Use it for it`s true intention/design, urban support. having them lugging around in open terrian brings no major gains to Russian fire support structure.
T-90 Tank
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
This is the same video in English:
http://www.en.rian.ru/video/20081117/118361302.html
I think in the open terrain it can provide cover from Anti tank helicopters, and also support for semi jungle and open terrain from infantries.
I think its a noble idea to reduce the fatality of tanks.
http://www.en.rian.ru/video/20081117/118361302.html
I think in the open terrain it can provide cover from Anti tank helicopters, and also support for semi jungle and open terrain from infantries.
I think its a noble idea to reduce the fatality of tanks.
I think it's a structural question. How do you integrate them into tank units? Do you attach them temporarily for urban actions? In that case you need extensive combined arms training to have these grafted on units perform in sync with the tank units. Quite possible beyond the current abilities of the Russian Army. If you attach them permanently, then most of the time they will be dead weight. Finally, how many do you need per tank? And are they a necessary addition to urban combat? Or is it better to simply improve infantry urban tactics, and take the city in a more traditional manner?
Why does Russia need them when they already have the SA-19 Grison (Tunguska) one of the most feared ADA platforms in the world that can keep pace with Motorized Rifle Regiments and Tank Regiments while moving cross country, also let me add that it is fully capable of operating in all weather conditions. Leave it to the tradional way of protecting tanks, use infantry.
Each Russian Motorized Regiment be it Infantry or Armor has a Head quarters section where specialized weapons are kept and distributed at command level, this is where they belong, I would like to see four of them per Regiment attachment, used for urbanized purposes only. This vehicle would offer better firepower over a tank any day in a urbanized environment, just look at the weapons angle of fire over a tank main gun for example purposes. Infantry could always use a helping hand when flushing out opposing forces, this vehicle will offer them excellant support.
Armored units are also switching over to brigade format. And are 4 enough for an entire tank regiment to fight in urban conditions? I doubt it.
If only we have enough to replace our Shilkas.Why does Russia need them when they already have the SA-19 Grison (Tunguska) one of the most feared ADA platforms in the world that can keep pace with Motorized Rifle Regiments and Tank Regiments while moving cross country, also let me add that it is fully capable of operating in all weather conditions. Leave it to the tradional way of protecting tanks, use infantry.
Though we are being promised the new Pantsyr S-1.Armored units are also switching over to brigade format. And are 4 enough for an entire tank regiment to fight in urban conditions? I doubt it.
If only we have enough to replace our Shilkas.
Why even use them in tank units, attach them for infantry support. You really do not need alot of them lumbering down urban streets, use them when your infantry squads or platoons get stalled due to enemy snipers or built up choke points. Using tanks in urbanized settings is not the most desirable solution, past experiences have proven this, a lesson that Russia and the U.S have learned the hard way during recent times. One only needs to look at Chechen and early Iraq conflict, did you notice that Russia did not lose to many tanks during the Georgian conflict, that U.S Armor currently is not piling up at depot levels due to battle damage attrition, lessons learned.
I would not discount the ZSU 23 -4, during the Cold War era it was a number one prioritized target for engagement by NATO.
Because it is not only a primary threat to helos and CAS aircraft, but will also a) chew up a Leopard or any IFV easily from anywhere but the front, and even from the front it'll be a likely mission kill and b) can make short process with infantry, even behind cover.
Why does Russia need them when they already have the SA-19 Grison (Tunguska) one of the most feared ADA platforms in the world that can keep pace with Motorized Rifle Regiments and Tank Regiments while moving cross country, also let me add that it is fully capable of operating in all weather conditions. Leave it to the tradional way of protecting tanks, use infantry.
I'm just guessing here, but perhaps the BMPT is a cheaper alternative to Tunguska for the RUssians. It could provide adequate cover to tank units in Urban background without risking the more expensive Tunguska? and certainly reduce the risk to infantry lives protecting the tanks.
For effective air defense role, there is no way that a BMPT can even come close to a Tunguska, this is not a BMPTs primary intended role, do you realize how hard it is to engage fast movers with auto cannons manually, let alone a attack helicopter that is taking evasive action.
The BMP-T is a tank support vehicle. It's stated role is to support tank units in urban settings. The idea being that they can cover tanks from RPG fire but laying down suppression fire on the surrounding buildings.
Sure, but it's not 1985, it's 2008. Those things need to be replaced, and the sooner the better.
The original reason why BMPT was initially designed was due to heavy tank losses, they were to replace tanks as urban infantry support. Tanks do not bring anything to a urbanized fight that a BMPT cannot do, matter of fact it can offer better support for infantry attacks in this type of scenario, the weapons systems are geared specifically for this task. You have to have boots on the ground to flush out enemy combatants in towns or cities.
Do not sell the ZSU 23 - 4 short, a good electronics upgrade will keep that bad boy around for a few additional decades, the Polish Army has upgraded some of theirs with other countries following suite.
No. They were not there to replace tanks. They were to supplement tanks in urban combat. It's design was actually based on the Shilka which was used as an area suppression weapon in Afghan and the Chechen wars. Iirc it's stated official purpose is to supplement tank units in combat.
Sure it's a great piece of equipment but there are things to consider. Is the Tunguska superior to it in the SPAAG/tac-SAM role? If so then replace it with Tunguskas. If not then why have Tunguskas if older Shilkas with upgrades are superior? (which they're not
) Remember the Tunguska can be datalinked into networks. I would assume that it can be datalinked into an overall IADS along side with tac-SAMs, divisional SAMs, and even theater SAMs.Sorry but that is not correct, BMPT is a urban assault vehicle based on the high angle auto cannon from the BMP 2 series, they were not intended to escort tanks into a urban environment, maybe that is what the Russian Army would like to use them for now but not during the initial design stage and proto type vehicles were introduced. Even the Kornet launcher is designed to fire Thermobaric warheads. Shilkas were not used in wide scale use inside of Grozny, some were used in the open terrian and mountain passes but not that many, even the Rebels had four of them that were abandoned by the Russians. Also, I did not say that a Shilka is superior over a Tunguska, only that there are upgrade packages that will still make it into a effective ADA system.No. They were not there to replace tanks. They were to supplement tanks in urban combat. It's design was actually based on the Shilka which was used as an area suppression weapon in Afghan and the Chechen wars. Iirc it's stated official purpose is to supplement tank units in combat.
Sure it's a great piece of equipment but there are things to consider. Is the Tunguska superior to it in the SPAAG/tac-SAM role? If so then replace it with Tunguskas. If not then why have Tunguskas if older Shilkas with upgrades are superior? (which they're not
Looking at the recent conflict inside of Georgia the Russians do seem reluctant to use heavy masses of tanks inside of towns and cities, alot of the destroyed tanks inside of urban areas belong to the Georgians, they have also learned things the hard way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT
I'll find a more reliable source when I get off work (damn corporate firewall blocking other sites).
If you can, read up on some of this information inregards to BMPT that has been written by Steven Zaloga and David Markov, both have written many publications on Russian Armor.
Use caution when pulling information from Wiki.
OK, so your saying the BMPT is the more ideal infantry support to be used in an Urban warfare compared to Tunguska's which seemed to be an overkill. But you say for tank support in open war, the Tunguska would be a better all around support compared to the BMPT.
If so you do you think the Russians have come out saying the use of BMPT as a tank support? in open warfare?
Not to forget the Russians experience to open war comes from Afghanistan and urban war from Chechnya and Georgia. Keeping this in mind, they said they came up with the BMPT to help out tanks in an open war like in afghanistan where there were no support from APC. Why didnt they mention the use of Tunguska as support then if it was available in Afgahan war?
Okay, lets get on the same sheet of music here:
Open warfare interpetation for me stands for open terrian conflict, fields, hills, woods and major road networks. With that said I will still stand by my statement that the BMPT is not well suited for this type of conflict, that the Tunguska is designed specifically to handle all airborne threats which is needed to protect Russian forces when moving at a large scale. Why BMPT when you have BMP 2 and 3 series vehicles that are used for infantry support vehicles, both vehicles can lay down enough suppressive fire to support infantry operations in open terrian, infantry is your best tank support that you can get, you will use them to support flank and rear positions in both offensive and defensive operations, infantry is needed to clear out cities not tanks, even BMP series vehicles can lay down better suppressive fire due to weapons *auto cannon* angle of attack in elevation. Everyone has used tanks to clear out cities and have taken major losses including the IDF, even they are changing their approach to this type of scenario with heavier APCs that can be decked out with auto cannons and ATGM systems. tanks are best suited for eating up as much real estate as possible, take away your opponents ground of operations and he loses, going into cities to flush him out is time consuming and takes away valuable assets that are needed in the main fight.
You do realize that I do in fact talk with experience on this subject.
The verdict is still open with me on this vehicle, to me it is totally ass backwards to use it for tank support when it is better suited for infantry support, Russia should go back to the initial design concept on how to fight and operate this vehicle, maybe they will if it doesn`t get cancelled due to lack of funds and doesnt recieve wide scale acceptance by the Russian Army, kinda like the BMP 3 when it was going thru its design phase.
I truly like this approach in a urban tactical vehicle, gee can you tell.