Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    BMPT programme

    Share

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    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?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3399
    Points : 3483
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BMPT programme

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3399
    Points : 3483
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BMPT programme

    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

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    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

    Posts : 96
    Points : 119
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 26
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: BMPT programme

    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
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    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.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3399
    Points : 3483
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BMPT programme

    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.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:41 pm

    I think if you put the 45mm high velocity gun in the front turret with a raised rear hull for a larger turret with the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 along with a coaxial twin barrel 30mm cannon attached to the 100mm gun like on the bmp-3 with the front turret using high velocity ammo most of its engagements against ground targets will use a max of 20 degrees elevation most of the time, while the turret mounted guns the 100mm gun will likely use higher elevations for most targets and for aerial targets the 30mm gun will also use higher elevation.

    Short bursts of 30mm fire would be normal against aircraft or groups of infantry or soft targets. Against soft targets or area targets the 100mm will pack a lot of punch and as both turrets will have external gun mounts with unmanned turrets containing ammo reloads the weapons should be able to elevate to fairly high angles effectively.

    Add coaxial MGs and rear turret mounted grenade launchers in 40mm calibre that elevate and turn with the main gun.

    By making the front turret smaller than a tank turret the crew can be three in front in a single row and then two behind them at the sides with the turret in the middle with a firewall separating the crew from the ammo contained in the turrets.

    The commanders panoramic sight can be on the top turret for a full 360 degree view, while the front turret just really needs a gunners sight as does the top turret of course.

    In this case the crew would consist of the driver and commander, plus one gunner controlling the front turret and the other gunner controlling the rear turret and the extra crewman could be controlling a helicopter based UAV that can fly around the unit looking for threats or flying forward looking for targets.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  AJ-47 on Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:50 am

    GarryB wrote: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?

    *** It will have one turret and one RWS on top of the turret, and the two gunners will be able to engage 2 different targets at the same time. An interesting arrangement of weapons can be seen on the BMP-64. In the turret it has the 30 mm gun, and on top of the turret it has the 23 mm gun with AGL 30/40 mm that can be replaced for PKT. There is more conventional way for the upper gun, like the RWS of the T-90MS.
    In our days, every tank needs to have a RWS for urban fighting.
    Link for the BMP-64: https://redcdn.net/ihimg/photo/my-images/96/xea9n.jpg/
    Link for the T-90Ms: http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian-defence/128802-t-90ms-unveilled-nizhny-tagil.html


    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.

    *** The BMP is not protected enough for the job, I will stay with the T-72.

    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.

    *** That’s the job of the RWS, and the 23 mm will be perfect.
    By the way, to deal with high places, the T-72 as a nice solution that called T-72 Moderna.
    Link: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t72/t726.html


    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.

    *** I will stay with the 23 mm, which has a higher velocity and rate of fire then the Balkan, these advantage might be very important when fighting with RPG’s teams.

    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.
    *** Thanks I'll do

    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.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:35 am

    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.

    *** The BMP is not protected enough for the job, I will stay with the T-72.

    Sorry, I realise this is confusing and my mixing terms is not helping.

    The BMP is both a vehicle and a concept. As a vehicle you are right the BMP-1, BMP-3, and BMP-2 are not well enough armoured for troop transport in the heavy brigades, what I am actually talking about is called the BTRT, or heavy armoured troop carrier (The BMP in terms of a concept is an IFV, which in the new Armour plans of the Russians means a vehicle with equivalent armour and mobility as the "tanks" they are operating with... so in the light brigades that means light armour but high mobility and firepower, the medium brigades means better than BMP level armour of today in units with tanks with a similar level of protection, and in heavy brigades it means an IFV with tank level protection and mobility).

    In the current force structure there are BMP and BTR troop transports, but the BMP has evolved to include a heavy fire power component while the BTR remains an armoured troop transport. In the 1980s the US equivalent was the Bradley and the M113. ie IFV and APC.

    What I am suggesting that that fire power requirement will not just go away, in fact the Heavy Brigade will need even more fire power than current units, but for crew safety there needs to be a separation of fire power and troop transport... pretty much in every family of new vehicles.

    The problem is that BMPT seems to be a T model BMP, when in actual fact it is a T with BMP firepower and no troop transport capacity.

    In the turret it has the 30 mm gun, and on top of the turret it has the 23 mm gun with AGL 30/40 mm that can be replaced for PKT. There is more conventional way for the upper gun, like the RWS of the T-90MS.

    I would think a 23mm KPB and an AGL would be a rather redundant combination and both rely on heavy projectiles with low velocity ammo for effect. I would expect the decision would come down to the future plans for Russian AGLs, whether they adopt the 40mm Balkan and/or the 23mm calibre KPB.
    In terms of on board ammo capacity I would think Coaxial PKTs would be very useful for most targets at most normal ranges. The trends of the Ukrainian MIC are interesting but keep in mind that if the Armata has a RWS 30mm cannon as standard then the requirement for a tank fire power support vehicle diminishes.

    Indeed in some cases of low intensity warfare the BMPT could be a very viable substitute for a tank in delivering accurate and effective fire support for ground operations, in addition to being useful for various base guard and convoy security duties.

    I will stay with the 23 mm, which has a higher velocity and rate of fire then the Balkan, these advantage might be very important when fighting with RPG’s teams.

    Some times low velocity weapons with steep trajectories can reach where other weapons cannot reach.

    This vehicle already has high velocity flat shooting weapons like a twin barrel 30mm cannon or perhaps a 45mm/57mm high velocity gun plus several 30 calibre coaxial MGs.

    The proliferation of RWS on all manner of vehicles... remember the BTR vehicle could be equipped with 3-4 RWS with PKTs and perhaps 40mm Balkans with no conventional turret but a slightly raised superstructure, so fire power should not be an issue.

    With data sharing and battle management hardware even in mounted condition these brigades will be bristling with weapons and the all weather day night optics to use them.

    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3399
    Points : 3483
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:29 am

    I agree, that GSh-30-2 is alternative to 2 2A42 30 mm guns, but we must think about why constructors decide for 2 2A42 guns. Maybe constructors made conscious decision to install two independent guns, that in the case one gun is hit, damaged or jammed, the second could still fire, what could be very important in the middle of the battle. As I many times said, BMPT is a compromise and a good one. It is meant to fight with softer targets in the battlefield, ATGMs and anti-air capabilities are for self defense. We must not forget, that 2A42 gun is selected for Mi-28 and Ka-50/52 helicopters, what could mean that heavier gun could absorb more recoil than lighter 2A72 gun. BMPT will work with tanks, which will fight with enemy tanks and could also give fire support with their HE-FRAG rounds, so I don't think it need 100 mm gun for fire support.

    It's true, that future IFV will be based on tanks platform as Israeli Namer, which is build from Merkava tank. RWS with 30 mm gun and 7,62 mm coaxial machine gun or a turret similar to that on BTR-82A will be enough for infantry support, because main battles will be lead with tanks, BMPTs and TOS.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:55 am

    The whole purpose for the 2A72 was to reduce the fumes created during firing inside the turret of the vehicle they are mounted on.

    The main differences otherwise are that the 2A72 has a rate of fire of 330 rounds per minute, while the 2A42 has the option of high rate of at least 550 rpm or a low rate of 200-300 rpm and single shots.

    Otherwise both weapons have similar muzzle velocities with the same ammo types.

    The Mi-28 and Ka-50/52 carry the 2A42 because fumes inside the cabin is not a consideration and when they were developed (not 52) the 2A42 was the only option.

    I rather suspect the 2A42 was chosen because it was already standard in the Russian military and that for some targets the extra rate of fire was considered more useful while using a standard Army weapon.


    The alternative of going for 23mm calibre weapons in my opinion would be most useful in the KPB design which is already in very widespread service in its 14.5mm version the KPV.

    With a few minor changes including a new barrel they can have a direct replacement for the 14.5mm weapon it is based on.

    This 23mm calibre weapon is rather less powerful than the 30mm guns we are talking about, but it has a heavy projectile for its calibre and would be a very good external mount weapon.

    Regarding the GSh-30-2, first of all what we are talking about is the GSh-30K, which is the twin barrel 30mm cannon used on the Hind in a fixed mount on the side of the aircraft.

    The GSh-30 is the gun fitted to the Su-25 and fires at a rate of up to 3,500rpm. The gun weighs 105kgs which actually makes it slightly lighter than the 2A42 cannon which is something like 114kgs.

    The GSh-30K is a longer barrel derivative weapon based on the gun fitted to the Su-25, and while heavier at 126kgs it has a higher muzzle velocity with standard rounds or 940m/s because of the extra barrel length and it also has the huge advantage of having a choice of rate of fire of a high rate at between 2,000 and 2,600 rpm which would be ideal against fast moving aerial targets and a low rate of 300-400 rpm which would be ideal against ground based targets.

    Even the 2A72 weighs about 85kgs so two would weigh 170kg and offer a combined rate of fire of about 600-700 rpm, while the 2A42 at its high rate will offer about 1,000-1,100 rpm for a weight of about 230kgs.

    In comparison the GSh-30K offers higher muzzle velocity no matter what ammo is used, it only weighs 126kgs, and can fire at double the rate of fire of the 2A42.

    The only flaw is that I don't think the GSh-30K has dual feed for different ammo types... I am sure dual feed could be added to the mount.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  AJ-47 on Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:32 pm

    What I am suggesting that that fire power requirement will not just go away, in fact the Heavy Brigade will need even more fire power than current units, but for crew safety there needs to be a separation of fire power and troop transport... pretty much in every family of new vehicles.

    I’m 100% with you on the idea of separation the troops, from fire power and fuel. For that, we need to have two different vehicles, the 1st vehicle is the troop’s transporter with light fire power like, MG, or HMG, or AGL, some of the RWS can have 2 weapons from this list. The 2nd vehicle is the Fighting Support Vehicle, with higher fire power like 30mm-45mm cannon in the main turret, and light weapons on RWS like the 1st one.
    This vehicle will not carry troops.

    I would think a 23mm KPB and an AGL would be a rather redundant combination and both rely on heavy projectiles with low velocity ammo for effect. I would expect the decision would come down to the future plans for Russian AGLs, whether they adopt the 40mm Balkan and/or the 23mm calibre KPB.

    The Balkan looks like a very good AGL, but it needs FCS like the one on the MK-47 AGL and Air Burst munitions to get the best from this weapon. Israel has very interesting unit that can do the same job more efficiently and more affordable. The system called Multi Purpose Rifle System
    I like the GSH-23-2, and wonder if you can compare it to the 0.5”?

    but keep in mind that if the Armata has a RWS 30mm cannon as standard then the requirement for a tank fire power support vehicle diminishes.

    The main job of the BMPT, in my view, is to guard the tanks from ATGMs and RPGs teams. For this job we need units with special expertise and the right equipments. It’s heard in the middle of a fight to see RPG that was fired on you, and even when you see it, what can you do? The time to act against it, is 1-2 second, and I don’t think that a human can act that fast.
    In this situation, the Trophy Active Protection System or the Russian system will come to your help. The Trophy system will alert the tank’s crew that a missile/rocket was lunch against them, point out the location of the fire team, and use soft-kill and hard-kill to jam or intercept the threat. One more thing, that the system should do, IMO, is to take control on the main turret and the RWS and fire their weapons automatically against the incoming threat, and the location of the fire team, if it’s not off range.
    If we go back to the BMPT, we can see from this scenario, that the weapons that we have in the turret and in the RWS is very important to the survivability of the tank. The GHS-30-2 can be very useful against short range ATGM, especially with HEAB rounds, and the GHS-23-2 in the RWS will be perfect against RPG’s teams.
    The new 45mm can be used for longer range than the GSH-30-2, but it has much lower rate of fire, and I’m not sure which one is better.

    One thing I have to clarify, I’m an Israeli guy, and I want to explain something. Israel has a lot of knowledge in fighting a-symmetric war, and they tune their weapons for this kind of war. I know Russia has a lot of experience in this kind of war too, and maybe one day they will seat together and talk about how to do things in a better way.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:07 am

    The Balkan looks like a very good AGL, but it needs FCS like the one on the MK-47 AGL and Air Burst munitions to get the best from this weapon. Israel has very interesting unit that can do the same job more efficiently and more affordable. The system called Multi Purpose Rifle System
    I like the GSH-23-2, and wonder if you can compare it to the 0.5”?

    The Russians have had air burst munitions in service for three decades with their 40mm under barrel grenades which have a small charge in the nose to blow the grenade up into the air like a bounding betty mine before the main charge goes off. It is cheap and simple and works at any range and would be very simple to apply to the balkan grenade design.

    In terms of a comparison between the 23 x 114mm round and the US 50 cal HMG round the 50 cal has rounds in the 650-800 grain range compared with the 200 grammes of the projectile for the 23mm round.

    Putting it another way 650-800 grain is between 42 and 52 grammes while the 23mm round is 200 grammes.

    Again the difference in mass is mainly in HE payload with the 23mm shell carrying a much heavier load of HE to target... which is much closer to the 240 grammes of the 30mm cannon on the Apache than the 40-50 grammes of a 50 cal HMG.

    For this job we need units with special expertise and the right equipments. It’s heard in the middle of a fight to see RPG that was fired on you, and even when you see it, what can you do? The time to act against it, is 1-2 second, and I don’t think that a human can act that fast.

    I quite agree, but I think that an APS fitted to the tank and other vehicles should deal with the actual RPG, while the BMPT deals with the soldiers that launched it, and crews setting up to launch another rocket.

    Optics detection systems and IR sensitive sensors should allow a vehicle to detect the sight on an RPG before the rocket is fired or as it is fired respectively...

    In this situation, the Trophy Active Protection System or the Russian system will come to your help.

    I think there will be layers of protection... for instance with Nakidka fitted to all the vehicles in a heavy brigade then Javelin will not be able to be used in fire and forget mode because there will not be enough of an IR signature to target. In manual mode the low flight speed of the Javelin will make the firer very vulnerable to being suppressed but grenades from AGLs will take dozens of seconds to reach 2.5km, so the GSh-30K comes in to its own.

    Of course there is also Shtora to jam and blind the Javelins guidance and something like ARENA to stop the missile closer to the vehicles.

    With net centricity artillery can be called in to the location of the launcher but ideally a 125mm cannon shell exploding near them will have rather more effect.

    Fitting a twin barrel 30mm cannon means both ground and air targets can be engaged if needed, while a 45mm or 57mm gun with very high velocity anti armour rounds should enable anything but tanks defeated with frontal shots, and they would have the HE power and rate of fire to deal with a range of other threats.

    The point is that these high velocity 45/57mm guns will be very high velocity flat shooting weapons, and with laser beam guided shells could kill enemy helicopters at 8-10km range with a single shot.

    Having a twin barrel 30mm gun mounted with a 100mm rifled gun from a BMP-3 would give indirect fire power to engage targets will good frontal protection but little or no top cover.

    As an added bonus the 100mm gun could be used to fire laser guided missiles in a lofted flight profile to achieve a top attack capability.

    With all the guns in external mounts and ammo stored below their turret rings the elevation and depression can be much better than when fitted in other vehicles.

    The fitting of a 30mm cannon on the tank vehicle of the Armata family would reduce the need for fire power in other vehicles in the family but would not eliminate the usefulness of the BMPT we are talking about.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  AJ-47 on Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:11 pm

    The Russians have had air burst munitions in service for three decades with their 40mm under barrel grenades which have a small charge in the nose to blow the grenade up into the air like a bounding betty mine before the main charge goes off. It is cheap and simple and works at any range and would be very simple to apply to the balkan grenade design.
    The jumping round is used for many years as part of the ammo for the 40mm UGL M-203, but it needs to hit the ground before it jumps up to the air and explode, nasty stuff no doubt. But I’m talking about another type of ammo. This ammo can be programmed, by the gunner before he fires the grenade, to detonate in a specific range from the gun, and above the heads of the enemy soldiers, or inside a home and so on.
    The American Army has a new GL in 25mm that called XM25 that works this way.
    http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/xm25-e.html

    I quite agree, but I think that an APS fitted to the tank and other vehicles should deal with the actual RPG, while the BMPT deals with the soldiers that launched it, and crews setting up to launch another rocket.
    I agree with that, but I’d like to have both. It’s always better to get the RPG’S team before the lunch, and not after the launch.

    I think there will be layers of protection... for instance with Nakidka fitted to all the vehicles in a heavy brigade then Javelin will not be able to be used in fire and forget mode because there will not be enough of an IR signature to target.

    This Nakidka stuff will make a lot of problem to some peoples.

    In manual mode the low flight speed of the Javelin will make the firer very vulnerable to being suppressed but grenades from AGLs will take dozens of seconds to reach 2.5km, so the GSh-30K comes in to its own.
    with progremmed rounds the 30mm will be much better gun.

    With net centricity artillery can be called in to the location of the launcher but ideally a 125mm cannon shell exploding near them will have rather more effect.
    Please check this link: http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=67056

    Fitting a twin barrel 30mm cannon means both ground and air targets can be engaged if needed, while a 45mm or 57mm gun with very high velocity anti armour rounds should enable anything but tanks defeated with frontal shots, and they would have the HE power and rate of fire to deal with a range of other threats.
    The point is that these high velocity 45/57mm guns will be very high velocity flat shooting weapons, and with laser beam guided shells could kill enemy helicopters at 8-10km range with a single shot.
    The 45mm with laser beam guided shells, is a game changer no doubt on that. The question is do we need more fire power than what we have now in the armour brigade. On the other hand, it might be a good idea to replace the 30mm gun on the BMP and the BTR families with this gun and maybe with the same turret.
    Maybe the best weapons for the BMPT will be the 45/57mm gun in the main turret, and GSh-23 and PKT in the RWS above the turret. The 45/57 with laser guide might be the right solution against the long range ATGM’s teams as the Ghs-23 will be the right answer against the RPG’s teams.
    Is there any info for these guns? I know they are from the WW-2 but we probably get them better by now

    Having a twin barrel 30mm gun mounted with a 100mm rifled gun from a BMP-3 would give indirect fire power to engage targets will good frontal protection but little or no top cover.
    As an added bonus the 100mm gun could be used to fire laser guided missiles in a lofted flight profile to achieve a top attack capability.
    I would let the mortar platoon to deal with indirect fire, and the Tunguaka to deal with Hello, and for top attack we can use the 120mm mortar round “kitolov”. I think that “all in one” is good only for printers.






    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:14 am

    The jumping round is used for many years as part of the ammo for the 40mm UGL M-203, but it needs to hit the ground before it jumps up to the air and explode, nasty stuff no doubt. But I’m talking about another type of ammo. This ammo can be programmed, by the gunner before he fires the grenade, to detonate in a specific range from the gun, and above the heads of the enemy soldiers, or inside a home and so on.
    The American Army has a new GL in 25mm that called XM25 that works this way.

    Yes, I know about that... it is expensive and is only slightly more useful than the much cheaper and simpler Soviet solution that entered service in the early 1980s.

    To be effective the US system needs a precise laser range finder... +-5m accuracy is not good enough. It also needs a ballistics computer to calculate the trajectory and an electronic fusing system. The ammo is also expensive as it requires a very high precision timer accurate to within miliseconds to be effective.

    Simply standing behind a hedge means you don't know how thick the hedge is and how far back the target is from the hedge so you have to guess so it is not perfect either.

    At the end of the day the Soviet/Russian system has many of the benefits without all the costs and complications and have had it in service for about 30 years.

    The reality is that in a vehicle mount the laser rangefinder and night vision equipment and ballistic computer can be built into the mount... but to be honest I really don't see the benefit of making each round cost 10 times more than a standard round with less HE to do something they are already doing... it is not like the target has time to take cover in the milisecond it takes between impact and main charge explosion.

    I agree with that, but I’d like to have both. It’s always better to get the RPG’S team before the lunch, and not after the launch.

    Absolutely, which is why tanks needs systems to detect optics and APS systems.

    With their work on DIRCMs and their anti optics ground based laser systems I would expect Armata will be fitted with a tank based optics detection system and DIRCM to defeat optical and IIR guided missiles of all types. It will also likely allow threats like 50 cal sniper rifles being used with powerful scopes to take out vehicle optics or APS systems to be detected and engaged.

    This Nakidka stuff will make a lot of problem to some peoples.

    The measure/countermeasure cycle will continue... though reports recently talk about Armata having built in stealth shaping features as well as stealth materials.

    with progremmed rounds the 30mm will be much better gun.

    I have read about a 30mm round with a programmed fuse like AINET, and I would expect something will be developed for the 45/57mm gun they are working on.

    Please check this link: http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=67056

    The Russians are way ahead of you... the standard HE FRAG shell can be fitted with a new electronic detonator with a new automatic fuse setting system that is fitted on the T-80UK and T-90 as standard. It is called Ainet.


    Ainet system:

    T-80UK and T-90 MBTs are equipped with Ainet system that allows to electronically fuse HE-FRAG rounds to explode at predetermined moment of flight. In order to use the system the gunner must lase the target before loading the round into the breech. The round is passed by the auto-loader through an automatic fuse setter, which sets the fuse to explode at the correct distance; the fused round is then loaded into the gun and is ready to be fired. This system allows to efficiently use HEF rounds against hovering helicopters as well as infantry and light armor in entrenched positions, out to 4 km and more. The effective fragmentation radius and range consistency improve three-fold, while ammunition expenditure for a typical mission decreases two-fold. All HE-FRAG rounds are compatible with this system, provided a new electronic detonator is used instead of the standard V-429E.

    There is a new shell design optimised for airburst designed to project fragments forward as well as sideways as opposed to standard HE FRAG rounds that mainly direct their fragments sideways as it is the walls of the shell where the fragmentation material is.

    AFAIK the electronic fuse allows impact and delay settings like the standard fuse so it can completely replace the old fuse in operational without degrading performance in any way and improving performance in many instances. (ie troops in trenches or hovering helos etc.

    The question is do we need more fire power than what we have now in the armour brigade.

    Traditionally the purpose of the BMP armament is self defence against tanks via guided missile, and fire power against a range of other targets. Initially they used the 73mm gun because of the long minimum range of the AT-3 which left a dead zone up to 400m where the BMP couldn't reliably engage heavy armour. The solution was the 73mm gun which at the time could penetrate the frontal armour of an M60 at any range it could hit it... and I am reliably informed by a chap who served on a BMP-1 that it could hit a tank out to about 1,200m in good conditions.
    With the BMP-1 they tested all sorts of main weapons including 30mm cannon but the ATGM limitation mandated a larger weapon to defeat tanks.
    The BMP-2 got the new AT-5 and AT-4 roof mounted missile that had a minimum range of less than 75m so the heavy gun was no longer necessary so they went with a 30mm cannon.

    In practise however they operated the BMP-1 and BMP-2 together and even though they replaced the AT-3 with the AT-4/5 launcher they didn't replace the armament because it was found that with some targets the heavier gun was useful while other targets were better engaged with 30mm.

    The result was that the BMP-3 had both an autocannon of 30mm calibre ( a new weapon with a lower rate of fire and longer recoil distance to prevent fumes building up in the crew compartment like they did with the BMP-2s 2A42 in its high rate of fire setting) and a rifled 100mm medium pressure gun.

    The requirement to defeat tanks was satisfied by 100mm gun fired missile and the requirement to defeat enemy IFVs was satisfied with the 30mm cannon.

    The problem now is that the opposing IFVs have all gained weight and most are more than 30 tons and are only going to get heavier. An increase in calibre might allow a compromise where the new gun packs enough HE power to make the 100mm gun no longer needed, and has enough velocity to make the 30mm calibre weapon unnecessary.

    The combination of guided shells and AINET shells will further add to its usefulness, but it will need a nice heavy HE round and a very high velocity APFSDS round too, and in fact a good APHE shell might be useful too as lighter vehicles like APCs will only be damaged with an APFSDS round as it punches a hole through the target but an APHE punches a hole in and then explodes and would be far more lethal against MRAPs and APCs and IFVs from the side or rear.

    Of course I don't think the 45/57mm will immediately replace the 30mm and 100mm weapons from service and they might serve together.

    The 100mm is a custom designed round with a large projectile and a small stub propellent case, which makes it compact and easy to carry in larger numbers.

    The concept of the Armata is unmanned turrets so a BMPT with lots of 100mm shells and 30mm shells and 45/57mm shells should be relatively safe for the crew as they will be separate in the hull protected by firewalls separating them from fuel and ammo.

    Is there any info for these guns? I know they are from the WW-2 but we probably get them better by now

    The 57mm gun is from the S-60 anti aircraft gun, the 45mm gun is a weapon they have been working on for some time and I believe was intended for the Su-25 at once stage. AFAIK the 45mm gun might be a modern telescoped case design with much more compact ammo design, while the 57mm rounds are huge.

    Certainly with laser guided shells the 45/57mm rounds will reach out and get to an ATGM team much faster than a 23mm gun using 23 x 114mm rounds, as the latter are low velocity... something like 700m/s... they get their effectiveness from shell weight and low recoil and high rate of fire.


    I would let the mortar platoon to deal with indirect fire, and the Tunguaka to deal with Hello, and for top attack we can use the 120mm mortar round “kitolov”. I think that “all in one” is good only for printers.

    If this vehicle is operating with a heavy tank or motor rifle brigade I agree, but in convoy protection roles things are different.

    Remember the old tank brigades and motor rifle brigades had BMP-3s with 100mm guns and mortar support, but these new heavy tank and motor rifle brigades the standard IFV will likely not have 100mm guns... they will probably only have 30mm cannon and rifle/hmg/agl calibre RWS, so I think putting these extra weapons on the fire power vehicle of the unit is still justified and will make them more useful when used independently.

    More importantly such an armament will make it more useful than a tank in a low intensity conflict so it can be used to support infantry units too.

    Certainly the 120mm gun/mortar of the mortar unit is a very similar weapon to the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and with heavier shells and longer range I think at some stage they might ask themselves if they need both.

    The 100mm/30mm turret is useful for medium and light vehicles in terms of fire power and weight and recoil.

    And BTW I hate combination scanners printers photcopiers etc etc... who needs a setup where you can't use the scanner because you are out of ink... Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:44 am

    9.02.2012
    URALVAGONZAVOD WILL PRESENT TANK T-90C AT FORUM

    "Research and production corporation "UralVagonZavod" OJSC will present modernized T-90C M tank at the oncoming Second Forum "Engineering Technologies – 2012".

    As stated in the letter of the URALVAGONZAVOD, the latest modernized tank intended for combat actions in different climatic and weather conditions at any time of the day and night will be shown at the Forum for the first time.

    In addition to the T-90C M the exhibition exposition of the corporation will also include a full-scale prototype of the "Terminator" vehicle designed for fire support operations.

    URALVAGONZAVOD has taken an active part in Forum «Engineering Technologies – 2010». The exhibition exposition of the corporation included all the enterprises of the holding who took an active part in the design and production of varies items of military equipment. In addition to the modern specimen of military equipment the exposition included different models of the T-34 tanks that showed an improvised battle against the German tanks.

    Interesting that they will show the upgraded T-90S M but will also be showing the BMPT Terminator prototype... the question is... is this a new prototype. They have already sold models to one of the 'stans, so they could call the Terminator a serially produced vehicles, but they call it a prototype... perhaps they have a new model?
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3399
    Points : 3483
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:03 pm

    Maybe they introduce modifications to basic model in armament and FCS. I hope we will soon see pictures of it.

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  AJ-47 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:16 am

    Yes, I know about that... it is expensive and is only slightly more useful than the much cheaper and simpler Soviet solution that entered service in the early 1980s.
    To be effective the US system needs a precise laser range finder... +-5m accuracy is not good enough. It also needs a ballistics computer to calculate the trajectory and an electronic fusing system. The ammo is also expensive as it requires a very high precision timer accurate to within miliseconds to be effective.
    Simply standing behind a hedge means you don't know how thick the hedge is and how far back the target is from the hedge so you have to guess so it is not perfect either.
    At the end of the day the Soviet/Russian system has many of the benefits without all the costs and complications and have had it in service for about 30 years.
    The reality is that in a vehicle mount the laser rangefinder and night vision equipment and ballistic computer can be built into the mount... but to be honest I really don't see the benefit of making each round cost 10 times more than a standard round with less HE to do something they are already doing... it is not like the target has time to take cover in the milisecond it takes between impact and main charge explosion.

    Yes, the XM-25 is a very expensive weapon and I will not be surprised if it will cancel. The Marines has 6 shooter 40mm GL the Milkor USA M32 MGL and the army should use it too. But that’s the way the defence companies doing business, get from the government Billions of dollars for R&D, then cancel the product and start again. Before the DoD will understand that R&D money should come from the companies, this stupid way of doing business will keep going. I read that America lost about 100 Billion dollars on canceled projects
    The technology is not a problem, and if they will buy the Multi-Purpose Rifle System (MPRS) the USA army will be in a better place. This system will be for one soldier in a Platoon with smart rounds, the system can fit on any rifle, and the rest of the soldiers will use the regular ammo for their M-203/320. There are situations like fighting in trenches, that this kind of weapon can be useful.

    Absolutely, which is why tanks needs systems to detect optics and APS systems.
    With their work on DIRCMs and their anti optics ground based laser systems I would expect Armata will be fitted with a tank based optics detection system and DIRCM to defeat optical and IIR guided missiles of all types. It will also likely allow threats like 50 cal sniper rifles being used with powerful scopes to take out vehicle optics or APS systems to be detected and engaged.

    I familiar with DIRCM system on tanks and on plans, but the anti optic system is new for me, can you light it up a little bit?

    The Russians are way ahead of you... the standard HE FRAG shell can be fitted with a new electronic detonator with a new automatic fuse setting system that is fitted on the T-80UK and T-90 as standard. It is called Ainet.

    The Russian has a nice stuff, and I would like to see some of there weapons in Israel, like the Smerch, TOS, FOAB, the PRO- Shmel, Hello, and SU-30, 34, 35. But, our tank’s ammo is second to none, the Israeli weapons are tuned for a-symmetric war, and we do it very well.
    Please check these links:
    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007gun_missile/GMThurAM2/SchirdingPresentation.pdf
    This video shows the Tank’s round go trough a wall and explodes inside the room, to avoid collateral damage.
    http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/551/2523593

    Traditionally the purpose of the BMP armament is self defence against tanks via guided missile, and fire power against a range of other targets. Initially they used the 73mm gun because of the long minimum range of the AT-3 which left a dead zone up to 400m where the BMP couldn't reliably engage heavy armour. The solution was the 73mm gun which at the time could penetrate the frontal armour of an M60 at any range it could hit it... and I am reliably informed by a chap who served on a BMP-1 that it could hit a tank out to about 1,200m in good conditions.
    With the BMP-1 they tested all sorts of main weapons including 30mm cannon but the ATGM limitation mandated a larger weapon to defeat tanks.
    The BMP-2 got the new AT-5 and AT-4 roof mounted missile that had a minimum range of less than 75m so the heavy gun was no longer necessary so they went with a 30mm cannon.

    In practise however they operated the BMP-1 and BMP-2 together and even though they replaced the AT-3 with the AT-4/5 launcher they didn't replace the armament because it was found that with some targets the heavier gun was useful while other targets were better engaged with 30mm.

    The result was that the BMP-3 had both an autocannon of 30mm calibre ( a new weapon with a lower rate of fire and longer recoil distance to prevent fumes building up in the crew compartment like they did with the BMP-2s 2A42 in its high rate of fire setting) and a rifled 100mm medium pressure gun.

    The requirement to defeat tanks was satisfied by 100mm gun fired missile and the requirement to defeat enemy IFVs was satisfied with the 30mm cannon.

    Thank you very much for the explanation. It’s very interesting to understand the way engineers thinking.

    The problem now is that the opposing IFVs have all gained weight and most are more than 30 tons and are only going to get heavier. An increase in calibre might allow a compromise where the new gun packs enough HE power to make the 100mm gun no longer needed, and has enough velocity to make the 30mm calibre weapon unnecessary.

    The combination of guided shells and AINET shells will further add to its usefulness, but it will need a nice heavy HE round and a very high velocity APFSDS round too, and in fact a good APHE shell might be useful too as lighter vehicles like APCs will only be damaged with an APFSDS round as it punches a hole through the target but an APHE punches a hole in and then explodes and would be far more lethal against MRAPs and APCs and IFVs from the side or rear.

    Of course I don't think the 45/57mm will immediately replace the 30mm and 100mm weapons from service and they might serve together.

    The 100mm is a custom designed round with a large projectile and a small stub propellent case, which makes it compact and easy to carry in larger numbers.

    The concept of the Armata is unmanned turrets so a BMPT with lots of 100mm shells and 30mm shells and 45/57mm shells should be relatively safe for the crew as they will be separate in the hull protected by firewalls separating them from fuel and ammo.

    No doubt that the IFV in the west get to the 30 ton, and the American with the GCV project might even go to the 60 ton and the Israeli “Namer” is 60 ton too. I believe that in the Armata brigade, every vehicle will weight around 60 ton. But in Europe I don’t see sign of going to this weight. Of course the BMPT will need a bigger gun, the Sweden, French and the Brits go with 40mm gun and telescopic round, so the Russian need to come with a bigger gun than 30mm. The 45mm will be a good gun, but the 57mm I think will be even better.
    “Bofors” has a 57mm gun with a very special round that called 3-P and it’s a very good combination, especially against ground target. If the Russian can come with a similar round, for the 57mm gun, that will be my pick.
    As for the APFSDS, I don’t think that the BMPT in the heavy and the medium brigade needs the 100mm gun at all as there is enough 125mm gun with AINET and APHE ammo in the tank brigade.

    The American has interesting gun called “Bushmaster-3/ 35-50”. The caliber now is 35mm, but when the development will be finished, it will be able to change only the barrel to 50mm caliber rounds.
    The way Bushmaster doing that is very interesting. Check this link please:
    http://www.atk.com/Products/documents4-1/AS%20-%20Bushmaster%20III.pdf

    Certainly with laser guided shells the 45/57mm rounds will reach out and get to an ATGM team much faster than a 23mm gun using 23 x 114mm rounds, as the latter are low velocity... something like 700m/s... they get their effectiveness from shell weight and low recoil and high rate of fire.
    If this vehicle is operating with a heavy tank or motor rifle brigade I agree, but in convoy protection roles things are different.
    Remember the old tank brigades and motor rifle brigades had BMP-3s with 100mm guns and mortar support, but these new heavy tank and motor rifle brigades the standard IFV will likely not have 100mm guns... they will probably only have 30mm cannon and rifle/hmg/agl calibre RWS, so I think putting these extra weapons on the fire power vehicle of the unit is still justified and will make them more useful when used independently.

    More importantly such an armament will make it more useful than a tank in a low intensity conflict so it can be used to support infantry units too.

    Certainly the 120mm gun/mortar of the mortar unit is a very similar weapon to the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 and with heavier shells and longer range I think at some stage they might ask themselves if they need both.
    The 100mm/30mm turret is useful for medium and light vehicles in terms of fire power and weight and recoil.
    The 45/57 gun in the turret and 23mm in the RWS, (IMO the RWS is a must) and 4 ATGM on the turret, might be the right answer for most of the fighting scenarios.

    And BTW I hate combination scanners printers photcopiers etc etc... who needs a setup where you can't use the scanner because you are out of ink... Laughing
    And even worst you can use only black ink, but suddenly all the cartridges are empty. Smile














    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:05 pm

    I familiar with DIRCM system on tanks and on plans, but the anti optic system is new for me, can you light it up a little bit?

    For a while they had a large bulky system called PAPV which weighs about 60kgs... basically it scans the area with a laser beam and monitors the reflections... a lens of a scope or binoculars reflects the laser back to the device which detects the reflection and determines what sort of thing it is and then directs a rather more powerful laser beam at the optic sight with the intention of destroying the optical device... my advice is to not wear glasses if the enemy has PAPV.

    By the looks of this:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5839-russian-anti-sniper-device-on-display-in-moscow

    They have reduced it down to binocular size and have used it in the field operationally...

    It’s very interesting to understand the way engineers thinking.

    Every solution has strengths and weaknesses and you really need to study requirements and experience before judging a solution.

    For instance the exit at the rear of the BMP-3 looks silly... you open roof hatches to walk over the engine and then open rear hatches to exit the vehicle. The problem was that the Russian Army demanded amphibious capability and if you put the engine at the front like on the BMP and BMP-2 then the vehicle becomes nose heavy with the engine and frontal armour so you either make the armour thinner and lighter or you move the engine to the rear.

    To retain heavy frontal armour they moved the engine to the rear.

    The 45mm will be a good gun, but the 57mm I think will be even better.

    The problem is that the old 57mm round they are using is huge and not particularly efficient. I would think a telescoped case round with a 57mm projectile initially and later perhaps a 65mm round when the 57mm is not powerful enough would be the best solution but with all these new vehicles can they afford to develop a completely new round?

    As for the APFSDS, I don’t think that the BMPT in the heavy and the medium brigade needs the 100mm gun at all as there is enough 125mm gun with AINET and APHE ammo in the tank brigade.

    Keep in mind the BMPT is not a troop transport... is it not an IFV. It is a fire support vehicle that might be operating in a large city where targets are in upper floors where 125mm guns can't elevate to hit.

    The high elevation of the relatively low recoil 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 is a useful weapon at short range and much cheaper than using ATGMs.

    The American has interesting gun called “Bushmaster-3/ 35-50”. The caliber now is 35mm, but when the development will be finished, it will be able to change only the barrel to 50mm caliber rounds.

    Yes, I have read about such weapons... the larger calibre allows more energy to be delivered down the barrel so that basically the same gun can be upgraded later at greatly reduced costs.

    And even worst you can use only black ink, but suddenly all the cartridges are empty.

    Yes... I am old enough to remember the old early colour typewriters that had coloured ribbons. The top of the ribbon was black and below it were the three ink primary colours... the problem of course was that the coloured part of the ribbon only got used when needed and the black was used for all colours to get darker colours so the black portion of the ribbon always ran out first and you had to throw out a perfectly good colour ribbon because the black portion was used up... same problems with early colour printers that had one cartridge containing all the ink... the colours might still be full but had to be replaced when the black was used up.

    Of course these days the ink costs more than the printers...

    AJ-47

    Posts : 122
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-05
    Location : USA

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  AJ-47 on Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:00 am

    The problem is that the old 57mm round they are using is huge and not particularly efficient. I would think a telescoped case round with a 57mm projectile initially and later perhaps a 65mm round when the 57mm is not powerful enough would be the best solution but with all these new vehicles can they afford to develop a completely new round?

    The American company ATK find an interesting way to deal with the big caliber. instad the regular way that nack down the cartridge to the bullet, what they did was to match the round to the cartridge diameter and by that they get a 50mm bullet from 35mm cartridge, and 40mm from 30mm cartridge.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18929
    Points : 19485
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia Announces 'Massive' Tank Scrappage Scheme

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:46 am

    The Soviets did the same with the 23 x 115mm cartridge which is a necked out 14.5 x 114mm anti tank rifle round and HMG round.

    Sponsored content

    Re: BMPT programme

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:38 pm