That is true, as there is no single vehicle that will take on all combat situations, since each vehicle have many variations.
I am always wondering why Russia toy around with BMPT style turret and not a BMP-3 style turret for MBT chasis
Faster pace of modernizing tanks
- Thread starter Delbert
- Start date
That is true, as there is no single vehicle that will take on all combat situations, since each vehicle have many variations.
I am always wondering why Russia toy around with BMPT style turret and not a BMP-3 style turret for MBT chasis
Miragedriver
Brigadier
Perhaps the tank will need to be customized to suite the combat environment. The Israelis learned that lesson in Lebanon and the Russians in Chechnya, that a tank is ill suited for urban warfare. Just think of all the different combat environments (desert, urban, plains of Europe, mountainous, jungle). Maybe a concept similar to the German Meko ship idea, incorporating a replaceable tank turret for the intended combat location.
Although this would be hell on the tank crews to train utilizing two or three combat vehicles.
Equation
Lieutenant General
The BMP-3 style turret is more fitted for the IFV because it is design for the mechanized infantry support role. The BMPT style turret is for the heavy armored support role of a tank unit. It's interior has the room to carry the rounds necessary for it's role.
You are right, BMPT was meant to support MBT rather than fighting along with infantry. I believe I was thinking along the line of an individual tank providing support to infantry in urban areas rather than Tank units. I always thought having a tank chasis (for protection) with a bmp-3 style turret (100mm or larger cannon along with the 30mm cannon) can provide mix AT tank and better urban warfare capability and survivability
Right, Russia will nuke China over Siberia... Pfttt... Russia would only use nukes if European Russia was threatened. Don't you know China has nukes as well?
If Russia tried to annex Xinjiang, would China use nuclear weapons? Such logic makes no sense. If Russia lacks the financial capital and the demographic population to develop the resources of Siberia, it will inevitable go towards the Chinese, which has the motivation, financial power, and geographical demographic proximity to mine the resources for her industrial powerhouse.
If Russia tried to annex Xinjiang, would China use nuclear weapons? Such logic makes no sense. If Russia lacks the financial capital and the demographic population to develop the resources of Siberia, it will inevitable go towards the Chinese, which has the motivation, financial power, and geographical demographic proximity to mine the resources for her industrial powerhouse.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Which bright spark suggested that?
No one actually wants to live in Siberia. Its bloody cold and miserable there. The only thing of value are the natural resources there, and China can get those readily enough through trade. Chinese migration into Siberia is only because of the richest to be made from that trade in natural resources. Once those resources have been extracted, no one would want to stay there. The Chinese demographic boom in Siberia is temporary.
No one wants to fight a war over that frozen wilderness.
Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union there has been a drastic reduction of troops manning that portion of Russia.
What about Vladivostok?
Completely useless, it still sits behind 1st island chain and has pretty poor infrastructure compared to pretty much every other Chinese port.