Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Share

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 30, 2016 10:43 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    But why to replace? to deal with you have 57mm gun. Max mass of HE in 120mm rouns is about 5kg in Kornet is 10kg so what has bigger punch?

    Kitolov-2 is SALH guided, and can be fired in a top-attack profile. It has something like 12km of range. For the anti armor roll it's excellent, and for the anti-ATGM team roll... it's a 120mm mortar.

    True but still worse than Kornet. BTW korent´s range is 10km in upgraded version.

    Only with the thermobaric version, HEAT it's 8km, which is still nothing to scoff at. However, it will only have 4-8 rounds depending on the configuration choice they make. The effective range of the 57 is probably around 6km, which is good enough for most tasks, and with guided rounds roughly twice that. Obviously 57/kornet is a good combination. Were it lacks is cost-efficiency, and material destruction. Kornets, while cheap for an ATGM, are more expensive than a 120mm HE mortar bomb, and you can't carry as many of them. If you're attacking a large structure, lobbing a few 120mm rounds will clear it. To use Kornets, $20,000 and half, if not all your thermobaric load. The 57 can pick up a lot of the slack, but it still isn't going to match the efficiency of the 120mm.

    Admittedly, my current opinion is that the 57/kornet is probably the better choice for a BMPT. It's a tank support vehicle, and as such, should be with MBT's most of the time. For the most part, the aforementioned disadvantages can be supplemented by an MBT's 125mm gun. War is a team sport.

    However, if it was up to me I'd just scrap the BMPT roll. Instead, develop a heavy RWS that replaces the entire bustle and 7.62mm RWS on the T-14, give it a GSh-23 or GSh-30-2 plus a 7.62 coaxial, and put it on every third T-14.

    Yes but Razz effective range of 120mm is also less them max listed as 13-4km. Sure potential of 57mm round has worse parameters than 120mmm buuut: can be also guided/programmable and 57mm can provide goods level of AA protection not to mention mucho more rounds carried. 57mm might be also cheaper then 120mm if i am correct.


    As for armata variant - the one presented as green little mockup had secondary armament 30mm gun and 4 barrel Gatling ... the only one in Russia so far was Yakushev-Borzov YakB-12.7mm. Interesting if this concept will be followed up.






    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 31, 2016 9:40 am

    Surprisingly the current 57mm turret does in fact have external magazine storage, and carries 80 rounds. The only protrusion into the hull is a small central support column.

    Interesting... thanks for posting. Previously the Russian Army has rejected turrets with ammo all stored above the turret ring because of the risk to enemy fire... this is just a drawing, but it suggests they can be flexible...?

    You need bigger punch? AGTM or beam riding cheap rockets like 130mms ones Lighter than 120mm with ammo I presume.

    Not really a 130mm missile carries a payload of 5-6kgs of HE but it rather long and heavy and the original BMPT has 4 Ataka missiles in total. there is no likelyhood if fitted with a 120mm gun/mortar that they would have less than 20 rounds...

    But why to replace? to deal with you have 57mm gun. Max mass of HE in 120mm rouns is about 5kg in Kornet is 10kg so what has bigger punch?

    120mm rounds are closer to 16kgs and Kornet wont fit down the barrel of a gun.

    Needless to say if you have a 120mm gun/mortar you likely have 20-30 rounds... if kornet is used you will likely have 4 rounds.

    Baikal has 75 degree elevation of 57mm

    Indeed but I was talking about why 120mm rather than 125mm.

    A 57mm gun armed T-15 would be a powerful IFV, but it would be a troop transport vehicle... I think lighter higher rate of fire weapons (23mm guns and 57mm grenade launchers) plus much heavier guns (120mm gun/mortars) would pack more punch with the rear troop area for extra ammo.... the two vehicle types are for completely different missions.

    What I am asking is... do you need two completely different versions or do you just modify the IFV to not carry troops and have a double or triple ammo capacity...


    As for armata variant - the one presented as green little mockup had secondary armament 30mm gun and 4 barrel Gatling ... the only one in Russia so far was Yakushev-Borzov YakB-12.7mm. Interesting if this concept will be followed up.

    there is a reason the Hind has dropped the 12.7mm gatling for a twin barrel 23mm cannon.. and a 12.7mm and a 30mm 2A42 on the same vehicle is a little redundant with a 120mm.

    In terms of HE power the 30mm has too high a velocity so you wont be lobbing 30mm HE Frag rounds over cover.

    A grenade launcher like the 57mm or 40mm plus a cannon like a 23mm weapon make rather more sense and compliment the 120mm better.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue May 31, 2016 2:58 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

    IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

    I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

    I was under the impression that the T-15 would have comparable frontal armour to the T-14 Armata. Does the necessary placement of the engine at the front compromise the value of the armour that much?

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Isos on Tue May 31, 2016 8:48 pm



    There're some big issues with mortars lol! lol!

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:16 pm

    There're some big issues with mortars

    More often than not the problem is not the mortar, but the ammo...

    And BMPT would have an unmanned turret, so the risk to the crew would be tiny.

    Mortars are very very effective weapons.

    It will be interesting to see what sort of mortar carrier they have with the Armata division... perhaps such a heavy unit might warrant a 160mm or even 240mm mortar, or perhaps they will stick with 120mm mortars with guided shells and go for precision and ammo capacity rather than sheer weight. (like they did in WWII where they had 152mm and 203mm guns and not much any bigger than that...)


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    There're some big issues with mortars

    More often than not the problem is not the mortar, but the ammo...

    And BMPT would have an unmanned turret, so the risk to the crew would be tiny.

    Mortars are very very effective weapons.

    It will be interesting to see what sort of mortar carrier they have with the Armata division... perhaps such a heavy unit might warrant a 160mm or even 240mm mortar, or perhaps they will stick with 120mm mortars with guided shells and go for precision and ammo capacity rather than sheer weight. (like they did in WWII where they had 152mm and 203mm guns and not much any bigger than that...)

    they could have a double barrelled 120mm a like Finlands AMOS for rapid firing, probably be better with double barrelled 160mm for extra hitting power or like you say a single 240mm self loading would be nice

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Thu Jun 02, 2016 12:52 pm

    The third "Terminator" is created as a variant of modernization of tanks T-72 and T-90

    Earlier, some media reported that the new Russian tank support combat vehicle "Terminator 3" based on heavy tracked platform "Armata" will be created

    MOSCOW, June 2nd. / TASS /. New Combat Vehicle Fire Support (BMOP), "Terminator 3" is created primarily as a variant of modernization of tanks T-72 and T-90, a modification to the "Armata" platform is considered on its own initiative. This was announced by Deputy Director General of TASS "Uralvagonzavod" by Vyacheslav Halitov special equipment.

    Earlier, some media reported that the new tank support combat vehicle "Terminator 3" based on heavy tracked platform "Armata" will be created in Russia.

    "Terminator 3" involves not only the platform "Armata". This platform primarily tank T-72 and T-90. Because the idea was to put combat units on tank chassis, which are a large number of our foreign customers. "Terminator 3" is more suitable to adapt it to the tank T-72 or T-90, which are available for some of our foreign customers ", - said Halitov.

    According to him, the possibility of installing a new machine different combat units, including guns caliber 30 or 57 millimeters.

    They will use BMOP against the medium and heavy targets and against the light engineering, as well as low-flying helicopters and drones, said the deputy head of "Uralvagonzavod".

    Speaking about the decision to create a fighting vehicle fire support platform "Armata" Halitov explained that all depends on the willingness of the customer. "We will do everything we tell We own initiative on the platform." Armata "worked out very large type series We have been working on a series of types on the platform." Armata ", in which, inter alia, is BMOP" - he said the agency.

    He also noted that "Uralvagonzavod" has refused the definition of "tank support combat vehicle" for the representatives of the series "Terminator". According Khalitova, this definition was incorrect, and "so the machine did not find the proper application and did not cause so much interest." "After all, why we would need a tank, if with it still need to buy some kind of support for the car?" - Said the deputy head of "Uralvagonzavod".


    Подробнее на ТАСС:
    https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3332924&usg=ALkJrhgW-ntpfO2mbuv6x8jEyoay6105CA


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:56 pm


    Werewolf

    How did you infer that the T-15 has weaker frontal armour than the T-14 Armata? I'm quite certain that the T-15 will eventually have comparable armour if it doesn't already have that level of protection.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 304
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Isos on Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:21 pm

    What's the diference bewtween t-15 and kurg-25 ? They have the same plateform, same turrets, and same interior space. Why not only make T-15 which have just a beter armor ( at least on the front, on the other sides they are the same).

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:07 pm

    Isos wrote:What's the diference bewtween t-15 and kurg-25 ? They have the same plateform, same turrets, and same interior space. Why not only make T-15 which have just a beter armor ( at least on the front, on the other sides they are the same).

    Russia requires the Kurganets-25 because it can traverse rivers and lakes without the need of a bridge. The T-15 is far too heavy for this purpose.

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But why to replace? to deal with you have 57mm gun. Max mass of HE in 120mm rouns is about 5kg in Kornet is 10kg so what has bigger punch?

    120mm rounds are closer to 16kgs and Kornet wont fit down the barrel of a gun.


    not really, Kitolov-2 carries rougle half he carried by Kornet.


    source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2%D0%A131

    120mm Vena guided rounds characteristics
    Index shot Round HE Max range, km
    kg kg
    guided:
    riffled
    " Kitolov-2 " 28 5.5 12.0

    smoothbore
    " Fringe " 27 5.1 9.0
    " Beta " 16 5.0 7.0


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet
    9M133 Kornet-EM

    HEAT 7 kg 8.0
    Thermobaric 10 kg 10.0



    GarryB wrote:

    As for armata variant - the one presented as green little mockup had secondary armament 30mm gun and 4 barrel Gatling ... the only one in Russia so far was Yakushev-Borzov YakB-12.7mm. Interesting if this concept will be followed up.

    there is a reason the Hind has dropped the 12.7mm gatling for a twin barrel 23mm cannon.. and a 12.7mm and a 30mm 2A42 on the same vehicle is a little redundant with a 120mm.

    this reason might be for example no 57mm gun on top of 12,7mm gun?



    GarryB wrote:
    A grenade launcher like the 57mm or 40mm plus a cannon like a 23mm weapon make rather more sense and compliment the 120mm better.

    I would say both concepts have similar abilities to fight infantry/bunkers/ifv ...except effective AA.

    57mm gun can have guided projectiles with roughy 76mm weight and be immediately ready to shoot any chopper/drone in pretty nice radius

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:47 pm


    Why would a BMP-T require a round more powerful than a 120mm mortar round when it only has to defend armour and ground troops from enemy infantrymen in urban engagements? I can understand notching up the firepower to 160mm, but 240mm? How many 160mm rounds could the T-14 Armata hold inside the hull if they did decide to integrate the 160mm mortar on to its chassis?

    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:39 pm

    57mm is back didnt I tell ya lads?

    ASTANA, 2 Jun – RIA Novosti. The first prototype of a promising self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery complex "Derivation-defense" will be ready by 2017, told reporters on Thursday the General Director of the Central research Institute "Petrel" (part of "Uralvagonzavod") George Zakamennykh.
    "We are conducting developmental work "Derivation-defense" on the creation of anti-aircraft artillery system caliber 57 mm in the interest of military defense. The readiness of a prototype expected next year, the work is performed under the state defense order", — he said during the exhibition of armament KADEX-2016.


    РИА Новости http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20160602/1441890314.html#ixzz4AS7sN7ic
    +


    "Terminator 3" involves not only the platform "Armata". This platform primarily tank T-72 and T-90. Because the idea was to put combat units on tank chassis, which are a large number of our foreign customers. "Terminator 3" is more suitable to adapt it to the tank T-72 or T-90, which are available for some of our foreign customers ", - said Halitov.

    According to him, the possibility of installing a new machine different combat units, including guns caliber 30 or 57 millimeters.

    They will use BMOP against the medium and heavy targets and against the light engineering, as well as low-flying helicopters and drones,
    said the deputy head of "Uralvagonzavod".

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3332924

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 03, 2016 2:06 pm

    they could have a double barrelled 120mm a like Finlands AMOS for rapid firing, probably be better with double barrelled 160mm for extra hitting power or like you say a single 240mm self loading would be nice

    Double barrel guns sound good but in practical terms the only practical area where multiple barrels are useful is rocket artillery and anti aircraft artillery.

    I would suggest even in 120mm calibre that a single gun with an auto loading system and more ammo make more sense than two barrels... and the difference is even greater in larger calibres.

    An Armata based 240mm mortar would be interesting... getting 130kgs lighter with every shot... well more than that if you include propellant.

    How did you infer that the T-15 has weaker frontal armour than the T-14 Armata? I'm quite certain that the T-15 will eventually have comparable armour if it doesn't already have that level of protection.

    the whole purpose of the Armata platform is to have a family of vehicles with the same level of armour and mobility. T-15 and T-14 should have a comparable level of frontal armour.

    What's the diference bewtween t-15 and kurg-25 ? They have the same plateform, same turrets, and same interior space. Why not only make T-15 which have just a beter armor ( at least on the front, on the other sides they are the same).

    Different weight classes and different divisions.... there will be armata divisions with armata MBTs and IFVs and APCs and air defence vehicles and artillery vehicles and engineer vehicles and recon vehicles etc etc and there will be Kurganets divisions with Kurganets MBTs, IFVs, APCs, SPAAGs, artillery, command, recon, transport, ambulance, engineering etc etc vehicles...

    not really, Kitolov-2 carries rougle half he carried by Kornet.

    No. Kornet has a thermobaric warhead equivalent to 10kg of HE warhead, its actual warhead is about the same at about 5kg, with Kitolov having a 5.3kg warhead and Gran having the same warhead size, but the kitolov travelling 12km with a diving top attack trajectory, while Gran can travel 9km, also with a diving top attack profile.

    the 120mm shells fired by gun mortars include a standard HE round with a 19.8kg warhead and a rocket assisted model with a 13km range and a similar weight warhead.

    The standard 120mm mortar round has a 16.8kg warhead and a range to 7km.

    Lets just say that the BMP carrier of Kornet missiles carries about 12 missiles onboard... VENA, which is based on a similar vehicle carries 70 rounds onboard...

    this reason might be for example no 57mm gun on top of 12,7mm gun?

    A 57mm grenade launcher does not compete with a 12.7mm HMG. The HE capacity of a 12.7mm HMG is tiny... it is a kinetic round like a rifle calibre MG... it just has better range and punch against lightly armoured targets.

    In comparison a 57mm grenade launcher... or any grenade launcher has much more HE punch and a low enough muzzle velocity to be able to lob rounds over cover at targets with good frontal protection but not good top cover.

    I would say both concepts have similar abilities to fight infantry/bunkers/ifv ...except effective AA.

    57mm gun can have guided projectiles with roughy 76mm weight and be immediately ready to shoot any chopper/drone in pretty nice radius

    Guided 120mm shells could easily be used against any aircraft...

    Against heavy bunkers and buildings the 120mm rounds will be much more effective than 57mm guns.

    Also keep in mind if you need 57mm to defend from air attack there will be IFVs with 57mm guns and also likely SPAAGs with 57mm guns too.

    Equally of course the tanks will have 125mm guns, but with BMPTs with 120mm guns then the need to carry so much HE rounds will be greatly reduced... and of course supporting artillery will include both 120mm mortar carriers and 152mm guns.


    Why would a BMP-T require a round more powerful than a 120mm mortar round when it only has to defend armour and ground troops from enemy infantrymen in urban engagements? I can understand notching up the firepower to 160mm, but 240mm? How many 160mm rounds could the T-14 Armata hold inside the hull if they did decide to integrate the 160mm mortar on to its chassis?

    Not suggesting BMPT has larger calibre guns than 120mm... just speculating whether seeing as how the Kurganets and boomerang and even typhoon units will likely have 120mm mortar carriers operating with them whether the Armata units should have more powerful mortar carriers operating with them.

    I rather suspect the 240mm mortars will be kept in reserve for special purposes and that the 160mm mortars will be used for dedicated mountain units only if at all.

    Of course the 40kg 160mm rounds and 130kg 240mm rounds would be devastating even with one shot with guided rounds.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  George1 on Sun Jul 31, 2016 4:41 pm

    Meet Russia’s Tank 2.0, Machine Able to Defend Itself Against Anti-Tank Missiles



    Russia could be reviewing the possibility of ditching the traditional tank in favor of a machine “that is much more capable of defending itself against missile-equipped infantry and engaging other vehicles at stand-off ranges with anti-tank missiles,” according to Russian expert on defense policy Ruslan Pukhov.

    "We discovered that no matter how skillful the crew, the tank would get up to ten hits,” Pukhov, the Director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) told the Washington-based Center for the National Interest, US foreign policy think tank, on Tuesday.

    “Even if you have perfect armor — active, passive. In one case it will save you from one hit, in another case from two hits, but you’ll still get five hits and you’re done. That’s why now you’re supposed to have some kind of Tank 2.0,” said the Russian expert.

    Russia’s Tank 2.0 is not the state-of-the-art T-14 Armata, as some might think, but, as Pukhov put it, "what Russians call among themselves — Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov [Tank Support Fighting Machine].”

    In fact it’s not a tank support machine but an entirely new type of tank in its own right, a machine which can protect itself.

    “So there is a serious debate about it,” the expert explained.

    Pukhov further explained to the defense editor of The National Interest magazine, published by the think tank, that in previous eras tanks were more or less protected against weapons like rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles, the latest generation of those weapons however can punch through even the toughest armor.

    “That’s why we have the concept of the Tank 2.0,” the magazine quotes the Russian expert as saying.

    “We have a prototype of this machine that’s called the fighting vehicle to support tank attack — Terminator.”

    Appropriately nicknamed “the Terminator,” these fearsome vehicles sport a turret with two 30-millimeter 2A42 automatic cannons and four Ataka missile launchers. Further, the BMPT has a 7.62-millimeter machine gun next to the main guns and two AG-17D automatic grenade launchers in the hull.

    There have been two versions of the Terminator concept that have been developed thus far on the chassis of the T-72 main battle tank.

    However earlier in April, Oleg Sienko, a senior manager with the manufacturer, Uralvagonzavod Corporation, told RIA Novosti that Russia also plans to develop its tank support fighting vehicle dubbed the Terminator-3 based on the country’s latest Armata tanks.

    The vehicle was designed based on combat experience gained during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the First Chechen War.

    The Russian military then realized that its earlier-model BMP fighting vehicles suffered from thin armor and too few weapons.

    During those wars, Russia’s foes hid in mountains or in the upper floors of buildings. As the armored vehicles passed, rebels would shoot down and blow them up  – and the vehicles couldn’t aim high enough to shoot back.

    In 2005, the Russian military began testing out a small number of Terminators. They could shoot at high angles. Plus, the vehicles had heavier armored derived from the T-72 tank.

    As of late 2013, the only operator of the BMPT was Kazakhstan.

    Reports suggested that Russia appears to have foregone procurement of the BMPT in favor of the T-15 IFV based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform to fill the role.

    If and when the Terminator is ultimately fielded, the vehicle would be able to engage large groups of massed infantry in built-up areas with a combination of missiles and automatic cannon fire.

    “We need it badly. Believe it or not, we’re not going to project force, we need to protect our territory,” Pukhov stated.

    http://sputniknews.com/military/20160730/1043784253/russia-new-tank.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:16 am

    The issue is however that the BMPT makes sense with standard military units where only the tank is heavily armoured.

    The issue was teams of enemy troops with MGs and sniper rifles and lots of anti tank weapons from RPGs to ATGMs who could immobilise the front and rear vehicle in a column and then pick off soldiers if they left their vehicles or destroy all the vehicles in the column one by one.

    The vehicles with the heaviest armour were still vulnerable to attacks from above and the vehicles with the most fire power(tanks) lacked elevation to hit awkward targets while the vehicles best able to defeat such threats (IFVs) had relatively thin armour and could be taken out fairly quickly.

    The solution was a vehicle largely equipped to deal with infantry and light armoured vehicles (ie IFV armament and/or SPAAG armament) in a heavily armoured vehicle like a tank.

    Armata based IFVs or gun based SPAAGs would fill the same role.

    It should be pointed out that the Russians and Soviets have a long tradition of using SPAAGs in the ground to ground role already.

    With the armata concept where every vehicle has tank level armour and mobility and the different types have different levels of fire power suggests that a standard armata IFV with the troop compartment replaced with a double or triple ammo load could already substitute for a dedicated BMPT...

    It is interesting to see the hull mounted 30mm grenade launchers have been restored to the design, but I think mini turrets with much wider fields of fire and better elevation capability make rather more sense while being more expensive.

    Matching the rather slim Balkan 40mm grenade launcher with a PKM MG in each hull mounted turret would make them rather powerful and rather more independent of the main turret allowing more targets to be engaged separately at one time.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Sat Sep 03, 2016 6:28 pm

    New weapon system. The amount of new turrets coming out of the russian MIC is getting ridiculous.

    Not sure what the 6x missiles are.


    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 529
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Project Canada on Sun Sep 04, 2016 3:38 am

    Zivo wrote:New weapon system. The amount of new turrets coming out of the russian MIC is getting ridiculous.

    Not sure what the 6x missiles are.


    I saw this on facebook and they say its the Udar unmanned vehicle based on the BMP-3 with the new combat module "Impuls-2" from Sevastopol NTZ. It seems they have interchangeable turrets, depending on mission requirements, very impressive. they are using the modularity of their new systems to its full potential.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:31 am

    Looks like a 57mm calibre gun...

    Those missile tubes could be carrying anything from new model Kornets to new model Krisantema...

    They look like 152mm calibre tubes at least...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:Looks like a 57mm calibre gun...

    Those missile tubes could be carrying anything from new model Kornets to new model Krisantema...

    They look like 152mm calibre tubes at least...

    Definitely not Krisantema, the length of those launchers alone confirms that.

    kopyo-21
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 46
    Points : 48
    Join date : 2013-08-21
    Location : Bangkok - Thailand

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  kopyo-21 on Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:28 pm

    Seem to be it armed 30mm gun, not 57mm.

    https://www.rt.com/news/329553-mini-turret-test-russia/

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:20 pm

    So in this application, what does the large barrel shroud actually do?

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:56 pm

    Zivo wrote:So in this application, what does the large barrel shroud actually do?

    Reduce the shaking of the barrel. Also you can see that the gun is an 2A72 30mm gun.

    Missiles, from diametre alone you can see those are Kornets.


    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Zivo on Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:08 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Zivo wrote:So in this application, what does the large barrel shroud actually do?

    Reduce the shaking of the barrel. Also you can see that the gun is an 2A72 30mm gun.

    Missiles, from diametre alone you can see those are Kornets.


    How does it actually reduce shaking? Does the end of the shroud contact the barrel using a rail or tube?

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3549
    Points : 3584
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:11 pm

    Zivo wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Zivo wrote:So in this application, what does the large barrel shroud actually do?

    Reduce the shaking of the barrel. Also you can see that the gun is an 2A72 30mm gun.

    Missiles, from diametre alone you can see those are Kornets.


    How does it actually reduce shaking? Does the end of the shroud contact the barrel using a rail or tube?

    I don't know, but it looks like a friction and support sleeve like the one that was tried on the ATOM APC.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future of Russian IFV/BMPT

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:22 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:22 pm