Russia getting 'new' tank support vehicles

[drg]

Here:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071228/94527278.html
Terminator, hey?
Yeah thats original...

[Chrom]

Here:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071228/94527278.html
Terminator, hey?
Yeah thats original...

BMPT, odered in extremely small numbers (10-15) for next year. Probably will be produced for several years in such numbers. In fact, just experemental vehicle intendend to test the concept.

[drg]

Here:
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31091620071222
This is more interesting than the Terminator story.
I reckon its the T-95.
Any comments?

[eckherl]

Here:
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31091620071222
This is more interesting than the Terminator story.
I reckon its the T-95.
Any comments?

Hmm very interesting, now they have decided to produce the Black Eagle or keep researching with the proto type. I guess we will have to waite and see.

[Preceptor]

Merged Russian "new tank" and "new tank support vehicle" threads due to similarity of discussion.
-Preceptor

[noseeum]

I've seen that BMPT before. Interesting enough. It looks like a modified T72, which makes sense if you're going to have a bunch of them lying around in the near future. Similar to BMD in the forward weapons ports...I could be wrong but that is what they look like to me. Russia has been toying with the BMT concept for awhile, but this is likely cheaper and easier. Doesn't Israel do something similar? Which is the primary sight for the gunner? It looks like there are some elements of an APS on there, too.

[eckherl]

I've seen that BMPT before. Interesting enough. It looks like a modified T72, which makes sense if you're going to have a bunch of them lying around in the near future. Similar to BMD in the forward weapons ports...I could be wrong but that is what they look like to me. Russia has been toying with the BMT concept for awhile, but this is likely cheaper and easier. Doesn't Israel do something similar? Which is the primary sight for the gunner? It looks like there are some elements of an APS on there, too.

Yes it does have a T-72 hull.
Yes to the weapons ports, they use either grenade launchers or MGs.
Yes they can place APS systems on it.
Here is a photo with the gunners and commanders sights, either person can fire the weapons systems. I have also displayed a photo of a IDF Namer which is the vehicle that you are most likely making reference to, it is only armed with a 50 cal MG and most likely will not get anything bigger.

[Waylander]

IIRC I read some news about the IDF thinking about building also a weapons carrier version of the Namer (Something with an autocannon and ATGMs) which will play together with the troop carrier version.

Would make Israel moving closer to the idea of mechanized infantry like it is used in many NATO and former WarPac countries.

[noseeum]

I'm wondering what it would be used for. There is no shortage of BMPs, BTRs, or BMDs. It's got to run double the weight. A heavy infantry carrier to accompany tanks? It has a weapons package that says it will be versatile. It does not look like a replacement for those above. Russia has a habit of maintaining a few formations with the latest equipment. Was it purpose built or just inspired and now looking for a mission? I suspect the latter.

Wait. That turret. In the picture from eckherl I see the placement of the laser warning recievers and the mast. That's not a BMT at all. The turret is remote and why not the forward weapons stations as well. Crew of 2 could run it despite 5 hatches. It's augmentation, a weapons platform for support. Looks like it will be rough on helicopters.

[eckherl]

IIRC I read some news about the IDF thinking about building also a weapons carrier version of the Namer (Something with an autocannon and ATGMs) which will play together with the troop carrier version.

Would make Israel moving closer to the idea of mechanized infantry like it is used in many NATO and former WarPac countries.

There has been extensive testing with a auto cannon and ATGMs on the Namer, so you may be correct in the fact that there could be a change brewing within the IDF that there is the occasion that a IFV may have to fight independantly from tanks, which would be a change from their doctrine. They have tested/evaluated with a auto cannon on a M113 with some setups being issued.

[eckherl]

I'm wondering what it would be used for. There is no shortage of BMPs, BTRs, or BMDs. It's got to run double the weight. A heavy infantry carrier to accompany tanks? It has a weapons package that says it will be versatile. It does not look like a replacement for those above. Russia has a habit of maintaining a few formations with the latest equipment. Was it purpose built or just inspired and now looking for a mission? I suspect the latter.

Wait. That turret. In the picture from eckherl I see the placement of the laser warning recievers and the mast. That's not a BMT at all. The turret is remote and why not the forward weapons stations as well. Crew of 2 could run it despite 5 hatches. It's augmentation, a weapons platform for support. Looks like it will be rough on helicopters.

They designed it specifically to fight in a urbanized setting due to the 2 chechen wars. and yes it does have some counter measures set up on the photo I posted. For the urbanized task I think it is a excellant vehicle. Heres a photo of a troop taxi.

[Waylander]

There has been extensive testing with a auto cannon and ATGMs on the Namer, so you may be correct in the fact that there could be a change brewing within the IDF that there is the occasion that a IFV may have to fight independantly from tanks, which would be a change from their doctrine. They have tested/evaluated with a auto cannon on a M113 with some setups being issued.

Not only that a mech inf unit might encounter enemy forces without tank support but these additional weaponry is also going to be usefull when working together with the tanks.

Up today the HAPCs of the IDF could do not much more than a little spray and pray with their .50 cals when conducting a mounted operation and hope for the Merks to take out or surpress enemy forces.
With such an additional fire support Namer the ability of a mixed force is going to have increased ability to touch enemies at longer ranges and while moving.

Maybe they looked at their Lebanon adventure and came to that conclusion.
There the HAPCs also were little more than additional targets when accompanying the Merks during their fast strikes into enemy territory.