Triune machine

BMP should be harmonized with the tanks

Second global war showed that tanks without infantry bad without tanks and infantry is not sweet. And they are hard to cooperate because of the very different rates of movement. Tank, even on rough terrain is moving at a speed of 30-40 km / h, and even at a decent fighter road goes faster 6 km / h, and even then not for long.

As a result, the deepest tank breakthroughs (and German, and Russian) often lose their effectiveness because of the separation from the Corps. After all, specifically infantry to capture the area, to protect the flanks and rear of tank groups. And the tanks without infantry, looking up very far away, could have maneuvered themselves into the environment.

For the Germans, this factor played perhaps a fatal role. Backlog of infantry, which also was occupied by the Red Army surrounded groups liquidation, slowed in the summer of 1941, German armored breakthroughs nothing less than the resistance of Russian troops. In the end, the Wehrmacht had come first in the fall, and then in the winter. And, accordingly, in a protracted war in which Germany had no chance.

And it became clear that the Corps should be given mobility. Trucks difficulties are not solved. They could only move on the roads and only in their rear. On the battlefield, the truck could not live in the best case, a couple of minutes.

Even then, at the beginning of the second World War, the Germans were the first to hit upon the idea of armored personnel carriers (APCs). But it was purely palliative solution. APCs were half-track, i.e. their permeability was higher than that of trucks, but still lower than the tanks. And the level of security of these machines was not much higher than that of trucks.

After the second world the means of mechanization of infantry started thinking seriously. It became clear that without their deepest offensive operations are not possible. In addition, the emergence of nuclear weapons raised the question of the protection of infantry from its damaging factors.

In the end, the natural way was born the concept completely enclosed armored vehicle with a massive weapons. She had not just bring up the infantry to the battlefield, but to advance in some combat formations of tanks, with a similar rate with them and permeability. Fire onboard instruments she could hit lightly armored targets and enemy infantry, but on a theoretical level — and enemy tanks. Marines are inside the car could drive through the fire from inside the loop-holes in the hull. It was called magic infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).

The founder of this class of weapons was the Soviet Union, where BMP-1 was adopted by thearmament in 1966. The second was Germany, where the best in the West understand what a profound breakthroughs tank. There, in 1969, the troops went BMP "Marder". Then came the French AMX-10P, later joined by the Anglo-Saxons (the South American "Bradley" and British "Warrior").

Immediately there is a saturation Army personal anti-tank gun — anti-military complexes (ATRA) and hand-held anti-tank rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). They have shown themselves very well during the October War of 1973, during which the hitherto invincible Israelis suffered heavy losses in tanks. It has become clear now that tanks without infantry can not live, infantry to smooth out the area from enemy infantry with RPGs and anti-tank systems. And the role of BMPs dramatically increased. At the same time, but it became clear nasty thing — BMP survival on the battlefield tends to zero. Almost like a truck since the second world war.

For example, our delicious BMP-1 could shoot into the side or stern of the ordinary AKM. Not to mention the mnogokalibernom machine gun. A projectile hit the cumulative of ATRA or RPG produced such an effect that the troops born newcomer for the abbreviation BMP — "mass grave of infantry." In Afghanistan, it has been proven a sad practice. There, it became clear that a completely useless and weapons BMP-1 — short-barreled 73-millimeter gun. No modern tank it does not break, and only against the guerrillas in the mountains of its effectiveness in general zero.

On the basis of the BMP-1 specifically for Afghanistan was made BMP-2 with a 30-millimeter cannon that can shoot almost vertically upwards. In the mountains it was very useful. Moreover, paradoxical way this gun was more effective against tanks. Although she did not break through the armor, but swept away all hanging equipment, making the tank blind.

In general, an important issue has been resolved and has not been. If machine Combat must act in conjunction with tanks and then it should be protected astank. Moreover, even for counterinsurgency warfare protection BMP was inadequate. Military action in Chechnya completely removed the doubts that segodnyaschy concept BMP has exhausted itself. None of the Marines would not dream to climb inside the machine, even though it seems to be created precisely in order to protect people's armor. The machine moves "top", only in this version has a chance to survive in the event of a landmine or shell hit. When you are inside no chance.

Everything said applies to Western BMP. They are better protected than our ("Bradley" and "Warrior" kept getting in the forehead 30-mm projectile), but not by much. But it is to make an effort in this regard Westerners are not collected. Europeans will not wage war even against really strong partisan units, and only traditional war to eliminate them one hundred percent. The Anglo-Saxons rely on their vast an advantage in the air, precluding large-scale tank battle. For counterinsurgency wars they will cost palliative measures such as active armor or side skirts.

Not in the Middle East: there the possibility of large-scale conventional war always remains. It is here that the idea that the BMP should be done on the basis of the tanks. Obviously, she was born in Israel, where there is a great army, repeatedly Gromit even more numerous enemies. And in a country where the army calls even ladies 'saving people' and prioritized.

Israel comes in three states (together with Germany and Russia), where it is best developed in the theory and practice of tank operations. In this case, there is always the basic quality of the tank was listed security (in all other countries — Firepower). Specifically on such concepts have made "Merkava".

And in this tank there are some elements of the BMP. It has a stern niche in which you can shove or additional ammunition, or up to 4 marines. First of all, though, we are talking about the wounded evacuated by this method, the least you can not carry, and healthy, and armed. However, they were not very comfortable, but our infantry fighting vehicles, made specifically for like infantrymen, comfort, too, to put it mildly, do not differ.

Then on the basis of outdated British tank "Centurion" (local name — "Nagmashot") Israelis have done engineering machine "Puma" for the transportation of combat engin
eers to the site of the "work". And, finally, there was first tank based on BMP. In general, due to the lack of cannon armament it is called the armored personnel carrier, but it is generally a game of definitions.

BMP "Ahzarit" was created based on the Russian T-54 and T-55, which the IDF captured from the Arabs unlimited (especially the Egyptians in 1967). Its crew — 3 people Troopers — 7 people. Weight — 44 tons, which is 16 tons more than the T-54 without a tower. This is explained by a significant increase in the reservation. On the "Ahzarit" put the South American diesel (instead of Russian), due to this there was a passage in the stern on the starboard side. Through him, landing and leaving the car. Armament: 4 machine guns (7.62 mm), 3 of them on the turret hatches of the paratroopers, one — with automatic control from within the BMP.

It is clear that the "Ahzarit" is a palliative solution, since the number T-54/55 in Israel is limited, they are very out of date, their low capacity. Because the decision will be final and naturally full unification of the tank and infantry fighting vehicles. Adopted the IDF begins to enter the BMP "Namer", made on the base of the tank "Merkava-1." Its weight — 60 tons, crew — 3 people Troopers — 8-9 people.

Arab Israelis response was BMP "Timsah", made in Jordan on the basis of the above-mentioned "Centurion." Its weight — 47 tons, crew — 3 people Troopers — 10 machine armed with a gun (20 mm) and coaxial machine gun (7.62 mm).

Besides Near East, BMP-based tanks began to create the post-Soviet space. Which again is only natural for us, unlike in Europe, the possibility of large-scale conventional war does not equal zero.

"Russian" Ahzaritom "was the BTR-T, made in Omsk on the basis of the same T-55. His weight — 38.5 tons, crew — 2 people Troopers — 5 people. Chance of installation of various weapons: gun (30 mm) or gun (12.7 mm), they can be paired 2 ATGM "Competition" or automatic antipersonnel grenade launcher AGS-17. The car did not come out of the state of an experienced reference, because the T-55 is very old. Accordingly, the machine base at its special prospects not.

But the outlook may be Ukrainian BTMP-84 — T-84 (Ukrainian version of the T-80), turned into a BMP. The main armament (125-mm gun) stored on it, only ammo reduced to 36 rounds. The case is extended to accommodate the 5 marines with special access to the rear. Weight — 50 tons is difficult to say to what wars it can be useful to Ukraine itself (neuzh something for the march on Moscow?), But in the Middle East, it can find buyers.

At Nizhniy Tagil "Uralvagonzavod" on the basis of the T-72 was created which has no analogues in the world tank support combat vehicle — BMPT. Its crew — 5 people, weight — 47 tons machine has a powerful armament — twin 30-mm gun, a machine gun (7.62 mm), 2 AG-17 grenade launcher, 4 ATGM "Ataka" (not counting the armored ground targets, they can shoot and low-flying helicopters). Russian Defense Ministry has recently completely refused to accept the car for weapons, but that is another story that has no relationship to military technology.

Speeches about BMPT, strictly speaking, should not go there because it is not a BMP and not designed to transport infantry. It should change the BMP in the sense that the purpose of this car — winding up in the infantry and lightly armored targets on the battlefield, that is a cover of tanks, which currently must deal with the infantry. But it is quite obvious that in it, as in the Ukrainian BTMP-84 and Israeli cars, is the deepest "homespun truth."

Apparently, you need to create a single heavy machine that could be immediately tank, infantry fighting vehicles (which would support the tanks and machine), and anti-aircraft missile and gun systems (ZRPK). The chassis must be calculated at the beginning and at the accommodation of the crew, and for the transportation of troops (5-7 people), and the troop compartment can be used to accommodate additional ammunition.

Armed with this "three-pronged machine" should be modular, remotely controllable from inside the body. The installation of a heavy gun and coaxial machine gun with him is a tank. In an embodiment of the BMP module weapons may be approximately the same as in the above Ural BMPT. And if you remove the module from grenade launchers, anti-tank systems change for anti-aircraft missiles (SAMs) and install a radar station (RLS), you get ZRPK.

On the chassis of the tank needs to be done and the heavy multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS). Our country has a good tradition in the development of these systems, as they are for us will be very important in the east. Experience Damanskii very well proved that. MRL required to have an inflated cross, which is burning in Siberia and the Far East, and overcharge protection, not the least of pressing repeatedly in the war against numerically superior enemy, which may be provided in the rear of our troops. That's why you need tank chassis. By the way, the Chinese themselves are a significant part of its own missile systems put on the tracked chassis. In fact, we already have a flamethrower MLRS "Pinocchio" on the chassis of the T-72.

As for today's Infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, they seem to purposefully throw exclusively in landing parts (Navy and Marines), where portability technology and the ability to swim is more important than armor protection, as well as internal forces.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: