Military Review

Infantry support combat vehicle. Is she needed?

140
The experience of fighting in Syria, as well as the failure of the IDF in actions against Hezbollah, raises the question of the effectiveness of existing armored vehicles (BTT) in urban combat and when the enemy uses elements of "gallery defense" (defense using underground communications).




Mutually exclusive tasks arise before the BTT, which the same CAA has to solve, bringing outdated ZNS 23-4 Shilka and 2С3 SAU Acacia of the caliber 152 mm to the direct lead. The main battle tank with the caliber of 100-122 mm is unable to repulse the enemy’s massive counter-attack on a short distance, to riddle the reinforced concrete structure in which the sniper or the ATGM calculation was noticed, or to demolish this building with a single projectile.

The main battle tank itself turns out to be prey in urban combat, its security is insufficient. But even worse is the security of “Shilka” and “Acacia”. What can we say about the BMP and BTR, which were completely unable to support the infantry in such conditions!

The vulnerability of armored personnel carriers can be leveled tactically by launching infantry in front of it. Here, the BTT will only have to suppress the identified firing points, being outside the zone of destruction of the enemy’s anti-tank weapons. But it must be an exceptionally well-prepared and motivated infantry, insensitive to their own losses. In addition, modern anti-tank weapons provide such a defeat distance that the infantry will actually detach from the armored personnel carrier with corresponding consequences.

Another solution to the problem is to create an infantry support combat vehicle. Such a machine in stories there were already Wehrmacht assault guns until they turned into a means of combating tanks.

What requirements in modern conditions could be placed on an infantry support combat vehicle?

1. Security at the level of the main battle tank, and preferably higher.

2. The presence of low-ballistics gun caliber 152 mm with a high angle of elevation. A smaller caliber does not provide a solution to combat missions in urban combat, does not provide for the rapid destruction of reinforced concrete structures, the destruction of the exit points of galleries to the surface, dots. Here you need a high-explosive projectile of high power, the ability to hit the target with both flat and hanging fire.

3. Combining the barrel 152-mm guns of low ballistics with launcher ATGM. Theoretically, such a combination looks attractive, but in practice, the American Sheridan / Shileila program has failed. It is necessary to study the reasons for this failure and find out whether the old flaws of the system are eliminated at a new technological level.

4. The presence of a small-caliber automatic gun, paired with the main one, performing the role of sighting and insuring when the enemy suddenly appears, when the main gun is discharged. 30-mm gun 2А42 is quite suitable for these purposes: it is able to penetrate the standard reinforced concrete panel and hit the sniper, calculate the ATGM, quickly destroy enemy vehicle technology, hit lightly armored objects, such as BTR, BMP. It lacks only remotely activated ammunition to combat the infantry.

5. Preferably the presence of AGS in a remotely controlled installation, as an antisurge agent.

6. It is desirable to have a remote-controlled paired installation of large-caliber machine guns, caliber 12,7-14,5 mm as an anti-assault means and means of dealing with the enemy's UAV and aircraft.

In principle, an infantry combat support vehicle can be made on the basis of obsolete main tanks, paying special attention to the means of dynamic protection and jamming.

It remains an open question about how generally such a machine fits into modern concepts of BTT and its use. But on the other hand, maybe it is not worth creating a combat tank support vehicle. Perhaps, her role with success will be played by a different machine, and more demanded in a real battle?
Author:
140 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ICT
    ICT 11 January 2016 07: 06
    10
    in general, such a machine fits into modern BTT concepts

    watching the Syrian war (and donbass too)
    in general, you are wondering about the tactics of an armored column in an attack, in cases they will even burn the same armature FROM a corner, and even with modern anti-tank systems
    1. qwert
      qwert 11 January 2016 07: 53
      +1
      So there is nothing tanks to do in the city
      1. ICT
        ICT 11 January 2016 07: 58
        +3
        Quote: qwert
        So there is nothing tanks to do in the city

        and in the field what to do request
        1. Darkmor
          Darkmor 11 January 2016 08: 32
          24
          There is one serious logical error in the argument.
          An infantry support vehicle, this is an infantry fighting vehicle - and you will have to put up with it.
          And from this you will have to dance when trying to make an effective support machine.
          Because the BMP will not work just to throw.
          So either we make good infantry fighting vehicles, or we make bad infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers for transportation + to them, in addition to the same number of specialized infantry support vehicles. Guess which of the options will the command choose (recall the story with the "terminator" for which there is no government order)?

          In general, we immediately dismiss the option without a compartment for transportation. And now we are starting to think.
          For transportation, a certain speed and patency is needed, which imposes a weight limit. So to push tank armor and 152mm artillery will not work.
          Yes, and this is not necessary - if you stumble upon a concrete bunker, give the coordinates of artillery or aircraft, after 15 minutes a smoking funnel will be in place of this bunker. A concrete bomb or a thermobaric shell knows their job.
          What is really needed is a means to suppress firing points in ordinary buildings and on roofs, because within 15 minutes of approaching an attack aircraft, an enemy can already change position 5 times.
          To solve this problem, you need, firstly, a weapon capable of firing at such elevation angles, and secondly, an effective detection system (so that ATGMs are not detected at the moment of firing, but at the moment of switching on its electronics or activating target illumination).

          Regarding the guns - you need to break through the concrete, or brick wall of the panel house.
          To shoot on roofs, you need a mortar (cheap and effective), or a gun with remote detonation of ammunition (expensive, but takes up less space), well, or such excess charge power to simply demolish the building’s cover when firing on the top floor.
          Let's try to pick a complete set for the task:
          It’s either 30 (57mm) + mortar, or it’s 57mm and above with extra. ammunition of special shells, or it is 100 (125) mm with a large elevation angle.

          Of the innovations, I would consider the possibility of using the NURS cassette on the BMP. Naturally, not aviation ("Prev Afghani creativity"), but specially designed for ground vehicles for medium-range firing.
          1. SPACE
            SPACE 11 January 2016 09: 50
            +1
            Still an urgent task. And its best solution is this http://topwar.ru/39776-koncepciya-karagach.html
            The article itself describes the concept of such a universal combat vehicle-combiner, in the comments the tactics of use. It is on such machines that one needs to enter the city, high security, three independent observation and firing stations at all 360 degrees, give a high reaction and the ability to quickly transfer fire to the sectors of the shelling or its concentration, as well as the presence of a mortar and ATGM, maximum fire concentration of various means of destruction in the limited scope of urban development, several cars will be able to create a continuous zone of control of the surrounding space, they will be able to cut off piece by piece urban areas for stripping, where the assault Jelenia will be much easier to take control of the objects ...
          2. gladcu2
            gladcu2 11 January 2016 16: 18
            +2
            Monomet is a firing point suppression system.

            It is about support at a distance of a direct shot.

            The tulip is already there
          3. svp67
            svp67 11 January 2016 18: 45
            +1
            Quote: Darkmor
            There is one serious logical error in the argument.
            An infantry support vehicle, this is an infantry fighting vehicle - and you will have to put up with it.

            This machine really needs the ability to counter airborne hazards ...
          4. Andrew Iwanow
            11 January 2016 23: 36
            +3
            Quote: Darkmor
            There is one serious logical error in the argument.
            An infantry support vehicle, this is an infantry fighting vehicle - and you will have to put up with it.
            And from this you will have to dance when trying to make an effective support machine.

            - There is no mistake, not without reason I wrote in the article - “The question remains as to how much such a machine fits into modern concepts of BTT and its use.” Meanwhile, modern concepts of using BTT are not considered probable conditions for battles in urban areas, with enemy use of "gallery defense". Prior to Hezbollah, nobody made bets on gallery defense, except for DPRK generals. And now - this is the reality of modern hybrid warfare. It is no coincidence that in the West they began to fantasize about the modification of MBT into a “city tank”.
            The niche for the Infantry Support Fighting Vehicle objectively exists. It should be a machine that replaces Shilka and Acacia as a means of direct support. But possessing, unlike ZSU and self-propelled guns, security, ensuring survival on the battlefield.
            Quote: Darkmor
            Because the BMP will not work just to throw.
            So either we make good BMPs, or we make bad BMPs / BTRs for transportation + to them in the appendage the same number of specialized infantry support vehicles.

            - What does “bad” mean? Am I proposing to abandon the APC and switch to protected trucks? What is the need for a deterioration in the combat qualities of an armored personnel carrier? They are necessary and sufficient in conditions of non-urbanized terrain, in the absence of "gallery defense" of the enemy.
            On the other hand. Syrian experience shows that the “good” IFVs and armored personnel carriers are frankly bad in battles in urban areas and are not able to support the infantry due to their own weak protection.
            Quote: Darkmor
            In general, we immediately dismiss the option without a compartment for transportation

            - Manstein rolled over in his coffin. It didn’t occur to him to combine an assault gun and an armored personnel carrier.
            Quote: Darkmor
            So shove the tank armor and 152mm artillery will not work.

            - Why? "Weight Limit"? I clearly indicated that this is a LOW BALLIST gun, it is a light short-barreled howitzer gun. In comparison with the 125-mm tank gun, we also get a significant gain in weight, which can be used to enhance protection. Compare the combat weight of the low-ballistic guns, for example 150-mm sIG-33 (1 700 kg) and normal ballistic howitzers (note, not guns, it’s even heavier) D-30 (5 650 kg). Is there a difference in weight? By the way, the D-81 tank gun without a classic carriage weighs 2 350 kg. The gain will be somewhere in a ton - let DZ at least in two layers.
            Quote: Darkmor
            Yes, and this is not necessary - if you stumble upon a concrete bunker, give the coordinates of artillery or aircraft, in 15 minutes there will be a smoking funnel in place of this bunker.

            - In urban combat, a concrete bunker is everywhere. For 15 minutes, an infantry attack breaks down, the armored vehicles supporting it are burned, and then it remains only to rely on the accuracy of coordinates and the accuracy of the fire strike. The IDF did not like this situation in the last war, but the Jews learned to fight, it is not easy to confuse them. But they did, despite the absolute superiority in aviation and artillery. Here we need a machine that keeps pace with the infantry, and destroying the target seconds after it opened fire.
            1. Darkmor
              Darkmor 12 January 2016 09: 08
              0
              It should be a machine that replaces Shilka and Acacia as a means of direct support.

              Do you understand that, combining several roles in one machine, you overlap their individual effectiveness?
              The anti-aircraft complex should not be at the forefront in development - buildings interfere with its radar and reduce the effective firing sector.
              Moreover, artillery should not be in a hostile building, they choose a special position for it, which allows them to effectively shoot through this very building.
              Am I proposing to abandon the APC and switch to protected trucks?

              And what are you proposing to refuse? Because pushing a car just doesn’t work out in the appendage - you have to shove it INSTEAD of some cars (and approximately at their cost).
              So choose what to cut - artillery, air defense or infantry fighting vehicles with tanks.
              Since you are proposing to use the machine on the front flank, I logically assumed that you were replacing it with either an MBT or an IFV.
              It didn’t occur to him to combine an assault gun and an armored personnel carrier

              We can fantasize about a spherical horse in a vacuum as much as we like. Designing a tank with artillery of air defense systems, high-speed cannons, a flamethrower, and even a short-range ballistic missile is, in principle, possible. But in reality this, at best, will be a museum exhibit, and not a serial military model.
              it's a light short-bore howitzer gun

              This is even worse. Carry a heavy ammunition load of 152mm shells, and have a gun that is unable to give out enough muzzle energy to disperse these shells to give them the desired range, accuracy and armor penetration, except when shot at point blank range.
              In addition, also have a problem with separate loading of the projectile.
              In urban combat, a concrete bunker is everywhere.

              No - a concrete bin, it’s a concrete bin. The building is the building. An ordinary prefabricated house is flashed through with a sub-caliber tank shell.
              An infantry attack breaks down in 15 minutes

              Did the enemy concrete bunker sneak up and stop the attack?
              If you, as a commander, do not know about the location of enemy fortifications and the approximate disposition of his troops, you are a worthless commander. Or you have bad horseradish intelligence - that too is your fault. And if at the same time you send people to slaughter, then this is generally a war crime.
              And the problem here is not the lack of a machine, which should all of your, as a commander, level out miscalculations.
              and the Jews learned to fight

              Honestly, I have a very skeptical attitude to the ability of Jews to fight :)
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 12 January 2016 13: 58
                +1
                Quote: Darkmor

                it's a light short-bore howitzer gun

                This is even worse. Carry a heavy ammunition load of 152mm shells, and have a gun that is unable to give out enough muzzle energy to disperse these shells to give them the desired range, accuracy and armor penetration, except when shot at point blank range.

                You write nonsense. From Nona \ Vienna no one expects firing at 20 km, and this is the alleged 152mm gun and will be their armored counterpart, but with enhanced direct-fire firing capabilities, guided ammunition and enhanced capabilities for interacting with infantry.
                Range provides shooting on a ballistic trajectory;
                accuracy - short-range direct fire, or guided canopy;
                armor penetration - cumulative ammunition, managed and not.
                Quote: Darkmor

                In urban combat, a concrete bunker is everywhere.

                No - a concrete bin, it’s a concrete bin. The building is the building. An ordinary prefabricated house is flashed through with a sub-caliber tank shell.

                And what harm will the concrete building do? Nothing. A hole in the wall with a diameter of 20cm. Podkalibernye effective only when firing at the bearing supports, for example a bridge. On a panel building - just the expense of expensive shells.
                Quote: Darkmor
                An infantry attack breaks down in 15 minutes

                Did the enemy concrete bunker sneak up and stop the attack?
                If you, as a commander, do not know about the location of enemy fortifications and the approximate disposition of his troops, you are a worthless commander. Or you have bad horseradish intelligence - that too is your fault.

                Hmm, I'm afraid that you are badly familiar with the tactics and theory of urban combat, and you don’t know that the bunker appears in place of any basement window in half an hour.
                And apparently you have no idea what flanking fortifications, oblique fire, and the like are.
                And you don't know what an unexpectedly "opened" machine gun, working point-blank, can do with the squad. What are you doing him, artillery attack?
                Believe me, scout all trained firing points are absolutely impossible. Plus, as you move, the enemy will leave barriers.
                if at the same time you send people to slaughter, then this is generally a war crime.

                And about people for slaughter ... There is such a word - order, and if you received it, then you need to carry out, despite the delirium (and delusional orders in the army at least 50%, this is an axiom).

                Honestly, I have a very skeptical attitude to the ability of Jews to fight

                Well, in vain
                1. Darkmor
                  Darkmor 12 January 2016 15: 00
                  0
                  No one expects 20 km firing from Nona \ Vienna

                  A motorcycle rides faster ...
                  What does Nona have to do with it?
                  You understand the difference between a 120mm self-propelled self-propelled gun, which has bulletproof armor, and which is designed to fire from closed positions - and what the author offers is a 152mm howitzer capable of hitting reinforced concrete objects, while maintaining direct fire support for infantry in direct contact with the enemy ?
                  And what harm will the concrete building do? Nothing.

                  And to suppress the firing point you definitely need to level the whole building to the ground?
                  Have you ever been in a building that shoots at least 30mm armor-piercing incendiary?
                  Hmm, I'm afraid that you are badly familiar with the tactics and theory of urban combat, and you don’t know that the bunker appears on the site of any basement window in half an hour.

                  And you, I'm afraid, sucks can read other people's messages. It was about a bunker that you cannot hit with regular means of MBT - i.e. specialized fortified building. For this, the author suggested carrying a 152mm gun on a machine.
                  And about people for slaughter ... There is such a word - an order

                  And what does the presence / absence of a promising infantry support vehicle have to do with it?
                  Or do we now need a child prodigy to execute idiotic orders with less loss?
                  Well, in vain

                  Israel has excellent intelligence and counterintelligence, excellent special services - but it is precisely in terms of "fighting" that they are weak, and therefore suffered losses where there should have been no losses in their intelligence and the work of the special services.
          5. The comment was deleted.
          6. Andrew Iwanow
            11 January 2016 23: 49
            0
            Quote: Darkmor
            There is one serious logical error in the argument.
            An infantry support vehicle, this is an infantry fighting vehicle - and you will have to put up with it.
            And from this you will have to dance when trying to make an effective support machine.

            There is no mistake, it’s not without reason that I wrote in the article - “The question remains as to how much such a machine fits into modern concepts of BTT and its use.” Meanwhile, modern concepts of using BTT are not considered probable conditions for battles in urban areas, using an adversary of the “gallery defense”. Prior to Hezbollah, nobody made bets on gallery defense, except for DPRK generals. And now - this is the reality of modern hybrid warfare. It is no coincidence that in the West they began to fantasize about the modification of MBT into a “city tank”.
            The niche for the Infantry Support Fighting Vehicle objectively exists. It should be a machine that replaces Shilka and Acacia as a means of direct support. But possessing, unlike ZSU and self-propelled guns, security, ensuring survival on the battlefield.
            Quote: Darkmor
            Because the BMP will not work just to throw.
            So either we make good BMPs, or we make bad BMPs / BTRs for transportation + to them in the appendage the same number of specialized infantry support vehicles.

            What does “bad” mean? Am I proposing to abandon the APC and switch to protected trucks? What is the need for a deterioration in the combat qualities of an armored personnel carrier? They are necessary and sufficient in conditions of non-urbanized terrain, in the absence of "gallery defense" of the enemy.
            On the other hand. Syrian experience shows that the “good” IFVs and armored personnel carriers are frankly bad in battles in urban areas and are not able to support the infantry due to their own weak protection.
            Quote: Darkmor
            In general, we immediately dismiss the option without a compartment for transportation.

            Manstein rolled over in his coffin. It didn’t occur to him to combine an assault gun and an armored personnel carrier.
            Quote: Darkmor
            So shove the tank armor and 152mm artillery will not work.

            Why? "Weight Limit"? I clearly indicated that this is a LOW BALLIST gun, it is a light short-barreled howitzer gun. In comparison with the 125-mm tank gun, we also get a significant gain in weight, which can be used to enhance protection. Compare the combat weight of the low-ballistic guns, for example 150-mm sIG-33 (1 700 kg) and normal ballistic howitzers (note, not guns, it’s even heavier) D-30 (5 650 kg). Is there a difference in weight? By the way, the D-81 tank gun without a classic carriage weighs 2 350 kg. The gain will be somewhere in a ton - let DZ at least in two layers.
            Quote: Darkmor
            Yes, and this is not necessary - if you stumble upon a concrete bunker, give the coordinates of artillery or aircraft, in 15 minutes there will be a smoking funnel in place of this bunker.

            In urban combat, a concrete bunker is everywhere. For 15 minutes, an infantry attack breaks down, the armored vehicles supporting it are burned, and then it remains only to rely on the accuracy of coordinates and the accuracy of the fire strike. The IDF did not like this situation in the last war, but the Jews learned to fight, it is not easy to confuse them. But they did, despite the absolute superiority in aviation and artillery. Here we need a machine that keeps up with the infantry, and destroying the target seconds after it opened fire.
          7. Andrew Iwanow
            12 January 2016 00: 27
            -1
            Quote: Darkmor
            There is one serious logical error in the argument.
            An infantry support vehicle, this is an infantry fighting vehicle - and you will have to put up with it.

            There is no mistake, it’s not without reason that I wrote in the article - “The question remains as to how much such a machine fits into modern concepts of BTT and its use.” Meanwhile, modern concepts of using BTT are not considered probable conditions for battles in urban areas, using an adversary of the “gallery defense”. Prior to Hezbollah, nobody made bets on gallery defense, except for DPRK generals. And now - this is the reality of modern hybrid warfare. It is no coincidence that in the West they began to fantasize about the modification of MBT into a “city tank”.
            The niche for the Infantry Support Fighting Vehicle objectively exists. It should be a machine that replaces Shilka and Acacia as a means of direct support. But possessing, unlike ZSU and self-propelled guns, security, ensuring survival on the battlefield.
            Quote: Darkmor
            Because the BMP will not work just to throw.
            So either we make good BMPs, or we make bad BMPs / BTRs for transportation + to them in the appendage the same number of specialized infantry support vehicles.

            What does “bad” mean? Am I proposing to abandon the APC and switch to protected trucks? What is the need for a deterioration in the combat qualities of an armored personnel carrier? They are necessary and sufficient in conditions of non-urbanized terrain, in the absence of "gallery defense" of the enemy.
            On the other hand. Syrian experience shows that the “good” IFVs and armored personnel carriers are frankly bad in battles in urban areas and are not able to support the infantry due to their own weak protection.
            Quote: Darkmor
            In general, we immediately dismiss the option without a compartment for transportation.

            Manstein rolled over in his coffin. It didn’t occur to him to combine an assault gun and an armored personnel carrier.
            Quote: Darkmor
            So shove the tank armor and 152mm artillery will not work.

            Why? "Weight Limit"? I clearly indicated that this is a LOW BALLIST gun, it is a light short-barreled howitzer gun. In comparison with the 125-mm tank gun, we also get a significant gain in weight, which can be used to enhance protection. Compare the combat weight of the low-ballistic guns, for example 150-mm sIG-33 (1 700 kg) and normal howitzer D-30 (3 200 kg). Is there a difference in weight? By the way, the D-81 tank gun without a classic carriage weighs 2 350 kg. The gain will be somewhere in a ton - let DZ at least in two layers.
            Quote: Darkmor
            Yes, and this is not necessary - if you stumble upon a concrete bunker, give the coordinates of artillery or aircraft, in 15 minutes there will be a smoking funnel in place of this bunker.

            In urban combat, a concrete bunker is everywhere. For 15 minutes, an infantry attack breaks down, the armored vehicles supporting it are burned, and then it remains only to rely on the accuracy of coordinates and the accuracy of the fire strike. The IDF did not like this situation in the last war, but the Jews learned to fight, it is not easy to confuse them. But they did, despite the absolute superiority in aviation and artillery. Here we need a machine that keeps up with the infantry, and destroying the target seconds after it opened fire.
        2. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 13 January 2016 09: 25
          0
          The same as in a city to fight ... To fight skillfully and effectively ...
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 11 January 2016 08: 23
        27
        Quote: qwert
        So there is nothing tanks to do in the city

        Edward, this is the most common newfangled pattern.

        When fighting in the city, assault units are created, divided into various groups. Military equipment is part of the Fire Group.
        The coordinated interaction of ALL groups of the unit, as well as contact with the forces of a higher commander - this is the condition under which the task will be completed.
        When fighting in the city, TACTICS decide everything.
        And by the way, the main striking force of the assault unit is the foot soldier.
        The OG technique covers it with fire and "cleans" the surrounding landscape. He also covers the equipment ITSELF (plus interaction with other groups).

        About the "city tank":
        Of course, it would not be bad to have such a specialized fool, but it is too narrowly "sharpened", by the way it can be applied not in all settlements, think about it.

        And more:
        Visiting BM with large-caliber fluff, small fry, AGS and a pair of heavy machine guns is not realistic. It will turn out a vulnerable mammoth, and the crew will confuse the variety of weapons.
        The author writes with good intentions, but the prodigy will not save.

        The tank is quite capable of fighting in the city, of course, in conjunction with other equipment and other weapons.
        By the way, it is precisely the SMALL caliber that is lacking under the protection of the TANK armor.

        Desired exhaust gas composition using an old-style technique:
        - T-72B,
        - BMPT,
        - BMO-T,
        - IMR-3
        - The technique of a specific theater.
        Those. BMPT is needed as air.

        The desired composition of the exhaust gas on the technique of a new sample:
        - T-14,
        - T-15,
        - IMR-3
        - The technique of a specific theater.
        In this case, TBMP solves the problems of BMPT and heavy armored personnel carrier.

        ............
        TACTICS of application and interaction, and again TACTICS.
        1. WUA 518
          WUA 518 11 January 2016 08: 42
          11
          Quote: Aleks tv
          TACTICS of application and interaction, and again TACTICS.

          Comment on "five" points! drinks
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 11 January 2016 08: 54
            +3
            Quote: WUA 518

            Comment on "five" points!

            Hello, Sanya.
            You don’t forget to cover the air from the air, and then everything will finally get hurt.)))
            drinks
            1. WUA 518
              WUA 518 11 January 2016 08: 58
              +3
              Quote: Aleks tv
              and then everything will finally get hurt.)))

              Be a whistle spock laughing
        2. max702
          max702 11 January 2016 09: 10
          +3
          Quote: Aleks tv
          ACTICS of application and interaction, and again TACTICS.

          This is what the article says The BTT’s vulnerability can be leveled tactically by deploying infantry in front of it. Here, the BTT will only have to suppress the identified firing points, being outside the zone of destruction of the enemy’s anti-tank weapons. But it should be extremely well-trained and motivated infantry, insensitive to their own losses. But the question is, where to get one? Yes, even in the necessary quantity .. Now it is not the Second World War and there are no millions-strong armies that are resistant to losses and due to "natural" selection eventually leave the best of the best, modern weapons, unlike during the Second World War, simply do not give time to become experienced and skilled soldiers , alas, but often everything is decided by chance, as well as competent interaction of all branches and troops (but organizing this requires enormous forces and means, as well as long preparation times), no matter who it hits an untrained recruit or an elite special forces soldier (death from RPG7 in Afghanistan, a group of US specialists who took Bin Laden as an example). And there is an abundance of such means in the modern game of battle .. As the practice of recent conflicts shows, the tactics of a "barrage" in the modern version are effective, everything else very often depends on the case, that is, a lot of difficult factors to take into account.
          1. Andrew Iwanow
            12 January 2016 00: 09
            0
            Look at the root! I would plus, but I can’t - a beginner.
          2. Andrew Iwanow
            12 January 2016 00: 50
            0
            All right. I would plus, but I can’t - a beginner.
        3. IS-80
          IS-80 11 January 2016 09: 57
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          About the "city tank":
          Of course, it would not be bad to have such a specialized fool, but it is too narrowly "sharpened", by the way it can be applied not in all settlements, think about it.

          And if the city tank and BMPT? So it turns out that BMPs are now called BMPTs, which in my opinion is quite logical.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Visiting BM with large-caliber fluff, small fry, AGS and a pair of heavy machine guns is not realistic. It will turn out a vulnerable mammoth, and the crew will confuse the variety of weapons.

          AGS nafig. Crew 4 people. The armament is a short-barreled low-ballistic gun of 125-152 mm with the possibility of launching anti-tank missile systems, an automatic gun 45 mm, a machine gun 7,62 in the turret and several modules 12,7 and 7,62. With the proper degree of automation, nothing will be brought down.

          Quote: Aleks tv
          The desired composition of the exhaust gas on the technique of a new sample:
          - T-14,
          - T-15,
          - IMR-3
          - The technique of a specific theater.

          - BMOS
          - T-15
          - IMR-3
          - The technique of a specific theater.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 11 January 2016 10: 44
            +2
            Quote: IS-80
            AGS nafig. Crew 4 people. Armaments short-barreled low-ballistic gun 125-152 mm with the possibility of launching anti-tank missile systems

            For a large-caliber "short barreled" will have to make a completely new car. It is much easier to install AGS (indispensable in the city) and ATGM remote blocks. All this is already on the T-15.
            1. IS-80
              IS-80 11 January 2016 15: 12
              0
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              For a large-caliber "short barreled" will have to make a completely new car. It is much easier to install AGS (indispensable in the city) and ATGM remote blocks. All this is already on the T-15.

              AGS has no explosiveness and brisance. Mounted ATGMs are vulnerable to damage, limited ammunition, it is difficult to reload in battle, making the crew vulnerable, the cost is higher than the general physical structure, it is impossible to shoot with a canopy.
            2. Andrew Iwanow
              12 January 2016 00: 52
              +1
              "Under the large-caliber" short-barreled "will have to make a completely new car."
              - Why? The weight of the low ballistic gun is lower. The momentum is lower. Dimensions are tolerant.
          2. Aleksandr72
            Aleksandr72 11 January 2016 12: 16
            +4
            In general, you propose to revive the old concept at a new technological level - the American M60A2 (remember this one?) Was also equipped with a 152-mm low ballistics gun - the Shileila ATGM launcher (the same as on the light M551 Sheridan), somewhat re-armed car. True, the Americans set before him another task - the destruction of the armada of Soviet tanks with the help of ATGMs. The M60A2 tanks turned out to be unsuccessful and were partially re-equipped with the usual 105-mm M68, partially converted into engineering equipment. You can also recall the earlier sapper tanks of the British and the same Americans in World War II and even our pre-war KV-2 - and that in the tower there is a 152-mm howitzer with a powerful HE shell against fortifications and infantry. But this is like everything ... it’s redundant or something - it is enough to re-equip the same "Armata" T-14 (at least part) with a 152-mm gun - PU (especially since such a project is already being actively developed) and provide its support in combat with active, well-trained and motivated infantry (like German assault groups and Soviet sappers from assault brigades during the Great Patriotic War) and armored engineering vehicles. And such infantry must be consistently and persistently trained even in peacetime, creating a mobilization reserve in case the war goes into an active phase - this will require an increase in the number and intensity of training of ground forces even in peacetime by increasing the conscript contingent and organizing a system of its retraining - by contract soldiers alone here is not enough. I personally do not see any other way out - not a single most advanced technique on the battlefield (no matter in the forest, in the mountains, in the city or in an open field) will replace the infantry.
            I have the honor.
            1. Andrew Iwanow
              12 January 2016 01: 01
              0
              "In general, you propose to revive the old concept at a new technological level - the American M60A2 (remember this one?) Was also equipped with a 152-mm low ballistics weapon - the Shileila ATGM launcher (the same as on the light M551 Sheridan), several after equipping the car. "
              - Of course I remember. BUT, I propose to revive a fundamentally different thing - the concept of an assault weapon capable of following the British method - "to keep pace with the infantry, withstand enemy fire and suppress it."
              "You can also recall the earlier sapper tanks of the British and the same Americans in World War II and even our pre-war KV-2."
              - Better remember the German "Brumbar" - quite a successful, at least somewhat overloaded with armor machine, which did not become a hit of the season solely due to the general defeat of the Wehrmacht and modest capabilities in anti-tank combat. But the ATGM in the barrel decides here.
              As for your proposals for the preparation of infantry, I completely agree.
          3. gjv
            gjv 11 January 2016 15: 11
            +2
            Quote: IS-80
            And if the city tank and BMPT? So it turns out that BMPs are now called BMPTs, which in my opinion is quite logical.

            And if such a "unmanned" tachila is used?

            30A automatic gun 2A72, coaxial 7,62-mm machine gun, anti-tank guided missiles "Attack".
        4. 72jora72
          72jora72 11 January 2016 11: 22
          +1
          When fighting in the city, TACTICS decide everything.
          So she and in the field decides everything .... and in the green
        5. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 11 January 2016 11: 40
          +5
          Block settlements with an ordinary army, and storm with special brigades. UAVs, including and disposable robots, possibly special protected assault vehicles. Bulldozers, flamethrowers, bulk ammunition, non-lethal WMD. Have you seen gas masks at the Syrians? If a barrel of tear gas is thrown into a house or tunnel, what will happen? Everything has long been invented before us, you just need to correctly organize the application, there are problems with this.
          1. Andrew Iwanow
            12 January 2016 01: 03
            0
            Do you propose to storm the city with one infantry? And the wunder-bulldozers?
        6. Andrew Iwanow
          12 January 2016 00: 08
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          When fighting in the city, TACTICS decide everything.

          I agree. But this does not deny that the infantry must have adequate means of fire support for combat in urbanized areas, when breaking through the "gallery defense." If practice is the criterion of truth, then you should reproach the CAA for using ZSU and ACS on direct fire as a means of supporting the infantry under the aforementioned conditions. with a deliberate risk of losing weakly protected equipment.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          And by the way, the main striking force of the assault unit is the foot soldier.
          The OG technique covers it with fire and "cleans" the surrounding landscape. He also covers the equipment ITSELF (plus interaction with other groups).

          “Again, I agree.” This tactic was tested during the last Chechen one and showed its effectiveness. However, raising the issue of infantry quality. A fork forms - it is impossible to have a simultaneous combination of the qualities of elite and mass infantry. And how, for example, to make up for the loss of elite infantry marching in front of tanks?
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Visiting BM with large-caliber fluff, small fry, AGS and a pair of heavy machine guns is not realistic. It will turn out a vulnerable mammoth, and the crew will confuse the variety of weapons.

          But when will I disagree with you? And here I agree - I went too far with AGS, as did the creators of BMPT. A small-caliber sighting gun in the form of a pair with the main one, this is not a malfunction in weapon control, but a pleasant bonus. But as a complement and a pair of heavy machine guns enough to clean the upper floors and fire on the aircraft.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          The author writes with good intentions, but the prodigy will not save.

          The assault gun was not the Wehrmacht's Wunderfeif, if you recall the story. On the contrary, it was a workhorse for all occasions.
          Quote: Aleks tv
          BMPT is needed as air.

          And here I do not agree. From my point of view, BMPTs are not needed in real combat. It will not help BTT replace infantry, that with BMPT, that without it, BTT cannot independently capture and hold positions. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the link of direct infantry escort. And then it turns out that the infantry assault gun is the best BMPT.
        7. Andrew Iwanow
          12 January 2016 00: 49
          0
          “When fighting in the city, TACTICS decide everything”
          I agree. However, all and not all. No, three times perfect tactics will not make up for the lack of adequate means of fire destruction of the enemy. And not 15 minutes after identifying the target, but immediately.
          “The main striking force of the assault unit is the Footman.”
          I agree again. Familiar with the tactics of "infantry ahead of tanks" tested during the last Chechen. However, it is impossible to mix in one bottle the advantages of mass and elite infantry. The more trained the infantry, the harder it is to make up for losses. And she will carry them, going ahead of the tanks. On the other hand, you’ll pick up massive, but weak infantry from the ground, it’s only following the tank.
          "Of course, it would not be bad to have such a specialized fool, but it is too narrowly" sharpened ", by the way, it will not be possible to apply it in all settlements,"
          - The Wehrmacht assault guns were “narrow-minded dumb”? I ask you not to confuse the idea of ​​an assault gun - an infantry support vehicle with a still-born OBT clone - a “city tank”.
          “Visiting BM with large-caliber fluff, small things, AGS and a pair of heavy machine guns is not realistic. This will result in a vulnerable mammoth, and the crew will confuse the variety of weapons. ”
          - I agree with the criticism. As for the ACS, I followed in the footsteps of the creators of BMPT, and in vain. An automatic gun paired with a main gun is not critical for controlling fire, on the contrary, it is a bonus mastered by tankers on a coaxial machine gun. And as for the additional one, the remote control of the krupnyka spark is enough for fire on the upper floors and aircraft.
          “The author writes with good intentions, but the prodigy will not save.”
          - An assault gun is not a prodigy, but a workhorse for all occasions of infantry life.
          "Those. BMPT is needed like air. ”
          But here I do not agree. She is not needed for nothing. It only creates the illusion that tanks can capture and defend lines, while this is an infantry matter. And here the assault gun is the best BMPT.
      3. svp67
        svp67 11 January 2016 18: 40
        +1
        Quote: qwert
        So there is nothing tanks to do in the city

        And who will support the infantry?
      4. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 13 January 2016 09: 24
        0
        ))) And who is there and what will he do?
        Where without tanks? ))) Someone will tell me how to attack and break through the enemy’s front without tanks at all? )))) ...
        Now for the tactics:
        City:
        In Chechnya, our tankers, working in INTERACTION with the infantry and even artillery, squeezed the militants out of the cities ... The infantry identifies the enemy's line of defense and its firing points - tanks come out to work on them, moreover in pairs (they have a low B / C, the upper tanks are "dry" tanks, of course, there should be DZ), one tank works on the enemy (moreover, while maneuvering the tank does not expose the enemy any vulnerable spots not protected by DZ, that is, the stern and once again the sides), the other covers it and monitors, then they change - then they another pair changes - they went to replenish the B / C and such a carousel until it becomes clear that the infantry will be able to go a little forward and occupy the next house, block ... Then the next enemy line and firing points are revealed and again a tank carousel !!! And so to the very outskirts, house after house, line abroad, our tanks squeezed the militants out of the city, and in the mountains and in the open they were covered with artillery and aviation !!! If there is a need, the infantry, through spotters and gunners, directs artillery and aviation to the targets, if you need to cover something from above ... Interaction, communication and tactics are the basis of victory in the city, however, as elsewhere !!!
        Field:
        Here again, the war in Chechnya developed the following tactics - tanks attack together with motorized riflemen, only they sit inside the infantry fighting vehicle and fire through loopholes ... Ahead of such an advancing armada, artillery fires tightly and carries it forward at the speed of the advancing grouping, besides other calculations artillery fire directly at our group, with high-explosive and shrapnel ammunition undermining them in the air over our entire advancing group, creating fragmentation rain ... We get a fire shaft that carries everything in its path and moves deep into the enemy’s fortifications, miraculously surviving work tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and arrows from them, and over them it is raining from fragments, which will not allow you to shoot from around the corner at the tank at close range, but just sitting out at the bottom of the trench will not save either a helmet or armor !!! For such tactics of using troops, again, interaction and training are needed ...
        Why this happens not always and not everywhere, because it’s a sin to conceal in our army more display than preparation ... The inspection commissions are more concerned with the cleanliness of the barracks and the evenness of the stripes on the blankets, the commanders of units of companies, battalions, regiments are littered with huge stupid paper work) )) ... Therefore, Russian soldiers will again have to learn to fight only in the war, and not in front of it, having lost a bunch of equipment, people and the territory of our country before it ....
    2. max702
      max702 11 January 2016 09: 57
      +9
      Regarding tanks and a specialized BMPT, it seems to me that everyone forgets such a detail, the classic and main threat to a tank was always considered to be another tank of this very powerful weapon and a projectile capable of penetrating a meter with more armor, this is where the standard booking scheme from WWII comes from, that is, + \ -30 "frontal armor with the equivalent of 1m + homogeneous armor steel, and it is this indicator that determines the same weight of 50-60t, but why does everyone forget that at the present stage the main threat is CUMULATIVE ammunition! I’m sure if you take the statistics, it turns out that cumulative ammunition will take 90% of all losses 4-5% for mines 2-3% for artillery and only 1-2% for shells of tank guns, both caliber and sub-caliber .. The tank in its modern form is primarily a tank destroyer, especially in Western tank building, until recently they had no HE shells .. And recall when there was a real conflict, the massive use of a tank against a tank? I recall the war in Iraq in 91, and how it turns out there the lion's share was destroyed by aviation and ATGM calculations again armed with weapons with CUMULATIVE ammunition! And if people started talking about battles in an urbanized area (and recently this is 90% of all databases), then it’s very difficult to effectively engage a tank in its specialization as a tank destroyer, and they are driven from there without source, well, there is nothing else with thick armor and a powerful weapon! So we come to the most important one, since the main threat can cumulatively produce BTs with armor sharpened to counter precisely this type of defeat? And as you know, the best defense is KAZ, DZ and THICKNESS of the armor, and in this case it is not so important what this armor is from, but the DISTANCE on which the ammunition will work is important! Well, if the gratings sometimes save from RPG and ATGM grenades, then solid armor made for example from an aluminum + ceramic composite. filler + aluminum (which goes on the BMD-4) with a thickness of 500-600 mm and holding a 30 mm ammunition shell is quite sufficient. The mass of such a design, provided that we got rid of the heavy frontal part + \ - 30 "obviously will not go beyond the weight characteristics of modern BT, and given that DBs are again conducted in cities, and not in swamps and poorly traversed areas, then the same 60-65 tons will not particularly affect the cross-country ability, the maximum speed is also not particularly needed, there is nowhere in the cities to drive at 60-70 km / h (remember how famously BTshki flew before the Second World War, they needed it a lot?), But the ability to jerk quickly to gain 20-25km / h that forward and backward will be in demand much more. Therefore, the BMPT is seen as a tank chassis from the T-72 (if we do not want to build a new and expensive one) with a bulldozer blade, sides protected by the T90MS type with a square tower made of composite with removable screens with DZ (technologically and maintainable, plus the ability to reduce weight during transportation ), armed with a gun from NONA \ Vienna (its projectile is equal to 152mm power and is very technologically advanced) paired with a PKT, and the commander is assigned the "Epoch" module through it, he monitors the battlefield and, if necessary, strikes targets himself, it would be great to equip BMPD drone but it's still fantastic (expensive and difficult) with automatic takeoff and landing. I repeat BMPT machine for urban areas, and not for fields and other things, aviation, MLRS, and classic tanks will do just fine there .. In modern conflicts, the last 30 years have been the main losses in the database in cities, in convoys, and at block posts ..
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 11 January 2016 10: 37
        +2
        Quote: max702
        Consequently, the BMPT is seen as a tank chassis from the T-72 (if we do not want to build a new one and expensive) with a bulldozer blade, sides protected by the T90MS type with a square composite tower with removable shields with DZ (technologically and maintainable, plus the ability to reduce weight during transportation )

        good Reasonable decisions are always identical.
        Quote: max702
        It would be great to equip the BMPD with a drone, but this is still fantastic (expensive and difficult) with automatic take-off and landing.

        Any ideas.
        Quote: max702
        I repeat BMPT machine for urban areas, and not for fields and other things, aviation, MLRS, and classic tanks will do just fine there ..

        But here I do not agree, universality, both in the city and in the field and in the forest. Here you have a flexible line of defense and a mobile block of post and escort of columns, reconnaissance and identification of foci of surviving enemy formation after the main firing aviation or artillery impact. Anyway, such a machine becomes the new appearance of the land infantry, the main participant in the fire battlefield, a machine as the armor of a modern infantry knight, after which the work of the rear and engineering services remains.
        1. AUL
          AUL 11 January 2016 12: 21
          -1
          Article - "sawdust sawing". Yes, everything is described correctly, but this is being done for the 100th time. Nothing new has been said or proposed. Boring ... Article minus.
          1. Andrew Iwanow
            12 January 2016 01: 09
            0
            I do not pretend to be the discovery of America. But to put a minus for a simple invitation to a conversation? However, you know better, you won’t be nice to everyone.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 02: 09
              0
              an invitation to a conversation should be on the forum, the site is unsuitable for a full discussion ..
      2. Andrew Iwanow
        12 January 2016 01: 07
        +1
        "I repeat BMPT vehicle for urbanized areas"
        - The idea of ​​BMPT is vicious in its essence, only infantry occupies and holds the terrain - it is she, and not the tanks, who need reinforcements. And the fact that the assault gun is the best BMPT is an unexpected but pleasant bonus.
    3. psiho117
      psiho117 11 January 2016 13: 02
      +2
      I'll retell your phrase:
      Quote: TIT

      watching the Syrian war ... generally wonder about the tactics


      No matter how much I watch tank videos from Syria, everything is the same: the tanks are pushing forward without infantry, opening up the enemy's defenses "on live bait", and as the head lobster, the rest suppress the firing point and continue on. Rave.
      1. Andrew Iwanow
        12 January 2016 01: 11
        0
        This nonsense is diluted by rolling out "Shilok" and "Akatsy" to direct fire, as a means of direct support of the infantry. At the first moment, the enemy was stunned. And then - "burn, burn, clear." ZSU and SPGs have no protection in close combat.
        1. max702
          max702 12 January 2016 16: 10
          0
          Quote: Andrew Iwanow
          This nonsense is diluted by rolling out "Shilok" and "Akatsy" to direct fire, as a means of direct support of the infantry. At the first moment, the enemy was stunned. And then - "burn, burn, clear." ZSU and SPGs have no protection in close combat.

          So the BMPT concept just undermines at least the level of tank protection! Today there is no such armored vehicle that combines powerful and varied weapons, as well as protection similar to (and preferably superior) to a tank. About this and the speech that in the changed conditions and with the massive saturation of the infantry with anti-tank equipment, no one conceptually reacted to this .. They write stupidly, observe the charter, fight according to science .. But it is smooth only on paper! And there is always one or the other element required by the charter .. And the fact that technical means specially sharpened for solving this problem are forgotten again .. My project with two independent firing posts, one main one with a powerful assault gun with a machine gun with large aiming angles , and the "era" module for the commander cover the entire line of targets in modern conflict. If we take into account the emphasized protection of BT against cumulative weapons, then this type of BT has the right to life.
    4. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 13 January 2016 08: 39
      0
      Which columns are in the attack? ))))) How do you imagine storming a city without tanks? ))) In Chechnya, they worked out the following tactics, our tankers worked in twos, reaching positions - work in turn on the identified enemy firing points (in tanks, when working in the city, there are always lowered S / C, upper "dry" tanks, when maneuvering towards the enemy the tank never turned vulnerable spots), one works, the other covers it and conducts observation, after having worked out one - they changed, then a couple of tanks were changed by another pair and such a carousel was until it was clear that all enemy firing points were suppressed ! Then the work of motorized riflemen ... We occupied the next house, the quarter revealed a new line of enemy defense - again a tank carousel and so on to the very outskirts of the city! With such tactics, although the tanks were struck by RPGs, ATGMs and other means, but only in the frontal projection and places protected by DZ, which did not lead to the destruction of the tank and the crew ... Tank battalions methodically and competently squeezed the militants from the cities into the mountains, and there they were covered with artillery and aviation ... Communication and interaction are the basis of victory in the city ...
    5. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 13 January 2016 09: 23
      0
      What are the armored columns in the attack? ))))) A column under the charter is a system in which the equipment is located one after another))) Where are we without tanks? ))) Someone will tell me how to attack and break through the enemy’s front without tanks at all? )))) ... What you can do without tanks is just to retreat and surrender))) ...
      Now, on the tactics of their application:
      City:
      In Chechnya, our tankers, working in INTERACTION with the infantry and artillery, squeezed the militants out of the cities ... The infantry identifies the enemy's defense line and its firing points - tanks come out to work on them, and in pairs (they have a low S / C, upper tanks are "dry" tanks, of course, must have a DZ or at least something protecting, even if you fasten sandbags or boxes with stones), one tank works against the enemy (and maneuvering the tank does not expose the enemy any vulnerable spots not protected by DZ, that is, stern and once again side), another covers him and monitors, then they change - then another pair changes them - they went to replenish the B / C and such a carousel until it becomes clear that the infantry can go a little ahead and occupy the next house, quarter ... Then the next enemy line and firing points are revealed and again a tank carousel !!! And so to the very outskirts, house after house, line abroad, our tanks squeezed the militants out of the city, and in the mountains and in the open they were covered with artillery and aviation !!! If there is a need, the infantry, through spotters and gunners, directs artillery and aviation to the targets, if you need to cover something from above ... Interaction, communication and tactics are the basis of victory in the city, however, as elsewhere !!!
      Field:
      Here again, the war in Chechnya developed the following tactics - tanks attack together with motorized riflemen, only they sit inside the infantry fighting vehicle and fire through loopholes ... Ahead of such an advancing armada, artillery fires tightly and carries it forward at the speed of the advancing grouping, besides other calculations artillery fire directly at our group, with high-explosive and shrapnel ammunition undermining them in the air over our entire advancing group, creating fragmentation rain ... We get a fire shaft that carries everything in its path and moves deep into the enemy’s fortifications, miraculously surviving work tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and arrows from them, and over them it is raining from fragments, which will not allow you to shoot from around the corner at the tank at close range, but just sitting out at the bottom of the trench will not save either a helmet or armor !!! For such tactics of the use of troops, again, interaction and good training are needed ...
      Why this happens not always and not everywhere, because it’s a sin to conceal in our army more display than preparation ... Inspecting commissions are more concerned with the cleanliness of the barracks and the evenness of the stripes on the blankets, the commanders of units of companies, battalions, regiments are littered with huge stupid paper work) )) ... He really studies in the field once, EPT !!! Therefore, the Russian soldiers will again have to learn to fight only in the war, and not in front of it, having lost a bunch of equipment, people and the territory of our Motherland ....
      I look forward to criticisms and opinions of those who believe that we do not need tanks))) ...
    6. The comment was deleted.
    7. The comment was deleted.
  2. geek2101
    geek2101 11 January 2016 07: 29
    +7
    In conditions of urban battle, without the constant support of infantry units and artillery units,
    any armored vehicles - a 2-minute junk, regardless of the degree of armament and reservation.
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 13
      +1
      "any armored vehicle is a 2-minute scrap, regardless of the degree of armament and armor."
      - Not any, the level of security matters.
  3. PSih2097
    PSih2097 11 January 2016 07: 30
    +2
    The presence of guns low ballistics caliber 152 mm with a high elevation angle. The smaller caliber does not provide a solution to combat missions in urban combat, does not provide for the rapid destruction of reinforced concrete structures, the destruction of the exit points of galleries to the surface, pillboxes. Here you need a high-explosive high-power projectile, the ability to hit a target with both flat and mounted fire.

    and why so little, let's cram 203 mm (on the basis of B4), then tactical shells (up to 5 Kt) can also be thrown for 15 km ...
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 11 January 2016 09: 27
      +1
      And if a tactical nuclear missile is made active reactive, then it is possible to shoot up to 60km like a German sau.
    2. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 19
      +2
      "why so little, let's push 203 mm (based on B4), then it will also be possible to throw 5 km with tactical shells (up to 15 Kt)"
      - I don't know if you know, but B-4s were actively used in the assault on fortified German cities. But it would be better if the German self-propelled gun "Sturmtiger" came up - it will come out on direct fire and wipe any target off the face of the earth. It is a pity, she is inactive, has a low rate of fire, is not able to fight enemy tanks and infantry.
      But I propose a "sweet spot" in terms of power and versatility.
    3. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 02: 16
      +1
      152 is optimal for unification with self-propelled guns, and even with a 203mm gun the shells will be too long
  4. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 11 January 2016 07: 44
    17
    We made other conclusions. Active implementation of the KAZ, enhanced intelligence through the introduction of UAVs, at the grassroots level and the introduction of TBTR.
    1. ICT
      ICT 11 January 2016 07: 59
      +2
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      due to the introduction of UAVs

      so far this is the only one. which is quite real
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 11 January 2016 08: 33
        +1
        Quote: TIT
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        due to the introduction of UAVs

        so far this is the only one. which is quite real

        We have 401 and 7 TBR equipped with KAZ.
    2. padded jacket
      padded jacket 11 January 2016 15: 26
      0
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      We made other conclusions. Active implementation of KAZ, enhanced intelligence through the introduction of UAVs.

      You better tell those seven "unfortunate" Israeli soldiers who were sent to certain death to Gaza by your political and military leaders in the "ancient" M-2014 without any KAZ and even additional protection about these very "conclusions".

      But in fact, BMPT is definitely needed in the anti-terrorist war, which is now evident from the events in Syria and Iraq, where the armies of these countries have to "mold" such "devices" themselves. It would not hurt us to acquire such vehicles in our "hot spots" converted to facilitate their maintenance from the tanks currently in service.
      1. padded jacket
        padded jacket 11 January 2016 16: 34
        0
        By the way, we remember the photo of the Syrian "Terminator" which was "composed" by the troops loyal to Assad, but the photo of another one taken by the terrorists, apparently by Daesh (IS), was a little forgotten.
        The chassis is apparently from the Cube air defense system? The armament of the twin 14,5 mm KPVT or ZU-23?
        1. Andrew Iwanow
          12 January 2016 01: 23
          0
          To the gloomy Teutonic genius and acute Gali, a mischievous Syrian was clearly added.)))
      2. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 11 January 2016 19: 07
        +2
        Quote: quilted jacket
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        We made other conclusions. Active implementation of KAZ, enhanced intelligence through the introduction of UAVs.

        You better tell those seven "unfortunate" Israeli soldiers who were sent to certain death to Gaza by your political and military leaders in the "ancient" M-2014 without any KAZ and even additional protection about these very "conclusions".

        This is a mortar M-113. He was simply ambushed, and according to the good from the line of contact, he should have been at least 1.5km away. But in war, as in war. Unfortunately, our army makes mistakes and loses people. Everything is like everyone else.
        1. MAG
          MAG 11 January 2016 19: 54
          0
          A long time ago I asked the Professor about how you fight with underground rats, but he never wrote anything sensible. Do you have a secret infa) on the tactics of fighting moles? If there is, please announce.
          1. Professor
            Professor 11 January 2016 20: 55
            +1
            Quote: MAG
            A long time ago I asked the Professor about how you fight with underground rats, but he never wrote anything sensible.

            Wrote only stupid?
            Israeli robots under the Gaza Strip
            1. MAG
              MAG 12 January 2016 20: 25
              0
              I'm not talking about an article. In the comments a year ago, I asked about the search for tunnels both existing and those that are still digging. Your answer from memory is that it is a very complex geology. Has something changed?
              1. Professor
                Professor 12 January 2016 20: 44
                0
                1. MAG
                  MAG 13 January 2016 17: 47
                  0
                  Thank. I think the next war will show new technologies and tactics for dealing with tunnels. In the meantime, everything is streamlined and vaguely needed a run-in in real conditions.
        2. padded jacket
          padded jacket 12 January 2016 13: 19
          0
          Quote: Aron Zaavi
          This is a mortar M-113

          Of course, of course Aron, I believe you smile
          Did the seven dead Israeli soldiers appear to be loading this mortar alone? Thank you for explaining, because I didn’t even know that to raise one mortar mine seven Jews were needed.
      3. Andrew Iwanow
        12 January 2016 01: 21
        +2
        BMPT and the infantry is not needed for nothing, namely, it takes cities and breaks through the underground defense.
  5. Barboskin
    Barboskin 11 January 2016 07: 58
    +1
    Perhaps another machine, more popular in real combat, will play its role with success?

    I think this is "Terminator".
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 11 January 2016 10: 02
      +2
      Quote: Barboskin
      I think this is "Terminator".

      Rather T-15, all functions of the "Terminator" + troop compartment
      1. remy
        remy 11 January 2016 12: 06
        +3
        T-15 is certainly good.
        but!
        BMPT-72 is still also needed as a means of fire support
        rear location MTO also has its advantages.
        Well, and as an option, we will load the plants with orders for MO and for export - for years!
  6. Professor
    Professor 11 January 2016 08: 08
    +9
    and IDF failure in action against Hezbollah

    But. request Luck, and not contested. The northern border of Israel has never been as quiet as after the Lebanese war in the entire history of the country. Irrecoverable losses in the war itself were also minimal. Could they also be reduced? Of course it is possible and conclusions have been drawn. Mostly organizational and tactical. From the point of view of materiel, the most striking is the KAZ. Subsequent operations in the viper Gaza confirmed the correctness of the measures taken and the "Infantry Support Fighting Vehicle" did not play the first violin there.
    1. Dan4eG
      Dan4eG 11 January 2016 09: 23
      +3
      Oleg with a return! How was your vacation?
      1. Professor
        Professor 11 January 2016 09: 48
        +1
        Quote: Dan4eG
        Oleg with a return! How was your vacation?

        Thanks, great. hi
  7. Stone
    Stone 11 January 2016 09: 12
    +1
    Why not change the concept of BMPT at all? Do not fight the enemy infantry, but first of all intercept the issued anti-tank and RPG charges, after which, destroy the firing point or its coordinates for suppression to transfer to other equipment.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 11 May 2017 02: 23
      0
      Kaz will intercept ATGM, self-propelled guns will destroy ATGM calculation, and what will BMPT do? next to stand? that's why it is unnecessary to anyone ...
  8. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 11 January 2016 09: 29
    0
    Cover the coalition with additional sheets, wind it with wire 2a42 to the trunk, attach it to the roof, add the cannon trunk - is it ready, where is my money ?!
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 27
      0
      As always - past the money.)))
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 12 January 2016 06: 40
        0
        And I tried so hard, designed ... Even a skein of wire prepared (((
  9. 31rus
    31rus 11 January 2016 10: 14
    +1
    Dear, modern combat is a whole complex of weapons and tactics of use, so it’s not possible to invent a machine to solve combat problems in the city, you need the same complex from an attack aircraft to space reconnaissance, agrees with the Professor that one solution is without pilots and in the air both on the ground and under the ground, special equipment is needed that can work effectively in urban conditions (communications, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, new compact flamethrowers, mines, mine clearance systems, etc. are needed)
  10. tchoni
    tchoni 11 January 2016 10: 23
    +4
    It is completely incomprehensible why the author concludes that the 120 mm tank gun is insufficient for urban combat? Maybe you should just work on the sectors of the fired tank guns by increasing the angle of its elevation? And do not fence the garden with BMPT? Add heavy armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle. Here is the solution to the problem of logistic problems in urban combat (the article doesn’t say a word about this). and sprinkle everything with remotely controlled combat vehicles - here you have the infantry motivated and not sensitive to their own losses. And then they ran into archaic concepts of the time of the Great Patriotic War and the Afghan war ... And we’ve climbed on them ..
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 34
      +1
      "It is completely incomprehensible why the author concludes that a 120 mm tank gun is insufficient for urban combat?"
      - Because the high-explosive shell of the T-72 and its descendants does not bring down reinforced concrete buildings. Here you need a more powerful shell. Moreover, the tank will not suppress the enemy's mortar battery, will not hit the infantry preparing to attack behind cover. All these tasks are solved by a 152-mm self-propelled gun. But she will not clean up the attics from grenade launchers, she will not repel attacks at close range. This is decided by ZSU 23-4. BUT both cars are burned at once by the ancient "Baby".
      And we need something that will solve the problems of "Shilka" and "Akatsia", but highly secure.
  11. Vladimir Postnikov
    Vladimir Postnikov 11 January 2016 10: 28
    +4
    The author sees problems. Tries to solve them by the means that are (and which was taught). It turns out not very. In 1977, as a last year student at the LMI, I discussed the perspectives of BTT with one of the teachers. We immediately reached a consensus that there were no prospects. The fact is that even then it was clear that the manufacture of anti-tank weapons (PTS) is much cheaper than the manufacture of BTT (the same can be said about aircraft carriers). Yes, to suppress the rebellions, when the enemy does not have effective TCP, they are quite effective. In Syria, by the way, the enemy turned out to be quite effective TCP (and this despite the fact that this enemy has absolutely no aircraft).
    Yes, there is some competition between PTS and BTT defense. But even then (in 1977) it was obvious that PTS were winning economically. Of course, if any country already has BTT, then they are able to solve certain problems under certain conditions, regardless of losses (both people and equipment). But, if there is a question of solving a certain problem at minimal cost, then in modern conditions the increase in BTT is not justified. Yes, in "Armata" the crew is better protected, but this is a BTT and much more expensive. The loss of such a tank is a serious breach in defense capability, since these lost funds could be used with greater efficiency to manufacture other means.
    On February 2005, XNUMX, I sent my futuristic story "The Beginning of the End" to the RF Ministry of Defense. You can find it on the Internet. I recommend reading it first. There, a solution to the problems described by the author was proposed. One of the features of that decision was the transition from quantity to a new quality. This was only one of the features, but the main one. There was also a mention of what is now fashionable to call network-centric warfare.
    This is my answer to the last question of the author of the article: "Perhaps its role will be successfully played by another machine, and more in demand in a real battle?"
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 36
      0
      Competition of armor and shell is as old as mammoth shit. Take your time with the final conclusions.
      1. Vladimir Postnikov
        Vladimir Postnikov 12 January 2016 02: 53
        0
        Yes, I'm not in a hurry. At my age, this is not relevant. Armor lost unequivocally and irrevocably. It has not been a matter of competition for a long time. We are now talking only about the appropriate level of booking. Think slowly. Just do not rush.
        1. ILDM1986
          ILDM1986 12 January 2016 22: 37
          0
          armor alone certainly lost, until the anti-tandem DZ, KAZ, EW, KOEP were pulled into the team. after that, the situation more or less straightened out. only the price has become unbearable recourse .
    2. couch but smart general
      couch but smart general 17 December 2016 01: 53
      0
      I was looking for your article .... do you know how many stories with that name?
      1. Vladimir Postnikov
        Vladimir Postnikov 19 December 2016 19: 38
        0
        http://www.apn-nn.ru/pub_s/1497.html
        Found in Yandex by typing "Vladimir Postnikov Beginning of the End"
        1. couch but smart general
          couch but smart general 19 December 2016 20: 00
          0
          thanks a lot
  12. tacet
    tacet 11 January 2016 10: 48
    +1
    But it is not easier to solve this problem by joint use of helicopters and artillery with infantry and existing infantry fighting vehicles. In this case, there will be only one task - a clear coordination of the actions of these arms. In my opinion, the author has not fully studied the experience of conducting military operations in the SAR or in the Donbass, or he deliberately does not take into account the limitations in the means of conducting military operations in these conflicts.
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 40
      0
      "And it is not easier to solve this problem by joint use of helicopters and artillery with infantry and existing infantry fighting vehicles."
      “It's easier if you have all the infantry — the elite.” And thousands more elites carry the doors of the military commissariats, in the hope of finally knowing the bullet.
      Forget about the BMP, as well as about the armored personnel carrier - in Syrian conditions, their task is to deliver the infantry to the place and remove them.
      And then what?
      If "Shilka" and "Akatsia" are not nearby, then the offensive is reduced to the occupation of the nearest shack.
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 12 January 2016 02: 05
        0
        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        Forget about the BMP, as well as about the armored personnel carrier - in Syrian conditions, their task is to deliver the infantry to the place and remove them.

        Does that mean where? Oh wei wait commander, it’s paid. laughing
  13. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 11 January 2016 11: 23
    +1
    Security at the level of the main battle tank ... The presence of low-ballistic weapons ... The presence of a small-caliber automatic guns ... the presence of a remotely controlled coaxial installation of heavy machine guns

    Somewhere I already saw it ... In Kubinka it is, to wipe dust and to the front.)
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 41
      0
      Is that "Lee / Grant" security at the MBT level? Thank you, neighing.
  14. bootlegger
    bootlegger 11 January 2016 12: 20
    +4
    In my opinion, there is no need to complicate. The optimal unified option.
    It’s like BMP-3 “Derivation” with the AU-220 combat module.
    The 57 mm caliber will perfectly solve the issue of destroying snipers and lightly armored vehicles, a high ballistic gun will open any wall, perfectly replace an automatic grenade launcher and will perfectly resist helicopters in urban conditions.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 11 January 2016 13: 23
      +6
      Quote: bootlegger
      In my opinion, there is no need to complicate. The optimal unified option.
      Approximately as BMP-3 "Derivation" with the AU-220 combat module


      BMP-3 - tin. Its main defense is maneuver and distance to the enemy. For urban conditions, it will not work.
      Let me remind you that during battles in the city our tanks withstood up to 15-18 hits from the "Fly" and RPG-7, and left the battle on their own. The BMP is unlikely to survive the first hit.

      Without circular dynamic protection (impossible on thin armored infantry fighting vehicles) and remote lattice screens, there is nothing to do in the city. Well, in the future - KAZ, but it’s expensive and doesn’t provide all aspects, the classic scheme of armor + DZ + screens is cheap and cheerful. Well, the interaction with the infantry and other branches of the armed forces, without this anywhere.
      1. Andrew Iwanow
        12 January 2016 01: 46
        0
        "Without circular reactive armor (impossible on the thin armor of an infantry fighting vehicle) and outboard lattice screens, there is nothing to do in the city."
        - Your words, yes, to God in the ears.
    2. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 01: 44
      +1
      "The 57 mm caliber will perfectly solve the problem of destroying snipers and lightly armored vehicles, the high ballistic cannon will open any wall, perfectly replace the automatic grenade launcher and will perfectly resist helicopters in urban environments."
      - With an insignificant high-explosive action, hopelessly compromising this caliber.
  15. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 11 January 2016 12: 21
    +4
    The best vehicle for urban combat:
    1) on a tank chassis with full armor
    2) equipped with KAZ,
    3) two remotely controlled combat
    small-caliber modules (from 12,5 to 40 mm) - forward and backward.
    Possible grenade launchers or mortars 25-80 mm.
    4) crew - 4 people: commander, driver two shooters
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 11 January 2016 13: 27
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh

      3) two remotely controlled combat
      small-caliber modules (from 12,5 to 40 mm) - forward and backward.


      So what?


      An interesting scheme, of course ... True, I’ll imagine how the right barrel is turned to the right, left to left, and here the mechanical drive makes a jerk from the grenade launcher into the alley ... and the guns bent, eh ...
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 11 January 2016 14: 04
        +1
        I'm sorry, the picture is buggy

        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 January 2016 15: 00
          +1
          Yes. Something like. Modules of course desirable
          Spread away from each other. But if it is -
          alteration of the old tank, you can’t do anything.
          Two arrows must agree among themselves on
          correct sectors of fire from each module.
          1. IS-80
            IS-80 11 January 2016 15: 40
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            Yes. Something like. Modules of course desirable
            Spread away from each other. But if it is -
            alteration of the old tank, you can’t do anything.
            Two arrows must agree among themselves on
            correct sectors of fire from each module.

            This is a very big problem. It is necessary to provide the modules and armament in general with the optimal sectors of fire. Previously, I was also attracted to such a concept, two modules armed with small-caliber automatic guns, and I even got the idea to place them diagonally as in the self-made development of Ukrainians. It seemed to flicker not so long ago in VO. But then I realized that the machine was getting too specialized and not very well armed, plus the shelling sectors and the inconvenient interaction of guns that were not very effective in my opinion. Therefore, there should be one tower, and most likely two modules of machine guns in front and behind the tower. And the tower should be higher than the tank for the possibility of large angles of inclination of the weapon in the tower and reduce the dead zones of the weapon of the tower and modules.
  16. DesToeR
    DesToeR 11 January 2016 13: 26
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The best vehicle for urban combat:
    1) on a tank chassis with full armor
    2) equipped with KAZ,
    3) two remotely controlled combat
    small-caliber modules (from 12,5 to 40 mm) - forward and backward.
    Possible grenade launchers or mortars 25-80 mm.
    4) crew - 4 people: commander, driver two shooters

    ...those. heavy BMP, but not special. a machine. By the way, if you can’t install a 120 ... 155mm cannon, an AGS, and a machine gun pair in the same machine, then why not consider the option of manufacturing two cars, but with different weapons modules. For example, the main version of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with a fast-firing gun 30 ... 57mm + ATGM + machine gun 7,62, and every third (or tenth?) Machine in the compound is a twin unit: a 7,62 machine gun and a mortar / launcher 120 ... 155mm; + heavy machine gun in a separate and remotely controlled module.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 11 January 2016 13: 46
      +3
      Quote: DesToeR
      By the way, if you can’t install a cannon in one car .. either an ACS or a spark, then why not consider the option of manufacturing two cars, but with different weapons modules.

      Of course, everything is possible, and it’s really a long idea soaring in the air - for 2-3 tanks one BMPT ... but everything rests on the Ministry of Defense. And it will not change the existing staff, tactical schemes and the doctrine of armored forces without significant increase effectiveness. A 15% increase in efficiency is not enough. It’s like with the transition to a new caliber in automatic machines - unreasonably expensive, it is easier to fight with what is already there, tested and reliable.
      And in order to get away from the existing 15%, you need to move away from existing developments, and do something completely breakthrough.
      After all, what do we have in an existing BMPT sample? Well, they stuck another gun, yes ... well, on the tank chassis (at the same time the module itself is bulletproof, what kind of nonsense)
      Is that all? Is this your recipe for panacea? Some nonsense.
      And if you do the "correct" BMPT, then you need to take and alter a full-fledged tank, you need a new 45-50 mm gun with telescopic ammunition and controlled detonation, you need your own drone, guided thermobaric missiles with vertical launch and multi-channel seeker, so that the gunner can control , and the infantry could illuminate with an indirect launch.
      1. max702
        max702 11 January 2016 22: 41
        +1
        Quote: psiho117
        and the infantry could illuminate during an indirect launch.

        But this is a good idea, if it is possible to realize target designation from infantry, then BT will reach a completely different level .. It is the target designation that the current technique lacks and there is something to destroy, but detecting the enemy before he has a problem with that .. By the way the infantry is riding on the armor and riding, and not just because it’s afraid of mines, it’s really more likely to survive, before I noticed it means it survived ..
  17. arhitroll
    arhitroll 11 January 2016 13: 38
    0
    It is necessary for the Syrians to throw an idea - to create a special brigade against TOW. Ahead plywood tank with radio control. Panoramic thermal imager to catch shots. Behind is an automatic caliber of good caliber with online guidance adjustment.
    While the shot is flying - to cover.
    Or make robots cheap.
  18. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 11 January 2016 13: 42
    +2
    To be honest, in my incompetent vision of this issue since the Second World War, in fact, nothing particularly new was invented.

    “Gallery defense” (defense through underground communications)?
    Not a very new idea - immediately recalling Stalingrad (given that at the time of the fighting, the development of the TCP was at the level of anti-tank rifles and grenades), not immediately European cities (here it is more serious. The first TCP and the widows sucked. Faustpatron is not a pound of raisins). It was? It was.
    What decision was made at that time? VI Chuikov and his headquarters and his headquarters developed the concept of assault brigades. During the storming of European cities, a "tandem" scheme was used, i.e. the infantry cleared the buildings, undermining the discovered passages, the tanks and self-propelled guns marching slightly behind them suppressed the sniper and machine-gun nests.
    The development of rocket artillery allowed the infantry to do without tanks in part to suppress such points (Bumblebee, RPG Family).
    But the question again remains with message moves as the biggest problem.

    Of those proposed by the author’s decision, I can only offer the development of a variety of scanners (which, by the way, is already being carefully done. If I remember correctly, our guys have developed a similar one) to view the terrain, even through the ground / soil. Yes, and try to develop an ammunition burrowing into the ground to a certain depth where and undermine thereby destroying communications (not only transitional transport, but also wired).

    Yes, my proposal at the moment mostly looks like science fiction, but it is worth noting that science fiction is based on fantasies, and if you do not fantasize and not set goals, then there will be no development.

    P.S. I remember a fierce srach on ... ahem, "why does Armata need a 152mm gun?"
    P.P.S. By the way, the Tower Automatic Machine Gun Installation (controlled from the inside of the tank) was first made on the IS-7 heavy tank. It is a pity she was not allowed into production.
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 00
      0
      "What decision was made at that time? V.I. Chuikov and his headquarters and his staff developed the concept of assault brigades. During the assault on European cities, a" tandem "scheme was used, i.e. the infantry cleared buildings undermining the discovered passages that went a little behind tanks and self-propelled guns suppressed sniper and machine gun nests. "
      Yeah, just a little, and heavily armored SU and ISU-152 rolled out for direct fire. And they were insured by siege artillery with a caliber of 203 mm. Do we have something similar? No. "Acacia" can be burned by "Fly", and RPG-7 is the king.
      And how much did our best in the world - highly motivated and well-trained infantry - lost in the storming of Berlin? Every city can become this "Berlin".
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 12 January 2016 14: 18
        0
        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        Yeah, just that, and heavily armored SU and ISU-152 rolled out on direct fire.

        I said this about it. In Stalingrad, from tanks and self-propelled guns, the sense was only like a target in a shooting gallery. Among the streets destroyed by the bombing, they couldn’t drive and turn around, and there was a shortage of them at the front, so they used a more mobile 45-ku.
        Just in case, SU = Self-propelled gun, colloquially self-propelled (ISU Self-propelled gun on the chassis of the IS tank (Joseph Stalin)).

        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        And they were insured by siege artillery of 203 mm caliber.

        And here from here in more detail. I don’t know about it, and I would love to read it.

        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        Do we have something similar?

        If you are talking about 152mm, then the 2C35 Coalition-CB, which by the way is applied at the brigade level, is not at the division level, unlike the 2C3 Akatsiya. By the way, recall which countries besides importing our equipment and licking off it, which artillery systems are cannon (non-reactive) in service?

        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        "Acacia" can be burned by "Fly", and RPG-7 is the king.

        Then let's not apply the technique. And the infantry - it can be killed from a berdanka.

        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        And how much has lost our best in the world - highly motivated and well-trained infantry during the assault on Berlin?

        If I remember correctly, according to the recollections of German soldiers and the analysis of military specialists, the losses were very low for the assault on the city.
        By the way, remember what losses were suffered by no less motivated and one of the best and most experienced armies of the 41-42th year during the assault on cities.
  19. abc_alex
    abc_alex 11 January 2016 13: 53
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The best vehicle for urban combat:
    1) on a tank chassis with full armor
    2) equipped with KAZ,
    3) two remotely controlled combat
    small-caliber modules (from 12,5 to 40 mm) - forward and backward.
    Possible grenade launchers or mortars 25-80 mm.
    4) crew - 4 people: commander, driver two shooters



    I agree with you, only the article does not say the car for which the author fantasizes. Still, it is not clear whether he thinks a fire support vehicle or a front-line machine. This is important, since fire support vehicles should not climb into a city battle. And for a front-line car, booking at the level of the main tank is not a salvation in urban combat.
    You, in my opinion, described an infantry support vehicle for urban combat. I hope you understand that its functionality will be sharply limited. Literally to the first enemy tank. That is, you described another option for the "war with the apes".
    If we talk about our (Russian) army, then we have to admit such a machine insolvent.

    In principle, BMPT is conceptually similar to a hypothetical BMPP. Of course, if we add a normal rocket module to the idea of ​​two independent firing points. I don’t know, maybe the idea of ​​KV-2 still excites the imagination of tankophiles, but in my opinion UR 9M123 with a thermobaric warhead can cope with most of the fortifications, if it falls into the embrasure.

    In my opinion, it is the guided missiles with the ability to illuminate the target by the front line fighter and not 152-mm shells that the infantry fire support vehicle needs. "Chrysanthemum" is served by 2 people.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 January 2016 14: 56
      +2
      "Literally before the first enemy tank. That is, you described another option for the" war with the monkeys ". ////

      We are considering the storm of a besieged city. If the enemy
      were tanks inside, it’s easier to destroy them with precision missiles from the air.
      But do not smoke infantry from the air.
      Quarter-by-quarter combing is required. And then the car I described
      - that’s it.
      It is not rational to equip it with anti-tank capabilities.
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 11 January 2016 15: 25
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It is not rational to equip it with anti-tank capabilities.

        It is possible, but this role is essentially third-rate. The main one is the fight against infantry in and without fortifications and light armored vehicles. And that means your machine needs, as I said, to add a 125-152 mm caliber mortar gun and a 45 mm automatic cannon.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 January 2016 15: 42
          +2
          We almost coincided.
          I limited the caliber of the gun to 40, you to 45 mm.
          This is the same only by NATO and Russia standards.
          A mortar can be 120 mm. Compact modern
          mortars 120 were equal to 80 mm (the barrel is "recessed" in
          Sliding, replacing the slab. Well, GPS taught him)
          1. IS-80
            IS-80 11 January 2016 16: 06
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            A mortar can be 120 mm.

            It seems to me that the possibility of direct fire is still desirable. Therefore, I would like to see a gun-howitzer-mortar on such a machine. hi
            1. Andrew Iwanow
              12 January 2016 02: 07
              0
              "the possibility of direct fire is also desirable"
              Sometimes you are amazed at the paucity of your thoughts. Googling is a "howitzer".
              1. IS-80
                IS-80 12 January 2016 02: 11
                0
                Quote: Andrew Iwanow
                "the possibility of direct fire is also desirable"
                Sometimes you are amazed at the paucity of your thoughts. Googling is a "howitzer".

                And what? smile
    2. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 04
      0
      "Still, it is not clear whether he thinks of a fire support vehicle or a front-line vehicle. This is important, since fire support vehicles should not get into urban combat."
      - Wait a minute, these are your fantasies, since the "vehicle of immediate fire support" and "the vehicle of the front line!" Are the same thing.
  20. DesToeR
    DesToeR 11 January 2016 13: 54
    +1
    Quote: psiho117
    Of course, everything is possible, and it’s really a long idea soaring in the air - for 2-3 tanks one BMPT ... but everything rests on the Ministry of Defense. And it will not change the existing staff, tactical schemes and the doctrine of the armored forces without a significant increase in efficiency.

    And I'm not talking about the BMPT - I believe that the BMPT as a special tank, with a modified in favor of rapid-fire weapons, is not needed. We need a heavily armored infantry fighting vehicle with two different weapons modules: the first module is a quick-fire gun + ATGM + 7,62mm machine gun, the second module is a mortar / launcher with a 7,62mm machine gun + a separate remotely controlled installation with a heavy machine gun. Both machines perform their main function and do not change the staff structure of the unit.
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 15
      0
      "And I'm not talking about the BMPT - I believe that the BMPT as a special tank, with a modified in favor of rapid-fire weapons, is not needed."
      - And I think that is not needed.
      "We need a heavily armored BMP"
      - Nonsense. The dilemma is simple - either we get the perfect vehicle, or the "battlefield vehicle". What do the British who have become skilled in "infantry tanks" say? "The tank must withstand and suppress the means of dealing with it." Everything is alpha and omega. Only this is not a tank, but an assault weapon, which I am talking about to you.
  21. psiho117
    psiho117 11 January 2016 13: 58
    +1
    By the way, a schematic diagram of such a "city fighter" - here bully






    True, it was a ZRPK project, but with thrown anti-aircraft electronics and replacing the gun - it would have gone like nice.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 11 January 2016 14: 12
      0
      It's nice, but my vision of urban combat is a tank and 2 infantry squads (one in front of the tank, the second behind the tank). Intelligence + security in one bottle. It’s simply not possible to kill a tank. Why a tank? The tank will be able to take a couple of RPG shots, without harm, which can not be said about other equipment.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 11 January 2016 14: 22
        +2
        Quote: Andrey77
        Why a tank? The tank will be able to take a couple of RPG shots, without harm, which can not be said about other equipment.

        So this is the tank, Abrams. A tank chassis, a tank turret, with the replacement of the gun by anti-aircraft rapid-fire rifles and insertion of retractable PU ATGMs. It was the "front edge anti-aircraft guns" project. As the anti-aircraft gun did not go. but for BMPT the scheme seems to me close to ideal.
        Well anyway, it's better than this:

        What is this nonsense with unarmored dist. module, and ATGMs hanging along the sides in tin boxes? Any mujahid in a car with a "cliff" will jump out of the alley and in 5 seconds will deprive this Terminator of all weapons.
        What the CPV will do to him, I’m scared to imagine.
        The tower, as well as the chassis should be tank.
        Nothing should stick out, all weapons should be in the tower, either vertical launch, or retractable launchers.
        And not 4 missiles, it’s for chickens to laugh, at least 8, and preferably 10-12, and not cumulative, but thermobaric.
    2. gallville
      gallville 11 January 2016 17: 43
      +1
      Quote: psiho117
      By the way, a schematic diagram of such a "city fighter" - here

      "our answer to Chamberlain"
  22. Andrey77
    Andrey77 11 January 2016 13: 59
    +4
    I will express my opinion.
    1. Fight in the city is fundamentally different from the field. And there is no universal technique (instrument), or it happens with averaged performance characteristics. It is necessary to make the technique "for the city", and keep it in reserve.
    2. When fighting in the city, it is necessary to change the control system. Platoon-Company to Squad-Platoon. Yes, it is necessary to train "chests of drawers" according to an abbreviated officer program. Now kill the platoon commander - the platoon can do nothing. 5 sergeants will scratch their heads.
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 18
      0
      "Fight in the city is fundamentally different from the field. And there is no universal technique (instrument), or it happens with averaged performance characteristics. It is necessary to make the technique" for the city, "and keep it in reserve."
      - Bullshit. The technique I described is equally suitable for both urban and field combat. You see some flaws: Indicate.
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 12 January 2016 02: 22
        +1
        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        You see some flaws: Indicate.

        Well, at least the fact that it does not yet exist in nature. laughing
  23. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 11 January 2016 14: 43
    +3
    But it should be extremely well trained and motivated infantry, insensitive to their own losses.

    And if it will be assault groups, similar to those that were formed in the Red Army for the battles in Stalingrad, but later were used to storm other cities. Including the assault on the well-fortified Konigsberg, now called Kaliningrad.

    Alex TV correctly said - tactics and tactics again. And also soldier ingenuity to help.
    1. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 19
      0
      "Alex TV correctly said - tactics and tactics again. As well as soldier's ingenuity to help."
      - And the funeral team.
  24. 19001900
    19001900 11 January 2016 16: 33
    +3
    Tactics, well-trained and motivated infantry, BMPT, BMP, aviation support, etc. I'm afraid all these are just tools after defining the immediate task, taking into account the available means and the permissible collateral losses of the same infantry and that the civilian population is more important. And so it was easier than ever to take it for the fact that in the city, village, aul only the enemy by default and you can do without losses at all, fill it with napalm, equalize with artillery, there is an opportunity to throw smart bombs, the main thing is more and that's all, there is no enemy, and the truth is there too. However, for the last 20 years we have often seen such victories in the news from all over the world. This is an option when your soldier is more expensive than all the others, but there is another option when the civilian population is also "your own"; it is already difficult to do without losses. The same Beslan, remember there certainly was "well-trained and motivated infantry" and there were tanks, too, if desired, it was probably possible to fit the TU-160 just what to do there.
    1. Vladimir Postnikov
      Vladimir Postnikov 11 January 2016 17: 16
      +1
      This is what is taught at school, and then at the university, and that is subsequently safely forgotten. More than 50% of success in solving the problem in its correct wording for those who set the task, and in the awareness of this wording for those who solve it.
      Parable:
      The customer asks for a device that allows you to find an object the size of a dog in a dark room. The developer requires an advance and soon presents a prototype. They look in TK: an object the size of a dog. Without racking their brains, they take the dog, place it in a dark room, and launch the device there. Nothing. The oldest representative of the customer requires the youngest to check for the presence of a dog, suddenly fleeing from there. Without thinking twice, he finds a cat and throws it into the room. The cat instantly flies out of there. Behind her a dog.
      Morality:
      Wisely formulate the task.
    2. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 21
      +1
      I feel like a Chukchi woman. "Hey, man! Did Zachekm come?" winked
      1. Vladimir Postnikov
        Vladimir Postnikov 12 January 2016 03: 13
        0
        If you feel like a Chukchi woman, then surgical correction of the sex in the MtF variant is indicated.
        My comment refers to the previous comment. I agree with its author that you, as a surgeon (since I have touched on the topic of gender correction), are sorting out instruments without having an accurate idea of ​​what kind of surgery you are going to do.
        In this situation, it is better not to do anything.
        Decide exactly what you want to do and what you plan to achieve. After that, it will be much easier to pick up a finished tool, or improve an existing one, or invent a new one.
        Wisely formulate the task. Sometimes an effective solution can be simpler and cheaper than costly innovations.
  25. gallville
    gallville 11 January 2016 17: 26
    +2
    Well, let's get started. There will be many letters now. Without even touching on the point at all about the BMPT concept. Just look at the car. Although my personal opinion is the best bmpt is a heavy bmp or at least just modern.

    2. The presence of guns low ballistics caliber 152 mm with a high elevation angle. The smaller caliber does not provide a solution to combat missions in urban combat, does not provide for the rapid destruction of reinforced concrete structures, the destruction of the exit points of galleries to the surface, pillboxes. Here you need a high-explosive high-power projectile, the ability to hit a target with both flat and mounted fire.

    1. High elevation angle of 152mm. Those. leave without work:
    - mortar company MSB;
    - carnations division;
    - MSTA-b division;
    - Throw away the tanks.
    2. Break down. just to destroy something. Maybe it’s just that you can just put ptur or office 125mm into the loophole? No, give us a 152mm gun and how many bk will fit there? 20 pieces?

    3. Combining the barrel 152-mm guns of low ballistics with launcher ATGM. Theoretically, such a combination looks attractive, but in practice, the American Sheridan / Shileila program has failed. It is necessary to study the reasons for this failure and find out whether the old flaws of the system are eliminated at a new technological level.

    The last phrase of the author indicates the lack of knowledge of not only the OSH of the brigade / regiment, but also of the characteristics of the tank which he so joyfully described as ineffective. Dear author, for more than 50 years, all Soviet and after tanks equipped with petro launched through the barrel. It will be necessary to make 152mm, the question is why?

    4. The presence of a small-caliber automatic gun, paired with the main one, performing the role of sighting and insuring when the enemy suddenly appears, when the main gun is discharged. 30-mm gun 2А42 is quite suitable for these purposes: it is able to penetrate the standard reinforced concrete panel and hit the sniper, calculate the ATGM, quickly destroy enemy vehicle technology, hit lightly armored objects, such as BTR, BMP. It lacks only remotely activated ammunition to combat the infantry.

    Well, everything is simple. We pass from 7,62 immediately to 30mm. Well, why trifle?
    5. It is desirable to have an AGS in a remotely controlled installation, as anti-storm facilities.

    I did not understand this word. 152mm howitzer firepower is not enough for mounted fire? Add 30mm? What's the point?
    6. It is desirable to have a remote-controlled paired installation of large-caliber machine guns, caliber 12,7-14,5 mm as an anti-assault means and means of dealing with the enemy's UAV and aircraft.

    Well, I will not argue here is a classic.
    Now a reasonable question. How many people are in this miracle car? Who will steer 2 turrets?
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 11 January 2016 18: 25
      +1
      Quote: gallville
      Well, let's get started. There will be many letters now.

      Good evening, Ivan.
      hi
      I read, neighing.)))
      Thanks for the good koment.
      For a long time so did not write in)))
      1. gallville
        gallville 11 January 2016 19: 00
        +1
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Good evening, Ivan.

        And you are kind. hi
        I read, neighing.)))
        Thanks for the good koment.
        For a long time so did not write in)))

        It was a certain restrained cry of the soul on the topic of the next land combat mutant.
    2. Andrew Iwanow
      12 January 2016 02: 28
      -4
      "High elevation angle 152mm. That is, we will leave without work:
      - mortar company MSB;
      - carnations division;
      - MSTA-b division;
      - Throw the tanks away. "
      I read and admire the flight of imagination of the inhabitants of "vna". At first they will pass off their own delusions as your thoughts. They will replace a common idea with an absurdity, and they will trample on it, in a Cossack way. The Ukrainianness of the brain is incurable.
      1. gallville
        gallville 12 January 2016 21: 27
        +1
        Quote: Andrew Iwanow
        I read and admire the flight of imagination of the inhabitants of "vna". At first they will pass off their own delusions as your thoughts. They will replace a common idea with an absurdity, and they will trample on it, in a Cossack way. The Ukrainianness of the brain is incurable.

        There is nothing to answer on the fact of the comment? I have described your writing point by point. Please answer as well. Regarding the flag against your nickname, sorry, too, no "tricolor" is drawn. Therefore, I ask you not to touch upon the issue of nationalities. Although this is a frequent practice on VO, this is actually one of the reasons for my rare participation on this resource. The comments of people who are also published here once again confirm this moment.
        1. ILDM1986
          ILDM1986 13 January 2016 00: 31
          0
          hi from sunny hong kong (tour operator Zen Mate wassat )
          152 mm apparently the author wanted for operational solving combat missions (all the same, you must admit that the response time of the mortar / mortar / carnations / dots-y division is still not instantaneous), though I myself obviously didn’t understand which ones.
          1. firing point suppression
          why is not enough 12,7 / 14,5 / 23/30/57 mm guns?
          if there is not enough of them, it seems like the tank should go next, that’s 125 mm
          Well, if everything is so bad that 125 mm was not enough - so maybe well, to the demon, where is the promised division of revenge ????
          2. Destruction of enemy tanks (if they jump out of the air ... and we will get 152 mm torture am )
          maybe it’s easier to put a pturs, why a low-ballistic 152 mm gun? more shells will have to be developed for him.
          3. destruction of lightly armored vehicles
          low-speed 152 mm projectile flying along a ballistic trajectory ??? No, I also got into WOT from KV-2 offhand on flying LT, only in reality I think it will be a little more complicated.
          and here’s a more convenient 30mm / 57mm barrel. well or peter.
          4. the fight against cheap low-flying reconnaissance UAVs - 152 mm are not needed at all
          steers the same 12,7 / 14,5 / 30mm ammunition. or 57 mm if you still do him a remote detonation.
          or the ability to put an air defense missile instead of an ATGM - it’s not clear how to direct it (in an IR such UAV is not very noticeable, the radar is expensive, cumbersome and fragile for a front-line vehicle, there remains an optical channel or laser illumination - it should be easier here)
          5. shooting at closed positions
          here you need a mortar 80-120 mm - cumbersome, but reliable
          or AGS - a weak projectile, but a high rate of fire with low weight and dimensions
          57mm projectile with remote detonation - expensive, you need to develop, but as you want ...
          it remains to understand why a car traveling in the first lane to shoot over hills / bunkers / buildings? What is there that can be especially dangerous? and why not place an 80-120 mm mortar in another car traveling 4-5 in the group, possibly in a converted BMP?

          what is the result?
          main 30-57mm gun for most tasks
          universal air defense missile system / ATGM for "what if ..." - will allow solving a wide range of tasks, which will make the machine more versatile. ammunition - 6-8 missiles: 2 SAM, 2 ATGM, 2-4 thermobaric.
          turret for the commander with a 12,7 / 7,62 mm machine gun, well, or for the second shooter. in principle, you can add 30mm AGS to it and give it to the shooter, and the commander will not be distracted, and the shooter will really be needed, and not just take up space.

          by crew:
          driver
          commander
          1-3 arrows (main gun, ATGM, machine-gun-grenade launcher)

          Well, do not forget about DZ, KAZ, KOEP, EW, dump, mine protection, etc.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 13 January 2016 16: 21
            0
            Quote: ILDM1986

            1. firing point suppression
            why is not enough 12,7 / 14,5 / 23/30/57 mm guns?

            We do not consider 12,7 / 14,5 / 23mm \ 30mm with existing ammunition as a means of combating fortifications. Their limit is a 2-brick wall, if the firing point is additionally fortified, they are powerless. 57mm is certainly more powerful, but it's just huge. Ammunition will be small. Well, the assortment there is completely unsatisfactory, and anti-aircraft ballistics, completely redundant.
            2. Destruction of enemy tanks (if they jump out of the air ... and we will get 152 mm torture am )
            maybe it’s easier to put a pturs, why a low-ballistic 152 mm gun? more shells will have to be developed for him.

            And here it all comes down to one thing: Either an ATGM with a diameter of 152mm, or a TOURS in the same caliber. Supporters of a large-caliber cannon howitzer appeal to the fact that it will be able to hit almost any target on direct fire, plus optional canopy shooting, plus TOURS with the ability to fire at tanks, bunkers, fortifications, plus indirect guidance is possible, etc.
            I myself am not a supporter of this idea, because I see pitfalls, but still I can understand the supporters of the "big sledgehammer" - to shy away the more powerful is always attractive hi
            3. destruction of lightly armored vehicles
            low-speed 152 mm projectile flying along a ballistic trajectory ??? no
            and here’s a more convenient 30mm / 57mm barrel. well or peter.

            Just about - it is irrational to spend a large-caliber shot on small targets, which means that an intermediate cannon of a smaller caliber with its own ammunition will be required - and the 152mm will have so little ammunition.
            4. the fight against cheap low-flying reconnaissance UAVs - 152 mm are not needed at all
            steers the same 12,7 / 14,5 / 30mm ammunition. or 57 mm if you still do him a remote detonation.
            to combat MBPLA - only shells with controlled detonation. the rest is expensive or inefficient.
            5. shooting at closed positions
            here you need a mortar 80-120 mm ... or AGS
            - indirect fire shooting will require significant complication and appreciation of the MSA, complicate and increase the requirements for training the crew, so in general - I think this is superfluous. To do this, there is a walkie-talkie and mortars / howitzers in the rear.
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 13 January 2016 16: 23
              0
              Quote: ILDM1986
              what is the result?
              main 30-57mm gun for most tasks

              Only not 30mm - it is weak. A 57mm is too bulky, has excessive ballistics and small ammunition.
              Optimum, as already mentioned - 40-45 mm with telescopic ammunition. This will increase power, while remaining in the dimensions of a 30mm sleeve.

              universal air defense missile system / ATGM for "what if ..." - will allow solving a wide range of tasks, which will make the machine more versatile.
              ZRK is a dubious option ... in the city, the viewing sectors simply will not allow you to detect an enemy flyer in time or open fire on it. And with drones, shells with dist. undermining.
              ammunition - 6-8 missiles: 2ZRK, 2PTUR, 2-4 thermobaric.

              This is too little. As for me - you need a minimum of 8-10 missiles, of which 2-3 are cumulative, the rest with a dual-mode penetrating / high explosive warhead. And always with the possibility of external guidance. Well, the missiles should not stick out open to all winds - ideally retractable PU, or vertical launch.
              turret for the commander with a 12,7 / 7,62 mm machine gun, well, or for the second shooter. in principle, you can add 30mm AGS to it and give it a clean arrow

              Sparka AGS + Kord, guidance is synchronized with the commander’s sight - where I look, I shoot there. So quickly hit the chuchmek who jumped out from the RPG.
              Yes, and in principle, if necessary - you can really add. arrow with an additional firing point. But the idea of ​​giving the commander the opportunity to fire without taking the gunner seems to me more promising.
              1. ILDM1986
                ILDM1986 13 January 2016 19: 27
                +1
                look at the module "Baikal" - quite compact with ammunition weapons up to 200 shells ready for use; for comparison, the anti-aircraft ZSU-57-2 has 300 shells for 2 guns crammed wherever possible. you never know 200 shells? for me this is quite enough, despite the fact that 2-3 projectiles are enough for sure defeat of most targets. I think that, if necessary, the BC can be increased, there would be a task for this, there is plenty of room in the tank corps.
                as already indicated, the 57-mm gun is as versatile as possible, it allows you to solve a wide range of problems (in the presence of an ammunition selector and a projectile with remote detonation). so there is no need to make the 152mm construction heavier with a fool, and even require maximum elevation angles from it - so that both the howitzer, and the mortar, and the peter and other insanity. do not get me wrong, I would also be glad to have a 152mm barrel in reserve, but it completely goes beyond the concept of reasonable sufficiency. it is unreasonably heavy, bulky, requires the MOH under 152mm shells (well, not to load another 5th loader ?!), and their ammunition will still be insufficient. and where is all this to be placed, what mass will be the result ???? Do you want to place the BC inside the car - and ride the powder keg again? relatively compact BC 57mm shells can be additionally booked, but in addition to protect two dozen 152 mm shells is too much!
                regarding ATGM - but I would like to install them inside the hull - but what will happen if they do get into them? fire? detonation? at the same time, they are not the main weapon - the artillery and aviation must knock out the tanks, or the tank following it, calculation with the ATGM / ATGM, etc. Tank is generally harder than anything, as if the whole world was up against him crying
                real fortifications - the target for long-range combat 152-203 mm, anti-bunker shells, etc. the goal of 2-3 bricks lined with sandbags can hardly be considered such, for it, and an accurate hit of 57mm is enough. And then after the BMPT / TBMP tank goes, he will have something to do.
                reconnaissance-drone drones, helicopters, etc. - targets for military air defense.
                it turns out that it’s a reactive weapon just in case, to universalize the machine, so it makes no sense to hide them in the casing reducing the survivability of the machine, it is better in bulletproof casings (as on Terminator-2) and placed on the sides of the tower. 6-8 pieces will be enough - it is no longer advisable due to the high mass and cost, if necessary it is easier to recharge.
                as a result, there is no need to fence the garden - the main gun 57mm + universal ATGM + machine gun-grenade turret solve all problems, blocking their weak zones.
                Regarding the air defense system, this is a fantasy on the topic, I just remembered a recent article on VO about the promising British Starstreak MANPADS. But instead of a shock warhead, put the usual HE, it will turn out to be a very terrible thing, and as a platform, not only this technique but also lighter - up to the "tigers".
                By the way about the platform, what do you think is better than a tank (as a result we get BMPT) or TBMP (at the output of the assault version of TBMP)?
                1. psiho117
                  psiho117 13 January 2016 20: 39
                  0
                  Quote: ILDM1986
                  look at the module "baikal" - quite compact with ammunition up to 200 shells ready for use

                  As far as I remember, the ammunition of Baikal has 80 shells in the combat station. The rest is stuffed))
                  And as for the concept - you have your own vision, I have my own)) I am a staunch supporter of hiding everything vulnerable under armor, and use expensive ATGMs of 150 kilobaksa thing, just as side screens - I think it's overkill))
                  As I already wrote, for me, this thing would be the ideal BMPT concept

                  using an analogue of "Javelin" as an ATGM (with a dual-mode seeker) and as a 45mm gun with a telescopic. ammunition.
                  By the way about the platform, what do you think is better than a tank (as a result we get BMPT) or TBMP (at the output of the assault version of TBMP)?

                  Naturally a tank. There are a lot of old tank chassis, and there is no need to fence a garden with a road, a new and probably in the coming years weighted T-15 platform.
                  Yes, and the layout of the BMP is optimized for the front MTO and ramp landing at the rear. For BMPT, this is not necessary, the classical scheme will be optimal.
                  The good old chassis from "seventy-two", dismantling and replacing the weapon \ ammunition rack \ AZ, insert in the rear of the module with missiles (at the same time reducing the danger of detonation), and other "city" whistles and fakes.
                  In general, my vision is this hi
            2. gallville
              gallville 13 January 2016 20: 20
              0
              Quote: psiho117
              We do not consider 12,7 / 14,5 / 23mm \ 30mm with existing ammunition as a means of combating fortifications. Their limit is a 2-brick wall

              Well, not 2 bricks, they completely break through the outer wall. In any case, a prefabricated house for sure, and an ordinary brick. Another thing is that the trajectory is straight at 12,7-23mm, but at 30mm it’s quite an offsite action, the queue will kill everything living in the room. I repeat the queue.
              Quote: psiho117
              57mm is certainly more powerful, but it's just huge. Ammunition will be small.

              In Baikal, they managed it. besides where there is a line of 30mm shells, one 57mm is enough
              Quote: psiho117
              Well, the assortment there is completely unsatisfactory,

              What is not satisfactory? It seems the whole nomenclature since the days of the Second World War.
              Quote: psiho117
              and anti-aircraft ballistics, completely redundant.

              To combat the UAV is the most. The target designation is visual and through ASUV from specialized air defense systems.
              Quote: psiho117
              that it will be able to hit almost any direct target,

              Well this is from the "smash break" series. I would like to demolish the building caused artillery fire and all the cases why drag people and equipment back to back? I would like to clean the basement of a 125mm office tank or a thermobaric ATGM to help.
              Quote: psiho117
              that means it will require the introduction of an intermediate gun of a smaller caliber with its own ammunition - and the 152mm will have so little ammunition.

              And where to cram it into a unit with a 152mm gun bk in it?))) Here either we get something like a German "rat" or enter the second car, bm support bmop - a masterpiece comes out =))
              Quote: psiho117
              to combat MBPLA - only shells with controlled detonation. the rest is expensive or inefficient.

              Well, in 57 mm there seems to be just a detonation, it is better than nothing.
              Quote: psiho117
              indirect fire will require significant complication and appreciation of the MSA, complicate and increase the requirements for training the crew, so in general - I think this is superfluous. For this there is a walkie-talkie and mortars \ howitzers in the rear.

              At the battalion level, a mortar company of just 1 mortar per platoon has already been represented, and in the city, as you know, more than 30 people are allocated to the tank. infantry (more than 1 platoon). So there is definitely your mortar.
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 13 January 2016 21: 23
                0
                Quote: gallville

                Quote: psiho117
                57mm is certainly more powerful, but it's just huge. Ammunition will be small.

                In Baikal, they managed it.

                No Unfortunately. There are 80 shells in an ammunition depot. And since it was never installed in any BM, where the remaining 120 half-meter fools are supposed to be shipped, it is unclear.
                Quote: gallville
                Well, the assortment there is completely unsatisfactory,

                What is not satisfactory? It seems the whole nomenclature since the days of the Second World War

                Well, perhaps the fact that since the days of the Second World War, technologies have stepped far forward - and, for example, the fuse now does not need to occupy 50% of the free space. Yes, and now it’s not at all necessary to let a thick-walled case into fragments - the technologies of thin and light shells with ready-made and semi-finished fragments have long been known - which is several times more effective.
                Not to mention such things, no doubt, necessary in modern combat, such as BOPS, shells from the air. undermining, etc.
                Quote: gallville
                Quote: psiho117
                and anti-aircraft ballistics, completely redundant.

                To combat the UAV is the most. The target designation is visual and through ASUV from specialized air defense systems.

                Well, I do not. Here either go or "checkers". A gun with anti-aircraft ballistics, and a range of up to 12 km is an absurd excess.
                Yes, unfortunately, I understand that we simply do not have anything more normal, and the development of a 45mm gun and telescopic ammunition for it (which we were once happily reported about) stalled, it seems like it did not start.
                But to name weaknesses as virtues is already superfluous.
                Well, this is from the series "smash break" ...
                And where to shove it into the unit with an already 152mm bk gun in it?

                I am not a supporter of the "city tank" with 152 mm durynda. I just pointed out the pitfalls of this concept.
                Quote: gallville
                Quote: psiho117
                to combat MBPLA - only shells with controlled detonation. the rest is expensive or inefficient.

                Well, in 57 mm there seems to be just a detonation, it is better than nothing.

                That’s all garbage.
                Even in the summer we were promised the development of a 57mm projectile with dist. undermining, and a projectile controlled on the trajectory, and BOPS, and much more.
                Oh, look at:

                So there is nothing.
                1. gallville
                  gallville 13 January 2016 21: 48
                  0
                  Quote: psiho117
                  No Unfortunately. There are 80 shells in an ammunition depot. And since it was never installed in any BM,

                  Well, what about derivation?

                  Quote: psiho117
                  Well, perhaps the fact that since the Second World War, technology

                  That's right. Only now the shells remained. Remained and shells from s-60.
                  Quote: psiho117
                  Here either go, or "checkers". A gun with anti-aircraft ballistics, and a range of up to 12 km is an absurd excess.

                  Imagine a brigade in which all 120+ BMPs are equipped with such a weapon .... And the BMPs themselves are networked with specialized air defense.
                  How will they be bombed in defense? That's right - only from a great height. And these are smarter bombs and need more money and time to rivet.
                  Yes, unfortunately I understand that we simply don’t have anything more normal, and the development of a 45mm gun

                  From this we must proceed. Although my opinion is that by increasing the size of Lake Baikal it is possible to achieve sane BC. And there is no need to run 45mm.
                  I am not a supporter of the "city tank" with 152 mm durynda. I just pointed out the pitfalls of this concept.

                  Support.
                  Quote: psiho117
                  That’s all garbage.
                  Even in the summer we were promised the development of a 57mm projectile with dist. undermining

                  There is no such thing. But this has long been:
                  Russian remotely controlled combat module AU-220 .... the following unitary shots are used:

                  - unitary shot UOR-281 with fragmentation tracer grenade OR-281 with fuse MG-57 or MGZ-57;
                  - unitary shot UOR-281U with fragmentation tracer grenade OR-281У with the fuse MG-57 or MGZ-57;
                  - a unitary shot of UBR-281 with armor-piercing tracer shell BR-281 with a bottom fuse MD-10.

                  Actually the same Baikal.
                  1. psiho117
                    psiho117 13 January 2016 23: 07
                    0
                    In general, you already realized that I am not a fan of this caliber, but still:
                    Quote: gallville

                    - unitary shot UOR-281 with fragmentation tracer grenade OR-281 with fuse MG-57 or MGZ-57;
                    - unitary shot UOR-281U with fragmentation tracer grenade OR-281У with the fuse MG-57 or MGZ-57;
                    - a unitary shot of UBR-281 with armor-piercing tracer shell BR-281 with a bottom fuse MD-10.


                    I don’t want to seem arguing for the sake of argument - but these shells for armored vehicles are complete bullshit (I apologize for my French). These are shots for a gun mount, feel the difference?


                    Click - to evaluate the wall thickness:

                    Pay attention to the fill factor of the body - how much space does an unnecessary glass with a tracer take up,
                    or a thick-walled hull, intended more for breaking through the side of the ship, and not at all for optimizing a fragmentation field.
                    I’m not even talking about armor-piercing, its design is really the middle of the last century.
                    Well, for comparison, Boforsovsky with ready-made fragments:
                    Feel the difference?
                    1. gallville
                      gallville 13 January 2016 23: 13
                      0
                      Quote: psiho117
                      I don’t want to seem arguing for the sake of argument - but these shells for armored vehicles are complete bullshit (I apologize for my French)

                      I’ll survive this language barrier =)
                      The question is why these shells didn't please you? And what is the "live" alternative?
                      Quote: psiho117
                      These are shots for a gun mount, feel the difference?

                      Unfortunately no. Because mnu picture is not visible. what
                      1. psiho117
                        psiho117 13 January 2016 23: 25
                        0
                        Yeah, updated - and the picture really disappeared
                        I'll try to fix it


                        Here are the diagrams of our shells

                        And here is how it should have been:
                        This is a Bofors 40mm shrapnel

                        and here is the caliber
                        [img] https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRbUdyCZub2gXvu2QwoKf
                        deY9v5UzJHgUzxh9npHbf2kTbqc8Vlw[/img]


                        And this is a direct analogue, the American 57mm -

                        Pay attention to the percentage of filling the body, and the overall aerodynamic shape.
                      2. gallville
                        gallville 13 January 2016 23: 33
                        0
                        Quote: psiho117
                        Here are the diagrams of our shells

                        And here is how it should have been:

                        So then it is. But then you don’t have to choose. Well, again, in the process, you can do it right. And those that old shells can be put into combat training. What good is to disappear?
                      3. psiho117
                        psiho117 13 January 2016 23: 44
                        0
                        What is it ...





                        And this is just an example of the 45mm telescopic armor penetration that I advocate:

                        Unfortunately, a blunt blank disc UBR-281 can only be tapped on the armor.
  26. Rus86
    Rus86 14 January 2016 14: 31
    0
    Here are interesting projects, "samopal", so to speak, but a competent person, as I think, did it.
    http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/bmpt-80ud/

    http://otvaga2004.ru/armiya-i-vpk/armiya-i-vpk-concept/bmpt-72a/

    http://otvaga2004.ru/armiya-i-vpk/armiya-i-vpk-concept/alternativnaya-bmpt-100/
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • Gunther
    Gunther 11 January 2016 17: 31
    0
    First off-topic, our Airborne Forces, in my opinion, need mobile mini-MLRS (possible on the Tiger platform), I understand that there will be difficulties with landing, but nonetheless.
    On the topic, the wedge did not converge on the Terminator, infantry fighting robotic systems will support the infantry, both mounted on the BMP-3 chassis (“Udar”) and original designs (MRK-002-BG-57, Uran-9, Nerekhta, etc. Platform-M robotic systems).
    And now, why not put it up.
    For example, combat mini-robots operating according to the swarm principle (I didn’t remember Latynin with her oscilloscope arrow late at night), where the swarm is controlled by only one operator - the UAV detects the target and transmits the swarm operator’s command, will be especially effective in neutralizing an enemy at a lower technological level.
    In Syria, if I’m not mistaken, a run on the IG
    robots, taking a strategic height of 754,5 (tower Siriatel).
    Six platform-M robotic complexes and four Argo complexes participated in the attack on the heights.
  • tchoni
    tchoni 11 January 2016 19: 46
    +1
    Well, why does everyone forget about logistics in conditions of direct fire contact? Or do fighters have endless ammo? Or do they drop ammunition from the sky with parachutes? Or the wounded themselves are treated, they only need a first aid kit to ram? And others Therefore, all the tank needs is a good reconnaissance complex (modern laser location technologies allow even the human eye to be detected (a lens, in fact, with a lens-lens)), the ability to shoot on the upper floors is a remotely controlled ZPU module or a larger aiming angle of the main gun ( perhaps, while limiting the type of ammunition and rate of fire) and not to remain in isolation - but here you need a heavy conveyor ..
  • Hauptam
    Hauptam 11 January 2016 20: 06
    0
    They don’t fight on tanks in the city. It is advisable to use small-sized, heavily armored, and variably armed combat robots.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 11 January 2016 21: 44
      +1
      Quote: Hauptam
      They don’t fight on tanks in the city.

      Oh, how they’re fighting.
      It is advisable to use small-sized, heavily armored, and variably armed combat robots.

      So here either this or that.
      Either it is small-sized or it is armored / variably armed. Together will not work.
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 11 January 2016 22: 17
      0
      Quote: Hauptam
      They don’t fight on tanks in the city.

      laughing
      Oleg, have fun.
      1. IS-80
        IS-80 11 January 2016 22: 47
        0
        Quote: Hauptam
        They don’t fight on tanks in the city.

        All is correct. Because it's not fair.
  • Pimply
    Pimply 12 January 2016 00: 14
    +3
    Let's start with the parsing. Well, at least from the moment about Hezbollah. There was no failure. The number of damaged and especially destroyed vehicles was quite small, especially compared to previous wars. The IDF overcame perennial concrete structures, and acted in the conditions of a mountain serpentine and residential development. Nevertheless, tactics allowed to break the enemy’s resistance and go to the Litani River. The author does not take into account that the failure he accepted as a-priori is more a political loss than a military one, and certain conditions under which the IDF is placed. And this seriously distorts its source data.
    What the latest fighting really shows is that
    a) Much depends on tactics
    b) We need heavy armor to quickly transport soldiers across open terrain from point to point (during the fighting in the Gaza Strip, for example, there were several cases when it was weak armor that led to a large number of deaths).
    c) KAZ is needed (because even the presence of second-generation ATGM systems sharply increases the likelihood of the appearance of vehicles killed and wounded as a result of the defeat).

    Tanks more than successfully operate in urban environments - an example of both Merkava and Abrams after modernization.
    Of course, the concept of an urban tank beckons and calls for itself, the question is why? Practice shows that a tank, properly modernized, perfectly copes with the tasks for which the author is trying to sharpen a "city tank" or a new means of supporting infantry.
  • From the infantry
    From the infantry 14 January 2016 15: 05
    0
    Finally! The experience of the defense of Stalingrad, the capture of Berlin, Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc. suggests that taking cities and mountains is the most difficult thing in a war. Our strategists are imprisoned to fight in the field, but they have to fight in cities. Elevation angle up to 90 degrees, various weapons, from small arms to concrete-piercing ones. Bulldozer shovel for quick burial in the ground or under an inverted concrete slab, for additional protection against shelling, etc. Multi-wheel travel with the ability to control the drive of each wheel, chassis with long-stroke controlled suspension, armament on a manipulator of the "centaur" type. All-round visibility, sound control of the situation around. The car should be super agile, powerful, but light. Unfortunately, such a machine cannot have powerful passive protection. Maybe she is not needed? After all, they abandoned heavy armor and other armor in the Middle Ages. Absolutely. We fought for several centuries without them. They took by number, and, of course, by skill. Now, however, the armor is back, but on a different dialectical level - in the form of body armor ...
    I think about it all the time, although in vain I try to get rid of these obsessive thoughts.
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 19 January 2016 15: 16
      +1
      Tactics and again tactics. You can only fight back with a shield and win the battle against the enemy with one sword - having exhausted him and stunned a dead body. You can win the battle with one sword - jump behind your back and strike in an unprotected place (win by maneuver).
  • iAi
    iAi 13 February 2016 13: 26
    0
    I assume that the BMP has no prospects as a class. They continue to be used, because they are still in real life.
    The function of supporting the infantry will be carried out by robots, and the infantry will travel "to work" in large armored buses.
    Proof: look at the United States and Russia - they are actively developing combat robots, the US Army drives MRAPs and other armored vehicles, Russia is trying to make similar models Typhoon-K, Typhoon-U, Ural-Federal.
    Yes, and in general, infantry will only be needed for sweeps, infiltration and patrolling. All targets will be destroyed remotely: artillery and aircraft.

    Laggards will try to do heavy BMP.
    The tank will return to its original function - a movable protected firing point. I suppose that on his arms we will again see low ballistic howitzers.