BMPT - the new Russian class - Tank Assistance Combat Vehicle.

**Garry** · 15 Oct 05,, 11:57

Hi Officer of Engineers, Shek, Lemontree, Snipe and other gentlemen!

What are your comments on this new conceipt - the tank, whose primary goal is to fight enemies infatry in urban warfare.... it has quite strong firepower and it is multichannel - several crew each of them can engage different enemies simultaneously. With four ATGM it can engage ANY tanks but is not intended for that. Its Ataka-T ATGM is laser guided - a much better solution could have been a radar and radar guided ATGM.

Specs:

Weight - 47tons
The hull from T-72
Engine power/weight- 21.3 horse power per ton
Speed - 65 km/h on road,

Crew - 5 (one driver, one commander+turret operator - both can hadle it, two grenade launchers on sides, one turret operator)

Unmanned Turret: Two - 30mm 2A42 automatic guns + one 7.62 machine gun + four ATGM Ataka-T
Two automatic grenade launchers at right and left angles in front.

amunition - 900 shells for 30mm guns, 2000 bullets for 7.62, 600 grenades for two automatic grenade launchers

Sights and targeting
Commanders sight/targeting - panoramic with TV channel and laser, turret operator combined optical/infrared + laser targeter and guidance, for grenade launchers AGAT MP (night/day). They all can see at night and in smoke.

**TopHatter** · 17 Oct 05,, 02:13

Wow....pretty impressive.

How much can I pick one of those up for?

Are they in production?

**lemontree** · 17 Oct 05,, 09:25

All they have done is marry a ICV turret to a tank chassis. The only improvement better protection due to a tank chassis.
Now one has to remember that in Urban conflicts the real ranger is from ATGMs/RPGs fired from roof tops. The top attack nature of the protectile negates the increased protection of a tank chassis. Besides it cannot carry troops.
Its a waste of money and increased expense on fuel.

**raj** · 17 Oct 05,, 09:26

Excuse my limited knowledge in tank stuff, is this some thing like a tank killer part of mechanized infantry. If yes, i think this concept has been in since WWII(limited knowledge from war games) how is this a new concept?

**Garry** · 17 Oct 05,, 13:03

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Wow....pretty impressive.

How much can I pick one of those up for?

Are they in production?

Probably around 20-30% markup on the T-72 price of $2mln => $2.4-2.6mln. Basically it will share most of the hull but have different turret/sights. Hence most of spareparts are unified with T-72.

I made some search on BMPT weapons and combat loads...... it looks quite impressive

The two 2A42 30 mm guns are the same as BMP-2.... should deliver strong fire power of 1kg shells.
http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/cannons/2a42.htm
There should be two 450 shell belts feeding both. One belt is loaded with Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot and one with HE. The total weight of this would be 900kg for 900 shells. Very interesting the market price of this load is just $6750!
http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/a...mmunition.html

I guess that 7.62 machine gun is Kalashnikov.... the load is 2000 bullets

In addition to that 4 Ataka-T ATGMs
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/ataka_mn00163001.aspx
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at-9.htm

two AG-17 grenade launchers - good area covering weapon.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...ag/ags-172.htm
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-F...my/AGS-17.html
http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/army/ags17.htm

The load is 600 grenades - a belt of 300 in each launcher with VOG-17 of VOG-30 rounds
http://www.arcus-bg.com/products/fuz...m_l/print.html

All this looks quite impressive to suppress any infantry and protect tanks from RPG fighters in urban warfare. Two 30mm guns and two separate launchers would put infantry away from tanks!

**Garry** · 17 Oct 05,, 13:33

Originally Posted by raj

Excuse my limited knowledge in tank stuff, is this some thing like a tank killer part of mechanized infantry. If yes, i think this concept has been in since WWII(limited knowledge from war games) how is this a new concept?

It is actually not a tank killer but infantry suppressor.... to support tanks in a battlefield where there are many devoted RPG fighters ready to attack a tank colunms from different direction simultaneously. Russians have lost quite a lot of armored vehicles due to such attacks from suiside RPG fighters.

**Garry** · 17 Oct 05,, 13:56

Originally Posted by lemontree

All they have done is marry a ICV turret to a tank chassis. The only improvement better protection due to a tank chassis.
Now one has to remember that in Urban conflicts the real ranger is from ATGMs/RPGs fired from roof tops. The top attack nature of the protectile negates the increased protection of a tank chassis. Besides it cannot carry troops.
Its a waste of money and increased expense on fuel.

Somebody commented me that no tank can hold a good shot from ATGM.... for sure T-72 hull can be killed by RPG-7.... but if I undestand it correctly Abrams were lost due to RPGs as well! (though crews survived).

After talking with Andrei (former officer from Chechnya who assaulted Grozny twice). I was watching movie 9th command. Some people who I was talking then served in Afghanistan.... they told that it was there when Soviet soldiers discovered that thinly armored Shilka (ZSU) turned to be better protecting transport columns than heavy armored tanks..... in mountains Shilka could suppress ambushing enemies with so much of fire that they would retreat..... that is why mojahideens were attackign Shilkas first of all in the columns.....
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-F.../ZSU-23-4.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-23-4

later in Chechnya this was proven right again. Shilka is so vulnrable that even a light fire can damage it. However its firepower made its a safeguard to supply columns.... imagine when its four barrels shoot hundred shells a second on attacking infantry.... nobody wants to put their head out!!! Well here we have two barrels sending 27 of 30mm shells per second each 1kg !!! Will it convince infantry to hide away.....

there is an addition here.... it can shoot 3 directions at a time.... look at the crew

**lemontree** · 17 Oct 05,, 14:15

Garry,
The difference between the Shilka 23mm and BMPT 30mm is the rate of fire. The rip from the Shiklas' 1000 RPM (from each gun) is devastating against ground targets compared to the "old man's cough" of the BMPTs 30mm.
The BMP-2/3 can do the same why waste resources. Casulties in MOUT ops is enevitable, tactics make all the difference.

**Officer of Engineers** · 17 Oct 05,, 15:12

This thing looks like someone just looked around and see what's available and then slap it together in one kit.

It's overdone which means that it won't do any one thing good.

MOUT means one thing when it comes to armoured vehicles - engineers. Which means give me an armoured bulldozer with FIVE-OH for protection and a demo gun (155mm and up).

**TopHatter** · 17 Oct 05,, 15:24

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

This thing looks like someone just looked around and see what's available and then slap it together in one kit.

Looking at it again, it reminds me a little bit of an Ontos.
Probably a terrible comparison, just a thought.

**B.Smitty** · 17 Oct 05,, 17:18

Originally Posted by lemontree

Garry,
The difference between the Shilka 23mm and BMPT 30mm is the rate of fire. The rip from the Shiklas' 1000 RPM (from each gun) is devastating against ground targets compared to the "old man's cough" of the BMPTs 30mm.
The BMP-2/3 can do the same why waste resources. Casulties in MOUT ops is enevitable, tactics make all the difference.

The question really is, what rate of fire is sufficient to achieve the effects seen in Chechnya and elsewhere. It may be that two 550 RPM 2A42s is sufficient.

Also, is it really physically devestating against infantry, or is it more demoralizing/frightening?

BMP-2/3s are rather lightly armored in comparison to the BMP-T. This may be a factor.

**B.Smitty** · 17 Oct 05,, 17:23

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

This thing looks like someone just looked around and see what's available and then slap it together in one kit.

It's overdone which means that it won't do any one thing good.

MOUT means one thing when it comes to armoured vehicles - engineers. Which means give me an armoured bulldozer with FIVE-OH for protection and a demo gun (155mm and up).

I agree, the BMP-T armament seems a bit hap-hazard.

I don't completely agree that MOUT equals armored dozer and demo gun. The Thunder Runs in Baghdad showed that you don't have to demolish entire blocks to take a city.

Not to say dozers and demo guns aren't valuable in MOUT.

**B.Smitty** · 17 Oct 05,, 17:26

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Looking at it again, it reminds me a little bit of an Ontos.
Probably a terrible comparison, just a thought.

Superficially perhaps, but the BMP-T and Ontos are completely different animals.

One is a SPAAG-like turret on a tank, with ATGMs thrown in for good (or bad) measure. The other is a lightly armored recoilless rifle carrier.

**TopHatter** · 17 Oct 05,, 19:18

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

Superficially perhaps, but the BMP-T and Ontos are completely different animals.

One is a SPAAG-like turret on a tank, with ATGMs thrown in for good (or bad) measure. The other is a lightly armored recoilless rifle carrier.

Yeah, like I said, terrible comparison.
On the other hand, they're both "throw a lot of weapons on a tracked vehicle"

I dunno...That BMP-T looks really nice...but a battlefield is not a parade ground.

**Officer of Engineers** · 18 Oct 05,, 04:15

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

I don't completely agree that MOUT equals armored dozer and demo gun. The Thunder Runs in Baghdad showed that you don't have to demolish entire blocks to take a city.

Not to say dozers and demo guns aren't valuable in MOUT.

Baghdad is not an example of organized defence.