So is this why they never bothered to go with the BMPT and BMPT72?
Technically the purpose of the BMPT... ie tanks support vehicle with armour and mobility of a tank that can engage enemy infantry in places that are too lethal for friendly infantry to operate, is redundant with the concept of Armata.
Armata is all tank based vehicles so troop carriers and all other vehicles in the unit have tank level mobility and protection already.
In practical terms all you need for a BMPT in an armata unit is the IFV with extra ammo in the troop compartment.
In fact in many ways the armament of the BMP-3M is actually better for the BMPT than the armament of the BMPT based on the T-72 in my opinion. More hitting power with the 100mm rifled gun and good enough rate of fire with the 30mm shells and of course with the new timed fuse 30mm rounds less rounds should be needed for engaging enemy aircraft as they can be set to explode near the target so even if they miss they will shower the target with fragments anyway.
I would assume shell sized 100mm guided missiles would be even more effective against aircraft too.
If there will be an Armata BMPT variant, we will not see it in the parade, at least according to available info.
An IFV is designed to fight light enemy armour and infantry as well as hardened positions like bunkers and buildings reinforced with sandbags etc etc. As such with a tank protection and mobility level IFV would in many ways be very much the same as the BMPT except that the IFV has troops in the back.
A version of the IFV perhaps with double the ammo supply replacing the troop compartment could be a useful BMPT substitution.
The BMPT model shown shows a 120mm gun/mortar, which could be the other option... in many ways the BMPT could also be considered direct fire artillery intended to smash down structures and reach enemy infantry at angles a standard tank main gun can't reach, so a vehicle based on a mortar carrier but with other anti personel weapons fitted like a 6 barrel 23mm gatling and a 40mm grenade launcher would be useful.
You could even take it further and say if the MBT version has an external gun mount and thelack of crew in the turret means frontal turret armour can be much thinner and lighter and therefore the gun can be mounted higher and well forward so the mount could allow artillery like elevation with a coaxial 2A42 cannon like the AMX-30 then the tank will be able to elevate and depress its main gun and a 30mm gun to hit infantry in the basement floors and 4th floors and above of high rise buildings then again the BMPT concept becomes again redundant as the tanks will be able to fend for themselves.
Perhaps even a couple of RWS with a few Kords or KPVs and grenade launchers on an APC full of thousands of rounds of internal ready to fire ammo with the support of a couple of dozen unmanned tracked vehicle platforms with 23mm 6 barrel cannon to send into enemy territory to stir things up a bit.
while technically and IFV version of the Armata platform can act as the de facto BMPT, the reality is that a pure BMPT would have superior performance because it was designed for that very purpose.
I agree, though Ironically I think the BMPTs armament was a compromise... the Armata BMPT will have an unmanned turret which means more room for armament. I think the BMPT would be a good substitute for MBTs when the enemy lacks MBTs and to be used for supporting infantry. A 120mm gun/mortar round is every bit as effective as a 125mm HE round, yet is likely cheaper with a much longer tank barrel life expectancy. The main advantage of the tank was its superior optics and fire control system... which could easily also be fitted to the BMPT. In many ways the high elevation on the BMPT means much longer effective range with more than 13km range with laser guided rounds like Kitilov missiles for the 122mm artillery guns that is compatible with the 120mm gun/mortar (used on the 2S1 122mm gun vehicle and the 2S34 Hosta refitted with 120mm mortar guns).
The 120mm gun/mortar seems to be a powerful and popular weapon with a range of ammo type options.
The IFV would have the anti-infantry armaments no doubt, but because much of the space would be dedicated to carrying soldiers, the IFV Armata would be limited to how much ammo and variety of weapons it could have mounted at any given time (lets not forget separating ammo from crew members concept).
Agree but these vehicles are supposed to be modular and I would suspect an IFV will have a turret that is unmanned so the different armament options will have the ammo load dictated by the size of the turret and the volume underneath available for that ammo. When converted into a BMPT however the troop compartment could have the seats removed and perhaps a double or triple ammo load installed in perhaps a pallet form so that the old empty ammo pallet can be removed as one... a small 1/3rd pallet could be fitted initially and the turret turned to a specific angle with armoured doors opening and allowing the ammo to feed into the turret magazines. When the pallet is empty and the turret is full, remove it, close off the turret and reload a full pallet of ammo. In combat the crew can push a button to open the firewall door and transfer ammo as needed to reload till the pallet in the rear troop compartment is empty and the vehicle needs to return to base to dump the empty pallet (for reloading) and then load a full pallet... The rear ramp door should make loading and removing pallets fairly straight forward.
A pure-bred BMPT will have most of the crew space dedicated to ammo storage, combined with more ammo types and more weapon types could be equipped due to that significantly greater flexibility, making the pure BMPT have significantly greater potential and performance than a IFV acting as the de facto BMPT.
This is very true... a custom designed BMPT vehicle could have a larger turret ring for more powerful weapons and larger ready to use ammo supply and of course if it is not related to the IFV version there is no need for access to the turret compartment from the troop compartment making that stronger in the event of an explosion in the turret compartment.
Maybe KBTM's BMPT model put a bit of doubt in the minds the Russian military about the twin 30mm/ATGM layout.
So, will the T-14 BMP have a 100/30mm, or the 57mm gun?
The purpose of the IFVs weapons is to fight its equivalent and to engage enemy infantry. The 30mm cannon lacks the capacity to take on enemy (NATO) IFVs at useful ranges so the Armata IFVs need a 57mm gun. It will also likely have 30mm or 40mm grenade launchers and Kornet-M ATGMs.
The 30mm and Kornet-M armament is for infantry and armour respectively and would be the standard armament of an APC.
IFV would need a 57mm gun and Kornet-M for enemy IFVs and MBTs respectively.
Note these armaments are based on enemy equipment not your own.
When NATO introduces tank based IFVs then the Armata IFV will likely get 125mm smoothbore guns or something very different....
I thought T-14 is the name for the tank version of Armata only
It is tricky as technically T-14 should apply to the MBT Armata, MBT Kurganets, MBT Boomerang, and MBT Typhoon.
The IFV armata should be BMP-14, APC armata should be BTR-14, and scout car/recon/ATGM vehicle should be BRDM-14, command armata should be ACRV-14.
Maybe they might use their codenames as a prefix... ie T-14A, T-14K, T-14B, T-14T, or perhaps h for heavy, mt for medium tracked, mw for medium wheeled, and l for light... ie T-14h, T-14mt, T-14mw, and T-14l.
I think the codenames would work best... so the BMP-14mt would be the IFV version of the kurganets which might have a BMP-3M like armament.
I wonder about Epoha. I think it's actually for the APC/BTR variant as it doesn't have a substructure, which gives more space for passengers. You might be right though, we've already seen completed turrets, and we haven't seen what vehicle they put them on.
I agree... I suspect they will have such turrets on vehicles in all families because sometimes having extra troops is more useful.
I figured the module shown @ 2:16 would be the one mounted on BTR variants.
Looks more to me like a RWS for light vehicles like Tigr or even armoured trucks or MTLB like vehicles.
A single 12.7mm HMG would be a step back from current armament for BTRs, which is a 30mm cannon on BTR-82s.
Epoha seems more appropriate for the Armata BTR as the weight isn't an issue.
I dont thing weight would be an issue for Epoha for any of the four vehicle families, and would only be an issue for light unmanned support platforms (Unmanned land vehicles) and very light vehicles like Tigr etc. ie BRDM like vehicles.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
![[Official] Armata Discussion thread #1 - Page 28 JCGXt](https://2img.net/h/s5.uploads.ru/JCGXt.jpg)
