Projects of infantry fighting vehicles in NATO countries

43

US Marines land from their BMN M2A3 Bradley

Armed with guns BMP, created for motorized combat, are an integral part of the modern ground forces. Consider the latest developments in this area, conducted in the armies of NATO.

During a ceremony held on June 24, 2015 at the Unterlus test site, PSM Projekt System & Management officially handed over the first production Puma vehicle to the German army. For the army, this event became significant, since the third-generation BMP was adopted.

In the German army, the Puma infantry fighting vehicle will replace the Marder 1 tracked vehicle manufactured by Rheinmetall Landsysteme, which entered service in 1971. With the adoption of the tracked Schutzenpanzer SPz 12-3 in 1958, Germany became the first NATO country to develop and deploy a typical infantry fighting vehicle. The German army was not entirely convinced of the correctness of the then American idea of ​​​​an armored personnel carrier as a "combat taxi" that would land its infantry squad and hide in cover until the need to move the squad again arose.

Armed with a 20mm cannon, the SPz 12-3 BMP was perceived as a vehicle that could be used by an infantry squad rather as a regular weapon system than just a vehicle. The German army made a compromise here, as it needed heavier weapons and additional armor to participate in direct combat clashes. As a result, the BMP SPz 12-3 could take a squad of only five infantrymen. This car was also tormented by mechanical problems and, in the end, the German Ministry of Defense in 1960 issued a contract for the development of its successor.

Requirements for the future machine designation Marder 1 included: 20-mm cannon, the ability to carry 12 people (crew - commander, gunner and driver, and 9 infantry infantry unit), the ability for troops to fire from inside the machine. And again the German army was forced to compromise and accept that only six infantry could be accommodated in the aft troop compartment.


BMP Marder 1

Initially, the car had four loopholes, two on each side of the troop compartment; this allowed the landing party in the car to fire from personal weapons. But, starting from 1989, on the upgraded versions of Marder 1A3, these embrasures began to be closed with additional armor screens.

The Marder 1 BMP was never used in high-intensity combat operations, for which it was actually created, although it was deployed by the German contingent in the former Yugoslavia in the 90s and in Afghanistan in the 2000s, where improvised explosive devices became the main threat to this machine. (IED).


Marder 1A5

The army upgraded 74 Marder 1A3 vehicles to A5 standard in 2003-2004, installing additional armor to protect against mines and IEDs and reconfiguring the armored space to reduce injuries and shell shock from the explosion and shock wave. Some vehicles were upgraded to the A2010A2011 standard in 5-1 by installing an IED silencer, an air conditioning system and multispectral camouflage. Germany sold from the presence of its army 280 BMP Marder 1 to Chile and 50 vehicles to Indonesia; no doubt there will be other buyers for these machines.


The German army officially received the first 350 BMP Puma 24 June 2015

big cats

PSM (a joint venture between Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall) was awarded the contract to develop the Puma tracked vehicle in 2004. The initial need was determined at 405 vehicles, but in June 2012 Berlin reduced their number to 350 units, which was the result of a reduction in the size of the army; The last batch is scheduled to be delivered in 2020. The value of the contract today is 4,3 billion euros.

According to representatives of the PSM company, the main thing for the army was to develop an infantry fighting vehicle "with levels of protection that vehicles of this class do not have." Other key requirements included strategic and tactical mobility, firepower, situational awareness, network-centric warfare and command within an international coalition, combat readiness in extreme weather conditions with a minimum material and technical base, and, finally, interfaces with a friend-foe identification system. , the German information and control network FuInfoSyS C4I, with IdZ combat equipment and active protection systems.

The Puma BMP, like the Marder BMP, accommodates a crew of three plus six paratroopers. The installation of a remote-controlled tower allows all crew members to be placed in the vehicle body. The turret is armed with a 30 mm Mauser MK 30-2/ABM (Air Burst Munition) selective feed cannon and a coaxial 5,56 mm MG4 H&K machine gun (Heckler & Koch). The gun can fire armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles and air-blast ammunition with a remote fuse.

The German army plans to replace the MG4 with a new 7,62mm HK121 H&K machine gun, which allows the shooter to select a rate of fire of 600, 700 or 800 rounds per minute. On the left side of the tower are two launchers (PU) ATGM EuroSpike-LR.

The Puma infantry fighting vehicle weighs 31,45 tons in the basic Protection Class A configuration, which allows the vehicle to be transferred by the Airbus A400M transport aircraft, which is currently entering service with the German army. The Protection Class C kit adds 9 tons to the weight of the vehicle and consists of additional turret armor, armor plates on the roof and side panels that cover most of the sides and work like caterpillar screens. The additional protection kit is a combination of composite armor and dynamic protection units.

In accordance with the German military doctrine, Panzergrenadier motorized infantry battalions, which will receive the Puma infantry fighting vehicle, together with the battalions tanks Leopard 2s are recruited into armored divisions and undergo joint training at the tank training center in Münster. Three infantry companies of the battalion will receive 14 Puma vehicles each, two more vehicles will be given to the battalion headquarters, therefore, each battalion will be armed with 44 infantry fighting vehicles. The companies will receive their vehicles at the training center, undergo a three-month training there and then return to their positions with new Puma vehicles. The first of eight such battalions, Panzergrenadierbataillon 33, should reach full combat readiness in 2016.

Projects of infantry fighting vehicles in NATO countries

The LAV III Canadian Army manufactured by GDLS Canada is one of several BMPs based on the Piranha chassis.

Popular in Europe

The most widespread tracked infantry fighting vehicle in Europe is the CV90 manufactured by BAE Systems Hagglunds, which will soon be in service with seven countries. Its development began in 1984 in order to meet the need of the Swedish army for an infantry fighting vehicle that combines mobility, protection and firepower with a modular design in order to use this vehicle for other tasks, such as air defense. Deliveries of the first of 509 vehicles for Sweden began in 1993. Nearly 700 IFVs were sold, including to Denmark (45), Finland (102), the Netherlands (193), Norway (146) and Switzerland (186). Most recently, in December 2014, Estonia bought 44 CV9035NL infantry fighting vehicles from the presence of the Dutch army. Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish vehicles have been deployed in the fighting in Afghanistan.

Swedish CV9040 infantry fighting vehicles are armed with a 40 mm Bofors cannon, but all foreign customers chose 30 or 35 mm guns. The latest standard CV9035 Mk III significantly increased the combat capabilities of the vehicle. A 35-mm Orbital ATK Bushmaster III cannon, an independent commander's sight with search and strike capabilities, third-generation thermal imagers for the shooter and commander were installed, high-level protection was integrated, including protection against mines and cluster munitions, a combat control system, protection systems and a tire were installed. high-speed data transfer, and increased payload capacity for future upgrades.

In June 2012, Norway awarded BAE Systems a $750 million contract to upgrade 103 CV90s and build 41 new ones. Ultimately, the fleet will consist of: 74 infantry fighting vehicles; 21 reconnaissance vehicles with an optoelectronic observation station on the mast; 15 control points; 16 engineering vehicles; 16 multi-purpose vehicles that can be configured for various tasks, such as a mortar system or logistics, and two training vehicles.


Dutch BMP CV90

Norwegian upgrades include higher-level armor protection, digital electronic architecture, improved situational awareness system, the installation of a Kongsberg remotely controlled weapon station (RCWS) with a 12,7-mm M2HB machine gun on the roof on all variants with 30-mm cannons. This DBM can be used in search-and-attack mode and as an aiming system for a 30mm cannon, and it can also fire from the troop compartment. Two pre-production vehicles were delivered in February 2014 for extended testing, and the first production vehicle was handed over to the troops in February 2015.

The Swedish organization of defense procurement is also engaged in an extensive modernization of the entire fleet of Swedish CV90 infantry fighting vehicles, which will consist in installing a new battle management system, which will extend the life of the vehicles to 2030 of the year.

Finnish fighter

The project of the modular armored vehicle AMV (Armored Modular Vehicle) 8x8 by the Finnish company Patria has become popular, this vehicle is often chosen as an infantry fighting vehicle. In April 2013, the Polish Ministry of Defense signed a contract that provides for the joint production of 570 AMV 8x8 vehicles in Poland; there these machines received the designation Rosomak. This number included 313 infantry fighting vehicles equipped with an OTO Melara HITFIST-30P turret armed with a 30 mm MK44 Bushmaster II cannon. Rosomak machines have been deployed in Afghanistan since 2007. In October 2013, Poland ordered another 307 vehicles worth $544 million with deliveries scheduled through 2019, and issued separate contracts to upgrade 99 existing vehicles.

These contracts included 122 infantry fighting vehicles equipped with an uninhabited turret developed by the Polish companies HSW and WB Electronics and armed with a 30-mm cannon and two Rafael Spike ATGM launchers. According to the schedule, the development of this tower should be completed this year. Two battalions of the mechanized brigade, which are planned to be given to the NATO High Readiness Joint Task Force, will be the first units to receive new BMPs.


BMP AMV-Rosomak

The terms of the Polish contract with Patria make it possible to offer the Rosomak machine for export to other countries. In July 2015, Slovakia announced the purchase of 31 Rosomak 8x8 chassis worth $31 million, which will be equipped with TURRA 30 uninhabited turrets developed by local companies EVPU and DMD Group. In this configuration, the machines will receive the designation Scipio. Slovakia is expected to buy 66 vehicles to equip two battalions.

A demonstrator under the designation Rosomak-Scipio 8x8 was shown at the IDET defense exhibition, held in May 2015 in the Czech Republic. The TURRA 30 turret can accept Russian weapons, including a 30mm 2A42 cannon, a 7,62mm PKT machine gun and two 9K111 Fagot or 9K113 Konkurs ATGM launchers. At the IDET exhibition, the TURRA 30 turret was shown with a Western weapon system consisting of a MK44 Mod 1 Bushmaster II cannon and a 12,7 mm M2HB machine gun.

The South African Army has also chosen the AMV to meet its needs for infantry fighting vehicles. Denel Land Systems received a contract in September 2014 worth approximately $ 900 million for the supply of 238 Badger vehicles in four variants, including an infantry fighting vehicle equipped with a Denel LCT30 twin turret with a GI-30 30-mm cannon with selective power from the same company and twin 7,62, 18 mm machine gun. In addition to the crew of three, eight paratroopers are placed on energy-absorbing seats in the aft compartment of this infantry fighting vehicle. The first XNUMX Badger cases are supplied by Patria, while the rest will be manufactured at a local factory.

Pumped BMP BRADLEY

The BAE Systems Bradley Fighting Vehicle has been at the forefront of virtually all U.S. Army operations since it entered service in 1983. The tracked IFV in the M2 variant is in service with motorized infantry battalions, and the M3 variant is used by reconnaissance units as part of the ABCT armored brigade groups. The M2 variant is equipped with a two-man turret armed with a 25 mm M242 Bushmaster cannon, a coaxial 7,62 mm M240C machine gun and two TOW ATGM mounts. In addition to the commander, gunner and driver, seven people are accommodated in the aft troop compartment.

The Bradley has received numerous upgrades over its lifetime. The latest version of the A3 has digital electronics to enhance information awareness and enable network connectivity and data exchange within the ABCT. The Bradley A2 ODS-SA variant includes improvements such as anti-fragmentation liner and attachment points for hinged armor screens introduced after Operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991, plus the same capabilities as the A3 variant, including a laser rangefinder, GPS and navigation system.


Bradley A2 ODS-SA Option

Two U.S. Army initiatives to replace the Bradley in recent years have come to nothing. The first project was the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, according to which the Manned Ground Vehicle (MGV) family of ground combat vehicles was to be deployed, including the XM1206 armored personnel carrier, which was supposed to be armed with an MK44 cannon and 7,62 mm machine gun, carry two crew members and nine paratroopers. Budget cuts in 2009 led to the cancellation of the FCS program, without answering the question - "could the MGV provide sufficient protection against IEDs?"

Later, a project was launched on the ground combat vehicle Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV), according to which, starting from 2, it was supposed to deploy 2018 infantry fighting vehicles to replace the M1874 Bradley. The goal of this program was to develop an infantry fighting vehicle with better lethality and ballistic protection than the Bradley, better protection against mines and IEDs than the vehicles of the MRAP category and off-road patency comparable to the patency of the M1 Abrams tank. For this project, a key requirement was put forward to accommodate nine people in the troop compartment.

The army in 2011 issued a two-year technology development contract to BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). Facing cuts that would not allow the army to finance immediately the development of a new GCV machine worth 29 billions of dollars and proposals for constructive changes for existing machines, the army decided to abandon the first project in February 2014 of the year.

The Army is funding a phased modernization of the Bradley BMP in accordance with several proposals for structural changes, the first of which is to restore the volume, mass and power and install a new suspension system and lightweight tracks. The second proposal is a more powerful engine, new transmission and new electrical equipment.

In May 2015, the army awarded contracts to BAE Systems ($28,87 million) and GDLS ($28,27 million) to develop a technology concept for a promising combat vehicle until November 2016. Undersecretary of the Army Colonel Michael Williamson's report to the Senate Armed Services Committee noted that "The Army is investing in science and technology to refine concepts and technology that will enable combat vehicle requirements and reduce the risk of technology integration. This work will support a promising infantry fighting vehicle and at the same time maximize the ability to translate these technologies into current and future combat vehicles.

GDELS company developments

The ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle (Austrian-Spanish Cooperative Development - Austrian-Spanish joint development) was developed to meet the common needs of the armies of the two countries in a medium-weight tracked vehicle that would combine good survivability, mobility, reliability and firepower. Steyr-Daimler-Puch (now part of General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS)) manufactured 112 Ulan vehicles for the Austrian army. In turn, in 1992, Spain issued a contract to Santa Barbara Sistemas (now also part of GDELS) for the manufacture of the first batch of 123 Pizzaro infantry fighting vehicles and 21 control points. The BMP variant has a double turret with a 30 mm Mauser MK30-2 cannon and a coaxial 7,62 mm machine gun, eight paratroopers are placed in the vehicle.

In September 2003, GDELS received a contract to supply improved Pizarro vehicles, including 106 infantry fighting vehicles, as well as new surveillance, evacuation and engineering options. The last Phase 2 vehicles are expected to be delivered in 2016. The upgrades include an improved hull design, full digitization, a new power block, modern sensors, and improved stabilization and automatic target tracking.

In the IFV configuration, the Piranha 8x8 vehicles manufactured by GDELS-Mowag and the related LAV model manufactured by GDLS Canada were purchased by many countries. The newest generation Piranha 5 (the first in the 30 ton weight category) has significantly increased survivability, mobility and firepower compared to previous generations. Several towers were installed on this machine. As part of the Canadian melee vehicle project, GDLS installed a Rheinmetall Lance modular turret armed with a 30mm MK30-2/ABM. At IDEX in February 2015, GDELS showed a Desert Piranha variant optimized for the desert and fitted with a two-man 30/40mm Cockerill 3030/40 turret.

Modernization of the British WARRIOR BMP

The goal of the Warrior Capability Sustainment Program (Warrior Capability Sustainment Program) is to extend the life of the Warrior tracked infantry fighting vehicle in the British Army until 2040. The next step forward was taken in July when the Department of Defense awarded a $236 million contract to CTA International for 515 Cased Telescoped Armament System (CTAS) 40mm cannons for the WCSP program and the new Scout SV reconnaissance vehicle. Since 1987, the army has received 789 Warrior vehicles in several variants; relatively recently they were intensively exploited in Iraq and Afghanistan. The BMP accommodates three crew members and seven paratroopers in the aft compartment, the vehicle is armed with an unstabilized, clip-loading 30-mm L21 RARDEN cannon.


The Warrior infantry combat vehicle upgraded as part of the WCSP program

In October 2011, Lockheed Martin UK received a £225 million contract for the WCSP demonstration phase, but the Department of Defense has yet to issue a contract to upgrade 380 vehicles to recruit six mechanized infantry battalions. The company abandoned its original plan to upgrade the existing turret in favor of developing new turrets armed with CTAS. The upgraded Warrior BMP is scheduled to enter service in early 2020.

Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems offer Kuwait to upgrade its Desert Warrior 254 machines, which are equipped with a twin tower with a Bushmaster 25 gun.

Italian lines

The Freccia 8x8 infantry fighting vehicle was developed by the CIO consortium in order to meet the needs of the Italian army for an infantry fighting vehicle that could enter service with motorized infantry units. In turn, the armored brigades are armed with tracked infantry fighting vehicles Dardo. In 2006, the Italian army ordered 172 Freccia infantry fighting vehicles, 36 anti-tank installations, 20 command and 21 mortar systems. Deliveries that began in 2009 should be completed in 2015.


BMP Freccia

On the Freccia BMP, the HITFIST Plus turret was installed, armed with a selective-powered Xeri X-gun with Oerlikon KBA gun with selective power and an 25-mm machine gun paired with it. In 7,62, Rome approved the financing of the second batch of 2014 Freccia vehicles, including the 381 BMP, which are expected to receive upgraded undercarriage and power unit developed by the CIO for the Centauro 261 artillery mounts.

french fashion

Nexter will soon complete production of 550 VBCI 8x8 (Vеhicule blindе de combat d'infanterie) infantry fighting vehicles and 150 command variants intended for the French army. A similar 8x8 configuration was chosen in order to get a vehicle with good mobility and maneuverability, which could operate in the same battle formations as the Leclerc tank, but which would be cheaper compared to tracked infantry fighting vehicles, such as the AMX-10P (VBCI came to replace it ). The VBCI infantry fighting vehicle is equipped with a single-man Dragar turret with a 25-mm cannon, the vehicle accommodates a crew consisting of a driver and a gunner, and an infantry squad of nine people. A modular set of sheets of titanium-steel alloy is attached to the body of armored aluminum. At the beginning of this year, the army received the first 95 VBCI vehicles with enhanced armor and additional protection against mines and IEDs. But such an increase in protection did not pass without a trace, this upgrade kit increased the weight of the vehicle from 29 to 32 tons. The French BMP has completed combat service in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Mali. At IDEX 2015, Nexter showed a VBCI vehicle with a new two-man T40 turret armed with a 40mm CTAS cannon and a coaxial 7,62mm machine gun, which has ATGM mounts on each side.


Nexter installed its new twin-turret T40, equipped with CTAS 40-mm gun, on the VBCI BMP

Materials used:
www.janes.com
www.baesystems.com
www.kmweg.de
www.rheinmetall.com
www.patria.fi
www.nexter-group.fr
www.lockheedmartin.co.uk
www.iveco-otomelara.com
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    19 October 2015 06: 55
    The hell with him, with the chassis, whoever can, and that goes.
    But why do bourgeois have selective-powered guns, and most importantly, programmable ammunition? And we have..... am They are us on the effectiveness of weapons, like a bull to a sheep ....
    Well, we can’t create it ourselves, so faith doesn’t allow to stash or buy technology?

    Comrades, all this is sad crying
    1. +1
      19 October 2015 06: 59
      Quote: Corporal
      They are us on the effectiveness of weapons, like a bull to a sheep ....

      To hell with horns and howling into the fields? Who are these weapons and where have you tried?
      1. +2
        19 October 2015 10: 08
        For example, America used Iraq twice as a proving ground for its weapons) During the second campaign, as a percentage they used 20% of guided ammunition while Russia in the last war with Georgia only 0,7% or 1,7% well, very, very short few. Who is who, and America is fully testing its armament just like Israel.
    2. +3
      19 October 2015 08: 43
      great article good !!!
      Promising Russian BMP (Kurganets) MUST HAVE:
      strategic and tactical mobility, fire power, situational awareness, network-centric military operations and command and control within the framework of an international coalition, combat readiness in extreme weather conditions with a minimum material and technical base, and, finally, interfaces with the “friend or foe” identification system, the German information and FuInfoSyS C4I control network, with IdZ combat equipment and active protection systems


      without it, in a modern war, THIS (BMP) is just a piece of expensive iron !!!
      1. 0
        19 October 2015 12: 26
        It is. Only, judging by the video from the Military Acceptance, there is no armor on Kruganets as on previous machines.
        1. 0
          19 October 2015 15: 07
          What kind of military acceptance?
          1. +1
            19 October 2015 16: 40
            Program on Zvezda TV channel. Well, or you can watch it on their YouTube channel.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. The comment was deleted.
        4. 0
          20 October 2015 08: 56
          Quote: Forest
          Only, judging by the video from the Military Acceptance, there is no armor on Kruganets as on previous machines.

          Well no. The armor is very serious and this is stated in the video. Much is classified. Plus, KAZ is installed on Kurganets.

          1. 0
            21 October 2015 18: 08
            If you rewind the car assembly video, then thick sheets are not visible at all. DZ on such a cardboard can break through the armor.
        5. 0
          20 October 2015 08: 59
          Quote: Forest
          Only, judging by the video from the Military Acceptance, there is no armor on Kruganets as on previous machines

          and here is another video. Of course, data on dynamic protection is classified.
    3. +2
      19 October 2015 14: 45
      This is absolutely normal and most importantly logical over the past 25 years. What goals did the state and people set - in general, they achieved these ...
    4. 0
      16 October 2017 21: 35
      Selective nutrition? - Since 1980, it seems like 2A42. Programmable ammunition is not difficult (we already have it) and it’s not drop dead, more noise about the wooderwafer, Genosse CAPRAL forgot to mention telescopic ammunition as a weapon that can turn the world around, given that for 50 years now all BPS calibers from 30 to 125 mm have been essentially telescopic ammunition. I didn’t understand what to steal, what are the Papuans already able to do?
  2. +3
    19 October 2015 07: 43
    Selective power on 2a42 is, feed tape on both sides. A programmable fuse is convenient of course, but is it a peacetime PSU and is it suitable for 30mm? It would be necessary to update the range of 30mm AP shells.
    1. 0
      20 October 2015 09: 04
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It would be necessary to update the range of 30mm AP shells.

      There is infa that a 14 mm gun will be installed on the T-30 and a new line of ammunition has been developed for it.
  3. +6
    19 October 2015 13: 27
    Whatever you say, but NATO is still "doing" us according to "bekham". Of course, somewhere out there, "Kurganets" looms over the horizon, but ... while we live yesterday
    1. +4
      19 October 2015 20: 54
      I don’t impose my point of view on anyone, but looking at these sheds with outbuildings called infantry fighting vehicles, I will never believe in their high combat effectiveness. Ordinary armored personnel carriers or MCIs can well drive natives armed with small arms through the deserts. But on the battlefield with a comparable enemy, these pepelats will not support anyone and will be destroyed with particular success and pleasure "thanks" to their barn sizes. Tell me at least one of the above BMPs that can withstand a hit by an RPG-29 grenade or "Chrysanthemum"? There are no such. Then why these howls about enhanced armor protection? And tell me which infantry fighting vehicle has a better chance of surviving on the battlefield and heaping on the enemy, Pirana or Puma with 25-30mm cannons or BMP-3 with 100 / 30mm twins and a low silhouette ... Common sense itself shows that if you start a highly protected BMP, then only at the level of tank protection (as in the IDF), and everything else is half measures and a dead end. I would really like to hope that in the case of Kurganets, the designers reasoned just like that.
      1. +2
        19 October 2015 22: 08
        Quote: Nord
        but looking at these sheds with extensions called BMPs I will never believe in their high combat effectiveness. Ordinary armored personnel carriers or MPMs may very well drive aborigines armed with small arms in the deserts.

        MCI is purely infantry transport, taking from point A to point B-ALL !!!!

        Armored personnel carriers with machine-gun weapons, how to deal with ATGM operators, militants seated in the ruins of buildings, on armor ... vehicles ???

        for these purposes, and you need a BMP with a small-caliber carcass on the GSh / wheeled chassis ....
        ATK ... Ammunition for 25X137 mm systems play a decisive role. ATK (and its competitor, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems), GDOTS, is conducting its own research to produce high-explosive explosive ordnance.
        ATK produces standard 25-mm HE shells and training shells. At the same time, government orders for shells are issued by GDOTS. The latter also produces, armor-piercing subcaliber feathered tracer shells with detachable pallet (APFSDS-T) M919, armor-piercing shells (KE),
        http://www.army-guide.com/rus/article/article_1054.html


        30 mm Bushmaster III cannon (modern cannon, with air blast ammunition)
        1. +1
          19 October 2015 22: 25
          Quote: cosmos111
          30 mm Bushmaster III cannon (modern cannon, with air blast ammunition)

          This is yesterday. 40 mm CTAS is what you need. Although I prefer the 45 mm gun.
          1. +1
            20 October 2015 06: 59
            Quote: IS-80
            It's already yesterday

            we WOULD be such "yesterday" ....
            Quote: IS-80
            . 40 mm CTAS that's what you need

            we have at the moment, only 57 mm ....
            Quote: IS-80
            Although I prefer the 45 mm gun.

            developed, but about the test information did not see ...
            1. 0
              20 October 2015 09: 06
              Quote: cosmos111
              we have at the moment, only 57 mm ...

              All in all laughing
          2. 0
            16 October 2017 21: 39
            Explain the advantage of your prodigy. No other than the price :-)))
      2. 0
        16 October 2017 21: 38
        Kurgan warriors and rejected on these criteria barn size and armor neither your nor ours
  4. +1
    19 October 2015 14: 32
    Someone explain to me not far - I always thought that the BMP is tracked, and the armored personnel carrier. And here are such feints with wheeled infantry fighting vehicles. request
    1. +2
      19 October 2015 14: 58
      It doesn’t matter, the BMP is a truck delivering infantry to the meat grinder, and the BMP not only delivers but also supports it during the meat grinder, so tracks are usually placed on the BMP so that fragments and bullets do not ridicule and immobilize the equipment on the battlefield, and usually they have better sights and a slightly larger thickness of armor ...
      1. 0
        19 October 2015 16: 42
        The first one you probably meant was an APC.
    2. +1
      19 October 2015 17: 49
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      I always thought that the BMP is tracked, and the APC is wheeled. And then such feints with wheeled infantry fighting vehicles


      everything is written in the article ....
      The 8x8 configuration was chosen in order to get a car with good mobility and cross-country ability, which could operate in the same combat formations with the Leclerc tank, but which would be cheaper compared to tracked infantry fighting vehicles, for example AMX-10P

      it all depends on the application tactics and the expected theater of operations ....
      why wheeled ??? francs are going to nightmare the Papuans in Africa ... there goose / high cross is not needed there, mobility and a large turnaround time are needed ....
      Scandinavians, choose tracked CV-90 ....
      all modern BBM, modular type, GSH, wheeled multipurpose ...
      1. +4
        19 October 2015 19: 41
        Quote: cosmos111
        it all depends on the application tactics and the expected theater of operations ....
        This is probably the most important thing you noted. When they write that "and according to the" behams "NATO is still" making us "" (comment above from Dimon-chik-79), I want to ask, what kind of "beams" are we "making" when it is "Bradley", " Warrior or Marder were the best in the world? The concept of the BMP appeared in the USSR, in relation to our doctrine, and our geography. It is not correct to compare the BMP-1/2/3 with the same "Bradley", but even when comparing, even a "kopeck piece", especially a modernized one, is preferable for Russia. Starting thoughtlessly to produce a semblance of "Bradley" or a French wheeled monster is hardly a smart decision. The whole feature of the BMP is its versatility, which is perfectly embodied in the BMP-3 and its modifications, and the idea itself gave rise to the BMD, the best of which was the BMD-4M. If the purpose of the armored personnel carrier is mainly combat transport, then the infantry fighting vehicle is also equipped with enhanced means of fire support, for which you have to sacrifice something. In this sense, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will always be weaker than an infantry fighting vehicle, when, after dismounting, the infantry will begin to perform the functions of fire support, and more flawed than an armored personnel carrier in terms of transport functions. In addition, if a heavy infantry fighting vehicle climbs next to the tanks, then its defeat will lead to the death of not only the crew, but also the non-dismounted troops. Therefore, if we talk about heavy equipment at the tank base and next to the tanks, then the duet of the BMPT (like the BMP first created in our country) and the heavy armored personnel carrier (for example, based on the BMO-T) looks ideal. One vehicle specializes in fire support, the second in the delivery of troops (without getting ahead of tanks and BMPTs). In both cases, you can use the well-established and reliable T-72 / T-90 base.
        1. +3
          19 October 2015 20: 16
          Quote: Per se.
          "beham" NATO is "making" us for now "

          by bekh, if you take "pure iron", then I think NO ...
          they make us, by :
          1 small-caliber ammunition, with air / remote detonation ...
          Xnumx.instrumentation, situational awareness ...
          3 network-centric technology ...
          4. we do not have a single management information network ...
          there was no MTO in a single block, in Kurganets there is ...
          Quote: Per se.
          BMP-3 and its modifications

          in modification "Dragoon" with BM AU-220M with 57-mm automatic cannon AVT hi
          100 mm with such reservation, when hit by an RPG, 100%, detonation and *** the crew ...
          Quote: Per se.
          the best of which was the BMD-4M

          a very controversial BMP, BMP-3, in the "Dragoon" modification of 18 tons, could well fit as the main BMP for the Airborne Forces (unification with the army will reduce the cost of operating costs and reduce the cost of the BMP)
          Quote: Per se.
          for example, based on BMO-T). ABOUT

          I agree ... in heavy teams .... BUT the territory of Russia + the CIS, not Israel, the theater of war, maybe from the deserts of Middle Asia, to the Arctic ...
          Therefore, SR. BMP on the GSH and the wheeled chassis are simply necessary ....
    3. +1
      19 October 2015 18: 49
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Someone explain to me not far - I always thought that the BMP is tracked, and the armored personnel carrier. And here are such feints with wheeled infantry fighting vehicles.


      Igor, the BMP, in addition to transporting the landing force, also provides its fire support (usually a gun from 23 to 57 mm), the BRT is intended only for transportation, respectively, self-defense weapons (machine guns of various calibers). However (according to the National Interest magazine), such a classification existed somewhere until the end of the last century, and is not relevant at the moment. As for the current time, the range of opinions is so wide that it is probably difficult to answer your question. In the same magazine, one weirdo presented a version of the dependence of weight and chassis, but it does not hold water. The Israeli heavy armored personnel carrier (based on the T-55) is armed only with a machine gun, and our BTR-82A is three times lighter and wheeled, armed with a 30 mm cannon.

      Something like this, Dear. hi
      1. +5
        19 October 2015 19: 04
        Quote: Vladimir 1964
        In the same magazine, one weirdo presented a version of the dependence of weight and chassis, but it does not withstand any criticism. The Israeli heavy armored personnel carrier (based on the T-55) is armed only with a machine gun, and our BTR-82A is three times lighter and wheeled, armed with a 30 mm cannon.

        Here it seems to me that the strategy of use matters. Most of the Soviet-Russian equipment was created for a powerful strike against a potential enemy to the west, the main thing is a quick strike. Hence, it seems to me, both the speed and cannon armament on the armored personnel carrier, because with a quick strike, there is a high probability of running into retreating but still combat-ready units of the enemy. Israel proceeds from a different concept. Due to the size of the country, as well as the constant numerical superiority of the potential enemy, the safety of the crew was put at the forefront. In addition, I heard that there was a project with a cannon, but the military abandoned it so that too brave commanders would not the fathers rushed forward to attack, and did not ruin the equipment and landing.
        hi
        1. +1
          19 October 2015 19: 39
          Quote: Hello
          In addition, I heard that there was a project with a cannon, but the military refused it, so that too brave commanders would not rush to attack the father, and ruin the equipment and the landing.

          A strange point of view. Then, according to this logic, it’s necessary to take the cannon away from the tankers, otherwise it’s all of a sudden they will rush forward without cover and will ruin both themselves and the equipment, which is still very expensive. smile
          1. +3
            19 October 2015 20: 01
            Quote: IS-80
            A strange point of view. Then according to this logic tankers need to take away the gun
            What is strange in this point of view, and what does the tankers have to do with it? Israel very competently uses the peculiarities of its political position and its geography, according to which the Merkava is an ideal tank for the IDF. As for the sounded concept of using motorized infantry, for all its security, Namer is not an infantry fighting vehicle, but an armored personnel carrier, which should not climb ahead of tanks. How many critics had to read that there were already 5 (five!) Crew members on the BMPT, they say, if they kill, then instead of three tankers, five will die. And, right there, cheers for the T-15, which should go next to the tanks, and no one cares anymore that more than a dozen people will die if it is defeated if the landing force does not have time to dismount. After getting acquainted with the BMPT, the Israelis became very interested in this machine, one must think that it would not be difficult for them to create their own BMPT based on the Namer. If we talk about a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, then this is perhaps a good "police tank", equipment for the special forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, but it is unlikely that an army vehicle for a big war and Russia's features in such a war.
            1. -3
              19 October 2015 20: 11
              Quote: Per se.
              What is strange in this point of view, and where are the tankmen?

              Well, what do you mean? With a gun. Suddenly, the commander will feel like an invincible sword and shield of Israel and will rush into the attack without cover.
              Quote: Per se.
              then, for all its security, the Namer is not an infantry fighting vehicle, but an armored personnel carrier, which should not climb ahead of tanks.

              I know Cap.
              Quote: Per se.
              After getting acquainted with the BMPT, the Israelis became very interested in this machine, one must think, it will not be difficult for them to create their own BMPT on the basis of the Namer.

              We will see. But most likely, such a machine will be experimental maximum since it’s necessary to break down the regular structure of units to cut through tactics and other things, and they’re conservative people in the military and don’t like it. Don’t touch it.
              1. 0
                19 October 2015 20: 40
                Quote: IS-80
                Well, what do you mean? With a gun. Suddenly, the commander will feel like an invincible sword and shield of Israel and will rush into the attack without cover.

                That is why they did not make the cannon version, everyone should be engaged in their work.
                1. +1
                  19 October 2015 20: 52
                  Quote: Hello
                  That is why they did not make the cannon version, everyone should be engaged in their work.

                  And completely in vain. With a gun it would be better. You can flop and support your own immediately, and not wait until they arrive or artillery with tanks will be shot. In addition, not everywhere artillery and aircraft are convenient and possible.
                  1. +2
                    19 October 2015 21: 39
                    Quote: IS-80
                    And completely in vain. With a gun it would be better. You can flop and support your own immediately, and not wait until they arrive or artillery with tanks will be shot. In addition, not everywhere artillery and aircraft are convenient and possible.

                    You see, it’s not their job to go berserk; the main task is to deliver the infantry as close as possible to the battle. hi
                    1. +1
                      19 October 2015 21: 56
                      Quote: Hello
                      You see, it’s not their job to go berserk; the main task is to deliver the infantry as close as possible to the battle.

                      Why, then, you can’t flop? The machine is nearby, and heavily armored, which can carry a decent gun. Why can’t it be used for support? After all, it’s sometimes precious, not even minutes, but seconds.
                      1. 0
                        19 October 2015 22: 32
                        Quote: IS-80
                        Why, then, you can’t flop?

                        I already wrote about this dear
                        so that too brave commanders do not rush to attack the father, and do not ruin the equipment and landing.
                      2. +2
                        19 October 2015 23: 31
                        Quote: Hello
                        I already wrote about this dear

                        Brave commanders will still rush to attack even with a gun, even with a machine gun, even without them. This argument is just as fictitious as the arguments of our pre-revolutionary officials regarding the waste of cartridges in the soldier models of the Nagan revolver.
            2. +1
              19 October 2015 21: 06
              Quote: Per se.
              What is strange in this point of view, and where are the tankmen?


              Interesting comment, Sergey. hi
        2. +1
          19 October 2015 21: 04
          Quote: Hello
          so that too brave commanders do not rush to attack the father, and do not ruin the equipment and landing.


          Good phrase, Ilya, the original version, and probably has a right to exist. Well, essentially the commentary in general, perhaps here you are right, in general, it probably is, it is difficult to argue. hi
  5. +2
    19 October 2015 15: 42
    Thanks to the author for the review. I want to believe that there will be a continuation. After all, not even all NATO countries are covered in the publication. At the same time, there are projects that are not related to NATO projects (Finland-South Africa).
    For completeness, the BMP projects of Turkey would still be shown.
    1. +2
      19 October 2015 19: 02
      22 September 2015 year in the American city of Quantico (Virginia), the annual exhibition and symposium Modern Day Marine, Lockheed Martin Corporation for the first time introduced a wheeled BVM Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) for KMP SySyA

      Lockheed Martin participated in the competition for the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program / with 2014 of the year as APC ....

      initially jointly, Lockheed Martin developed an armored combat vehicle together with the Finnish Patria group, the Havoc armored personnel carrier - a modified version of the famous Patria AMV ...
      BUT in 2014, Patria refused to continue participating in the APC program ...

      BTR Lockheed Martin APC was developed with the participation of Merrill Aviation & Defense (Corps), Horstman (suspension) and Caterpillar (MTO)

      Lockheed Martin APC has a combat weight of over -20 tons, a Caterpillar diesel engine with an output of -711 l / s., With automatic transmission, 60 mph highway speed, afloat using two water cannons - 5 nodes ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +3
        19 October 2015 19: 39
        Quote: cosmos111
        22 September 2015 of the year in the American city of Quantico (Virginia) the annual exhibition and symposium Modern Day Marine


        BAE Systems / Iveco LVW-1 (Superav)

        General Dynamics Piranha ACV


        STK/SAIC Terrex 2

        http://naval.dfns.net/2015/09/25/photo-from-modern-day-marine-2015/
  6. +1
    19 October 2015 18: 50
    Of all the BMP described by the author, the German version (Puma) looks the most perfect. Especially in terms of booking and SLA with an uninhabited tower. The only minus the price. Although the Swedish version is not much worse (but again the price).
    I hope they will not be too smart with the price with the "Kurganets" and BMPT based on "Armata".
  7. +2
    19 October 2015 18: 51
    The article is simply magnificent, I have not read it with such interest for a long time. Many thanks to the author, very informative. hi
    1. +2
      19 October 2015 19: 37
      Still to add data on the reservation in general would be fine.
      1. +2
        19 October 2015 19: 39
        Quote: bairat
        Still to add data on the reservation in general would be fine.


        I agree, Dear Airat. hi
  8. +1
    19 October 2015 20: 10
    But to be honest - I do not understand BMP as a class of armored vehicles. An attempt to cross a bulldog with a rhino, i.e. An armored personnel carrier with a tank, it seems to me, was initially doomed to failure. You’d be welcome back in the thirties, of the last century, when anti-tank weapons and tactics of their use existed in their infancy - no, the 20th of the next ...
    I know. that with this idea of ​​his he already got all the fans of motorized rifle troops on this site, but, I repeat c. probably the thirtieth time: "A pair of a tank and a heavy armored personnel carrier are driving on a modern battlefield. The first crushes enemy firing points, the second delivers infantry with minimal losses to the point of the mission on the battlefield and provides logistical support." And if you need a light support vehicle, take a robot and arm it. Nyakhay them from the same TBTR operator controls.
    1. +1
      19 October 2015 20: 58
      Quote: tchoni
      And if you need a light support machine - take a robot and arm it

      It doesn’t seem to you that the difference between an armored personnel carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle, more in the name and having at stake not a frail own mass, not grief and arming them with a small high-speed automatic robotic cannon, obviously does not hurt. As a matter of fact, both of them, there is nothing more than an armored bus for transporting personnel in conditions of increased danger to him. The use of a separate robot will also not hurt, but not using an armored vehicle as a carrier of not very heavy weapons is surprising and rather irrational, at least from any position.
      1. 0
        21 October 2015 19: 08
        Quote: venaya
        I don’t think that the difference between an armored personnel carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle is more in the name and not at stake weak weight, not grief and equip them with a small high-speed automatic robotic gun,

        No, it doesn’t. difference in purpose. BTR - carries. BMP - is fighting. The presence of a gun will prompt the commanding staff to send an armored personnel carrier to fight instead of fulfilling its main functions .. In addition, serious artillery requires a serious SLA. This leads to an increase in the cost of the entire structure ...
    2. +3
      19 October 2015 21: 30
      Quote: tchoni
      But to be honest - I do not understand BMP as a class of armored vehicles.


      in Tsakhal, they also do not understand and use MBT + BTR (M113) / BTR-T, which would not be offered by Rafael (Samson 30 Mk2 DBM, ATK MK44 gun with 30 mm caliber, etc.)) are not accepted for service ... such tactics ....
      Quote: tchoni
      An attempt to cross a bulldog with a rhino, i.e. Armored personnel carrier with a tank,

      THIS, if you install an 100 mm gun on an infantry fighting vehicle ....

      the small-caliber guns Flak 30 auf on the Sd.Kfz 10 / 4 armored personnel carrier, were also used by the Wehrmacht in the Second World War, they worked on lightly armored BT and T-26 and infantry ...

      Quote: tchoni
      "On the modern battlefield, steam from a tank and a heavy armored personnel carrier is driving.

      in urban development and the breakthrough of layered defense -YES ...

      and what will they drive the homeless in the desert in Syria and here in Middle Asia ...

      on tanks and BTR-T for small groups ??? is it for these purposes that wheeled infantry fighting vehicles with 30-57 mm guns are needed ...
      1. 0
        21 October 2015 19: 13
        Quote: cosmos111
        and what will they drive the homeless in the desert in Syria and here in Middle Asia ...

        For this we have aviation. And only aviation. Moreover, there is an excellent experience - the experience of Afghanistan. moreover, aviation is not only shock. but also the transport component. In Chechnya, the "mobile block post" set up with the help of aviation was quite justified in the same way. Now here's Syria.
        And since it was the pinned to send a ground group, then for these purposes in the Russian army there is currently a good series of MPAP "typhoon" .. + all sorts of "tigers" there. And to write off the old BTR-70-80 for scrap while in full force is not worth it.
    3. +1
      20 October 2015 02: 49
      again you are old.
      they came up with everything before us and for us. all counted.
      Well, we cannot now line up the galactic battlecruisers and cover them three in a row with one Death Star.
      In one place of asteroids we can’t stand a lot of the line, in another the distance between the planets does not allow us to taxi, in the third - the hyperdrive does not work due to gravitational disturbances ...
      .
      you are an incorrigible idealist
      1. 0
        20 October 2015 07: 06
        Quote: Disant
        you are an incorrigible idealist

        That's for sure....
      2. 0
        21 October 2015 19: 28
        I am not an idealist. I'm realist. Because, as I had never suggested, anyone would transfer all motorized rifles of the Russian Federation to tank troops and rename them panzergrenadiers :-)
        In the army, everything must be balanced.
        There should be tank divisions (brigades) in which the T-BTR - full-time equipment and infantry are included in the platoon (say two tanks + 2 TBR + 20 infantry - platoon (just an option, it might even be better if the tank is one)) - the task - assault actions - in the city, in the field, is not important (in this regard, it is thought that the divisions should have specialization)
        There should be motorized rifle units equipped with equipment based on a standard army vehicle (including armored vehicles for transporting personnel). Saturated with a large number of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Their task is to ensure the retention of already occupied lines, control of the flanks of the grouping, in the event of a breakthrough or lack of a front, a swift offensive. (it is obligatory to include special engineering units, giving army and reconnaissance aviation, so here the organization in the form of a brigade is more successful)
        Internal troops - on the basis of the same standard army vehicle, only with a slightly different way of organization. fewer heavy weapons and some training of personnel. focused on interaction with the "peaceful" population. (First of all, sapper units, electronic warfare and RTR units, a small number of aviation, the form of organization, it is thought that the brigade, but I don’t know there)
        Well, let’s say, units with special tasks, such as the Airborne Forces, the Marines and Special Forces. Here, both the form of organization and equipment must be special and meet the goals and objectives of the units.
  9. +1
    20 October 2015 03: 41
    by article:
    in the first photo BMP M2A3 Bradley
    - bag for armor - this is something new. apparently instead of mounted armor
    - The rear hatch is excellent. how does he rise?
    - fucking big du.ra (the whole structure)
    German cougar (photo of two cars)
    - unusual, and I would even say beautifully and intimidatingly. technically
    Photo LAV III Canadian Army production company GDLS Canada
    - Can he fire in the back hemisphere? the rear piling doesn’t interfere? looks like hello from the sixties.
    photo BMV AMV-Rosomak
    - the language doesn’t turn to be called terrible BMP .. (they’ll fill the price)
  10. 0
    20 October 2015 07: 58
    as a general ozbor a good article ........... but alas, nothing new.
  11. 0
    20 October 2015 22: 34
    Why do some BMPs be made so high, are there soldiers or something like holding a handrail on the bus. The high profile makes the BMP a good target for a grenade launcher, and you can’t hide everywhere on the ground.
    1. iAi
      0
      23 October 2015 19: 25
      Some BMPs are made high so that it is convenient to shoot on top of the terrain screen itself.
      More height means roominess, convenience and comfort.) Yes

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"