BMP-3 in Russian Army

still BMP-3 time slowly but surely passing... I hope Manul will soon take over

The Manul is a BMP-3MM... if you think of the BMP-1 and BMP-2 and BMP-3 as tanks then BMP-1 and BMP-2 and BMP-3 are T-72 upgrades and T-80 and T-90 and Manul is T-90AM, and they might upgrade their entire existing fleet to this level over time, but they are not going to cancel T-14 just because it is so far in advance of anything the west has had planned to make.

Kurganets and Boomerang are vehicle families and no upgraded BMP-3 modification can replace them, but for the moment the Manul is good enough and better than anything they have faced from the west so far in this conflict, but eventually the Kurganets will be better.

Aso fo rKurganets-25 and Manmul i don't think they will be made concurrently.

I rather suspect they might upgrade existing BMP-3s to Manul standard during overhauls in the same way that they will upgrade T-72s in stock to the latest upgrade standard for the T-72s... a standard that is changing all the time with new improvements too.

The turret mounted on Manul is the new standard turret most new vehicles will carry from Armata to Kurganets and Boomerang to Typhoon and the DT-30 arctic vehicles.

The goal is to get rid of all the old BMP 1 and BMP 2 and BMP 3 type vehicles that all have different wheels and tracks and engines and transmissions that are not interchangeable to have five vehicle families.

A tank or motor rifle division might have BMP-3 troop transports, but the EW and other types of vehicles in that armoured division will include BMP-1 and BMP-2 type vehicles... it will also have different tank models... the artillery vehicle might be MSTA on a T-80 tank chassis while the tank might be a T-90, and the armour engineer recovery vehicle might be based on a T-72. There will likely be a half dozen different vehicles within that division based on the MTLB family of vehicles from the Shturm-S ATGM vehicle to the ACRV-2 command vehicle and the MTLBu artillery tractor etc etc... each potentially with different engines and transmissions meaning there is no advantage to having vehicle families in the first place.

The idea is that eventually a division will be allocated a vehicle type based on mobility and where it will fight and who it will be fighting, so an armoured division fighting in the steppe or arctic or desert on soft ground might be DT-30 based because you need tracks but a lighter vehicle will cope better with the lack of roads and deep snow and mud, while a force for operating in places with better road systems might be equipped with Boomerang based vehicles or Typhoon based vehicles where the roads allow high speed mobility, but fighting in urban areas might require Armata level protected vehicles etc etc.

The point is that in a division where every vehicle is going to be based on one type of chassis one engine, one wheel/track, one transmission where everything is standardised means your logistics train is going to be rather shorter than a unit with a wide varieties of vehicles whose parts are not compatible.

I rather doubt they will wait till they have all the necessary vehicle variations before they start introducing these vehicles so for a division that is going to be a medium tracked division then they might introduce Kurganets based BMPs and BTRs first... eventually we will see a Kurganets with a T-14 turret that will replace the T-90s and T-72s, and eventually you will see all the vehicles in a division replaced by family vehicles.

In the current situation it just makes sense to fit the 30mm cannon  turret of BTR-82As to BMP-1s and use them as troop transports with add on armour and other bits and pieces.

It is not about throwing away lives, they are rather careful about preserving lives... and that has more to do with how you use them.

Rolling over an anti tank mine is going to screw up any vehicle, but the new vehicles are designed to maximising the chances of crew and troops surviving.

Keep in mind that they have several projects to robotise vehicles of all types so in some cases they could simply use their oldest vehicles as demolition vehicles to drive remotely into an enemy position to destroy it.

If such a vehicle is destroyed then you are making the enemy use up their anti vehicle weapons to do so and I would add that while remote controlled some hits from anti armour vehicles that might injure the crew and stop the vehicle might not stop a robot vehicle if it does not disable it. An ATGM hit that would decapitate the driver in a manned vehicle might not stop a robot vehicle if there is nothing in line with the drivers head that was important to drive the vehicle.

Equally a BTR-60 might roll over several mines taking out wheels, but clever modification with a frame that has extra tiny wheels so the vehicle can continue moving after the front four wheels are taken out could lead to it reaching enemy positions before being detonated inside the enemy position.

Some sort of belly wheel arrangement might allow the vehicle to continue moving with the front four wheels destroyed simply by turning around and reversing towards the enemy position with hidden belly wheels supporting the front end of the vehicle and the rear wheels drag it to the enemy lines.

Kurganets and Boomerang are vehicle families and no upgraded BMP-3 modification can replace them, but for the moment the Manul is good enough and better than anything they have faced from the west so far in this conflict, but eventually the Kurganets will be better.

I suppose that some need a wider historical perspective to the matter to get it.

Soviets had a decades-long tradition having in ranks two lines of equipment.
One was designed to be as robust, inexpensive and capable of mass producing as possible.
While the other was much more expensive, much more complicated, and designed as a proving platform for the next generation.
What's re, they usually have not ceased to produce older generation of equipment, keeping it as additional insurance.
At a peaky end of the 70s, they were producing - same time - FIVE types of different tanks. T-55 was still on the lines, assisted by T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-80 ...
Usually, the generation of simpler tanks were made first, being easier to master and saturate the ranks with it.
More complicated followed them later on.
The inexpensive T-55 was being supported by a line of heavy tanks, as thousands of those had been produced after the war, ending the line with T-10. But this is an unusual situation, because it was a time when heavy tanks faded away.
T-62 followed as an inexpensive tank for mass production (20k of those made), but shortly after a much more complicated and costly T-64 was adopted alongside.
In a decade, the same situation followed with T-72 and T-80, respectively.
The next decade was just same, only interrupted by the dissolution of the SU - T-90 emerged at the end of the 90s, with much more complicated Obyekt 188, or something that would compete with it, arriving.
Now the situation is just same. We have a T-90M as "inexpensive" tank, being assisted with deeply modernized T-72B3M, 80BVM. And more complicated, revolutionary Armata base T-14 that will join shortly.

This pattern is being repeated and was repeated before the war as well.
It was always like that.

And the situation with lighter vehicles was just alike.
BMP-3 was accepted in the units combined with T-80U, being supported by the other units with T-72/BMP-2 and T-55/62/BMP-1.

Any speculations about the Armata family not being fielded lack this principal knowledge of the Soviet heritage and general concept.

Improvement in accuracy brought by the bakhcha-U turret

At a peaky end of the 70s, they were producing - same time - FIVE types of different tanks. T-55 was still on the lines, assisted by T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-80 ...

But they made a lot of T-54/55s and had a tank park that included even T-34s, so the direction they went was to have a high quality all the bells and whistles tank... first the T-64 and then the T-80... which is essentially a T-64 with all the problems solved and further developed technologies, but they would be too expensive to have for your entire tank fleet, so the T-72 was the simplified but still good mass production tank to replace all the old types if you were fighting HATO.... but fighting the Muj or Ukraine they could use older tanks with upgrades from storage.

T-62 followed as an inexpensive tank for mass production (20k of those made), but shortly after a much more complicated and costly T-64 was adopted alongside.

The T-54/55 were the cheap mass production tanks and the T-62 had a better gun and other improvements including night vision stuff.

The T-62 was essentially replaced by the T-64 and then the T-80, while the T-54/55 was replaced by the T-72.

The end of the cold war it seems they wanted the T-90 to replace the T-80 and the T-72 upgrades to remain the cheap mass use tank.

The new vehicle families is a new game where armour and mobility and firepower is determined for each division, whether motor rifle or tank.

The Armata is the expensive model and also the heavy model, while the Kurganets is lighter and cheaper and would be used where tracks are still needed but super armour is not. Boomerang and Typhoon are for use where speed and mobility are more important and of course being wheeled their purchase costs and operational costs will be a fraction of the tracked vehicles.

Boomerang will have comparable levels of armour to the Kurganets and will be the same weight class and use the same engines, while Typhoon will be a light wheeled vehicle family that will probably be very cheap with good communications and command and control with good weapons and good sensors and good defensive equipment like NERA and APS and anti drone systems... but all the heavier vehicles will have all that as well...

Now the situation is just same. We have a T-90M as "inexpensive" tank, being assisted with deeply modernized T-72B3M, 80BVM. And more complicated, revolutionary Armata base T-14 that will join shortly.

There will be a transitional period of mixing but eventually it will not be the case that all Russian tanks will be replaced by the T-14... there will be Armata tank divisions but also Armata Motor Rifle divisions that will have the T-14 tank and T-16 recovery vehicle that can handle Armata weight vehicles, and of course the BMP will be a T-15 with the 57mm gun/grenade launcher and missiles, and a Kord turret equipped BTR Armata vehicle. Another lighter more mobile division will use Kurganets based T-14... B-14?, and Boomerang will have a tank based on the Boomerang chassis... K-14? They will have the T-14 turret with a 125mm gun... though perhaps the Boomerang might have a Sprut turret with a Sprut gun, or a T-14 turret with a Sprut gun. Typhoon might not get a T-14 turret... it might get the Sprut gun, or they might just use the 57mm guns for the gun platform vehicle (tank) of the Typhoon vehicle family.

The point is that Armata will be the expensive tank, and the Kurganets cheaper, and Boomerang even cheaper, and Typhoon cheaper still... and the DT-30 arctic vehicle tank model also cheaper than Armata... each for different units in different locations for different roles, but where all the vehicles have the same wheels and the same gearboxes and transmissions and engines. The crew stations and controls will be unified across all the vehicle types for commonality and where practical systems for the tank role or the BMP role will be the same and implimented easily by basing most of the systems and equipment in the turret, so the T-14 turret is for tanks of all types of vehicle where practical. The BMPs will share the same turret with the same armament (earlier called Epocha... so probably the T-15 armament and systems...

Obviously some equipment will go into the hull and that can be fitted to the different vehicle types.

Proposed fire support vehicle that ditches the troop compartment for a much bigger autoloader housing 3x the ammo capacity

Nice armor package.

Hole wrote:
Nice armor package.

Is that entering service?

Hole wrote:
Nice armor package.

after "turtle tank" now we have the "turtle bmp"

This armor package based on the version delivered to UAE a long time ago.
Only reason why the BMPs in service of Russian Army doesn't have those is because of buoyancy.
Russkie share the same view as in Poland, that BMP must be capable of crossing rivers without preparation.
That's why all are under armored comparing to what could have been added there.

This up-armoured version dates back to 2001 - it is known as the BMP-3DZ Kaktus (uses Kaktus ERA ). Fitted with the package it's no longer amphibious until it is removed.

Mir wrote:This up-armoured version dates back to 2001 - it is known as the BMP-3DZ Kaktus (uses Kaktus ERA ). Fitted with the package it's no longer amphibious until it is removed.

The ERA is different, Chamfers on the side modules and different box construction on the front boxes aswell as different turret ERA panels.

It's probably somewhat improved by replacing the rubber skirting on the turret with something more solid but to my mind it's Kaktus all the way with a slight mod on the shape of the boxes around the hull. Yeah and why not - the original design is already 23 years old by now!?

More likely the improved 4с24.





This new variant also appears to include additional armour on the outside of the ERA boxes, perhaps vehicles have been taking more small arms fire and shrapnel than originally anticipated. While these threats would not detonate the 4с24 they would degrade it.

I believe 2S24 is the same thing as Kaktus - it is also available in "soft" form.

Got that bit from a Russian source - but pictures are most of the times better than a thousand words!

Atmosphere wrote:
Proposed fire support vehicle that ditches the troop compartment for a much bigger autoloader housing 3x the ammo capacity

I would replace it with this one

Presenting the T-155 Слон


And then you build a house around it

Mir wrote:
I would replace it with this one

Presenting the T-155 Слон


And then you build a house around it

As far as I know the only reasons for the discontinuation of assault guns were budget cuts.

They were very effective and I see no reason why that would have changed.

Mir wrote:

Atmosphere wrote:
Proposed fire support vehicle that ditches the troop compartment for a much bigger autoloader housing 3x the ammo capacity

I would replace it with this one

Presenting the T-155 Слон


And then you build a house around it

Haha the russkies probably already have some mobile assault gun based on the T-15 in the works.

Got that bit from a Russian source - but pictures are most of the times better than a thousand words!

Pretty sure the original was not amphibious but they have had plenty of time to improve and adapt to their own needs.

Haha the russkies probably already have some mobile assault gun based on the T-15 in the works.

An assault gun does not need range, so perhaps an Armata based vehicle with a fixed upper hull with a 160mm mortar mounted... or perhaps a short barrel 203mm or maybe even a 240mm mortar mounted in it...

The difference is, that air support requires time.
Plus punching a 250kg 5m next to a target does not equal a 30+ kg HE at point-blank range in bull's eye.
We have not dealt with trench warfare for decades, so lots of both tactics and equipment will be evaluated.
Assault guns assisting assault troops is one of the solutions that come to one's mind directly.

Even rubble can be turned into strong points or sniper dens.

The one thing going for assault guns is that it is much cheaper and quicker to manufacture than a proper tank. You can also add more armour for better protection due to weight savings. For these very reasons I would seriously consider re-introducing the assault gun concept of old.

If you build a shed around a tank you make the turret basically redundant except in the forward position - significantly limiting the gun and the HMG arc of fire.

The tank in a shed is basically an assault gun.

The one thing against an assault gun is it's limited arc of fire but more or less the same applies for the tank in a shed. Once the tracks are gone - they become sitting ducks - unless you have excellent support.

Assault guns had the advantage that they were cheaper and faster to produce than tanks.
Which is still important today.

Plus punching a 250kg 5m next to a target does not equal a 30+ kg HE at point-blank range in bull's eye.

Remember the Chechens in Mariupol, firing a couple of RPG´s through windows.
Very effective against those hiding in the rooms behind the windows, but the strikes
didn´t destroy the whole building as an air strike would do.