Expert Aleksey Khlopotov: on the Syrian war, BMPT and BAM based on the Armata platform

66
Expert Aleksey Khlopotov: on the Syrian war, BMPT and BAM based on the Armata platform


The war in Syria has once again demonstrated that armored vehicles and Tanksin particular, they remain the main striking force of the ground forces. No matter how much it works aviationno matter how high precision weapons she didn’t handle the enemy’s positions; it’s too early to talk about victory until infantry with the support of tanks passed through the ground. We talk about the Syrian experience with the military expert Alexey Khlopotov, who told us how this experience can be useful for the modernization of our tanks.





- As for the "iron", then, first of all, it is the need to strengthen the protection, which should be all-round. It is also necessary to ensure the protection of the crew commander. In this case, it is not enough to have just closed or remotely controlled machine gun installations — the commander should have not just good, but excellent visibility. This is one of the problems. Tanks in urban areas it is vital to have combat support vehicles - fire support. Moreover, both with automatic guns of small and medium caliber, and with large-caliber gun howitzer ballistics.

It is strange that this need is perfectly seen and understood by the Russian defense industry, but does not want to point out the Defense Ministry. So, we have developed and are ready for mass production two versions of fire support machines: BMPT and BMPT-72. Moreover, the BMPT was developed for money and for a technical assignment MO. This machine successfully passed state tests and was recommended for mass production. But, in 2010, the decision of the Serdyukov team, instead of adopting it, was closed. The money was thrown to the wind! At the same time, three such machines purchased Kazakhstan. On the basis of the Alma-Ata Military Academy, studies were conducted to study the possibilities of using this machine. Interesting results were obtained. Thus, on the basis of BMPT and TOC-1A, it is possible to form shock groups for the destruction of various gangs, including in terms of their use of powerful field fortification.





It works as follows - TOC is suitable for the minimum possible distance and inflicts massive fire damage. This ensures the accuracy and localization of the affected area. Then they enter the BMPT and make a sweep.

But the Russian MO does not see it at close range. I can not understand why. In the meantime, a cheaper version of the fire support machine, the BMPT-72, was developed. It can be obtained by converting the old "seventy doubles". Moreover, at present, the Petrel Research Institute is conducting a great deal of work on the development of a remotely controlled Baikal combat module with an 57-mm automatic cannon. BM "Baikal" has repeatedly appeared at exhibitions of weapons, both abroad and here in Russia. At an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil last year, it was posted on the BMP-3. This module allows you to successfully hit infantrymen with grenade launchers, armored vehicles of any class, up to and including the tank. Naturally, the tank this gun can hit only in the side or from the stern. But even having fired at a modern tank in its frontal part, even if it did not achieve penetration, it guaranteedly takes the tank out of operation, depriving it of all aiming optics, disabling the armament and crew.

Much more effectively such a gun operates on targets in urban areas. If the 30-mm automaton is often not able to pierce the concrete wall, the brickwork is painted brick by brick, then the 57-mm projectile needs just one hit.





Now Uralvagonzavod proposes to create such a machine on the Armata platform, but so far the Defense Ministry does not want to hear the proposals of the industrialists.

The creation of another interesting escort vehicle is under consideration: the BAM is a combat artillery vehicle based on the Armata platform. It should have protection at the tank level, but be armed with a powerful rifled 152-mm gun with howitzer ballistics. In fact, the proposed reincarnation of the famous "Hypericum" - self-propelled guns of the ISU-152 times of the Second World War. Let us recall how effectively these self-propelled guns stormed the fortifications of Koenigsberg and Berlin. Unfortunately, after their removal from service in the 1960-ies, the replacement was never created. In principle, this was explainable by the changed conditions - we then planned to fight with massive use of a nuclear weapon. Now everything is back to normal, and the need for such machines is enormous. No need to track down the window in which the sniper or the grenade thrower is hiding. A single shot of such an instrument is enough to completely form the entrance of the house.

The Syrian experience also speaks of the need to reform approaches to the operation of equipment - the maintenance of a modern tank by the forces of the crew in combat conditions is simply unrealistic. This leads to fatigue and, as a result, to unjustified losses. It is necessary to learn from the Syrians. There they have special technical teams involved in technical maintenance of equipment and its preparation for battle. The crew either fights or rests. I would venture to go even further - to have interchangeable crews on tanks. While one crew rests after the battle, his shift officers, waiting for the machine to finish servicing, go into battle again - this is a more rational and efficient use of technology.

I am very afraid of the repetition of the situation 1941 year. Then, after successful campaigns against the Japanese on Hassan and Khalkhin-gol, the Polish campaign, the war with Finland, everyone was complacent and considered the Soviet army "indestructible." This delusion eventually turned into a lot of blood. We had to re-arm literally on the move when the enemy was standing under the walls of Moscow.
Our news channels

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

66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    April 5 2016 05: 54
    Interesting interesting. And the opinion of the MO is interesting.
  2. +8
    April 5 2016 05: 56
    And the ministries of the Russian Federation `` do not see much '' because there are too many patriots among the officials of the Russian Federation not of the Russian Federation, but of those who remained in the Russian Federation since the times of the USSR and, in fact, foreigners who came in large quantities for money. I don’t want to talk about the stealing furniture maker and his accomplices, they are not like a prison, they are missed by the noose and lamppost.
    1. +4
      April 5 2016 06: 04
      BM-"BAIKAL" will fit not only in the city, but also for low-flying targets ...
    2. +10
      April 5 2016 06: 29
      recourse ehh Sarma Sarma, I'll tell you a joke only you do not be offended, so to speak to your ava and namesmile Once a man had an accident, and his lips parted. They bring him
      in traumatology. They gathered to sew on the lips, and only the female genital lips% - (
      Well, what to do, they got stuck. A man comes in 3 days - he says:
      -Parse, I can’t live like that anymore.
      -And what is it?
      -Yes, as I look in the mirror, so x gets up, and as I look in x, he brings his lips together!
      1. +2
        April 5 2016 11: 33
        Well done Sarma! He was the first to guess that the Ministry of Defense is sitting on 50% fools, on 50% enemies of the people who slammed Yezhov 77 years ago to harm them now. The author published in VO the desire to adopt the BMPT or BAM - the RF Ministry of Defense is simply obliged to take them into service within a year and saturate the troops with them. What to do with them, then we will deal collectively at VO. Kaptsov wants to have armored ships - the RF Ministry of Defense is simply obligated to book them all in two layers. How else? In general, it is time to pass a law obliging us to adopt everything that the defense industry wants or can do.
  3. +8
    April 5 2016 05: 56
    BMPT why they do not want to break in in Syria is not clear, they would try at least its effectiveness.
    1. 0
      April 5 2016 10: 57
      MPT why they do not want to run in Syria is not clear


      I think misunderstandings will soon end due to the economic situation, BMPT-72 can quickly rivet cheaply any amount (without fanaticism), but if you put Baikal, then we don’t understand what we are waiting for. Again, the formation of two new tank divisions will raise the question of escorting tank groups, well, or they will wait for the appearance of such vehicles on the basis of Almaty, which is not clear in time and money, it’s like to wait for the sea weather (again, the experience of operating and using this kind of combat vehicles still no one has).
  4. +2
    April 5 2016 05: 56
    A complete ideal on which is not achievable, it just might not be enough money. It has also been known for a long time that they always prepare for the past war.
    1. +1
      April 5 2016 22: 17
      it would not hurt to rivet a trial batch anyway. It would be possible to experiment with it in the same Syria.

      I already wrote somewhere, for the city I like the concept of a heavy BMP T-15. Protection - declared like a tank. Automatic gun. + the ability to equip with different combat modules. + guided missiles with thermobaric charge. + Separate infantry with her.

      do you need a heavy gun? - tanks to help.
      need a greater density of fire - another combat module.
      a big plus of this BMP is its versatility (it is not only applicable to the city)
  5. +6
    April 5 2016 05: 57
    Excellent citizen performed. Of course the tanks in the city need a support vehicle, and obviously it needs to be more powerful than the Terminator.
    1. +6
      April 5 2016 09: 20
      Quote: chunga-changa
      and should be armed more powerful than the Terminator.

      For a clean field, this is a good option, but it is not universal. In the green, in the building and just in the presence of a complex terrain, its advantages are lost.
      TBMP in this case looks much more attractive because it can land infantry.
      Roughly speaking, if the conditions favor the use of tanks - they are covered with TBMP fire, if the conditions are inappropriate - TBMP and infantry are supported by tanks. It turns out a balanced universal tactical unit.
      A BMPT is essentially the same tank, only with different weapons, with all its advantages and disadvantages, and exactly the same limitations in use.
      Here's what to do:
      1. +5
        April 5 2016 09: 37
        Quote: Gray Brother
        Roughly speaking, if the conditions favor the use of tanks - they are covered with TBMP fire, if the conditions are inappropriate - TBMP and infantry are supported by tanks.

        A bit wrong. Prior to dismounting the infantry, the main batch is played by tanks, TBMP support them, ensuring the defeat of the enemy infantry fighting vehicles. After dismounting, tanks and TBMP support the infantry. TBMP at the same time are a mobile point of warfare for her.

        Quote: Gray Brother
        A BMPT is essentially the same tank, only with different weapons, with all its advantages and disadvantages, and exactly the same limitations in use.

        Not "with the other", with cut down weapons. With less firepower. Almost a return to the First World War, to "males" and "females"
      2. +1
        April 5 2016 22: 42
        I support! First I scribbled my comment, then I saw yours.

        In general, out of all the new armored vehicles shown at the parade, this machine was liked most of all.

        T-14 armata? well .. an interesting idea, you have to try ... but the T-90 is also desirable to have more
        Kurganets? well .. the protection of the crew and the landing is excellent, the new platform is multifunctional - probably also not bad, but the BMP-3, in my opinion, is also a great car. IMHO Kurgan still needs to prove that he is better.
        Boomerang? Well, fine, or maybe just in the existing line of armored personnel carriers to limit the exit through the aft ramp and mine protection? yes add modular armor? (following the example of Ukrainian crafts, for example, only that would work)
        Typhoons? very beautiful, probably a great vehicle for all kinds of anti-terrorism operations. and tigers there too.

        But such a machine in our troops has not yet been.

        PS Do not take criticism with hostility, I am not trying to "fuck up" everything, I just try to critically comprehend the advertising brochures. New developments are of course important, no doubt about it.
  6. +3
    April 5 2016 05: 58
    It is necessary to search for new solutions, especially the Syrian training ground at hand. Why not check the effectiveness of BMPT there? Train Syrian crew I think not a problem
    1. +3
      April 5 2016 11: 03
      Quote: gas113
      It is necessary to search for new solutions, especially the Syrian training ground at hand. Why not check the effectiveness of BMPT there? Train Syrian crew I think not a problem

      A full range was Afghanistan. Syria is not a landfill, or not a landfill at all. What to test the car you need to train the crew, develop a tactic of application and in the process of implementing this tactic make appropriate adjustments if necessary. And this means that you can’t train the Syrians, they will not act like the Russians in any way. In order to run something in Syria, you must enter your units there (part). Anything else will not work. Regarding the MO, unfortunately, I agree. History suggests that generals often do not imagine the consequences of their actions as a customer of weapons. The same thing happened with the T-34, when they advocated either a wheeled-tracked track, or a cannon, so as not to go beyond the size of the car, then they could not determine the caliber of the gun until they saw a living adversary in front of them. Today, history repeats itself. Although it is already clear that will have to fight with bandits in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Or does someone think it will cost? It is under these theater of operations that we need to sharpen armaments today, improve the fire safety system, work out the engineering equipment of the theater sections, and train logistic tasks. Of course, NATO is enemy number 1, but Islamic extremist organizations, living on the money of the State Department, should be considered today as a Pentagon branch. In no case should they be allowed to enter the territory of the CSTO countries. They must be beaten in adjacent territories. So, you need to have the ability, skill and weapons to quickly deploy the necessary grouping in the right areas. I don’t want to be an oracle, but it seems to me that for this purpose it is necessary to significantly increase the artillery units, the RBMB units and the bomb assault aircraft. Today, it is necessary to deal with the identified Basma gangs with such indicative rigidity and speed, so that diarrhea breaks through others from fear. Otherwise, we will fight for a long, bloody and in our territory.
      1. +1
        April 5 2016 22: 50
        In no case should they be allowed to enter the territory of the CSTO countries. They must be beaten in adjacent territories. So, you need to have the ability, skill and weapons to quickly deploy the necessary grouping in the right areas


        I support. And then recently an article by a "diminutive patriot" on the topic "we do not need Armenia, we do not need Karabakh, and Central Asia has gained so many pluses that it became scary
    2. +1
      April 5 2016 22: 46
      Why not check the effectiveness of BMPT there?


      So there is probably no such BMPT. It has not been accepted for service, has not passed state tests, has not been mass-produced (10 Kazakh units do not count). The plant probably has 1-2 prototypes, which would be able to carry around exhibitions - that's all.
  7. +4
    April 5 2016 06: 01
    Those who will directly deal with this equipment in a combat situation, i.e. crews, should say their word, and so all these statements are more like a desire to get money for production and the expert doesn’t care how the equipment will be used, only practice in real combat the situation can show the expediency of using this or that technique; one should not forget that anti-tank weapons also do not stand still and are developing in full swing
  8. +3
    April 5 2016 06: 05
    To the opinion of experts and an expert - REAL - you need to listen. In my opinion, the technique described by the author is necessary in military operations. And best of all they will be convinced of the need (or vice versa - such equipment is not needed) for military personnel with experience in military operations.
  9. +1
    April 5 2016 06: 09
    Tanks in an urban area are vital to have combat escort vehicles - fire support. Moreover, both with automatic guns of small and medium caliber, and with a large-caliber gun howitzer ballistics.

    I agree with that.
    In addition to the author’s article, I’ll add that the operation of the aerospace forces in Syria has revealed some problems with the ammunition.
    Who cares to read.

    http://warfiles.ru/show-114021-operaciya-v-sirii-pokazala-slabye-mesta-vks-rf.ht

    ml
    1. 0
      April 5 2016 06: 59
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      http://warfiles.ru/show-114021-operaciya-v-sirii-pokazala-slabye-mesta-vks-rf.ht


      ml

      There is nothing there request
      1. +1
        April 5 2016 07: 34
        So try:
        http://warfiles.ru/show-114021-operaciya-v-sirii-pokazala-slabye-mesta-vks-rf.ht
        ml
      2. +1
        April 5 2016 07: 54
        And you try not to "go to the address", but to copy and paste. The robot threw in extra spaces.
  10. +3
    April 5 2016 06: 10
    And why did the author decide that the picture as a whole is better visible to him than to the Ministry of Defense ... request
    1. -1
      April 5 2016 08: 51
      And why did the author decide that the picture as a whole is better visible to him than to the Ministry of Defense ... request

      I can also ask you why you actually doubt the author’s words. Khlopotov, among other things, is a person not far from UVZ and an expert who did not appear yesterday. Why the Ministry of Defense is silent is not a question for the author. This is an unanswered question by the author to the Ministry of Defense.
      1. +1
        April 5 2016 09: 39
        Quote: DenZ
        Hassle among other people near the UVZ

        And therefore, can judge what is needed for combined arms on the battlefield?

        By the way, "proximity to UVZ" is more a minus than a plus.
        1. 0
          April 7 2016 13: 15
          This is more likely to be a minus than a plus.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  11. +4
    April 5 2016 06: 15
    I think in the Moscow region the budget is not rubber, to provide tanks and combat vehicles in the first place. BMPT is still a machine for urban battles, and now the Defense Ministry is imprisoned for NATO there is another war, God forbid. And to change the composition of the Tank Regiment instead of 3 motorized rifle companies, make two motorized rifle companies and a BMPT company
  12. +1
    April 5 2016 06: 18
    No need to invent anything bd experience in Syria suggests the right direction both in tactics of application and in technology.
  13. +2
    April 5 2016 06: 30
    Quote: Igor39
    BMPT why they do not want to run in Syria is not clearhave tried at least its effectiveness.

    Did I understand you correctly? Offer raw yet a car with our crew send to the Syrian desert, (Syrians will have to be trained until the end of the IGL), then to arrange a debriefing and, God forbid, lose the crew.
    And all for the sake of try?
  14. +2
    April 5 2016 07: 00
    BAM is a combat artillery vehicle based on the Armata platform. She should have protection at the level of a tank, but armed with a powerful rifled 152-mm gun with howitzer ballistics.

    152 seems to be already a "nuclear" caliber? Battalion-level TNW carrier? An interesting and very useful idea! wink
    IMHO
    1. +2
      April 5 2016 07: 42
      152 seems to be already a "nuclear" caliber? Battalion-level TNW carrier? An interesting and very useful idea!


      However, Daesh militants switched to the use of IPRITA against ASADA soldiers ... I believe that if this goes on, jamming the militants will have to be more serious weapons.
  15. 0
    April 5 2016 08: 10
    I didn’t understand a bit about the author’s statement: -If the 30-mm machine is often not able to break through a concrete wall, the brickwork is painted brick by brick, then the 57-mm projectile needs just one hit. Like KPVT quite copes with this.
  16. +1
    April 5 2016 08: 24
    \\\ I would venture to go even further - to have replaceable crews on tanks ... \\\\
    and not only on tanks, a man is not a machine, he needs rest, treatment, etc., the presence of a replaceable crew will allow using the equipment as long as possible ... my reasoning is simple (it may seem primitive to someone) - for example, a plane with one crew because of physical people's fatigue can’t work as much as possible .. another thing is a shift crew, there’s only refueling and maintenance. Of course, training pilots requires money, but the question of money is quite comparable with the price of the aircraft and the tasks they perform.
  17. +6
    April 5 2016 08: 24
    Damn, another BMPT apologist. The Azov battalion with its city tank nervously smokes on the sidelines.
    Moreover, both with automatic guns of small and medium caliber, and with a large-caliber gun howitzer ballistics.

    But do not you think, gentlemen, that it’s easier to teach a tank to lift the barrel by 45-60 degrees. and there’s no need to fence the garden with two additional vehicles, which, being included in the tank unit, inflate the platoon staff to the company. With corresponding consequences.
    Then BMPTs enter and clean them up.
    Oh yeah! I imagine BMPT crawling into the basement to catch another ichwanine from an RPG. and how the other three ichwanians are burning her at that moment.
    BMPT - a tank with weakened weapons. And nothing more. In the city lives as much as an ordinary tank. The whole process is the ability to shoot on the upper floors.
    Now about "Armata". What do not you like? - made a tank and a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. We decided to take an even simpler path: not to teach the tank to shoot at the upper floors, but to leave them at the mercy of BMPs with tank protection. Which can deliver the Troopers, which will already crawl into the basement for the Ikhvans with RPG. And the BMP gunner at this time will vigilantly watch that the other three Ikhwanin would sit quietly in the holes and not stick out. And if you need to demolish something, so at your service is a 125 mm tank gun (with the prospect of replacing it by 150 mm.) And why fence a garden with as many as four vehicles (BMP or armored personnel carriers are still needed), as suggested in the article?
    1. +1
      April 5 2016 08: 31
      Quote: tchoni
      and why fence the garden already with four cars

      It's just a pity to "throw out" old tanks.
    2. +1
      April 5 2016 08: 44
      Quote: tchoni
      But do not you think, gentlemen, that it’s easier to teach a tank to lift the barrel by 45-60 degrees. and there’s no need to fence the garden with two additional vehicles, which, being included in the tank unit, inflate the platoon staff to the company. With corresponding consequences.

      to lift a gun - it would, of course, be good, but there’s an AZ carousel plus recoil (and the charge of gunpowder, most likely, is fixed - maximum)
      1. 0
        April 5 2016 09: 54
        So remake AZ. And the suspension of the tank must withstand the return. In the end, she can withstand jumping from a meter and a half. To work with the system of extinguishing the return ... All these issues are resolved.
        1. 0
          April 5 2016 09: 59
          Quote: tchoni
          All these issues are resolved.

          Only due to the increase in height. And "Armata" and so "grew up" in comparison with the T-72 and T-90
          1. 0
            April 5 2016 11: 00
            not necessary. This is not a sau. charging there at a given elevation angle is a necessity (otherwise we will reduce accuracy and rate of fire.) Here you can experiment.
            1. 0
              April 5 2016 11: 24
              Quote: tchoni
              You can experiment here.

              Why experiment?
              Tank doesn’t really need it. It is not necessary to complicate it totally for the sake of a relatively rare fire at large elevation angles. There are a bunch of other solutions, especially for the city.
              Offhand, a robotic complex based on the T-72. With an armored combat module with six to eight "Fagots"
              1. 0
                April 5 2016 11: 55
                Quote: Spade
                why experiment?

                Well, at least for general development :-) The author in the article does not accidentally mention SU152. One of their advantages in front of the tank was the ability to raise the trunk to a decent angle. Which facilitated the suppression of firing points on the upper floors of buildings. So, I wouldn’t deny the need for a heavy gun with large pickup angles.
                Quote: Spade
                Offhand, a robotic complex based on the T-72. With an armored combat module with six to eight "Fagots"

                Those. almost BMPT and bloated staff again? It seems to me that the decision of the "Armata" developers to supplement the TBMP tank is more elegant. (by the way, there is an ATM)
                1. +2
                  April 5 2016 12: 39
                  Quote: tchoni
                  The author in the article does not accidentally mention SU152. One of their advantages in front of the tank was the ability to raise the trunk to a decent angle.

                  ?
                  On the contrary. The SU-152 maximum VL angle was 20 degrees, the T-34-85-22 degrees.
                  Yes, and not for buildings they were created, it hurts greasy. They appeared in order to shoot pillboxes


                  Quote: tchoni
                  Those. almost BMPT and again bloated staff?

                  And what makes it modular?
                  Let elongated demining charges launch "in the fields", load fascines into anti-tank ditches, drag mine trawls
                  1. +1
                    April 5 2016 14: 42
                    Quote: Spade
                    what prevents to make it modular?
                    Let elongated demining charges launch "in the fields", load fascines into anti-tank ditches, drag mine trawls

                    I'm afraid that in the city, the engineering machine has enough work. And, in general, can you imagine how much easier it is to change the design of an existing machine than to design a new one? Moreover, the bassoons will either remain unprotected again or a rather complex AZ will be required as on a "dragon".
                    The simplest option was suggested by the designers of the "armata". Time will tell whether it turns out to be the best.
                    But, in my opinion, to raise a trunk tank must be taught. In my opinion, a good angle of vertical guidance of a serious gun is one of the reasons for the effectiveness of BMP3 weapons ...
        2. 0
          April 5 2016 10: 22
          Quote: tchoni
          So remake AZ. And the suspension of the tank must withstand the return. In the end, she can withstand jumping from a meter and a half. To work with the system of extinguishing the return ... All these issues are resolved.

          recoil - this is an additional move of the breech towards the bottom with AZ and, most likely, there is nowhere to reduce it
          1. 0
            April 5 2016 10: 36
            Quote: pimen
            recoil - this is an additional move of the breech towards the bottom with AZ and, most likely, there is nowhere to reduce it

            The height of the tank is 1-1.2 meters! Enough to roll back almost anything. The sleeve now burns everything except the pallet (cm10 long) So there will be no problems with the rollback and extraction. Yes, the gun will remain on the delivery line, but this problem has already been solved quite well. Yes, when shooting with large elevation angles, a decrease in rate of fire is possible, but this is not very scary. Boeharas in the AZ can be placed vertically, without eating the height of the car. And so forth ...
    3. +1
      April 5 2016 10: 28
      Quote: tchoni
      But do not you think, gentlemen, that it’s easier to teach a tank to lift the barrel by 45-60 degrees.

      As far as I know, the tank guns of a high ballista have a long and bulky breech. Therefore, raising the gun up requires the large dimensions of the tower.
      1. 0
        April 5 2016 10: 58
        The length of the breech of the 2a46 cannon, if my memory serves me something, is about 900 mm (a little less) The height of the "Armata" from the floor of the hull to the roof of the tower is 1.5-1.8 meters. The length of the recoil of the gun - 360 seems to be millimeters. In total, we have somewhere 1.3 meters necessary for the gun (we also count here the length of the pallet to be removed, just in case.) But this is an option for installing the gun at 90 degrees. When lifting 45-60 degrees, multiply this length by the cosine of the corresponding angle and you will be happy.
    4. 0
      April 5 2016 10: 35
      Quote: tchoni
      phenomena - the ability to shoot on the upper floors.
      Now about "Armata". What do not you like? - made a tank and a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. We decided to take an even simpler path: not to teach the tank to shoot at the upper floors, but to leave them at the mercy of BMPs with tank protection. Which can deliver the troopers, which will already crawl into the basement for ihwana

      For example, I expected from Armata these were two main guns and 30 mm, and secretly hoped that the guns would be independent of at least two machine guns, well, and a grenade launcher in the most secret dreams. Tell the wunderwafer well, look at BMP 3, two guns and nothing. The only problem this is to make a separate module under 30mm. Yes, it’s difficult, but I think it’s being solved. And then I think the question of BMPT will disappear if there is such fire power on each tank.
      1. 0
        April 5 2016 11: 47
        And I expected from "Armata" the ability to lift the trunk at an angle of 45-60 degrees. Our expectations did not come true. hi
        But, as an option, I can propose to look at the AMX42 (40) tank there such an opportunity is implemented for 20mm. guns. I don’t remember exactly the pointing angle at twenty degrees 40-45, but climbing the wiki is lazy.
    5. 0
      April 5 2016 14: 58
      Quote: tchoni
      But do not you think, gentlemen, that it’s easier to teach a tank to lift the barrel by 45-60 degrees.

      And you climb into the tank (normal, iron) and understand that it’s not at all easier ... You won’t believe it, the gun inside the tower has a continuation. smile
  18. +1
    April 5 2016 08: 58
    Quote: avg-mgn
    Quote: Igor39
    BMPT why they do not want to run in Syria is not clearhave tried at least its effectiveness.

    Did I understand you correctly? Offer raw yet a car with our crew send to the Syrian desert, (Syrians will have to be trained until the end of the IGL), then to arrange a debriefing and, God forbid, lose the crew.
    And all for the sake of try?

    And why the hell then to advertise what kind of "miracle machine" is, to design something new in general? To sit and be afraid to experience it in real life?
    1. +3
      April 5 2016 09: 50
      Quote: Snow
      To sit and be afraid to experience it in real life?

      Shells for, say, extraction of excrement by means of a shot were also developed. And even patented. But I don’t think they will be tested.

      The military ordered the development of a machine with a maximum number of observation channels and destruction channels. To protect tanks from PTS infantry. Paid for it. But they did not get a result that suits them. All.

      Why do we need constant attempts to push through not only that which is not satisfactory, but also that the machine is morally obsolete in the troops, and obviously I don’t know in a large series. How did Lenin say about capitalists, profit and morality?
      We already have in the troops a "Tiger" that nobody needs, which everyone is trying to find their niche, so as not to keep hundreds of expensive but not demanded cars in storage bases.
  19. +1
    April 5 2016 09: 08
    Maybe this is wrecking? The tank has long been successfully hit by a variety of ATGMs, which are available to almost all illegal groups that have money or sponsors. The relatively successful actions of the T-90 showed that you can not spare money to ensure the survival of tanks and, most importantly, crews. A surviving crew with a tank is a more effective combat unit.
    Considering that a large "direct" war is unlikely, but it will be necessary to fight various "igils" armed with outdated weapons, a combat armor-fire complex as part of a tank unit with accompanying means attached to it will be very effective.
    ATGM calculations operate from open positions, therefore they are vulnerable to BMPT. It is also possible that TOSs should be part of the tank support complex.
    1. +1
      April 5 2016 09: 53
      Quote: iouris
      ATGM calculations operate from open positions, therefore they are vulnerable to BMPT.

      Range, respected, range ... ATGM calculations should be hit by tanks. For BMPT, there is simply no place in this equation.
  20. +1
    April 5 2016 09: 27
    In my opinion, not a bad solution for the BMPT would be a gun from the "Vienna" and 30-mm, paired in the same turret with tank protection. The ability to conduct mounted mortar fire in urban environments is very useful. As well as the possibility of direct fire of the upper floors of buildings. Whether from 120 mm, even from 30 mm. Also in the highlands.
  21. +6
    April 5 2016 09: 28
    Cool. Brutal. Not necessary. Khlopotov fell ill with gigantomania.

    BMPT simply can not fulfill its main function: to strengthen the protection of tanks from anti-tank infantry. At least in that variant in which they are offered by MO.
    ------------
    57 mm combat module. Pretty good. But one more caliber is already a big problem. A complete transition from 30 mm to 57 mm is simply not possible
    ------------
    Direct fire support vehicle aka "BMA, Artillery Fighting Vehicle" (Gee ... We must think the rest are "not combat").
    In fact, the machine has the right to life. Judging by the constant attempts to pull "to the front", to direct fire, not only classic self-propelled guns, but also anachronisms like the MT-12 anti-tank guns, and even the D-44. And even 120-mm and 82-mm mortars of the battalion artillery are pulled half-straight, right under enemy fire.

    But ... Again, why the 152 mm? Obviously an extra hemorrhage for procurers. Everything goes to ensure that our battalion artillery will settle in the caliber of a 122-mm shell with ready-to-use rifles and a 120-mm mine. That machine direct fire support must have this caliber.

    Projectile, mine, guided projectile. Possibility of illumination both by the vehicle itself and from an external target designator rangefinder, ground infantry or UAV. Perhaps it makes sense to install on some of the vehicles universal radars of the "Aistenka" type, capable of seeing the enemy's moving targets on the trajectory, too.

    In short, to finish "Vienna" to mind. And put it in the battalion staff in the form of a fire support battery. Together, and not instead of a mortar, which should be fired from a closed OP.

    However, I personally do not see the need for a car based on "Armata". Enough protection from the enemy ATGM. After all, this is a "long arm", they are far beyond the line of tanks, and beyond the line of infantry fighting vehicles. The base is T-72 / T-90. And even better, on the same base as the self-propelled mortars of the Ministry of Defense.

    ------
    As for ideas like "drive the TOS to the minimum range", "clean up the defense by means of BMPT", "replacement crews" I will simply keep silent. We don’t have enough money to create structures tailored exclusively for "stabilization operations", that is, counterterrorism / counter-insurgency / counter-guerrilla (hello to Serdyukov with his 100th experimental brigade). Moreover, provide them with special equipment.
    In addition, it is not a very smart idea to withdraw the "Solntsepёk" under the attack of the enemy's ATGM systems, of which it turned out like mud in Syria.
    1. +1
      April 5 2016 11: 49
      For almost all points I agree.
      But, 57 seems to me quite a promising caliber, the smooth replacement of 30mm with more powerful and technologically advanced shells has been brewing for a long time, as well as the expansion of the range of transportable ammunition. And despite all the problems with add. the load on the security, to realize many chips in the 30mm format (normal distance detonation, defeat of NATO BMP countries in the frontal projection) seems to me a little real.

      And so in essence all that is needed is a tank, bmp and vein / host. They have everything that both BMPT and other child prodigies can offer, but this is already a serial technique, the only question is how to manage it wisely.
      1. 0
        April 5 2016 12: 44
        Quote: Albanian
        realize many chips in 30mm format (normal distance detonation, defeat of NATO countries BMP in frontal projection)

        Laser detonation with the introduction of fuse installations through a laser has already been developed.

        http://www.romz.ru/ru/catalog/optiko-elektronnyj-modul-bloka-lazernogo-programma
        tora-izluchatelja-kompleksa-distancionnogo-upravle.htm
  22. +2
    April 5 2016 10: 12
    Nevertheless, in most conflicts since Afghanistan, Shilka and their artisanal counterparts were used for stripping. And they were actively used. Therefore IMHO BMPT has the right to exist
  23. 0
    April 5 2016 10: 54
    Calling Khlopotov an expert is strong
  24. 0
    April 5 2016 11: 25
    Quote: tchoni
    The length of the breech of the 2a46 cannon, if my memory serves me something, is about 900 mm (a little less) The height of the "Armata" from the floor of the hull to the roof of the tower is 1.5-1.8 meters. The length of the recoil of the gun - 360 seems to be millimeters. In total, we have somewhere 1.3 meters necessary for the gun (we also count here the length of the pallet to be removed, just in case.) But this is an option for installing the gun at 90 degrees. When lifting 45-60 degrees, multiply this length by the cosine of the corresponding angle and you will be happy.

    That's as soon as the elevation angles become not 90, but 60 - so immediately the ammunition mounted vertically will start to interfere ...
    Without increasing the height of the car, perhaps you can only play along with a little air suspension (but this is probably done)
  25. +1
    April 5 2016 11: 31
    And again we slide down to the experts who are directly lobbying the industry. How many copies were broken here on this occasion - do not count. There is an idea of ​​modular platforms, which is being "successfully" implemented, where there is a place for different calibers, missile weapons and everything on a single base. Terminators are, although relevant, but launching such machines into a series is a dull and hopeless task.
  26. +2
    April 5 2016 11: 49
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Interesting interesting. And the opinion of the MO is interesting.


    Perhaps there is simply no money for everything at once?
  27. 0
    April 5 2016 13: 45
    Of course, the modern combat experience in the use of equipment must be studied and used, the best that can be adopted by the Russian army. For example, the use of a second crew in tanks. One rests after the battle, and the second attacks the enemy with renewed vigor. As in the field of suffering machine operators in agricultural enterprises. The same job. In my opinion, there is a rational kernel.
  28. 0
    April 5 2016 15: 47
    the author sculpts some order. First, he laments the lack of orders for BMPT, not forgetting to braid Serdyukov, and then tells how good the module with the 57 mm cannon is. Again, hde logic ?! 30mm cannons are outdated. The fact that at the Victory Parade on Kurgantsy and T-15s there were modules with 30-mm cannons only suggests that there are no ready-made tested modules with a 57-mm cannon and ATGMs yet. An even bigger problem is the provision of a sufficient number of modern projectiles, because the enlargement of the caliber occurs not only for the sake of increasing the destructive effect, but also because you cannot fit any electronics into a 30mm projectile, you cannot make a "smart" projectile.
    But the pre-production models for the parade could be put and the current. Anyway, the majority did not pay attention to the fact that of all the armaments that were on the new machines at the time of serial production, we hope that everything will change. Only the Coalition-SV will change the chassis, but the gun is unlikely.
    So, personally, I sincerely hope that the new armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and TBMPs will be released in series with combat modules equipped with a 57-mm gun and the latest ATGMs. It will be really good. Especially, the development of mass production of 57-mm shells, including remote detonation. Therefore, I consider ignoring BMPT on the part of the Ministry of Defense justified both because of outdated weapons and because of the lack of circular protection of the outdated chassis.
    It's easy to say "convert 72s into BMPTs" ... everything needs to be changed there. We need new electronics and optics. We need reliable protection of the sides and "roof" from enemy ATGMs and grenade launchers, and this is even more weight. So a new engine and transmission are needed ...
    1. -1
      April 5 2016 22: 20
      I agree, sometimes it’s easier to do it again than to remake and modernize the old one. A tank is not a plane or a ship, everything is easier with it. If MO should have been, they would have done so as the author says. And yet it’s millions. And the old 72 ki will gradually cut them into needles and that's it. And replace with T-14, T-15 and so on ...
  29. 0
    April 5 2016 22: 29
    Gentlemen, maybe we recall the history of the creation of BMPT?
    The BMPT was conceived as a replacement for the motorized infantry squad, which simply didn’t keep pace with the new maneuverable tanks and fettered them on the combined arms battle field. When developing a BMPT, the main problem was not to push weapons into it, but to ensure autonomous guidance of all firing points. That is why BMPT-1 has a crew of 7 people. It seemed a lot and BMPT-2 has a crew of only 3 people. Which reduces the concept to a madhouse.

    No one ever imagined it as the main combat unit. This is an auxiliary machine. Its fire complex is intended to replace the department of motorized infantry and infantry fighting vehicles, and not a tank, and even in the city. To remodel the T-72 into it, as I said, is idiocy, because in the end we get a lightly armed tank, and not a BMPT.

    If you want BMPT to the masses, then this should be a machine with several autonomous firing points that can be individually targeted. If you want, then the T-35 of the 21st century. And certainly not with such a set and placement of weapons.

    A module with 57 mm is good if the sighting system and the gun can fire at air targets - this will add problems to any helicopters over the battlefield.

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

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