BMP-3 in Russian Army

AZ-5 wrote:
They're consolidating their IFV fleet by inducting something that works rather than risky new projects.
Smart choice when you need to modernize fast.

Kurganets and Bumerang are in much earlier stages of development compared to the Armata, which was a direct carry over from previous Soviet/Russian Improvement-88 program; as such its makes a lot of sense that they would take quite a bit longer to cook. The much more stringent mobility requirements would also imply a lot more sophisticated technologies required to maintain the improved level of protection. Since both vehicles are envisioned to form up a majority of Russian maneuver formations its going to be quite the balancing act as well to make it a lot more affordable.

It is just like orders of the new model T-90s.... just because new vehicles are on the way does not mean older models are just all dropped.

In many cases new technology developed for new vehicles can be applied to get improvements in the old vehicles already in service now.

For instance replacing most of the vehicle mounted ATGMs with Kornet is eventually going to happen, even if cheaper older generation systems will continue to be used as stocks of their ammo will be available in large numbers still and against a range of targets will still be quite effective.

The new vehicle families are going to take a long time to complete their role of replacing legasy vehicles.

For instance there are 27 different vehicle types in a Motor Rifle division and 26 different vehicle types in a Tank division that are currently based on a wide range of chassis and vehicle base types.

Some are unique and some are based on other designs, for instance there are vehicles based on BMPs and BTRs and MTLBs and T series tanks as well as specialised vehicle bases.

It sounds like having BMP based vehicles is a good idea because that reduces the different versions and different engines and different track and wheel types in a unit... but unfortunately it was not properly managed so for instance within one division the BMP IFV might be a BMP-3, but versions of support vehicles based on BMP-2 and even BMP-1 might be present which each use different engines and different tracks and wheels and therefore might as well be different vehicles in terms of spares and support for that unit.

For MTLBs there are different versions of that family too.. MTLB originals MTLBMs MTLBus etc etc...

By introducing five main families of vehicles... Armata heavy tracked, Kurganets, medium tracked, Boomerang, medium wheeled, Typhoon, light wheeled, as well as the two component DT series of artillery tractor based arctic tracked vehicles, then you have a range of vehicle types to base those 27 different vehicles on.

The systems and equipment can be unified so the T-15s 57mm grenade launcher turret can be applied to the Kurganets and Boomerang BMP models, and the T-14 tank turret with 125mm gun can be fitted to the Kurganets and Boomerang tank models too... the equipment for Tank and IFV and BTR and other vehicle types can be based on turret design and standardised weapons and sensors and equipment and electronics needed for the job and simply applied to each vehicle type.

Once they are finished they will have Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon and DT formations where the logistics tail only needs parts for one engine and one transmission and one type of wheels and tracks etc etc making the support for each unit more compact and efficient.

They will obviously not create Armata divisions over night, but they can start with what is ready... so they can replace the T-90 and BMP and BTR and BREM recovery vehicle with the current model Armata vehicles... T-14, T-15, T-??, and T-16... the T-?? is the one with the little turret armed with Kord that has been shown but not given a number AFAIK.

As they develop and put into service other Armata types they can replace existing types too, so Coalition will replace MSTA... but all these replaced vehicles will either go to storage or be sent to other less well equipped units till they get upgraded with new vehicles.

When Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon vehicles are ready they will do the same thing... they will replace existing types with new types that are ready for service.

They wont mix types so a unit that gets Armata T-14s wont be getting Kurganets BMPs or APCs... it will be an Armata unit.

Sometimes it does not make sense to make a replacement... Coalition for instance is a big heavy vehicle so in Boomerang and Kurganets units they will likely use the Wheeled model of Coalition... Kurganets and Boomerang are in a similar weight class and use the same engines and transmissions, and so I suspect the wheeled Coalition vehicle has the same engine and transmission too as well as Boomerang tires... this will maximise commonality and reduce operational costs too.

Which reminds me... the new units will have more vehicles because the Coalition has a support vehicle.

But vehicles like Shturm... an MTLB based vehicle that carries ATGMs will eventually be replaced by vehicles with vertical launch LMUR missiles... new Pantsir models with missiles and guns will replace Tunguska and will be on Armata and other vehicle bases... TOR... and any replacement will also be based on the new vehicle family bases... it is going to take a while to upgrade the entire fleet of vehicles, but it is going to be impressive when they are finished.

You will probably find that for quite sometime that Bmp-3 and kurganets will most likely be in operation for years as there will be occasions where the armour threat is low and the need for lighter vehicles is needed this could be due to transportation via air or ship where weight could be a key factor, or transit through areas with weaker bridges etc. A bmp-3 could be cheaper to operate for all we know. I think the weight difference is around 8 ton between the two this will depend on which turret the kurganets is using and could go up.

It might become a situation very much like the stealth fighters... except that there are no plans to completely replace all fighters with stealth fighters, but what are the chances they will design and build new aircraft that don't take stealth into consideration.

You could say right now that stealth is just too expensive to have for all aircraft and in many situations stealth is redundant anyway... and I think that would also apply to the new vehicle types too.

I think eventually the old types will leave service but obviously will be retained in reserve for some time so they are never going to disappear over night.... the new vehicles wont be super cheap, but the logic of their use makes widespread use of them within a unit more sensible, so to compensate perhaps limit the number of units to get the new vehicles to start with, while the other units will get the upgraded vehicles cascading down so in effect all units will be improving.

The other aspect is even if you don't replace all the BMP-3s with B-15 which is the Kurganets BMP, you can upgrade the BMP-3 with the turret the B-15 uses which will be called B-19 and used in units not based on the new vehicle families yet.

But I think where the biggest difference in weight is the BTR-82 where your looking at a 20 ton difference between BTR-82 and bumerang that's quite a difference, especially if transportation by air or ship and fuel used/ range of aircraft, also going over soft ground 20 ton would make a difference as well as bridges etc. So you might find Russia will keep some of the most modern versions of BTR-82 and possibly a reason for the latest upgrade with konkurs and 30mm gun variant.

I think in the interests of crew and troop protection that the move makes enough sense to upgrade roads and bridges in Russia as well as increase the aircraft transport fleet.

BTR-82s will still be around I suspect but probably with new vehicle turrets.

So I suspect that BMP-3 and BTR-82 will be around for a long time yet, and kurganets and Bumerang will replace only so many, and we may find in the future that another version is designed of a lighter version it really depends on what future warfare will look like.

Once they are ready and developed I think the Kurganets and Boomerang will be the cheapest vehicles to buy and especially in the case of the Wheeled Boomerang and Typhoon they will be the cheapest to operate, but I agree they wont completely get rid of the older vehicles overnight.

There will be regions where nothing better is needed and the existing stuff already works.

Allow me a point of strong disagreement on the feasibility to have a whole division based on just a vehicle family:

It is going to be a long time before they are anywhere close to achieving this, but the idea of improving commonality through the use of vehicle families has a long history in the Soviet military... this is just taking it to its logical conclusion.

It is also a bit like an all stealth fleet... there is theory and there is the real world.

The Russians didn't order 3,500 Su-57s... they ordered 76, which is a decent number to start with to form up a few units for testing and training and to work out details like how easy are they to operate... are they cheap and simple or expensive, time consuming, and not living up to promises.

After a few years of experience they will be able to make decisions going forward about how to proceed... it might be great and they want more, it might be OK and that is enough and just make more drones, it might be terrible so serious changes need to be made or a different direction found...

The point is that they have this family concept.... all the basics are worked out and the first vehicles are either entering limited service or finishing tests.

They might decide that the T-15 is just too expensive.... the plan is not for 80 percent of armoured forces to all be Armata based... it will be more like 10-20% at best and the Armata formations will be for urban combat or fighting in very high intensity places against a peer enemy.

Probably more than half the army will be Boomerang and Typhoon based highly mobile and cheap to buy and maintain being wheeled but all the best sensors and APS systems and drone support and weapons.

A boomerang based vehicle has better armour than all current vehicles except tanks so while compared with a T-90 a Boomerang tank with a T-14 is rather less well protected, the average protection of a force will go up massively.... even more so for Kurganets and Armata based forces.

For DT based vehicles they will be operating in places where the enemy likely has no armoured vehicles so they are better by default.

a such large formation based on Armata chassis would be stopped at the first river it will meet,

They have bridging units and also the ability to snorkle. An Armata unit would not be used to roam large areas of terrain... its heavy protection would be used in urban areas or against enemies with extensive access to modern ATGMs...

In a current large formation for the BMPs to be able to float across and leave the Tanks behind while they wait for bridging equipment or preparations to ford the obstacle is not ideal either as it splits up the force.

an unit based all on Typhoon would be extremely vulnerable,

You mean like the British SAS were terribly vulnerable in the desert with their jeeps... you have Typhoon based units for jobs and situations where mobility is important... especially in 10 years time when they might be carried around by 10-15 ton capacity helicopters...

one based on intermediate ones would became an jack of all trades but a master of none.

The medium ones... Kurganets and Boomerang will likely be the core and vast majority of the new forces... their mobility and fire power will be impressive... the Boomerang in particular will be very cheap to operate and fast moving... with active protection systems and excellent night and all weather optics an visibility they will likely be much better protected than existing types and the fact that they share parts and components makes maintenance even easier.

A major effort on standaedization is obviously needed as a motor rifle regiment with a tank, a BMP one and two BTR battaillons, all based on a different chassis , plus artlllery and AD defence on completely different ones is an absurdity but at a certain point you would have to draw a line between such need of uniformity and combat effectiveness.

Actually the motive behind vehicle unified families was because vehicle families sounds like a good idea but didn't really deliver the promised results.

For instance there are a huge number of a wide variety of different purpose vehicles based on the BMP-1, but there are also a wide range of different purpose vehicles based on the BMP-2, and plenty based on the BMP-3, but each of these three families are not related... so having 6 or 7 vehicles in a unit based on BMPs does not help if the troop transport BMP is a BMP-3, but of the other 5 or 6 BMP based vehicles in the force are a mix of BMP-1 and BMP-2 vehicles... so 6 different vehicles that could share engines and tracks and wheels and transmissions... don't.

By saying... OK this is going to be a heavy unit for urban combat in hot wars so the tank is going to be Armata based T-14, and the troop transport BMP is going to be a T-15, and the armoured recovery vehicle is going to be a T-16, and the self propelled artillery is going to be Coalition which is also Armata based, you already have four vehicles with one engine and one transmission and one track type and one wheel set.

I am talking about the theory... in practise they might decide an all Armata vehicle family does not make sense in practical terms... the vehicles they have made first are front line vehicles that go into the line of fire so having Armata level armour makes a difference. I rather suspect a command Armata tank could also be already made but the are not talking about it... it could just be a T-15 with the Kord HMG turret and the troop compartment filled with communications stuff and lots of aerials... maybe drone control stations...

Over time the other vehicles in this force will be replaced too, but certainly not right away.

A Kurganets based force... we haven't seen the Kurganets vehicle with a T-14 turret so in the mean time they will continue to use the T-90 or upgraded T- 72 tanks as tanks most likely. The Kurganets base vehicle will most likely be the BMP and the BTR, and perhaps a BREM armoured recovery type, though if the units BREM can recover T-90s then it can probably continue being used. The T-16 was a priority because the existing recover vehicle might not have been able to cope with the T-14, so the Kurganets and Boomerang and Typhoon models wont be a high priority.

You cannot have a tank on a Typhoon or a scout car on Armata chassis but you can have all vehicles up to a certain weight based on typhoons, all wheeled vehicles up that limit on Boomerang, all tracked ones on Kurganets until a certain weight, on Armata above them.

If you need a tank where you are using a Typhoon force then use Sprut, or at least its gun and turret.... a 6 wheel Typhoon is probably going to be as heavy as a Sprut at about 18 tons... a Typhoon force needs to be light and mobile which means a tank type support vehicle might not be possible so a fire support vehicle like a Typhoon based BMPT might be used instead.

Armata forces would likely use drones for scouts rather than light weakly protected vehicles, but of course decisions need to be made depending on the circumstances.

A Kurganets vehicle should be able to mount the T-14 turret easily enough... as we have seen the Kurganets and Boomerang chassis are not tiny and the T-14 is not heavily armoured and is therefore relatively light for a turret.

The Boomerang might take the T-14 turret or maybe an unmanned version of the Sprut turret could be adapted that could also be used on a 6 x 6 Typhoon vehicle.

Divisional vehicles would be still be based on older chassis while you concentrate yourself to both modernization and standardization of regiments.

The platoons and regiments will change first but over time if there are no traditional BMPs on front line service (ie no BMP-1,2,3) then why keep them as division level support vehicles?

It might be that at division level all the support vehicles are Kurganets and Boomerang based to reduce costs... they still need to work this out through actual experience in the field.

Nothing is set in stone, but the vehicle families have been decided... and they will gradually replace the old vehicle families.

Also in this, let's allow a minimum of diversification also at this level: T-90, B-19 and Mrsta are still up to the task, so allow one more supply line in a regiment sized unit(but not all three together) wouldn't be so dramatic and it would cut down acquisition time (no need to wait for a kurganet based tank destroyer or an amphibious ARMATA BMP).

In some cases they have plenty of spare parts and the vehicles are familiar... I suspect the priority would be the core vehicles that meet the enemy directly... so tanks, BMPs and BTRs, and in the case of the T-16 they needed recovery vehicles that can handle 50 plus ton vehicles.

For the rest they can take their time... the systems and equipment currently has a standard... the ACRV MTLB based command vehicles will be getting upgrades of equipment like everything else but the next gen systems will be on the new generation vehicles... in the case of the recovery vehicles they made the T-16 first because the existing recovery vehicle can manage T-90s but might not cope with T-14s. but that does not mean Kurganets and Boomerang units need a recovery vehicle right away because their recovery vehicles might be able to cope and they won't get T-16s obviously.
Conversely a Kurganets unit will get the BMP and BTR versions but will keep their existing tanks... a command vehicle like the ACRV that was based on the MTLB vehicle might be replaced with a Kurganets based vehicle and all the equipment inside it will be new generation stuff which can also be used in a Boomerang and Tyhoon and DT and Armata equivalent command vehicle (ie not a command tank... a command vehicle).

This might lead to an Armata regiment of tanks being commanded at division level by a Boomerang based vehicle replacing the old MTLB based ACRV that was previously used just for economic reasons, but the model would be eventually for the ACRV to be replaced by an Armata based vehicle.

For what I know it seems they have experimented T-14, T-15 and B-19 to operate together and are quite entusiastic about how it have worked.

I think the point is that a B-19 is a BMP-3 with a new turret cleared for use on the T-15, so in a unit that will become an Armata unit the B19 simply does not have the armour. When they put T-14s into service they will go to unit that will be Armata units so they will be operating with BMP-3s and BTR-82s to start with, but when T-15s are produced they will be replacing the BMP-3s in that unit while the BTR-82s will be replaced by Armata vehicles with that little Kord armed turret as a BTR.

BMP-3s in all existing units that have BMP-3s can slowly be replaced or upgraded to B19 level, and so a T-15 turret will be working with T-90s and upgraded T-72s in mixed units... but eventually they will be replaced by Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang based BMPs and go into storage.

T-14 and T-15 were used together as a spearpoint BTG, B-19 have been used to cross rivers (in collaboration with engineer units) and seize bridges and fordable points.

And even with amphibious units like Kurganets and Boomerang they will still be transitioning to units that have current existing types and will still try to capture bridges and fords because such locations are valuable... even if a Boomerang units does not need a bridge because they are all amphibious, denying it to the enemy and controlling it is valuable enough.... even just being able to blow it up and block their advance or retreat....

d_taddei2 wrote:You will probably find that for quite sometime that Bmp-3 and kurganets will most likely be in operation for years as there will be occasions where the armour threat is low and the need for lighter vehicles is needed this could be due to transportation via air or ship where weight could be a key factor, or transit through areas with weaker bridges etc. A bmp-3 could be cheaper to operate for all we know. I think the weight difference is around 8 ton between the two this will depend on which turret the kurganets is using and could go up.

Its not really about the armor threat - medium formations are specifically designed for non-linear warfare - or the exploitation phase of offensive ops. Superior mobility and reduced sustainment would allow them to outmaneuver enemy formations to get to the vulnerable rear much more effectively than heavier formations which can be more easily 'caught' and then would have to fight through the enemy.

d_taddei2 wrote:
But I think where the biggest difference in weight is the BTR-82 where your looking at a 20 ton difference between BTR-82 and bumerang that's quite a difference, especially if transportation by air or ship and fuel used/ range of aircraft, also going over soft ground 20 ton would make a difference as well as bridges etc. So you might find Russia will keep some of the most modern versions of BTR-82 and possibly a reason for the latest upgrade with konkurs and 30mm gun variant.

That's because Bumerang, as the base for the wheeled medium formations would involve DFSVs and IFVs that would actually be expected to fight up close, while BTRs are battle taxis that would never be in line with the close combat elements since they are not nearly survivable.

d_taddei2 wrote:
So I suspect that BMP-3 and BTR-82 will be around for a long time yet, and kurganets and Bumerang will replace only so many, and we may find in the future that another version is designed of a lighter version it really depends on what future warfare will look like.

The medium force would form the backbone of the Russian maneuver unit capability so there should be a lot more of them in the coming years.

marcellogo wrote:
Allow me a point of strong disagreement on the feasibility to have a whole division based on just a vehicle family: a such large formation based on Armata chassis would be stopped at the first river it will meet, an unit based all on Typhoon would be  extremely vulnerable, one based on intermediate ones would became an jack of all trades but a master of none.

The main selling point behind standardizing formations on one chassis type is the uniform mobility. A maneuver unit only moves as fast as its slowest component.

That means an Armata heavy brigade with all the extra sustainment and combat support stuff attached, would probably not that be much slower than you average motor rifle brigade. But it will have exponentially more combat power to plow through any combination of opponents, making it the ideal breaching tool. It won't come cheap though, so you would still have to invest in much lighter units to pad out the numbers.

Also Armatas come with deep water fording equipment - its the tube at the bustle in the T-14, as well as extensive engineering and bridging support.  The Russian landmass is criscrossed by thousands of rivers and streams - I doubt the designers forgot that detail about their country when designing the stuff.

marcellogo wrote:
You cannot have a tank on a Typhoon or a scout car on Armata chassis but you can have all vehicles up to a certain weight based on typhoons, all wheeled vehicles up that limit on Boomerang, all tracked ones on Kurganets until a certain weight, on Armata above them.

The light and medium forces would have no MBT in the proper sense of the term. A mobile gun system or a direct fire support vehicle perhaps, but not an MBT.

The Armata recce vehicle would likely be a mothership for UAVs and UGVs, not a mere scout car. The roles could be adapted to the vehicle not just the other way around.

The main selling point behind standardizing formations on one chassis type is the uniform mobility. A maneuver unit only moves as fast as its slowest component.

A very important point the Soviets learned very early on in WWII where an armoured attack would lead to T-26s and BT tanks getting there first and getting massacred, while the T-34s got there next but they were now outnumbered with half the T-26s gone and the KVs having not arrived yet... and then the KVs arrived.... if at all due to engine and transmission problems.

It won't come cheap though, so you would still have to invest in much lighter units to pad out the numbers.

While not super cheap, the Boomerang units and of course the Typhoon units, being wheeled will have excellent mobility across reasonable ground but very low operational costs and rather less maintenance demands and costs... a track layer burns more fuel and requires rather more attention than a road wheel... but as pointed out these vehicles are over ten tons heavier than the BTRs so the level of base protection should be better than any model BMP... which is not great for a tank but is excellent for every other vehicle in the unit... which outnumber tanks by a wide margin.

The light and medium forces would have no MBT in the proper sense of the term. A mobile gun system or a direct fire support vehicle perhaps, but not an MBT.

For the Boomerang and Typhoon formations the gun and turret from Sprut might be used, but it is a full pressure full spec 125mm smoothbore so it wont have less fire power than a T-14... just better managed recoil.

The 125mm gun armed vehicles in both units will operate more like a Sprut vehicle in a VDV unit that does not slug it out with heavy enemy armour, it will likely be operating in areas where enemy armour is not present in enormous numbers, or is lacking in heavy vehicles, but even then Kornet missiles with 1.2 metres of armour penetration at 8.5km range means heavy armour doesn't mean what it used to mean anymore either... with a decent APS system and ERA/NERA armour panels its mobility and speed become features they can exploit.

@garryb on the point of upgrading bridges and roads etc, roads etc get destroyed in war and you may also find yourself not in Ur country.

It makes sense to focus on bridges for capture because they are choke points that even if you don't use yourself denying them to the enemy can be very valuable too, but Russia has bridging equipment, including floating pontoon systems, which used to be needed for every armoured formation because all the tanks and most of the support vehicles were not amphibious... they could snorkle but that is not really practical if you need to get hundreds or thousands of vehicles across a river... any ford would be destroyed by that many heavy vehicles coming through... bridges make more sense...

But with the new vehicle families it will only be Armata forces that actually need bridges... the Kurganets and Boomerang are both amphibious... and would likely be rather better for chasing enemy formations across the steppe.

Wheeled vehicles can get stuck in cross country situations... heavier vehicles are more like trucks than recreation four wheel drive vehicles like SUVs, but they have tow lines and they have winches and cables...

Am sure BMD crews would want more protection but at the same time don't want to plummet to earth a lot faster with the increased weight. BMD vehicle have a limited amount of armour purely based on keeping the vehicle airmobile and safe for the crews when deployed.

Of course, but crews rarely get to choose which armoured vehicle they get to ride in... these new vehicles are coming.

And I think most soldiers will be pleased... the Boomerang is huge, but you can sit upright in it without being crushed.

A BTR is basically what we use to call a battlefield taxi, gets you to where u want fairly fast, with some protection, and maybe some fire support if u get contacted. But mobility over rough ground was the main aspect. A vehicle fit for the job, just as u mentioned about sas Landovers zero armour but it was what they wanted and needed and it did the job.

Absolutely... for most of the cold war the US and west in general looked down on the BTR series as not being good enough... the armour was nothing like a Bradley or a Warrior... ignoring that it was no worse than an M113 and was more mobile and better armed.

The BTR was essentially an amphibious truck protected from small arms fire, but it was cheap to buy and cheap to operate. The first models were super cheap because they used cheap simple engines that were widely used at the time in trucks... problem was they were only about 90hp which made them horribly underpowered... so they used two. This created maintenance issues that took time but they stayed cheap to buy and cheap to run.

Later models got a bigger engine and improved them immensely, but they were still cheap and simple... and apparently quite fun to drive.

@lyle6 armour and fast mobility levels come part and parcel u can't expect high mobility and fast mobility with a heavy tank. So armour levels is directly proportional. Bumerang is to replace BTR along with maybe some typhoon variants.

All formations have tanks and all formations had BMPs and all formations had BTRs... both either as troop transports or as other support vehicle types within the force. Sometimes you might have BMP-1 and BMP-2 and BMP-3 vehicles and BTR-60 and BTR-70, and BTR-80 type vehicles in a single unit. Not a mix of troop transports, but the troop transports might be BMP-3s and the air defence regiment might have BMP-2s, but the ambulance and other vehicles might be a mix of BMP-1s and BTR-60s and 70s and the APC regiment might have BTR-80s... all of them different with different engines and tracks.

The plan is not to replace the tanks with Armatas and the BMPs with Kurganets and the BTRs with Boomerangs and the BRDMs with Typhoons... there is going to be tank and BMP and BTR and BRDM versions of all the vehicle types and one vehicle type for each force.

The BMD combat vehicles are basically designed for operations behind enemy lines and more suited to engage second echelon troops and equipment. Their whole purpose is to disrupt and cause as much havoc possible - for as long as they can. That is one of the reasons why they swapped their BMD's for BMP-2D's once they landed in Afghanistan. The BMD-4 is much better though but still quite vulnerable to heavy opposition.

The ideal use of BMDs would be to land in the middle of no where deep behind enemy lines.... 100km away from the objective... that might be an airfield. The enemy wont have air defences or armoured forces in the area so we are talking about the odd police vehicle at most... if you landed there by parachute and had to walk to your objective the enemy would simply get a force together and mass up and hammer you with heavy weapons like artillery and armour, so obviously you would have to land within walking distance from the target... say an airfield... so you will lose planes to the enemy airfields air defences.

By having BMDs they can land 50-100km away, group up and mount up and travel at high speed to the target... smashing any minor force you come across and when you get to the airfield they wont be ready for a ground assault with armour, ....especially because many western air defence forces often don't include guns any more and often the missiles they use have not capacity against ground targets, so you roll in and seize the airfield and secure it and then start landing ground forces at the airfield that can then form up and perhaps move to attack a nearby port that might also be attacked from the sea, or a city.

Mobility and fire power and a reasonable level of armour...

Khrizanthema sniping.



This thing is stupid OP: missiles with top-tier penetration that only the heaviest NATO MBT can resist and only on their thickest front armor; 2 missile salvo launch to overwhelm any APS in the market; radar to blast through smokescreens; and lastly, an ultra low silhouette thanks to a lack of turret making it impervious against direct fire attacks when situated on a hull-down position.

Outside of superior numbers, most MBTs would be toast against this vehicle when its on the defense. The T-14 can maybe give it a run for its money, but only because it cheats and has 3 decades of homework done over the Khrizanthema.

The B-19 has the 57mm grenade launcher and Kornet and Bulat missiles... the grenade launcher can fire heavy HE bombs or APFSDS rounds good enough to penetrate most enemy medium and light vehicles....