War Against ISIS

STURM

Well-Known Member
Assuming the Syrians received BMPTs in quantities; would it make sense for BMPT-72s to replace MBTs or would it be more practical to deploy both MBTs and BMPT-72s? Apart from its firepower [virtue of the main gun] and its better protected main gun [compared to the BMPT] I can't think of any advantages to be had in deploying MBTs instead of BMPTs. Naturally, like MBTs, BMPTs will require good infantry support but on paper it would make sense to have MBTs and BMPTs operating together.

Not to get of topic but assuming Western armies had a similar requirement for a BMPT like vehicle to operate in an urban environment; would it make sense for them to develop something based on an existing MBT hull or would auto cannons and turret mounted ATGWs on Bradleys and Warriors do the job? Would having a BMPT like vehicle have been useful to the Americans for the numerous urban engagements they fought in Iraq or were their needs adequately met by Bradleys and TOWs mounted [useful only when the crew is not under direct fire] on HUMVEES?
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
The syrians are using the Shilkas they have left for the role of fire support. Those quad autocannons can lay down some serious fire. And of course the adhoc marriages of pickups/trucks with weapons. Beggars can't be choosers.

How many BMPTs did the SAA get? I see the type wasn't adopted by Russia, so how many have been produced even?

Anyway, I was looking around at the Stryker variants and found this, it may interest you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1134_Anti-Tank_Guided_Missile_Vehicle
Of the 300 Stryker vehicles in a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, nine are M1134 anti-tank vehicles.
And there's the M2 Bradley of course.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The syrians are using the Shilkas they have left for the role of fire support. Those quad autocannons can lay down some serious fire. And of course the adhoc marriages of pickups/trucks with weapons. Beggars can't be choosers.

How many BMPTs did the SAA get? I see the type wasn't adopted by Russia, so how many have been produced even?
0. They haven't gotten any so far. One was on display at Khmeimeem. And it was a weird one at that. It was an older Object 199 with the ATGM covers of the newer BMPT-72.
 

Toblerone

Banned Member
What is it doing there? Is it a demonstrator vehicle for a future BMPT-72 retrofit package for Syria's battered T-72 fleet? Or just to advertise the type as deployed in an "active conflict"? :D
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I see the type wasn't adopted by Russia, so how many have been produced even?
Unless I'm mistaken, the Russian army has no plans to induct the BMPT into service. It's unclear whether Uralvagonzavod developed the BMPT because it was hoping to sell it to the Russian army or whether it was simply intended for export. Also, although it was developed based on experiences gained in Chechnya it was only first displayed in 2013.

Personally, I think the BMPT is great piece of kit to have when one's faced with an urban scenario. The question really is whether the BMPT has much utility if it's operated in a non urban, non restrictive environment and whether IFVs fitted with auto/cannons and ATGWs can do the job the BMPT was intended to perform in an urban environment?
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
War between the U.S. and Iran is not inevitable. The danger is that the U.S. - because of actions undertaken by Saudi - might be drawn into conflict because of its ''special'' relationship with Saudi. There is also the danger that certain elements in the U.S. administration might actually welcome such a war in the misguided belief that it will in the long term benefit the U.S. and its allies in the region; namely Saudi and Israel. A U.S/Iran war would also give Israel the ideal pretext to enter Lebanon - with Saudi blessing - to try and do what it failed in 2006 : destroy Hezbollah.

It goes without being said that the leadership of IS would be delighted if the U.S. and Iran were in conflict. As it is, IS has benefited from the fact that all its enemies are divided and have separate aims. The biggest irony is that not only IS but also AQ would love to see the Americans having a go at Iran. Any lessening of Iran's commitments to Syria will be bad for Assad but will be good for IS [there will be much celebrating in Raqqa - assuming IS still holds it]; another irony. As such it's hoped that the U.S. will practice realpolitik and think things carefully rather then then continuing what it already has a history of : flawed and shortsighted actions that in the long run prove to be extremely detrimental to the region and to U.S. long term national interests.

As for China ''supporting'' North Korea; bear in mind that China is extremely displeased with recent actions undertaken by the North Korean leadership. The last thing China needs or wants is a war in its backyard. Assuming war does break out and we once again see U.S. troops entering North Korean territory and getting close to the Yalu; we can expect to see Chinese troops entering North Korean to create a buffer zone. Just like how Russia was not happy for NATO to expand to its borders; China will not want U.S. troops on its border. Anything Trump does with regards to North Korea will have to - despite all his rhetoric and beating of war drums - take into account China.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
An old video [in Russian] from 2014 but nonetheless very interesting. A BMP firing whilst moving at high speed with civilian traffic on the opposite side of the road and nice footage of a MBT; including and oil leak :] At 3.53 a BMP is targeted but it's a very close miss; not sure if it was a ATGW or an IED.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz5tXR2B2NI

Assad shown visiting the Russian base at Latakia a few days ago. He gets in the seat of an Su-35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf3lVUtmNcA
 

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
War between the U.S. and Iran is not inevitable. The danger is that the U.S. - because of actions undertaken by Saudi - might be drawn into conflict because of its ''special'' relationship with Saudi. There is also the danger that certain elements in the U.S. administration might actually welcome such a war in the misguided belief that it will in the long term benefit the U.S. and its allies in the region; namely Saudi and Israel. A U.S/Iran war would also give Israel the ideal pretext to enter Lebanon - with Saudi blessing - to try and do what it failed in 2006 : destroy Hezbollah. ..As such it's hoped that the U.S. will practice realpolitik and think things carefully rather than continuing what it already has a history of : flawed and shortsighted actions that in the long run prove to be extremely detrimental to the region and to U.S. long term national interests.
Agreed. Besides, the US wants to make the Saudi the regional gendarmes just like Iran was before 1978. Recall it got some US arms that even Israel didn't; Zionists there want fulfil the dream of "Greater Israel" from Sinai to Euphrates river. For now, de-facto Saudi-Israel alliance is shaping up. But I doubt the top American decision makers will wise up enough or will be able to avoid getting into another blunder. Past empires were very prone to shooting themselves in the foot more often than not, & that's what doomed them. I also doubt that Israel as a Jewish state will be sustainable in the next 10-20-30 years. It's an alien entity that will be dealt with by Arabs once they sort out their squabbles. Recall that Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Turks, Crusaders, Mongols, French, Italians & British all faced revolts in, & were thrown out of the ME & N. Africa in the last 2 + millennia.
Just like how Russia was not happy for NATO to expand to its borders; China will not want U.S. troops on its border. Anything Trump does with regards to North Korea will have to - despite all his rhetoric and beating of war drums - take into account China.
- as well as Russia, which has 23 miles total of common border with NK. Putin sends troops to Russia's border with North Korea Donald Trump warns North Korea of 'determined response' US worries Russia could step up North Korea support to fill China void North Korea sitting on $7 trillion worth of minerals
From their history, the N. Koreans themselves remember the 1st unsuccessful American invasion in 1871, as well as British, French, & Japanese, together with their 2 earlier invasions (1592–98), besides the annexation in 1910-45, so in their mind the continuing US presence in SK & its threats are an affront.
The bottom line is the US doesn't want to surrender its "leading role" in E. Asian affairs by letting SK & Japan go nuclear & rising China become the master of the seas around it.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Recall it got some US arms that even Israel didn't;
What kind of arms and when? For the past few decades U.S. policy has always been to ensure that no Arab state gets anything that would give it an edge over Israel. Taking the sale of E-3s to Saudi as an example, it was only with great difficulty that the Reagan administration managed to proceed with the sale

I also doubt that Israel as a Jewish state will be sustainable in the next 10-20-30 years. It's an alien entity that will be dealt with by Arabs once they sort out their squabbles.
For the past few decades the Arabs have always been more interested in regime survival rather than taking on Israel; this hasn't changed. Even in the 1973 war; Syria went to war to regain the Golan [Assad had no illusions he would get the Golan back by peaceful means] and Egypt by retaking the Sinai and in doing so forcing Israel to the peace table : neither country were under any illusions that their armies would end up in Tel Aviv or Haifa. Even with the 6 Day War; contrary to popular belief that Nasser entered the Sinai because he wanted to wipe out Israel; there is a lot to show that that was not his intention. There is strong basis in the belief that Israel actually wanted a war to weaken the Arabs before they got stronger and to acquire land for strategic depth.

[The War In June]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX-AWBheWQY

As for Israel; it has to choose if it wants land or peace. It can't have both. With the Arabs they have traditionally had greater distrust for other Arab countries rather than Israel. The Arabs have long realised and accepted that Israel will always be there and in the case of Jordan have depended on Israel as protection against other Arab states. The Arabs have actually spent more time plotting and fighting against each other [directly or via proxies] than with Israel. To those who say that the Arabs still wish Israel harm by the fact that they don't officially recognise Israel; my question is which Israel do they officially recognise: the Israel with pre or post June 1967 borders? As for the Arabs eventually sorting out their squabbles; they haven't been able to since the time of the Crusades.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
Agreed. Besides, the US wants to make the Saudi the regional gendarmes just like Iran was before 1978. Recall it got some US arms that even Israel didn't; .
I'd like to know what you mean. Apart from E-3s - which Israel didn't want, preferring its own, cheaper AEW aircraft to replace the E-2s it had before Saudi Arabia had any AEW - I can't think of any weapon the USA has sold to Saudi Arabia that Israel didn't already have, or had something better. The Saudis had to put up with downgraded F-15s for many years, for example, to maintain Israeli superiority.
 

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
I mean pre-1979 Iran, not Saudi, got US arms. Israel never got it, but Iran's Air Force Flies American-Made F-14s, which were never exported elsewhere. Israel has been living with terror & loosing people ever since its victory in the 6-Day War. They also fear that even if some lands are returned, there won't be lasting peace anyway. There are even some Orthodox Jews that are against the existence of Israel! I guess that in some not so distant future there'll be a 2nd Exodus of those who don't want to assimilate. The Zionists picked the wrong place for their state. The whole ME is a de-facto 1 giant war zone & it'll remain so for decades, if not centuries, to come.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Unless I'm mistaken, the Russian army has no plans to induct the BMPT into service. It's unclear whether Uralvagonzavod developed the BMPT because it was hoping to sell it to the Russian army or whether it was simply intended for export. Also, although it was developed based on experiences gained in Chechnya it was only first displayed in 2013.
It was not developed based on the Chechen wars. It was under development in the Soviet days by ChTZ, which had two variants of it, one with two independent turrets with a 30mm gun each, and another with the BMP-3 combat module. It was designed to accompany tanks into battle and help suppress anti-tank assets.

Personally, I think the BMPT is great piece of kit to have when one's faced with an urban scenario. The question really is whether the BMPT has much utility if it's operated in a non urban, non restrictive environment and whether IFVs fitted with auto/cannons and ATGWs can do the job the BMPT was intended to perform in an urban environment?
It's basically pointless. The combat module on the T-15 HIFV brings all the same capabilities as the BMPT, and it also carries troops. Basically it was never properly explained why the fire support role of the BMPT needs to be divorced from the troop transport and fire support roles of an IFV.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Then you should have said so. At the time Iran was (discreetly) friendly with Israel (they shared Arab enemies), & very strongly pro-USA - & paid hard cash for all its US weapons.

BTW,
..
From their history, the N. Koreans themselves remember the 1st unsuccessful American invasion in 1871, ....
is very misleading. A US expedition which after being shot at by Korean forts decided to show the Koreans that was unwise, & captured the forts at the cost of three US dead - & well over 200 Koreans - wasn't exactly a military failure, was it? Matchlock muskets are no match for repeating rifles. I hope the North Korean leadership has a more realistic understanding of the inferiority of their weapons to those of the South Koreans & their allies.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
I mean pre-1979 Iran, not Saudi, got US arms. Israel never got it, but Iran's Air Force Flies American-Made F-14s, which were never exported elsewhere.
In the first place; did the IAF even show an interest in the F-14? Had Israel displayed a willingness to buy F-14s there's no reason why the U.S. wouldn't have approved a sale.

The Zionists picked the wrong place for their state.
Where else were they supposed to have picked?

At the time Iran was (discreetly) friendly with Israel (they shared Arab enemies), & very strongly pro-USA - & paid hard cash for all its US weapons.
In ''Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988'' [Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop] the authors mentioned that the whole F-14 programme was in danger due to congressional budget cuts. With the help of the Shah, Grumman managed to secure a loan from a 3rd party to complete development of the F-14. After ousting the Shah the mullahs made plans to sell the F-14s; then Saddam attacked.
 

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
The fact remains they got "anything they wanted" from US before 1979.
They should have picked none or the 1 outside the ME. There are more Jews in the USA than in Israel. A funny story from USSR: a Jew is sitting at a railway station for 3 days. Police asks him if he has a ticket. His reply: no, but I've got a distant relative in the ME & a close relative in the Far East, & can't make my mind where to go!
Why some Jews would rather live in Siberia than Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PM84wDvuT4
The Sad And Absurd Story Of Birobidzhan, Russia's Jewish Autonomous Region
Ironically, Stalin supported the creation of Israel to end the British presence in Palestine & was hoping it will choose Soviet style Socialism.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The fact remains they got "anything they wanted" from US before 1979..
Yes but you're referring to Iran - not an Arab country which has disputes with Israel. Under the Shah, the only thing that Iran couldn't buy was nukes. The Arabs were never in a position where they could buy something that wasn't cleared for sale to Israel; at least not from the U.S - what comes to mind is the French arms embargo on Israel and the reluctance on the part of the Brits to sell Chieftain.

They should have picked none or the 1 outside the ME.
But no other territory had the same religious, historical and emotional connection than the land that was eventually chosen for the state of Israel.

Ironically, Stalin supported the creation of Israel to end the British presence in Palestine & was hoping it will choose Soviet style Socialism.
The Soviet Union was one of the first countries to recognise Israel in 1948. The U.S. under Truman only did so after deep internal consultations/debates for fear of damaging relations with the Arabs.
 

Tsavo Lion

Banned Member
And also Iran was a strategically located bulwark against the USSR in defending the Persian Gulf & helping to fight it in Afghanistan. Even after 1979, Iran assisted US against the Taliban. Now the Saidi is the only US & Israel friendly dominant regional power on the same Gulf, replacing Iran. But I doubt the US & Saudis will succeed in keeping Iran from Syria, unless a major war erupts in the ME & redraws its borders.
But some Jews who left for Israel after the collapse of the Soviet Union have returned — tugged home even from the Promised Land, which still cannot promise peace or tranquillity.
Iranian-leaders-call-for-muslim-unity-in-fight-against-zionist-regime
How Russia’s interests entwine with North Korea
Meanwhile, NATO will remain in Afghanistan and strengthen the contingent. Ukraine promises support. They'll most likely send their soldiers there like they did to Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Top