No doubt on that, I guess you meant T-15 which is a higher level of vehicle.
Yes, I do mean the T-15... the point is that the Russian Army will have different forces with different vehicles for different roles.
For open high mobility roles on flat open country the most widely used forces will probably be Boomerang and wheeled because they are highly mobile and cheap to buy and operate.
At 25 tons the Boomerang is 11 tons heavier than the BTR-80 family and much of that is brand new armour including ceramics as well as NERA and APS systems in addition with much better situational awareness and communications.
The next step up is the Kurganets which will have better protection but would be a similar weight.. both Boomerang and Kurganets are amphibious and well armoured and armed.
The top step is the Armata vehicle in the 45 ton class with NERA and APS and just really heavy armour for combat against enemies well equipped with RPGs and armour in urban areas or forests or rough country like hedgerows where enemy forces can get close...
But we need to upgrade the current family and that’s the BMP-1/2/3 and the BTR-80/82.
They are getting electronic, sensor, communication, and fire power upgrades, but there is no point trying to turn a BTR-80 into a Boomerang because the added armour would mean it needs a new engine and transmission and a new layout and eventually what you are making is a Boomerang.
Better to work on the new vehicles to get them as good as you can get them and introduce some of the things to the older vehicles like comms and optics and weapons and sensors... the biggest danger to a BTR-80 is an RPG or ATGM... well APS systems and NERA can help with that but the ultimate solution is Boomerang, Kurganets, and Armata.
There problem is luck of protection, and that’s why I don’t want them to run with foot soldiers in the front line, the soldiers will ride on BTRs behind the BMPs and the tanks.
In the current forces the IFVs have less protection than the MBTs but more than the APCs. In the new vehicle family forces all vehicles will have a similar level of protection and mobility...
But if we will take out the foot soldiers we can have better firepower.
If you take out the foot soldiers you have no foot soldiers to support.
The weapons on the BMP are to support the foot soldiers, if you want a fire power support vehicle to support a tank attack then what you want is a BMPT which is something different.
The reason for taking out the foot soldiers from the BMP-3 is to make them better. why to put 8 foot soldiers in a big risk at the front line,
Because foot soldiers can operate in any terrain and inside buildings and bunkers where vehicles cannot operate. Doctrine already says if it is too lethal for infantry to exit vehicles then instead of BMPs that tanks would operate with BMPTs instead. Totally untested theoretical idea... perhaps they could try it out in Syria maybe but I don't know how relevant they would be against a better equipped enemy.
the BMP family is weigh 15-18 tone, it’s mean they don’t have a good passive armor, maybe the front armor get improve but without ERA and APS they will be slotted at the front line.
They are not supposed to operate on the front line... they deliver their troops and then move back a bit and as their troops move forward they provide fire support... they are not supposed to go toe to toe with enemy tanks and the infantry should protect them from anti armour weapons and use their own anti armour weapons to stop enemy IFVs and MBTs getting close to their transport...
So if we want to help the soldiers the first thing to do is to take them out from the BMP-3 and put them in the BTRs, take them from the first line and save there lives.
So that would mean they are even less well protected because the BTRs have less armour and less fire power than the BMPs...
These soldiers in the BMPs will not help the fight, they will sit inside the vehicle do nothing, can’t see anything can’t shoot and the fire port are useless, what somebody need to do is to put 1-2 CRWS behind the turret and get 2 soldiers who sit in the front to operate these units. Now you have 5 crewmen that can fight and be helpful.
Don't you realise you have described the first model BMPT? The main difference is that instead of rear mounted gun turrets they had bow mounted weapons...
[quote]That’s not the vehicle commander job, for that they have recon platoon and they will give the info to the main commander.
I would suspect vehicle commanders and platoon commanders will be able to mark targets on their maps and be able to call in some sort of support... from the vehicle or other vehicles in the force or support elements.
In the Armor: the High will be the Tanks and the Low will be the BMPs.
??? You do understand that their new vehicle families will mean the tanks and the BMPs will be the same vehicles with the same armour levels...
In the Infantry: the High will be the BMPs (without foot soldiers) and with 57mm gun and the Low will be the BTRs with soldiers and 14.5 mm gun.
So you are taking infantry out of the more heavily armoured BMPs and putting them in the lighter BTRs to make them safer?
Again... in the new vehicle familes the BTR and BMP will be the same vehicle... the only difference will be the turret and armament.
Usually in the first line of attack, we will find the Tanks and the BMPs. The BMPs, with poor protection can’t carry foot soldiers, it’s too dangerous. The BTRs with the foot soldiers and with the support of BMPs will come after the fist wave attack of tanks and BMPs.
Against a HATO force that is well equipped with anti armour weapons the tanks and the BMPTs might attack first, but probably artillery and attack helicopters will soften the targets first. Amusing you think BMPs can't carry troops but BTRs should... right now the BTRs are less well armoured than BMPs... and with the new vehicle types they will have the same level of armour.
You absolutely right about the 60mm gun. But it’s didn’t get into the Israeli army and was never been an idea for light tanks in Israel. The only reason I mention this round is to show that Russia can get APFSDS round for H.C 57mm gun with no big problem, but with few round less in the carousal. As for your question, I’m old enough to know a few things. BTW to make the 60mm round they took the case of 76 mm navel gun and neck it down to 60mm projectile. The Russian can do that with the 76.2mm artillery round.
You are not listening.
The Russians have made an APFSDS round for their LC 57mm grenade launcher round so you can bet your ass they will have an APFSDS round for their HC 57mm round too. The reason they never had one before is because as I explained it was an anti aircraft round so they never needed to penetrate that much armour before, plus it would have a totally different trajectory to the standard HE and AP rounds which would make it uselessly inaccurate.
There is nothing magic about 60mm, a 57mm round based on the S-60 round will be good enough... it is a round developed just after WWII to replace the old 37mm AA gun round used during WWII for AA use. The round they developed is the 57 x 348mmSR that was widely used for a while as an AA round in the Soviet Union and China and other countries. They could just as easily have decided to use the rather more powerful 57 x 480mm anti tank 57mm gun used during WWII but they wanted an AA gun and the 57 x 348mm round met their needs and is still used around the place by some countries and there is a lot more ammo available around the place for it for low cost use against soft ground or air targets.
It can be done no problem, but what will be the velocity of this projectile? that’s the question, the 60mm APFSDS from IMI has 1,600m/s. Is the LC round can do it? I don’t think so.
Why does it matter? When enemy armour is expected or enemy air power or both then vehicles with the 57mm HC guns will be used in greater numbers because their HC guns will be more useful against aerial targets and heavier armour.
The LC 57mm gun will be useful against a variety of targets including armoured, but they wont be hunting tanks. An APFSDS round from the HC 57mm gun might exceed the performance of the Israeli 60mm round... who knows... propellent technology and penetrator design has improved since the 1970s.
But it’s didn’t get into the Israeli army and was never been an idea for light tanks in Israel.
I suspect the reason it didn't succeed was because the 105mm gun can penetrate such targets and has a much more effective HE round while only taking up a little bit more space...
The best solution is a light vehicle with a full power gun that can take on any armour it comes across like a Sprut or a Boomerang or Kurganets with a 125mm gun.
The only reason I mention this round is to show that Russia can get APFSDS round for H.C 57mm gun with no big problem, but with few round less in the carousal.
Is that the problem? Do you think they made an APFSDS round for the grenade launcher but not the BMP HC gun?
They will have made APFSDS rounds for both... it is the one for the grenade launcher that is the surprise to be honest.
As for your question, I’m old enough to know a few things. BTW to make the 60mm round they took the case of 76 mm navel gun and neck it down to 60mm projectile. The Russian can do that with the 76.2mm artillery round.
This is what I am talking about. The old S-60 was an AA gun so they designed HE Frag and APHE rounds for it that were ballistically identical for reasons we have already discussed. The use of this gun in a BMP type vehicle means they need new ammo types... technology has improved in the late 1940s and the requirements have changed.... you can bet there are all new rounds for the gun including a HE round with a much heavier HE filling which will mean probably lower muzzle velocity... but with modern fire control systems and ballistic computers it does not have to be super high velocity to be effective against air targets... using air burst technology makes it vastly more effective. They will have a new APFSDS round and a guided round with a missile in the shell case and probably a new APHE for use against bunkers and lighter armoured vehicles too...
Improved plastic driving bands, aerodynamic shapes for projectiles, new lighter materials for projectiles, better explosives, more modern and reliable and effective fuses, and of course new propellents and sabot design should make the new ammo vastly more powerful and useful than the old stuff... and probably much more accurate too.
The new generation of IFV in the west might be in the 40-50 tons range, so I don’t think the 57 LC will penetrate them.
That is OK... it will also be carrying Kornet missiles to penetrate those... its primary job is supporting troops... it has anti armour missiles to destroy armour but it is not an anti tank vehicle... they have tanks and ATGM carriers for that job... and their BMPs now have 8 mini missiles and 4 Kornet missiles plus half the vehicles will probably have high velocity 57 x 348mm calibre guns to take on those IFVs...
That’s the way the 40mm telescopic round works, but the round is 40mm and the diameter of the case is 65mm, and no one yet has telescopic round for anything bigger than 40-45mm.
Well the Russians have applied the idea to a grenade launcher round and seem to have been rather clever about it. The 57mm grenade launcher is probably rather heavy for a grenade launcher with a much higher pressure barrel capacity than most, but the result is clever and versatile.
Why bother with100mm rounds they can take 105mm from the shelf. Israel will give it to them for some T-72B with AU-220M turret.
Because they use 100mm round but they don't use 105mm rounds... that is like asking why Israel developed a 60mm round when they could have used the Russian 57mm round instead.
I doubt Israel would buy a Russian product anyway... the Americans would go crazy and might drop their unconditional support... for a vehicle using a 105mm gun they could probably make themselves.