Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Share

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Wed Nov 16, 2011 8:05 pm

    oh but i though russian land army already had plenty of those?! They seem to invest alot into it.
    Then ok you can put top turret from tunguska on t-72 modification with additional armour, frontal engine ,and rear infantry compartment.

    And get another Tunguska? They have Tuguska for its job. BMPT is to replace Tunguska in ground fighting not in air defense. BMPT doesn't need radars and specialized air defense computers. BMPT have only optical FCS with laser range finder and ballistic computer with 30 mm guns with rate of fire at 1000 round/min. Tunguska's rate of fire with 5000 r/min is too high and you will be very quickly out of ammo. BMPT is needed and it have its place in armor units. It could get some more improvements, but at the end it is still good compromise for the job, it is designed for.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 17, 2011 1:27 am

    It could get some more improvements, but at the end it is still good compromise for the job, it is designed for.

    Yes... some of the firepower of an air defence gun vehicle but having the protection and mobility of a tank so it can go where tanks go.

    Looking at the external 30 cal MG mount on the T-90AM I think something like that could be a good idea for replacing the limited field of view bow gun positions.

    Make them lower profile mounts with a wider elevation range and angle them so they can traverse to shoot to the side of the vehicle as well as cover the entire front of the vehicle as well as depress to -10 degrees and elevate to 70-80 degrees would be the aim. Ideally you could mount an automatic grenade launcher above or below the machine gun so the gunner can select the ammo type based on the target.

    It is pretty clear from the T-90AM design that they really don't like external ammo storage plainly because they see it as being too vulnerable to enemy fire and fitting 100mm HE ammo and a decent amount of 30mm cannon shells below the turret ring will be difficult.

    The irony is that the 57mm cannon shells of the old S-60 are actually bigger than the 100mm shells of the BMP-3 which is optimised for short range use against point and area targets, so even going for a middle calibre might not be that good either.

    It all depends on what sort of performance they get from that 45mm calibre round.

    Another option could be to use weapons with the most compact ammo, so the 30mm could be replaced by the 23mm shell used by the last model Hinds... unlike the ZSU-23-4s 23 x 152mm high velocity shell, it uses the 14.5 x 114mm rounds shell case that results in the 23 x 114mm round with low velocity (about 700m/s) but with a relatively heavy projectile and a high rate of fire.

    So many choices.

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Thu Nov 17, 2011 9:09 pm

    medo wrote:
    oh but i though russian land army already had plenty of those?! They seem to invest alot into it.
    Then ok you can put top turret from tunguska on t-72 modification with additional armour, frontal engine ,and rear infantry compartment.

    And get another Tunguska? They have Tuguska for its job. BMPT is to replace Tunguska in ground fighting not in air defense. BMPT doesn't need radars and specialized air defense computers. BMPT have only optical FCS with laser range finder and ballistic computer with 30 mm guns with rate of fire at 1000 round/min. Tunguska's rate of fire with 5000 r/min is too high and you will be very quickly out of ammo. BMPT is needed and it have its place in armor units. It could get some more improvements, but at the end it is still good compromise for the job, it is designed for.
    somebody said before its suppose to have Anti-aircraft role too,so is it, ore is it not, a requirement? im confused now. and what do you think about the placement of the missiles on terminator ? i think its not good so much in the open? could a hrizantema scheme be used ,or thor vertical launch?

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:48 pm

    somebody said before its suppose to have Anti-aircraft role too,so is it, ore is it not, a requirement? im confused now. and what do you think about the placement of the missiles on terminator ? i think its not good so much in the open? could a hrizantema scheme be used ,or thor vertical launch?

    BMPT is not anti-aircraft vehicle nor tank hunter. BMPT could do both jobs with its armament, but it's only in self defense. They are not its main task. BMPT is ground fighting vehicle meant to replace AA guns in ground fightings against infantry, that is why it doesn't need radars. You are correct. If you are building something to replace AA guns in ground fightings, that you get something with similar capabilities. So yes, if unit with BMPTs is cached in battle without air defense protection from other systems, it could conditionlly take this role as self defense, but need outside source of informations about air targets, because its capabilities here are still limited. Good C4I could do that job.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:21 pm

    The ability to engage enemy helos and UAVs/UCAVs is for immediate self defence only.

    The ATAKAs will not have HEAT warheads, they are primarily for the anti air role to hit point moving targets at long range.

    Considering the Kristantema is replacing the ATAKA I think it would make sense to use it to replace the ATAKA here.

    A point target like a TOW team would be easier to engage with a 125mm ANIET shell.

    The two main purposes of these vehicles is to operate with and compliment tanks... offering fire power against certain targets and to suppress enemy infantry when needed, and as a convoy protection vehicle where its fire power would be used to beat off an attack that might be infantry or vehicle based.

    Part of the problem is that the requirements are not totally clearly defined... in many ways a BMP-3 armament would be useful with perhaps the single barrel 2A72 cannon replaced with the higher rate of fire twin barrel GSh=30K... firing the same ammo at either 2,000 rpm or 350 rpm... the latter to improve accuracy and save ammo.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:23 pm

    The ATAKAs will not have HEAT warheads, they are primarily for the anti air role to hit point moving targets at long range.

    I think ATAKA missile with thermobaric warhead is for both soft point targets on the ground and in the air. For anti air role would be better to place Igla missiles than ATAKA, which have to be guided until target is hit.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:40 am


    I think ATAKA missile with thermobaric warhead is for both soft point targets on the ground and in the air.

    The Russians will be planning for a range of conflict types... conflict in Afghanistan or Chechnia will not likely involve enemy air power of any kind, yet a conflict against Georgia will involve enemy air power.

    Obviously it is not a loading problem for the ATAKA because it only has one explosive warhead for soft targets would be effective against soft ground and aerial targets of all types.

    For anti air role would be better to place Igla missiles than ATAKA, which have to be guided until target is hit.

    ATAKA uses a similar automatic guidance system to the Kornet-EM... it is a heavy missile designed for use from Helos or large vehicles and actually offers probably better hit performance than Igla against very low flying targets like helos hovering near trees.

    Iglas would not be as dual purpose as ATAKA and would have a much smaller warhead.

    The purpose of the BMPT is fire power with the armour of tanks.

    in the new structure of heavy, medium and light brigades... that means only the heavy brigades will have BMPT fire power vehicles... and the purpose of the BMPT was to bring BMP fire power up to the armour level of the tanks it operates with... now if every vehicle in the heavy brigade uses the same Armata chassis that means there will be troop transports (BTRs) and infantry fighting vehicles (BMPs) with tank levels of armour already. Those BTRs will likely already have infantry with Igla-S gripstocks and a few missiles... and later on perhaps Verba gripstocks too.
    Equally there will be an air defence vehicle based on Pantsir-S1 on an Armata chassis... the problem of course will be ammo capacity, but if the heavy brigade was being used in the Afghan war in the 1980s then with no enemy air power then the Pantsir-S1 vehicles would be free to expend its 30mm ammo on ground targets.

    Perhaps that is why the Russian Army has decided it doesn't need it... because the BMP equivalent vehicle in each brigade will provide fire power along with the air defence vehicle... whose armour will match the armour of the tank vehicle in that unit... which meets the requirement of the BMPT.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:26 pm

    Agree Garry. I would like just to show to other members the difference between air defense AA guns and BMPT, which is designed to replace AA guns in ground fightings. BMPT is not dedicated air defense vehicle, but could do air defense job in self defense and self defense is the main point here. Igla is dedicated fire and forget air defense missile, while ATAKA is dedicated for ground targets and could be also used against flying targets, same as Kornet or Krizanthema ATGM.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:56 am

    Yes... I agree.

    And it was not just the Soviet and Russian Armies, the US army used M42 Duster vehicles and Vulcans for convoy escort in Vietnam where their twin 40mm Bofors cannon and 6 barrel 20mm cannon respectively were very effective... in many ways they were rather more effective in the ground role than they ever were in the anti aircraft role they were designed for.

    ...the Duster having most of the problems that the west derided the ZSU-57-2 for, but the limitations of the Duster are conveniently forgotten.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1518
    Points : 1681
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:24 pm

    Another photo of a Vodnik in service:


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:09 am

    That is interesting... an ambulance with a built in litter crane... pretty unusual.

    Was going to suggest it was an off topic post, but really the BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle could be applied to medium and light brigades too.

    The BMPT is supposed to have tank level armour so it can operate with tanks without being especially vulnerable.

    The light tanks in the medium and light brigades will be based on the medium and light family vehicles, so basing a BMP-3 like vehicle on those chassis should be a good idea as it separates the BMP firepower and heavy ammo load from the BMP troop squad, so penetrations wont lead to losing a squad of troops.

    This could mean another shift in armour... the Soviets started it by creating the BMP which combined heavier armour with significantly more firepower together with troop transport. They kept the BTR concept, which is just an APC that delivers its troops to the fighting and then withdraws and my provide limited fire support with a HMG or light cannon.

    The BMPT in the new units is based on the concept of separation of the troops from the heavy ammo that could take out a whole vehicle if hit. The result is a firepower vehicle with the weapons of a BMP, but trading the troops for extra ammo.
    This means you have the BMPT, a BMP that is tracked, but carries a relatively light armament of HMGs and cannon, and BTR which has HMGs or light cannon armament.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:09 pm

    I agree, that BMPT principle vehicle could be applied to medium and light brigades. Maybe in that case they will have different designation. It could be placed on BMP-3 chassis for medium and on BTR chassis for light brigades. In difference with other BMPs and BTRs, they will not carry infantry troops. For that job they could use turret from BTR-82A, replace its main gun with twin GSh-30-2 and eventually place some Kornet ATGMs for self defense and proper FCS with thermal imager, laser range finder and missile guidance channel. Only problem of those vehicles will be weak armor, so they will be quite vulnerable to AT weapons.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:05 am

    Only problem of those vehicles will be weak armor, so they will be quite vulnerable to AT weapons.

    Quite true, but then considering they will be operating within a brigade based on the same vehicle chassis with the same level of protection it makes perfect sense.

    You wouldn't send a light brigade into a city against an enemy well equipped with AT weapons.

    They would actually be more useful in open Steppe or desert where visibility would be excellent and less sophisticated enemies could be engaged at long range.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:24 am

    There is one little problem for Russia. If they will have to fight in steppes or deserts defending their country in conventional war, it will be against NATO or China, which also have large heavy armor units, what only mean they will need more heavy brigades and those lighter brigades will be more for quick reaction units. Also those lighter units will more depend on self propelled ATGMs and on attack helicopters for support against enemy heavy armor. Actually those units will need vehicle like BMPT, but with more ATGMs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:57 am

    There is one little problem for Russia. If they will have to fight in steppes or deserts defending their country in conventional war, it will be against NATO or China,

    In a full scale war against China or NATO it will be nukes deciding the results of the conflicts.

    What happens to that NATO or Chinese heavy tank brigade when it gets to a deep fast flowing river?

    What if it is the rainy season and tanks just sink in the steppe?

    A well organised properly controlled armoured force of lighter vehicles can take on a better equipped but less prepared force.

    Even in mountains a lighter force can move places a heavier force will just get stuck in.

    Even a light force will have heavy firepower... including 10km range ATGMs like the Kornet-EM.

    Also those lighter units will more depend on self propelled ATGMs and on attack helicopters for support against enemy heavy armor. Actually those units will need vehicle like BMPT, but with more ATGMs.

    I would suspect a HERMES regiment would be useful in support with a regiment of Tornado-G vehicles... when the latter are fitted with 122mm rockets they will be quite potent, but when fitted with 300mm rockets then they will be quite powerful support units.

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    IFV/BMPT vechiles

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:51 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Regarding the old model T-72s even if their turrets are obsolete (for the very early models) you can give the chassis a quick upgrade as use the chassis base for other things like a MSTA base for MSTAs that operate in units of T-72s so there is a commonality of components. They could even use them for BTRTs to replace BMP and BTR vehicles in heavy brigades equipped with T-72s.

    ***who about get the old T-72 and made them like The BMPT for infantry, but with Berezhok turret
    and maybe a-45/57 gun?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:52 am

    ***who about get the old T-72 and made them like The BMPT for infantry, but with Berezhok turret
    and maybe a-45/57 gun?

    The right idea but wrong implimentation.

    The BMPT is a fire support vehicle to help tanks operate or to protect convoys.

    In afghanistan the equivalent of a BMPT was not a BMP-2, it would have been a Shilka.

    Utilising the larger turret ring of the T-72 if you could redesign the Berezhok turret to move the two turret crew below the turret ring level to give them best protection and a new gun as you suggest would be a very good idea in my opinion.

    The catch is that the whole concept of the Armata is to separate the crew from the fuel and ammo, and introducing a heavy gun like a 45/57mm weapon puts lots of propellent and HE charges in the crew compartment...

    Basically I see the BMPT as a separation of the heavy firepower of the BMP out of the troop carrying role to separate the crew and troops from all that ammo.

    The result is that the troop transports will have 14.5mm HMGs and 30mm cannon but not the direct and indirect firepower of the 100mm gun of the BMP-3. The question is, how do you restore that firepower to the heavy brigade because while tanks can deal with medium to long range targets they are not so good at aiming at close in targets.

    The BMP-3 could use its 100mm gun against such targets but in close in combat its thin armour makes it very vulnerable.

    The solution was the BMPT, but as mentioned elsewhere adnauseum by me I think it needs the following changes:

    Use the BMO-T as a chassis concept with the Armatas heavy armour as the actual chassis (BMO-T has more headroom in the chassis).
    Change the two 2A42 30mm cannon for a single GSh-30-2... uses the same ammo, but has the option to fire at a slow rate and also at a much faster rate for aerial targets and it is lighter than 2 2A42s.
    Add a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3, whose weight will help improve the accuracy of the 30mm weapon in all firing modes, and will give relatively accurate HE power out to 7km and very accurate anti armour capability out to about 5.5km and would replace the ATAKA missiles.
    Front roof mounted external gun positions for a combo of a PKT and Balkan 40mm grenade launcher on each side of the hull designed to fire back and sideways as well as forward.

    The result would be more room for ammo, better use of the 30mm rounds carried from a long barrel high velocity weapon, direct fire HE that is relatively cheap out to about 7km replacing the 4 ATGMs with up to 8 laser beam riding gun tube launched ATGMs, and of course the two hull front roof mounted weapons allow a total of three targets to be engaged at once... the PKT could reach to 1km but the Balkan can engage targets out to 2.5km.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:48 pm

    As I remember there was a turret similar to BTR-80A turret with GSh-30-2 gun and Igla missiles for MT-LB modernization. I wonder, what was results of this configuration on tests and if this turret is accepted for army vehicles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:34 am

    The MTLB is a very common vehicle in the Soviet and Russian military and is used instead of BMPs in places where the snow or mud get very deep.

    I too would be interested to see what the Army thought of those upgrades... if I remember correctly there was also one with a twin barrel GSH-23-2 which basically fires the Air Forces 23mm calibre round.

    The interesting thing is that the round is basically a 14.5 x 114mm round with the case necked out and fitted with the projectile of the 23 x 152mm round fired by the Shilka and ZU-23-2, which is a very powerful round.

    This means that the KPV HMG fitted to most BTRs and BRDM-2s can have a few modifications to its barrel and feed mechanism and it can use the 23 x 114mm round, which has a low muzzle velocity but a very heavy (for its calibre) HE projectile. I think the modified gun is called KPVB and it would be a cheap way to increase the fire power of units.

    In fact there is a South African rifle that comes with two barrels/bolts/magazines etc that fires both a 20 x 99mm shell and the 14.5mm round. The 20mm round carries a larger HE payload than the 14.5mm round can carry so against a soft target like a scud missile the 20mm would be best, but against light armour and cars and trucks the 14.5mm has a longer effective range than 50 cal rifles.

    What I am saying is that a unified rifle using 14.5 x 114mm rounds and 23 x 114mm rounds which use the same case which means a standard bolt and magazine could be used and you would just need two barrels for one weapon might be a useful weapon for special teams.

    Of course 20kgs for the rifle plus the spare barrel and some ammo you are probably talking about 30-40 kgs in a couple of loads, but for that weight could could probably carry Metis-M1 ATGM with a guided range of up to 2km and 950mm armour penetration capability.

    I am sure it would still be useful... and more importantly if you were thinking about SLAP rounds to improve armour penetration it would actually make more sense to make a SLAP round for the 23mm shell because the low muzzle velocity is because of the heavy projectile. Using APFSDS rounds the larger calibre the more energy you can push down the tube.

    That is why many of the overbored rounds like the 8mm mauser calibre bullets with enormous cases that looked like 50 cal shells were not as effective as a 50 cal loaded with a sabot and a penetrator. The 50 cals larger calibre allowed higher velocities and more efficient propellent use.

    The same would happen with the 23mm calibre version of the 14.5mm round... a 14.5mm SLAP round would have outstanding penetration performance but a necked out 23mm cannon shell based on the same case would allow even better performance.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:03 am

    I agree, that GSh-23-2 is still good gun and new Russian Mi-35M use it.

    True, MT-LB is more used in softer terrains like in north places and mountain brigades also use MT-LBs, because they are better in mountains than BMPs. For those units it have sense to equip some batteries of MT-LBs with turrets equipped with twin GSh-30-2 or GSH-23-2, Igla SAMs and BTR-82A FCS, because Shilkas and Tunguskas could not operate there, because they are too heavy vehicles. I think they also test this turret on Kamaz Vystrel, but results are also unknown. I wonder, if they test this turret also on BTR-82A?

    AJ-47
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 117
    Points : 118
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    BMPT

    Post  AJ-47 on Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    ***who about get the old T-72 and made them like The BMPT for infantry, but with Berezhok turret
    and maybe a-45/57 gun?

    The right idea but wrong implimentation.

    The BMPT is a fire support vehicle to help tanks operate or to protect convoys.

    In afghanistan the equivalent of a BMPT was not a BMP-2, it would have been a Shilka.

    Utilising the larger turret ring of the T-72 if you could redesign the Berezhok turret to move the two turret crew below the turret ring level to give them best protection and a new gun as you suggest would be a very good idea in my opinion.

    The catch is that the whole concept of the Armata is to separate the crew from the fuel and ammo, and introducing a heavy gun like a 45/57mm weapon puts lots of propellent and HE charges in the crew compartment...

    Basically I see the BMPT as a separation of the heavy firepower of the BMP out of the troop carrying role to separate the crew and troops from all that ammo.

    The result is that the troop transports will have 14.5mm HMGs and 30mm cannon but not the direct and indirect firepower of the 100mm gun of the BMP-3. The question is, how do you restore that firepower to the heavy brigade because while tanks can deal with medium to long range targets they are not so good at aiming at close in targets.

    The BMP-3 could use its 100mm gun against such targets but in close in combat its thin armour makes it very vulnerable.

    The solution was the BMPT, but as mentioned elsewhere adnauseum by me I think it needs the following changes:

    Use the BMO-T as a chassis concept with the Armatas heavy armour as the actual chassis (BMO-T has more headroom in the chassis).
    Change the two 2A42 30mm cannon for a single GSh-30-2... uses the same ammo, but has the option to fire at a slow rate and also at a much faster rate for aerial targets and it is lighter than 2 2A42s.
    Add a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3, whose weight will help improve the accuracy of the 30mm weapon in all firing modes, and will give relatively accurate HE power out to 7km and very accurate anti armour capability out to about 5.5km and would replace the ATAKA missiles.
    Front roof mounted external gun positions for a combo of a PKT and Balkan 40mm grenade launcher on each side of the hull designed to fire back and sideways as well as forward.

    The result would be more room for ammo, better use of the 30mm rounds carried from a long barrel high velocity weapon, direct fire HE that is relatively cheap out to about 7km replacing the 4 ATGMs with up to 8 laser beam riding gun tube launched ATGMs, and of course the two hull front roof mounted weapons allow a total of three targets to be engaged at once... the PKT could reach to 1km but the Balkan can engage targets out to 2.5km.


    ****In my opinion I see two “fire support vehicles”: one is the BMPT and one is the BMPI.The BMPT will escort the tanks, and the BMPI will escort the infantry.

    1. BMPT:
    The BMPT will be part of the tanks brigade and will use the chassis of the T-72. When the Armata platform will be available, the BMPT will be built on it, till then it’s better to use the T-72s then throw them away
    The BMPT will have a crew of 4: driver, 1st gunner, 2nd gunner, and commander. All of them will be seated under the turret’s ring.
    Before we can make any suggestions on weapons, we need to define is the roll of the BNPT in the tank brigade. The main enemies of the tank, in our days, are not the enemy’s tanks, but the tanks killer’s teams, equipped with ATGMs and RPGs.
    The main defence, but not the only one, against ATGMs some with range of up to 8 km, is the ADS hard-kill and soft-kill system. To defend the tanks against the RPG teams we will call the BMPTs. To defend the tanks, we will replace the T-72’s turret with the Berezhok turret, but we will also, replace the 30mm 2A42 gun with, as you said, the GSH-30-2 cannon with HEAB ammo, and 14.5mm HMG as coaxial gun. The 4 ATGM Kornet EM will have a thermobaric warhead and every missile can be swapped for four 80mm guided rocket.
    In my opinion, BMPT needs to have two channels of viewing and firing. 1st channel will be for the GSH-30 and will be operated by the 1st gunner. For the second channel, we will install RWS on the roof of the turret that will be operated by the 2nd gunner. The RWS will be equipped with GSH-23L cannon and PKT as a coaxial MG.
    These weapons have high rate of fire, HEAB munition, and tarmobaric warhead will be the right answer to these tank killer’s teams, and keep them away from the tanks.

    2. BMPI:
    The BMPI will be part of the infantry brigade and will have a different roll than the BMPT. His roll is to be the spear head of the infantry attack. But, as the infantry brigade has fewer tanks, the BMPI will have to have enough fire power to engage IFV, APC, soldiers in the open, in houses, in bunkers etc.
    To deal with all these challenges, the BMPI will have a 45mm gun instead of the GSH-30-2 gun. The 45mm gun is a good compromise between the 100mm and the 30mm guns of the BMP-3. The other weapons system, like the Berezhok turret, the 14.5mm HMG gun, the ATGM missiles and the RWS will stay the same.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:08 am

    Interesting.

    So would your BMPT have two turrets or a layer cake design so that the gunners of the two cannon can engage different targets?

    The two vehicles you are talking about are the BMPT and the BMP, though the BMPT is also supposed to have the extra use of convoy escort because of its fire power.

    As you point out the primary targets are infantry that can't be engaged by using tank weapons (due to weapon elevation limitations mainly).

    Tanks are primarily mobile gun platforms and are well equipped to deal with enemy tanks and armour as well as ATGM teams out to several thousand metres using HEAT or HE shells.

    The targets they have problems with are infantry units with RPGs outside their field of fire. In a city for example troops on the 3rd floor and higher and even those in basement positions can be hard for a conventional tank to engage.

    It needs to be kept in mind however that with an externally mounted main gun and a roof mounted 30mm cannon the Armata based tank might not have the weapon elevation problems of previous T series tanks.

    With the main gun being largely remote control it would not be that hard to add a couple of extra remote machine gun mounts.

    The design of the actual BMPT has a crew of 5 which includes three crew in the front hull with a driver in the centre and two gunners either side manning 30mm grenade launchers in restricted bow machine gun like mounts.

    The turret contains the commander and primary gunner of the vehicle who command the two single barrel 30mm cannon plus coaxial PKT rifle calibre MG and 4 ATAKA anti tank guided missiles... most likely in the upgraded laser beam riding derivative version with a range of 8km or so.

    My objections to such a layout is that the two cannon still have a fairly low rate of fire for aerial targets while being heavier than some much better alternatives already used by the Army, and the fact that the BMP-3 probably has better firepower for the role though lacks the tank level armour required.


    I also think the hull mounted weapon positions are not flexible enough to get the full use of the idea for putting them there in the first place. The Balkan 40mm AGL is compact and powerful and together with a PKT would offer excellent fire power out to about 1,500m for the PKT and 2,500m for the 40mm grenade launcher.
    Together the two weapons would allow each of the two hull gunners to engage a wide range of targets, and with proper external mounts able to shoot at targets in front of and to the sides of the vehicle it would improve the angles the vehicle could deal with targets from and mean the vehicle could realistically engage three different targets at once from a much wider range of angles.

    We have quite a few threads on the BMPT so rather than repeat everything I would invite you to have a look at some of those older threads for our discussions.

    I think with the BMPT that the front engine version of the Armata might suit it best because I would be tempted to have a hull super structure at the rear with a small turret at the front and a small turret at the rear but raised above the front turret with low profile small calibre weapons turrets on the sides and rear of the rear superstructure. Lots of ammo and rifle calibre machine guns and grenade launchers.

    gloriousfatherland
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 99
    Points : 124
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 24
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:40 am

    I really don't fancy any upgrades of the BMP BTR BMD uf they dont improve IED protection and RPG proection for the crews. These are the main threat Russian troops will face in any regional conflict with NATO proxy aggressors. My question is why have an interior when it is not safe to be inside? Useless much is the troop transport compartment.? The lame armor on these vehicles cause the troops to ride ontop where they are exposed to small arms fire, but are safer from the the bush fire the the APCs become with hit by rpgs IED as seen in chechnya and Afghanistan and are also able to reach faster. Also tracks though they provide increase mobility have a tendecy to detach when hit by AT mine or IED, so there were proposals for them to be refitted with weels such as the btr which have shown it could operate with missing weals. However the russian government if i recall correctly will give the western front troops tracked vehicles while the Rapid Reaction Forces in the east would get wheeled vehicles. The main point is better protection means better survivability

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2012 5:39 am

    We are not talking about troop carriers... the troop carriers in the Armata brigades (which is both the heavy tank brigades and the heavy motor rifle brigades) have tank level armour and mobility.

    The purpose of the BMPT has nothing to do with troop transport and everything to do with protecting tanks from threats they are not really good at fighting.

    To extrapolate further I personally think the requirement for a BMPT like vehicle becomes MORE important with the new vehicle families because of their focus on protecting their crews... there is no point in going to all the effort of shifting the tank crew in the Armata to the front of the hull and super armouring that area and separating the fuel and ammo from that position if you then make an IFV version of the Armata for troop transport where the crew and troops are surrounded by 45mm shells and ATGMs and internal fuel tanks.

    The purpose of the APC concept was to protect your infantry with armour and give them mobility to move with other armoured vehicles, but not to fight. The APC was supposed to be an armoured box that delivered troops and then backed off while they fought because while armoured it was armoured against small arms fire mainly and had basic firepower... perhaps a HMG.

    The idea behind the IFV was that if you are going to have a vehicle that has to be on or near the battlefield anyway you could fit it with decent fire power and after it has dropped off its troops it could move back a few hundred metres and provide direct fire support for its troops. In places where the enemy anti armour capability was poor they could even fight from the vehicle.

    Combat has shown that IFV is a success... everyone makes them, but the new family chassis concept of the Russian military is radical... an IFV with the armour of a tank can operate with a tank and doesn't really need to pull back except when enemy anti armour units are very good so all tanks pull back and infantry takes the lead.

    The optics and sensors and stabilisation systems on these new IFVs will be high quality systems so accuracy and stand off range should be outstanding.

    The problem of course is that with tank level armour there is hardly going to be room for a full sized turret and tank level armament, so I think a small two man turret with an external gun... perhaps a 30mm weapon with its ammo in a small external turret bustle with both crew below the turret ring and optics and the 30mm gun and perhaps a light armoured box of 4 Kornet EM missiles on each side of the turret ready to fire above the hull line.

    In fact I suspect the Armata chassis will be wide to allow the three crew of the tank model sit side by side in the front hull in front of the unmanned turret, so lets repeat that in the IFV model with the hull armour at the front, the engine, then the vehicle crew three abrest, then a reduced size unmanned turret with the area below the turret ring containing all the ammo for the externally mounted weapons above in fully automated mounts with the turret walled off from the crew in the front and the troops in the rear. The troops in the rear will have a heavy rear ramp door for rapid entry/exit.

    In the BMPT they can have a couple of light turrets perhaps on different levels as I suggested or a larger turret with roof mounted external gun positions.

    Will be interesting to see what they come up with... but the requirement for a BMPT like vehicle.. well BMPT is a bad name for it because everyone confuses that with a troop carrier what we are talking about is a fire power tank.

    And the arguments for one are stronger now than ever, because all the measures to separate crew from ammo and fuel mean that they are going to have to lose the BMP-3s fire power because there wont be room for troops and heavy fire power and lots of ammo... so the idea is to separate the fire power from the troop transport role and have a fire power vehicle and a troop transport vehicle.

    In a future where enemy armour might include IFVs with tank level armour then IFVs need tank level fire power... which means IFVs become troop carrying tanks...

    Or perhaps instead of two large turrets each with twin barrel high rate of fire cannon we can look at Russian experience and conclude that the combination of HE power from a larger calibre gun and the fire power of an automatic cannon might be the better solution... if the new BMP vehicle in medium brigades will have a 45mm gun then perhaps the BMPT in the heavy brigade could have a low front mounted turret with a 45mm gun plus coaxial machine gun, and the upper rear mounted turret could have a twin barrel 30mm cannon mounted on a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3, though perhaps with a longer gun of higher muzzle velocity.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  medo on Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:54 am

    Having two or more independent turrets on one vehicle is bad idea, because sooner or later they will jam each other, or one have only limited sector to fire. It is better to have one turret and two independent FCSs, one fixed in turret axis for guns and one rotating for missile guidance. Of course missile guidance FCS have to be in turret axis in time of missile launch, but could decline in any direction in time of missile flight to the target. Today BMPT configuration is quite fine for this job, 360° rotating commander's sight only need missile guidance channel and this capability is reached. BMPT also have independent turrets for AGSs, which work in given sectors and places in positions, that they could not jam the main turret in its work. BMPT concept is excellent. They only need to give higher elevation up to 70° and modified gunner sight to follow gun to 70° day and night. Maybe they could also replace ATAKA ATGMs with Kornets and maybe two 2A42 guns with one GSh-30-2. But in general BMPT is excellent vehicle and it will be real shame not to introduce it in military units.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:11 pm


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:11 pm