Somewhat OT: ultimate IFV

[Panther Al]

Floating around the web and came across what has to be the oddest, yet most well armed and armoured IFV out there. Armed with a 125mm gun, autoloaded and using all the normal ammo types including missiles, a room for 5 in the back.

Its the Ukrainian BMPT-84, and the ammo and loader is mounted in a bustle that mimics the M1's in protecting the crew.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Hey Panther Al, that's a hell of an interesting vehicle.
There's a companion vehicle based on the T-72.
I was surprised to see that the modifications to make them into heavy IFVs haven't significantly cut their speed but I am curious for info about their overall mobility in comparison to the parent design.

More info here
BMT-84
BMT-72

[Abbott Shaull]

Sounds like they are going the Isrealis had gone with Merkava in having the ability to move infantry on MBT. Looking over the specs though I would hate to be one of those infantry men trying to climb out of either those vehicle while they were under fire.

It is interesting way to add some infantry capabilities to their Tank/Armor Companies while not compromising the effectiveness of the Company. Granted the dismounted would smaller than if they had been in the more traditional IFV equip platoon. Just another tool in their tool box.

[dragoon500ly]

I don't know about merging a IFV/tank design. It seems that there would be too much trade-off. But then I always thought that giving every Bradley a TOW system was a bad idea.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

But then I always thought that giving every Bradley a TOW system was a bad idea.

I'm intrigued - why? Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility? One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

I'm intrigued - why? Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility? One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

Tigger,

My understanding is that because they are armed with ATGM, Brads tend to tangle with things they shouldn't. Like, tanks.

That said, ATGMs are effective, if expensive, against bunkers and fortifications, so that could be useful.

There is a modern forerunner to the tank/APC combination (aside from the Canadian Kangaroo in WWII): the Israeli Achzarit, converted from captured T-55s.





I don't think this is kind of OT at all. I think that as conventional armoured warfare winds down, at least some tanks will be converted into heavy APCs.

Tony

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

I'm intrigued - why? Surely it gives them a bit more punch and fexibility? One of the criticisms I've heard levelled at the Warrior is its lack of ATGM - in fact, IIRC the big yellow book alludes to that.

And having that additional punch and flexibility is the problem. Let's pick on the Bradley. You have a 25mm auto cannon coupled with a 7.62mm co-axial and a twin TOW launcher. You have the ability to go after just about everything on the modern battlefield, right? So what's so bad about that?

TOW is a wonderful system, you stand an excellent of blowing up any tank out to about 3,500 meters. The trade off is that the missile takes about 30 seconds to reach maximum range. That's 30 seconds that you have to stand still and guide your missile onto your target. ATGMs have a rather significant black bast when they fire. The minimum training standard for a US tank crewman is to get an aimed round off every five seconds. That means that at maximum range, an AVERAGE US tank crew will place at least six rounds in the vinicity of the blackblast. Now that would break down to one Sabot round (to clear the tube) and then five HEAT rounds to hit the target or supress the area.

I was more impressed with the Warrior. You had a nice auto-cannon to kill BTRs/BMPs. Because you didn't have the extra weapons system, you saved money which allowed the fielding of more of the vehicles within a smaller time frame.

There was a Bradley variant that was discussed in Armor Journal. It pulled the turret and infantry compartment for a smaller turret mounting two twin TOW launchers and a larger number of reloads. It was proposed to either field one per platoon or to field two with the headquarters platoon. The proposal went one to recommend fitting a smaller one man turret to the Bradley, with the capability of firing Dragon if needed, the space freed up would allow another 2-3 infantry. This is the second problem of the IFV squad.

A Bradley squad is the smallest rifle squad in the Army. There is no cushion if the squad suffers losses.

Just a few things to consider....