit and cover a large area along a hinged path. The former Terminator could clear 1,5 square kilometers of infantry on the battlefield, and this, I believe, is much less!
    1. mehmeh
      mehmeh 6 December 2014 16: 49 New
      0
      How can I clear the infantry?)))
      Is that a harvester or something ?,))
  • ko88
    ko88 2 February 2014 15: 12 New
    0
    my point is that the machine is simply not replaceable in the conditions of local conflicts, and counter-terrorist operations.
  • Aydar
    Aydar April 12 2014 13: 56 New
    0
    in Kazakhstan, from 2015 they will collect BMPT under license. the contract has already been signed