Best tank, IFV edition

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And how is that different than the light tank AKA support tank of WWII vintage that was abandoned by all sides for the MBT concept soon after?

Because it's not light. It has an armor of modern MBT but different armament suited for its specific targets.

[Patroklos]

So it is a tank with inferior weapons and no infantry capacity?

I think you should explain what the Russians think they are going to use this thing for specifically, it seems an odd hybrid to me.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Did you ever think that it might be due to limitations in your tanks?

Perhaps, other nation's tanks don't need such toys, because they have better turrets, tracking devices, target acquisition, C4 abilities, and are easily capable to defeat a load of varied targets such as infantry, helcopters, anti-tank vehicles, other tanks etc?

i do have to hand it that none of the israeli weapons are airborne or waterborne, but our reality doesn't require for the conquering of europe

Blah-blah-blah, I hear this argument whenever we make something unique. Let's come back to this topic in 2028, when your "advanced" engineers will finally realise the need for such class of combat vehicles and be busy making their own poor copies of our designs.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So it is a tank with inferior weapons and no infantry capacity?

I think you should explain what the Russians think they are going to use this thing for specifically, it seems an odd hybrid to me.

You want me to post the same links twice?
Very well.

The combat vehicle features armor protection equal to that of the battle tank and powerful armament capable of neutralizing and defeating antiarmor-capable targets and manpower, and operates in a common battle formation.These features help significantly increase combat effectiveness of tank units and decrease their losses from enemy close-combat assets.

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=245&linkid=1785

When used in urban terrain the BMPT is employed on a 2 to 1 ratio meaning 2 BMPT:s protecting one MBT. In rural operations the ratio is 1 to 2 which means that one BMPT is protecting 2 MBT:s. This results from the complexity of fighting in urban terrain and the need for a versatile anti-personnel machine that can engage multiple targets at once and on different height levels. The introduction of such a vehicle makes urban fighting less stressful on tanks and can relieve them of some workload in order to concentrate on their main objective of engaging tanks and hardened targets in support of infantry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT

Any other questions?

[Sirotnikov]

Blah-blah-blah, I hear this argument whenever we make something unique. Let's come back to this topic in 2028, when your "advanced" engineers will finally realise the need for such class of combat vehicles and be busy making their own poor copies of our designs.

way to go on circumventing the argument
go work in improving your tank turrets' maneuverability

[Lord Avalon]

It seems odd to me that a tank needs two of these bodyguards in urban ops.

[Patroklos]

I think it basically provides the tank an auto canon which is much more apporpriate than a MBT main gun in urban enviroments in the vast majority of cases.

So that begs the question, why not just sent BMPTXYZWHATEVER into urban areas without the tank and be done with it?

[Lonestar]

Re: Re: Best tank, IFV edition

Originally posted by Serb


Good for you! It's my pleasure to knowthat while you are still trying to make something better than our IFVs, we have an entirely new concept - BMPT. It's Tank Support Fighting Vehicle. Nobody else has such toys.

That's about 50 years after the US Army Dude.

[Serb]

Re: Re: Re: Best tank, IFV edition

Originally posted by Lonestar



That's about 50 years after the US Army Dude.

The "pig" is just a lightly armored "hit&run" sort of TD.

[Lancer]

Re: Re: Best tank, IFV edition

Serb, that is one very impressive looking piece of hardware. Make sure you train your guys to get down when it fires, ok?

Originally posted by Serb


Good for you! It's my pleasure to knowthat while you are still trying to make something better than our IFVs, we have an entirely new concept - BMPT. It's Tank Support Fighting Vehicle. Nobody else has such toys.

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Re: Best tank, IFV edition

Originally posted by onodera

I was under impression that Bradley is a tank support fighting vehicle as well.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is basically an infantry fighting vehicle. It keeps the infantry protected and speeding along with the tanks while also having light weapons of its own to engage the enemy or provide supporting fire.

[Sirotnikov]

Serb - you forgot to address some of my questions.

I'm frankly interested to know where the BMP-3/4 and BMPT were used in combat zones - what were their successes / shortcomings.

I also hope you have some more information regarding command and control possibilities of your bronitechnika.

[Apocalypse]

Honestly, the most interesting fight (and most likely, while still rather unlikely) between serious IFV would be China's ZBD-97 versus India's Abhay. It's also the fight least likely be to be spoiled by indirect fires.

[onodera]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Best tank, IFV edition

Originally posted by Oerdin


The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is basically an infantry fighting vehicle. It keeps the infantry protected and speeding along with the tanks while also having light weapons of its own to engage the enemy or provide supporting fire.

And Bradley-3, the Cavalry Support Vehicle? (Damn, this American use of the word "cavalry" cracks me up every time.)

[Lancer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Best tank, IFV edition

Originally posted by onodera


And Bradley-3, the Cavalry Support Vehicle? (Damn, this American use of the word "cavalry" cracks me up every time.)

2d ACR...Toujour Pret!