Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

@Collimatrix

@Serge

Even Viktor Murakhovskiy said basically same thing i said about BMPT

Quote

.../

   "In order to timely detect tank-dangerous targets, primarily anti-tank systems - both man portable and mobile [vehicle-mounted] - the BMPT must have reconnaissance means with better characteristics than tanks" explained the editor-in-chief of the journal Arsenal of the Fatherland, Victor Murakhovsky.

   But today, according to the expert, for its reconnaissance capabilities, the BMPT does not exceed the means of monitoring and controlling the fire of the tanks.
"That is, we get the same vehicle with the same capabilities - a panoramic sight, thermal imaging module and so on, as the main battle tank," Murakhovsky said.

 

   But the firepower of the tank significantly exceeds the BMPT, emphasizes the specialist. It has a 125-mm gun with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile and an GL-ATGM launched through the barrel, and the missile is inside the protected internal space, unlike the BMPT, where these ATGMs are placed openly.

 

   In the BMPT the crew is 5 people, in the tank - 3, and this can not be attributed to the advantages of the BMPT, the interlocutor stresses.

   According to Murakhovsky, this is a bit too much for a AFV, which in general is considered not even the main combat unit, but a support vehicle. Moreover, now the crews of armored combat vehicles are equipped with contract servicemen, and this ultimately leads to an increase in the cost of operating machinery.

 

He also added this point against BMPT:

Quote

   "Finally, a very important factor is that the BMPT is more expensive than a tank today," Viktor Murakhovsky emphasizes. As a result, it becomes clear why the Ministry of Defense could not decide on the role and place of the BMPT.

 

and about BMPTs smashing some dirt in Syria and suddenly becoming "combat prooven"

Quote

   "If we talk about a real battle in the course of local conflicts, then in this conflict vast majority of cases is used not our organizational and staff structures, not our servicemen, or our combat command and control systems, so the results of the combat use of technology in the course of local conflicts must be treated critically. That is, there is experience, but it is very limited, "notes Murakhovsky.

   "Therefore, before the full study of all the circumstances to the issues of combat use of BMPT should be approached with a certain degree of caution," the expert believes.

 

Source:

http://discussio.ru/technologies/dorozhe-tanka-chto-ne-tak-s-bmpt-terminator?utm_source=warfiles.ru

I also want to point out that this article was posted 30.05.2018, so i didn't took my points from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Even Viktor Murakhovskiy said basically same thing i said about BMPT

 

He also added this point against BMPT:

 

and about BMPTs smashing some dirt in Syria and suddenly becoming "combat prooven"

 

Source:

http://discussio.ru/technologies/dorozhe-tanka-chto-ne-tak-s-bmpt-terminator?utm_source=warfiles.ru

It seems like in this article Murakhovskiy basically repeats what he said about BMPT back in late 2000s on Otvaga forum - there http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=20&p=13#p4615 and in other threads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats is really old posts, from 2009. Well, UVZ BMPT didn't changed from those times until now, so his points are valid even 10 years later.

 

Also, here is translation of his post, linked above:

Quote

   We need machines for fire support on both light and heavy chassis. I do not mind the BMPT in principle. I do not understand its role (in its current form) in the existing system of weapons and in combat order. As a machine of fire support for tanks, it is defective due to the same restrictions on reconnaissance abilities as tanks, but significantly lower capability to defeat typical targets. It does not replace infantry with any parameter. The system turned out to have a very limited functionality (completely overlapping with the tank), unclear tasks, high cost, requiring significant resources to operate.
   The road to tanks is cleared by artillery and aviation, the infantry directly supports them. The infantry itself needs direct fire support on the battlefield. Modern tanks, sharpened to fight with their own kind, do not fully have such an ability. In addition, they can not always be in the right place at the right time. The infantry needs a fire support machine integrated into its organizational structures at the unit level, designed to combat targets that are dangerous primarily for the infantry itself: fire points [MG nests] and structures, infantry in cover, etc. Functionally, such a machine (in the variant on a heavy chassis) is an approximate analogue of the German Sturmgeshutze of the WWII period. On a lightweight chassis, it is possible to create a fire support vehicle with high fire performance for low-intensity conflicts, reconnaissance and raid operations, amphibious operations, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Thats is really old posts, from 2009. Well, UVZ BMPT didn't changed from those times until now, so his points are valid even 10 years later.

 

Also, here is translation of his post, linked above:

 

Ironically, the BMP-3 with its 100mm fits that fire support role very well. And now they are going to replace that with the 57mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, alanch90 said:

Ironically, the BMP-3 with its 100mm fits that fire support role very well. And now they are going to replace that with the 57mm.

Well, he was speaking about 2 versions of BMPT - on a heavy and on light chassis. BMP-3 turret/Bakhcha-U - like systems was installed on one of Soviet prototypes of BMPT, after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BMP-1 modernisation program - Basurmanin.

tAnHF.jpg

 

Quote

Vehicle was equipped with a modern FCS, automatic target tracking and a thermal imager.

/.../

Combat unit is equipped with a combined sight TKN-4GA with a thermal imager. The gun can use programmable shells.

Not as terrible as i thought, if thermal imager, better FCS and programmable shells will be presented on actual modernized vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

But no AT missiles!!!! Because every upgrade of the BMP1 (and the original) has a missile!!! That’s what’s missing.  I wish they would go for the Kluiver turret.  

Is there any missile option for the BTR-82 turret?

I heard that ATGM launcher is planned for Basurmanin, but no official info that I saw.

 

I don't like Kliver turret, all missiles are exposed. If it was modernized, than maybe yes. Although it could become heavier that this turret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the heavy point you are right, but from the looks of it and that the 30mm gun in the Kluiver turret is “reninforced” are things I like about it. 

Another option could be the modernised BMD-2 turret. 

From some BTR-82 shooting videos I watched the big gun wasn’t quite accurate! 

There was too much  dispersion. 

Perhaps BTR is wheeled, but that’ not the main cause for not so accuracy I guess?

There was also a BTR turret with the reinforcement for the main gun some years ago, but nothing new about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Stimpy75 said:

From the heavy point you are right, but from the looks of it and that the 30mm gun in the Kluiver turret is “reninforced” are things I like about it. 

Another option could be the modernised BMD-2 turret. 

From some BTR-82 shooting videos I watched the big gun wasn’t quite accurate! 

There was too much  dispersion. 

Perhaps BTR is wheeled, but that’ not the main cause for not so accuracy I guess?

There was also a BTR turret with the reinforcement for the main gun some years ago, but nothing new about it. 

I posted a photo of that BTR in this thread, AFAIK no noticeable results of additional metal structure around gun were measured.

Yeah, 2A72 isn't that accurate in a BTR-82 turret. BMD-2 turret was considered in 90s for BMP-1, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, T___A said:

5f0RxLT.jpg

 

The SU-122-54 is a very interesting vehicle...one of my favorites. It was a big deal back in the 1960s and was almost completely missed by the US/NATO intel agencies. Had it been given a chance, it could have been a very important weapon for the Soviet Army during the Cold War. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...