"Latest issue of Armor Magazine" Topic

link

Features:

• Page 5 – Russia's Developing Tank-Support Combat Vehicle Concept

by Dr. Charles K. Bartles and Dr. Lester W. Grau

• Page 13 – Expanding the Role of Mobile Protected Firepower for Army 2030

by LTC (Retired) Lee F. Kichen and MAJ Aram Hatfield

• Page 19 – Combat Vehicle Developments to Propel Army of 2030 – and Beyond

by Dan Heaton

• Page 23 – Modernized vs. Legacy Combat Engineer Companies-Armored: A Comparative

Analysis

by COL Anthony Barbina, CSM Robert Lake, MAJ Paul Wyatt, MAJ John Kearby and

1LT Catherine Lynch

• Page 28 – Light Infantry Squad Vehicles: Keeping the Cavalry Lethal

by 1LT Charles B. Ovens

• Page 31 – Mortars in Cavalry Troops: Current Problems and Potential Solutions from an

Observer/Coach/Trainer Perspective

by 1SG Kenneth Reavis and CPT Lee Schafer Jr.

• Page 35 – Tested Maintenance Principles from National Training Center Rotation 22-07

by MAJ Patrick Kuiper and LTC Russell B. Thomas

Departments:

• Page 1 – Contacts

• Page 2 – Letter to the Editor

• Page 3 – Chief of Armor's Hatch: Understanding Our Masking Limitations

• Page 38 – Book Reviews

• Page 43 – Battle Analysis: Armor in the Maritime Environment: Lessons for Armor

Environment from 1944 Leyte Campaign

by MAJ Matthew W. Graham

• Page 50 – Featured Unit: 63rd Armor Regiment

Wolfhag

Excellent! Thanks for posting.

"Russia's Developing Tank-Support Combat Vehicle Concept"
Based on the video of a "Terminator" in action, the concept seems to be, "things that blow up real good."

This is fantastic – thanks for posting.

Welcome, there are back issues you can download too. Many have some great articles on WWII weapons and tactics.

Wolfhag

Can somebody explain the paper on the BMPT.
The tank is a very heavy armored gun Platform and often leads the way. In the past the lightly armored APC/IFV provided the support. Now from what I understand the BMPT is about 48 tones. That is about the same weight as a T90. So in effect is it really a MBT with a different weapons fit.

It is no more or no less vulnerable to ATGW's than a MBT. Its not able to take on MBT's like a Tank with a big gun and DS rounds.

Now its OK to take some but if a BMPT/MBT force meets the same number of MBT's its bad news. The Mixed BMPT unit is going to come of worse its 1/3 down on MBT guns. and is a second rate MBT killer itself.

I'm not sure what makes it so good at killing ATGWS than a big gun with a decent HE round. Is a 30mm better at killing infantry? Most ATGW'sare fire and forget so blasting an ATGW launch site is not that good as the crew will hop off immediately same with an NLAW.

Now in urban areas its high elevation weapons make it a good idea as it has High elevation guns and may be able to see better. However more optics may make it easier to degrade, more "glass" to get shot up.

In essence to me the Author does not really clarify in practical terms why its a good general solution vs an MBT with a half decent Battle management system connected to a local artillery battery. Is it just the Russians can't do that.

BMPT Mission:
link

When used in urban terrain, each main battle tank is to be deployed with two BMPTs. Outside of urban warfare that ratio is reversed with one BMPT protecting two main battle tanks.[9] This results from the complexity of fighting in urban terrain and the need for a versatile anti-personnel platform that can engage multiple targets at once and on different height levels. The introduction of such a vehicle makes urban fighting less stressful on MBTs and can relieve them of some of the workload so that they can concentrate on their main objective of engaging other tanks and hardened targets. The BMPT's armor protection is equal to that of an MBT and its powerful armaments allow it to engage virtually any enemy formation while operating in a common battle formation. Thanks to the multiple weapons systems found on the BMPT, this vehicle is able to fire at multiple targets simultaneously.[7] These features significantly help increase the combat effectiveness of tank units and decrease their losses from enemy close-combat assets.[10]

It is an answer to the urban war problems they had in Chechneya where the tanks could not elevate their guns high enough. Like any other weapon platform, if it is not used in the way intended it will probably lose.

I realize this answer will most probably not be to your liking.

Wolfhag

Great link. I see your mech infantry coming through. : )
Thanks

Joe