BMPs must be unified with tanks
The Second World War showed that tanks without infantry are bad and infantry without tanks is not sweet. And it is difficult to combine them because of the very different speed of movement. A tank, even on rough terrain, moves at a speed of 30-40 km / h, and a soldier, even on a good road, goes no faster than 6 km / h, and even then not for long.
As a result, deep tank breakthroughs (both German and Soviet) often lost their effectiveness due to separation from the infantry. After all, it is the infantry who must seize territory, defend the rear and flanks of tank groupings. And tanks without infantry, having pulled away too far, could drive themselves into encirclement.
For the Germans, this factor played a possibly fatal role. The lagging behind the infantry, which was also busy eliminating the encircled groups of the Red Army, slowed down German tank breakthroughs in the summer of 1941 no less than the resistance of the Soviet troops. As a result, the Wehrmacht arrived first in autumn and then in winter. And, accordingly, in a protracted war, in which Germany had no chance.
Even then it became clear that the infantry needed to be given mobility. Trucks did not solve the problem. They could only move along the roads and only in their rear. On the battlefield, a truck could survive for a few minutes at best.
Even then, at the beginning of World War II, the Germans thought of the first armored personnel carriers (APCs). However, this was a purely palliative decision. The armored personnel carriers were semi-tracked, that is, their cross-country ability was higher than that of trucks, but much lower than that of tanks. And the level of security of these vehicles was not much higher than that of trucks.
After the Second World War, the means of mechanizing the infantry were thought seriously. It became clear that deep offensive operations were impossible without them. In addition, the emergence of nuclear weapons raised the issue of protecting the infantry from its damaging factors.
In the end, the concept of a fully enclosed armored vehicle with powerful weapons was naturally born. She was supposed not only to bring the infantry to the battlefield, but to advance in the same battle formations with tanks, having the same speed and maneuverability as them. With airborne weapons, it could hit lightly armored targets and enemy infantry, and theoretically - and enemy tanks. The infantrymen inside the vehicle could fire from the inside through the loopholes in the hull. This miracle was called an infantry fighting vehicle (BMP).
The founder of this class of weapons was the USSR, where the BMP-1 was put into service in 1966. The second was the FRG, where they understood best of all in the West what deep tank breakthroughs were. There, in 1969, the BMP "Marder" went to the troops. Then the French AMX-10R appeared, then the Anglo-Saxons (the American Bradley and the English Warrior) joined.
At the same time, the ground forces were being saturated with individual anti-tank weapons - anti-tank military complexes (ATGMs) and hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers (RPGs). They performed very well during the October 1973 war, during which the hitherto invincible Israelis suffered huge tank losses. It became clear that now tanks cannot live without infantry, the infantry must clear the terrain from enemy infantry with anti-tank systems and RPGs. And the role of the BMP increased dramatically. At the same time, however, an unpleasant thing became clear - the survival rate of the BMP on the battlefield tends to zero. Almost like WWII trucks.
For example, our wonderful BMP-1 could be shot in the side or stern from a conventional AKM. Not to mention the heavy machine gun. And the hit of a cumulative projectile from an ATGM or RPG produced such an effect that a new decoding of the BMP abbreviation was born in the troops - "mass grave of infantry." In Afghanistan, this has been confirmed by sad practice. It also turned out that the BMP-1's armament - a short-barreled 73-millimeter cannon - was also absolutely useless. It does not penetrate any modern tank, and even in the mountains against partisans, its effectiveness is generally zero.
On the basis of the BMP-1, the BMP-2 with a 30-mm cannon, capable of shooting almost vertically upwards, was made especially for Afghanistan. It was extremely useful in the mountains. Moreover, paradoxically, this gun was more effective against tanks. Although it did not pierce the armor, it swept away all attachments, making the tank blind.
However, the most important issue was never resolved. If a vehicle must act together with tanks in battle, then it must be protected in the same way as a tank. Moreover, even for counter-guerrilla wars, the security of the BMP became inadequate. Military operations in Chechnya have finally removed doubts that the current BMP concept has exhausted itself. None of the infantrymen would dream of getting inside the vehicle, although it seems to be created just to protect people with armor. They ride by car "on horseback", only in this version there is a chance to survive in the event of a mine explosion or a shell hit. When you are inside, there is no chance.
All of the above applies to western infantry fighting vehicles. They are better protected than ours (Bradley and Warrior can withstand a 30-mm projectile in the forehead), but not much. However, the Westerners are not going to strain too much on this matter. Europeans will not fight even against really strong partisan formations, and even a classic war is completely excluded for them. The Anglo-Saxons hope for their overwhelming air superiority, excluding large-scale tank battles. For counterinsurgency wars, they will cost palliative measures such as active armor or side shields.
This is not the case in the Middle East: there the likelihood of a large-scale classical war always remains. It was here that the idea was born that infantry fighting vehicles should be made on the basis of tanks. Of course, she was born in Israel, where there is a magnificent army that has repeatedly defeated much more numerous opponents. Moreover, in this country, where even women are conscripted into the army, “people's saving” is given priority.
Israel is one of the three countries (together with Germany and Russia) where the theory and practice of tank operations are best developed. At the same time, here the main quality of the tank was always considered security (in all other countries - firepower). It was according to this concept that the "Merkava" was made.
And some elements of the BMP appeared in this tank. It has a stern niche into which you can shove either additional ammunition or up to 4 infantrymen. First of all, however, we are talking about the evacuation of the wounded in this way, nevertheless, it is possible to transport both healthy and armed. True, they are not very comfortable there, but our infantry fighting vehicles, apparently created specifically for infantrymen, do not differ in comfort either, to put it mildly.
Then, on the basis of the outdated British tank "Centurion" (local name - "Nagmashot"), the Israelis made an engineering vehicle "Puma" for transporting sappers to the place of "work". And finally, the first BMP based on the tank appeared. However, due to the lack of cannon armament, it is called an armored personnel carrier, but this is generally a game of terms.
BMP "Akhzarit" was created on the basis of Soviet tanks T-54 and T-55, which the IDF captured a huge number of the Arabs (especially from the Egyptians in 1967). Her crew - 3 people, landing - 7 people. Weight - 44 tons, which is 16 tons more than the T-54 without a turret. This is due to the significant increase in booking. The Akhzarit was equipped with an American diesel engine (instead of the Soviet one), thanks to which a passage appeared in the stern from the starboard side. Through it, the landing party and leaves the car. Armament: 4 machine guns (7, 62 mm), of which 3 are on the turrets above the hatches of the paratroopers, one is automatic with control from the inside of the BMP.
It is clear that Akhzarit is a palliative solution, since Israel has a limited number of T-54 / 55s, they are very outdated, and their capacity is low. Therefore, the final and natural solution will be the complete unification of the tank and BMP. The IDF begins to receive the Namer BMP, created on the basis of the Merkava-1 tank. Its mass is 60 tons, the crew is 3 people, the landing force is 8-9 people.
The Arab response to the Israelis was the Timsah BMP, created in Jordan on the basis of the aforementioned Centurion. Its mass is 47 tons, the crew is 3 people, the landing is 10, the vehicle is armed with a cannon (20 mm) and a coaxial machine gun (7, 62 mm).
In addition to the Middle East, infantry fighting vehicles based on tanks began to be created in the post-Soviet space. Which, again, is natural: for us, unlike Europe, the possibility of a large-scale classical war is by no means zero.
“The Russian“Akhzarit”was the BTR-T, created in Omsk on the basis of the same T-55. Its weight is 38.5 tons, the crew is 2 people, the landing is 5 people. It is possible to install a variety of weapons: a cannon (30 mm) or a machine gun (12, 7 mm), they can be paired with 2 ATGM "Competition" or an automatic anti-personnel grenade launcher AGS-17. The car did not come out of the state of a prototype, because the T-55 is too old. Accordingly, cars based on it have no particular prospects.
But the Ukrainian BMP-84 - the T-84 tank (the Ukrainian version of the T-80), turned into an infantry fighting vehicle - may have prospects. The main armament (125 mm cannon) is retained on it, only the ammunition load has been reduced to 36 shells. The hull is lengthened to accommodate 5 infantrymen with a special exit at the rear. Weight - 50 tons. It is difficult to say for what wars Ukraine itself may need this (really for a trip to Moscow?), But in the Middle East it can find buyers.
At the Nizhny Tagil "Uralvagonzavod" on the basis of the T-72 was created unparalleled in the world combat vehicle support for tanks - BMPT. Its crew - 5 people, weight - 47 tons. The vehicle has the most powerful weapons - a coaxial 30-mm cannon, a machine gun (7, 62 mm), 2 AG-17 grenade launchers, 4 ATGM "Attack" (except for armored ground targets, they can shoot and on low-flying helicopters). The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation recently finally refused to accept the vehicle for service, but this is a separate story that has nothing to do with military technology.
Speech about the BMPT, strictly speaking, should not go here, since it is not an infantry fighting vehicle and is not intended for the transport of infantry. It should replace the BMP in the sense that the purpose of this vehicle is to destroy infantry and lightly armored targets on the battlefield, that is, to cover tanks, which the infantry should now deal with. But it is quite obvious that in it, as in the Ukrainian BMP-84 and Israeli vehicles, there is a deep "homespun truth".
Apparently, it is necessary to create a single heavy vehicle that could simultaneously be a tank, an infantry fighting vehicle (which would also be a tank support vehicle) and an anti-aircraft missile and cannon complex (ZRPK). The chassis should initially be designed for both the crew and the transport of troops (5-7 people), while the troop compartment can be used to accommodate additional ammunition.
The armament of this "triune machine" should be modular, remotely controlled from inside the hull. If you install a heavy gun and a coaxial machine gun, you get a tank. In the BMP version, the weapon module can be approximately the same as on the aforementioned Ural BMPT. And if you remove the grenade launchers from this module, replace the ATGM with anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) and install a radar station (radar), you get an air defense missile system.
On the chassis of the tank, it is necessary to make a heavy multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). Our country has excellent traditions in creating these systems, and they will be extremely important for us in the east of the country. Damansky's experience demonstrated this very well. MLRS should have increased maneuverability, which is very important in Siberia and the Far East, and increased security, which is no less important in a war against an enemy that is many times superior in number, which may be in the rear of our troops. Therefore, a tank chassis is necessary. By the way, the Chinese themselves put a significant part of their MLRS on a tracked chassis. Actually, we already have a flamethrower MLRS "Buratino" on the T-72 chassis.
As for the current infantry fighting vehicles, BMDs and armored personnel carriers, it is apparently advisable to leave them only in the airborne units (airborne forces and marines), where the transportability of equipment and the ability to swim is more important than armor protection, as well as in the internal troops.
