1 good thing about the T14/15/etc type armoured vehicle is that they are modular and the parts are streamlined. This was hardly the case for other type of Russian armoured vehicles. Really helps with the logistics and turnaround time for either preventive or corrective maintenance.
Yes that is the exciting part about the T14/15 designs, even the commander, [gunner/comm./nav. expert] and driver all ride in the front part of the vehicle in a separate blastproof pod. Which is the safest part with the thickest armor against the glacis plate.
I agree with your that these war machines are expensive for us to run and maintain, especially given the fact that Bangladesh do not have any existential threats. However, i would definitely prefer having t15s in our arsenal though. Not only does it have exceptional firepower, it increases troop survival rate exponentially with its rws and hard kill systems. If a fight takes place in a urban or built up area, this is the vehicle I would feel the most safest in.
Yeah T14 unit cost is estimated at USD7.5 million a copy. Not cheap. That is why they are also looking at adding these Prima Donna glamour high-tech whizbang features (sensors, auto loaders, countermeasures) into modernized T64's and T72's which will turn out to be a lot cheaper. Armata is far larger/expensive than those two tanks and induction in large numbers may be foolish, especially when this design exceeds M1 and Leopard specs by quite a bit. The Russian designers outdid themselves, literally.
Here are some of the future T-64B version called 'Bulat'
Here is another recent disclosure for a modernized Ukrainian T64, which mimics the design of the t14
For a T15, which will also be quite expensive, is also heavy at 48 tons. For us it will be a liability because half of our bridges will not support it, like the Indians had their problem with their heavy Arjun tanks. The protection is almost overkill, (from wiki),
"The T-15 has "an unprecedented level of armor protection," including improved passive steel and ceramic
composite plate armor and a
slat armor cage at the rear. Its new
Malakhit (Malachite) ERA is claimed to protect against ATGMs like the
FGM-148 Javelin and
Missile Moyenne Portée (MMP) and 120 mm tank rounds like the German DM53/DM63 and American M829A3
APFSDS sabots. In addition to hard-kill and soft-kill APS, the developer uses a special paint that significantly reduces the vehicle's
infrared signature. The floor is reinforced with an additional armor plate for counter-mine and counter-
IED protection, and it has a
jamming system to detonate radio-controlled
anti-tank mines. The T-15 has an
NBC protection system.
[1]"
So for us, if we want a tracked platform, the best choice will be a Kurganets 25, which is the 25-ton
modular IFV and APC. The Kurganets-25 variants will gradually replace various tracked Russian amphibious BMP and BMD armored platforms.
If we want wheeled IFV and APC, then the choice is the Bumerang and in the same weight range. These are the successors for the BTR-80 type platform which we have numbering near a thousand.
For a country like ours - Kurganets and Bumerang will be a heck of a lot cheaper and simpler to operate/maintain (and even assemble/manufacture locally) compared to something like the T15 (especially in larger numbers).
Kurganets 25 Amphibian IFV/APC
Bumerang Amphibian AFV (notice the rotating and positionable prop shrouds in the rear).
Future Bumerang versions could include one with a large gun turret (100mm up) like the Italian B1 Centauro.
Or like the new Centauro version Centauro II
Or like the Japanese JGSDF Type 16 Maneuver Combat Vehicle
Why a wheeled tank, one might ask?
Well for starters - they are far faster than tracked vehicles and much more maneuverable. Some of these vehicles have a 125mm gun but most use 105 mm rounds. Using sabot and APFSDS rounds your hits may be just as effective, not to mention with special remote control rounds, you can even go around bends. But yes, cost is a huge barrier.
I feel like BA is focusing on the amphibious part rather than the armour or survivality part. Bangladesh being a riverine country has its disadvantages as well. We already have a shortage of bridges and if they are blown it will seriously impede our mobility. Recently the army has been active in purchasing LCUs as they have released a few tenders for it.
Well if we plan to buy the Kurganets and Bumerang platforms, we should plan on designing the LCUs with those and other platforms in mind. 25 tons in weight each and 26 feet length X 10 feet wide etc. and 2-5 per LCU depending on size of LCU. But both platforms are amphibious capable and will fulfill the Bangladesh tender requirement.
I have a theory about this purchase. Most light tanks are used marines or airborne troops who use them and act as shock troops. I don’t think BA intends to use them as a main fighting vehicle but rather use them to storm from riverbanks and establish defensive position in order for the main amour and infantry to arrive and retake the area. I think they are using 105/125mm guns for cost reductions as the inclusion of ATGM on this vehicle is not clear yet.
Using ATGM as artillery is quite expensive, not to mention field maintenance for launchers is neither easy nor cheap. You are absolutely right that this is the doctrine that is driving the purchase of these 'light amphibian tanks'.
