Kosovo=Serbia
Banned Member
And this one, I think it is same as Lightening except it is built on old M 84 tank... But I am not sure. Maybe someone know more. Its name is M 84AITZI
Last edited:
Way of using old tanks
- Thread starter evripide
- Start date
Kosovo=Serbia
Banned Member
I like how Polish deal with their cans, and made mobile Neva AA system.
Well I dont know how much is that effective but for me it look nice.
Anyone know something more about this
Well I dont know how much is that effective but for me it look nice.
Anyone know something more about this
Kosovo=Serbia
Banned Member
Ore BMP-T (Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov) called "Terminator": It is built
on T-72/T-90
Have awesome fire power (2x30mm auto-guns ; 2x 30mm ABG ; 4 x Ataka AT rockets and 1x 7.62mm machine gun)
and according to some analysis , better protected than T 90. Its basic
purpose is supporting tanks in urban area combat.
Me like it
on T-72/T-90
Have awesome fire power (2x30mm auto-guns ; 2x 30mm ABG ; 4 x Ataka AT rockets and 1x 7.62mm machine gun)
and according to some analysis , better protected than T 90. Its basic
purpose is supporting tanks in urban area combat.
Me like it
Kosovo=Serbia
Banned Member
And, dont wana bother any more, only to mention my favorite
conglomerate, an mighty Nagmachon !!!
conglomerate, an mighty Nagmachon !!!
Kosovo=Serbia
Banned Member
And modernized T 55 
You mean these old relics.
Adding such kit is expensive.
The naked tank is not expensive at all.
There is not that much difference in buying an old naked T-55 or an old and naked T-72.
Save the money and get some lightly upgraded T-72s from Ukraine or Poland instead of adding expensive stuff to old hulls.
The naked tank is not expensive at all.
There is not that much difference in buying an old naked T-55 or an old and naked T-72.
Save the money and get some lightly upgraded T-72s from Ukraine or Poland instead of adding expensive stuff to old hulls.
It's hard to justify it. In reality urban combat and similar terrains where it's supposed to be used are best handled by light infantry with small amounts of tanks attached to the infantry in tactical fire support roles, rather then large tank formations with BMP-T's supporting them. I hope it doesn't get accepted into service with the Russian Army, though there was info that Kazakhstan wanted to order some.
Russians are already producing them in very, very low numbers, should be a good platform for ground pounders clearing out urban area`s, the very initial reason why Russia designed it to do.
In reality, both russians and Israels found what against half-competent enemy with modern weapon said infantry suffer too high causalities. ATGM is very dangerous to tank and MBT, yes. But ATGM is even more effective against light infantry, and while tank needed several hits from very modern ATGM to suffer causalities, even very old and cheap ATGM's are effective against infantry - and each time they hit close, someone dies.
Also, increase in modern light weapon quality and soldier training make even light infantry weapons dangerous up to 1km, again causing high losses among unprotected infantry which support tanks. On the other side, infantry still can rapid-response only up to 400-500m against enemies ( anything father and long-preparation ATGM or artillery support need to be used), and dont have that good observation devices. While enemy infantry can hurt IFV's up to 2-4 km, again presenting the need in strong friendly IFV support from 500 to 2500m.
This is main reason why BMP-T was developed.
We're talking about urban combat, and mountain-style terrain. That's where the BMP-T is meant to be used. In that kind of an environment, light infantry with heavy armor attached at the tactical level is much more effective then columns of tanks with BMP-T support. Iirc the idea was to change platoon size to 5 vehicles, with 1 vehicle in every platoon being a BMP-T. So it's a unit meant for tank operations.
Even in that environment, infantry usually takes high causalities. As i said, own infantry is double-edged sword - from one side, it protects own IFV's and tanks. From the other side, should enemy infantry concentrate on attacking friendly infantry (aiming at human losses rather than general military strength losses) - the causalities could be very high.
Remember, ATGM or RPG grenade exploding between your squad members is not fun, and usually lead to more causalities than if hitting tank or IFV.
This is reason why BMP-T (and to lesser extent BMP-3) were developed. They are intended to replace infantry in such dangerous conditions - being much more protected, with much stronger and longer range firepower, and (often overlooking) much more mobile.
In urban combat supporting infantry, the BMP-T's role would be identical to that of the German Wiesel.
I.e. providing:
- high-volume penetrating long-range suppressive fire by autocannon
- longer-range anti-tank capability (than manpack ATGM)
- overwatch/surveillance capability through EO/IR systems
in a mobile, protected package.
The difference being that the Wiesel relies on speed instead of the heavy armour of the BMP-T; i.e. the BMP-T violates aspects of the "weapon carrier" concept, not just with regard to the protection, but also regarding mobility/access and of course minimization/simplification concepts.
In a role supporting tank platoons, now that is something rather new, mixing capabilities that are usually combined at bataillon level through specific detachment of infantry or AT assets. In my opinion, working this at company level - with tank platoons, some BMP-2/3 and maybe a pair of 2S31 would bring this to a more "interesting" small combined-arms concept (though likely one that would be abandoned within months).
I.e. providing:
- high-volume penetrating long-range suppressive fire by autocannon
- longer-range anti-tank capability (than manpack ATGM)
- overwatch/surveillance capability through EO/IR systems
in a mobile, protected package.
The difference being that the Wiesel relies on speed instead of the heavy armour of the BMP-T; i.e. the BMP-T violates aspects of the "weapon carrier" concept, not just with regard to the protection, but also regarding mobility/access and of course minimization/simplification concepts.
In a role supporting tank platoons, now that is something rather new, mixing capabilities that are usually combined at bataillon level through specific detachment of infantry or AT assets. In my opinion, working this at company level - with tank platoons, some BMP-2/3 and maybe a pair of 2S31 would bring this to a more "interesting" small combined-arms concept (though likely one that would be abandoned within months).
So then it simply comes down to having more professional infantry. If you're storming the city, you should've already cleared most of the streets with CAS, arty, and advancing armor. So it's simply a matter of clearing the buildings. If your infantry is better at it then their infantry, you will take less losses. If your infantry is a bunch of conscripts from 3rd line formations thrown together days prior to the battle, well then you're screwed.
This is not always possible. Moreover, in current and foreseeable future conflicts it is rather impossible to clear "most of the streets with CAS, arty, and advancing armor". You'll need literally ruin the city to affect enemy infantry. Moreover, no sane commander will rely on laughable "If your infantry is better at it then their infantry, you will take less losses" preposition, if he have much better tool to achieve same result with much fewer losses.
Ideally, under ideal command, tanks shouldnt fight tanks. Infantry shouldnt fight infantry. Even aircrafts of same class shouldnt meet enemy adversaries in direct combat. Else, the win will be indeed determined by training, luck, numbers - and if these are even remotely comparable, losses will be high for both sides.
Good commanders will meet tanks with anti-tank weapons - ATGM's, aviation, artillery. Enemy infantry should be suppressed by tanks, IFV, aviation, artillery. Enemy fighters should be met with own SAM's, long range interceptors, EWAR. And so on...
BMP-T very well fall in that concept, eliminating "weak link" in modern offensive formation - slow, fragile, EXPENSIVE, small armed infantry.
Infantry could be well used to hold position and conduct final clearing of capturing position - but in modern offensive it lack momentum and slows down attack. Moreover, it is just ineffective from human use point of view -the very same soldier could operate 30mm auto cannon or automatic grenade launcher instead of 5.56 AR.
Again Chrom the BMP-T is going to be attached to tank units. Are you going to send tank regiments into urban combat as coherent units instead of attaching them to the infantry tactically? The BMP-T would make sense if every infantry platoon was to get ~3. Instead they're tank support vehicles.
Yes, exactly. TANK SUPPORT vehicle. I.e. vehicle to support tanks. According to some info the compositions will be 2 BMP-T and 1 tank for urban operations and 1 BMP-T + 2 tanks on open field. In both cases BMP-T is intended to replace infantry and weaker IFV's from its place just near tanks.
Last edited: