Vehículo de combate URALSK KB BMPT Terminator
- Tema iniciado Sebastian
- Fecha de inicio
Si pero el vehículo es muy grande y la torre no es lo suficientemente blindada. El T-15 es un IFV pesado que tiene algunas cositas que ajustar para entrar dentro de lo que sería el BMP-T.para que fabricar el bmp-t...si ya tienen el t15?
pero nos consta?TOW-II como el T-90.
No ves la foto?. NO hubo penetración.
si veo la foto titan...pero la torre del bmp-t terminator...nada tiene de semejante, al de un t90
esa es la base de la torreta...no la torreta.
Si se refiere a la protección de la tripulación, claramente en el futuro F-15 supera ampliamente el nivel de protección que proporciona a los tripulantes. De hecho, los tripulantes ni siquiera van en la torreta, por lo que la destrucción de esta no los afecta. Además, la propia torreta proporciona protección pasiva adicional para los tripulantes.
Si se refiere a la protección que proporciona el blindaje a los cañones y lanza misiles de la torreta, pues parece que el nivel de protección es similar. Tanto los misiles como los cañones están bastante expuestos. Seguramente, la protección alcanza para proteger el cañón, los misiles y los sistemas optrónicos del fuego de armas ligeras (fusiles, ametralladoras, etc.). No más.
Así que me parece que @tanoarg tiene razón.
Si se refiere a la protección que proporciona el blindaje a los cañones y lanza misiles de la torreta, pues parece que el nivel de protección es similar. Tanto los misiles como los cañones están bastante expuestos. Seguramente, la protección alcanza para proteger el cañón, los misiles y los sistemas optrónicos del fuego de armas ligeras (fusiles, ametralladoras, etc.). No más.
Así que me parece que @tanoarg tiene razón.
https://aw.my.com/us/road-bmpt
The road to BMPT
The idea of creating a heavily armored dedicated anti-infantry vehicle was not exclusive to the Soviet Union but it was the Soviet industry that started working on it intensively as early as in mid-80’s. The experience if Afghanistan and Chechnya taught the Soviets a painful, yet valuable lesson – even heavily armored vehicles armed with cannons were vulnerable to infantry in urban environment. The massive spread of and major improvements in infantry anti-tank weapons (mostly based on HEAT principle) further increased this thread to the point where for a certain time – especially in the west – it was thought that the tank would eventually become obsolete the way airships and armored trains did many decades before. Others however were actively looking for ways to tip the balance of scales in armored vehicle’s favor and one such idea was to create a heavily armored vehicle with anti-infantry armament to accompany the “classic” tanks.
Protecting your armored vehicles from enemy infantry required certain vehicle “features” not available to regular tanks. First and foremost, excellent gun elevation was required in order to deal with targets above you in hilly or urban environment. This was one of the first things learned by the Soviet troops in Afghanistan – enemy infantry would often be hiding on hilltops where the standard BMP-1 vehicles could not fire, since their elevation was insufficient and Soviet troops were forced to utilize anti-aircraft vehicles (which were well armed but very poorly armored, sometimes vulnerable even to small arms fire) as ground support. This issue was only mitigated by the arrival of the BMP-2.
Second very important requirement was to make the vehicle resistant to infantry weapons, specifically to HEAT launchers such as the famous RPG series. This called not only for thick armor (ideally composite) but also for the massive use of ERA, covering vulnerable parts of the vehicle – in Afghanistan however, such a technology was not available en masse.
Nevertheless, between 1985 and 1986, Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant started working on a program to develop a vehicle they called “mountain tank”, producing between 1987 and 1996 three distinct projects they thought suitable for the tanks support role –Object 781, Object 782 and Object 787 (sometimes referred to as Object 745 by certain Russian sources).
Object 781 and 782
Both of these projects were introduced in 1987 and were developed in Chelyabinsk under the leadership of V.L.Vershinsky. They were built on heavily modified T-72B hulls with especially the frontal part significantly reworked, but the biggest change by far was the fact that the vehicle sides now housed heavily armored watertight compartments carrying two stabilized 40mm grenade launchers and ammunition as well as other systems such as the air filtering, fuel tanks and batteries. This solution significantly increased the side protection of the hull.
Photography source: Warfiles.ru
Of the two such modified hulls, one (Object 781) was armed with a pair of 30mm 2A72 guns (each in a different, independent turret, each paired with a 7,62mm machinegun) as well as with an anti-tank guided missile system (Konkurs or Kornet) and either a 7,62mm or a 12,7mm machinegun mounted externally near the commander’s hatch. The second (Object 782) had a low profile two-man turret, armed with a low-recoil rifled 100mm 2A70 gun (the same the BMP-3 is equipped with) paired with one 30mm 2A72 cannon. The turret was also equipped with an additional 40mm grenade launcher (in addition to the one in the hull).
Both vehicles had large crews – the driver, gunner, commander, two grenadiers (plus two members of infantry in support to fire from more 7,62mm hull-mounted machineguns) – Object 782 for instance was theoretically capable of firing at 6 different targets at the same time.
Photography source: Globalsecurity.org
Both vehicles were tested from 1987 onwards in Chelyabinsk. The Object 781 won the initial testing and was selected over Object 782 (the project of which was cancelled, although the prototype exists to this day). The development of Object 781 was rated actually very well and continued at Chelyabinsk until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, when the project became the victim of the post-break-up chaos and was cancelled as well. Both prototypes eventually ended in the Kubinka museum.
Next attempt – Object 787
Even though the Object 781 research was cancelled, the war in Chechnya and the disastrous results of the tanks used in city environments re-started the development of the fire support vehicle in Russia. Once again, Chelyabinsk stepped up, developing a completely new vehicle between 1995 and 1996 called Object 787 (some sources refer to it as Object 754). One prototype was built in 1996. It was basically a T-72AV hull and turret (with the Kontakt-1 reactive armor as the tank designation suggests) but instead of the usual 125mm cannon, the vehicle was equipped with a pair of high-elevation 30mm guns, mounted on the sides of the turret (along with a pair of 12,7mm machineguns). The 30mm guns were paired with sets of unguided rockets (originally developed for helicopters) for added firepower. The vehicle was internally called “Gadyuka” (viper) by the designers.
Photography source: Kampfpanzer.de
The trials have shown excellent results of this vehicle (the trials were performed at Kubinka from 5.4. to 10.4.1997), but it too was to be cancelled – for the strangest of reasons. Initially, many high-positioned Russian officers were supporting the vehicle (including the chief of GABTU Colonel-General S.A.Maev, former Marshal of the Soviet Union, V.L.Kulikov and the main Ministry of Defense military advisor, Army General M.M.Zaytsev). The military started advertising the vehicle in television and radio, trying to gain as much support for the new vehicle class as possible. This did not sit well with the overseeing institutions, which accused the participants (including the vehicle designers themselves) of “publishing Russia’s military secrets”. An investigation was held and the entire process resulted in numerous personal changes in the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant company as well as in the cancellation of the Object 787 development (as the accused designers were forbidden from pursuing the project further). The only prototype was transferred to Kubinka.
The Object 787 farce did slow the development of this class of vehicle considerably, but it did not stop it. Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant was out of the picture now and stopped developing this type of vehicle altogether, focusing only on tractor building. The idea however did not die and was intensively discussed between I.N.Rodionov (the Russian minister of defense between 1996 and 1997) and other members of the military. In the meanwhile, designers from Uralvagonzavod from Nizhny Tagil started working on a prototype of their own, introducing the first Object 199 “Ramka” prototype to public in 2000.
The road to BMPT
The idea of creating a heavily armored dedicated anti-infantry vehicle was not exclusive to the Soviet Union but it was the Soviet industry that started working on it intensively as early as in mid-80’s. The experience if Afghanistan and Chechnya taught the Soviets a painful, yet valuable lesson – even heavily armored vehicles armed with cannons were vulnerable to infantry in urban environment. The massive spread of and major improvements in infantry anti-tank weapons (mostly based on HEAT principle) further increased this thread to the point where for a certain time – especially in the west – it was thought that the tank would eventually become obsolete the way airships and armored trains did many decades before. Others however were actively looking for ways to tip the balance of scales in armored vehicle’s favor and one such idea was to create a heavily armored vehicle with anti-infantry armament to accompany the “classic” tanks.
Protecting your armored vehicles from enemy infantry required certain vehicle “features” not available to regular tanks. First and foremost, excellent gun elevation was required in order to deal with targets above you in hilly or urban environment. This was one of the first things learned by the Soviet troops in Afghanistan – enemy infantry would often be hiding on hilltops where the standard BMP-1 vehicles could not fire, since their elevation was insufficient and Soviet troops were forced to utilize anti-aircraft vehicles (which were well armed but very poorly armored, sometimes vulnerable even to small arms fire) as ground support. This issue was only mitigated by the arrival of the BMP-2.
Second very important requirement was to make the vehicle resistant to infantry weapons, specifically to HEAT launchers such as the famous RPG series. This called not only for thick armor (ideally composite) but also for the massive use of ERA, covering vulnerable parts of the vehicle – in Afghanistan however, such a technology was not available en masse.
Nevertheless, between 1985 and 1986, Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant started working on a program to develop a vehicle they called “mountain tank”, producing between 1987 and 1996 three distinct projects they thought suitable for the tanks support role –Object 781, Object 782 and Object 787 (sometimes referred to as Object 745 by certain Russian sources).
Object 781 and 782
Both of these projects were introduced in 1987 and were developed in Chelyabinsk under the leadership of V.L.Vershinsky. They were built on heavily modified T-72B hulls with especially the frontal part significantly reworked, but the biggest change by far was the fact that the vehicle sides now housed heavily armored watertight compartments carrying two stabilized 40mm grenade launchers and ammunition as well as other systems such as the air filtering, fuel tanks and batteries. This solution significantly increased the side protection of the hull.
Photography source: Warfiles.ru
Of the two such modified hulls, one (Object 781) was armed with a pair of 30mm 2A72 guns (each in a different, independent turret, each paired with a 7,62mm machinegun) as well as with an anti-tank guided missile system (Konkurs or Kornet) and either a 7,62mm or a 12,7mm machinegun mounted externally near the commander’s hatch. The second (Object 782) had a low profile two-man turret, armed with a low-recoil rifled 100mm 2A70 gun (the same the BMP-3 is equipped with) paired with one 30mm 2A72 cannon. The turret was also equipped with an additional 40mm grenade launcher (in addition to the one in the hull).
Both vehicles had large crews – the driver, gunner, commander, two grenadiers (plus two members of infantry in support to fire from more 7,62mm hull-mounted machineguns) – Object 782 for instance was theoretically capable of firing at 6 different targets at the same time.
Photography source: Globalsecurity.org
Both vehicles were tested from 1987 onwards in Chelyabinsk. The Object 781 won the initial testing and was selected over Object 782 (the project of which was cancelled, although the prototype exists to this day). The development of Object 781 was rated actually very well and continued at Chelyabinsk until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, when the project became the victim of the post-break-up chaos and was cancelled as well. Both prototypes eventually ended in the Kubinka museum.
Next attempt – Object 787
Even though the Object 781 research was cancelled, the war in Chechnya and the disastrous results of the tanks used in city environments re-started the development of the fire support vehicle in Russia. Once again, Chelyabinsk stepped up, developing a completely new vehicle between 1995 and 1996 called Object 787 (some sources refer to it as Object 754). One prototype was built in 1996. It was basically a T-72AV hull and turret (with the Kontakt-1 reactive armor as the tank designation suggests) but instead of the usual 125mm cannon, the vehicle was equipped with a pair of high-elevation 30mm guns, mounted on the sides of the turret (along with a pair of 12,7mm machineguns). The 30mm guns were paired with sets of unguided rockets (originally developed for helicopters) for added firepower. The vehicle was internally called “Gadyuka” (viper) by the designers.
Photography source: Kampfpanzer.de
The trials have shown excellent results of this vehicle (the trials were performed at Kubinka from 5.4. to 10.4.1997), but it too was to be cancelled – for the strangest of reasons. Initially, many high-positioned Russian officers were supporting the vehicle (including the chief of GABTU Colonel-General S.A.Maev, former Marshal of the Soviet Union, V.L.Kulikov and the main Ministry of Defense military advisor, Army General M.M.Zaytsev). The military started advertising the vehicle in television and radio, trying to gain as much support for the new vehicle class as possible. This did not sit well with the overseeing institutions, which accused the participants (including the vehicle designers themselves) of “publishing Russia’s military secrets”. An investigation was held and the entire process resulted in numerous personal changes in the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant company as well as in the cancellation of the Object 787 development (as the accused designers were forbidden from pursuing the project further). The only prototype was transferred to Kubinka.
The Object 787 farce did slow the development of this class of vehicle considerably, but it did not stop it. Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant was out of the picture now and stopped developing this type of vehicle altogether, focusing only on tractor building. The idea however did not die and was intensively discussed between I.N.Rodionov (the Russian minister of defense between 1996 and 1997) and other members of the military. In the meanwhile, designers from Uralvagonzavod from Nizhny Tagil started working on a prototype of their own, introducing the first Object 199 “Ramka” prototype to public in 2000.
La torre es mejor porque tiene las armas y visores mejor protegidos en la ultima versión.
Solo agrego que el conductor, artillero y comandante no están bajo la torre. Solo los soldados.
frente a un arma heat?...y con los misiles expuestos como estan?...lo dudo.
Contra esas armas las dos tienen la misma protección.
Ni la torre del T-15 o la del BMP-T pueden soportar misiles antitanques. Pero la del T-15 tiene un blindaje regular mientras que la del BMP-T ofrece la misma protección que un T-90.
de donde sacas que la torre del bmp-t ofrece la misma proteccion del t90?
al mismo tiempo me decis que el t15 y el bmp-t no pueden soportar misiles antitanques...pero haces una analogia entre el t90 y el bmp-t respecto al blindaje...y argentvs nos muestra un t90 que soporta un tow?...
en que quedamos?
al mismo tiempo, cuando decis que el bmp-t su torreta ofrece misma proteccion que la del t90...
.jpg/220px-BMPT_at_Engineering_Technologies_2012_(8).jpg)
vos crees que esa torreta tiene mas de 50 cm de blindaje?...que teniendo tantas articulaciones, cables, conectores, visores, etc, pueden soportar un impacto de un arma heat?
me dejas una fuente donde diga el espesor de la torreta del bmp-t?
un abrazo
Para nada. Pero la torre del T-15, Kurganets-25 y Boomerang tiene un blindaje normal. Son bastante ligeras.
Temas similares
- Carlos Borda Bettolli
- Noticias del Sitio Web
- Redacción
- Noticias del Sitio Web
- Redacción
- Noticias del Sitio Web
- Redacción
- Noticias del Sitio Web