Military Review

The concept of building a tank support combat vehicle

110



Support combat vehicle tanks (BMPT) was developed and presented at arms exhibitions more than ten years ago. Its appearance did not cause negative reviews of specialists, which in itself is not bad. Some comments were private in nature, not affecting the positive assessment of this project. Since then, the BMPT, called the "Terminator", has been heavily advertised, constantly presented at arms exhibitions, its effectiveness has been proved by calculations, and the need for introducing it into the tank units has been expressed by leaders of a very high level. Moreover, in recent years, in the open press, the BMPT is considered an integral part of the tank units operating with the direct support of infantry on the BMP.

No one doubts the need to support tanks on the battlefield: since tanks exist, their support on the battlefield has existed, exists and will continue to exist. But there is no BMPT in service with the Russian army, and the prospects for its appearance are very uncertain. The reasons for this situation, apparently, are several.

One of them is economic expediency. This concept can be expressed as a criterion of "cost-effectiveness." Data on the cost of BMPT in the press, of course, are not given, but judging by its configuration, and even despite the base unified with the T-72 tank, it is high.

However, a specific value of the value is available and can serve as a basis for making a purchasing decision. But subject to the effectiveness of the sample.

With efficiency, BMPT is more complicated. This figure is not confirmed in practice, and the magnitude of reducing the loss of tanks, obtained by the methods of mathematical modeling, apparently, does not convince customers. You can understand them:
- there are no analogues in the world with which it is possible to compare the performance characteristics of this machine, to compare with the development trends of tank construction;
- BMPTs are absent in the Russian army, which makes it impossible to appreciate its operational qualities, to determine the optimal ratio of "tank - BMPT" in the subunit, to understand the methods of combat use of this novelty;

The development of BMPT is an attempt to systematically solve the problem of reducing tank losses, which requires its logical conclusion. But in order to move on, we need a new concept of BMPT.
- There is nothing new in the existing BMPT, except for the purpose and the weapon system, in which the artillery component does not impress;
- The existing set of weapons BMPT does not provide effective destruction of all types of tank-dangerous targets (TOC).

As you can see, the reasons are compelling and it seems that the financial side is secondary here. So is BMPT needed, and if so, which one?

The development of BMPT is an attempt to systematically solve the problem of reducing tank losses, which requires its logical conclusion. But in order to move on, we need a new concept of BMPT, the main points of which are presented in this article.

Currently, the fight against tanks and other armored vehicles is conducted not only by special anti-tank weapons, but also aviation, and general purpose tools. In addition, almost all combined arms divisions of the armies of developed countries have in their arsenal the means of fighting tanks. We also note that most of the above funds belong to the category of high-precision weapons. This evolution of anti-tank weapons (PTS), their transformation into an anti-tank defense system, including ground and air assets, including those combined into reconnaissance and attack systems, led to the fact that it was necessary to protect tanks, which, due to their heavy losses , "Buried" after each local conflict of the second half of the last century. This is not surprising: in recent years, there were TCP, from which the tanks constructively do not have the necessary protection. For example, helicopters or PTS, striking tanks from above or because of shelters outside the line of sight.

It is known that only a system can successfully operate against a system. And such a layered system of struggle with enemy fire weapons exists. Conventionally, it is subdivided into echelons, starting with aviation - the most long-range means, and, ending with the last echelon - by tank divisions themselves. But this last echelon is now getting too “heavy burden”: a rapid change in the situation, a large number of ground and air tank-dangerous targets on the battlefield, limited visibility in rugged and wooded areas, in urban conditions, inevitable loss of control ... V. Odintsov, One of his publications called this provision "the tragedy of the tank." More precisely you will not tell.

Thus, the enemy’s anti-PTS system exists, but its information capabilities and the reaction time of its individual subsystems are insufficient, and tanks, as a rule, in maneuverable forms of combat will remain only with the infantry supporting them and covering units of the military air defense (the so-called tank "). However, in local conflicts of the last decades, the “loop” did not confirm its reliability. Especially in repelling the attacks of special attack helicopters (SUV), which are the "headache" of not only tank crews, but also anti-aircraft gunners. Much has been written about the losses of tanks from SUV strikes and the conclusions seemed to be made. But they concerned ways of self-defense of tanks and, mainly, the development of military air defense weapons. But it turned out that these conditions are necessary, but insufficient - the tanks cannot protect themselves from the impacts of the WBC. In order for the tanks to fight the helicopters, it is necessary to increase their reconnaissance capabilities, increase the ammunition load (BK) and guns' pointing speed (hence, the power of the power plant and the drive), introduce special ammunition into the BK. But then it will be the next generation tank.

Short-range anti-aircraft systems (ZKBD) - the main means of covering those parts and divisions. They were the main focus in the fight against WOS. But it did not come true because of the difficulty of detecting helicopters using the terrain to attack, the relatively long reaction time of these complexes and their high vulnerability to all types of enemy fire. After all, the tactical zone, within which most of the anti-aircraft units are located, is most densely suppressed by various means of enemy fire attack. At the same time, the reduced damage area of ​​the ZSU, ZPRK and short-range air defense systems is several times larger than that of the tank. In addition, they are one of the main targets of enemy artillery.

Deleting an airborne safety control system at a safe distance may result in the terrain conditions not allowing to detect the target in time and open fire on it. Yes, and fire capabilities in range in this case may be insufficient. This also applies to the Tunguska air defense missile system. Even its high fire capabilities will not save from losses due to enemy artillery fire. Oh, this complex opponent "without attention" will not leave. The loss of Tungusk in Chechnya in 1996, eloquently testifies to this. Meanwhile, the importance of timely impact on the target, using the terrain to select the line of attack, suggests the presence of means of cover that are in close proximity to the object of cover.

Considering the situation of countering the "tank - TOC" even in a simplified form - as a duel, it is necessary to note three circumstances.

First, on the battlefield, all targets, with the exception of fortifications, have a limited time during periods of observation and shelling. That is, by definition, temporary. Most of all this is characteristic of WOS, which relate to goals for which time of visual or instrument contact with the air defense system is limited.

When assessing the effectiveness of shooting at such a goal, it is necessary to take into account the point in time at which the defeat of the target was achieved. The sooner this moment came, the more effective the shooting. If the target has finished its action (shooting, launching rockets), then shooting at it, as a rule, is impossible or ineffective. By the methods of operations research it is proved that in the duel situation under consideration “SUV-ZK”, even accepting the probability of hitting an air target equal to one (hypothetical case), the damage from its action will not be zero, but will depend on the ratio of the time of the start of shelling and the duration of the target .

Secondly, the probability of hitting targets during combat operations, for objective reasons of a technical and tactical nature, for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles that support them, will inevitably be significantly lower than the range. The same applies to the air defense systems covering the tanks and infantry. A possible solution to the problem in this situation may be an increase in the number of target channels acting on the principle of "saw-shoot". Fearing excessive concentration of fire in this case is not worth it because of the low probability of detection and the short duration of the targets. In such conditions, BMPT with a more advanced than the tanks information management system (IUS) would be very useful. Unlike the tank, the design features of the BMPT make it possible to have such a system and more effectively carry out the search and defeat of the TOC.

Thirdly, it is impossible not to note one more circumstance that eludes the attention of the authors of publications on tank topics. In due time: when the danger of an AMC for tanks was realized, pilot exercises were held in the Soviet Union, during which tactical methods of dealing with this type of targets were developed. It turned out that tankers, purely psychologically, pay more attention to defeating those targets that are easier to destroy, that is, tanks. This is natural, since all the tanks are created according to the principle of “beat the equal,” for which they have the appropriate armament. Another matter of the BMPT: “having taken over” the air and ground TOC, they would greatly facilitate the fight against enemy tanks by tankmen.

It seems that the presence of BMPT in combat formations will to some extent solve these problems.

Another important aspect of the use of BMPT is the fight against the enemy’s tank-dangerous manpower (TOGS). The BMPT armament complex comprising an automatic cannon, anti-tank guided missiles, an automatic grenade launcher and machine guns cannot be solved.

Shooting from a cannon at tank-dangerous manpower, located in shelters, is ineffective, and behind obstacles (for example, on the reverse slopes of heights or behind buildings when conducting combat in a populated area) is completely impossible.

Automatic grenade launchers do not provide reliable destruction of such targets due to the weak power of the grenade and low accuracy at short distances. As a matter of fact, the BMPT course grenade launchers are not designed for this: the angle of elevation is not designed for firing indirect fire. Not much benefit from them will be when shooting in the winter with deep snow cover.

To defeat such targets, it is necessary that the BMPT armament kit contains a weapon that can fire not only with direct, half-line, but also indirect fire. That is, combining the qualities of a cannon and mortars (it is no coincidence that the Israelis install 60mm mortars on the towers of their Merkava tanks).

Such guns belong to the guns of the combined type and are capable of firing both mines and projectiles (rockets). They are in service in the Russian army and in the armies of some other countries. But they were not designed to solve the problems under consideration. However, in the creation (refinement) of such weapons is not unusual. How many such problems have already arisen and were successfully resolved by Russian gunsmiths.


Inevitable loss?


The combined weapon caliber (KO) is advisable to have an 82 mm, since in this case there is much to create a KO: one of the two types of ammunition already has is the 82-mm mine; since the Great Patriotic War, technical solutions are known that make it possible to combine the features of mortar firing with a classic cannon shot in one semi-automatic weapon; there will be no big problems with the automatic loader; IUS is similar to that of BMPT. This list can be continued further. However, it should be borne in mind that the KO is not a universal gun and complexation with 30-mm AP, AGS and machine gun will be necessary. In the development of this tool, if it starts, there is a good start. Prospects are attractive at all - if there is a projectile in the ammunition with ready striking elements and undermining at a fixed range, a homing roof-mine and exploration mines, BMPT can become a tactical reconnaissance and firing complex with good prospects.

It is known that the emergence of fundamentally new models or weapons systems, even if they are not based on the latest scientific discoveries, but developed using the technological level already achieved, can influence the tactics of combat. This provision fully applies to BMPT: equipping them with tank units, of course, will not make a revolution in military affairs, like nuclear weapons; Radically will not change the strategy of warfare, as information and computer systems. However, they will have an impact on the tactics of combined-arms combat:
- losses of tanks and BMPs supporting them in all types of combat will decrease;
- it will be more rational to use BC tanks and, probably, there will be no need to increase the range of ammunition in BC due to the inclusion of fundamentally new ones, with an increased effectiveness of TOT actions;
-tank divisions will acquire greater autonomy, which is important with the dynamic nature of modern combined-arms combat and actions under special conditions;
- BMPT can be very effective and as an independent fire weapon in anti-terrorist operations and local conflicts of low intensity;
- Tactical standards of air defense systems may change - due to the greater distance of the anti-personnel command post from the contact line. This will reduce their losses, will allow better use of the terrain to select starting (firing) positions and, accordingly, will increase the effectiveness of the air defense system as a whole.

As we see, the considered tactical aspect of the problem is important in itself. But there is one more - no less significant - military-political, expressed in the form of military-technical cooperation (MTC), one of the directions of which is the export of arms and military equipment (AME). Needless to say, how important the military-technical cooperation is for Russia, one of the world's largest arms and military equipment exporters. In this regard, the export prospects for the advancement of BMPT in the armament market from a tactical point of view should be very favorable.

There are a number of arguments in support of the BMPT, but we will dwell on one thing - the prestige of the state. This concept has a pronounced political character and is in some way connected with another - a priority in development. We make one small excursion into history.

In Russia, the tank’s birthday is considered 18 May 1915. It was on that day, near Riga, that the tests of an armored combat vehicle created by Alexander Porokhovshchikov and having all the attributes of a modern tank began. "All-terrain vehicle" - so called this fighting machine - successfully passed the tests, and the team of creators was ready in the shortest possible time to "bring" the machine and even make it floating. However, due to the short-sightedness of the leadership of the main military technical administration, the project of A. Porokhovshchikov did not receive support. A number of other projects of tracked combat vehicles that were developed at about the same time as the Rover were also not accepted.

Almost a year and a half after A. Porokhovshchikov, England opened a new era in the development of means of warfare. Russia has lost priority in creating a new type of combat vehicles, which received the short and expressive name "tank". Of course, the works of the first Russian tank builders were not in vain. The rapid development of tank building in the Soviet Union in the 20-30 years of the last century, equipping the army with tanks that are not inferior to the best world models, and for a number of indicators and superior to them is the merit of their predecessors. It was not from scratch that Soviet tank building developed. But there is no priority! And if it was an isolated case, when Russia lost its priority in creating the most important direction in the development of weapons.

In view of the above, let us express this, perhaps somewhat categorical, thought: the fate of the BMPT, a new trend in the development of armored vehicles, created in Russia more than a decade ago, can repeat the fate of the Rover. This once again proves the importance of developing a new concept of BMPT. The concept, which has absorbed all the best that exists in the existing model, and fully corresponds to the conditions of the contact phase of the modern war. The concept, in which, in addition to the detailed look of the BMPT, issues of structure, management and information support (interfacing) with higher-level systems, including military air defense, are resolved. Only with this approach is it possible to quickly advance the project and retain the achieved priority.

The concept of building a tank support combat vehicle
Author:
110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 12 December 2013 08: 08
    32
    They would have thrown a couple of samples to the Syrians, they would have tested new weapons, they would have tested their conceptual calculations in real combat operations. The Americans have never disdained this. Yes, and the Union during the Cold War "tested" its air defense systems in real combat conditions. All you need is the will to make such a decision. And you can negotiate with the Syrians. I think they themselves would be interested to see what kind of animal this "Terminator" is. And so sitting at ranting and chewing snot, you will only lose time ... soldier
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 12 December 2013 08: 20
      19
      Quote: Rurikovich
      you’ll only lose time ... soldier

      It has been lost for over 10 years. The Terminator could be tested both in Chechnya and in South Ossetia.
    2. makarov
      makarov 12 December 2013 08: 57
      +3
      I completely and completely agree with you that it is necessary to run in the unit only in real combat conditions, and the author's command "... its effectiveness has been proven by calculations, and the need to introduce it into the tank units was expressed by the leaders of a very high level ..." is an ordinary advertising blizzard, which except for words, nothing is confirmed.
      1. avt
        avt 12 December 2013 10: 15
        +3
        Quote: makarov
        an ordinary advertising blizzard, which, apart from words, is not confirmed by anything.

        This is no longer an advertising blizzard, here the military academics are already struggling, but they cannot give birth to a clear justification for adopting this wonderful diva, or a miracle miracle, this is verbiage with pictures from the times of the Iraqi war and Niki # 2. and try to somehow attach to the Caucasian conflicts, draw some diagrams of the times of past battles with the rationale, as if everything was fine, but you need to strain your brain. And if it is not there? The concept of construction! ... la, no more, no less. Whom and where are they going to build something !? Science, understand. Nonsense, not an article negative On a hike, candidates for doctors and assistant professors are stupidly catching up on the counter "scientific papers" in the spirit of the new requirements for confirming their titles.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov 12 December 2013 11: 51
          +1
          I have a cromole thought here. Or maybe that’s why they don’t run in real combat conditions so that the export rating is not spoiled but sold as much as possible.
          Although the Kazakhs seem to own a machine.
          IMHO quite

        2. yl-2
          yl-2 12 December 2013 12: 24
          -4
          Yes, there is no this WILD WIFE! So they stuck something like a sledgehammer and a "Chinese" tape measure, but now they show it at exhibitions. And then they drive it into the workshop and repair it, I can't wait for this deception to open.
          1. rolik
            rolik 12 December 2013 16: 59
            +3
            Quote: il-2
            And then they drive me into the workshop and repair, I generally can’t wait until this fraud opens.

            What bad Kazakhs! support cheating. Tell him about it))))
        3. Alekseev
          Alekseev 12 December 2013 12: 52
          +3
          Quote: avt
          They didn’t even bother to strain and try to somehow attach to the Caucasian conflicts, to draw some kind of sketches from the times of past battles with a justification, as if everything was fine, but the brain needs to be strained.

          It seems like ... yes
          But the question is not God’s news is so complicated.
          What does it mean to support the tank in battle?
          In the case of BMPT, it is probably meant directly to support fire.
          Which enemy is difficult to hit the tanks?
          Army Aviation? Then the BMPT should have an effective short-range SPAT, with the ability to shoot well at ground targets. A sort of Tunguska on a well-protected chassis.
          Infantry in cities, in fortified positions, in difficult terrain? This means that a howitzer-mortar (like "Nona") is needed - an ATGM launcher of a solid caliber and an automatic cannon or a pair of KPVT (NSVT), AGS maybe.
          Both such weapons systems on one base hardly fit, although you can try at the modern technological level.
          But without reverence for tactics and science, no miracle BMPT will win.
          1. avt
            avt 12 December 2013 13: 26
            +5
            Quote: Alekseev
            Infantry in cities, in fortified positions, in difficult terrain? This means that a howitzer-mortar (like "Nona") is needed - an ATGM launcher of a solid caliber and an automatic cannon or a pair of KPVT (NSVT), AGS maybe.
            Both of these weapons systems are unlikely to fit into one base, although you can try at the modern technological level.

            And here, having cut a circle, we return to the long-known unit - BMP. Which they themselves launched and developed. They just stopped at the BMP-3 and did not take the next step - to divide it into well-protected and armed, like Bakhchi, first-line BMPs for working with tanks and armored personnel carriers - MRAPs for transporting personnel in conditions of increased mine risk and sabotage attacks.
            1. the47th
              the47th 12 December 2013 15: 16
              +2
              The fact of the matter is that BMP armor is rather weak and it can effectively support tanks. BMPT’s armor is stronger than the tank’s, and it can cover them from RPGs, and not hide behind tanks.
              1. avt
                avt 12 December 2013 15: 25
                +1
                Quote: the47th
                The fact of the matter is that the armor of the BMP is weak and it can effectively support tanks

                Well, read it all!
                Quote: avt
                We just stopped at the BMP-3 and did not take the next step - to divide into well-protected and armed, like "Bakhchi" BMPs of the first line to work with tanks
                1. the47th
                  the47th 13 December 2013 09: 09
                  -1
                  Quote: avt
                  We just stopped at the BMP-3 and did not take the next step - to divide into well-protected and armed, like "Bakhchi" BMPs of the first line to work with tanks

                  Again, if you increase the armor, the system will come out on the tank chassis.
                  1. Bad_gr
                    Bad_gr 15 December 2013 11: 11
                    0
                    Quote: the47th
                    Again, if you increase the armor, the system will come out on the tank chassis.

                    Like this?




                    Here is another version of the car, claiming the place of BMPT
                    1. Bad_gr
                      Bad_gr 15 December 2013 11: 45
                      0
                      The new BMPT looks a little different than in the photo in the article.
                      Photo modelp BMPT
                      [img = left] http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/resize/ad/otvaga2004_xlopotov-rea2
                      _015 [1] -700x465.jpg [/ img]
                      [img] http://alternathistory.org.ua/files/resize/ad/otvaga2004_xlopotov-rea2_018 [
                      1] -700x465.jpg [/ img]
            2. Rex
              Rex 15 December 2013 05: 41
              0
              Yes, you need something like that.
              It is possible to divide rifle brigades into "heavy" and "light", where the first will have an infantry fighting vehicle based on a tank. It is possible, in general, of the Bundeswehr type - 2 tank and 2 infantry battalions.
              It is possible in one brigade to form battalions using different equipment. Although of course the supply-service is complicated
          2. the47th
            the47th 12 December 2013 15: 18
            +1
            BMPT is designed to effectively suppress enemy manpower, equipped with grenade launchers, anti-tank systems, small arms; there is also the opportunity to hit tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, bunkers, bunkers, and other highly protected targets on the fly and from the spot. Also overcoming the bottom of water barriers.
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 12 December 2013 20: 58
              +4
              Quote: the47th
              BMPT is designed to effectively suppress enemy manpower, equipped with grenade launchers, anti-tank systems, small arms; there is also the opportunity to hit tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, bunkers, bunkers, and other highly protected targets on the fly and from the spot. Also overcoming the bottom of water barriers.


              Excuse me, but what is worse than the BMP-3 "Terminator", besides the armor? Yes, 30 mm + rockets are good, BUT the cost of one machine is far from small, and specialized analogs cope with such tasks no worse. An infantry fighting vehicle with an assault force is fire support, and the capture and retention of territory, and the fight against light equipment and tanks, and the Tunguska and Shilka are air defense and they are terrible at infantry. What are the advantages of BPMT? Heavy, large, less mobile than an infantry fighting vehicle, but a somewhat more tenacious vehicle - if a more compact chassis were used, it would be good, and so ...
              1. the47th
                the47th 13 December 2013 09: 08
                0
                BMPT can work together with tanks because of better armor, and not because of their backs, and, if necessary, close them with their hull. If systems like Tunguska or BMP-3 build up armor, then, whatever one may say, it will turn out to be the same BMPT. A very good alternative to BMPT would be the active protection of tanks, coupled with existing systems in service.
    3. Patton5
      Patton5 12 December 2013 10: 41
      +3
      the more I look at him, the more ridiculous he looks, the weapons system is about nothing. I’m becoming true, at first they were sculpted and now we are thinking about the concept of application, but logic tells us what should be on the turn!
    4. Andrew-88
      Andrew-88 12 December 2013 11: 10
      +1
      Unfortunately, we can’t throw a couple of samples to the Syrians. And the will to make such a decision will not do anything ... The UN Convention prohibits the supply of offensive weapons to countries in which hostilities are taking place. According to international laws, this will be classified as interference in the affairs of other states.
      We can supply only air defense systems, medicines, etc. Even cartridges cannot be sold ...
      And in an amicable way, "Terminator" would help the Syrians in the fight against thugs like "Alla, I'm in the bar."
      1. avt
        avt 12 December 2013 11: 22
        +4
        Quote: Andrew-88
        We can supply only air defense systems, medicines, etc. Even cartridges cannot be sold ...

        laughing Seriously !? This is how many "medicines" our BDK has thrown there! They will soon be consumed with pills.
      2. yl-2
        yl-2 12 December 2013 12: 39
        0
        Yes, there is nothing to throw! and no one will climb into the unfinished raw "pieces of iron"!
      3. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 12 December 2013 21: 00
        0
        Quote: Andrew-88
        And in an amicable way, "Terminator" would help the Syrians in the fight against thugs like "Alla, I'm in the bar."


        And why a simpler, but no less effective Shilka will not help? BMPT is a lot of new equipment that you need to learn to use. And Shilka was actively used in Afghanistan to fight with militants.
      4. sapran
        sapran 12 December 2013 23: 18
        0
        Andrei doesn't want to talk, but your thoughts about pills and cartridges are incorrect. If the rebels had these "pills" did not shoot, God bless him. (this is the east)
        BMPT in the form that it is to start up "people" is impossible !!! Spoil the reputation ... And UVZ was planning on revision something else to have something for "bread with butter", and so they may ask uncle .. Where is the money ?! Zin !!!!
      5. samoletil18
        samoletil18 13 December 2013 12: 55
        0
        Quote: Andrew-88
        Unfortunately, we can’t throw a couple of samples to the Syrians. And the will to make such a decision will not do anything ... The UN Convention prohibits the supply of offensive weapons to countries in which hostilities are taking place. According to international laws, this will be classified as interference in the affairs of other states.
        We can supply only air defense systems, medicines, etc. Even cartridges cannot be sold ...
        And in an amicable way, "Terminator" would help the Syrians in the fight against thugs like "Alla, I'm in the bar."

        Only have to deliver with crews
    5. smersh70
      smersh70 12 December 2013 13: 48
      0
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Would throw a couple of samples to the Syrians, would run a new weapon,


      ..who in 2 days would have got to bearded men .... so they would have asked them ... smile
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 12 December 2013 21: 02
        +1
        Quote: smersh70
        ..who in 2 days would have got to bearded men .... so they would have asked them ..


        Quite possibly. And not even the fact that because of dishonest commanders. The more complex the equipment, the more it requires - a trained crew, repair base, b / p.
    6. Xroft
      Xroft 13 December 2013 01: 58
      0
      Question is BMPT in the state defense order? it is unlikely that we will see her troops, if not ordered.
    7. mirag2
      mirag2 13 December 2013 06: 54
      0
      Well, this is how to look, if the tank does not live in conditions of active opposition for more than 3 minutes, well, this car will last a little longer ...
      No, it’s not BMPT that is needed, but a good, high-quality active protection system for the tank that would work, that’s all.
      For the active system of protection of the tank is "BMPT", which is always with itself, will save from ATGM, and to suppress the infantry the tank will be able to use standard means.
      There is a long conversation, but I think that for safety the tank is more important to equip it with a good AZT system.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 13 December 2013 18: 52
        0
        Quote: mirag2
        if the tank does not live in conditions of active opposition for more than 3 minutes


        Where did you get this information? All open sources say something completely different.
  2. Igor39
    Igor39 12 December 2013 08: 41
    +3
    "Cornflower" must be put on it, a good mortar, you can upgrade it first.
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 12 December 2013 10: 44
      +1
      And something like melon ...
      1. Old skeptic
        Old skeptic 12 December 2013 21: 04
        0
        "Nonu" "Bakhchi" or "Rostok" do not have mortar capabilities.
  3. Semurg
    Semurg 12 December 2013 08: 45
    +6
    different guns are needed, different guns are important laughing
  4. ramsi
    ramsi 12 December 2013 08: 46
    +2
    probably, nevertheless, it is better to "screw up" the tank - it will still get more expensive
  5. Strashila
    Strashila 12 December 2013 09: 00
    +4
    Actually, the article is not about anything ... the dream of a universal tablet from everything.
    It’s silly to use in anti-terrorism operations ... like to Syria, but what will he do in urban development ??? ... only to burn, the weapons are weak ... there are nothing elevation angles ... the combat module is open even for small arms ... tanks get from the debris of the BMPT buildings all the more will.
    If we talk about the concept of a machine of such a class as BMPT, then I took the option of upgrading the PT-76 as a basis, with a 57 mm automatic machine + Cord + automatic grenade launcher + ATGM Cornet ... this is the basis, everything was installed there in the tower of a light tank, and now with we project all this on the dimensions of the T-72. Yes, make a tower so that it could hold a 30 mm shell (BMP, helicopters), take into account elevation angles so that they were about 60 ghrs., optics with extended vertical angles (for the city and mountainous terrain). can be enhanced by dynamic protection.
    The possibility of using guided missile weapons was supplemented (to consider such a possibility) by the use of complexes of the Bumblebee type.
  6. Alexey M
    Alexey M 12 December 2013 09: 26
    +5
    Infantry without tanks "0", tank without infantry "1". And together "10". One tank will not cover the column anyway, the infantry must be, and there is nothing to do in the city without infantry. why it is not known. And I strongly doubt that after hitting the tower, it will be able to shoot, since long thin barrels can be bent by a blast wave, the missiles are also practically unprotected.
    For the fight against infantry, too bulky against tanks is rather weak.
  7. Strashila
    Strashila 12 December 2013 09: 44
    +1
    On the question of mortars ... it is possible to consider, as an option, the installation of the Cornflower as the main gun of the mortar in a twin with a 23 mm cannon ... but this option is only for fire support vehicles. You can also stick it to NON, but the rate of fire is not unimportant.
  8. EvilLion
    EvilLion 12 December 2013 10: 03
    +2
    1) The task of fighting helicopters is solved only by anti-aircraft guns, the "Tunguska" is many times more difficult than a tank, and the tanks themselves, like the BMPT, in principle, do not have equipment for detecting air targets and aiming at them.
    2) ZSU in the city, or in the mountains, a solution known since the Second World War, there is nothing to shaggy grandmother here, in this regard, the way to create a specialized machine of this class is obvious. Dismantling complex electronics from the anti-aircraft gun (the Afghan "shilka", and received), the remaining block of weapons will have such guidance angles that the BMPT with its 45 degrees can only dream of. You can also mount it on a tank chassis, but there are 30 mm cannons with huge elevation angles on the BMP-2/3, that is, we will build a box of 40 tons in weight with armored weapons. This is absurd. That is, it would be nice to switch to the 37-57 mm system and equip the car with some other weapon, you can also have a 4-man crew. But grenade launchers and small mortars are also absurd, and they can really be attached to tanks if the infantry does not have enough of this stuff. That is, the question is not so simple. I'm generally inclined towards a medium tank weighing about 30+ tons and anti-cumulative protection, the chassis of which could carry what the BMP-3 is too small for.
    3) To combat the enemy behind reverse ramps and shelters, there are mortars and howitzers that are nominally part of motorized rifle and tank units. Author noob and disgraced.
  9. tchoni
    tchoni 12 December 2013 10: 04
    +4
    The article is "not about anything". Guys A complex problem is solved only in a comprehensive manner. Making a tank fight a helicopter is stupid - you need a light fighter.
    It seems that the presence of BMPT in combat formations will to some extent solve these problems. (we are talking about solving air defense problems) Yes, such a machine will not solve nichrome, because For successful solutions to the air defense problem, an air target detection system is needed. Radar and all that. And this is all vulnerable even from small arms - where is it to shove the tank? before the first mortar attack?
    The task of combating tank dangerous ground targets is GREATLY solved by the tanks themselves, subject to timely detection, and this is not only my opinion, the 125 mm caliber is by no means excessive. and in some cases not enough.
    Therefore, for successful actions, you need not to develop another "unparalleled" (remember the anecdote about the elusive joe?) Wunderwaf, but to organize normal interaction on the battlefield of various forces and means. THOSE. aviation - providing air defense of the battlefield, reconnaissance. infantry - reconnaissance cover and target designation. tanks - suppression of firing points and other identified targets, fighting enemy tanks and BMPs. artillery - counter-battery warfare. These are the basics, known since the First World War and very well confirmed in the Great Patriotic War.
    The only thing that is missing is that for us, that for the Syrians - the flexibility of the command and control system. It must be developed first of all + to improve the apparatus for the purchase of weapons.
    And in tank units, if necessary, it’s TBTR. and then garbage turns tanks go - all of them are armored - and the infantry behind them in cans.
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 12 December 2013 10: 55
      10
      This is how it (+, -) should have been
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 12 December 2013 12: 08
        0
        Chassis from 72ki?
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 12 December 2013 12: 41
          +2
          Chassis from 72ki?
          with chassis elements t-72
          in my opinion, armament is excessive
          and for bmp 3 is not redundant with his reservation?
          , and the overview for desvnta and the convenience of entering and exiting the car are insufficient.
          and not just for landing! But in my amateurish opinion, this car is more successful than a mountain snake from a factory car. Moreover, this is only a concept (experimental car)
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 12 December 2013 12: 09
        +1
        Although, in my opinion, armament is redundant, and visibility for deswinting and the convenience of entering and leaving the car are insufficient.
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 12 December 2013 12: 42
          0
          here if it’s interesting to read about it.http: //btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm
      3. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 12 December 2013 14: 43
        +5
        Quote: Patton5
        This is how it (+, -) should have been

        yes
        Yeah, Victor ...

        The object 781Б (782) is just Pretty Woman ...
        Here is to play it and modernize it under the current realities - it would not have a price.
        Eheh.
        1. sapran
          sapran 12 December 2013 19: 46
          0
          Improve visibility to identify tank-dangerous targets and podshamanit protection EVERYTHING !!!
      4. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 12 December 2013 16: 05
        +1
        The day before yesterday, if only release in wartime to make up for losses, and even that is unlikely.
        1. Patton5
          Patton5 12 December 2013 19: 15
          +1
          if only release in wartime to make up for losses
          What kind of war are we talking about?
          And what do you think will be the car of tomorrow?
      5. sapran
        sapran 12 December 2013 19: 44
        0
        Yes, one of the best incarnations of military ideas.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 12 December 2013 14: 43
      +1
      A light fighter easily destroys a detected helicopter, but searches for it rather poorly. There is perhaps hope for the PHAR.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 12 December 2013 14: 58
        +1
        Well, nobody canceled the methods of visual search + a thermal imager for help (for the attack aircraft, which will most likely be signed up for the role of a light fighter, the presence of this device has become a rule of good taste) + guidance from DLRO and ground-based radar systems + early detection posts (stupidly fighter with a walkie-talkie) . So the issue of detection is solved ...
  10. AVV
    AVV 12 December 2013 11: 11
    +1
    The test should be carried out only in the conditions of hostilities !!! To reduce the cost, as suggested, you need to use the T-72 chassis, in warehouses a huge amount !!! And produce statistics, and after that carry out improvements, using mortars, with the system control, BMPT tanks, BMPT artillery, BMPT aviation. Everything should work together and BMPT when it is not possible to destroy the target, it should be able to call fire, tanks, artillery, and aviation to destroy the target !!!
    1. Patton5
      Patton5 12 December 2013 11: 21
      0
      To run it in combat, you need to know in what conditions to use it and even those who invented it do not know ... Living people drive the machine and not robots!
    2. gallville
      gallville 12 December 2013 15: 04
      +1
      Quote: AVV
      The test should be carried out only in the conditions of hostilities !!!

      You yourself sit in a car not run-in or put your son? =)
  11. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 12 December 2013 11: 47
    +4
    Beautiful picture with broken technique. However, it is not signed. And this is the work of the American A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft on the Iraqi column in 1991.
  12. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 12 December 2013 12: 24
    +2
    If the BMPT has onboard thermal imagers and other optical equipment of the tank and reacts / allows you to aim the guns during 1 within 45 degrees in any direction - then this is definitely a necessary thing with any guns. A tank is a tank - its weapon is in some cases redundant and expensive. What we see in the example of the war in Syria. There are no thermal imagers - they hit all the slots from the gun and every half hour they change to replenish the supplies of shells ... So, definitely the tank + bmpt in local conflicts is better than the 2 tank.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 12 December 2013 14: 45
      0
      But the tankers and the 152 mm fools would not have refused. They cannot even bring down a building.
  13. rudolff
    rudolff 12 December 2013 13: 26
    +2
    We now like to talk a lot about common platforms, modular designs, well, it may make sense to solve the problems of using MBTs as a single platform in urban combat, tank collisions, etc. by replacing combat modules, rather than adopting new vehicles? All the same, it is supposed to install uninhabited, remotely controlled, partially robotic BMs on promising armored vehicles. Why not take full advantage of their benefits. The replacement of modules and the installation of additional weight can be carried out by the forces of the rebates.
    1. bask
      bask 12 December 2013 20: 42
      +4
      Quote: rudolff
      by replacing combat modules, rather than adopting new vehicles? All the same, it is supposed to install uninhabited, remotely controlled, partially robotic BMs on promising armored vehicles. P

      rudolff
      The Germans have already decided, albeit in the form of a concept.
      BMP-T Marder- Close.
      We installed a DBM with a 30 mm gun.
      Strengthened mine protection. Protection against RPG-7 by installing mounted modular armor.
      Mass is about 35 tons.
      Diesel at 1500 l / s, (not sickly like on Leo .. speed 75 cells / hour.
      Landing 10 soldiers.
      Modularity in booking, capacity of 10 infantrymen, almost perfect BMP-T.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 12 December 2013 20: 55
        +3
        Wow! The first time I see a car in this design! Futuristic design, like from a science fiction movie! Thanks for the photo! good
      2. bask
        bask 12 December 2013 21: 00
        +2
        The only thing that limits the further strengthening of the reservation, due to the mounted modular armor, based on the Marder BMP, is the crawler chassis bumpiness.
        The limit, which will be just around 40 tons.

        If, to build an even more protected BMP-T, like the Israeli (BTR-T HAMER), you need a tracked tank chassis.
        The Germans have this chassis, self-propelled guns PzH-2000.
        Weight 55,3 tons.
        The front location of the MTO, to the left of the driver's mechanic.
        Diesel 1000 l / s.

        This chassis is also ideal for the BMP-T.
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 12 December 2013 21: 15
          +3
          When I wrote about modularity, you respected Bask kept in mind. Your commitment to the idea of ​​an urban tank. In fact, after all, all the disputes surrounding the nomenclature of weapons of the combat module on a tank platform. And the additional weight of protection.
          1. bask
            bask 12 December 2013 21: 37
            +1
            Quote: rudolff
            ideas of a city tank.

            rudolff.
            1. City or Assault tank, in the first line, with a gun feces 152 mm and so on.
            The most armored, mounted modular swearing.
            2. Desirable on the same tracked platform, BMP-T
            Quote: rudolff
            after all, all the disputes surrounding the weapons range of the combat module
            .I think that all disputes surrounding BMP-T weapons can be resolved only with the combat use of BMP-T. (To some extent, S. Kavakh, Dagestan is suitable for military tests).
            3.This is an BTR-T, purely defensive weapons, 12,7 ,, Cord ,,.

            And special attention, mine protection, which should be no less than on.
            BMR-3M demining combat vehicle.
            1. bask
              bask 12 December 2013 22: 14
              +2
              Everything rests against the absence of a heavy tracked platform with a front MTO.
              Although in the late 80s. A seven-roller chassis with a front-mounted MTO –Object 299 was developed, manufactured, and passed a large volume of tests at OBT and T-80 units and assemblies.
              As a power plant, a gas turbine engine with an output of 1400 - 1500 l / s was planned.
              It was planned to produce a modular GSh, based on the Object 299 chassis.
              1 main battle tank
              2. BMP-T, landing 8 soldier.
              3.Management and Intelligence Machine
              4. Remote-controlled boom machine.
              Ready ,, Armata ,, at the end of the 80's.
              1. andru_007
                andru_007 12 December 2013 23: 37
                +2
                find 10 differences smile
      3. andru_007
        andru_007 12 December 2013 21: 39
        +3
        I personally am more interested in this device:
        1. dmitry21
          dmitry21 14 December 2013 19: 47
          0
          color?
          all ex., but BMPT develops a different philosophy and principle of application.
  14. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 12 December 2013 13: 27
    +2
    Again BMPT - again srach. The feeling that some saw the picture and started, did not even read, neither the article itself, nor about BMPT, BMPT72. UVZ said - we saddled up as requested, we have a problem with 30mm guns and ammunition to it, but with a caliber more crap full. The fact that 30mm has not been effectively written for several years, the meaning of your comments, and so it is clear to everyone. There are personalities. They all want to stick a Bumblebee, well, the guys have poor eyesight or something, it’s written that he has thermobaric missiles in his set, because the size is bigger than that of a Bumblebee. I think at your base the new combat module will be sawed, and there we will judge already.
    1. Former
      Former 12 December 2013 14: 19
      0
      Hello everyone. Question one when?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  15. felix
    felix 12 December 2013 14: 21
    0
    No protection for all these gadgets. Fighting until the first hit. Against the bearded man is useless. The tank is better and probably cheaper.
  16. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 12 December 2013 14: 57
    0
    Lol, what for you people are popping pictures of those BMPs that you did 20 years ago. The current trend is non-residential combat modules, do not scratch, you just have to wait for the BMPT on the basis of ARMATA, the rest will not be accepted for service. By the way, as a races of these old projects, and went exchange-rate AGS, which then charm all.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 12 December 2013 15: 00
      0
      Guru, and how it will differ from the tank in principle. Explain, please.
  17. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 12 December 2013 15: 03
    +7
    The article is somehow a little "blurry" ...
    request
    IMHO.

    BMPT needed.
    - In parts where the T-72 and BMP-2 are in service (and this will be a long time), it is most effective even with such weapons as now. I am absolutely sure of that. We lacked such a machine.
    This generals and theorists make a helpless gesture - such as how to use it, and in linear parts it would instantly find application. Options have already been discussed more than once.

    - Do you need it in the future?
    That's when (someday) the line of cars on the platform of Almaty will be released, it will be seen there, there is nothing to talk about so far. If there is a BTR-T with 30, then a BMPT with such weapons is meaningless.
    There is the concept of the distribution of dissimilar calibers among military vehicles, and this is what must be respected.
    For example, in Armata:
    - Tank.
    - BTR-T with 30-koy (better 40mm).
    - BMPT with weapons like the 782 object. Those. a large caliber of low ballistics such as Nona (shells and mines), a small caliber 30-40 mm, machine gun weapons (possibly circular).
    It will turn out a good assault machine, it will not be superfluous and will not be a burden.

    ps A combat vehicle that is not specialized in anti-aircraft defense is almost hopeless to fight aviation (article replica).
    1. gallville
      gallville 12 December 2013 15: 19
      +4
      Quote: Aleks tv
      BMPT needed.
      - In parts where the T-72 and BMP-2 are in service (and this will be a long time), it is most effective even with such weapons as now. I am absolutely sure of that. We lacked such a machine.

      Entirely and completely FOR. But only in this context.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      For example, in Armata:
      - Tank.
      - BTR-T with 30-koy (better 40mm).
      - BMPT with weapons like the 782 object. Those. a large caliber of low ballistics such as Nona (shells and mines), a small caliber 30-40 mm, machine gun weapons (possibly circular).

      Or maybe better:
      - a tank with a machine gun turret.
      - TBMP with 57 mm. caliber + pet. and let's say a separate 12 mm turret for the commander. that the truth is I have little idea how to stick it to the rendered 57mm module.
      - in the motorized rifle battalion of the tank brigade (since there are no regiments) self-propelled mortars 120mm?
      All this is combined in an ASUV.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      A combat vehicle that is not specialized in anti-aircraft defense is almost unpromising to fight aviation (article replica).

      If combined in an ASUV. That linear BMP-57mm receive target designation from air defense reconnaissance and fire at enemy air targets.
      The 57mm caliber has a height of 4 km (for comparison, the shilka is 2km) and a range of 7 km. (about 8km range helicopter guns). This is provided that I took a 57mm ZSU which is clearly outdated.
      Thus we get:
      1. An increase in firepower by a minimum of 30 barrels (if it is an armored brigade with an MSB) or 120 barrels for a combined arms brigade.
      2. Increase the firing range for high-altitude targets.
      3. This point follows from the first two, given the increased radius and density of fire, enemy air means will be forced to increase the distance, which will affect the nature of the use of the BC and increase the cost and effectiveness of sorties.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 12 December 2013 15: 30
        +2
        Quote: gallville
        Or maybe better:
        - a tank with a machine gun turret.
        - TBMP with 57 mm. caliber + pet. and let's say a separate 12 mm turret for the commander. that the truth is I have little idea how to stick it to the rendered 57mm module.
        - in the motorized rifle battalion of the tank brigade (since there are no regiments) self-propelled mortars 120mm?
        All this is combined in an ASUV.


        Greetings, Ivan.
        hi

        It is difficult to judge what will be done with weapons in the line of Almaty.
        I repeat: there is a concept the distribution of dissimilar calibers in combat vehicles, so it should be respected.

        A remote machine gun module (like on the T-90ms) is simply necessary.
        And 57mm on TBMP certainly does not hurt.
        1. gallville
          gallville 12 December 2013 15: 43
          +1
          hi
          Quote: Aleks tv
          There is the concept of the distribution of dissimilar calibers among military vehicles, and this is what must be respected.

          In fact, in my example, I just replaced the 30mm with the 57mm. Considering that 57mm. caliber has long been mastered the question is only in the weight of the module, automatic loader and "endurance".
          Quote: Aleks tv
          machine gun module (as on the T-90ms)

          In the t-90ms I do not like the caliber 7.62, it seems to me not enough especially for actions in the city. Therefore, I am inclined to 12.7.
          Moreover, I am not a supporter of the use of 14mm caliber in armored personnel carriers, and also tend to 12.7mm due to its uniformity and weight.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          And 57mm on TBMP certainly does not hurt.

          If such a caliber is installed, a new round of the "arms race" is quite possible. this is really a new level with respect to 30mm.

          Z.Y. What do you think about the ASUV work I described in providing air defense?
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 12 December 2013 16: 01
            +2
            Quote: gallville
            In t-90ms, I don’t like the 7.62 caliber, it seems to me not enough, especially for actions in the city.

            It seems like in this module (on T-90ms) it is possible to stick both FCT 7,62mm and Cord 12,7mm.
            It depends on what tasks.

            -7,62mm will be very good as a means of self-defense, driving all sorts of insolent bearded men with "sevens" around the car.
            -12,7mm is already a full-fledged independent weapon.
            The main thing is that in one tape such an external module had ... a fuva cloud of cartridges, and not a standard box.
            laughing

            Quote: gallville
            What do you think about the ASUV work I described in providing air defense?

            Ivan, it's hard for me to judge this, I'm not special in air defense.
            But if we use ACCS, including 57mm linear machines in the protection system, then it will not be worse. They will definitely add problems to any wandering "turntables".
            As far as I remember, there is an anti-aircraft shell for this gun.
            1. gallville
              gallville 12 December 2013 16: 12
              +1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              -7,62mm will be very good as a means of self-defense, driving all sorts of insolent bearded men with "sevens" around the car.

              They are now hiding behind brick and clay masonry. Therefore:
              Quote: Aleks tv
              12,7mm is already a full-fledged independent weapon.

              The very thing.
              Quote: Aleks tv
              fuyva cloud of cartridges, not a standard box.

              That's right.
              Quote: Aleks tv
              As far as I remember, there is an anti-aircraft shell for this gun.

              That, in fact, is an anti-aircraft gun =) Hence the height and the presence of "automatic fire" which would be worth improving if I am not mistaken, shells are inserted at 5.
              True, I am also not special in air defense, but it will enhance firepower definitely especially it will be effective, somewhere in the desert or flat terrain, then the Americans will be glad to fly 2 km higher.
              1. Aristocrat
                Aristocrat 13 December 2013 10: 55
                0
                Quote: gallville
                That, in fact, is an anti-aircraft gun =) Hence the height and the presence of "automatic fire" which would be worth improving if I am not mistaken, shells are inserted at 5.
                .

                It is the low rate of fire (namely the practical rate of fire) due to cluster loading that caused such a short-lived service of the ZSU-2-57 despite its promising potential.
                So for the use of this 57 mm gun, it is imperative to redo the power on the tape. Otherwise, the possibility of application in an uninhabited module is called into question. And indeed in the BMP or BMPT.
            2. Aristocrat
              Aristocrat 13 December 2013 10: 47
              0
              Quote: Aleks tv
              As far as I remember, there is an anti-aircraft shell for this gun.

              For any there! ZSU-2-57 did not shoot armor-piercing :) More precisely, not only them :)
        2. bask
          bask 12 December 2013 20: 28
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          And 57mm on TBMP certainly does not hurt.

          Hi Lesh.
          I agree, BMPT, armament or DBM with 57 mm S-60 guns.
          Or with a habitable module ,, Bahcha ,,.
      2. sapran
        sapran 12 December 2013 19: 58
        0
        Sorry to interfere, but still ask a question ...
        57-mm fuck you such ballistics? (on the priest’s fleet with cooling at the turn, but in the land variant, what will we blow after the short queue?)
        The second and in my opinion the main thing - please do not mold a "universal soldier" out of the car --- it will be equally bad in all directions, since the THZ is a complete contradiction ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 12 December 2013 20: 08
          +3
          Quote: sapran
          57-mm fuck you such ballistics?

          And why is the ZSU-57 bad? Long vryatli have to shoot.
          1. Aristocrat
            Aristocrat 13 December 2013 10: 57
            0
            Quote: Kars
            And why is the ZSU-57 bad? Long vryatli have to shoot.


            I quote myself:
            It is the low rate of fire (practical rate of fire) due to cluster loading that caused such a short service ZSU-2-57, despite its promising potential.
            So for the use of this 57 mm gun, it is imperative to redo the power on the tape. Otherwise, the possibility of application in an uninhabited module is called into question. And indeed in the BMP or BMPT.
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 December 2013 16: 26
              +1
              Quote: Aristocrat
              I quote myself:
              It is a low rate of fire

              For ground targets, the pace is enough.
              Quote: Aristocrat
              So for the use of this 57 mm gun it is imperative to redo the power to tape

              In your opinion, the mission is not feasible, especially since the S-60 moms are shown to show that this caliber was used not only at sea. Yes, and the machine itself is more than 50 years old, the technology has advanced.
              1. sapran
                sapran 13 December 2013 16: 57
                0
                CARS no one will bother with the "57-mm projectile-gun" complex
                ... use what is at hand and do not look for another !!!
        2. gallville
          gallville 12 December 2013 20: 37
          +1
          Quote: sapran
          57-mm fuck you such ballistics? (on the priest’s fleet with cooling at the turn, but in the land variant, what will we blow after the short queue?)

          Picture.
          Quote: sapran
          The second and, in my opinion, the main thing - please do not sculpt a "universal soldier" out of the car --- it will be equally bad in all directions, since THZ is a complete contradiction ..

          If combined in an ASUV. Then linear BMP-57mm receive target designation from air defense reconnaissance

          The question is in the ASUV.
          By the way, the BMP-2 caliber 30mm was developed specifically to combat air targets, but there was no possibility of target designation and detection. ACCS removes these issues by bringing the "barrage" to a higher level, and increasing the caliber increases the range and height of destruction by 2 times.
          Thus, this is a qualitatively new level in all respects.
          What about the specified picture.
          The module is obsolete since It is not handed down and does not have a peter. Therefore, it requires refinement in relation to modern conditions (without forgetting the electronic stuffing regarding ASUV).
        3. bask
          bask 12 December 2013 21: 15
          +2
          Quote: sapran
          and the "universal soldier" -

          BMP-T, in essence, is a universal soldier. Its task is to plug holes both in the offensive in the first line and in defense.
          The 57 mm projectile is good, the RP is greater than 30 mm.
          And the remote detonation of ammunition.
          Long and short bursts of fire, I think not who will not.
          And in the double-barreled version, the alternate use of trunks when shooting.
          But there is no need to copy the S-60, the length of the trunks can be shortened, the weight of the gun is facilitated by the use of composites and titanium.
    2. sapran
      sapran 12 December 2013 19: 49
      0
      but here I disagree with you. If the "sadness" in the interaction then one must blame someone else.
  18. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 12 December 2013 15: 20
    +1
    Of course, expensive docents poured a lot of water.
    Short:
    The infantry will lag behind in speed and will not support the tanks. Infantry in frail tins - even more so.
    Great tank support - another tank.
    A tank with a torn gun is not a BMPT.
    What's in the picture? The AGS selected were returned, the turret spark, only 4 missiles, and those were fired, there is no gun to launch them, and there is no ammunition in the main caliber.
    The best BMPT car -
    it will be the most robotic TANK, with an increased number of guidance channels.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 12 December 2013 15: 43
      +2
      I almost agree with this statement. The current will not be supported by this device tank, about the infantry in the TBTR
    2. recrut6666
      recrut6666 12 December 2013 18: 42
      +1
      so this is an old photograph, the grenade launchers were removed, the birds were protected.
      1. Andriuha077
        Andriuha077 13 December 2013 21: 30
        0
        In the new photo, ATGMs only defended with words. Grenade launchers promised to return.
  19. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 12 December 2013 15: 59
    +1
    Such a machine is definitely needed.
    And there is a use for her too.
    I thought a little and can offer you this:
    Make it a kind of ground attack aircraft and designate the Fire Support-Heavy Combat Vehicle (BMOP-T) for the ground forces (you can call the main point as you like).
    The main idea is to expand the range of its application by introducing a modular installation of weapons, depending on the combat mission.
    To do this, make weapons modules quick-change (I think that today it is technically possible).
    To additionally introduce firing systems into the arsenal of its armaments that allow firing not only along the lay, but also along the mounted trajectory (this can be done on the basis of PU missile weapons already on the machine, so as not to be wary with installing mortars, etc.).
    Add RPO type "Bumblebee" (larger caliber, this can also be done on the basis of the RV of this machine).
    Kal.30mm guns are quite suitable for solving most fire tasks and I think they don’t need to be touched, it also concerns the AGS and the PKT machine gun.
    As for the organizational structure in the troops, it is possible to assemble individual battalions (companies) from these vehicles directly in tank or motorized rifle units, and attach them as a means of reinforcement during military operations (i.e. where necessary).
    Such firepower I think will not remain without work.
    As for protection, these are the most protected vehicles of all our armored vehicles today.
    1. gallville
      gallville 12 December 2013 16: 21
      +2
      Quote: wanderer_032
      To do this, make weapons modules quick-change (I think that today it is technically possible).

      And who will drag them? And the training of personnel for so many types of weapons?
      Quote: wanderer_032
      To introduce additional weapons armaments into the arsenal of its armaments that allow firing not only along the lay, but also along the hinged path

      Battalion mortars than you do not like? =) The module from Nona to the T-72 or armature and now you have a self-propelled mortar instead of Sled.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Add type RPO "Bumblebee"

      BMPT can already shoot thermobaric charge from its own - it is much more effective than Bumblebee and more powerful because the caliber is higher. And the latter is best distributed to the infantry if necessary.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Kal.30mm guns are quite suitable for most fire tasks and I think you don’t need to touch them

      Will it strike a modern BMP in the forehead?)
      Quote: wanderer_032
      also concerns AGS

      Apart from reworking the hull, if you were in a tank, you can imagine something like stuffing another 2 people there .... And stabilization in one plane, I’m silent about the review. It’s better to stick it on the back of the module and remove 1 or even both shooters.
      Quote: wanderer_032
      As for the organizational structure in the troops, it is possible to assemble individual battalions (companies) from these vehicles directly in tank or motorized rifle units, and attach them as a means of reinforcement during military operations (i.e. where necessary).
      Such firepower I think will not remain without work.

      The most effective BMPT is seen only in parts with T-72 + BMP-2. Already in the presence of a BMP-3m with a DZ, the need for this machine drops sharply, as an armored RPG BMP begins to fully perform its inherent functions, which are currently leveled by an abundance of TCP assets.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 12 December 2013 17: 07
        -1
        Quote: gallville
        And who will drag them?

        And whoever does this today will be.

        Quote: gallville
        And the training of personnel for so many types of weapons?

        It is for this reason that professionals, and not temporary workers, should serve on such a technique for a year. In addition, there will be few machines of this type in service and people could find the desire and will.

        What battalion mortars do not suit you?

        A rocket can also be taught to fly along the mines trajectory, plus it can be made controlled and used more efficiently. Replacing a module with missiles is much easier than replacing a tower module.

        Quote: gallville
        BMPT can already shoot thermobaric charge from its bureaus

        But this is forgotten, sorry.

        Quote: gallville
        Will it strike a modern BMP in the forehead?

        And where did you see the BMP that withstands the turn of the BS from a 30mm cannon from the real distances of modern combat, show me the welcome. laughing
        And if there are any, then you can work on shells in terms of armor penetration.

        Quote: gallville
        also concerns AGS


        You can place it on the engineer’s head differently in order to think, and not just wear a hat. Speaking about the fact that they need to be left, I primarily meant it as a weapon entering the arsenal of the machine.
        As for the use, I suggested only one of the options for those who have a better suggest yours. wink
        1. gallville
          gallville 12 December 2013 19: 24
          +1
          Quote: wanderer_032
          And whoever does this today will be.

          Additional load on the rear units. Or expand them.
          Quote: wanderer_032
          It is for this reason that professionals, and not temporary workers, should serve on such a technique for a year. In addition, there will be few machines of this type in service and people could find the desire and will.

          And still, a professional both in mortar fire and in tank fire, and even something tama is alarming.
          Quote: wanderer_032
          A rocket can also be taught to fly along the mines trajectory, plus it can be made controlled and used more efficiently. Replacing a module with missiles is much easier than replacing a tower module.

          1. Price.
          2. Ammunition.
          3. Rate of fire.
          4. The speed of flight.
          5. ATGMs on both the BMP and the tank have enough, they just need to be improved.
          The idea of ​​a missile tank was still in the USSR. As a result, Sturm-S and Chrysanthemum were born. To be honest, I have never heard of the combat effectiveness of these devices.
          Quote: wanderer_032
          And where did you see the BMP that withstands the turn of the BS from a 30mm cannon from the real distances of modern combat, show me the welcome.

          BMP-3, modern modifications of Bradley and Marder, from the new Puma and Boxer, an American striker. All in the forehead hold 30mm BPS.
          And all this because of the presence of a 30mm caliber in a probable enemy for the Russian Federation it is China, for NATO - the Arabs, the Russian Federation, China.
          Quote: wanderer_032
          As for the use, I suggested only one of the options for those who have a better suggest yours.

          I suggested the posts above =) I am ready to see your opinion.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 14 December 2013 20: 45
            0
            Quote: gallville
            Additional load on the rear units. Or expand them.

            Well, it’s not for the crews to carry them on themselves. At the points of ammunition there is a small supply. And the main unit in the field warehouse.
            Quote: gallville
            And still, a professional both in mortar fire and in tank fire, and even something tama is alarming.

            Make the operator one modern weapon control panel (such systems have been used in aviation for a long time and the principle of this can be borrowed from there).
            I’ll say about missile weapons that it is possible to suspend the module from both NURS and ATGM. Depending on the task.
            The price in battle depends on the ability to hit the target from the first shot, and if possible, it is better than spending hundreds of conventional ammunition, which in the end costs much more.
            Sturm-S complexes were successfully used in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
            Chrysanthemum has been used in Libya. Positive feedback on both.
            You can search for more yourself, in the internet there is infa.
            At the expense of 30mm guns I will say that they need new ammunition. IMHO.
            And to defeat the "armor" there are the same ATGM.
            BMP and BMP-3 vehicles for other tasks, it is more a vehicle with the possibility of fire support, and not a tank, and even less a car for street battles (even with KDZ).
            I remain with my application.
  20. tchoni
    tchoni 12 December 2013 17: 53
    -1
    The question is why? What is BMPT able to do, what does the tank not do?

    Crush the pillboxes - the tank can do better.
    Destroy armored vehicles - the same.
    Fight anti-tank missile launchers and rocket launchers - multichannelism is needed both in detection channels and in destruction channels. Moreover, for a grenade launcher, weapons are redundant. It's easier to put a com. tank remotely controlled machine gun - and get the same effect.
    Fighting with helicopters - the same is unlikely. although by chance only if. For this, the range is too small and reconnaissance means - the cat burst into tears.
    Add Igla MANPADS as a weapon of last chance to the stowage of the tank - the effect will be the same.
    infantry does not provide
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 12 December 2013 18: 01
      +2
      Quote: tchoni
      The question is why? What is BMPT able to do, what does the tank not do?

      BMPT is a small caliber automatic weapon protected by TANK armor.
      This is for short.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 12 December 2013 18: 22
        +1
        Quote: Aleks tv
        This is for short.

        I will explain a little:
        Sometimes it’s not advisable to play with the main caliber or it will be too much (the tank is not rubber).
        But it is very necessary to unpack some "bad" crap with a 30-koy.
        BMP-2, for some, ahem ... reasons, it is undesirable to use in order to save the lives of fighters.

        This is where BMPT or BTR-T are needed.
        Something like that.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 13 December 2013 08: 46
          0
          Which one?
          At the pillbox, machine gun, ags, anti-tank guided missiles, an accumulation of more than 5 people. - the projectile is not a pity. On a lonely spirit target - 30 mm is excessive.
          Practice shows: that which does not crush with a type 7.62 caliber does not crush and a 30 mm cannon (or crush with a large hemorrhagic).
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 13 December 2013 14: 11
            0
            Quote: tchoni
            Practice shows: that which is not choked by a shooting caliber like 7.62 does not choke and 30 mm gun

            Your practice is strange ...
            Sorry, but there’s nothing more to add.
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 12 December 2013 18: 20
      +1
      For urban battles, the assault of fortified objects, support for infantry and tanks during an attack, where good protection and fire action with a high density of fire are needed.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 12 December 2013 18: 42
        +1
        Greetings, Alexey. Is it possible to place 30 at the top of the tower? Or is it already overload. I saw a photo of an experimental sample, there are already two ..
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 13 December 2013 08: 49
        0
        For urban combat, a caliber of 152 mm or 200 in general with a good high-explosive action is better: so that once invested, the staircase has developed. Because how to build a pillbox in the city - 2 fingers on the asphalt. And to shove 30 mm shells into a hole 10X15 cm. - the occupation is painfully hemorrhagic.
  21. gallville
    gallville 12 December 2013 19: 47
    +2
    Quote: Thunderbolt
    .And is it possible to place a 30-ku at the top of the tower? Or is it already an overload. I saw a photo of an experimental sample, there are already two ..

    Most likely you have seen the Slovak "Modern" with 23 mm.
    The problem is not setting the caliber. The problem is in its operation directly during the battle.
    1. The tank has the main targets are pillboxes, machine-gun nests (by the way, it was created against them), armored combat vehicles of various types, including a tank. The crew has no time to deal with a goal like "lonely spirit". This should be done by the artillery shaft, infantry, BMP (in that order). And as a last resort, he has a 7.62 machine gun in the tower and a 12.7mm zpu (which by the way breaks through brickwork).
    2. There is a saying - do not put all the eggs in one basket.
    1. Kars
      Kars 12 December 2013 19: 50
      +4
      Quote: gallville
      Most likely you saw

      There are quite a lot of them. Starting from the Leopard 1 with the 20 mm module, ending with the T-64E and the upgrades M60
    2. Kars
      Kars 12 December 2013 19: 51
      +2
      ________________
    3. Kars
      Kars 12 December 2013 19: 52
      +3
      ________________
      1. gallville
        gallville 12 December 2013 20: 13
        +1
        It was written there:
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        , there are already two ..

        According to this Art Nouveau =)
        And the t-64E looks beautiful of course, only who will use all this good?) Particularly pleased with the gunner's ACS. There’s nothing more to be done about how to shoot from the ACS.
        1. Kars
          Kars 12 December 2013 21: 55
          +2
          Quote: gallville
          According to this Art Nouveau =)

          on the same basis that there is no 30 mm, I can make a statement that it is not modern. Moreover, it is. Moreover, there 20 mm or one 30 mm. But that is not the point.

          Quote: gallville
          And the t-64E looks beautiful of course, only who will use all this good?) Particularly pleased with the gunner's ACS. There’s nothing more to be done about how to shoot from the ACS.

          Of course, the crew is not enough. But few people are embarrassed. They will want to take advantage of life. Moreover, at the same time, everyone does not need to use the net.


          Merkava is certainly easier, but there is also something to do with the loader.
          1. gallville
            gallville 13 December 2013 02: 39
            0
            Quote: Kars
            on the same basis that there is no 30 mm, I can make a statement that it is not modern. Moreover, it is. Moreover, there 20 mm or one 30 mm. But that is not the point.

            The bottom line is the person unsubscribed below. I guessed right =)
            Quote: Kars
            They want to take advantage of life.

            If you're lucky, of course. No matter how the battle order was not canceled. Why should the crew overload it?
            Quote: Kars
            Merkava is certainly easier, but there is also something to do with the loader.

            That's just in the t-64 it is not.
            1. Kars
              Kars 13 December 2013 13: 06
              +1
              Quote: gallville
              The bottom line is the person unsubscribed below. I guessed right =)

              Sometimes it happens.
              Quote: gallville
              If you're lucky, of course

              If you are not lucky then they will not fire from one gun.
              Quote: gallville
              No matter how the battle order is not canceled

              And why cancel it if it can be changed?
              Quote: gallville
              Why should the crew overload it?

              And who overloads him? He is given an additional chance for survival and increased combat effectiveness.
              Quote: gallville
              That's just in the t-64 it is not.

              and what? it’s said that it’s easier on merkava but there are 4 machine guns and a mortar gun.
    4. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 12 December 2013 20: 13
      +1
      Thank you, she). And still a little sorry. If this "Modern" could be given an all-aspect system of displaying the "battlefield" for the commander and gunner, it would be interesting. The reaction time of 23mm is faster, and the shells of the main caliber would be spent more economically. But if a brick wall breaks through and that's enough, then everything is clear.
      1. gallville
        gallville 12 December 2013 20: 17
        +1
        Quote: Thunderbolt
        Thanks, she)

        Always happy. hi
  22. chenia
    chenia 12 December 2013 21: 16
    +1
    Quote: avt
    .Even didn’t bother to strain and try to somehow attach to the Caucasian conflicts, to draw some little schemes from the times of past battles with the justification as if everything was fine, but you need to strain your brain on it. And if it is not? The concept of construction! ... la, no more, no less. Who and where are you going to build !? Science, understand. Delirium complete, not an article


    And why did you suffer so much? This idea is not 10 years old, but all 30. And this is due primarily to the gap between the infantry and tanks when, when transferring artillery fire (the boundary of safe removal), the infantry could not effectively cover tanks with fire when attacking an object.

    Secondly, in the depths of the enemy’s defense (with a less powerful anti-tank defense), to pass it without hurrying infantry (in Soviet times, we thought about the Rhine and the Seine, and not about the Terek).

    Thirdly, having large angles of vertical aiming, the problems of battle in the mountains and in the city were solved.
    And while having a degree of protection at the tank level.

    The best prototype, this is object 787, you only need to have a large tank turret with an 82 mm mortar gun with a 30 mm twin (I agree with the authors' suggestions), and on levers have to be paired with 7,62 mm machine guns (by the way, you can sculpt leverage on the situation , and other weapons –– does not occupy a place in the tower). AGS are required. And BMPT place in tank units.

    BMP-3 is an infantry vehicle, and is not able to go 50 - 70 meters behind the tanks.
    And there’s no need to fuck 100 mm (well, if you really decided to fight without artillery, then it’s off) because you won’t let your infantry go 250 m to the object, but from 82 mm you can get close to 150 m, then let the ACS go.

    Three 82 mm are superior in effect to one 100 mm (unless they are inferior in explosive action, well, there is artillery for this), and they occupy the same places. Moreover, 82 mm in cassettes can also be placed in the fenders, and a 100 mm carousel is needed, and the amenities behind the picket fence in the BO are unimaginable.
    1. gallville
      gallville 12 December 2013 21: 32
      0
      Quote: chenia
      you need to have a large tank turret with a 82 mm mortar gun with a coaxial 30 mm (I agree with the authors' suggestions), and on levers have to be equipped with the KPVT coaxial with 7,62 mm machine guns (by the way, you can sculpt leverage on the levers, and other weapons - places in the turret does not take). AGS are required. And BMPT place in tank units.

      Cruiser Aurora?
      82;30;30-гранатомет;14;7,62мм. =)
      82mm mortar. What does not suit an air blast from 57mm? they’ll let them even closer. And undermining they implemented years that way 60-70. And the BK 57mm is larger and the barrel itself is more compact.
      And so there are full-fledged mortars in MSBatallone and they need to be modernized.
  23. chenia
    chenia 12 December 2013 22: 16
    +1
    Quote: gallville
    What does not suit an air blast from 57mm? they’ll let them even closer. And undermining they implemented years that way 60-70. And the BK 57mm is larger and the barrel itself is more compact.

    And since there are full-fledged mortars in the battalion, they need to be modernized.


    Yes, perhaps you're right, instead of a twin 82 mm. and 30 mm, and at the same time the AGS (and for the BMPT in general it doesn’t even need a hinged trajectory), I agree with a large BC of 57 mm.

    In principle, you can work on infantry, and light armored vehicles (and in the stern and side and tanks) will succeed.

    But in the second part you are not careful - see above - the moment when the artillery stops working (transferring fire), the mortar battery (120 mm) is a participant in artillery preparation.
  24. chenia
    chenia 12 December 2013 22: 35
    +1
    Quote: gallville
    82mm mortar. What does not suit an air blast from 57mm? they’ll let them even closer. And undermining they implemented years that way 60-70. And the BK 57mm is larger and the barrel itself is more compact.
    And since there are full-fledged mortars in the battalion, they need to be modernized.


    Perhaps you're right, instead of a twin 82 mm. and 30 mm, and at the same time the AGS (and for the BMPT in general it doesn’t even need a hinged trajectory), I agree with a large BC of 57 mm.

    In principle, you can work on infantry, and light armored vehicles (and in the stern and side and tanks) will succeed.

    But KPVT is needed, it is not always advantageous to use a larger caliber, and it does not take up space outside the tower, but 7,62 - I think without questions.

    But on the second point, here you are not careful - see above - the moment when the artillery stops working (transferring fire), the mortar battery (120 mm) is a participant in artillery preparation.
    1. gallville
      gallville 13 December 2013 03: 04
      0
      Quote: chenia
      Perhaps you're right, instead of a twin 82 mm. and 30 mm, and at the same time the AGS (and for the BMPT in general it doesn’t even need a hinged trajectory), I agree with a large BC of 57 mm.

      I am not against AGS, it never hurts, it weighs a little to little sense.
      Here is 82mm. and 30mm. it’s better to change the gun to 57mm + BK.
      Quote: chenia
      But KPVT is needed, it is not always advantageous to use a larger caliber, and it does not take up space outside the tower

      14.5mm too large a device is better to replace it with a 12.7mm module. The effect of the same compactness is higher. I used to unsubscribe that not a supporter of 14,5 mm. precisely because of the weight and unification with the tank.
      Quote: chenia
      Well, 7,62 - I think without question.

      I agree to 57mm. the very thing.
      Quote: chenia
      But on the second point, here you are not careful - see above - the moment when the artillery stops working (transferring fire), the mortar battery (120 mm) is a participant in artillery preparation.

      Do not quite understand. But I will unsubscribe. At the time of the transfer of fire, 57mm + AGS and tank guns are working. For this period of time is more than enough.

      In general, the picture is seen:
      1. Modified brigades of "old technology"
      - BMP-2 Berezhok (on BMP AGS, MSA)
      - T-72
      - BMPT-72 (module above + AGS on the module, 3 people)
      - 30 vehicles combined arms brigade, company in the tank
      2. Brigades of a new type:
      - tank armata.
      - (T) BMP module 57mm + Ptur + 7,62 + AGS (in doubt, but will not be superfluous), a 12,7 turret for the commander personally, but how can I attach this turret to the external module?
      - inclusion in ASUV.
      In both cases, it is possible to add self-propelled mortars such as Nona (with the appropriate chassis).
  25. ko88
    ko88 13 December 2013 03: 05
    0
    it would probably be more relevant to develop and adopt a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with heavy armor, especially for local conflicts.
  26. Aristocrat
    Aristocrat 13 December 2013 11: 39
    +2
    The idea of ​​BMPT is similar to the creation during the 2-world anti-tank self-propelled guns.
    Possessing a more powerful weapon and sometimes more powerful armor for the SU, moving 300 meters behind the line of tanks successfully and fairly safely struck the main goal of the 2nd World Tank!
    The idea of ​​creating BMPT is a continuation of the good old tradition (albeit at a qualitatively different level). Other weapons are driven by new priorities. PT means are now compact and are carried 1-2 less often by 3 fighters. They have a small "area" and high stealth. Therefore, the BMPT has weapons capable of effectively and quickly fighting such an enemy.
    Nevertheless, the very usefulness of BMPT is still in question. Why? Because this machine still does not solve many problems. Moreover, they are solved much less than a heavy BMP! The need for which is obvious to absolutely everyone. The presence of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will not only reduce the loss of motorized rifle by several times, but will also allow them (motorized rifle) to fulfill their mission, the basis of which is support and protection of tanks!
    A tank is the main striking force of the ground forces. Infantry is a logical addition. Not tanks support infantry but infantry tanks! A heavy infantry fighting vehicle will allow you to act as moving behind the tanks, in their ranks and, if necessary, ahead of them! At the same time, destroy all tank dangerous targets (ATGM and RPG operators, and at the very least poor helicopters) as well as enemy tanks (ATGMs, 30-57mm caliber automatic weapons) and, of course, the enemy infantry from the entire range of weapons and small arms of the airborne assault.
    The appearance of a Heavy BMP would solve many problems and block the functions of the BMPT without complicating the structures and interaction.
    My personal opinion is that the future is for the modern BMP.
    Although a slightly redrawn BMPT would be nice to transfer to the PTV and even the VET in order to increase their combat effectiveness (IMHO at times).
  27. chenia
    chenia 13 December 2013 11: 41
    +1
    Quote: chenia
    14.5mm too large a device is better to replace it with a 12.7mm module. The effect of the same compactness is higher. I used to unsubscribe that not a supporter of 14,5 mm. precisely because of the weight and unification with the tank.


    You look at the object 787, there on the levers (pylons) of 30 mm, you just need a full-fledged tank tower. And 14,5 mm (a bullet three times heavier than 12,7) is intended for light armored vehicles, shelters in the form of brick walls when 57 mm of a lock.

    12,7 is for the commander (target designation), in an independent turret.

    The 40mm AGS already makes no sense (57mm overlaps very well - this is for 82mm. I suggested the AGS), the BMPT is still a unit of the tank unit.

    Well, 57 mm can very successfully perform anti-aircraft functions (for helicopters). So the idea is true.
  28. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 13 December 2013 12: 39
    0
    The aristocrat is burning, the BMPT T forward forward and she immediately began to steer :-D, sorry, but today I am a minuscator!
    I don’t understand what you are thinking of sitting, they’ll do everything without you, all the more so much depends on the customer, you’ll mash about 57-82 mm here, and the customer will come like a sickle with eggs. The idea with replaceable modules is generally futuristic, as well as the revival of their other objects, which did not even creep up to state tests. The S-60 variant is excellent, but there is a big BUT - this is an eato-luminous combat module + insufficient ammunition for such a caliber. Google the article, here is the first page, break the glue length. If you need to lay it out, there are 12 pages.
  29. Legioner
    Legioner 13 December 2013 13: 05
    0
    My opinion is that you need to put 30mm for the place of 57mm guns for a more confident hit of targets, and remove 2 grenade launchers, because the sense from them on the battlefield will be ZERO.
  30. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 13 December 2013 13: 18
    -2
    Sorry, you nup, why comment on the area you are not following, Google BMPT72. a beautiful thing happened, but they didn’t let me go in the hall with her at Expo on the weekend in the hall, even the media.
    1. Legioner
      Legioner 13 December 2013 18: 26
      0
      Who are you talking to ? If to me, then on a campaign you yourself do not know that from the "second world" course machine gunner in the "corps" on the battlefield they see nothing but earth and sky, from this conclusion WHERE are these TWO grenade launchers, who are not mythical people, but our specific children, brothers, fathers and grandfathers and will die, or rather burn out due to the fact that there will be no talk from them on the battlefield ZERO how offensive it sounded!
  31. samoletil18
    samoletil18 13 December 2013 13: 25
    0
    From the article and the discussion, I, if not a military specialist, developed 2 opinions:
    1) BMPT when adjusting to an acceptable level: the security of weapons and its optimization is a necessary thing.
    2) With the established interaction of types and arms, there is no need for it.
    But! Historical experience shows that one kind of army may, if not disappear, then be significantly blown away (Luftwaffe 1945). Whereas?
    And the main question arises: will someone develop a concept for the use of BMPT and give TTZ?
  32. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 13 December 2013 13: 36
    0
    There are smart people here, they write correctly. There was a layer between the armored vehicles and the infantry, let the one who writes that the infantry should cover the tanks be killed on Claudia! Sovereign peters hit from 2 km or more, and the tank drags sub-calibers, kamululyaty, rounds, not quite a lot of landmines, and the modern tank of a single infantryman cannot be burned at such a distance, that's why the BMPT concept is eaten. BTRT is not needed for the army, especially if we are not going to conquer the geyrop, BTRT is needed !, but only for any special operations, such as Beslan, and the capture of the theater, as well as for work in the city. In general, there is no such armor that would make equipment invulnerable in the city, here you still can’t do without infantry, or completely level the city with the ground. These are the BMPT icon concepts, and even if you rummage through the site on the same site, they’ll also saw heavy BMPs. BMPT-72 in the first export feature, for those who have a bunch of 72, patch them and go. Our Armed Forces are unlikely to catch it, they even close their eyes for 90ms, although it seems like there are achievements and for 90s, they are waiting for a new platform.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 13 December 2013 17: 10
      +1
      From BMPI - "to burn a single infantryman" is as difficult as from a tank. And to hit a "single infantryman" from a 30 mm cannon at a distance of 2 km - you have to be a sniper - I know I shot.
  33. sapran
    sapran 13 December 2013 16: 15
    +2
    There are such terrible text walls ...
    1. There is no clear concept and its justification (for what what ?)
    Where is this device useful to you:
    a) in global conflict
    b) counterguerrilla movement
    c) local conflict
    e) purely for export to the "banana paradise" and they decide whatever they want there.
    2) From the above, which state to include:
    a) to the tank crews (the base is the same, let the zampotech sweat)
    b) to the infantry (let them tank part-time, and hang the battalion's deputy)
    c) in VV, let them have a chance of something instead of tanks.
    e) Yes, send this "miracle Yudo" to sappers like in Israel.
    3. having gaps of this nature, it is natural that at the output we have "Swan with Cancer pike"
    a) one (assault-in-pocket version)
    b) others ("shilka" but to be equally armored from all directions)
    c) the third "six-winged seven ****" and that would be inexpensive !!!!!!!!!
    .... and all you need to deal with identified shortcomings and find a solution.
  34. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 13 December 2013 21: 17
    +1
    Quote: Legioner
    Who are you talking to ? If to me, then on a campaign you yourself do not know that from the "second world" course machine gunner in the "corps" on the battlefield they see nothing but earth and sky, from this conclusion WHERE are these TWO grenade launchers, who are not mythical people, but our specific children, brothers, fathers and grandfathers and will die, or rather burn out due to the fact that there will be no talk from them on the battlefield ZERO how offensive it sounded!


    Legio, yes, these grenade throwers have long been removed, he wrote, google BMPT-72

    In order to shoot people, it also has a thermal imager, then 30mm is not the best choice, it’s already half a ton of text. A machine in modern warfare is so necessary, it is only necessary to finish it. There, the Canadians are pushing the same 70-ton BMPs.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 16 December 2013 09: 12
      0
      People can be seen through the thermal imager at the same distance as through conventional optics - i.e. for a European theater of operations about a kilometer, and generally less. And this is due to the fact that the infantry does not go in formation. and more and more in green, but in gullies.
  35. Rex
    Rex 15 December 2013 08: 53
    0
    After all the "breaking copies", it remains to cross the BMPT with the "Tunguska" and get the Universal Combat Tank Support Vehicle - for all occasions. There is just the domestic experience of using ZSU against infantry ...