vehicle BMPT Terminator : Highly Lethal Tank Support Combat Vehicle, What Makes it so Powerful?

[Wiedzmin]

 

13 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

"TSV" is still the designation.

initial idea was to get vehicle that have very quick reaction to small tank threats like ATGM, RPG's etc, and due to many crew and viewing devices on it have way better visibility  than tank, soviet projects also have dismounts in it 

 

was it possible to get same with typical IFV/tank but with very advanced FCS ? maybe, but not in 80's-90's for sure + cost for such things will be way too high when you need to produce vehicles in tens of thousands (IFV and tanks i mean)

Edited May 8, 2023 by Wiedzmin

[Manic Moran]

"None in the west, or actually in any armed force I am somewhat familiar with, has a concept even similar to that."

So what? Russia is not a Western Army. Indeed, Russia likely has different requirements to most armies for various reasons. What's important is whether or not the vehicle does what Russia wants it to do. 

"Today it's all about all domain warfare, communication, and networking. Tanks and infantry working together and relying on each other for survival has been a norm for about a century now. If Russia can't even handle that, then that's another drop in the ocean of reasons why they're currently losing in Ukraine."

You seem to be implying that the BMPT is replacing the infantry, but that's apparently not how the Russians are looking at it. The reason that they are considering renaming the vehicle is that they have found it to be very good in the infantry support role as well. By doctrine, the tanks are supposed to be accompanied by infantry either with or without BMPTs, the vehicles are an addition to the infantry capability, not a replacement to: In the various combat formation diagrams in the Bartles/Grau article generally show the tank companies in battle formation reinforced with IFVs and BMPTs on an equal basis (from regiments and brigades which also come with BMPTs and infantry assigned on an equal basis).

So the follow-on: What does BMPT do which a HIFV cannot? After all, Russia has shown capable of developing both, but the one is in service, the other isn't. And if a HIFV is so great, why aren't Western nations putting them into large-scale production? I can think of a few reasons. 1) BMPT is optimised for shooting things, it has the ammo, firepower and FCS to do it. A HIFV's capabilities are weighted towards carrying troops, weaponry is on a 'what's left' basis. If you try to do both well, you end up with a massive thing like T-15, which still doesn't have the firepower of BMPT (So Terminator 3 also on the Armata platform has been created as well, indicating there is still a doctrinal difference worth development) 2) "Thickening up" IFV units may be a more cost-effective use of the vehicle inventory than entirely replacing vehicles currently in use. 3) BMPT provides a balance between infantry-level firepower and putting fewer people in harm's way in the first echelon. 4) Put simply, you need to provide fewer troops, it's an economy of force measure. Russia does suffer some demographic issues, oddly.

One may almost look at it as the reverse of the question the US Army is dealing with by use of MPF. Traditionally the answer to increasing the firepower of infantry units has been to attach tanks to them, but instead the US has created an entirely new vehicle to fill the role. Similar though it may be, it's different enough and better suited enough to warrant  the expenditure. If the Russians wanted HIFVs, they can build HIFVs. They aren't, and are finding from combat experience that BMPT is worth it. I think that point deserves some emphasis regardless of our perspective.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

So what? Russia is not a Western Army. Indeed, Russia likely has different requirements to most armies for various reasons. What's important is whether or not the vehicle does what Russia wants it to do. 

And as I said, even Russia preferred a conventional IFV - the T-15, instead of the T-72-based BMPT. It gave the firepower and armor AND could carry infantry and did not necessitate bloating the BTG with a company that's even more niche than a tank company.

But it could not use it instead because the Armata project was canned. And with no armored IFVs the T-72 became the only option.

18 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

You seem to be implying that the BMPT is replacing the infantry, but that's apparently not how the Russians are looking at it. The reason that they are considering renaming the vehicle is that they have found it to be very good in the infantry support role as well. By doctrine, the tanks are supposed to be accompanied by infantry either with or without BMPTs, the vehicles are an addition to the infantry capability, not a replacement to: In the various combat formation diagrams in the Bartles/Grau article generally show the tank companies in battle formation reinforced with IFVs and BMPTs on an equal basis (from regiments and brigades which also come with BMPTs and infantry assigned on an equal basis).

If you observe a Pokazukha (Russian for "showcase"), you will see they are in fact replacing the infantry with BMPT. Russian ops in Ukraine also show their armor operates without their infantry, and vice versa. Proper cooperation is something extremely rare.

21 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

So the follow-on: What does BMPT do which a HIFV cannot?

Nothing. That's my entire point.

21 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

After all, Russia has shown capable of developing both, but the one is in service, the other isn't.

Apples to oranges. To create a BMPT Russia stuck a new turret on an old T-72. They wanted to develop the T-15, but failed.

22 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

And if a HIFV is so great, why aren't Western nations putting them into large-scale production?

They are. And the point is not an HIFV but an IFV that is sufficiently armored to accompany an MBT. Many western IFVs are perfectly capable of that without being "heavy" like an MBT - Bradley, Lynx, Puma, Warrior, AS21, Boxer, Eitan, Stryker, ASCOD, Patria, etc etc.  

Some are very close to MBT levels or exceed them, like KF41, AS21, Namer.

26 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

1) BMPT is optimised for shooting things, it has the ammo, firepower and FCS to do it

And an MBT and IFV can't do those things?

26 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

A HIFV's capabilities are weighted towards carrying troops, weaponry is on a 'what's left' basis.

Most western IFVs have superior firepower to the BMPT, equal or lower weight, better protection, AND carry troops.

27 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

If you try to do both well, you end up with a massive thing like T-15, which still doesn't have the firepower of BMPT.

T-15 in BMPT version had better firepower than current BMPT. Heck, even with Epoch turret it was better.

29 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

2) "Thickening up" IFV units may be a more cost-effective use of the vehicle inventory than entirely replacing vehicles currently in use

What?

29 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

3) BMPT provides a balance between infantry-level firepower and putting fewer people in harm's way in the first echelon

How? A standard IFV has a crew of 2-3. The BMPT has a crew of 5. Therefore given a set number of MBTs and infantrymen, the BMPT actually increases the number of personnel needed per the same job.

30 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

4) Put simply, you need to provide fewer troops, it's an economy of force measure. Russia does suffer some demographic issues, oddly.

The BMPT only adds people and has twice the necessary crewmen, of which half are not assigned any tasks during combat.

Russia is also fighting like it's trying to cull its population, not preserve demographics.

32 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

One may almost look at it as the reverse of the question the US Army is dealing with by use of MPF. Traditionally the answer to increasing the firepower of infantry units has been to attach tanks to them, but instead the US has created an entirely new vehicle to fill the role

It cannot attach tanks because they're literally twice the maximum weight of the desired vehicle. The MPF is a tank substitute, not a tank complement. The BMPT is a tank complement.

Also, this is not a new role. The US deprecated the light tank for a while but it is still very much a part of US doctrine.

34 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

If the Russians wanted HIFVs, they can build HIFVs.

No they can't.

35 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

They aren't, and are finding from combat experience that BMPT is worth it.

They aren't. And if you believe their press releases then you've got a long way ahead of you.

35 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

I think that point deserves some emphasis regardless of our perspective.

You couldn't name 1 logical thing Russia did during the entire war, but somehow the dumbest AFV to be invented since the Arjun (or even dumber) is what's logical there. Okay.

[bojan]

34 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...They are. And the point is not an HIFV but an IFV that is sufficiently armored to accompany an MBT. Many western IFVs are perfectly capable of that without being "heavy" like an MBT - Bradley, Lynx, Puma, Warrior, AS21, Boxer, Eitan, Stryker, ASCOD, Patria, etc etc.  

...Some are very close to MBT levels or exceed them, like KF41, AS21, Namer....

None of them (except Namer) can stand even oldest ATGMs in existance, like Sagger or generally anything more advanced than 50 years old RPG-7 warheads. Especially wheeled junk. Look for Patria armor levels, you might get a dose of reality check.

A - stanag 3

B - stanag 4

C - stanag 5 There is nothing better than this and most users use either A or B.

KF41 is nowhere near close to a level of armor of modern tanks. Or even ancient ones. KE protection is worse than T-55, HEAT protection is geared vs old single-charge HEAT of up the 100mm diameter (because that is what they could do).

Quote

The BMPT is a tank complement

In some cases yes, in some cases it is a substitute.

Edited May 8, 2023 by bojan

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

In some cases yes, in some cases it is a substitute

Cases where it is a substitute are outside the scope of my debate with @Manic Moran but I'd say wherever that happens, an IFV built for modern protection levels can substitute it as well.

6 hours ago, bojan said:

None of them (except Namer) can stand even oldest ATGMs in existance, like Sagger or generally anything more advanced than 50 years old RPG-7 warheads. Especially wheeled junk. Look for Patria armor levels, you might get a dose of reality check.

You misinterpreted my sentence. I referred to the weight, not protection levels. So KF41, AS21, and Namer all have a GVW that is in the region of MBTs.

These vehicles, and some others, are perfectly capable of withstanding such munitions, but that depends on what armor kit they're rolling with. While many users, for reasons unknown, keep using them with their minimal protection configurations, they often come with quite significant payload reserves which would hardly be used for anything more than protection (you don't increase electronics' weight by tons). On US, Israeli, and UK AFVs it is common to see full armor. Elsewhere likely reserved for emergency, which IMO is stupid - people need to train for how they fight.

7 hours ago, bojan said:

check.

A - stanag 3

B - stanag 4

C - stanag 5 There is nothing better than this and most users use either A or B.

Is that glass in B and C? What is its purpose there? Regarding armor on wheeled vehicles, it is doable. The Eitan has significant protection levels:

It uses quite thick (for a wheeled vehicle) front (2nd pic) and back plates (1st pic), with some reactive armor array sandwiched in between. I don't know what this is effective against, but it does seem to be a leap ahead of what other typical 8x8 have. And no, I don't know how Eitan achieves this and Boxer looks paper thin.

7 hours ago, bojan said:

KF41 is nowhere near close to a level of armor of modern tanks. Or even ancient ones. KE protection is worse than T-55, HEAT protection is geared vs old single-charge HEAT of up the 100mm diameter (because that is what they could do).

Although we established you simply misinterpreted my words, it is important for me to say that although the BMPT will offer potentially superior KE protection, its protection is much less balanced overall than something like the KF41 or AS21. Threats come from all directions, and so it makes no sense to invest it all in the front. 

The BMPT's front-heavy protection scheme leaves much to be desired in this day and age.

[bojan]

Quote

Is that glass in B and C? What is its purpose there? Regarding armor on wheeled vehicles, it is doable. The Eitan has significant protection levels:

"Polymers". IMO probably polycarbonate.

Quote

It uses quite thick (for a wheeled vehicle) front (2nd pic) and back plates (1st pic), with some reactive armor array sandwiched in between. I don't know what this is effective against, but it does seem to be a leap ahead of what other typical 8x8 have. And no, I don't know how Eitan achieves this and Boxer looks paper thin.

That is amount of armor needed to protect vs '70s RPGs (PG-7VS with ~400mm penetration). Maybe early '80s PG-7VL at some sectors at best.

 

[Wiedzmin]

BTR-90 with Tifon ERA

 

SRAT and so on

 

7 minutes ago, bojan said:

That is amount of armor needed to protect vs '70s RPGs (PG-7VS with ~400mm penetration).

up to 500mm yeah, namer is also not very thick APC, only heavy part of it, is it's weight 

 

 

as most of modern "heavy" vehicles mostly , but as far as it gives more or less reliable protection vs RPG-7 who cares that almost all weight wasted for nothing ?

[Sardaukar]

Well...I'd rather roll in in Namer than in M113...

But then, I inherently dislike all armoured vehicles

[Manic Moran]

 

 

Quote

And as I said, even Russia preferred a conventional IFV - the T-15, instead of the T-72-based BMPT. It gave the firepower and armor AND could carry infantry and did not necessitate bloating the BTG with a company that's even more niche than a tank company.

If the T-15 was the final answer to all the requirements, it seems odd that the "Terminator 3", whatever the designation of the thing (BMPT-15?), would have been created to fit the BMPT role on the Armata chassis. 

Quote

But it could not use it instead because the Armata project was canned. And with no armored IFVs the T-72 became the only option.

A fair statement, with the caveat that the concept long pre-dates Armata. (Object 781 from the 1980s shows the obvious lineage)

Quote

If you observe a Pokazukha (Russian for "showcase"), you will see they are in fact replacing the infantry with BMPT. Russian ops in Ukraine also show their armor operates without their infantry, and vice versa. Proper cooperation is something extremely rare.

I don't deny that there has been ample evidence of doctrine not being followed. However, vehicles are designed to operate within a defined framework, which is what the Bartles/Grau article is addressing.

Quote

Nothing. That's my entire point.

Well, I disagree.

Quote

Apples to oranges. To create a BMPT Russia stuck a new turret on an old T-72. They wanted to develop the T-15, but failed.

A statement which ignores the BMPT-15 design. I will stipulate to your premise that the T-72-based vehicle was a fall-back for current requirements given the absence of a better option in reality.

Quote

They are. And the point is not an HIFV but an IFV that is sufficiently armored to accompany an MBT. Many western IFVs are perfectly capable of that without being "heavy" like an MBT - Bradley, Lynx, Puma, Warrior, AS21, Boxer, Eitan, Stryker, ASCOD, Patria, etc etc.  

Some are very close to MBT levels or exceed them, like KF41, AS21, Namer.

Namer, I can see, yet outside of Israel to a limited extent, nobody in the West seems to be making the things. I suspect that the HIFV design results in several unpleasant compromises. The other vehicles are not as survivable as a tank, there is a reason that ATP-3-90.1 observes that when operating as a company team the vulnerability of BFVs to anti-armor weapons is to be considered, and that (like Russian doctrine), the tanks generally lead the IFVs. A vehicle which is actually armored to the same level of a tank has the ability to be with the tanks, not one echelon behind, when advancing to contact. One can certainly argue the relative merits of having an autocannon-equipped vehicle mixed in with the tanks, but there is no denying that there are advantages to it. Is it worth it? So far, the Western forces have decided 'no'. But as mentioned, Russia is not a Western force, it has its own requirements.

Quote

And an MBT and IFV can't do those things?

Not in the same manner, no. An MBT has an entirely different weapons suite, and IFVs tend to have less armament and definitely less ammunition.

Quote

Most western IFVs have superior firepower to the BMPT, equal or lower weight, better protection, AND carry troops.

Eh? Name three. There's something to be said for twin 30s and four ready-to-fire missiles, presumably with thermobarics, and I wouldn't say many are as well armoured as a modern T-72 hull.

Quote

What?

Replacing an entire fleet of IFVs and APCs with HIFVs (even if you have some which work and meet requirements) is stupidly expensive and will take a long time. Issueing a BMP company a platoon of BMPTs is going to give a notable leap in survivability and firepower to the unit far sooner and for far less money than issuing a company's worth of HIFVs.

Quote

How? A standard IFV has a crew of 2-3. The BMPT has a crew of 5. Therefore given a set number of MBTs and infantrymen, the BMPT actually increases the number of personnel needed per the same job

I believe the current production BMPT-72 has dispensed with the two grenade launcher operators (they always did strike me as a bit unnecessary) and is back down to a crew of three. If you want non-tank weapons in the front line (unless you've already dismounted), it's 3 in BMP-T, vs, what, 9-11 in a HIFV? . Of course, one can always just drive BMP-2s or 3s without the dismounts and get much of the same firepower, but the vehicle is far more vulnerable.
 

Quote

Russia is also fighting like it's trying to cull its population, not preserve demographics.

Is it your position that this is the way Russia is always going to fight and that it is not capable of learning from experience? However, the vehicle was developed before the current lack of martial skill was demonstrated. To quote Bartles/Grau: "Due to the increasing prevalence and lethality of ATGMs, the Russians have been keenly interested in finding other ways of increasing the survivability of tanks without relying exclusively on motorized rifle formations, which are increasingly more difficult to man due to Russian demographic issues"

Quote

It cannot attach tanks because they're literally twice the maximum weight of the desired vehicle. The MPF is a tank substitute, not a tank complement. The BMPT is a tank complement.

It is a vehicle designed to meet a specific use case better than other extant vehicles can do, and the project managers are quite adamant that it's not a tank, it's not even a light tank. That certainly doesn't stop people proposing that it be placed into a light tank role (The Winter 2022/23 issue of Armor also has an article doing precisely that), and it may even be capable of doing so adequately. It is, however, not what it's best at doing. BMPT provides capabilities that other vehicles can partly fill, but is designed for a different purpose.

Quote

No they can't.

Stick a turret on a BMO-T. Done. But, yes, I concede the point that after the Russian BTR-T experiments, they've decided to not bother with anything of the sort until T-15. Perhaps the reason is the same as why Western nations aren't going for it. It seems to me that you want protection, carrying capacity and ammunition, you need a much bigger and heavier vehicle than a mere 'tank', and Armata is pretty danged big.  I note that Ukraine has apparently similarly declined to put anything more than a heavy machinegun on its current design BTR-T HAPC. I suspect a different concept of operation.

Quote

They aren't. And if you believe their press releases then you've got a long way ahead of you.

I don't read their press releases. I do, however, read articles in professional journals written by people whose full-time job it is to analyze the Russian military. If they say that the Russians like the BMPT as a result of combat experience, then I'm going to take their word for it unless you can come up with good countering information.

 

[KV7]

I don't think it's so complicated. 

Almost everyone agrees that there is a case for tanks. BMPT type designs are also heavily armoured direct fire platforms that just have a different sort of direct fire capability, and perhaps that (due to the increased compactness of the weaponry) also potentially allows for slightly greater protection. 

The basic question as to their usefulness is then whether the marginal return to 125mm guns or to the BMPT type armament is greater. 

Now the case against 'more 125mm' and for  'more cannons and AGL and other stuff' on tank hulls is that there are (in Ukraine perhaps very many) high threat environments where the primary direct fire target is infantry and infantry weapons teams and not enemy tanks, and where a powerful 125mm gun is then arguably inferior due to costs associated with getting a powerful but unnecessary APFSDS capability.

As to the empirics of this question - i.e. what is actually better versus these threats, the experience in Ukraine would appear to be potentially instructive, but I cannot personally asses the claims made.

Manic Moran points out that there is subcase of the above - i.e. situations where mechanised infantry formations, especially those with not fantastic weaponry due to using older APC of IFV will be preferentially deployed, and where more sustained suppressive fire might be more useful than periodic 125mm HE fire. And so 'toughen up with a platoon of BMPT' might be better than 'toughen up with an MBT platoon'. 

Now we can apply the above logic to a broader class of vehicles, i.e. 'tank hull with non standard tank armament' including mooted things like specialised 152mm armed 'fire support vehicles' or variants with specialised anti-drone capability. Is there a gain from less 125 mm and more 'something else' or not ?

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by KV7

[Mighty_Zuk]

9 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

SRAT and so on

SRAT was an example I wanted to use, indeed shows how the thin-skinned western AFVs certainly don't have to be such, and they don't need a crash engineering program to compensate in an emergency. Their solutions are ready, and if needed they will be sent to areas where their protection will be tested, and not held back like the Russian army would prefer with their own ultra thin skinned BMPs that cannot even accept applique armor properly due to insufficient structural strength.

9 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

up to 500mm yeah, namer is also not very thick APC, only heavy part of it, is it's weight

Well they are designed to work without APS in places infested with advanced ATGMs like Gaza and Lebanon. The Merkava 4 could already protect against RPGs at its sides and top, and the Namer received an extra 20-25 tons of weight re-investment by removing the turret and still has quite a lot of GVW spares, so I'd give them some benefit of the doubt. As long as I see some workable thickness/volume, I don't pretend to know its effective protection levels.

4 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

If the T-15 was the final answer to all the requirements, it seems odd that the "Terminator 3", whatever the designation of the thing (BMPT-15?), would have been created to fit the BMPT role on the Armata chassis. 

The Terminator 3 IS the T-15. They are the same thing. As the Armata and its sister projects (Bumerang and Kurganets-25) were still in a mix of developmental and conceptual stages, visual and functional changes were natural, especially as various arms industries were competing for different aspects of these programs. The T-15's turret being the Epoch was not set in stone. It could definitely receive something else, and for marketing reasons, it was pitched as the Terminator 3 when it was showcased with a 57mm Baikal turret. For Russia, there were practical reasons why the turret should have been at least tested:

1. 30mm was hardly sufficient against western AFVs, and accuracy issues with the 2A42/72 meant that even sophisticated ABM won't solve the need for massive volume of fire per target, which can be somewhat alleviated with better warhead on 57mm.

2. 57mm was set to be standardized on various types of vehicles including SPAA, amphibious, and likely different types of IFVs.

6 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

A fair statement, with the caveat that the concept long pre-dates Armata. (Object 781 from the 1980s shows the obvious lineage)

Objects were for concept validation, they are hardly attached to real requirements.

6 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Namer, I can see, yet outside of Israel to a limited extent, nobody in the West seems to be making the things. I suspect that the HIFV design results in several unpleasant compromises. The other vehicles are not as survivable as a tank, there is a reason that ATP-3-90.1 observes that when operating as a company team the vulnerability of BFVs to anti-armor weapons is to be considered, and that (like Russian doctrine), the tanks generally lead the IFVs.

Yet the BMPT is only considered as protected as an MBT because technologically and industrially Russia hasn't made considerable progress in the last few decades, even fell back in some areas, and along the way it made a few acquisition mistakes like having the BMPs so lightly armored with no medium platform that could bridge the gap between airmobile and amphibious AFVs like the BMD, and MBTs. 

However when compared to western counterparts, its protection imbalance is felt, and is thus actually less protected than, say, a Bradley or a Puma. Why? Because while it may take an APFSDS a bit better (only relevant for very old ammunition anyway), it will do far worse against ATGMs both from the front and sides/top, worse against drones of varying types, worse against IEDs and various types of mines, worse against artillery etc. Those are the much more common threats for an AFV today. An APFSDS is extremely rare, even between Russia-Ukraine, in part because they try to avoid tank on tank combat as it yields no advantage for the initiating side. Even more rare is the chance a BMPT would be shot at with the old APFSDS that cannot pierce it.

By the way, if the AT threat is not in a tight urban space, an MBT will lead the BMPT as well. 

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

A vehicle which is actually armored to the same level of a tank has the ability to be with the tanks, not one echelon behind, when advancing to contact.

That's far off point. Remember my point was that the BMPT is an okay concept that IFVs fulfilled, but that in the absence of armored IFVs, Russia chose by far the worst possible implementation industry offered it. And your point was general disagreement with that statement. The general need for armor was never a part of it.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Not in the same manner, no. An MBT has an entirely different weapons suite, and IFVs tend to have less armament and definitely less ammunition.

I meant the MBT + IFV combo vs an MBT + BMPT + dismounted infantry combo.

IFVs, at least western ones, are by no means less armed than a BMPT. Neither in ammunition nor in capability. If we analyze every AFV's ammo expenditure per target, the BMPT loses big time. I mean, sure it technically has more ammo. But if it has to fire 5 rounds for every 1 round a western IFV fires, does it really have more ammo then? It definitely has fewer "stowed kills".

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Eh? Name three. There's something to be said for twin 30s and four ready-to-fire missiles, presumably with thermobarics, and I wouldn't say many are as well armoured as a modern T-72 hull.

Namer/Eitan (same turret), Puma (with MELLS), Rosomak.

Just because it has 2x 30mm guns doesn't mean it has double the firepower. To the contrary, this was a very cynical approach to solve a redundant government requirement that only added system complications and severely downgraded the performance. It is, in fact, one of the BMPT's greatest design flaws. I can give you a laundry list of problems with this design. Can you name even a single advantage?

Oh and did you know they don't actually fire simultaneously? Only one cannon can fire at a time, as each is attached to a single belt. In the west, dual-belt feeds are used for a single gun.

If you were thinking by accident about SPAA like the ZSU-23-4 (4 barreled) or the M163 (gatling), designed for the sole purpose of very high rate of fire, then that's not it.

Oh and thermobarics? Just a compensation for inaccuracy of the cannon. At some distance they'll probably just fire an ATGM because the 30mm won't hit the broad side of a barn. Why so inaccurate? One of the flaws of the dual barrel design, on top of an innately inaccurate 2A42 gun.

Thermobarics, by the way, are a horrible choice of weaponry for soft targets. On open ground it will cause more effect, but anywhere urban it becomes a major hazard for friendlies. But for Russia that's a non-factor.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

One can certainly argue the relative merits of having an autocannon-equipped vehicle mixed in with the tanks, but there is no denying that there are advantages to it. Is it worth it? So far, the Western forces have decided 'no'.

Like, literally every western IFV is an autocannon-equipped vehicle, what on earth are you talking about? They ARE operating jointly with tanks. They may occasionally stay behind, but generally if a tank has LoS to a target, the IFVs have to have LoS as well.

Quote

But as mentioned, Russia is not a Western force, it has its own requirements.

And look where that got it...

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Replacing an entire fleet of IFVs and APCs with HIFVs (even if you have some which work and meet requirements) is stupidly expensive and will take a long time. Issueing a BMP company a platoon of BMPTs is going to give a notable leap in survivability and firepower to the unit far sooner and for far less money than issuing a company's worth of HIFVs.

Replacing with HIFVs (or simply IFVs that are better armored) requires new production. Adding companies of BMPTs requires new production. So on that end, expenditure is the same. Meanwhile, replacing with HIFVs means the combat edge still supports only 2 types of vehicles. But adding BMPTs means 3 distinct vehicle types need support. On the human side of logistics, you also have to change doctrine considerably to accommodate a BMPT, you need to add logistical resources to accommodate this increase in manpower, and you need to invest in a new niche of training and procedures which takes years of cultural development. 

If you say there can be savings made because the BMPT is based on a T-72, then I'd say T-72s are a much more valuable resource for Russia than hard cash - it's refurbishing old ones, not making new ones, so they are finite. Russian cash? At least that's generated somehow. Russia's already expending its T-72s at a stupid rate.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I believe the current production BMPT-72 has dispensed with the two grenade launcher operators (they always did strike me as a bit unnecessary) and is back down to a crew of three.

No they didn't. Still with the 2 AGL operators, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to add even a few more.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I believe the current production BMPT-72 has dispensed with the two grenade launcher operators (they always did strike me as a bit unnecessary) and is back down to a crew of three. If you want non-tank weapons in the front line (unless you've already dismounted), it's 3 in BMP-T, vs, what, 9-11 in a HIFV?

Say you have 4 tanks (3 crewmen each) and 4 IFVs (3 crew + 7 dismounts). That's 52 personnel on the combat edge. 

Now say you have 2 tanks, 2 BMPT (5 crewmen each), and 4 IFVs. That's 56 personnel. Unless you're suggesting to ditch the IFVs at that point and then if they have to retreat you're just counting about 28 KIA automatically because nothing can drive them back under armor.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Is it your position that this is the way Russia is always going to fight and that it is not capable of learning from experience?

As long as it maintains its current structure, yes. People on the ground will learn and gain experience, but it won't be institutionalized, none will pass it along to new recruits, new people. Having only micro-level learning means Russia will keep doing the same mistakes over and over again.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

However, the vehicle was developed before the current lack of martial skill was demonstrated. To quote Bartles/Grau: "Due to the increasing prevalence and lethality of ATGMs, the Russians have been keenly interested in finding other ways of increasing the survivability of tanks without relying exclusively on motorized rifle formations, which are increasingly more difficult to man due to Russian demographic issues"

Define "keenly" because from what I see, they've done fuck-all to protect vs ATGMs. 

And the "lack of martial skill" was demonstrated long before the war in Ukraine. People genuinely believed Russia cannot fail because they thought Ukraine was in a similar deplorable state, full of yes-men and corruption - but they weren't. They fixed much of that. Russia didn't. We've seen that in Syria as well. Capabilities were superficial, and a culture of yes-men meant no problem was fixed.

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

It is a vehicle designed to meet a specific use case better than other extant vehicles can do, and the project managers are quite adamant that it's not a tank, it's not even a light tank. That certainly doesn't stop people proposing that it be placed into a light tank role (The Winter 2022/23 issue of Armor also has an article doing precisely that), and it may even be capable of doing so adequately. It is, however, not what it's best at doing. BMPT provides capabilities that other vehicles can partly fill, but is designed for a different purpose.

Please explain the point you're trying to convey here because otherwise these words are context-less to me.

The MPF was designed because of 2 reasons:

1. What I explained before, it being a material necessity as an Abrams cannot be similarly transported.

2. The US can afford it.

#2 is what Russia doesn't have. It cannot afford the BMPT, not materially, not organisationally. It couldn't do a proper adoption process and keep troops properly trained before a war, so now it can during a war when every bit of its training infrastructure is strained?

7 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I don't read their press releases. I do, however, read articles in professional journals written by people whose full-time job it is to analyze the Russian military. If they say that the Russians like the BMPT as a result of combat experience, then I'm going to take their word for it unless you can come up with good countering information.

Credentials are almost nothing, especially if they belong to a problematic organization. Apply reason whenever needed, don't fall back on 'professionals' who can abuse their position. Want to make an argument for them? Tell me their logic, not conclusions.

[bojan]

21 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...Most western IFVs have superior firepower to the BMPT, equal or lower weight, better protection, AND carry troops...

Name single western IFV with better protection than BMPT.

36 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

...Well they are designed to work without APS in places infested with advanced ATGMs like Gaza and Lebanon. The Merkava 4 could already protect against RPGs at its sides and top, and the Namer received an extra 20-25 tons of weight re-investment by removing the turret and still has quite a lot of GVW spares, so I'd give them some benefit of the doubt. As long as I see some workable thickness/volume, I don't pretend to know its effective protection levels.

It needs that weight in order to have enough place for dismounts. Look at Wiedzmin's pics, that thickness of upper sides is intended vs RPGs, it can not stop any ATGM reliably. Maybe earliest Saggers and that's it. Side skirts are intended for impacts at angle, there is not enough thickness to stop even '70s PG-7VS at normal angle. Even front armor is... so-so, whole lower front hull (and it is huge) is basically steel armor only and upper one is relatively thin (as with Merkava...) due the need for it to be lifted for a maintenance of engine. And while physical thickness of armor arrays can not give you how many exact mm of protection it offers, it also is pretty reliable in giving you correct ballpark.

Edited May 9, 2023 by bojan

[bojan]

@Mighty_Zuk

You also fail to understand that BMPT is mix of 3 different requirements, each contributing to it's design and armament. You are taking it's designation as "only real requirement", but it is not so.

- heavy convoy escort vehicle - need to handle multiple targets at once, which is iffy in current iteration (only AGLs)

- tank substitute in some cases - where elevation of tank's main armament is insufficient, or where such armament is inadequate. We have seen this mode in Ukraine, especially vs forest belts.

- tank support vehicle - that can stay on frontline with tanks and bring at least IFV level firepower in order to effectively suppress enemy. For suppression you need large ammo capacity and ability to fire at prolonged intervals. 

 

@Manic Moran

Despite having two guns, one is loaded with AP only and one with HE only and single barrel is fired. It is not clear why it was done so when 2A42 is dual feed gun. Maybe reliability, maybe ability to better sustain fire, maybe just "why not, single 30mm gun weights nothing compared the whole vehicle". I have not found a single source that really cleared that one.

 

  

6 hours ago, KV7 said:

Now we can apply the above logic to a broader class of vehicles, i.e. 'tank hull with non standard tank armament' including mooted things like specialised 152mm armed 'fire support vehicles' or variants with specialised anti-drone capability. Is there a gain from less 125 mm and more 'something else' or not ?

IMO BMPT prototype with BMP-3 like armament suite was probably ideal "fire support vehicle". You have 100mm low velocity HE, which is effective enough vs fortifications and enables indirect fire at range (important vs trenches and all kinds of reverse slopes), 30mm for suppression/infantry in open/light vehicles, ATGMs for long range and self-defense vs tanks and even TC operated AGL for close-in defense or even short range indirect fire.

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by bojan

[KV7]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

 

IMO BMPT prototype with BMP-3 like armament suite was probably ideal "fire support vehicle". You have 100mm low velocity HE, which is effective enough vs fortifications and enables indirect fire at range (important vs trenches and all kinds of reverse slopes), 30mm for suppression/infantry in open/light vehicles, ATGMs for long range and self-defense vs tanks and even TC operated AGL for close-in defense or even short range indirect fire.

 

I agree - though it is still adding nothing unique. 

I wonder if there would be a case here for scaling up 2A70 to 152 mm to get something like M81E1 but with a bit higher power.

Then you get something with a really big HE filling and ability to collapse strong buildings, wreck even substantial fortifications, and destroy or disable most vehicles. 

[KV7]

An a loosely related note, the VN-20 looks interesting - based on the VT4 chassis with additional armour and in different versions, a BMP-3 type turret, or a more minimal 30mm turret - and ability to carry 6 dismounts. 

https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/china_launches_its_vn20_most_protected_and_armed_tracked_armored_ifv_in_its_category.html

[Wiedzmin]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

I wonder if there would be a case here for scaling up 2A70 to 152 mm to get something like M81E1 but with a bit higher power

There was BMD concept with 120+30

[KV7]

1 hour ago, Wiedzmin said:

There was BMD concept with 120+30

With the 120mm gun-mortar, as in Nona/Vena etc. ?

[Mighty_Zuk]

5 hours ago, bojan said:

Name single western IFV with better protection than BMPT.

Namer. You fell right into that trap. Next time ask for multiple answers, would at least make me pause to think.

5 hours ago, bojan said:

It needs that weight in order to have enough place for dismounts. Look at Wiedzmin's pics, that thickness of upper sides is intended vs RPGs, it can not stop any ATGM reliably.

Okay so here's a better one:

On the left we see those brackets Wiedzmin showed. He claims the armor is placed around the wedge edges. But we see that it is partially inside the wedge.

5 hours ago, bojan said:

Even front armor is... so-so, whole lower front hull (and it is huge) is basically steel armor only and upper one is relatively thin (as with Merkava...)

LFP is steel because the IDF didn't, and doesn't see the need for armor there. Is extra armor there a good thing? Yes. But is it worth removing armor from the top, sides, or rear? Absolutely not. The armor layout is based on studies of probability of hit. The LFP is by far the least probable area to hit, and this is also why the British designed their Chieftains and Challengers this way. Leclerc's LFP is also just a metal sheet.

As for its UFP, neither on the Merkava nor on the Namer is it "relatively thin". The Merkava and Namer have some of the highest armor LoS among modern AFVs. On the Merkava 4, the LoS is about 700-750mm. For an armed force that has a different threat perception regarding KE munitions, such as the US and Germany, the Merkava's inconsistent armor coverage on the hull front would likely be a problem. But it doesn't make it bad, just a different dataset and analysis.

5 hours ago, bojan said:

due the need for it to be lifted for a maintenance of engine.

Have you ever seen someone lift the UFP of a Merkava or Namer with their hands? I haven't. One section needs a crane to lift, and another can be rotated on an axis that supports most of its weight, so it doesn't count.

5 hours ago, bojan said:

You also fail to understand that BMPT is mix of 3 different requirements, each contributing to it's design and armament. You are taking it's designation as "only real requirement", but it is not so.

- heavy convoy escort vehicle - need to handle multiple targets at once, which is iffy in current iteration (only AGLs)

- tank substitute in some cases - where elevation of tank's main armament is insufficient, or where such armament is inadequate. We have seen this mode in Ukraine, especially vs forest belts.

- tank support vehicle - that can stay on frontline with tanks and bring at least IFV level firepower in order to effectively suppress enemy. For suppression you need large ammo capacity and ability to fire at prolonged intervals. 

I did not regard any role or capability to its name/designation. I have no problem with the core concept of the BMPT. My main criticism is around the implementation of this vehicle and its system. Chiefly its excessively large crew, then the idiotic turret design. It could fulfill all 3 or whatever additional requirements there are, by ditching half its crew and installing a Berezhok turret. 

Ironically Russia bought the budget cuts version of the Algerian BMPT.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Mighty_Zuk

[Manic Moran]

Quote

The Terminator 3 IS the T-15. They are the same thing. As the Armata and its sister projects (Bumerang and Kurganets-25) were still in a mix of developmental and conceptual stages, visual and functional changes were natural, especially as various arms industries were competing for different aspects of these programs. The T-15's turret being the Epoch was not set in stone. It could definitely receive something else, and for marketing reasons, it was pitched as the Terminator 3 when it was showcased with a 57mm Baikal turret. For Russia, there were practical reasons why the turret should have been at least tested:

1. 30mm was hardly sufficient against western AFVs, and accuracy issues with the 2A42/72 meant that even sophisticated ABM won't solve the need for massive volume of fire per target, which can be somewhat alleviated with better warhead on 57mm.

2. 57mm was set to be standardized on various types of vehicles including SPAA, amphibious, and likely different types of IFVs.

The Bradley IFV and CFV were designed for different roles despite being almost entirely identical in physical design, trading dismount space for ammunition capacity. You couldn't use the M2 as well for certain cavalry tasks in which the missiles and gun are the primary weapon, and the M3 lacked the troop capacity for the close fight in which the infantry were the primary weapon and the vehicle the support. This logic can apply just as equally to the Armata's IFV role vs the BMPT role.

I have no issue with the 57mm discussion. The Russians seem to think it's a good idea, and it's not far off the way the US seems to be thinking with the 5cm gun on OMFV. It seems, however, to be not ready for service yet, so the 30mm it is for now. Bradley is still working with the 25mm after all.

Quote

Objects were for concept validation, they are hardly attached to real requirements.

Concepts like "We have found as a result of combat experience that there may be merit to a heavily armored autocannon vehicle?" Sure, a lot of Objects don't enter service. On the other hand, pretty much all the service vehicles did start as Objects as well. The US created plenty of T and XM vehicles which had nothing particularly wrong with the vehicle or the concept, but still failed to enter service anyway for one reason or another.

Quote

However when compared to western counterparts, its protection imbalance is felt, and is thus actually less protected than, say, a Bradley or a Puma. Why? Because while it may take an APFSDS a bit better (only relevant for very old ammunition anyway), it will do far worse against ATGMs both from the front and sides/top, worse against drones of varying types, worse against IEDs and various types of mines, worse against artillery etc. Those are the much more common threats for an AFV today. An APFSDS is extremely rare, even between Russia-Ukraine, in part because they try to avoid tank on tank combat as it yields no advantage for the initiating side. Even more rare is the chance a BMPT would be shot at with the old APFSDS that cannot pierce it.

Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that this is correct, that Russian tank technology is such that they cannot protect a vehicle to the same level as a Western IFV... or at least, not enough to make a practical difference in survivability  (A statement I am not convinced by). That is not an argument against the use of the vehicle, even if it's just a "BMP-2 with more ammo instead of troops". However, where's the harm? If there's no merit to tank levels of armor as they are ineffective, then the follow-on argument, which has been made many times in the past in the West as well, is that there no point in making a tank at all, and T-72s should all be replaced by Sprut-SDs or the like. I don't buy that, there is still merit to making vehicles with levels of armor equivalent to the best-protected-vehicle you can make.

Quote

By the way, if the AT threat is not in a tight urban space, an MBT will lead the BMPT as well. 

Not according to the latest doctrinal thought, it seems.

Quote

Remember my point was that the BMPT is an okay concept that IFVs fulfilled, but that in the absence of armored IFVs, Russia chose by far the worst possible implementation industry offered it. And your point was general disagreement with that statement. The general need for armor was never a part of it.

In that case, we are speaking past each other. I put it to you that the need for armor is an integral part of the BMPT concept, which current IFVs cannot fill at all, and the need for sustained firepower is another integral part of the BMPT concept which potential HIFVs can only partially fill.

Quote

IFVs, at least western ones, are by no means less armed than a BMPT. Neither in ammunition nor in capability. If we analyze every AFV's ammo expenditure per target, the BMPT loses big time. I mean, sure it technically has more ammo. But if it has to fire 5 rounds for every 1 round a western IFV fires, does it really have more ammo then? It definitely has fewer "stowed kills".

Agreed, but again, this argument is incomplete. Firstly, it matters not to Russia how effective the weaponry is compared to Western vehicles, as Russia doesn't use Western vehicles. What matters to Russia is how effective it is compared to anything else in the Russian inventory. Perhaps when the 57mm comes online with its more advanced fusing the 2A42 will indeed be redundant in the role, but for now, the 30 is the best they've got. Secondly, 'kills' is not the only function of the gun. Suppression and speculative fire may well do nicely, and Russian 30mm with good ammunition capacity may do an even better job of that than a Western 30 firing the occasional round. Further, what happens to the concept if the future 57mm actually proves to be quite accurate? That's a lot of stowed kills as well as suppression.

Quote

Oh and did you know they don't actually fire simultaneously? Only one cannon can fire at a time, as each is attached to a single belt. In the west, dual-belt feeds are used for a single gun.

Yes, I knew they don't actually fire simultaneously, though there are some sources which claim that a dual-feed mechanism is retained for each gun (which does, after all, have it in other installations), to allow a greater variety of ammunition to be carried. I've not seen one opened up, but assuming the dominant thinking to be correct that the mounting is indeed such that dual-feed is not possible, that seems a reasonably minor matter which merely implies that if even with an odd limitation the system is finding favour, then it seems likely to find even more favour if they made a tweak. It's a bit of a redundant argument given the theoretically pending 57mm, but the issue of overall ammunition capacity and the capability for sustained combat remains. 

Quote

Oh and thermobarics? Just a compensation for inaccuracy of the cannon. At some distance they'll probably just fire an ATGM because the 30mm won't hit the broad side of a barn. Why so inaccurate? One of the flaws of the dual barrel design, on top of an innately inaccurate 2A42 gun.

Open ground like a treeline at ATGM ranges? When the opposition is popping shots at you at 4km+, even a CV9040C's going to take a good few rounds to hit the target.

Quote

But for Russia that's a non-factor.

Ah, an acceptance that there are different requirements for different countries.

Quote

Like, literally every western IFV is an autocannon-equipped vehicle, what on earth are you talking about? They ARE operating jointly with tanks. They may occasionally stay behind, but generally if a tank has LoS to a target, the IFVs have to have LoS as well.

They do not unusually stay behind unless the troops have already dismounted and the infantry is leading with vehicles in support. Again, reference ATP 3-90.1, where the diagrams for the company team in column, wedge and vee all have tanks leading, and the Bradleys in the second line. And true, an IFV will often have the same LOS to a target. On the other hand, if the reception committee are doing their job well, they may well attempt to use the terrain to defeat in detail and, sometimes, even 100m can be the difference between 'in LOS' and 'not in LOS'.

Quote

Replacing with HIFVs (or simply IFVs that are better armored) requires new production. Adding companies of BMPTs requires new production. So on that end, expenditure is the same

Giving a platoon of BMPTs to a rifle company requires three vehicles. Replacing a rifle company's BMPs requires 10 vehicles. Even if you presume the capability of BMPT and HIFV to be the same, the realities of budget and time constraints are a thing. Of course, you can get much of the same effect for the same cost by replacing just one platoon in the company with HIFVs which saves the manning question, but you're still ending up with multiple logistics issues, and lesser overall firepower. It also reduces the possibilty of attachment: There are doubtless not enough BMPTs as desired to support all units.

Quote

No they didn't. Still with the 2 AGL operators, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to add even a few mor

I sit corrected. The export variant has deleted them. Maybe the Russians know something I don't and think it's still worth the manning (Assuming they actually are being manned and not short-crewed).

Quote

Now say you have 2 tanks, 2 BMPT (5 crewmen each), and 4 IFVs. That's 56 personnel. Unless you're suggesting to ditch the IFVs at that point and then if they have to retreat you're just counting about 28 KIA automatically because nothing can drive them back under armor.

You are misunderstanding my argument. It's not about 'number of vehicles or personnel overall'. A tank company reinforced by Motor Rifle and BMPT platoons will naturally have more people and vehicles overall than one without the BMPTs. With BMPTs mixed in with the tanks, however, the vehicles at the front of the unit, and thus most likely to be shot at first, all have fewer personnel in them than an IFV or HIFV (which doesn't currently exist for most nations), and are more survivable than an IFV.

Quote

As long as it maintains its current structure, yes. People on the ground will learn and gain experience, but it won't be institutionalized, none will pass it along to new recruits, new people. Having only micro-level learning means Russia will keep doing the same mistakes over and over again.

The Russian Army will still be a thing even if the Ukrainians drive them back over the pre-2014 borders in ignominy. I think it an extremely questionable position that no lessons are going to be inculcated from this war.
 

Quote

Define "keenly" because from what I see, they've done fuck-all to protect vs ATGMs. 

Mate, it's a quote, I can't define someone else's meaning. I would take it at face value, however, to indicate that they view ATGMs as a significant threat.

 

Quote

#2 is what Russia doesn't have. It cannot afford the BMPT, not materially, not organisationally. It couldn't do a proper adoption process and keep troops properly trained before a war, so now it can during a war when every bit of its training infrastructure is strained?

Perhaps not. That doesn't mean that if, in ten years time, they actually do start training their troops correctly, that the BMPT concept must be invalid because they were incompetent enough to do so at large scale right now. What is interesting is that despite the various disasters the Russian Army has brought upon itself, it is still seeing the BMPT as a bright spot which seems to perform adequately when used in its overall inadequate numbers.

 

Quote

Credentials are almost nothing, especially if they belong to a problematic organization

I would not consider the US Army's Combined Arms Center to be a 'problematic organization.' Or if it is, then the Russians aren't the only country's military with issues.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Namer. You fell right into that trap...

Look at phisical thickness of Namer's front armor and compare to real tanks armor thickness on front turret, which is only part of modern tank that is really proof to a modern ammo. Unless we have some Israeli space magic inside... it can not protect vs tank level threats. It can protect vs obsolete ammo and ATGMs pretty well, but there is no way that with existing thickness it can provide protection even at strongest points vs modern threats.

Quote

 Next time ask for multiple answers, would at least make me pause to think.

Nice deflect to the point that you said something that is pretty much false.

Quote

...Have you ever seen someone lift the UFP of a Merkava or Namer with their hands? I haven't. One section needs a crane to lift, and another can be rotated on an axis that supports most of its weight, so it doesn't count...

Point is that it is physically thinner than most other tanks front hull armor (either lower or upper, depending on which one was considered more likely to be hit), hence will provide lesser amount of protection. And it is thinner just so that it can be lifted by the crane of the certain capacity, for the ease of field repairs. Because, you know, tanks are not just about armor.

Quote

...Chiefly its excessively large crew...

Again, you failed to see why that crew is there. Yes, I think those are mainly useless, but they are there because of doctrinal requirements.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by bojan

[Wiedzmin]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the left we see those brackets Wiedzmin showed. He claims the armor is placed around the wedge edges. But we see that it is partially inside the wedge.

and mounting points there is only for lulz yeah

 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the Merkava 4, the LoS is about 700-750mm

of which steel part is ? KE protection nowhere close to any modern western tank 

4 hours ago, KV7 said:

With the 120mm gun-mortar, as in Nona/Vena etc. ?

2 hours ago, bojan said:

hence will provide lesser amount of protection

Namer(not same UFP as Merkava) protection of front is work only together with engine deck, you loose engine/get engine fire but you get "some additional mm vs some CE"

Edited May 9, 2023 by Wiedzmin

[Mighty_Zuk]

45 minutes ago, bojan said:

Look at phisical thickness of Namer's front armor and compare to real tanks armor thickness on front turret, which is only part of modern tank that is really proof to a modern ammo. Unless we have some Israeli space magic inside... it can not protect vs tank level threats. It can protect vs obsolete ammo and ATGMs pretty well, but there is no way that with existing thickness it can provide protection even at strongest points vs modern threats.

What's the LoS thickness on an MBT's turret, and what's the LoS thickness on a Namer?

This below is not ERA, but SLERA, which Israeli AFVs use widely. It is very effective, but also very thin and reasonably light. I don't know much about armor, but I guess that a mix of this + a CE biased variant + fragment catching mechanism, should provide good protection vs modern threats. I'm not sure about this particular product, but Israeli tanks use a KE-biased armor on the front section, and a different armor type for the sides, rear, and top.

 

But let's return to the BMPT. Can it provide better protection vs KE? No. Can it provide better protection vs CE which is a far more prevalent threat? No. Can it provide better protection vs drones? No. Can it provide better protection vs mines and IEDs? No.

Other than the armor, the Namer affords its crew immense protection with an APS, something Russia could never really crack.

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Nice deflect to the point that you said something that is pretty much false.

I didn't say that I said something false. To the contrary, I said it was correct - the BMPT does not afford better protection for its crew than western IFVs.

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Point is that it is physically thinner than most other tanks front hull armor (either lower or upper, depending on which one was considered more likely to be hit), hence will provide lesser amount of protection. And it is thinner just so that it can be lifted by the crane of the certain capacity, for the ease of field repairs. Because, you know, tanks are not just about armor.

Well then again I ask, which tank has more than armor LoS, which have less, and what are the numbers?

Also, the IDF does not adapt its AFVs for a set logistical network. It adapts logistics to the platform. But I'm ready to hear your logical argument for why the IDF would go to great lengths to make the Merkava's armor fully modular, only to not be able to section it into small enough pieces so a standard crane couldn't lift them.

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Again, you failed to see why that crew is there. Yes, I think those are mainly useless, but they are there because of doctrinal requirements.

So an outdated doctrine excuses this? And why do you think they're useless if there's a doctrine for them? I think you're just failing to see why they're there.

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

The Bradley IFV and CFV were designed for different roles despite being almost entirely identical in physical design, trading dismount space for ammunition capacity. You couldn't use the M2 as well for certain cavalry tasks in which the missiles and gun are the primary weapon, and the M3 lacked the troop capacity for the close fight in which the infantry were the primary weapon and the vehicle the support. This logic can apply just as equally to the Armata's IFV role vs the BMPT role.

I have no issue with the 57mm discussion. The Russians seem to think it's a good idea, and it's not far off the way the US seems to be thinking with the 5cm gun on OMFV. It seems, however, to be not ready for service yet, so the 30mm it is for now. Bradley is still working with the 25mm after all.

The Bradley variants were vehicles for which a doctrine was developed, logistics were built, and they were actually built in large numbers and not just 10. And the biggest factor here, is that they structurally and functionally, they all made sense. The BMPT however is just a BOLO fan's wet dream and not an actual, practical machine designed for function.

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

Concepts like "We have found as a result of combat experience that there may be merit to a heavily armored autocannon vehicle?" Sure, a lot of Objects don't enter service. On the other hand, pretty much all the service vehicles did start as Objects as well. The US created plenty of T and XM vehicles which had nothing particularly wrong with the vehicle or the concept, but still failed to enter service anyway for one reason or another.

Can you honestly look at ALL Object vehicles and tell me they made perfect sense, that none of them were outright stupid designs?

Did you know that back then and even today, manufacturers build entire systems just to test one component, and then discard them? That's pretty much what some of the Objects were.

And that "We have found as a result of combat experience that there may be merit to a heavily armored autocannon vehicle?" deflection is not going to work on me. I said very clearly, black over white, that the implementation, the design, how the BMPT is made, THAT is the problem. Not the idea of putting an autocannon on an armored vehicle, although Russia was definitely a pioneer there with the BMPT right? 

 

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that this is correct, that Russian tank technology is such that they cannot protect a vehicle to the same level as a Western IFV... or at least, not enough to make a practical difference in survivability  (A statement I am not convinced by).

It's not just technology, but a bad planning. The design of the T-72 severely limits its upgradability in terms of available space and weight. And now that it has 2 extra crewmen and an uninhabited turret (above the turret ring), its status as the world's most cramped "modern" tank just got a hell of a twist, which again limits upgradability. Yay...

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

That is not an argument against the use of the vehicle, even if it's just a "BMP-2 with more ammo instead of troops". However, where's the harm? If there's no merit to tank levels of armor as they are ineffective, then the follow-on argument, which has been made many times in the past in the West as well, is that there no point in making a tank at all, and T-72s should all be replaced by Sprut-SDs or the like. I don't buy that, there is still merit to making vehicles with levels of armor equivalent to the best-protected-vehicle you can make.

Another deflection. There is no issue with the level of armor. There is issue with how the vehicle is designed. Ditch half the crew, replace the turret with something 40 years older, and you have a better vehicle. The point about armor is that Russia is basically using a severely crippled version of an IFV without actually having the merits of such a design. If in the west they can make do with an IFV, Russia has to pay, for the same level of protection or worse, with the loss of infantry capacity, and a hyper gimped armament.

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

Not according to the latest doctrinal thought, it seems.

If Russia thinks leading with BMPTs in open grounds is smart, that's their crews coffins. Their ability to close an OODA loop at range is lacking compared to a standard Russian MBT.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

In that case, we are speaking past each other. I put it to you that the need for armor is an integral part of the BMPT concept, which current IFVs cannot fill at all, and the need for sustained firepower is another integral part of the BMPT concept which potential HIFVs can only partially fill.

Great, then Russia has about half a dozen other much better solutions it can produce much more easily, that would also provide much better protection.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Secondly, 'kills' is not the only function of the gun. Suppression and speculative fire may well do nicely, and Russian 30mm with good ammunition capacity may do an even better job of that than a Western 30 firing the occasional round.

If you're using an expensive and highly valuable IFV to do suppressive fire, you're already doing something very wrong. That's really not worth the ATGM coming its way within a few minutes.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Yes, I knew they don't actually fire simultaneously, though there are some sources which claim that a dual-feed mechanism is retained for each gun (which does, after all, have it in other installations), to allow a greater variety of ammunition to be carried. I've not seen one opened up, but assuming the dominant thinking to be correct that the mounting is indeed such that dual-feed is not possible, that seems a reasonably minor matter which merely implies that if even with an odd limitation the system is finding favour, then it seems likely to find even more favour if they made a tweak. It's a bit of a redundant argument given the theoretically pending 57mm, but the issue of overall ammunition capacity and the capability for sustained combat remains. 

When designing anything mechanical, harmonics are always taken into account. Basically if the system starts moving a certain way, it could accelerate itself and cause harm. That's why, for example, any discrete magnitude of earthquake will affect most only buildings of a specific height. Movements in a harmonic frequency can either harm, or outright destroy the system. The reason why 2A42 guns are so inaccurate, is because they and their turrets do not take this issue into account. And with low production quality, every turret and gun will have different harmonics so even if someone could find a solution, it would affect every turret differently. The longer a gun tumbles, the longer it takes to realign for a follow-up shot. But if the gun fires faster than it can bounce back, then you're basically just spraying and praying. 

The BMPT's turret only exacerbates this. Its second gun tumbles similarly to the first, and it in turn contributes to the first gun's tumbling. So if for example the first gun would need 1 second to bounce back, now it needs 1.25 or 1.5 seconds. Made up numbers, FYI.

So with this, the idea of a second gun just really doesn't make sense. This is a simulation of how every gun would look like in slow-motion if both fired simultaneously:

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Open ground like a treeline at ATGM ranges? When the opposition is popping shots at you at 4km+, even a CV9040C's going to take a good few rounds to hit the target.

Good luck hitting something with a BMPT's 30mm at even 1km. 

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Ah, an acceptance that there are different requirements for different countries

I never said Russia didn't have different requirements, just that Russian overall strategy (which leads to its requirements of new tech) is cringe and blue-pilled while western is based and red-pilled.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I sit corrected. The export variant has deleted them. Maybe the Russians know something I don't and think it's still worth the manning (Assuming they actually are being manned and not short-crewed).

Nice word-play, and if the Russian government knew something we don't, it wouldn't be in this mess.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

You are misunderstanding my argument. It's not about 'number of vehicles or personnel overall'. A tank company reinforced by Motor Rifle and BMPT platoons will naturally have more people and vehicles overall than one without the BMPTs. With BMPTs mixed in with the tanks, however, the vehicles at the front of the unit, and thus most likely to be shot at first, all have fewer personnel in them than an IFV or HIFV (which doesn't currently exist for most nations), and are more survivable than an IFV.

An IFV would not lead either way, and the decision of whether or not to dismount is unrelated to whether a BMPT is in the unit. It's more a matter of how close they are to the objective and whether they can afford to move at a walking pace (which reduces survivability). If a BMPT gets shot at, well chances are it's not going to survive the engagement. Okay, it's more survivable than a BMP-3, but it has almost double the crew. Does it also have double the survivability rate? I doubt it.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

It's a bit of a redundant argument given the theoretically pending 57mm, but the issue of overall ammunition capacity and the capability for sustained combat remains. 

TBF the 57mm is about as pending as the Armata is.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Giving a platoon of BMPTs to a rifle company requires three vehicles. Replacing a rifle company's BMPs requires 10 vehicles. Even if you presume the capability of BMPT and HIFV to be the same, the realities of budget and time constraints are a thing. Of course, you can get much of the same effect for the same cost by replacing just one platoon in the company with HIFVs which saves the manning question, but you're still ending up with multiple logistics issues, and lesser overall firepower. It also reduces the possibilty of attachment: There are doubtless not enough BMPTs as desired to support all units.

Those poorly armored IFVs will still be as much of a problem. If you add BMPTs, fine, you gave them some more armored support, but the infantry will still have to get to an objective, and not at a walking pace for most of the time. Even when dismounted, they'll need their IFVs nearby for quick evac or movement to another objective. This means that an enemy will still be able to target those IFVs just the same. Only way to make a battalion protected, is to remove its weak links. Doing half a job won't net you half the results, likely none of the results most of the time.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

They do not unusually stay behind unless the troops have already dismounted and the infantry is leading with vehicles in support. Again, reference ATP 3-90.1, where the diagrams for the company team in column, wedge and vee all have tanks leading, and the Bradleys in the second line. And true, an IFV will often have the same LOS to a target. On the other hand, if the reception committee are doing their job well, they may well attempt to use the terrain to defeat in detail and, sometimes, even 100m can be the difference between 'in LOS' and 'not in LOS'.

Are you referring to a quick march? Because when close to the objective, combat assets are no longer in lines or strict formations, but rather they seek out useful positions, with each determining a suitable location based on a variety of factors like firepower, sensory, sustainability, protection, mobility, etc. In at least most of the time, IFVs will be risking themselves just the same.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

The Russian Army will still be a thing even if the Ukrainians drive them back over the pre-2014 borders in ignominy. I think it an extremely questionable position that no lessons are going to be inculcated from this war.

There will be lessons, but they will require a very long process that will first have to include a cultural change within the armed forces, because there first has to be some willingness to learn, and yes-men don't learn.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Mate, it's a quote, I can't define someone else's meaning. I would take it at face value, however, to indicate that they view ATGMs as a significant threat.

They do. But there's a long way between identifying a problem and providing a suitable solution. Look at the UK for example. They've known their ground forces are in shambles for almost 2 decades now. They're still declining though, and a positive change is not even really in sight.

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I would not consider the US Army's Combined Arms Center to be a 'problematic organization.' Or if it is, then the Russians aren't the only country's military with issues.

And some would consider Pierre Sprey to be an expert that deserves a stage. I don't know who it is you referenced, I think this is something that should be more abstract. Take what you want from whatever source you want, form your own opinion based on your logic, then we can talk. I also prefer to avoid referring to figures of authority in my debates.

[Mighty_Zuk]

27 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

and mounting points there is only for lulz yeah

Oh my dog there are mounting points! Damn I didn't know armor needs to be mounted oh no oh damn oh god.

Here are mounting points of Abrams.

 

I don't know, they really do be kinda looking like they go THROUGH some of the armor, and not an armor module just on top.

27 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

of which steel part is ? KE protection nowhere close to any modern western tank 

Steel part is what? If KE protection is "nowhere close to any modern tank" then substantiate. I provided numbers and evidence. You have, for 3 consecutive messages, just given a blank statement without any backing. Plus, the original debate was about whether the Namer provides better protection than the BMPT, which is objectively true.

27 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

Namer(not same UFP as Merkava) protection of front is work only together with engine deck, you loose engine/get engine fire but you get "some additional mm vs some CE"

And in the T-72 they use the ammo and driver for the same purpose. In the Abrams the driver and fuel tanks. In the Leopard it's the driver and ammo. Better to lose an engine if armor is penetrated than to suffer ammo detonation.

Edited May 9, 2023 by Mighty_Zuk

[bojan]

Quote

...BMPT does not afford better protection for its crew than western IFVs.

Vehicle protected vs (at least some) ATGMs and APFSDS frontally and (single charge) RPGs from the sides does not offer better protection to it's crew than IFVs armored at best vs single charge RPGs from the front (and most are not even close to that) and 30mm? 

Goes under most stupid things people wrote here in years.

Edited May 9, 2023 by bojan

[Wiedzmin]

52 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Here are mounting points of Abrams.

you understand nothing in anything, do you ? 

 

52 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I provided numbers and evidence.

you provided fantasy, delirium and bias, as always