New Russian BMPs

[Mohoender]

I knew already for some times about the BTR-T derived from the T-54/T-55 (much like the israelian Achzarit) but I only found today about the BMP-T that would derive from the T-72/T-90. I found that interesting and post a website on both. Of course, numbers are subject to doubts but they are interesting, nevertheless.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.htm
http://www.enemyforces.net/apc/btrt.htm

[jester]

Lets see,

I like the BMP-T, it has a reduced capacity for Dismounts, It also looks pretty cramped with an internal height of less than my waist, lovely. I do not see the firing ports along the sides either which means the dismounts can no longer add fire. And they can't observe as easily either.

And it looks like their infrered monitor is not all that protected.

As an American Infantryman, I give it my thumbs up for the Russians!

I just hope they still have the fuel cell on the rear hatch like they had before


As the BTR, it is not wheeled. It is heavy, it is a tank, it has the same issues as the above BMP-T, so I also give it my thumbs up.

And, further, I have to ask, since they are tank what kind of maintenance will they require? Especialy as I am assuming they would simply convert the legions of T-55s and 65s to this platform. Are they restricted to the same terrain as tanks? Remember light armored vehicles and armored personel carriers usualy have the advantage of being lighter so they can go on softer ground, lighter bridges and more importantly be airlifted or even air deployed.

So, if the above have not been addressed then it makes me wonder, did they just down grade a tank so they can carry a fireteam? Although I do like the idea of modifying an obsolete system to be of some use. But also, how useful is a large costly vehicle that only carries one fireteam? How many vehicles would be needed to sieze and hold a positon?

Oh, and unless it is uparmored they are in essance T-55/65s, thus they can be dealt with with a AT-4 easy enough. And again, do they have the fuel cell in the rear door that makes taking them out much easier?

[Mohoender]

Jest

I haven't said anything on how good these are and actually I have no clue.

However, as you ask, the last reports from Israel have stated the various Achzarit, Nemerah, and other Nakpadon (fairly similar) to be quite efficient in some type of combat, especially those involving light infantry. It seems that Israel doesn't see them as useless. It also seems that they met with some success during the last operations in Lebanon (2006), despite no victory for Israel. Of course, these reports being from Israel and the US army, they are highly unreliable.

By the way it seems that you are right, the idea behind them is to modify obsolete designs. Therefore, I find the vehicles to be interesting and they might be quite fun in T2K. I wouldn't be surprised to find similar conversions and such vehicles would pack some firepower with a pretty good protection. Not that bad on a theater where most surviving weapons will be assault rifle and heavy machinegun.

I don't thing they intend them to replace regular APC. They are intended to fill in a gap.

[jester]

One must also remember that the actions in Isreal are not operations where the tanks or troop carriers are traveling over large distances to sieze and hold or reinforce positions in hostile territory where the enemy has similair or heavier forces who are expected to counter attack.

I was pointing out some basic things is all, I do not see those vehicles having an overly tall compartment, which means a cramped and overly fatiguing ride for the dismounts, as well as the possibility of having confusion getting in or out.

The older PACT personel carriers had firing ports in the sides and the rear so the passengers can add to the fire capability. I did not see these.

Further, I did not see vison ports in them for the dismounts. Agaiin reducing the ability by the dismounts to observe.

Those two aspects that are also missing on most American vehicles as well.

One thing that is often forgotten about armored personel carriers is the comfort of the troops riding inside. If they are bounced around and battered from ridding over rough roads, freezing or have been pouring out swet and near dehydration or cramped for sometime their effectiveness is diminished.

And again I still want to know if they have their common fuel cell in the rear hatch/door because that is a major achillies heel of most Russian APCs.


And also as they are built on a tank frame, they have alot of issues concerning maintenance because tanks need ALOT of maintenance. So the support needs will most likely be greater than a standard APC as well as working on a 30 or 40 year old system.

As for weapons remaining being assault weapons and machineguns. Not really. Because of their high rate of fire, coupled with green gunners I would bet that alot of machineguns would be worn out, the high use causes lots of heat, the barrels will burn out first, and the oher moving parts will just wear and burn up. I would imagine after four years of war few units would have their any of their original machineguns and I am guessing they would be in short supply.

[Mohoender]

I think you are right. Moreover, I would expect your observations to be very true and these vehicles might be intended for the same type of uses than the one you describe for the israeli vehicles.

Of course, they will need some maintenance but being built from older models they might not need that much. I agree also about maintenance and that's why I keep wandering about maintaining tanks in T2K. Moreover, if the BRT-T is an APC, the BMP-T looks more like a gunship (a mix between a tank chaser and an anti-infantry platform). According to what I have read, they were developped from experience in Grozny. As I know, Russian APC's and tanks proved fairly vulnerable in these fightings much like the israeli mechanized troops in Gaza. Also according to what I know, US troops are experiencing the same kind of problem in Irak: Abrams proved more vulnerable than expected. I expect it to be true as I remember an Abrams destroyed (or put out of order) by a WWII gun in Baghdad. Not always easy to point out a cannon in a narrow street.

Actually, these vehicles (from Israel and Russia) reminds me of some german experience made during WWII with specific tanks used in the Warsaw Getho and among various garrison units.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by jester

The older PACT personel carriers had firing ports in the sides and the rear so the passengers can add to the fire capability. I did not see these.

From what I've read and heard. APC firing ports are extremely ineffective.

[jester]

Originally Posted by copeab

From what I've read and heard. APC firing ports are extremely ineffective.

Ineffective if being used for regular fire, but scarey if you are trying to close in with a LAW or the idea of tossing a thermite or manuvering around is what you are trying to do. Then they come into their own as providing a short range defense to repulse infantry trying to attack or defend against the vehicle.

As I said, it may be a good for short operations to say seize a bridgehead until follow on forces arrive but, 5 men, inside, how many vehicles would it take to put a platoon on scene?

And one thing about older vehicles that are still used, they need ALOT more maintenance, even though they are simplier age does take its tool.

I am still thinking of the five men in the vehicle. Granted the LAV only holds 4 men but it is mainly used as a scout and light armor role or a support weapon.

These new vehicles, they give enough men to basicaly provide a light infantry screen for the vehicle, but not enough to really exploit the asset that a vehicle brings.

Anyone know how they are to be used, issued to units and quantities?

And are these vehicles incorporated into the TW2013? That would be pretty cool!