New Ukrainian BMP. The BMP-64.

[Damian]

It seems that Ukrainians despite financial problems are still working hard on new types of vehicles. Here we have BMP-64 based on T-64 tank. I must say that it looks better than the earlier prototype.

But also this earlier vehicle was called BMPV-64, and also both vehicles are different in many ways... maybe two separated projects?

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Looks like the BMP with ERA added to it, what other specs have been improved?

 

[Damian]

It have overall heavier protection, it is bigger, have a more powerfull engine, probably 5TDF tank engine with 700HP or 5TDFE with 900HP. It is armed with 2A42 30mm automatic cannon I also see on new version 23mm two barrel automati cannon, 30mm granade launcher maybe there is also coax machine gun, and there are also ATGM's, probably Shturm.

 

[methos]

I think that is again an attempt to get more export success, the Ukrainian Army operates currently only amphibious IFVs (the BMP series) like Russa. So unless they discard the old Soviet-legacy doctrine of land forced largely made of amphibious vehicles they probably won't buy it. Even if they would be changing their doctrines, they still need the money to buy them.
Curiosly the Ukrainians like putting a lot of guns on a vehicle, even though some of it is redundant. If the 30 mm gun can depress and elevate to the smae degree as on the BMP-2, then the 23 mm guns are not neccessary.

Isn't the Shturm missile longer than the ATGMs pictured?

 

[Koovie]

Sorry for my unknowledge, but isnt it quite dangerous for infantry to walk besides a IFV with reactive armour in a combat zone??

 

[sesha_maruthi27]

I think they will try to sell this to the porkis and the chini.......

 

[Damian]

Sorry for my unknowledge, but isnt it quite dangerous for infantry to walk besides a IFV with reactive armour in a combat zone??

And You think that exploding RPG will not form dangerous for dismounts shrapnels even if there is no explosive reactive armor on vehicle? Besides this there were attempts to reduce fragments generated by ERA, in fact currently there is not much explosive in ERA cassettes and in newer generation ERA only one cassette will be ignited, the one that was hit, not cassettes in near.

I think that is again an attempt to get more export success, the Ukrainian Army operates currently only amphibious IFVs (the BMP series) like Russa. So unless they discard the old Soviet-legacy doctrine of land forced largely made of amphibious vehicles they probably won't buy it. Even if they would be changing their doctrines, they still need the money to buy them.

Well, they have economic problems, still their offer can be atractive for countries with smaller pocket.

Curiosly the Ukrainians like putting a lot of guns on a vehicle, even though some of it is redundant. If the 30 mm gun can depress and elevate to the smae degree as on the BMP-2, then the 23 mm guns are not neccessary.

Yeah, that's true, also look at turret, it seems to be unmanned type.

Isn't the Shturm missile longer than the ATGMs pictured?

Hmmm, maybe I wrongly translated something, besides this Ukrainians have severl different types of ATGM developed after SU fall. Oh wait, maybe guys from Otvaga forum were talking about turret module, not ATGM, eh, this is effects of weak Russian and not using translator to be sure.

 

[Damian]

Ok I know what ATGM this vehicle it is using, they are designated Barrier.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Its look great, But the weight..

Its protection level is better than BMP-2, I Assume Amphibious ?



They can change the turret with some more enhanced once..

 

[Ray]

With ERA all around in the image above, where are the portholes?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

With ERA all around in the image above, where are the portholes?

Sir, this is a heavy class APC there are no port holes, the vehicle it self a tank modified extensively for APC use..

This vehicle can take RPG, And AP rounds from a auto-cannons, from side and front..

 

[Damian]

Its look great, But the weight..

BMPT-64 (because it is correct designation what I just recently get to known) weight is approx ~45 metric tons. Maybe a bit more.

Its protection level is better than BMP-2, I Assume Amphibious ?

Vehicle is protected by RHA armor + Knife ERA, so yes, protection is much higher than in BMP-2, and no, it is not amphibious, because why? It was designed to provide high protection levels, no one need amphibious IFV these days.

They can change the turret with some more enhanced once..

BMPT-64 is using unmanned turret module that can be replaced by any other unmanned turret module. I think that manned turret also can be used.

With ERA all around in the image above, where are the portholes?

What do You mean? Firing ports for dismounts? Why to use them if they are weakening protection? Every modern IFV do not have firing ports, even Americans in their M2 IFV's in M2A2 and later variants deleted firing ports to enhance protection.

 

[Ray]

Sir, this is a heavy class APC there are no port holes, the vehicle it self a tank modified extensively for APC use..

This vehicle can take RPG, And AP rounds from a auto-cannons, from side and front..

APC or ICV may have to assault the objective mounted. It there is no portholes and if an enemy in the defence is aiming any Anti Tank weapon to knock of the ICV, then if there is a porthole, that enemy can be shot before he can fire.

Likewise, when moving in advance, there is a possibility of enemy HHMT which are lying in wait. If observed, the portholes come into action!

Likewise in MOUT.

If blind, then this is not feasible.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Sorry for my unknowledge, but isnt it quite dangerous for infantry to walk besides a IFV with reactive armour in a combat zone??

Damian has given an answer to this question, but I believe tactical doctrine provides that infantry mutual support to IFV or tanks by firepower and visual interception of enemy intent. (What BG Ray said, especially in urban terrain MOUT.)

 

[Damian]

APC or ICV may have to assault the objective mounted. It there is no portholes and if an enemy in the defence is aiming any Anti Tank weapon to knock of the ICV, then if there is a porthole, that enemy can be shot before he can fire.

Likewise, when moving in advance, there is a possibility of enemy HHMT which are lying in wait. If observed, the portholes come into action!

Likewise in MOUT.

If blind, then this is not feasible.

In fight infantry should be outside not inside of vehicle, infantry outside is more usefull than in inside, in fact infantry should be inside only during long marches or when it is needed (artillery bombardment).

Look at any modern IFV or APC, do You see anywhere firing ports? No, these were deleted for better protection. Firing ports can be replaced by far more effective additional RWS and vehicle own weaponary in rotating turret.

 

[Ray]

 

[Ray]

In fight infantry should be outside not inside of vehicle, infantry outside is more usefull than in inside, in fact infantry should be inside only during long marches or when it is needed (artillery bombardment).

Look at any modern IFV or APC, do You see anywhere firing ports? No, these were deleted for better protection. Firing ports can be replaced by far more effective additional RWS and vehicle own weaponary in rotating turret.

The ICV is not merely a battle taxi.

Are you suggesting that it is merely an armoured vehicle to transport troops?

Transport them and then they do what.

While transporting them, if they are engaged, what is to be done?

 

[Damian]

No Ray, but maybe Indians have different experiences with IFV's and APC's, however countries with far greater experience in combat with use of AFV's and in AFV's designing, had resigned from firing ports.

Look at US, nor M2A2/M2A3 or currently designed GCV will have firing ports. SPz Puma or other modern IFV in Europe do not have firing ports. Israelis do not use firing ports on their Namer HAPC. It seems that Ukrainians and Russians also do not see a reason to have firing ports.

In fight dismounts should get out of vehicle, IFV will then support them with it's weapons.

 

[Ray]

Armored Personnel Carriers (APC)/Infantry Combat Vehicles (ICV)

Tasks. Mechanized infantry can be used to carry out all of the tasks required of normal infantry in ATOPS when dismounted. Due to their vulnerability in close country the employment of APCs/ICVs should be restricted. However, their characteristics permit them to operate as follows:
Rapid movement into, through or near objectives or trouble spots. APCs/ICVs enable troops to be moved speedily and with comparative immunity from distant assembly or forming-up places and be delivered, fit and fresh, in or near the trouble spot.
Use as a fire support base. When in close contact with the enemy and when the infantry have debused, the APCs/ICVs could be used to provide supporting fire to the infantry.
Roving operations (mobile columns). During ATOPS, units will often be responsible for security duties over large areas in which disorders may break out simultaneously in several centers. Mechanized infantry can be used to provide mobile columns to:
Show the flag and advertise the presence of troops in certain areas.
Suppress, by prompt offensive action, any disturbances beyond the control of the local civil authority.
Control an area in which troops are not normally stationed.
Be a reserve.
Patrol an area or given stretch of road.
Protection of sensitive points. For this task the infantry will be debussed and deployed while available APCs/ICVs can be used as follows:
By day.
To cover the sensitive point and/or approaches with fire.
To patrol certain areas or stretches of road around the sensitive point.
By night. Sited in positions to illuminate the sensitive point, or certain approaches to it, with headlights and to cover these approaches with machine-gun fire.
Road escort duties. In large scale ATOPS, convoys, administrative echelons, or vehicles will invariably require some form of armored escort. APCs/ICVs fully or partially manned are suitable for the task.
Shock action. The appearance of mechanized infantry with their APCs/ICVs on the scene of a disorder may in itself have the necessary salutary effect on terrorists or rioters.
EMPLOYMENT OF FORCES

 

[Ray]

The armored personnel carrier (APC) is an infantry transport vehicle with light armor and limited firepower (usually one or more machine guns). The APC is a "battle taxi." It is intended to carry soldiers to the combat zone, where they dismount to fight.

The infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) is designed to fight with soldiers onboard, to carry the soldiers forward without dismounting them if possible, and to support them with direct fires if they do dismount. The IFV has more protection and firepower than the APC. Also known as an infantry combat vehicle (ICV) or a mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV).

Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide