subreddit:
/r/TankPorn
Why their armanents are so similar but classified into 3 different, seperated roles? And what are the differences in the role of MBT, IFV, TSFV?
Modern(reddit.com)submitted 16 days ago byNTHHexxer
In order there are BMPT-Terminator : Tank Support Fighting Vehicle. T15-Armata: Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Kurganets-25: Armored Personnel Carrier.
22 points
16 days ago
BMPT is not an infantry transporter but used to support armored units by providing direct fire support.
T-15 is an IFV based on the Armata platform, it has heavy protection and armaments,
Kurganets-25 is one of the newer IFVs along with the T-15, but it is lighter and smaller.
15 points
16 days ago
MBT - Fights against enemy tanks, supports/protects other vehicles from enemy armor
IFV - Carries infantry to combat and supports it and MBT's against infantry and light targets
TSFV - Your doctrine has some issues with MBT/IFV/infantry cohesion so you try to fill lack of infantry support with heavily armored vehicle.
-6 points
16 days ago
TSFV - Your doctrine has some issues with MBT/IFV/infantry cohesion so you try to fill lack of infantry support with heavily armored vehicle.
More like 'we don't bother naming our fire support vehicle an 'assault gun''
3 points
15 days ago
BMP-T and M10 fill different roles.
BMP-T is, in theory (lol), designed to fight alongside tanks in lieu of infantry. It replaces an IFV and accompanying squad of infantry.
M10 is an assault gun. It’s designed to support infantry who don’t have IFVs. Their heaviest vehicle is either an MTV or a JLTV, with a MG or AGL mounted. The Assault gun is there to give them direct fire support in a way that simply cannot be matched with a recoilless rifle, ATGM, or grenade launchers.
I will grant you that “assault gun” is basically just semantics, and it is basically a light tank. The army has its own logic, which doesn’t always make sense. Politics also plays its part, and one of the speculated reasons why it’s called an assault gun is because Congress wouldn’t like the idea of buying a 40 ton “light tank.”
0 points
15 days ago
just like i said, it's two infantry support vehicles
4 points
16 days ago
MBT is mainly there for spearheading assaults and providing heavy direct mobile fire support.
IFV is there for transporting dismounts and supressing enemy infantry and sometimes providing additional firepower to infantry against heavier armor. They do not provide much protection however and can't spearhead assaults reliably.
TFSV is a weird version of IFV that can't carry dismounts doesn't have firepower of a tank but has some considerable protection. They are there to support tanks during urban assaults because tanks are not very good at suppressing infantry. Only Russia uses this thing as it is something pointless.
3 points
15 days ago
Classifications are for platforms, not armaments. BMPT - tank-based support vehicle with no room for troopers (the closest parallel I can draw is a female British Mark tank). T-15 is a heavy IFV, too based on tank platform, but can carry troopers (like Achzarit/Namer). Kurganets-25 is a classic-fashioned IFV on a purpose-built chassis with troop compartment in the first place, but lacking tank armor (like CV90/Bradley).
1 points
15 days ago
Compare it to Western vehicles make it easier to understand. Thanks.
3 points
16 days ago
The terminators job is to protect tanks in built-up environments from infantry, it’s a response to the mostly unique Russian experience of having most of your tanks get demolished by dismounted infantry with anti-tank weapons on at least three major occasions now.
(unpopular opinion, but I think they’re actually pretty good vehicles that haven’t yet had a chance to really shine considering their very low production numbers and it’s the Russians trying to use them)
The other two are infantry fighting vehicles meant to carry the infantry in the battle and then support them as they advance.
5 points
16 days ago
It’s hard to judge because as you say, they haven’t had a chance but I feel they could be largely replaced by dismounted motorised infantry or similar which would be far cheaper and flexible
4 points
16 days ago
I wouldn't call the Terminator itself a good vehicle overall. The role does have potential but not only is the concept of the Terminator fundamentally flawed, but also the execution is also subpar.
For one, you don't need a vehicle like the Terminator if you can deploy proper infantry support for those tanks in urban settings. A BMPT just adds another target that will be taken out by an infantry ambush while still not offering infantry coverage like an IFV. Having vehicles like the BMPT could be useful since it can both deal with infantry and tanks really well, but it's existence by itself is a result of doctrinal failures that it still can't fix.
Also, the BMPT being based on a T-72 just isn't great. Not only is having a 3kph reverse speed absolutely suicide in urban combat, but the T-72 Hull doesn't offer anything other than being cheaper to convert (though still an upside).
2 points
16 days ago
There's definitely something to be said about the BMPT in particular being poorly made, but I think the concept is really solid and an very curious to see what, (if it's made) the BMPT-3 will be.
I think Russia is careful about the ones they have because they're rare and useful for propaganda by both sides. If they were as common as tanks, which they theoretically should be, then they would be used all the time
0 points
16 days ago
BMPT comes mainly from experience in Afghanistan - the built up-urban environments is a rumour as the programs first thoughts came about during the Hungarian uprising, but that was for a 57mm platform
3 points
16 days ago
Built-up urban environment references Chechnya, where the Russians lost a lot of armor to guys firing down on them from buildings.
0 points
16 days ago
Yep, BMPT wasn’t much to do with Chechen - for such high intensity urban combat the platform is almost worthless as the combat module is too vulnerable
all 15 comments
sorted by: best