Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
GarryB wrote:The design focus of the new generation Russian armoured vehicles is crew and troop safety.
Probably also the reason why they went from 100 mm Gun to 40 mm one so as to get more space for crew comfort and protection.
GarryB wrote:It is all together possible they might keep some IFVS with the 100mm/30mm weapon combination simply because it is effective in operational environments where the enemy does not have significant armour... the 30/100mm weapons are cheap and available and stocks of ammo will be usefully used instead of newer expensive guided rounds.
Having IFVs with HE shells of 100mm or greater calibre means less reliance of MBTs for fire support and the greater elevation and low velocity means targets behind cover can be engaged using indirect fire more easily... the combination of higher muzzle velocity and lack of elevation range means MBTS are actually fairly restricted as to the targets they can hit... pretty much direct fire line of sight stuff.
The main problem for India is the requirement to have the BMP-3 swim. The meaning of that is 25 ton vehicle that can’t have a good protection.
I think that the 2 project that India has developed, the weapon carrier (tank destroyer) called NAMICA and an AIFV known as Abhai, are close to my way of thinking.
The figure of 25 ton come from the Kurganets, if they can swim with 25 ton, the BMP-3M can swim too.
The BMP-3 is an 18 ton vehicle, it is the new Kurganets-25 and Boomerang-25 that will be 25 ton vehicles.
As for the rear door, I would like to remain you that Israel use the T-54/55 as an H-APC and they swing the engine 90 degrees, make a rear exit door, make a corridor between the engine and the side, so the soldiers can get out from this back door. Maybe can be done in the BMP-3 too.The main issue with the BMP-3 is balance... heavy frontal armour plus a very heavy turret meant the engine had to be move to the rear to stop it nose diving in the water. This meant that a standard rear exit is not easy with the BMP-3. The Soviets know rear exits are best... the BMP-1 and BMP-2 both have rear exit doors, but with the engine in the rear the BMP-3 have a series of doors and roof hatches so the troops can climb over the engine to exit the rear of the vehicle.
Maybe, but Russia get the Armta Brigade that weight double than the KurganetsThere is nothing impossible about making a 25 ton vehicle amphibious and having good armour... that is what the Russians are trying to do with the Kurganets and the heavy boomerang, but they are using lighter and more expensive and exotic materials in the armour to let them do that... potentially using new plastics and other materials.
You can see from the picture below that this turret is perfect for the APC. If we will change the 30mm to 14.5mm HMG or 23/115 as you said on one hand, and replace 2 of the ATGM with 2 packs of four 80mm rockets, which will make it perfect. The American has the same idea.While vulnerable a small squad of troops with your armoured vehicle make it more flexible and safer.
Your idea of two vehicles has a lot of merit, an APC model with a heavy machinegun turret and perhaps a few ATGMs for hitting point targets makes sense especially if fitted with a gun stabiliser and modern thermals to allow useful fire support for the dismounted infantry.
The IFV it’s more complicated issue, in my understanding the IFVs is the replacement for tanks in the infantry units. For that it needs firepower and the combo turret of the BMP-3 look to me as the right answer for now.The IFV model with extra ammo would be interesting too, though I would probably go with a crew of 5, but I would move the front two gunners either side of the driver to the rear and mount low flat turrets to the front and rear hull mounting a single PKT machine gun and a 40mm automatic grenade launcher like the Balkan. I would design it so that the top of the front and rear turret are level with the hull roof so they don't interfere with the main turret and each turret has a wide field of fire with one turret on the front facing forward and one on the rear facing backwards with night and all weather optics mounted on them. This would mean that the vehicle could deal with attacks from front and sides with the front turret, the rear and sides with the rear turret and any direction with the main turret so any attack should result in at least two gunners being able to engage... in fact an attack from the side could result in all three turrets engaging.
The bow gun positions limits them to targets in front of the vehicle over fairly narrow arcs.
The figure of 25 ton come from the Kurganets, if they can swim with 25 ton, the BMP-3M can swim too.
The upgrade BMP-3M with his add on armour, (that can protect the side of the vehicle from 0.5” bullets) and with ERA, I guess the 25 ton is in reach.
As for the rear door, I would like to remain you that Israel use the T-54/55 as an H-APC and they swing the engine 90 degrees, make a rear exit door, make a corridor between the engine and the side, so the soldiers can get out from this back door. Maybe can be done in the BMP-3 too.
Maybe, but Russia get the Armta Brigade that weight double than the Kurganets
You can see from the picture below that this turret is perfect for the APC. If we will change the 30mm to 14.5mm HMG or 23/115 as you said on one hand, and replace 2 of the ATGM with 2 packs of four 80mm rockets, which will make it perfect. The American has the same idea.
The IFV it’s more complicated issue, in my understanding the IFVs is the replacement for tanks in the infantry units. For that it needs firepower and the combo turret of the BMP-3 look to me as the right answer for now.
I guess some were in the line, the 100mm might be replaced by 120 gun/mortar unit, and maybe the whole turret will be replace with 57mm, ( I prefer 57mm than 45mm gun, because it has more potential) with 14.5mm coaxial, will do the job of the 100mm and the 30mm guns.
2. What kind of weapons to install in them?
The main objectives of the RWS will be, soldiers, soldiers on top story buildings, open area, basically to defend the vehicle from RPGs. For that we need 7.62mm MG and the GSH -23mm gun or the GSH-30-2K. I think the 30mm has advantage if it can shoot program rounds, and because of better effect on the target.
AlfaT8 wrote:Does anyone know the max. engagement range of the BMP-3s ATGM?
Many say 4km, others say 5.5km, i am not sure who to believe.
Also i have heard many complaint about crew comfort, but i have yet to find any photos of the BMP-3s crew compartment.
In short just what are these "comfort problems" they are complaining about?
And concerning India, what are the major differences between the domestic BMP-3/3Ms and the exported ones?
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
