Military Review

BMPT "Terminator": a long road to commercial success

139
One of the most interesting domestic developments in the field of armored vehicles is the so-called. support combat vehicle tanks (BMPT). Russian designers developed and offered customers several projects of similar equipment, however, for some time, BMPTs remained exclusively exhibition models without any real prospects. However, a few years ago the situation changed, and tank support vehicles could still become the subject of new supply contracts.


The idea of ​​a tank support combat vehicle in its present form was realized by the designers of the Ural Transport Engineering KB at the turn of the nineties and two thousand years. The project under the designations "Object 199" and "Frame", later received the new name "Terminator", meant the restructuring of the chassis of the T-90 tank with the installation of a new combat module with a developed weapon system. Having on board the barrel and missile weapons, such an armored vehicle could solve a wide range of combat missions.

At the end of the nineties, the overall appearance of the weapons complex for BMPT was formed, which is still being used with various changes. After some improvements and checks, the Terminator received a pair of 30-mm automatic guns 2А42, two twin launchers of Ataka-T missiles and a PKT machine gun mounted on a rotating turret. In the case placed a couple of automatic grenade launchers AGS-17.



In the middle of the last decade, BMPT prototypes passed all necessary checks, including state tests. However, it did not go further: the experienced "Terminators" remained exclusively exhibition copies with no real prospects. Over the next few years, the leadership of the ministry talked about the possibility of adopting the Framework, but in 2010, such plans were abandoned.

In 2013, the Uralvagonzavod corporation proposed two new variants of the tank support combat vehicle. The first project involved the installation of a special tower on the chassis of the medium tank T-55 and was intended for one of the countries of Latin America. For several reasons, this project did not give real results. The second sentence also concerned the use of an alternative chassis. The armored vehicle under the designation "Terminator-2" was to be built on the chassis of the main T-72 tank.

Since 2015, in various materials, a new modification of the "Terminator" is mentioned, having certain differences from previous machines. The Armata unified tracked platform should be used as the basis for it. At the same time, according to some data, to obtain a significant increase in combat power, this option BMPT should be equipped with the A-220М “Baikal” module equipped with an 57-mm automatic cannon. Unlike a number of other family developments, the BMPT on the Armata chassis has not yet been presented to specialists and the public.

Having a distinctive and recognizable technical look, as well as being distinguished by the range of tasks to be solved, 199 Object and other machines based on it always attracted attention. The armored vehicles received accolades, and the greatest future was predicted for it. However, such predictions did not materialize. For several years, the real prospects of the “Frame” remained in doubt.

By the beginning of this decade, the issue of the supply of "Terminators" to the Russian army was resolved: the command refused to purchase such equipment. However, it soon became known about the start of mass production of armored vehicles. Starting customer BMPT were the armed forces of Kazakhstan. The contract meant the delivery of a dozen combat vehicles in 2011-2013. On time, the order was fully completed. At the beginning of 2014, there were reports of a possible continuation of supplies, and now it was a question of transferring assembly kits to Kazakhstan. As far as is known, such an agreement did not appear.

In the middle of June, reports appeared on the profile editions about the possible resumption of BMPT production. According to published information, the company "Uralvagonzavod" at that time was preparing to assemble new armored vehicles. In addition, servicemen of the Russian armed forces arrived at the enterprise. All this indicated that in the very near future the Ministry of Defense should have placed an order for a new equipment.

According to June, the first serial "Terminators" for the Russian army were to leave the assembly hall next year. Can be built at least a dozen cars. In terms of their equipment and weapons, they should correspond to those previously released for Kazakhstan. BMPT for domestic units will be built on the chassis of the T-90 and get a pair of automatic guns, supplemented by Atak-T missiles, machine guns and automatic grenade launchers. The possibility of updating fire control systems using the developments of the Terminator-2 project was not excluded.

During the recent international military-technical forum "Army-2017" reports of the serial release of "Terminators" for the Russian army received confirmation. As it became known 24 August, the Ministry of Defense of Russia and the corporation "Uralvagonzavod" signed several large contracts for the supply of various armored vehicles. One of these contracts involves the construction and transfer of an army of a certain number of tank support vehicles. The number and equipment of the ordered equipment, however, were not specified.

In the future, there may be several new export contracts. Literally the other day, the head of the Main Armored Directorate, Lieutenant General Alexander Shevchenko, said that the Israeli and Syrian military showed their interest in the Terminators. It is worth noting that the Syrian military have already had the opportunity to get acquainted with the original Russian design. The BMPTs were previously sent to Syria for testing under conditions of a real local conflict, and proved to be the best. According to the results of such exploitation, official Damascus could show interest in the new Russian technology. It is noteworthy that the "running-in" of combat vehicles in Syria had a definite influence on the decision of the Russian military.

Back in 2013, there were reports of the possible supply of tank support vehicles to Algeria. A few days ago, the domestic and foreign press reported the existence of such a document. According to published data, a contract for a large number of "Terminators" was signed last year. Algeria will have to get more than 300 BMPTs on the main chassis of the T-90CA tank. Armament and fire control systems should be borrowed from the Terminator-72 BMPT-2 project. It is alleged that this technique will accompany the tanks of the ground forces and protect them from various threats.



According to reports, the first BMPT will go to Algeria at the beginning of the next 2018 year. The last batch of machines must be handed over to the customer before the start of the 2020. Thus, the largest contract will be executed in about two years.

At the moment, it is known about several completed and signed contracts for the supply of serial tank support vehicles. In accordance with these documents, by the end of this decade, the total number of built "Terminators" in different configurations will reach the level of 320-350 units. At the same time, at the moment, there are only ten vehicles built for Kazakhstan in several years ago in full-fledged army service. Thus, the manufacturer has very serious tasks.

In the case of the BMPT program, a very interesting situation can be observed. The original combat vehicle proposed at the beginning of the last decade not only attracted attention, but was also criticized. After reviewing the proposed model, the Ministry of Defense did not show the expected enthusiasm. Throughout all the zero years, the adoption and purchase of “Terminators” was constantly postponed until they were finally canceled.

Only at the end of the decade the car became the subject of a contract, however, in this case it was only a small batch of equipment. A few years later, the situation began to change. At least in 2013, Algeria showed its interest in BMPT, but its order was signed with some delay. According to media reports, this delay was associated with the expectation of a new modification of the armored vehicle, which is characterized by increased characteristics. Finally, in 2017, the decision to adopt the Terminator was adopted by the Russian army.

It should be noted that in all these cases, the armored vehicles of older modifications, involving the use of existing tank chassis, became the subject of new orders. The current status and prospects of the "Terminator" on the chassis of the "Armat" remain unclear. Apparently, such a project is not yet ready even for testing, and therefore it will be possible to speak of real results only in a few years. Nevertheless, given the existing plans for the development of the fleet of armored vehicles, it can be assumed that such BMPT has certain chances to get into the troops. However, if this happens, it is only in the distant future.

Apparently, only a few years after the “premiere demonstration” of the first version of the BMPT, the commanders of various countries began to understand the need and real prospects for such equipment. Local conflicts of recent years have a number of characteristic features in the context of weapons and equipment, and therefore samples with the capabilities of the "Frame" can be of great interest. The consequence of this has so far become small orders from Russia and Kazakhstan, as well as a large contract with Algeria, implying the delivery of more 300 armored vehicles. It should also be expected that in the foreseeable future, Russian industry will receive new orders for the "Terminators" of certain modifications. After several years of painful uncertainty, the fate of the family of equipment was resolved. Cars go into a large series.


On the materials of the sites:
http://uvz.ru/
http://ria.ru/
http://rg.ru/
http://rbc.ru/
http://svpressa.ru/
http://gurkhan.blogspot.ru/
https://bmpd.livejournal.com/
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons, Vitalykuzmin.net
139 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 13 September 2017 01: 38 New
    +5
    Poor "child"! Just like an unwanted child - even in an orphanage ....
    Well, maybe a run-in in Syria will push officials from the Moscow Region to take a closer look at the product ahead of time ?!
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 13 September 2017 07: 43 New
      +3
      Like "Petrik Filters".
      A prominent scientist had to send a couple to Syria, for the “break-in”. And officials will understand that these filters should be in every Russian family.
      They are criticized, but they simply got ahead of time, and it is best to purify water from substances not yet known to science.
    2. max702
      max702 13 September 2017 09: 22 New
      +9
      The main trouble BMPT has already been said more than once or twice is that it is one channel for firing at a target .. And preferably at least TWO so as not to create dead zones, in Syria this was shown more than once when the tank fired at a position especially in urban areas during reloading, it was subjected to fire as it was currently defenseless, the coaxial machine gun didn’t give anything, and the krupnyak on the roof wasn’t used due to the gunner’s acute vulnerability .. The current BMPT suffers from such a flaw while it works on the same target other vectors possible attacks on it remain undisguised, and therefore it is necessary to allocate either more equipment or infantry cover .. that’s where they returned from where they started .. of course, due to quick-firing guns, aiming angles, and a larger number of observation devices, this machine in the city is more effective than a tank, but it is the presence of one channel that does not allow it to realize the full potential of this concept .. The commander of this vehicle simply needs we go our DBM through which he will be able to monitor the battlefield and hit targets, starting from 7.62 \ 40mm AGS and ending with the "Epoch" .. Ideally, the BMPT should look like a tank chassis with the most protected sides, "Bahcha-U" in the TANK tower , and on top of the "era" module .. I understand that it will weigh under 60t so what? There are other tanks for this, not in the fields and forests, but in cities where there are no special problems with coating, speed will also not need 50 km of maximum speed and okay ..
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 13 September 2017 14: 09 New
        +2
        Quote: max702
        Krupnyak on the roof of the tank was not used due to the shooter's acute vulnerability ... BMPT commander just needs his DBM through which he can monitor the battlefield and hit targets
        Isn’t it easier to put such a module on the tank, huh? Effective and easy!
        1. max702
          max702 13 September 2017 22: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: psiho117

          1
          psiho117 Today, 14:09 ↑ New
          Quote: max702
          Krupnyak on the roof of the tank was not used due to the shooter's acute vulnerability ... BMPT commander just needs his DBM through which he can monitor the battlefield and hit targets
          Isn’t it easier to put such a module on the tank, huh? Effective and easy!

          Let’s say the tank’s armament is too specialized, the task of which is primarily to fight the enemy’s armored vehicles because all modern tanks grew out of the experience of the Second World War and the Cold War and, as a result, a high-ballistic weapon with a scanty resource of the highest price and expensive ammunition sharpened for the destruction of BT, and at the same time a fair amount guns. as well as no aiming angles making the tank an awkward target in the city .. NATO tanks until recently didn’t have high-explosive shells at all .. And so the tank platform is correct, the only thing is to change weapons and add the commander’s DBM, why the UVZ is trying to push the current BMPT with all its forces it is unclear, probably too lazy to redo something, and so they will take it, then there are no competitors ...
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 03: 37 New
            0
            Quote: max702
            The tank say so too specialized weapons whose task is primarily fight enemy armored vehicles

            Then most of the tanks in their ammunition carry a minimum amount of anti-tank ammunition hi
            1. max702
              max702 17 September 2017 21: 17 New
              0
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat

              0
              ProkletyiPirat Today, 03:37 ↑
              Quote: max702
              In a tank, let’s say so too specialized weapons whose task is primarily to fight the enemy’s armored vehicles

              Then most of the tanks in their ammunition carry the minimum amount of anti-tank ammunition hi

              But this paradox just tells about the old truth the generals (who orders the equipment) are preparing for the last war .. It suddenly turned out that in modern conflicts tanks and other armored vehicles are not the main goals of the tank .. But the weapons remained just for work with armored targets .. And you have to use what you have .. It turns out not so hot .. Better of course than nothing, but not ice .. Agree that the gun and the LMS from the “Carnation” or, all the more so, “Acacia” in the TANK tower would today's databases are preferable to a standard tank gun ..
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 22: 46 New
                0
                Quote: max702
                You must admit that a gun and an SLA from the “Carnation” or, all the more so, “Acacia” in a TANK tower would be preferable in today's databases than a standard tank gun ..

                As for the gun, I agree, or rather partially agree, I consider the most optimal use of a 152mm hybrid gun with three types of shots 500 \ 1000 \ 1500 (in length), just a few dozen shots fit into an uninhabited tower T14. And there is also 30mm & 7,62 & ars. Then we get a full-fledged tank of the 21st century ... Ehh dreams of dreams ...
              2. bk0010
                bk0010 18 September 2017 00: 00 New
                0
                I do not agree: in the epicenter there will be battles specifically “tanks against tanks”, everything else will either be destroyed or will not be able to operate in such conditions. A nuclear war is not a "past war" at all
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 18 September 2017 03: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: bk0010
                  at the epicenter there will be battles namely “tanks against tanks”, everything else will either be destroyed or not be able to operate in such conditions.

                  In what conditions? in a nuclear winter? so there all tanks will be useless ...
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 18 September 2017 11: 49 New
                    0
                    We still need to live up to the nuclear winter. And not the fact that it is realizable. And no one has yet canceled the glass path to the English Channel.
          2. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 03: 40 New
            0
            Quote: max702
            why the UVZ is trying to push the current BMPT with all its might, it’s unclear, it’s probably too lazy to redo something and take it like that, there are no competitors ...

            The reason is very simple, first make money on the production of new tanks, and then more money on remaking old ones in BMPT, or at least increase the order due to BMPT.
  2. Graz
    Graz 13 September 2017 01: 59 New
    0
    here we need a version for battle in the city, in the field, and the heavy T-15 BMP will cope with tank support
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 13 September 2017 02: 33 New
      +1
      here you need a version for a battle in the city,


      It’s not good for the city ... there are too many dangers of the TERMINATOR waiting there for which it is not yet ready.
      1. yehat
        yehat 13 September 2017 14: 38 New
        +1
        the kids crossing the road will suddenly come ...
    2. philosopher
      philosopher 13 September 2017 04: 37 New
      +3
      For the battle in the city, another modification is needed, more heavily armored from above, and judging by the missile weapons, the current versions of "Terminator" are for field conditions.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Lganhi
    Lganhi 13 September 2017 07: 12 New
    +4
    What the hell is a spark of 30 mm guns? Sparking cannons is already a completed stage, even during the war they did experiments with KV, trying to increase firepower, but came to the conclusion that it is better to have smaller guns, but larger ones:
    Instead, they would have installed one 37-mm cannon, in which the projectile is twice as heavy as a 30-mm projectile. This would significantly increase the armor penetration and fragmentation power.
    1. ICT
      ICT 13 September 2017 07: 25 New
      0
      Quote: Lgankhi
      one 37-mm gun,

      with the caliber it’s clear, but what kind of gun do you want to put?
      1. Lganhi
        Lganhi 13 September 2017 07: 28 New
        0
        The swinging part of the 37-mm anti-aircraft gun 61-k, of course, modified for tape power.
        1. ICT
          ICT 13 September 2017 07: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Lgankhi
          modified for tape power.

          lol
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 13 September 2017 11: 07 New
            0
            What is so funny? Won DP converted to tape power, and got a good RP-46, just DC converted to tape power and got DShK.
        2. Chtononibrator
          Chtononibrator 13 September 2017 18: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Lgankhi
          modified for tape power.

          And a tank for water cooling.
    2. seos
      seos 13 September 2017 08: 04 New
      +2
      Now this reinforcement is not relevant .... it’s easier for all tanks to introduce a projectile with an explosion on the trajectory ... The fragmentation effect is 30 mm of the projectile, which is 37 mm very low. Moreover, lately they recalled the 57mm low-ballistic gun, which has great anti-personnel effects ....
      For me, 30 mm is suitable, but it is necessary to increase the ammunition, make the turret uninhabitable, reduce the crew to 3 people and strengthen the reservation against cumulative means. To make the so-called "glass cockpit" to ensure good visibility (which is lacking throughout our armored vehicles, an example of a successful modification is the Chinese BMP-1)
      1. Lganhi
        Lganhi 13 September 2017 11: 08 New
        0
        You just need to remove the second gun. One gun is enough, there were no complaints about the BMP-2, that there is not enough rate of fire.
        1. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 13 September 2017 20: 24 New
          +1
          The "Terminator" for each gun has its own feeding mechanism, its own shell box equipped with a certain type of shells, again for each gun its own and no heme ....., and no problems with changing the ammunition when changing the target. It is not practical to remove the second gun, this will immediately reduce the effectiveness of the machine.
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 13 September 2017 22: 46 New
            +2
            Modern guns have selective nutrition, that is, two ribbons are brought to one gun: one with armor-piercing shells, and the second with fragmentation shells. The operator can only click on the button that shoots the necessary shells.
            1. sharp-lad
              sharp-lad 14 September 2017 19: 25 New
              +1
              Here I am about the same thing! He clicked on the right button, flew armor-piercing incendiary, on the left - high-explosive, but from the second barrel and no problems with selectivity from two tapes. Plus, having lost one gun, I did not lose everything. hi
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 03: 43 New
                0
                Quote: sharp-lad
                and no problems with selectivity from two tapes

                And what now are there any problems with selectivity? If so, which ones?
                1. sharp-lad
                  sharp-lad 17 September 2017 14: 03 New
                  0
                  The greater the complexity of the mechanism, the greater the likelihood of failure of this mechanism. Plus an elementary reserve. One question: Why do civilian planes fall less often than military aircraft?
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 16: 41 New
                    0
                    Quote: sharp-lad
                    Why do civilian planes fall less often than military?

                    Well, certainly not because they are "simpler" lol
                    Quote: sharp-lad
                    The greater the complexity of the mechanism, the greater the likelihood of failure of this mechanism.

                    IT'S A DELUSION! in fact, this is absolutely not the case, a vivid example of the same internal combustion engines due to complications in the form of installing control units and sensors increased engine reliability due to prevention. And again, try to justify the reason for the decrease in the reliability of the two-tape.
                    1. sharp-lad
                      sharp-lad 17 September 2017 21: 52 New
                      0
                      That's why car engines disappeared with a normal mileage of half a lemon! And what happens to electronics after only seven years of constant operation, I think I don’t even need to tell. I don’t even want to talk about the latest “creations” of the Western automobile industry (a car with a normal mileage of 175 km.).
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 22: 48 New
                        0
                        You are misleading yourself, you are confusing the terms "reliability" and "planned obsolescence."
    3. psiho117
      psiho117 13 September 2017 14: 10 New
      0
      Quote: Lgankhi
      Instead, they would have installed one 37 mm gun

      37mm has not been produced for a long time, it seems they are not even in storage.
    4. san4es
      san4es 13 September 2017 18: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: Lgankhi
      Here what for spark.

      One works armor-piercing, the second - high-explosive fragmentation hi
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 13 September 2017 23: 14 New
        +1
        Quote: san4es
        Quote: Lgankhi
        Here what for spark.

        One works armor-piercing, the second - high-explosive fragmentation hi

        They have already answered above (2A42, 2A72 cannons are suitable for 2 ribbons at the same time, with different types of shells. From which tape the gunner selects the ammunition).
        1. san4es
          san4es 23 September 2017 18: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          ... They already answered above (2A42, 2A72 are suitable for guns ....

          ... from 6.12 min. ..It is probably better to recharge? so as not to correct the sight bully
    5. mvg
      mvg 14 September 2017 12: 42 New
      0
      At least they read something, why the spark is ... Questions would have been reduced by half.
  5. Nix1986
    Nix1986 13 September 2017 07: 20 New
    +5
    Honestly, I still see a narrow application of this machine. Typically, tanks operate in conjunction with infantry, and since modern infantry fighting vehicles (BMP 3, Bradley, Swedish, British warrior) have almost the same set of weapons in the form of a rapid-fire gun and control. missiles then they just support the tanks with fire, incl. on tank-dangerous infantry and lightly armored targets, and why carry this terminator with you ?! Probably only for situations when infantry support is not available - on the march or in isolation from the infantry, but such tasks are few. Therefore, the car has its own niche, but it is clearly small.
    1. Lganhi
      Lganhi 13 September 2017 07: 29 New
      +3
      BMPs do not have ballistic reservation. And the Terminator is essentially a tank, but the armament is different.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 13 September 2017 07: 44 New
        +3
        Well, we got the T15, it’s clear that it is not yet in service, but the BMP is not in service. In addition, the T15 has a kaz, which the BMP does not have. In general, everything is very ambiguous.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 13 September 2017 08: 17 New
          +3
          For the T-15, however, the main task is to bring the infantry to the line of dismount

          It will not be able to defend tanks normally against light anti-tank weapons. Only one lesion channel. However, BMPT in the form as proposed is also
          1. Nix1986
            Nix1986 13 September 2017 08: 41 New
            +1
            In general, as a kind of replacement for the "shilka", which was used by the BMP infantry, it is very suitable. But the circulation will be small, for I repeat the niche is very narrow. I am surprised that Algeria already ordered 300 ... I can not imagine where such a horde.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 13 September 2017 09: 49 New
              +6
              Well, look, consider the ideal situation, the attack of a platoon stronghold in a steppe as flat as a table.
              The enemy will begin to work with anti-tank weapons from a range of 5 km. At a distance of 2-3 km, portable systems begin to work. From a range of about 800 meters, short-range complexes, from about 400 meters, advanced grenade launchers and more.
              That is, the number of possible goals is increasing. At the same time, the sector that tankers are forced to control and the angles that they are forced to turn the gun when they discover a new target increases, that is, the load on the tankers increases like an avalanche
              At the same time, one should not rely only on active protection systems, KAZ and KOEP. Firstly, the closer, the shorter the reaction time is needed, and secondly, enemy artillery, by placing NZOs and PZOs, can seriously complicate their work, the probability of destruction of active defense elements on the armor by fragments is very high.

              Hurried infantry will not solve the problem. BMPT in the form in which the army is trying to impose it, too. Infantry infantry fighting vehicle is a limited solution, especially in the form in which it is being carried out now, in the “commandless” position. After all, it’s hard to get a person to work efficiently who must leave the car with his squad any minute
              1. Nix1986
                Nix1986 13 September 2017 10: 27 New
                0
                In general, on level ground, bringing a tank closer than 1,5-2 km is clearly not worth it. The aiming range of modern SLAs is quite enough to hit large targets such as bunkers at such a distance, and at such a distance the enemy infantry against tanks can only work with pts, against which the KAZ will work and a distance of 1,5-2km is enough for the KAZ reaction time.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 September 2017 11: 20 New
                  +4
                  I’m afraid that while the tanks stand and shoot from a long range each enemy infantryman who may turn out to be an ATGM operator or a grenade launcher, the enemy will have time to tighten up so many reserves that trying to break through on this section will become useless.
                  Losing pace is a huge mistake for a commander of any level.
                  1. Nix1986
                    Nix1986 13 September 2017 12: 41 New
                    +5
                    I propose to stop arranging oral wargame and to express respect to the marketing specialists of the ultrasonic research institute, who managed to introduce a hybrid of a microscope and a shovel to Algerians in the amount of 300 pieces laughing
                    1. Gransasso
                      Gransasso 13 September 2017 13: 21 New
                      +3
                      And who is the source of information about this marketing success?
                  2. Maki Avellevich
                    Maki Avellevich 13 September 2017 17: 00 New
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    I hope that while the tanks stand and shoot from a long range each enemy infantryman who may turn out to be an ATGM operator or a grenade launcher, the enemy will have time to tighten up so many reserves that trying to break through on this section will become useless.


                    you can take the tanks back, leave the infantry to keep the line. tanks can continue to cover poor infantry.
                    in the meantime, we must do what has always been done. a blow to the flank, if possible deep.

                    without a maneuver, you can’t even take a fish out of a pond.

                    ps why the hell do you need to attack the enemy in a bad position? (steppe, there is no advantage of height)
                    let them continue to sit where they sat and harness their communications (eat and drink ie.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 17: 31 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Maki Avellievich
                      you can take the tanks back, leave the infantry to keep the line

                      That is, you suggest never to advance at all?

                      Quote: Maki Avellievich
                      in the meantime, we must do what has always been done. a blow to the flank, if possible deep.

                      On the flank it's cool. The enemy only needs to be obliged not to strike on the flank of units advancing on the flank. I think the UN Security Council resolution is enough for now. Well, then, the international treaty "On the regime of maximum favor for the advancing."

                      Quote: Maki Avellievich
                      ps why the hell do you need to attack the enemy in a bad position? (steppe, there is no advantage of height)

                      Exactly, I completely forgot. It is necessary to oblige the enemy to occupy positions in places most convenient for the advancing ones. 8)))

                      Quote: Maki Avellievich
                      let them continue to sit where they sat and harness their communications (eat and drink ie.

                      And they will not strain. You didn’t cut the supply lines, because you didn’t break through the defense and could not create a “corridor” for entering units that will develop success in depth, including cutting
                      1. Maki Avellevich
                        Maki Avellevich 13 September 2017 18: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        And they will not strain. You didn’t cut the supply lines,


                        Quote: Maki Avellevich
                        in the meantime, we must do what has always been done. a blow to the flank, if possible deep.
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 21: 13 New
                      0
                      Quote: Maki Avellievich
                      in the meantime, we must do what has always been done. a blow to the flank, if possible deep.

                      Once again, to hit the flank, you must first break through the defense. Otherwise, this “blow to the flank” will be carried out at least under fire from other general defense forces. Flank fire in the sides is much more effective than fire in the forehead. And in the worst case, you can run into a flank counterattack during such a “flank”
                      1. Maki Avellevich
                        Maki Avellevich 14 September 2017 04: 44 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Once again, to hit the flank, you must first break through the defense. Otherwise, this “blow to the flank” will be carried out at least under fire from other general defense forces.


                        you have an endless front.
                        breaking through the defense attacking the forehead vicious concept.
                        entering the flank for this purpose is carried out to bypass the enemy defenses.

                        for a worse example, the Mezhen line. (I write at 4 a.m., nothing else occurred to me)
                        Well, Austerlitz
              2. Lganhi
                Lganhi 13 September 2017 11: 11 New
                +1
                Now is not the 19th century. No one in an open area will go on the attack for 5 km. In modern warfare, a platoon stronghold will be smashed to pieces. Especially at a distance of 5 km even regimental 120-mm mortars are successfully used, not to mention howitzers.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 September 2017 11: 40 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Lgankhi
                  In modern warfare, a platoon stronghold will be smashed to pieces.

                  Enough artillery?
                  Destruction of one platoon stronghold by artillery of 152 mm caliber is 4320 shells. And about 9 hours of continuous fire of a division of self-propelled guns at best. Otherwise, long before the destruction of this GP, they will spit out shells due to overheating. Well, or the charges will start to ignite before the shutter closes with all the consequences ...
                  1. IS-80_RVGK2
                    IS-80_RVGK2 13 September 2017 12: 00 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Spade
                    Destruction of one platoon stronghold by artillery of 152 mm caliber is 4320 shells. And about 9 hours of continuous fire of a division of self-propelled guns at best. Otherwise, long before the destruction of this GP, they will spit out shells due to overheating. Well, or the charges will start to ignite before the shutter closes with all the consequences ...

                    And the enemy will not sit and wait. It will tighten reserves and organize other defense lines in depth. And a breakthrough of defense will not work.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 12: 19 New
                      +3
                      Exactly. Narot just forgets about the pace. And it is no less important than the number and number of trunks.
                      It all resembles a game of chess. While the opponent answers one of your turns with one of his own, this is bearable. But if the opponent manages to make three during one of your moves, everything becomes very sour. Accordingly, if everything is exactly the opposite, and you manage to make three moves, then this is a direct path to victory and minimization of losses.
                  2. Lganhi
                    Lganhi 13 September 2017 12: 00 New
                    0
                    Oh come on! According to the Charter, a platoon takes up defense of 100 m along the front and 50 m in depth. To plow 5000 m, do you need 4320 152 mm shells? laughing Yes, a hundred shells are enough to destroy the platoon defense.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 12: 14 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      According to the Charter, a platoon takes up defense of 100 m along the front and 50 m in depth.

                      ??

                      You confused GPs with branch positions
                      1. Lganhi
                        Lganhi 13 September 2017 12: 46 New
                        0
                        The US motorized infantry platoon has the same defense length along the front 100 meters as in the SA and RA Charter.
                      2. demiurg
                        demiurg 14 September 2017 05: 28 New
                        0
                        300 to 400 meters. 12 hectares. 4320/12 = 360
                        On a square with sides of 100 to 100 meters 360 bricks of 42 kilos with 6-7 kg of TNT? The funnels will touch the edges of each other.
                        Trim the sturgeon, something is messed up somewhere.
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 12: 57 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Lgankhi
                      The US motorized infantry platoon has the same defense length along the front 100 meters as in the SA and RA Charter.


                    3. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 13 September 2017 20: 05 New
                      0
                      It is not so easy to destroy a well entrenched enemy.
                  3. yehat
                    yehat 13 September 2017 14: 42 New
                    0
                    these are outdated statistics
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 16: 21 New
                      +2
                      These are not “outdated statistics”, but the current norms of the 2011 S&M Rules.
                      8)))
                      - You owe me 30 thousand a month
                      - This is an outdated statistic.
              3. IS-80_RVGK2
                IS-80_RVGK2 13 September 2017 11: 41 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                The enemy will begin to work with anti-tank weapons from a range of 5 km. At a distance of 2-3 km, portable systems begin to work. From a range of about 800 meters, short-range complexes, from about 400 meters, advanced grenade launchers and more.
                That is, the number of possible goals is increasing. At the same time, the sector that tankers are forced to control and the angles that they are forced to turn the gun when they discover a new target increases, that is, the load on the tankers increases like an avalanche
                At the same time, one should not rely only on active protection systems, KAZ and KOEP. Firstly, the closer, the shorter the reaction time is needed, and secondly, enemy artillery, by placing NZOs and PZOs, can seriously complicate their work, the probability of destruction of active defense elements on the armor by fragments is very high.

                What are we talking about. Density of fire as it approaches the front edge of the enemy’s defense rises sharply. The number of targets to attack too. In general, it is probably advisable to land infantry almost on the enemy’s head in order to avoid serious losses. And carry it in heavy armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles as well protected as possible. And this implies a large mass and, consequently, a decrease in the weight of the transportable ammunition of the ammunition. Therefore, the next logical step is to divide the BMP into two vehicles, a heavy armored personnel carrier and a BMPT (BMOP). But in the form in which the BMPT is now, it is worthless. There is no large-caliber artillery, which greatly limits the ability to combat more or less serious fortifications. Only one fire channel in fact, even if you take the early version of the AGS installed there due to the fact that they are course they are very limited in the angles of fire, which can be called a half channel as soon as possible. The crew of 5 people there was redundant. The current one is not enough, there should be 2 weapons operators and only 4 people, otherwise in this regard we will not get any significant differences from the BMP. 30 mm gun must be changed to 45 mm gun which will increase high-explosive fragmentation and increase armor penetration, plus accuracy will increase at long distances. A larger caliber like 57 mm is not needed, the ammunition drops too sharply, its armor-piercing becomes excessive, the weight of the gun increases, and the recoil increases. BMPT should in my opinion be two-tower. The main tower has a rotation angle of 360 degrees, with a 120-152 mm short-barreled gun with vertical aiming angles of -10 .. + 70, a twin 45 mm autocannon and a 7,62 mm machine gun, on it a module with a 7,62 mm machine gun. And the second small tower rotation angle of about 200 degrees, the armament of the ACS, 12,7 mm machine gun, 7,62 mm machine gun.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 13 September 2017 12: 00 New
                  +4
                  In fact, there are many more options than it seems.
                  For example, you can put on each tank and on each TBTR (TBMP) two remotely controlled combat modules, which will be controlled from the outside with the help of operators located in the TBTR "second line". In conditions of direct visibility between machines with operators and first-line BM, it is quite possible to establish communication channels protected from electronic communications technology.
                  It is also possible to use robotic systems controlled from secure machines of the "second line"
                  It is possible to support first-line vehicles with direct and semi-direct fire of second-line fire weapons. Including battalion level self-propelled guns with active defense systems

                  It is possible to put a stabilized reconnaissance device on each tank / TBTR / TBMP of the first line, which will transmit a large-format picture to the operators in the second-line vehicle, and those, in turn, will use fire weapons firing from a closed base station. Starting with "monsters" like "Sunshine" and ending with portable AGS-40 with automated guidance systems
                  1. IS-80_RVGK2
                    IS-80_RVGK2 13 September 2017 12: 31 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Spade
                    In fact, there are many more options than it seems.

                    Yes, but such options also have disadvantages. Vulnerabilities in the radio channel. The diversity of weapons operators impairs management. And other problems.
                    Quote: Spade
                    Including battalion level self-propelled guns with active defense systems

                    I remember once you talked about Vienna on a heavy tracked platform. Such a thought also occurred to me. smile By the way, even in the presence of BMPT, this option seems to me to be far from superfluous.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 13 September 2017 13: 04 New
                      +2
                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      I remember once you talked about Vienna on a heavy tracked platform.

                      It depends on how you intend to apply this thing. If, to support direct fire because of the battle formations of infantry and tanks, an average BMP base is sufficient, you only need to install active defense systems.
                      If the car needs to be driven into battle formations of the infantry, for example, during battles in the city, full protection is needed. And a heavy base.
              4. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 04: 49 New
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Well, look, consider the ideal situation, the attack of a platoon stronghold in a steppe as flat as a table.

                We take tanks (from 125-152 & 30 & machine gun & AGS) and infantry fighting vehicles (30 & machine gun & AGS) (possibly analogue of melon with a 100-ton or low-impulse 120-152 in the format of the above-hull combat module)
                And so, we set the echelons, the first echelon fires direct fire from 125 or 30 depending on the target, barrage fire and suppression fire from part of the tanks from the same platoon are organized. In the same echelon, TBMPs operate, their task is to block the directions where the enemy can jump out to open fire, they do this due to the landing of infantry, its task is reconnaissance / adjustment / cover. The second echelon is similar to the first one and can even temporarily go with it in common rows but has other areas of work, its task is to cover the first echelon, to cover not only and not so much the equipment itself as the ways of its departure. The third echelon supports the first two from small distances by mounted the trajectory, in the case of open spaces and infantry, uses the AGS, in the case of open spaces and equipment it uses cumulative-fragmentation mines and an MRSI automatic loader. In this case, the principle of network-centrism, where there is a headquarters, a 3D map, and markings of places from where the enemy can fire at one or another of its locations, apply. Thus, the operators of this tactical group (TG) sitting in the headquarters of the TG control the location of the enemy of both the already discovered and the possible locations of the undetected enemy, they process this information in real time and discard it to the unit commanders (partially processing comes from pseudo-AI (such as the possibility of an enemy direct fire)) Thus, the commanders on the battlefield know in advance the places and directions, both safe and dangerous, and can see in real time which of the allies can cover this or that area / trajectory. Three voiced elements: a tank, infantry fighting vehicles, network-centrism can reduce the information load due to its distribution, as well as increase the strategic and tactical capabilities of the tactical group. For example, the second echelon may use smoke mines to provide cover for the transfer and / or retreat of the first echelon. At the same time, the headquarters operators can distribute in advance which vehicles, where, from where and in what quantity and with what frequency they will fire. Also, platoons will be able to work in twos and / or threes when 1-2 lead fire to suppress, and the latter to destroy the enemy (one of the options for using the “shilka”).
                psIt’s clear that the amount of equipment and its location depends on the specific combat area, but this does not change the essence.
                pps Each commander is also a full-fledged TG operator, so the TG may have a separate headquarters (with a large TG size), or it may not have it at all (when there are only a couple of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in the TG)

                I summarize the above: I am against the introduction of a new type of equipment called BMPT, since I believe that the weapons installed on the BMPT (both existing and perspective) can be installed on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles (both existing and perspective).
      2. psiho117
        psiho117 13 September 2017 14: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Lgankhi
        BMPs do not have ballistic reservation. AND Terminator is essentially a tank and there is only another weapon.

        Where and from which side? Is this tin turret a tank ?!
    2. Kenxnumx
      Kenxnumx 13 September 2017 07: 34 New
      +1
      And because both BMP and Bradley are coffins for crews, which has been repeatedly proved.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 13 September 2017 07: 46 New
        0
        Then I agree, the security of the BMP is certainly less. But above I gave a post about t15.
        1. Kenxnumx
          Kenxnumx 13 September 2017 07: 48 New
          0
          Better yet, Merkava. A mixture of tank with BMP.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 September 2017 08: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: Ken71
            A mixture of tank with BMP.

            Initially more likely an anti-tank self-propelled guns with the ability to carry infantry cover. The first "merkavs" were without stabilized weapons. To occupy a tactically advantageous line, land infantry, which will shoot up the imposing "soft targets", and work from the maximum possible distance in armored vehicles of the advancing / counterattacking enemy.
            By the way, in this they are similar to the BMP-3, they are also not particularly smart decision to send an attack with infantry. Click when dismounting. But to advance in the depths of the enemy’s defense to an advantageous line, to plant infantry that is not tired of the trip and defend it, it’s better not to come up with anything. They could even do without tanks, given the presence in the BC of guided missile weapons.
    3. seos
      seos 13 September 2017 08: 06 New
      0
      Most likely, the "terminator" should act in the first line .... and collect all the attacks of anti-tank weapons ... although robots would be better for these purposes ..
      Something like a modern infantry tank ..
    4. dzvero
      dzvero 13 September 2017 08: 18 New
      0
      Terminator is really a niche machine. No wonder the RF Ministry of Defense denied it. It does not fit into the concept of using tanks. And on the approach a bunch of T-14 + T-15, where the T-15 will take on not only the role of infantry fighting vehicles (infantry), but also support the "small" caliber.
      The niche for the Terminator is hot spots, where the enemy has only carts with ATGMs or memory and it’s unprofitable to drive tanks. It is there that the Terminator will show itself - the security is like a tank, and the capabilities are better than those of the BMP.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 13 September 2017 08: 21 New
        +2
        Quote: dzvero
        and it’s expensive to drive tanks.

        Drive BMPT is no less expensive. The base is one, tank.
        1. dzvero
          dzvero 13 September 2017 08: 31 New
          +1
          Yes, diesel fuel consumption is about the same. But is it worth it to spend 120mm OFS (and barrel resource) for a purpose that would be enough for an AGS or a couple of 30mm? Not to mention the ammunition load. PMSM The Terminator has a place to turn around, though this is not a sector, or even a section, but a patch of armored vehicles.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 13 September 2017 10: 13 New
            +5
            Quote: dzvero
            But is it worth it to spend 120mm OFS (and barrel resource) for a purpose that would be enough for an AGS or a couple of 30mm?

            But is it worth spending on the target for which the 120 mm OFS is enough, very expensive Ataka missiles?

            We take an ordinary tank, you can even T-62. We put two Adunok modules on its tower, one with an automatic grenade launcher, the other with a 12.7 machine gun. And we get the most effective tool for the "hot spots" - i.e. urinating the "jihad infantry" on the "Toyota tanks". Much more effective than BMPT. Because, for everything else, Adunok can also work according to external target designation, that is, according to goals, from the location of the carrier tank not observable.
            Agree, a pair of Adunok remotely controlled combat modules, or their Russian counterparts, is much, much, much cheaper than the brand-new BMPT
            1. dzvero
              dzvero 13 September 2017 11: 26 New
              0
              I agree, the option with additional modules is cheaper. But what about the load on the crew? Also, in the tower it is necessary to squeeze almost another OMS. Plus, the gun with its own ammunition has not gone away ... Will it be too much? And in BMPT everything will be optimized initially.
              By the way, both BMPT and dopmodules are essentially a reincarnation of the concept of multi-tower tanks of the beginning of the last century. A new round of evolution ... smile
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 September 2017 12: 05 New
                +3
                Quote: dzvero
                But what about the load on the crew?

                There will be no additional load. The tank is standing, one gunner controls the module, another mechanic, the commander commands. There was a difficult goal, requiring a shot of a tank gun, the gunner may be distracted. BMPT also does not know how to simultaneously shoot both ATGMs and 30-mm guns.
            2. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 13 September 2017 12: 11 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              We take an ordinary tank, you can even T-62. We put two Adunok modules on its tower, one with an automatic grenade launcher, the other with a 12.7 machine gun. And we get the most effective tool for the "hot spots" - i.e. urinating the "jihad infantry" on the "Toyota tanks".

              The crew is small. We need another operator to control weapons. And one more pair of eyes for observation will not hurt. And the commander must command. Plus, the tank has a long gun with small angles of vertical guidance, which is not very convenient in the same city or in the mountains.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 13 September 2017 12: 52 New
                +2
                We are talking about a tank in low-intensity conflicts. When it acts as a mobile firing point.
            3. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 05: 02 New
              0
              Quote: Spade
              We put two Adunok modules on its tower, one with an automatic grenade launcher, the other with a 12.7 machine gun.

              Adunok, or rather a 12,7 machine gun, is not very effective against jihad mobiles, yes, it is good nearby, or rather sufficient, but must be destroyed at a distance, and 12,7 cannot do this with an armored jihad mobile or shushpanzer (in the same Syria there was a case when 12,7 could not stop the suicide bomber). Therefore, a more reasonable quick-firing gun like 2a72 with selective ammunition. Especially when you consider that it can be installed even on an armored car or an armored truck.
          2. Lganhi
            Lganhi 13 September 2017 11: 14 New
            +1
            Russian tanks have a 125 mm gun caliber. Or did you mean the regimental 120 mm mortar? So the mortar’s barrel life has tens, if not hundreds of thousands of shots.
            1. dzvero
              dzvero 13 September 2017 11: 17 New
              +1
              Sorry, I meant a tank shot sad
  6. Pecheneg
    Pecheneg 13 September 2017 07: 22 New
    +1
    I think in Syria it was possible to identify all the advantages and disadvantages of this machine. That will allow the manufacturer to modify the machine if necessary. Does anyone know the results of the operation of this machine in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan? Is there any material?
  7. seos
    seos 13 September 2017 07: 55 New
    +2
    It seems to me or is the frontal projection really weakened by the windows? For me, the idea of ​​"terminator 2" is so much cheaper and the crew was more developed, especially since reducing the crew allows you to increase the reservation ...
  8. demokrat86
    demokrat86 13 September 2017 10: 16 New
    +1
    We are all talking about BMP BMD penetration, but we forget that this is only the hull, the combat module itself is vulnerable to small-caliber artillery
  9. CRP
    CRP 13 September 2017 11: 07 New
    +2
    Yes shnyaga this BMPT. They spoke correctly about the impossibility of a quick transfer of fire.
    There are three correct implementations of these chassis:
    1. Bring all T-72B and T-90 to the current version.
    2. Convert under an armored personnel carrier in the manner of Ahzarit.
    3. To completely review the implementation of the machine itself - two towers, one above the other, where at the bottom there will be a more powerful automatic gun (than 30mm), and at the top there is a twin of 12.7 and an AGS; while at the top - RUMV.

    The layout of the third option will allow you to have 360 ​​degrees horizontally and about 45 degrees vertically the possibility of covering at distances of 50-500 meters of effective fire.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 05: 04 New
      0
      There is also a 4th option to combine 125 & 30 & machine gun & AGS on the basis of T72 with turret replacement. hi
  10. Alex_59
    Alex_59 13 September 2017 11: 21 New
    11
    BMPT, as I see it, is a pure attempt to cut money. Artificially created concept. A heavy infantry fighting vehicle with a permanent crew of three people must and can solve all the same problems. And there is no need to shake the charters and the OSH. Everything is already available.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 13 September 2017 15: 48 New
      0
      I agree in part, I will explain ...
      BMPT order is a temporary compelled measure to strengthen tank regiments, at the rate of about 34 T-90/72/80 tanks and 6 BMPTs
      Subsequently, everything will follow the example of the 150th division consisting of: 2 SMEs x 2 SMEs + 2 TP + 1 ArtP
      . 2 sets of T-15 x 30 vehicles + platoon - 3 T-16 vehicles for 2 MSB = 63
      . 2 sets of T-14 x 30 vehicles + 2 platoons - 6 T-16 vehicles for TP = 66
      . 2 sets of B-11 "Boomerang" x 30 machines for 2 MSB = 60
      . 4 sets (battery) SAU 2S35 (Coalition-SV) x 6 vehicles for Art P = 24
      . Roughly: 60 tanks, 60 T-BMP, 12 BREM, 24 2S35, 60 B-11 = 216 vehicles
      if there are 3 SMEs, SMEs are formed under the BM Tiger and Typhoon
      The heavy BMP T-15 is preferred
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 13 September 2017 16: 29 New
        +1
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        4 sets (battery) SAU 2S35 (Coalition-SV) x 6 vehicles for Art P = 24

        At least one artillery battalion per motorized rifle battalion of the first echelon. In each of 3 x 6 = 18 guns. Or 3 x 4 = 12 guns (for those intended for action in the mountains)
  11. moreman78
    moreman78 13 September 2017 12: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    BMPT, as I see it, is a pure attempt to cut money. Artificially created concept. A heavy infantry fighting vehicle with a permanent crew of three people must and can solve all the same problems. And there is no need to shake the charters and the OSH. Everything is already available.

    That's it! Therefore, the Ministry of Defense in every way for so many years has refused this device. Seen now lobbied.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 13 September 2017 12: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: moreman78
      Seen now lobbied.

      One should now probably expect the appearance of a “support vehicle for a combat support vehicle for tanks” with three 2A42 assault rifles and further, as in a Russian nesting doll, to infinity. And what? Fine!
  12. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 13 September 2017 12: 52 New
    +1
    Well, and how many were the sayings of the wise guys that the car is useless and useless to anyone.
  13. moreman78
    moreman78 13 September 2017 14: 26 New
    +5
    Quote: _Jack_
    Well, and how many were the sayings of the wise guys that the car is useless and useless to anyone.

    And who needs it then? In addition to the manufacturing plant and allied enterprises for OCD - to cut the budget, no one else!
  14. bk0010
    bk0010 13 September 2017 15: 10 New
    0
    Or maybe it's better to rivet more tanks and conventional infantry fighting vehicles instead of BMPT and TBMP? What unique tasks can BMPT solve? Is it worth it to drag infantry to where tank armor is required for survival?
    1. CRP
      CRP 13 September 2017 16: 14 New
      0
      In practice, there are no tasks that only tanks would solve.
  15. garri-lin
    garri-lin 13 September 2017 19: 01 New
    +3
    We can say more. BMPT army needed. . The terminator in the existing form of the army is not needed.
    There have already been a couple of discussions on BMPT. Byoo interesting to read the opinions of people. And almost all agree that the Terminator is rubbish.
  16. Adequate
    Adequate 13 September 2017 21: 39 New
    0
    “Terminator 3” on the chassis of “Almaty” will receive two 57-mm guns. firing range up to 12 km. rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute.
    1. max702
      max702 13 September 2017 22: 19 New
      +2
      Quote: Adequate
      “Terminator 3” on the chassis of “Almaty” will receive two 57-mm guns. firing range up to 12 km. rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute.

      Yeah, with the ZSU-57, they’ll put up a tower and then .. But I forgot! Four more “Verb” packages from each side of the tower and hello Mammoth Tank! Red Allert Forever !!
  17. brr1
    brr1 13 September 2017 21: 51 New
    0
    In fact, the Kazakhs bought them for the parades.
  18. tank64rus
    tank64rus 14 September 2017 20: 18 New
    +2
    BMPT was created as a convoy escort vehicle based on the Afghan experience. Therefore, he had such a complex of weapons. In general, this is an escort and fire support vehicle. Sorry, we don’t have such machines. Just the tasks of the machine are much wider than they think. The RKhBZ troops and their flamethrower units and subunits have long needed such a machine. The experience of exercises in Kazakhstan has already shown this.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 15 September 2017 10: 50 New
      0
      Terminator sucks on firepower weaker than melon and only one channel of weapons. And you need such channels at least three THREE. Plus a drone with a thermal imager.
      1. Voyager
        Voyager 17 September 2017 13: 14 New
        +1
        Explain to the uninitiated what is meant by an arms channel? (and what is wrong with this BMPT compared to other machines in this context?)

        Thank you.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 17 September 2017 16: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Voyager
          Explain to the uninitiated what is meant by an arms channel?

          yes that only this term was not meant lol And the detection of the enemy, and the simultaneous shooting in different directions and the simultaneous shooting in one direction from different guns. In general, someone blurted out, the media picked up, sofa hamsters "inflated srachiki".
  19. Vpk72
    Vpk72 18 September 2017 02: 53 New
    +3
    BMPT concept is good and long overdue
    (development in the USSR began immediately after the first news of the Afghan campaign)
    struggle with maneuverable and small targets for which the main caliber
    tanks are either heavily redundant or cannot get through them due to limitations
    on aiming speed and shelling sector (especially in the angle of elevation of the gun).

    the current implementation is bad (poor set of weapons to the comic)
    but even this is better than nothing

    need 57mm high ballistics (au220 will do)
    high speed guidance
    large angles of vertical guidance
    shells cheaper
    programmable blast shells
    can be spent on a small target
    - a car, an individual,
    - suspicious window or terrain
    - drone, helicopter
    can fire with sighting
    lightly armored vehicles
    heavily armored
    - in a successful scenario,
    - or makes it unfit for combat (destroying kaz, guns, means of observation and guidance)

    perfect raider tank
    the reservation should be the same as the reservation or even heavy
    the small caliber is compensated by the rate of fire and speed of guidance.
    additional types of shells
    crew: 3 or 4? Do I need a separate rocket operator, an observer?
    1. Vpk72
      Vpk72 18 September 2017 11: 30 New
      +3
      addition:
      psychological impact of rapid-fire weapons (copied from forum posts)
      "And for the infantry who are fired upon by such a prodigy, it’s extremely sweet, and most importantly the infantryman understands that if you can still run away from the tank cannon from cover to cover because until the tank comes down they shoot until the projectile arrives, there’s no time! a bullet - a shell feels sorry for them not so much in the tank; besides, it is necessary to eliminate the lead, which means to observe the enemy for a while, with a 57mm gun everything is different, the healing process goes parallel to the trigger already pulled, metal rain is already flying into the enemy, it didn’t hit the lead will be taken after the shooting that does not stop !!!!!! (and this is not a lot of shells that I specifically specify!), and not only the gunner’s tanker, but also the infantry knows and understands it, so when the anti-aircraft guns pulled into you very few people understand that they’ll fly right away, there’s less chance of running across. HERE is where the roots of 57mm are mounted on the BMPT, everyone understands that it’s against infantry This is the most powerful and effective weapon. I’ll repeat again so that they know that the BK 57mm will be any larger than the BK 125mm shells, both in terms of quantity and weight, in addition, 57mm can be pulled with 1 shell and several tens at once, and 125mm can only be used one at a time without options. The flexibility of firing a 57mm gun is decisive. "
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 18 September 2017 17: 57 New
        0
        In the first bk 30, a thousand more than bk 57.
        Secondly, what you describe as a “psychological effect” in a 57mm shell is missing
        Thirdly, what you describe as a “psychological effect” has been known since the Second World War and is described as “barrage fire” and “suppression fire”
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. psiho117
    psiho117 18 September 2017 20: 40 New
    0
    The other day in the news announced a new Shaitan-arba barmaley:
    Meet the jihad tank!
    Now, the old T-54 and T-62 found a new application - they remove the tower, for relief, and rammed with explosives. Everything, the replacement of jihad mobile is ready.

    Well, lovers of Cheburashka Uralvagonzavod, how will you now fight with a 30mm stick with IT?
  22. k_ply
    k_ply 19 September 2017 16: 10 New
    +1
    The 14,5x114-mm PTR during the Second World War stopped the tanks, the 30x165-mm twin 2A42 can be stopped by the T-54 / -62 unarmed and incapable of snarling without using anti-tank systems. But the calculation of the RPG-7 still has to hit the moving target, or fantastically quickly reloading.

    BM support for TANKS - forget the meaning of the abbreviation BMPT. If the machine is trash, then the BMP cans with small-caliber automatic. guns, and even stuffed with people, and others like them SPU ATGM - all this is also trash. Try to leave only tank companies and mortars with artillery batteries in BTG and we'll see. Otherwise, the entire armored nomenclature of weapons remains at the level of the 80-90s. The experience of the conflicts of recent decades shows that even modern infantry fighting vehicles are not able to reduce significant losses of the tank fleet (MBTs are the enemy’s priority objectives with all the consequences). Motorized infantry is often unable to take care of their own infantry fighting vehicles, and under certain conditions it is also obliged to patronize the tanks, and itself to survive to carry out the assigned tasks.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 20 September 2017 11: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: k_ply
      14,5x114 mm anti-tank vehicles stopped tanks during WWII

      PTR did not take tanks mid-end of the Second World War, and only "Fifty-four" armored more than German tanks.
      Quote: k_ply
      30x165-mm sparks 2A42 will be stopped by unarmed and incapable of snarling T-54 / -62

      "What? !! Bagaban ?!"
      That is the tank chassis rushing to the position in the dust clubs, one and a half meters high. WHAT will a 30 mm bundle do to him? There is no attachment, there is nothing to bring down. Shoot the rinks? So this is in the conditions of the landfill, you can aim a standing target at the ice rinks on board, and not in battle, plus a huge club of dust.
      Unreal.

      Quote: k_ply
      The experience of the conflicts of recent decades shows that even modern infantry fighting vehicles are not able to reduce significant losses of the tank fleet ... Motorized infantry is often not able to take care of their own infantry fighting vehicles
      Well, then you need to dance from the tank, and not come up with a new cheburashka. The tank needs at least a normal DBM, with grains and AGS. The tank needs funds to increase situational awareness (more viewing devices, a communication channel to the drone) and for stable communication with attached motorized infantry.
      Otherwise, the new BMPT will step on exactly the same rake as the existing armored vehicles.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 21 September 2017 00: 00 New
      0
      no clowning, you yourself said, "BMPs are not able to reduce the significant losses of the tank fleet" and now think carefully Why? The answer is very simple: in battle, the tank is somewhere "there", and the BMP is somewhere "here", And here it is not there for you! laughing With the introduction of BMPT nothing will change again And here it is not there for you! hi
      1. k_ply
        k_ply 21 September 2017 05: 06 New
        +1
        "People mixed up in a bunch of horses ..."

        - types of troops (tank and motorized rifle battles, mortar, batteries, PAN patrols, reconnaissance platoons, etc.) their place in battle formations, tasks are confusion in their heads. And I'm too lazy to chew like that again.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 22 September 2017 05: 39 New
          0
          Quote: k_ply
          "People mixed up in a bunch of horses ..."

          - types of troops (tank and motorized rifle battles, mortar, batteries, PAN patrols, reconnaissance platoons, etc.) their place in battle formations, tasks are confusion in their heads. And I'm too lazy to chew like that again.

          You have to speak a lot with such a skill and not say anything, but at the same time to expose yourself as smart and educated, you need to go into politics! hi
          1. k_ply
            k_ply 22 September 2017 08: 36 New
            +1
            As I sensed what I had written, it would be too subtle for the understanding of those who were near. The Oaks here do not understand thematic hints and do not shine with soldier ingenuity (and the comment format is too small) - the typical consciousness of a politician is, I congratulate you.
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 22 September 2017 15: 40 New
              0
              to write a bunch of words without saying anything to humiliate an opponent, to make yourself smart, and then military expert, well, it's time for politics! Bravo! hi
              1. k_ply
                k_ply 22 September 2017 16: 32 New
                +1
                So, the military expert or the politician? nedotepa reported the letter Mu.
                And here it is not there for you! - just a masterpiece of exposition

                Take it already!
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 22 September 2017 17: 37 New
                  0
                  Quote: k_ply
                  And here it is not there for you! - just a masterpiece of exposition

                  Really a masterpiece, lol Just you try to justify how BMPT located away from the tank is able to protect it? BMPT what shoots through buildings and terrain? I strongly doubt something.
                  1. k_ply
                    k_ply 23 September 2017 07: 59 New
                    +2
                    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                    Just you try to justify how BMPT located away from the tank is able to protect it?

                    Aside? ... Eco stuck out! In the same battle formations with tanks or NIKAK (except for 3 tr for 10 MBT, a support company (9 units) directly as part of tb).
                    Quote: k_ply
                    BM support for TANKS - forget the meaning of the abbreviation BMPT.

                    And from other topics (https://topwar.ru/125060-itogi-nedeli.html) ...
                    Quote: k_ply
                    It is difficult to imagine a cardboard BMP (not even a cardboard) in the same order as MBT, of 9-10 people only the crew is directly involved in the conduct of the battle, the rest are not yet in a hurry. Well, what may not be clear to the "kind and rational" ?!

                    On the front. Obviously, for the conditions of n / a, due to the specifics, there will be a completely different alignment (without the massive use of brt technology), i.e. with emphasis on interaction with infantry and the formation of assault tank infantry groups (1 MBT no less than a platoon), where MBT is guarded by infantry as a self-propelled assault gun.
                    I do not see the meaning of crucifying again (it would be anyone), and it is inconvenient (from smart) and laziness.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 23 September 2017 11: 44 New
                      0
                      Quote: k_ply
                      Aside? ... Eco stuck out! In the same battle formations with tanks or NO

                      Well, yes, in some "orders", I hear so much and still ask myself a question, but what about the BMPT at a distance of 10m from the tank, is it not "on the sidelines"?
                      1. k_ply
                        k_ply 25 September 2017 18: 56 New
                        +2
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        Well, yes, in some "orders", I hear so much and still ask myself a question, but what about the BMPT at a distance of 10m from the tank, is it not "on the sidelines"?

                        - The masterpiece is open! What?! 10 meters, what a horror! ... Now to build battle formations not along the front (in rows) and in depth (by columns), but probably somewhere in height, in many tiers - history has not yet known this. I’m even trying to see what the plug is (except in someone’s head), roofing felts in the “impossibility” of crossfire from the flanks, roofing felts in the difference in the level of frontal and side reservations, roofing felts in a more advantageous target silhouette (frontal and side projections), roofing felts in some art of the enemy, it’s somehow especially taking up positions with respect to the target, using the teleport, not otherwise.
                  2. k_ply
                    k_ply 23 September 2017 08: 24 New
                    +1
                    Also, do not take MBT as a kind of "dumb aunt" completely unable to stand up for themselves, and everything will fall into place. BMPT - BM SUPPORT, NOT PROTECTION or DEFENSE of tanks.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 23 September 2017 11: 50 New
                      0
                      I take MBT quite adequately, it has no means of defeating infantry behind light shelters, no means of defeating lightly armored vehicles (gantraki, shushpanzery, jihadmobiles) and no means of organizing barrage and suppression fire.
                      Shilka was used to solve the above problems, and for many years they have been proposing to use terminators.
                      Question: why are they needed if weapons can be hung on MBT to solve the problems voiced?
                      1. k_ply
                        k_ply 25 September 2017 19: 02 New
                        +1
                        Damn Voroshilovsky shooter! try to start from the so-called lightly armored vehicles (except for the transport function, reconnaissance and harassing operations) to fire on the go, say from 40 km / h, it obviously does not make less sense - so you’ll get out of a tank PKT / NSVT (or armor-piercing ignition. B-32 is now only body armor shyutd) ? Didn’t you hear about tank turrets and DBM? And how can you threaten a tank in such conditions of firing and from what distances, a dreamer, if you just hide in the bushes with RPGs (up to 150-200m) and pray that the tank thermal imager is turned off (MBT on the march).
                        And no one will drive tanks pickups, they are for fights of a different intensity. If the crew is impatient and there will be no more priority goals, the high-explosive impact of a 125-mm OFS will be enough without a direct hit.
                        In addition to the enemy’s MBT, tank RPG calculations in the cramped conditions of forests and n / a, and ATGM calculations hidden from the ground at distances from ~ 0,5 km or more, based on these hazards and the corresponding BMPT weapons armament, are dangerous.
                        Do not think that you are smarter than designers and military personnel, yeah. The above problems he ... That's for sure clownery! Do not impose your opinion, as the ultimate truth, do not care for everyone.
    3. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 25 September 2017 19: 27 New
      0
      you got with your clowning Why is BMPT necessary? What does it have that cannot be implemented on a promising technique or an existing one?
      Well, let’s take for example grenade launchers, what prevents installing the AGS on a promising tank \ BMP? nothing! What prevents weld fastening for fixing AGS on the body of existing equipment? nothing!
      Next, take the ATGMs, they are already in the tanks and BMP.
      Next, we take a 30mm rapid-fire gun, it is already in the BMP, it is not a problem to put the tank on the tank either, we do either the melon module or, as I described before.
      So why do we need BMPT?
      ) to cover tanks from UAVs? - the terminator has no radars
      ) to cover tanks from ATGM? - again, there is no radar, and even if you put it and even if you protect it, you still can’t shoot down the ATGMs because of the overlapping trajectory, and there are simpler and more effective methods, the same KAZ.
      ) to cover from settlements with TCP? - How will the terminator find them? no way! because he has the same detection tools as the tank!

      Not, of course, at the training ground, and even in the open field, this terminator acts very beautifully, I would even say "spectacularly". But to reduce the number of tanks and / or infantry fighting vehicles for the sake of putting into operation a new type of equipment called "BMPT Terminator" I personally think is stupid and harmful!
      1. k_ply
        k_ply 25 September 2017 20: 04 New
        +2
        I propose to create an All-in-One machine, for example, on the basis of the Merkava (120 mm + 60 mm mortar + assault force — already exist) and name it EBM-single combat machine, develop a turret, sides and aft of the hull (I think that a 20-shell ammunition shell is enough) and hammer it with additional weapons, equipment, apparatus and ammunition.
        (apparently only for the functions of the BRM will be large. Or not only?).
        Quote: k_ply
        Do not impose your opinion, as the ultimate truth, do not care for everyone.


        PS: grims not mine!...
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 25 September 2017 20: 13 New
          0
          Quote: k_ply
          I propose to create an All-in-One machine, for example, on the basis of the Merkava (120 mm + 60 mm mortar + landing - there are already)

          belay Is this your next clowning or are you really proposing this? Yes, and you did not answer the question: Why is BMPT necessary? What does it have that can not be implemented on a promising technique or an existing one?
          1. k_ply
            k_ply 27 September 2017 17: 19 New
            +1
            question: Why is BMPT necessary? What does it have that can not be implemented on a promising technique or an existing one?
            - A dumb question, like a “politician” with a meaningless set of words. But, KG, what’s the question, that’s the answer: BMPT already at the moment implements in the complex what is not in the existing technology, not to mention promising, i.e. the one that is not yet - "elementary, Watson!"
            Even purely visual - uninhabited DBM (the crew is located at the level of the hull) on a unified tank chassis (T-72 / -90 / -14). In my opinion, nowhere is more accessible.

            The possible re-adoption of the 57-mm artillery systems, and most importantly, their ammunition, into the arsenal of the Russian army is, so far, a big question, besides production and economic, and polit. considerations ("arms race" with the West for the sake of parity). For example, in the USA and NATO, reanimation of the R&D curtailed in the 90s and military programs for the creation and re-equipment of armored vehicles with automatic guns of caliber up to 60 mm can follow (OTO Breda, Italy). For example, the rearmament of BM Bradley, delayed in the mid-90s, with 35/50-mm Bushmaster III bicaliber guns (instead of the 25-mm Bushmaster M242). For the same reasons, it may be in question whether the T-14 tank will be equipped with a 152 mm 2A83 gun (140 mm XM291 with the AZ XM91, USA).

            PS: Nonsense in bold - this is notable, she has her own style without hesitation!
            1. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 27 September 2017 20: 05 New
              0
              Quote: k_ply
              A dumb question, like a "politician" with a meaningless set of words. But, KG, what’s the question, that’s the answer: BMPT has already implemented the complex at the moment what is not in the existing technology, not to mention promising, those. the one that is not yet - "elementary, Watson!"

              This is a dumb answer, there is already an armored-based TBMP (t-15) that uses the same weapons as the terminator, with the exception of the AGS, which is not a problem to put if there is a justification for its necessity. The same 30 mm quick-firing guns and AGS can be installed on the same t-14 or on existing t-72s.
              Therefore, from the above, the question arises: is it worth introducing a new type of technology, all other things being equal? In my opinion it’s not worth it because it will require reducing the number of tanks and / or infantry fighting vehicles in the unit or increasing the staff of the unit while reducing their number.

              At the same time, I admit that BMPT in one form or another can give an advantage in battle, and therefore this advantage will justify the waste of resources on BMPT. That's why I ask Why is BMPT necessary? What does she have, is able that it can not be implemented on a promising technique or an existing one?
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat 28 September 2017 08: 59 New
                  0
                  Well, when there is essentially nothing to say, then we turn to insults. good
                  Quote: k_ply
                  BTR-T VS BMP

                  It doesn’t matter how to call the T-15, at least call it a scrambler, because it has the same tank armor and weapons as the terminator. therefore, it can replace the BMPT terminator. Therefore, I think it's silly to argue about the name.
                  Quote: k_ply
                  And even elementary, the T-15 is unified with the T-14, and not with the T-72 / -90, which means that only the corresponding brigades and regiments will be equipped with the Aroma and BM of the family.

                  And again, I repeat from time to time, we install on the T-72 30mm + AGS in addition to the existing weapons, and thus we get a tank capable of working across the entire spectrum of combat missions.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat 28 September 2017 16: 15 New
                      0
                      Quote: k_ply
                      Fans of the "wunderwaffe" from time to time ...

                      your example of a mercenary really a child prodigy from which is of little use, just mixing 120mm + 60mm looks like delirium of delirium because the latter does not give any advantages in battle, but it does harm. And this objection in no way justifies your opinion about the need for BMPT.

                      about the t-15, the problem is solved by replacing the DBM with a higher gun position, and again your objection in no way substantiates your opinion about the need for BMPT. hi

                      In general, apparently you do not know how to logically substantiate your opinion. hi
                      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Gransasso
          Gransasso 27 September 2017 17: 43 New
          +1
          And can you elaborate on this mythical Algerian order .... can you find out the sources of this fake?
          1. k_ply
            k_ply 28 September 2017 08: 41 New
            +1
            Articles then at least read to which we write comments? Is it a fake or not a fake? - in d.s. do not care for a specific example (given in parentheses), the essence remains.
  23. k_ply
    k_ply 20 September 2017 18: 36 New
    +3
    Quote: psiho117
    That rushes to a position in dust clubs ...

    The dust now doesn’t unmask, but disguises the target (like a comet, damn it, you can’t see it!). And you don’t have to start the production of “if only if only”, otherwise you can get to the possible misses and ATGMs and any artillery ammunition.
    Looks like the T-54 is a radio-controlled reckless (tarpaulin not otherwise) drone without triplexes of a mechanical drive and with explosive filling, which does not threaten any detonation. If the BPS is from 100-200m to an 80-mm side (45-50mm guaranteed from 1000m depending on the manufacturer), it is permissible that they aren’t scary, then to the tracks the chassis, along with the OFS (50g BB, some VOG-17 / -30 with 35g of explosives and I don’t remember), they will cause instant damage.
    Or we hurried to melt away with the T-54, while initially the aluminum 32-34-ton Bradley A3 let it go not in the forehead, but it is rounded off (the sides are kept with a 14,5 mm B-32).

    So far and good luck in writing!
  24. tank64rus
    tank64rus 8 October 2017 20: 45 New
    0
    If decades had been waiting for a decision on the car for several years.
  25. vfvlasov
    vfvlasov 12 June 2018 10: 06 New
    0
    Commercial success is when you sell abroad for currency. And when you steal money from the state budget by cunning, it’s a scam! Recently, some kind of idiocy has been going on in the field of weapons. Tank support tank !? A tank on wheels !? Tank with active protection !? If you understand what it is, it becomes sad! The United States shot 3500 Saddam Hussein tanks in a week! At the same time, the United States did not lose a single tank. There were losses later from grenade launchers, but almost all tanks were repaired. Our tanks are not much better than Iraqi. Why do we produce them in huge quantities? "Throw" tanks of the enemy? It looks like our military is doing something wrong. Who would put things in order and stop the mess.