BMPT "Terminator"

BTW I agree that the BTR-T should be T-90 based at least for the Russian military, and that the T-55 versions could be sold to countries that still use the T-55 so they would benefit from parts commonality.

The ultimate BTR-T however will be the Armata based model as it will have the engine at the front so troops entry and access at the rear will be much easier and simpler.

It seems Russians tested different turrets and weapons combinations, but at the end they decided for current turret and weapon combination which could be the best compromise for the tasks, which was placed before BMPT, when they create it.

I hope Russian military will continue with BTR-T concept based on T-90 or Armata tank, because it could be better ICV for heavy armored units,than BMP-3, where swimming is not needed and could cross smaller rivers with shnorkel. But in Russia with large rivers BMPs with swimming capabilities will be still needed to secure bridge building and crossing of other vehicles.

The family concept of vehicles for heavy, medium, and light vehicles means the BTR-T is guaranteed to enter service, but instead of basing it on a T-55, in the heavy brigades it will be based on the Armata, while in the medium brigades it will likely have a Kurganets-25, 25 ton vehicle base, and also possibly a Boomerang 25 ton tracked chassis, and in the light vehicle family it will have a Kangaroo based chassis of unknown weight.

The medium and light brigade troop carriers will be amphibious... that has been made public.

The Armata version of the troop carrier will definitely not float, but might be able to snorkel like the other tanks probably will.

Been reading some of my own posts in discussions with you Medo, and Flanky, and Austin, and Mindstorm, and others and I feel I have often sounded a bit preachy, or that I am right even when voicing opinion rather than fact and I would like to apologise to everyone for that.

I have been interested in Russian and Soviet equipment for a very long time now and I like to think I know a bit about lots of different things.

However when I post opinion, I will try to make it clear it is only opinion... in many ways an educated guess, yet not certain, nor even more likely than anyone else's guess.

I do like to listen to the opinions of others especially when they bring facts that support their opinions that I was not aware of.

Part of discussion is to learn new things and that includes new facts and different opinions.

A case in point is my opinion regarding the armament of the BMPT which I have repeated ad nauseum on quite a number of threads, and will not repeat here.
Medo disagreed and we discussed it.
It is clear from the photos I posted above that they tried almost what I suggested... ie putting a BMP-3 turret on a tank chassis, though I would have preferred external mounted guns and proper bow turrets plus the sight arrangement they ended up with using the panoramic commanders sight etc.

I rather suspect the attempt with the BMP-3 turret failed because of the vulnerability of the turret and the large amount of HE inside the vehicle, and financial reasons probably prevented more exotic options like the same armament with an external gun with a turret bustle ammo store to keep the ammo separate from the crew.

I have read of several cases where external ammo stores have been criticised by the Russian military... a light Italian vehicle with an external weapon system, the Black Eagle external autoloader and ammo cassette, I can understand them not bothering with an external gun design with a rear turret ammo storage option.

This suggests that ammo stored under armour is preferred.

I am currently thinking that if my preferred armament is not possible that even the GSh-30K twin barrel gun with low (300-400rpm) and high (2,000-2,600rpm) would be ideal for a range of ground and aerial targets and perhaps some automatic gun like the 82mm vasilek or perhaps even a 57mm gun might do the trick of delivering HE to target accurately and effectively.

In fact a 57mm gun with coaxial PKT and roof mounted 40mm Balkan and two mini turrets in the front hull with a PKT and Balkan in each might actually be the best solution... The 57mm gun could fire laser homing shells of fairly precise accuracy and elevation would not be a problem because being a former anti aircraft gun it would be designed to fire at all sorts of angles.

I hope they will not forget to develop BMRs like BMR-3 for heavy, medium and light brigades. Mines, IEDs, fortifications, etc are still very often in battlefields.

Don't worry Garry, we are all interested in Russian equipment, that's why we are all here, to discus about it. I don't think there is anything wrong to have different opinions, which are usually based in different experiences, philosophy, environment, point of view, etc.

Regarding BMPT, our difference is in different concept and philosophy of using BMPT in battlefield, because we look on it from different points of view. That doesn't make one opinion only correct, specially because the final concept of using BMPT is still not reached. All opinions and options are equal. It all depend on concept and philosophy (doctrine) of rules and needs, that Russian army as buyer or other armies accept and give to UVZ. BMPT will be than suited to those rules with armament and other equipment.

I think half the problem is the terrible communication from the Russian military to the Russian MIC.

They seem to communicate by Media... and of course the Media know so little about the subject they so often make mistakes.

I noticed on MPnet they posted a thread about the Akulas being scrapped, when in fact what the official said was that they were not going to be used as SSBNs any more because of the reduced warhead limits of the new START treaty.
The US has converted a few Ohio SSBNs into cruise missile carriers, and there is a good possibility that Russia might do the same with the Akulas, though I would like to see at least one outfitted for underwater research with mini subs and unmanned underwater vehicles etc.

Another role discussed was underwater transport vessel, but that wouldn't be a good use in my opinion as it would probably be too expensive for that sort of thing... unless you used it as a nuclear powered icebreaker that could approach its target rapidly underwater and then surface through the ice and lead trapped vessels out of the ice.

BTW I am pretty sure they will develop entire families for each vehicle type...

In my opinion, and I am new here, the best solution is to replace the 30mm with a 57/60mm gun. Those guns have air burst ammo. that will be more efective than the 30mm, those guns have a longer range and have APDS ammo. For shouting to higher elevation, you can put 2 RCWS on the turret, one on each side, with 12.7 or 14.5mm, like the one on the T-90MS, and they will solve this problem. As for the missiles, I would go with 70mm rocket guided to lesar spot, instad of one missile you can put 4 rockets.

There is talk of a competition between a 45mm gun and an updated version of the S-60 57mm anti aircraft gun with new ammo that includes laser guided shells.

I guess one way of thinking about these systems is as a fire power vehicle as Medo suggests where they replace the use of gun armed air defence vehicles that the Russians sometimes use in direct fire roles against ground targets... the BTR-40 actually had a fully dual role with its twin mounted 14.5mm HMGs in that it was used in the ground to air and ground to ground role, and was followed by the BTR-152 with twin 23mm cannon in a similar dual role, and later when the ZSU-23-4 and Tunguska vehicles became available they were also used in the ground support role occasionally, but these uses were risky because of their lack of protection... even HMG that would bounce off the front of a BMP-1 would penetrate a ZSU-23-4.

Your way, that the BMPT is basically a BMP armed vehicle with the troops moved to another vehicle to allow more ammo and armament is another possibility... and perfectly reasonable too.

This means the armament will be light anti armour and air defence and infantry support.

A middle calibre between 30mm and 100mm loses the HE power of the latter and rate of fire of the former, but with laser guided shells... the precision would make up for both. Rate of fire is only important against aircraft. And against hard targets often it is a case of a big heavy HE shell to blow it down, but a decent Armour Piercing HE shell that penetrates into the structure and then explodes is often a much more efficient use of explosive.
Against a light vehicle a standard AP round will simply punch a 57mm calibre hole in it, while an APHE will penetrate inside and then the HE charge will tear everything inside to pieces... it is a case of using the armour against the target... a HE explosion outside an armoured vehicle means the armour protects those inside. An explosion inside an armoured vehicle is made worse by the armour as the shock waves and shrapnel can't escape and bounce around magnifying the damage and destruction. It is the same for a small room or a bunker or trench...

The Russians don't use 70mm rockets BTW the nearest equivalent would 80mm rockets, and without laser guidance kits like Ugroza I don't think they would be a good substitute for ATGMs. With Ugroza kits you could fit one pod on each side of the turret, each pod has 20 tubes so that would be 40 rockets ready to fire, which isn't too bad... you could have a quarter equipped with HEAT warheads for hard targets and the remaining three quarters equipped with HE frag warheads... so 10 anti armour and 30 HE.

If the BMPT is equipped with a 57mm gun and 80mm rocket pods, then the troop carrying BMP-4 or whatever it is called can have an external 30mm cannon then when on operations a helicopter unit could land near a heavy brigade staging area and get spare 30mm cannon ammo AND 80mm rockets, whereas before they only shared the 30mm ammo.

Taking your ideas I would still base the vehicle on the BMO-T and I would keep the front hull mounted turrets with PKT MGs and Balkan 40mm grenade launchers, but I agree a large calibre gun like the 57mm gun upgrade used for the PT-76 would be an improvement.

Personally rather than taking the old gun and creating new ammo for it I would prefer they developed a whole new shell based on telescopic case technology... they could start out with a 57mm round now to retain the barrels etc, but design it so that later on when 57mm is not enough any more that they can fit 65mm barrels and use the same ammo with 65mm projectiles for more HE power later on... it gives growth potential.

The improved HE power and AP power and of course the laser guided shells for accuracy against point targets compensate for the replacement of the 30mm and 100mm guns, though the current 57mm gun has a 20 round direct feed system, I would double that with two twenty round feed systems to allow the gunner to load two different ammo types and rapidly switch between them as needed. 40 rounds ready to fire is plenty if 20 are laser guided and more than likely to get a direct hit with the first shot.

I think in the rear of the turret there should be 2 remote machine guns as fitted to the T-90MS that can be used by the commander and gunner to hit targets the main guns wont elevate or depress to hit, though I would make them PKTs in 30 cal to keep their size down and allow a decent amount of ammo to be carried for them. (With small laser range finders in their optics they should be very accurate).

And finally a 20 shot rocket pod on each side of the turret with 80mm rockets.

To further improve fire power you could fit Kornet EM missiles to the troop transports

I don't know, what is caliber of rocket launcher, but VDV units have smaller caliber MLRS placed on their BTR-D vehicles. Maybe two boxes with 10 rockets could be placed on each side of BMPT turret.

The 80mm rockets I am talking about are the standard 80mm rockets that Russian helos use... they replaced the older 57mm rockets... largely because the old 57mm rockets had warheads on the small side for modern better protected soldiers and vehicles.

The smallest land force rocket would be the 122mm Grad, and I don't think the navy uses anything smaller than that as an artillery weapon (except for the hand held anti diver/saboteur rockets).

The air defence system has two big challenges in our days.
1. It needs to defend the army from attack helicopters.
2. It needs to defend from swarm suicide UACV and small cruise missiles that can loitering above the battlefield, and destroy any target that they see.

To defend against them, we need air defence system like the Tunguska, Pantsir and the ZSU-23-4 that is very deadly. These units need to be well protected as they should be in the front line.
So, even due the BMPT has some missiles and high ROF, it is not much better then any of the BMPs family, and it’s not an air defence system.
That fits my first rule: “All in one goes only for printers”.

My second rule is: “Neither tanks nor APC can fight alone”.
The BMPT is an escort service guy. He will escort tanks and APCs and support them with his fire power.

When he escorts tanks, his job will be to defend the tanks from infantry carried ATGMs and RPGs. The BMPT will be able to do that with his 57mm gun and his Air Burst High Explosive rounds. These rounds will be very effective against infantry in the open, inside buildings, and against helicopters. For short range engagement, the BMPT will use his HMG.
The 57mm gun will be enough for these jobs, and if we need more punch, we have enough tanks in the area.

When he escorts APCs, his job will be to defend them from the enemy’s armor. The 57 mm APFSDS rounds and the ATGMs will keep the enemy APC and tanks far away from the infantry.
I like the 80 mm guided rockets, they can be equipped with tandem warheads, the first warhead will be shaped charge that will penetrate the wall, and the second will be HE that will explode inside the building.

This combination of 57mm gun, 80mm rockets and 14.5mm HMG, will be perfect solution for the BMPT.

So, even due the BMPT has some missiles and high ROF, it is not much better then any of the BMPs family, and it’s not an air defence system.
That fits my first rule: “All in one goes only for printers”.

My rule is multifunction printers are a pain in the backside... as soon as they run out of ink you can't use the scanner till you replace it with new ink cartridges...

The BMPT doesn't need to perform the AD role as there are AD vehicles for that.

Certainly a few vehicles with 57mm automatic guns and laser guided shells could deal with a large number of Swarm UAVs... assuming the defence is coordinated properly.

The 57mm gun will be enough for these jobs, and if we need more punch, we have enough tanks in the area.

Tanks can handle targets at a distance, but close in they have rather more problems engaging targets at different angles.

The BMPT is a tank support vehicle... that is literally what BMPT actually stands for, while BTR-T means heavy armoured personnel carrier.

The BTR-T wont have the fire power of the BMP, so in many ways the BMPT combines the fire power of the BMP with a tanks level of protection.

When he escorts APCs, his job will be to defend them from the enemy’s armor. The 57 mm APFSDS rounds and the ATGMs will keep the enemy APC and tanks far away from the infantry.

In many ways the BMPT could probably also be used as a tank in lighter roles.

At the core of things a tank is a big powerful gun on a vehicle that provides mobility for what is basically direct fire support.

In many situations like COIN and peacekeeping operations you really don't actually want a tank, but a vehicle with heavy armour and serious fire power can be useful.

Certainly convoy escort, and supporting tanks in built up areas are two primary uses, but there could be secondary uses as infantry support vehicles, and of course in counter terrorism operations and guerilla warfare.

This combination of 57mm gun, 80mm rockets and 14.5mm HMG, will be perfect solution for the BMPT.

The issue I would have is with the 14.5 HMG... it is very much the equivalent of a 20mm cannon but with better penetration performance. Considering the role is close in fire power to support tank operations in built up areas that PKT MGs in 7.62mm calibre would be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and be able to be supplied with a significantly larger amount of ammo, and with the lower recoil and aiming optics including thermals and laser range finders they would be accurate enough to be very effective within about 1.5km.

Based on many of the same concerns the T-90AM/SM also have PKTs rather than Kords in remote gun positions.

[quote] So, even due the BMPT has some missiles and high ROF, it is not much better then any of the BMPs family, and it’s not an air defence system. That fits my first rule: “All in one goes only for printers”.

My rule is multifunction printers are a pain in the backside... as soon as they run out of ink you can't use the scanner till you replace it with new ink cartridges...
The BMPT doesn't need to perform the AD role as there are AD vehicles for that.
Certainly a few vehicles with 57mm automatic guns and laser guided shells could deal with a large number of Swarm UAVs... assuming the defence is coordinated properly.

>>>>>I agree 100%. I am not looking for one unit to do everything.<<<<<<

The 57mm gun will be enough for these jobs, and if we need more punch, we have enough tanks in the area.

Tanks can handle targets at a distance, but close in they have rather more problems engaging targets at different angles.

>>>>>And that's way I prefer to see BMPT in urban area than tanks, tanks need to support the fight from the distance.<<<<<

The BMPT is a tank support vehicle... that is literally what BMPT actually stands for, while BTR-T means heavy armoured personnel carrier.
The BTR-T wont have the fire power of the BMP, so in many ways the BMPT combines the fire power of the BMP with a tanks level of protection.

>>>>>Agree>>>>>

When he escorts APCs, his job will be to defend them from the enemy’s armor. The 57 mm APFSDS rounds and the ATGMs will keep the enemy APC and tanks far away from the infantry.

In many ways the BMPT could probably also be used as a tank in lighter roles.
At the core of things a tank is a big powerful gun on a vehicle that provides mobility for what is basically direct fire support.

>>>>>Work with the infantry, the BMPT will be part of a company, and the tanks will be used for support from the distance.<<<<<

In many situations like COIN and peacekeeping operations you really don't actually want a tank, but a vehicle with heavy armour and serious fire power can be useful.
Certainly convoy escort, and supporting tanks in built up areas are two primary uses, but there could be secondary uses as infantry support vehicles, and of course in counter terrorism operations and guerilla warfare.

>>>>>Absolutely<<<<<

This combination of 57mm gun, 80mm rockets and 14.5mm HMG, will be perfect solution for the BMPT.

The issue I would have is with the 14.5 HMG... it is very much the equivalent of a 20mm cannon but with better penetration performance. Considering the role is close in fire power to support tank operations in built up areas that PKT MGs in 7.62mm calibre would be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and be able to be supplied with a significantly larger amount of ammo, and with the lower recoil and aiming optics including thermals and laser range finders they would be accurate enough to be very effective within about 1.5km.

>>>>>That is the main point.To escort tanks, the BMPT will have two main objective
1. To fight against infantry with RPGs and for that we need high ROF and air burst ammo.
2. to fight against APC/IFV, so we can keep the tanks doing there own fight. For that we need higher caliber with a better penetration, and do all of that the 57mm will be very good.
The 14.5mm will be the weapon for the remote gun positions, but not the main one.<<<<<

Based on many of the same concerns the T-90AM/SM also have PKTs rather than Kords in remote gun positions.

I would like to again explain the first idea of BMPT, about which they create it. It is to replace AA guns in ground fightings because of their thin armor and to protect tanks against infantry. Larger caliber guns with lower rate of fire are excellent against point targets and for that role tank's main gun is perfect. Infantry is not a point target, but is in groups in larger area and to suppress them in shorter time you need to shower them with rain of bullets and for that rule AA guns were perfectly used by Russian army in Afghanistan and Chechnya, all sides in Balkan wars and if I'm correct also US marines use their LAV-AD in that way with its 25 mm gatling gun (I think many armies use Vulkan AA gun in that rule also). Ground fighting capabilities for AA guns are just for self defense and are not dedicated for that role (also are too expensive), that is why they think about dedicated vehicle - BMPT.

BMPT is not a dedicated AD vehicle, although with its FCS and integrated in C4IR it could do that job just fine in self defense. ATGMs it have are also for self defense against stronger targets. Similar as ATGMs which IFVs have are for self defense as well as MANPAD, which IFV have inside. They are not dedicated tank hunters or AD vehicles.

medo wrote:I would like to again explain the first idea of BMPT, about which they create it. It is to replace AA guns in ground fightings because of their thin armor and to protect tanks against infantry. Larger caliber guns with lower rate of fire are excellent against point targets and for that role tank's main gun is perfect. Infantry is not a point target, but is in groups in larger area and to suppress them in shorter time you need to shower them with rain of bullets and for that rule AA guns were perfectly used by Russian army in Afghanistan and Chechnya, all sides in Balkan wars and if I'm correct also US marines use their LAV-AD in that way with its 25 mm gatling gun (I think many armies use Vulkan AA gun in that rule also). Ground fighting capabilities for AA guns are just for self defense and are not dedicated for that role (also are too expensive), that is why they think about dedicated vehicle - BMPT.

BMPT is not a dedicated AD vehicle, although with its FCS and integrated in C4IR it could do that job just fine in self defense. ATGMs it have are also for self defense against stronger targets. Similar as ATGMs which IFVs have are for self defense as well as MANPAD, which IFV have inside. They are not dedicated tank hunters or AD vehicles.

The BMPT is not an AD unit,I can agree with that, there is enough AD vehicles in the field, and there is no need for the BMPT in this roll. His job is to escort the tanks, and for that the 30mm is not good enough, it's need a bigger gun like 35-60mm, so he can engage APC and infantry from long range. The american has the 35/50 cannon from ATK that will fit for this job, but in Russia, for the time being, they have only the 57mm. GerryB said someting about 45mm maybee that's will be the answer.

I would like to again explain the first idea of BMPT, about which they create it. It is to replace AA guns in ground fightings because of their thin armor and to protect tanks against infantry.

Yes, I think we all agree that the BMPT is to replace the previous "missuse" of AD gun vehicles in the direct fire support role.

The AD vehicles were used because they were available, but really lacked the armour to be a good permanent solution.

Larger caliber guns with lower rate of fire are excellent against point targets and for that role tank's main gun is perfect.

Except in close range where their lack of elevation is a handicap.

Large calibre guns can engage area targets efficiently using HE shells, while some enemy fortifications require more HE to defeat than modern higher rate of fire smaller calibre weapons can deal with.

I think the Russians have found the 100mm rifled gun and the 30mm cannon of the BMP-3 to be the ideal combination of rate of fire and HE performance.

Their adoption of 120mm mortars on armoured vehicles seems to suggest this could be a new direction where a 120mm mortar can use mortar bombs and shells and guided missiles with a very effective projectile in terms of HE power while anti armour performance is poor in terms of kinetic AP performance it lends itself well to diving top attack munitions with HEAT warheads.

120mm gun/mortars however take up a lot of room both for the gun and the ammo and the unit will be supported by vehicles with this very weapon anyway.
The 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 offers HE fire power in direct and indirect fire modes plus a laser guided missile option for precision against point targets and armour and helos, with fairly compact HE rounds suitable for use in an autoloader.

Less HE power but still potent.

57mm rounds take the HE charge down to a minimum, but new rounds could improve performance and laser guided shells offer precision against a wide range of air and ground targets.
The old ammo is large and relatively heavy compared with 30mm but it is a significant step up in performance.
New ammo could be even better with more compact ammo that makes ammo handling and storing much easier and more efficient.

Ground fighting capabilities for AA guns are just for self defense and are not dedicated for that role (also are too expensive), that is why they think about dedicated vehicle - BMPT.

AD gun vehicles are generally quite expensive with lots of electronics and radars etc, and they are very vulnerable to ground fire.
Hopefully the BMPT will be much less vulnerable and cheaper and custom designed for the role, so it will be part of the unit rather than something you borrow when you need it.

BMPT is not a dedicated AD vehicle, although with its FCS and integrated in C4IR it could do that job just fine in self defense.

Agree.

ATGMs it have are also for self defense against stronger targets. Similar as ATGMs which IFVs have are for self defense as well as MANPAD, which IFV have inside. They are not dedicated tank hunters or AD vehicles.

Disagree. Except on convoy escort or similar, the ATGMs the BMPT will carry are HE fragmentation warhead equipped that would be totally useless against heavy enemy vehicles.
The purpose of the Ataka missiles on the BMPT is the ability to hit point targets out to 6km, but its real use will be hitting targets in the tops of buildings or up hillsides that the tanks the BMPT is operating with can't hit because their main guns don't elevate above about 20 degrees.
If a tank appeared or an enemy IFV... it makes rather more sense for the tanks operating with the BMPT to take them out with APFSDS rounds than for the BMPT to waste one of 4 weapons it can take out an entire enemy ATGM team from 6km with. The missile also offers anti helo capability too so the tanks can focus on enemy ground vehicles.

That was the main reason I was suggesting the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 because after 4 kills with missiles all you have is 30mm cannon with a range of 3-4km. The 100mm gun can not only kill targets at almost twice that distance, because it is a low velocity weapon it can hit targets over small hills that are not visible, but with a decent land navigation system and satellite navigation system and given the coordinates of an enemy infantry unit they should be able to open fire with the 100mm gun using HE shells to engage... just like artillery... the spotter could be a UAV attached to the unit transmitting live video of the target so the gunner can correct his fire after the first few rounds land... or the UAV could mark a tank target with a laser for nearby artillery units to engage with Krasnopol-M etc.

Work with the infantry, the BMPT will be part of a company, and the tanks will be used for support from the distance.

Agree that this is preferred, but sometimes the terrain means the tanks can't use their excellent visibility and fire power and have to fight in built up areas or even hedgerows.

Putting a tank on top of a hill that overlooks the village to be attacked exposes the tank to long range fire, but also allows the tank to take advantage of its superior optics and fire power to support the infantry going in.
Put a BMP there and its lower armour level makes it more vulnerable to enemy attack... especially if the enemy has artillery or air power.

The 14.5mm will be the weapon for the remote gun positions, but not the main one.<<<<<

Yes, I guessed that, but a 14.5mm HMG is a very powerful weapon with a very large round. It has twice the muzzle energy of a 50 cal Browning HMG, and so an external remote mount would need to be rather big and strong and the stabilising system will have to be big and strong and the ammo storage will need to be large.
A PKT in 7.62 x 54mm is perfectly lethal to infantry, is much lighter, and lower recoil/vibration... would be effective out to about 1km or so, which in urban combat is probably enough.

Look at the T-90AM and SM design, they went from a 50 cal down to a 30 cal simply because anything that needs engaging that is more than 1km away that a 30 cal can't deal with, a 125mm HE FRAG round will deal with nicely.
That machinegun is not for air defence... the effective air defence range of a 50 cal is about 1.5km and any helo inside that range envelope is a real threat that should have been dealt with before. For a tank the best way to deal with enemy helos at less than 2km is firing a APFSDS round at 1.8km per second... at more than 2km then a guided missile makes a kill much more likely. BTR-Ts with 30mm cannon can deal with the helicopters, the 30 cal on the roof of the tank is to protect the tank from infantry walking up and placing HE charges on it and then running away. For this 50 cal is over kill, while 30 cal is just right.

A mix of 30mm cannon and 30mm grenade launchers and PKT coaxial MGs will arm some of the BTR-Ts and likely the rest will be armed with 14.5mm HMGs in place of the 30mm cannon... much like the two armament options for the BTR-82 and BTR-82A.
14.5mm HMGs are cheap and effective, 30mm cannon are more effective and more expensive and together they get the job done.

I might have a little play with Photoshop and see if I can create a prototype for my BMPT based on some of the suggestions here as well as ideas of my own.

The BMPT is not an AD unit,I can agree with that, there is enough AD vehicles in the field, and there is no need for the BMPT in this roll. His job is to escort the tanks, and for that the 30mm is not good enough, it's need a bigger gun like 35-60mm, so he can engage APC and infantry from long range. The american has the 35/50 cannon from ATK that will fit for this job, but in Russia, for the time being, they have only the 57mm.
GerryB said someting about 45mm maybee that's will be the abswer.

I don't completely agree that 30mm isn't good enough for the role... I think it isn't good enough on its own... a GSh-30K plus 100mm 2A70 gun from the BMP-3 would be better than two 30mm low rate of fire cannon, but a mid calibre compromise in 45mm or 57mm would be interesting.
The BMPT is not for engaging APCs and infantry at long range as such... the tanks can deal with such targets already using HE FRAG shells and tube launched missiles... and even local artillery assets.
The BMPT is to help tanks in places where infantry can't go, and BMPs and AD gun vehicles can't go, like urban areas or long roads through forests where infantry can get close... tanks are not good at fighting up close where their limited elevation guns restrict what they can aim at and they are basically left with their roof mounted MGs.
A BMP-3 or Tunguska would be fine except that their thin armour leaves them vulnerable... the solution is the BMPT with tank level armour and fire power enough to deal with lots of close in infantry... hense the bow MG positions with grenade launchers and the twin 30mm cannon.

The ATGMs are for medium range point targets and aircraft and will have HE warheads and therefore have little effect against even IFVs... but that is OK because it is operating with tanks which have lots of anti armour rounds.

Work with the infantry, the BMPT will be part of a company, and the tanks will be used for support from the distance.

This is a mistake, for which you could lost your battle. Infantry is there to support tanks and not vice versa. Usual artillery will do that job you meant here for tanks. Strenght of tanks is in their speed and manever, infantry support them, where they are needed, other time they are driven in IFVs, BMPT is meant to support tanks with same speed and manever in the same first line.

Infantry brigades don't need tanks and BMPTs, because they are used as infantry have to be used and their support is artillery and of course air force, same as for armor units.

Large calibre guns can engage area targets efficiently using HE shells, while some enemy fortifications require more HE to defeat than modern higher rate of fire smaller calibre weapons can deal with.

Don't forget that all armor units have also SP howitzers and 152 mm or 155 mm howitzer could do that job from distance just fine. Howitzers also have their own laser or GPS guided smart rounds to hit point targets.

The BMPT is not an AD unit,I can agree with that, there is enough AD vehicles in the field, and there is no need for the BMPT in this roll. His job is to escort the tanks, and for that the 30mm is not good enough, it's need a bigger gun like 35-60mm, so he can engage APC and infantry from long range. The american has the 35/50 cannon from ATK that will fit for this job, but in Russia, for the time being, they have only the 57mm. GerryB said someting about 45mm maybee that's will be the answer.

30 mm gun is not good enough? It is excellent. Just a little food for thinking. Soviet army in Afghanistan, Russian army in Chechnya as well as waring sides in Balkan wars have plenty of ZSU-57-2 with twin 57 mm guns in their reserves and could be easily used in ground operations instead of Shilkas, Tunguskas, BOV-3, V3S Praga, etc, but they didn't, they more like to use those AA guns. In Balkan wars they have 40 mm Bofors guns, which is excellent gun, but for ground operations it was not liked as much as V3S Praga 30mm/2 AA gun.

Balkan veterans often said, they don't fear tanks. Tank come, fire a round and go further. But AA guns, they were hell. If you came in space covered by AA guns, they easily eliminate whole units. AA guns from 20 to 30 mm have higher rate of fire, so they spray infantry with rain of rounds and AA rounds for those guns, in contrary to heavy machine guns, have self destruction capabilities and in distance of 2 or 3 km they just explode in the air, what only increase their effect on infantry and is deadly also for dig in infantry.

Disagree. Except on convoy escort or similar, the ATGMs the BMPT will carry are HE fragmentation warhead equipped that would be totally useless against heavy enemy vehicles.
The purpose of the Ataka missiles on the BMPT is the ability to hit point targets out to 6km, but its real use will be hitting targets in the tops of buildings or up hillsides that the tanks the BMPT is operating with can't hit because their main guns don't elevate above about 20 degrees.

You are correct about Ataka ATGMs on BMPT, but engaging point targets like tanks, IFVs, Bunkers, etc are primary tank's rule, so engaging point targets for BMPT is self defense, not their main objective. BMPT is with tanks to support tanks against infantry and for that purpose BMPT have 30 mm guns for longer range and AGS for shorter range.

Targets on the tops of buildings or up hillsides usually are not tanks or IFVs, but infantry, so for those targets BMPT is properly armed.

This is a mistake, for which you could lost your battle. Infantry is there to support tanks and not vice versa. Usual artillery will do that job you meant here for tanks. Strenght of tanks is in their speed and manever, infantry support them, where they are needed, other time they are driven in IFVs, BMPT is meant to support tanks with same speed and manever in the same first line.

Infantry brigades don't need tanks and BMPTs, because they are used as infantry have to be used and their support is artillery and of course air force, same as for armor units.

The original concept for the BMP... with real firepower as opposed to previous troop transports with MGs at most, was for the tanks and the BMPs to charge the enemy positions and for the troops to fire from their vehicles.

The Arabs tried this and it failed miserably.

Very simply the tactics you use are based on the enemy you face.

An enemy well equipped with anti armour weapons is suicide to attack mounted up in vehicles... you are concentrating your forces into relatively small vulnerable targets.

The solution then and still applied now is that when meeting the enemy the troops will deploy and engage the enemy. The BMPs will sit back and provide direct fire support beyond the range of light RPG like weapons so we are talking 800m plus.
The tanks operate further back than that and will deliver HE shells to point targets as the infantry comes across them.

If the enemy forces are weak in anti armour weapons then the troops will fight from the vehicles protected by armour.

In most modern conflicts however there is no shortage of anti armour weapons so it is normal for dismounted infantry to move on enemy positions... artillery attacks first and if hardpoints are detected then they will be targeted by air power and artillery first before the troops go in directly supported by armour.

That is why there are BTRs and BMPs in both Motor Rifle units and Tank units... tanks never operate without infantry and vice versa.

The problem is that tanks tend to fire without warning and standing next to a tank when it fires will blow a soldier to small pieces if they are anywhere near the muzzle.

Tanks are mobile and while the infantry attack the tanks might move to a flank position and fire and then move behind the infantry to fire some more.

The BMPT will move with them and will protect them from close range attack by enemy infantry.

Don't forget that all armor units have also SP howitzers and 152 mm or 155 mm howitzer could do that job from distance just fine. Howitzers also have their own laser or GPS guided smart rounds to hit point targets.

The minimum range of the MSTA is 6km, so calling in artillery support is contacting a separate force that might be attached to a Tank or Motor Rifle force but is not an organic part of it.

One of the reasons 82mm and 120mm mortars were so popular was because they were light enough to be part of a Tank or Motor Rifle force... you didn't have to order up the line to another commander to see if any artillery assets are available and are close enough to the target to actually fire on it and haven't been called to support another unit it happens to be supporting. Those 82mm and 120mm mortars were yours and you could directly order them to attack the targets you wanted hit.

It is not that they can't or wouldn't use artillery support like that if they could, but they would greatly prefer organic fire power than from external forces.

The new net centric arrangement will make using other units assets much easier and will result in much better cooperation.

Lets just say they had plenty of towed and self propelled artillery in WWII, but most of the self propelled guns were used with tanks on the front line as direct fire artillery against enemy strong points rather than as indirect artillery fire.

Led to greater losses but also much more accurate fire.

30 mm gun is not good enough? It is excellent.

It is a very capable calibre against infantry and soft targets and also at close range against aircraft. As an anti armour round against enemy IFVs however it is becoming obsolete in terms of penetration.
57mm guns weren't used in Afghanistan or Chechnia because the ZSU-57-2 was not deployed there by the military.
The ZSU-57-2 has been used in the ground role and was found to be devastatingly effective... in fact it is considered by many in the west to be only effective in the ground role and ineffective in the air role. This is largely because the original towed S-60 can be tied in to a radar network and can be quite effective, while the ZSU-57-2 has no radar assistance.

If they can be produced cheaply enough laser guided shells could make the 57mm calibre much more effective than it already is by substituting rate of fire for the accuracy of a missile.

but engaging point targets like tanks, IFVs, Bunkers, etc are primary tank's rule, so engaging point targets for BMPT is self defense, not their main objective.

I don't agree. In the mountains of Afghanistan a HOT team firing down from a mountain ridge from 4km away is just at the edge of 30mm cannon range.

I get the impression from the advert for the BMPT that the ATAKA is there purely as a way of dealing with aircraft like UAVs and helos.

Targets on the tops of buildings or up hillsides usually are not tanks or IFVs, but infantry, so for those targets BMPT is properly armed.

With enough Sandbags and concrete blocks a MG position or sniper position or even ATGM position could be very well protected... a HE charge from a missile or 100mm rifled gun take out the room and everyone in it in one shot rather than burning up 30mm cannon shells.

It seems that BMPT is still work in progress...

The original concept for the BMP... with real firepower as opposed to previous troop transports with MGs at most, was for the tanks and the BMPs to charge the enemy positions and for the troops to fire from their vehicles.

The Arabs tried this and it failed miserably.

US army use this concept in Iraq and it works. Israel army use this concept against Arabs properly and it works also, etc. Arabs are not the measurement to which we could measure military concept. Infantry is there to support tanks, you have to use them in right time in right place and in the right way and this is the difference between skilled veteran and novice. Tanks are in the first line, IFVs are in the second. When it is needed infantry go out from IFVs and fight, not fire from inside. Also you have to properly use your artillery and air support.

An enemy well equipped with anti armour weapons is suicide to attack mounted up in vehicles... you are concentrating your forces into relatively small vulnerable targets.

War is art. There is no change through whole history. You could have war chariots, heavy armored knight cavalry or tank divisions. It is the same. Their strenght is in speed and manever and they could outmanever enemy infantry and crash them from sides or from behind or in any other way. It is all about strategy.

That is why there are BTRs and BMPs in both Motor Rifle units and Tank units... tanks never operate without infantry and vice versa.

True, but Infantry could work without tanks and tanks could not without infantry support.

The solution then and still applied now is that when meeting the enemy the troops will deploy and engage the enemy. The BMPs will sit back and provide direct fire support beyond the range of light RPG like weapons so we are talking 800m plus.
The tanks operate further back than that and will deliver HE shells to point targets as the infantry comes across them.

Stationary tanks and IFVs are sitting ducks, very dangerous game. It is better to place field guns, mortars and towed AA guns on that positions, will be better effect and use tanks and IFV to outmanever enemy and crash them from behind or flanks.

57mm guns weren't used in Afghanistan or Chechnia because the ZSU-57-2 was not deployed there by the military.
The ZSU-57-2 has been used in the ground role and was found to be devastatingly effective... in fact it is considered by many in the west to be only effective in the ground role and ineffective in the air role. This is largely because the original towed S-60 can be tied in to a radar network and can be quite effective, while the ZSU-57-2 has no radar assistance.

You are correct, 57 mm guns is very effective and have to be respected for that as well as 40 mm Bofors gun. Soviet / Russian army could easily take some ZSU-57-2 from reserve stocks and deploy them in those wars as they took old 88 mm and 100 mm AT guns. But they more like to use Shilka and take its radar out for more ammo.

57mm is interesting caliber somewhere between 40mm and 75mm.By the way 57mm is made by Bofors too for decades. Soviet Union imported its first 57mm guns. I am not sure if its possible to make guided 57mm shells at all, and second problem is still them having sufficient explosive charge left. Why not go for a single 75mm gun with 3 guided submunitions like british starstreak. With 120 rounds per minute and 3 submunitions you would have 6 submunitios per second. That would take care of any aircraft and wheeled vehicles ,for tracked APC or tanks it should be equipped with kornets and it should have more missiles then now anyway ,so maybe double more-8.

It seems that BMPT is still work in progress...

I agree, and for some missions I think the current version is fine.

US army use this concept in Iraq and it works. Israel army use this concept against Arabs properly and it works also, etc. Arabs are not the measurement to which we could measure military concept.

No disrespect meant to anyone, but doctrine that works for weaker forces with numbers against a smaller but high tech force in the middle east would be of use for a larger stronger force against a high tech force in Europe.

On the other hand what works for the US or UK against ME forces is not so relevant.

Infantry is there to support tanks, you have to use them in right time in right place and in the right way and this is the difference between skilled veteran and novice. Tanks are in the first line, IFVs are in the second. When it is needed infantry go out from IFVs and fight, not fire from inside.

Infantry and tanks offer mutual support and how they are used in combat depends on the situation and the enemy.
In full combat against an organised state opposition there are situations where you prepare the enemy position with heavy artillery and air support and then send in the infantry supported by tanks. There are other times when the enemy anti armour defences are poor and the tanks can rush in and take the enemy by surprise.
As I said, it all depends on the enemy... if they are well equipped... ie every infantry unit has RPG-29s and RPG-28s and there are plenty of Krisantema vehicles and Tigrs with Kornet-EM mounted on it, then a tank led charge would lead to devastation of that tank force.
In that case you send in the troops with an artillery barrage and air attacks to start the show with the tanks hanging back and firing at extended ranges.

If on the other hand the enemy is equipped with a few M72s only then charging in with tanks, using direct close range shell fire to destroy bunkers and positions makes a lot of sense.

War is art. There is no change through whole history. You could have war chariots, heavy armored knight cavalry or tank divisions. It is the same. Their strenght is in speed and manever and they could outmanever enemy infantry and crash them from sides or from behind or in any other way. It is all about strategy.

Chariots didn't have to worry about helicopter gunships, or full auto cannon able to rip vehicles to pieces... even moving at high speed.
War is a science... especially artillery... how do you think logistics works?
Based on known enemy positions and know artillery assets and their rate of fire you can calculate how many rounds a particular target would need to achieve a certain percentage of casualties... using these formulas you can determine how much ammo a unit will need (then you double it).

True, but Infantry could work without tanks and tanks could not without infantry support.

Not strictly true. For fire base protection in Afghanistan the Soviets dug in tanks like T-62s and T-55s as fire support, where they were just used as direct artillery.
It is also possible to use tanks in surprise attacks where speed is the key and infantry would just slow them down... obviously to be successful it needs to be against specific types of enemy.

In Blitzkrieg once the force has broken through the enemy lines the tanks tend to rove ahead ripping up rear enemy units and searching for stores depots and HQ units while the following infantry attacks bypassed hardpoints and cleans up any surviving forces.

Stationary tanks and IFVs are sitting ducks, very dangerous game. It is better to place field guns, mortars and towed AA guns on that positions, will be better effect and use tanks and IFV to outmanever enemy and crash them from behind or flanks.

Actually not true, and in fact a stationary tank positioned with good arcs of fire can be very useful in both attack and defence. While stationary you can set up multiple wire fences around the vehicles and cover them in sandbags to further increase their protection from missiles and HEAT rounds. Towed weapons could do the job too, and in rough locations might be the only option, but the superior visibility and power with a modern tank makes it much more capable in that role.
It is obviously an ad hoc and temporary role... longer term a field gun or mortar does make more sense.
Anti aircraft guns like the ZU-23 were also popular to defend bases because of their firepower... small arms fire can kill a driver but wont actually physically stop a truck... a mixed belt of HEI and APT 23 x 152mm cannon shells will obliterate even the heaviest truck.

You are correct, 57 mm guns is very effective and have to be respected for that as well as 40 mm Bofors gun. Soviet / Russian army could easily take some ZSU-57-2 from reserve stocks and deploy them in those wars as they took old 88 mm and 100 mm AT guns. But they more like to use Shilka and take its radar out for more ammo.

The point is that the Shilka was in service during the 1980s, so when units were sent to Afghanistan, they went with their equipment. They could have asked for ZSU-57-2s to be sent, but the units were more used to the Shilka and they already had them with them.

There would be little use for an air defence unit that the Shilka operated in, but it made sense to send such units as they could be used for other purposes without having to break up a unit you were using for something else.

57mm is interesting caliber somewhere between 40mm and 75mm.

Just talking about the calibre is a bit deceptive. It is a bit like talking about the 5.6mm rimmed .22lr round and the 5.45mm standard Russian assault rifle round. The 5.6mm round is larger calibre but in no other way is it comparable, as one is a rimfire round for shooting small animals at up to 70-80m, while the other is a full power assault rifle cartridge designed to kill people at 300m or more.

For instance people talk about the powerful 88mm gun of the Tiger tank, and the Tiger II had an 88mm gun too, but look at this photo and see that while both rounds were 88mm, you can see that the Tiger Is 88 x 571mm rimmed round dwarfs most of the British tank rounds shown to the right of it, while the Tiger IIs 88 x 822mmR is even bigger...

By the way 57mm is made by Bofors too for decades.

Quite a different shell.

I am not sure if its possible to make guided 57mm shells at all, and second problem is still them having sufficient explosive charge left.

Can I suggest you have a read of this thread: https://www.russiadefence.net/t3232-tunguska-gun-missile-system-replacement

Why not go for a single 75mm gun with 3 guided submunitions like british starstreak. With 120 rounds per minute and 3 submunitions you would have 6 submunitios per second. That would take care of any aircraft and wheeled vehicles ,for tracked APC or tanks it should be equipped with kornets and it should have more missiles then now anyway ,so maybe double more-8.

The purpose of the original upgrade of the 57mm ammo was to replace the now obsolete 76.2mm gun fitted to the PT-76 series light tanks.
The consideration as a new weapon for BMPs is based on the increased armour of enemy IFV to a level where AP 30mm ammo simply doesn't cut it any more.

Going for a 76.2mm round is too big a step, a 57mm shell designed using modern materials and technology should allow engagement of enemy IFVs to reasonable ranges with APFSDS rounds.
The guided shells are for softer targets including aircraft that would normally require a lot of rounds to engage... with a guided shell you should be able to hit it first time.

Modern acoustic systems can detect gunshots and determine the calibre and source of the fire in fractions of a second. Having a 57mm cannon that could hit point targets out to 6-8km means that a well camouflaged sniper might suddenly have a 3kg projectile bursting into his hide at 800m/s to ruin his day.

I agree with you about using tanks depending on situation in battlefield. But Strategically, in my opinion, Israeli army show the best way how tank brigades should be used in 1973 war in Egipt, where Israeli armor brigades quickly drive through empty space between two Egyptian armies and attack them from their rear. Israeli army have big losses, when they earlier try with head on attack exactly because of ATGMs and RPGs. The point is in outmanevering and encircling of enemy.

Chariots didn't have to worry about helicopter gunships, or full auto cannon able to rip vehicles to pieces... even moving at high speed.

In times of chariots bowmen represent the same danger for them as ATGMs and gunships today to tanks.

War is a science... especially artillery... how do you think logistics works?
Based on known enemy positions and know artillery assets and their rate of fire you can calculate how many rounds a particular target would need to achieve a certain percentage of casualties... using these formulas you can determine how much ammo a unit will need (then you double it).

You are correct. To some degree war is science and all we talk here on forums is science. But on higher level it is art. I recommend you to read Sun Tzu although he is a little hard to understand.

The point is in outmanevering and encircling of enemy.

Mobility and speed are advantages of tanks and the whole purpose of mechanisation of armed forces is to make other elements of an armed force as mobile as the tanks.

I think it comes down to the fact that while you can use infantry without tanks and there are only a few specific cases where you could use tanks without infantry, the facts remain that a mixed force of both tanks and infantry are more effective and more flexible than either force alone.

It is very much like land power and air power, though as pointed out by Mindstorm ground forces on their own can create a conclusion to a conflict in days where air power can take months and never secure a reasonable solution, together both are much more efficient.

In times of chariots bowmen represent the same danger for them as ATGMs and gunships today to tanks.

Not to mention field fortifications and a wiley enemy that uses terrain. An example of field fortifications could include camouflaged ditches, or even just moving so that the battle takes place on ground not suitable for chariots like rough rocky terrain or soft boggy terrain.

The reality of things is that while on paper there are plenty of things that can destroy other things you need to have the right thing in the right place at the right time in the right hands for it to be effective.

You might have an Air Base on a flat plain surrounded by rolling hills, if there is only one runway pointing towards the prevailing wind the best place to look for enemy forces with MANPADS would be in the rolling hills at either end of the runway where planes are coming in to land or just taking off.

Situations and tactics depend on the level of skill and equipment of each side... during WWII through to Vietnam you would send out patrols to look for enemy forces... today you might have a UAV looking for threats with a combination of patrols and artillery and maybe even UCAVs able to engage small parties round the clock.

You are correct. To some degree war is science and all we talk here on forums is science. But on higher level it is art. I recommend you to read Sun Tzu although he is a little hard to understand.

I guess once you understand the science rules of war then the doctrine can be applied and it appears to be an art from the outside. In many ways the painting of a picture is an art formed from skills that ultimately try to replicate nature and science in the way light makes things appear to the artists eye and mind.

Art and Science are separate, but only in Universities and schools.

I guess once you understand the science rules of war then the doctrine can be applied and it appears to be an art from the outside. In many ways the painting of a picture is an art formed from skills that ultimately try to replicate nature and science in the way light makes things appear to the artists eye and mind.

Art and Science are separate, but only in Universities and schools.

[quote]

Science rules of war, weaponry, tactics, strategy, logistics are just tools and instruments, which you know how to use or not.
It's like in music. All notes, instruments, times, etc are science, but composing symphony and playing it is art. war is exactly that, composing symphony and playing it in the battlefield. Of course you have to know all science of war to do it, but knowing all science doesn't mean you know how to use it. Like Arabs, they know science, because they were schooled in western military schools, they have the best equipment money could buy, but they still don't know how to use it.

But you are correct, art and science are separate only in schools. You have to know science and to be an artist, to have talent to use this science properly.