There is no extra armor on BMPT, it was just one of many supposed features that was advertised by UVZ and then promptly ditched in favor of 2 decades of lobbying MoD to buy this porkbarrel trash
The hull front armour is the heaviest armour on that vehicle... that is all I was saying.
They are nothing more than meat shields stuck there by old obsolete Soviet doctrine of human disposability
They are sitting under much heavier armour than they would in any current in service BMP version including uparmoured BMP-3s.
The purpose of this vehicle is to remove exposed troops from the battlefield and put them in an armoured box but allow them to still use their weapons from the protection of armour... so in fact it is the opposite of what you are claiming.
Cobra and F-15 as from the 70s and they work
Their next gen helicopter and fighter aircraft entered service in the 1970s.... almost 50 years old...
The T-34 works... if Russia announced their next gen infantry support tank was a T-34-57 you would go apeshit...
Land ships are from the 30s and they don't work
Yeah... cell phones didn't work then either.... nor GPS navigation devices....
Also as always, other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own
And even then you fail.... they took these machines to Syria and tested them so they are not fuckups.
They might not be deployed to every single formation, but they have potential.
Human gunners are not a hivemind and will never be well coordinated the more they are unless they are a hivemind.
There is no need for using bees.... the commander of current tanks already looks for targets and allocates them to the gunner to engage... with the BMPT it means he can allocate two other targets to be engaged simuntaneously.
No previously if the commander had ordered the gunner to engage a nice juicy target... say a Bradley fighting vehicle at 5km range and then they started taking fire from a building or hedge line 1-2km away... small arms fire or maybe even a TOW missile launcher, then the gunner could continue engaging the Bradley while the commander used his cupola mounted heavy machine gun to fire at the new target.
With the BMPT there might be multiple positions firing at once so the commander could decide which gunner engages which target depending on the range and type of target.. a Javelin team spotted 2km away could be hammered with 30mm HEI rounds, but as the BMPT approaches a built up area you might start getting fire from multiple locations at once... small arms fire and RPGs, so being able to tell one grenade launcher gunner to focus on this and that building and the other one to concentrate his fire on that hedge line while the main gunner takes on any heavier threats or threats further away...
In the case of a MBT the gunners sight is normally fixed in view to about 30-40 degrees so they don't have a great view of the battlefield, but they are engaging the target they were allocated so engaging that target and saying when ready to engage a new target is your job.
Equally the bow gunners have a limited field of fire so really they only have to worry about the things they can see and hit... they are sitting next to the driver, so if there is a target they feel they need to engage just outside their field of fire they can get the driver to turn the vehicle slightly or ask the commander to do so, or just warn the commander of the threat and he can decide.
It just means that there are more eyes looking for targets and threats and the commander has more gunners to allocate target to in combat so more targets can be engaged at one time.
The BMPT crew numbers are a retarded feature that doesnt make sense with increasing automation and advent of UGVs. period.
If automation is so damn amazing why do all western tanks have a gunner in the turret... surely a commander can select targets and press a button to fire a round to kill a target... yet they insist on putting a commander and a gunner and a loader in their turrets making them enormous targets and making the vehicle very heavy...
Why are there no two man MBTs... a commander gunner, with an auto loader and a driver...
Russian tanks have auto trackers too so why do they have a gunner at all?
Pretty obviously, a commanders job is to look for targets and look for threats and allocate targets to the gunner and driving instructions to the driver to ensure the heaviest armour is pointed at all the biggest threats and the gun is pointed at the next target to be engaged.
And now they have to be aware of drones too... so having a gunner engaging ground targets with the main guns but also extra gunners engaging drones or infantry positions actually makes a lot of sense.
How about a "loyal BMPT" drone instead thats controlled by nearby tanks or troops?
If they had a loyal drone able to engage enemy troops and armour and drones on its own there would be no need for nearby troops or nearby tanks... just have all drones.
So youve answered the question yourself if the BMPT is useful: you said yourself here that the BMPT is redundant compared to tanks and IFVs.
Not at all... any air defence system is improved by increasing the number of guidance channels it has because it can engage larger enemy forces at once.... the BMPT is intended to be used in Lieu of BMPs because the threat to infantry in the open is too high so the BMPT is there to provide support to the tanks and the tanks in turn will protect the BMPTs by shooting MBTs and BMPs and other heavy targets.
More people in an AFV != multiple engagement capability.
More people with their own sights and own independent weapons does equal multiple engagement capability... that was its purpose.
Moreover, multiple engagement against what? Multiple tanks? multiple AK47 wielding goatfarmers? If you have to engage infantry at short range from completely different directions as an AFV your armor tactics are retarded.
Enemy infantry are going to use tactics to get close to tanks because that is the safest place for soldiers with enemy tanks. Ask the Iraqi soldiers in Desert Storm.
There is only 1 turret on the BMPT. why would you put more people to control 1 turret?
The two extra crew control 30mm grenade launcher mounted above the tracks in limited traverse mounts.
Also the fact that people here think hull mounted manned MGs are a good idea shows that they will defend anything that russian defence compnies sell and that they ignore all historical lessons learnt in tank design.
The original idea was for small turrets that had much better field of views but they cost too much for the army.
What, those twin 30 mm's suddenly weigh 5 tons each?
115kgs each... so probably less than a 125mm barrel and mechanism.
It essentially has external gun mounts with below hull crew positions so no heavy turret frontal armour required.
And yes, hull mounted MGs are actually a good idea - most tanks have a deadzone immediately in front of the tank where none of the tank's weapons could depress sufficiently low enough to engage targets say in a trench just immediately ahead. It could be an extension of the driver's sight similar to the commander's sight which also got paired with an MG to become a fully fledged remote weapons station.
Modern technology has made a stupid idea into a useful idea.... a two man tank was a bad idea because driving is a full time job but so is loading the main gun and so is firing the main gun and so is commanding the vehicle.
Even with advanced thermal sights with video processing computers that pick hotspots out as potential targets for a commander to look at and make a final decision to hand it off to a gunner.... it makes the commanders job much easier, but it remains difficult on a modern battlefield where there might be friendlies and neutrals as well as enemy combatants.
Having a gunner engage a target while the commander scans for threats or other targets is important because when that T-26 commander is loading the gun and aiming it at the target all manner of enemy could be approaching him from the side or behind.... having two bow gunners looking forward focusing on finding targets and engaging them means the driver can focus on moving from cover to cover as quick as he can and following instructions from the commander with his much better view of the lie of the land in front of them from his position in the turret.
The difference between a T-32 with two machine gun turrets and a 76.2mm central turret is visibility and communication... with modern electronics and modern comms systems the commander could spot a target in his panoramic sight and direct the main gunner to engage, but any other enemy troops positions he spots he could direct each of the machine gun turrets to engage at the same time... and it is not tying up the commander... the vehicle is engaging potentially three different targets at once but the commander is free to look 360 degrees around the vehicle looking for ground threats and aircraft.. their might be a plane lining the vehicle up so the commander might order the crew to hold fire while he gets the driver to reverse back through that fence and into a position that makes the vehicle a difficult target for the aircraft... once the aircraft has flown past the commander can notify air defence to engage while he orders the driver to drive down the fenceline 40m and then drive through again and reacquire their targets and re engage.
Shooting at three different targets at once suppresses more enemy units at once and makes your fellow vehicles safer... if someone pops up with an RPG you can shoot at them but normally they are too fast.... perhaps with your bow gunners and commander getting feed from a drone they might see an RPG gunner behind front cover but not top cover getting ready to step out and fire so you can have your grenade launcher aimed and ready to fire the instance he does... what a surprise for him... but in the mean time they might be firing PK machine gun fire at you to distract you, which your other grenade launcher gunner can neutralise.
Very simply the job of the commander is to allocate targets to a gunner on existing vehicles... having extra gunners makes sense now... but I do agree a proper turret with better field of view would have been much better... and a new Balkan 40mm grenade launcher reaching to 2.5km with a heavier grenade would be much better.