Panzerkampfwagen II, T-60, Terminator BMPT and the principle of the well-forgotten old

Encountered in the abyss one article in which BMPT “Terminator” was very peculiarly compared with a tank T-35. Say, "Terminator" - this is crap, suitable only for parades. Pondering, to be honest.

In fact, BMPT has already discussed this on the site until I can. Dismantled the bones of weapons, expressed their opinion. However, we suggest looking at this hitherto unknown toy from a slightly different point of view. From point historical.

It will probably look weird, but in fact the Terminator has historical types. And this is not T-35, frightening thing, but completely unsuitable for combat. Luckily.

But first, we allow ourselves to express our opinion on how we understand the idea of ​​the Terminator BMPT.

And we understand it with great difficulty. Despite the education and academy. Which in itself is strange.

But in the BMPT itself the oddities are no less than in our towers, but even more. And the most important oddity, which was almost never mentioned, is in fact the absence of the appointment of BMPT or BMIP, no matter how to call it.

Declared support either tanks or infantry. This is alarming. According to the full program.

"... is designed to operate as part of tank formations with the aim of defeating enemy anti-tank weapons: to effectively suppress enemy manpower, equipped with grenade launchers, anti-tank complexes, small-arms weapons; there is also an opportunity to hit tanks, BMP, dot, bunker and other highly protected targets on the move and from the spot. "

Probably worth paying attention to the history of creation. How did the Thermic come about? As we understand it, they took a tank, good in the storerooms of this good - like dirt, removed a cannon from the tank and began to think about why sticking it instead. No less effective and deadly, but different.

Apparently, there was nothing in the warehouses, so they began to cram on the principle that there is.

Yeah, there are pretty good 30-mm automatic cannons on the shelves. Give two! Not "Shilka", but "Pantsir" or "Tunguska". The question arises: why? As an air defense system this bmop does not work. It does not work at all, there is no radar, there is no guidance and tracking station, there is nothing. You can get into the helicopter, which is bobbing at a speed of 350 km / h, if everything in heaven converges right. That is - by chance.

Armored pick? And it depends on what. Tank - purely tickle, modern heavy armored personnel carriers and BMPs of the "Boxer" type 30-mm projectile in the forehead just hold, in the board - how lucky. Plus, their speed on 30-40% is higher, they can simply be trivial to blame. And do not catch up.

Guns, ATGMs, pillboxes, bunkers ... Also, as it were, doubtful. Especially bunkers and bunkers. And before the artillery or mortar still need to get there. In the conditions of modern combat, yes behind their tanks.

It remains a niche military old type of BMP-1, BTR-70, pickups with machine guns in the back. Then it’s not at all clear, are we going to drive an army on a permanent basis for export to the third or fourth world? "For rent"?

To the guns in general, the mountain was all questions. Chief - why are there two of them? If you can hit a target with one 30-mm cannon, then why the second? Well, in one RP-shells, in another BB. For example. But if it is impossible to solve the problem with an 30-mm projectile, then the second gun will not help. And the amount of ammunition for two barrels will not be more than for one. Less - yes, it will. The second gun as a place takes.

We, in fact, warmly support those who believe that these tarahkam on such a machine is nothing to do. And even explain why. Just below.

There is also a moral effect. Two barrels look worse. Effective marketing in action. But beauty is beauty, but in the case if: we want to destroy the enemy or to scare?

So if you frighten, then knowledgeable people will not let them lie: tank 125-mm - no matter where you are near during the shot, complete demoralization from the rumble and flame. And “Chwang !!!” is no match for the brain in comparison with “Tr-Tr-Tr”.

There is, they say, one place where the Terminator is convenient to use. City. There, they say, it is difficult for tanks (this is true), but the BMPT will cope with arrows and grenade launchers in buildings.

Controversial, however. This BMOP is not much different from a tank. 48 tons - hello! Where is the maneuverability and speed of the BMP / BTR? Not delivered. To pick the walls, speak? It is difficult to say, but it seems to us that the 57-mm projectile would have coped somewhat better than the 30-mm.

But his Majesty the RPG-7 in the city both solved the problem of armor, and will solve it further. And in the case of BMIP, it will be solved no less naturally and with special effects.

Well, that machine gun is. For completely unarmored allai-barbar targets with RPG-7. So far - the first (and last) sane weapon.

But there is still AGS! Two! One shoots on the right side, the second - on the left.

Bullshit. Why do AGM come up with? Yes, in order that the infantry in the defense could work with small frag-explosive surface-explosive on the squares. In order to oppress the same infantry enemy.

He, AGS, because and jumps like maydaun skhodnyak. Recoil is used precisely in order that the grenade launcher galloped and scattered the grenades in an almost staggered manner. Bonus AGS - the possibility of mounted shooting from closed positions or through an obstacle. However, even here the question arises: the BMPT should not be hiding on the battlefield, but, on the contrary, should go on the attack with tanks.

Well, plus a rigid mount AGS lead to two things. First: there will be no talk of any accuracy in firing, especially in motion. The second: additional wear on all parts of the mount due to recoil.

Plus to all the minuses - this is what AGS is not automated. Speaking in a simple way - requires an arrow. Two ags - two shooters. How could it be solved, but is it not very wasteful? After all, if the ACS was not required in battle, it's just two crew members do not understand what they are doing. Under the feet of the others are confused. Plus two potential corpses in case of something unpleasant. Type ATGM in response.

ABOUT! For sure! There are also ATGMs!

Yes, ATGM installed. And not the worst in general. "Attack". However, in our humble opinion, the best candy for a tank is uranium scrap wrapped in alloy steel. And against such a scrap of caliber 125-mm, the tricks are still not enough. Unlike the same ATGM.

Modern tank has something to counter the rocket. Blind, shut down with smoke, knock down a tip to the operator, drown out the radio channel. KDZ in the end has not been canceled. In addition, if we talk about this BMIP, what is its 4 ATGM? In comparison with the 45-th projectiles that in the carousel AZ at T-72? And which fly at speeds up to 8 per minute?

But there are also controlled cumulative toys for tanks of the type "Invar", "Invar-M", "Reflex" and the like, which in principle are the same ATGM, only smaller in size.

4 ATGM - this is not the four wrecked tanks, alas. Not a panacea.

The best example of the fresh - the long-suffering Donbass, by the way. A measured war in the image of the First World War, but also without aviation. A huge number of battles ended in victory for the side that had at least one combat-ready tank.

We will not go far beyond the example, that historical battle under Ulyanovka, where the militiamen had an EC-3 with two machine guns. Only a month later, the APU could recapture everything back. And if the tank also had shells ...

Tank is scary. This can be said in chorus, at different times, by different models, but we were run in.

And it is not necessary to broadcast these ATGMs so hard, the ATGM is good from ambush. No chance, if anything, to repeat. No wonder all the "Cornet" - "Phagot" ammunition three shots. No more bullet, no matter how hard you try. By "Tou" the same applies.

Okay, the rackets are already stuck. Nothing can be done. Maybe it will come in handy when. The whole question is about possibility. At the army forum we saw this miracle - the megajip "Tiger", from the roof of which the launcher could crawl out. By the way, it is logical, he is maneuverable, small and in the tank three times (if they have time) will think whether it is worth spending a projectile on him at all.

But “Terminator” is good, why? Is this a means of anti-tank defense? It seems to be a tank support combat vehicle, as many write. She goes along with the tanks, shoots somewhere ... But should the BMIP / BMPT also be an anti-tank weapon?

It seems that for this purpose there are regular VET facilities, aircraft, and the tanks themselves can, on occasion.

Here, about aviation just a few words.

There, above, we said that "Cheburator" as an air defense in any way. Can not. Well, if you are very lucky, the BC guns that are hanging all over the helicopter may fall.

These letters, air defense, and they are not in the tank. Yes, the anti-aircraft machine gun on the tank seems to be available, but not as a means of defense. This is so, an imitation of the presence of protection, so as not to be very nervous when suddenly you see enemy helicopters.

We ourselves are not particularly knowledgeable, because we asked the famous tankman AleksTV on the site. So, comrade Alexey stated authoritatively that hell you get out of it in general, and to the flying target in particular.

In addition, on our tanks for firing from the mountain anti-aircraft guns, you need to lean out of the tower so that the cry of "... akbar!" Will fly at the same time as a bullet to your head.

Watching various military shows like "Aviadarts", we can conclude that when you are thrown at least by NURS, it smells like kerosene and a burning ass.

But the potential has a miracle mop "Hellfire", which you can shoot at tanks already with 4-5 km. It is said that with hit everything is not so beautiful, as well as with real efficiency, but they exist. So you have to do something.

And here begins an epiphany on this BMPT.

Air defense. Not. To do this, there are "Shilka", "Tunguska", "Pantsiri" on the distant approaches. In principle, the “Tunguska” is such a serious apparatus that it is capable of any “Apache” poraskinut planes.

VET Not. To do this, there is aviation, "Cornets" and others. Yes, if from an ambush, then, probably, it is possible.

Cover the tanks in the fields. Weakly. This Durovina will be noticed before the tanks, even if the Terminators are put behind them. And shoot before. Just in case, why not, so that under the feet do not interfere. Fortunately, with the protection there everything is not quite like that of tanks.

Conditions of the city. Some argue that the BMO is directly created for the city. That's just the tanks in the city decided to send only in order to quickly write them off. Proven. But in the city a monster the size of a tank, with its own speed, maneuverability, however, having the ability to spit in all directions with something, especially up, will come in handy. Perhaps instead of tanks.

The tanker has one dream at all - the absence of these in the district, with grenade launchers and cumulative hand grenades and other pleasures. For this case, BMPT are uniquely valuable.

Here is a question of priority goals. If we are talking about causing maximum damage to the enemy, of course, the tank is preferable. And in the classic war, the army against the army, and in the partisan. And that decides the commander of the side attacking the city. Arrange Grozny or Stalingrad.

The most interesting thing about all this is that in no way do we dispute AleksTV’s opinion that the BMPT is the right machine for tank forces. In the end, here tanker know better. We, being people on the other side of the reservation, can only plan how to arrange a fire show from any BMPT or rather.

The opinion of Alexei, we have specially reserved for the end of all the narration and reflection. That's what we got in the end, so to speak, the compiled opinion of the tanker.

1. A BMPT type machine is very much needed by tank forces.
2. BMPT, the main feature of which is tank armor and automatic small-caliber gun more weighty support for the tank than the BMP.
3. "Terminator" is necessary, but with modifications. I would immediately remove the AGS and a little later - ATGM. As unnecessary to complete, the first and for reasons the second. Instead of ATGMs, it is better to put thermobaric charges. You can not - remove.
4. For an automatic cannon caliber from 23 to 75-mm on a modern battlefield, just a huge number of targets.

Actually, in many respects AleksTV confirmed our considerations.

Now about the story. And then many, looking at the headline, probably already nibbled their elbows. And everything is very simple.

To begin with, let's send everyone to the article about the light tank T-60. It tells how he appeared, and in what short time. And how not very long and impressive was his service.

Recall that, in principle, T-60 was actually a brother of the German PzKw-II or T-2. Everything seems to be. Sizes, armor, speed. Even 20-mm air cannon as weapons.

Question: why?

But because. Despite the available T-35, T-28, T-26, BT-7, T-34, KV-2 suddenly needed such a tank. In fact, a copy of the T-2. Here we must remember that the presence of thousands of the above Soviet tanks, the Red Army suffered one defeat after another. The monstrous T-35 and KV-2 were suddenly virtually useless. And the light T-26 and BT-7 suddenly suddenly became weak and outdated.

Although even weaker tanks were against them, BUT:

Here lies the answer to the main question.

The Germans did not have tanks equal to ours. But there was a well-established concept of using tanks, grown by the genius of Guderian.

It was easier for the Germans. They knew how to use their tanks. And they riveted them, based on the requirements of the "blitzkrieg" doctrine and the possibilities of industry.

We had worse. The tanks were, and the tanks were very good. Especially BT-7 and T-34. But with the concept it was worse before done. It simply did not exist, just as there were no commanders who could clearly understand how to fight with tank units.

The dull brain of Tukhachevsky was able to master one single thought in his career. Ram kick First infantry masses, then tank. Everything, on this point. That is why it took tens of thousands of tanks, doomed to simply burn in frontal attacks.

What actually happened in 1941 year. Burned or abandoned.

And today we have all the same.

Someone clever conveyed to the Ministry of Defense the idea of ​​BMPT. Good. Now, if this colonel for the generals also wrote the concept of their use, it would be a masterpiece.

Alas, in this wonderland does not happen. The idea of ​​a tank support vehicle or a fire support was accepted. And even the task was given. But the question of how to apply it, no one rushed to think over. As usual, however. What we give, and so will fight.

From here, there is complete silence in the media, especially in those television channels that, choking with delight, narrated how the Terminator will now tear the bearded people in Syria.

Reports were more than modest. Yes, something was said there in the style of “well, you understand, the BMPT was used in slightly different conditions, in an unusual manner ...”

And what the hell, gentlemen generals, you did not test it in those conditions? And how did BMPT appear to be in them at all?

Again Tukhachevskys ...

By the way, the appearance of the light tank T-1941 in 60 did not alleviate the situation. More precisely, it was useful where it was used correctly. And this, as everyone knows, before the 1943 of the year was at the rank of exceptions.

That's when they understood, realized, worked, paid for in blood, then a certain concept appeared. Imputed. And the tanks appeared under it. The same Isa. Not just a heavy tank, beauty and pride, like the T-35. A heavy killer, breaking through any defense.

Similarly in our case, albeit in 75 years. Sondobit next vundervaflu "which has no analogues in the world" (yes, who needs it, is this a useless device on 70%?) From what was at hand - this is just nonsense.

And according to the mind, first think about how it will be used, this BMPT, then design it all the same, and only then build it. And not the other way around.

Many thanks to Alexey (AleksTV) for tank consultations.

Comments

[Vard]

Authors have the right to their point of view ..
That's what I think .. this is the further development of a pickup truck with a heavy machine gun ...

[GDP]

A very emotional article, not devoid of logic, but not without distortions in my opinion
1 - That the author says that anti-tank tanks click like boxes, that there is no sense in them ... Well, on the one hand it’s logical - portable anti-tank weapons, created in order to use them from an ambush - this is their main purpose, but from the point of view the view of the person who will be sitting inside the terminator ... I would rather have this means of defense against tanks than not ... Moreover, the situations are different, there may not be any cover from enemy equipment - nothing but these missiles and then these 4 guided shots can be very useful to them, and you can knock out a tank strengthening the enemy carry, but not as efficient as a tank, but it is possible. And by the way, they (anti-tank systems) are often used for these purposes in modern conflicts.
2. Two guns against infantry, perhaps too much ... BUT - 4 guns of shilka against infantry and buildings, for some reason, do not seem too much to anyone .... And they are used everywhere for these purposes ... Perhaps these 2 guns are not very effective against aviation but it’s still a means of combating air targets and with its mere existence it will force the enemy aviation to take more careful tactics, fire from a higher height, faster and with less accuracy ...
3. T-60 - built not from a good life - this forced evolution of Soviet amphibious tanks, which were used instead of reconnaissance for a breakthrough, is not intended. Since the tanks were sorely lacking, they were deprived of the opportunity to sail, but increased armor and a weapon ... Comparison with BMPT, it seems to me that it is not correct ...

In general, it seems to me that our designers wanted to create a kind of universal combine harvester for supporting tanks, for destroying enemy infantry, equipment, fortifications and aircraft ... It is clear that the PMT cannot also effectively deal with helicopters like shilka and tanks like T90. .. But you don’t attach a mobile air defense system to each tank, not to mention their vulnerability on the battlefield ..... Therefore, it seems to me that the BMPT is needed by the army. Especially in ours, which is not always predictable from the point of view of the logic of the army.

For the rest - I agree with the author - and indeed, in FIG 2 ags with two additional fighters ?!

[demo]

A simple, rhetorical question - what is better, a gun of the caliber 75 mm or 125?
And which is better - one gun or two?
And there are thousands of such "simple" questions.
And the oncoming one - for what purposes?
And a thousand answers.
And then the MAIN question arises - what type of hostilities and with what global goals are we conducting?
Are we advancing or defending?
And where are we advancing - west, east, south (thank God we should not advance north)?
And from whom are we defending ourselves? From NATO? From China? From barmaley, all colors and colors?
This is the definition of strategy.
Primary is the main thing.
Secondary, etc. - secondary.
And this is state policy.
Which we essentially do not have and is not expected.
Since Europeans are partners.
Americans are partners.
The Chinese are almost brothers.
With barmaley somehow it went wrong.
Therefore, there are samples of military equipment that so far no one has figured out where to stick.
But actually we are peaceful people, not military.

[Strashila]

“that a 57-mm shell would do a little better” ... I agree, given the range of shells ... but it’s better to have 100 guns ... !!! there are ATGMs there !!!, even if you put a loader on 20 shells. .. this is clearly better than 4 (four) ATGMs. Add to the 100 mm gun another 23 mm from Shilka with cooling, I think these trunks are like dirt in storage warehouses. Let the tower not be inhabited, as in Armata ... with an elevation angle of arms up to 70 degrees ... so that it is clean for the city and mountains.

[alstr]

I wrote in a previous discussion that it is necessary to talk about putting into service the combat MODULE, which can be installed on ANY armored vehicles (with minor modifications). Because for different units you need a different base for uniformity.
Those. We put such a module for motorized rifles on an armored personnel carrier, paratroopers on an infantry fighting vehicle, tankmen on tank chassis (depending on the model of equipment).
Then there will be less misunderstanding.

[max702]

Everything has already been invented except that you need a module on the roof under the control of the commander, and automation of the gas station with the ability to control any member of the crew (-2 soldiers)

[Strashila]

The only thing is that the tower must hold at least 30 mm shell and be equipped with DZ

[Arkady Gaidar]

“What do you want the new owner ?!” .. In VO there has recently been an article about a mortar blade and a grenade launcher. Engineers simply puzzle over what else to please the military. They themselves will not have to fight with these products anyway. In general, Terminator is interesting as a highly protected object that suppresses enemy fire on the battlefield. But money for his exploiter will require, like a tank, and he himself is far from a tank.
It only says that in the minds of our military and military engineers, there is absolutely no understanding of how promising weapons will develop. And now it’s on the principle: “You pay us the most, but we blind you!”

[hohol95]

Baryatinsky Mikhail Borisovich. The Great Tank War of 1939 - 1945.

In this regard, they usually immediately recall the Theory of Deep Offensive Operation. True, contrary to popular belief, tanks did not get into this theory right away. Yes, at first, and could not get! The first approximate formulation and justification by calculations of such an operation was made by V.K. Triandafilov in his book "The Character of Operations of Modern Armies", published in 1926. At that time, the Red Army not only did not have experience in conducting tank operations (except for two or three minor episodes of the Civil War period), but really did not have the tanks themselves. The Red Army had only one tank regiment, equipped with captured tanks of English and French production. The process of deploying tank troops and developing the theory of their use went hand in hand.
The “Interim Instructions for the Combat Use of Tanks”, issued in 1928, was the first special instruction on the combat use of tanks in the Red Army. In contrast to the previously existing provisions, the “Instruction” provided, under the appropriate conditions, the use of tanks to carry out independent tasks, in large numbers, as a freely maneuvering group or a train advancing ahead of the infantry.
It was Kalinovsky, an enthusiast of the mechanization and motorization of the army, who paid great attention to the development of military-theoretical issues of the organization and combat use of tank and mechanized troops. In his published works “Problems of maneuver warfare from the point of view of mechanization and motorization”, “Problems of mechanization and motorization of modern armies” for the first time the most important questions of the construction and combat use of armored forces were widely posed, fundamental provisions on their organizational structure and the most appropriate forms of use were expressed tank and mechanized units. In particular, in his article “Problems of Maneuverable War from the Point of View of Mechanization and Motorization,” published in the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper in 1930, K.B. Kalinovsky wrote:
“The stage of deployment of the operational maneuver is drawn as follows. Mechanized formations, strategic cavalry (1st echelon of operational maneuver), rushing into a breakthrough, along with powerful assault and bomber aircraft, by counter-collisions liquidate the enemy’s operational reserves suitable on foot and in vehicles.
Disorganization of the enemy rear — control units supplying the bases ... is carried out by mechanized raiding units and strategic cavalry, accompanied by airborne assault forces.
At the same time, military units (of the second echelon of operational maneuver) are deploying a maneuver in cars (car maneuver) filed from the main command auto reserve ... "
Analyzing the combat experience and the development of the means of warfare, a number of military leaders and military theorists came to the conclusion: it is possible to destroy the enemy only “by a series of successive operations”. The essence of these operations was understood by M. N. Tukhachevsky, N. E. Varfolomeev and E. A. Shklovsky as a series of operations following one after another. Each of these operations was to be carried out in accordance with the theory of deep offensive operations.

According to the theory of a deep offensive operation, the enemy’s tactical defense was breached by combined-arms formations - rifle corps, and tank, motorized and cavalry formations, interacting with aviation, should boldly penetrate not only into the tactical, but, most importantly, the enemy’s operational defense. At the same time, the speed of development of the breakthrough was to exceed the rate of withdrawal of the defending enemy infantry. The mobile forces should be ahead of the retreating enemy and, therefore, not allow their reserves to strengthen their defense at intermediate lines, expose their flanks and thereby create favorable conditions for attacks on the flank or to surround the entire enemy group.
This was a fundamentally new theory of the offensive of a technically equipped army, which corresponded to the objective conditions of armed struggle. But, of course, at first in the Soviet theory of operational art, not everything was developed to the end and, as subsequent experience showed, not everything was right.
First of all, the maneuverability of the future war was somewhat simplified. There was no significant difference between the maneuverability of the initial period of the war and its subsequent stages. Hence, undue emphasis was placed on the maneuvering start of an offensive operation (approach to enemy defense) and oncoming collisions. Issues of organizing an offensive in conditions of direct contact with the enemy were poorly developed. The strength and tenacity of the enemy’s operational defense was underestimated.

All these theoretical studies were reflected in the then official manuals and charters - such as: “Independent Motorized Units” (1930), “Combat Application of Independent Motorized Units” (1931), “Driving and Combat of Independent Mechanized and Motorized Units” "(1932)," Instructions for deep combat "(1935)," Combat charter of mechanized and motorized troops of the Red Army "Part I (1937).

Do not blame everything on Tukhachevsky alone ...

[uskrabut]

Probably the first thing to do is to ask the military, those who have visited the battlefield. The heavy infantry fighting vehicle is still understandable, there the infantry was hidden behind the tank armor, it is good for health. It is also possible to fit a module with an automatic gun on it. For me it’s easier to put Shilka behind the tanks, she will also knock out the infantry from the bushes and be able to work on aviation.

[Bakht]

In the process of reading the article, a question arose for military people. Where and how can tanks be used?
It’s not possible in the city, in the mountains, in the open. Where can tanks be used at all? Yes, the car is scary. I agree that I would not want to see how "30 tons of Ural steel" rushes at you. You can then throw the pants. But where is the use of tanks justified? After all, if for 1 km of the front a pair of TOU or Javelin’s calculations will survive, then ....

[Lopatov]

Quote: Bakht

In the process of reading the article, a question arose for military people. Where and how can tanks be used?
It’s not possible in the city, in the mountains, in the open.

Everywhere you can. And it is necessary.
It’s just that, again, everywhere there are peculiarities of combat use.

[Bad_santa]

To the calculation of anti-tank systems on flat terrain after it launches all its 3 rockets and destroys the 1-2 tanks, you can, with a clear conscience, lie down next to the machine, light a cigarette and blow smoke rings into the sky to dream of a hero's reward ... Posthumously. There will be no time to run

[Bakht]

Maybe. But the fact is that they will receive a hero award. Although posthumous. But the crews of the tanks are gone.

[Oleg78]

It is strange that the author of this opus did not give the arguments of the tankman but wrote in passing what they needed and rolled up an article that he considers this to be bullshit. But if you think from the point of view of a tanker, then everything is logical! 1 no need to retrain people. he landed a tankman and he drove off, the second ... as it is correctly said (probably by accident) others will carry out air defense cover. this unit is just for covering tanks. it is not intended for close combat. He’s right next to the tanks .. if the situation on the battlefield gets out of control he will cover the withdrawal of tanks .. that’s his task. The dimensions of the tank and therefore transportation in tank formations do not need to think about another method of attachment .. For me, the author himself is not very in the subject

[Cat]

The authors are well done! All that can be pulled up to the conclusions, forgetting to write one "Terminator" is almost one and a half times stronger than armored! Exactly the weight of a tank tower with a gun!
Well, there are so many pearls in the article that it’s even too lazy to describe them! At least the authors should have counted how many shells in the T-72 automatic loader ....... far from 45 however!
With respect to the forum users, Kitty!

[Prutkov]

Eh. do not read the Syrians VO. And so they send Shilka to escort the infantry and tanks while welding at least some iron on it. Curious. What feelings does the PRTC operator feel when he sees tracers rushing towards him? What does a helicopter pilot think when he sees that they are shelling him from something heavy? I think that for the BMPT it is important not to hit the target from the first shot, but an instant reaction to the target that appears to prevent the grenade launcher / operator from taking aim. Repeatedly raised in the issue of limited visibility in the tank. BMPT should be able to monitor simultaneously at 180 degrees. Now on the battlefield this is done by infantry not covered by armor.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Rods

Curious. What feelings does the PRTC operator feel when he sees tracers rushing towards him? What does a helicopter pilot think when he sees that they are shelling him from something heavy?

Anticipation.
"What a tasty, yet weakly defended goal."

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Rods

Eh. do not read the Syrians VO. And so they send Shilka to escort the infantry and tanks while welding at least some iron on it.

Do you know why they do this? Because the situation in Syria is the same as in both Chechen ones: there is equipment, but there are no active bayonets. There are tanks, but there is not enough trained and motivated infantry that needs to interact with these tanks. So you have to cover these tanks with at least something.
Actually, BMPT arose as a result of the First Chechen War, when they fought regiments with all the equipment, but with the personnel for the reinforced battalion.
If you equip at least parts of the first line by state, then BMPTs and other tank escorts become unnecessary - all of their tasks are solved by existing staff resources.

Quote: Rods

What feelings does the PRTC operator feel when he sees tracers rushing towards him?

And besides tracers from BMPT ATGM can not suppress anything? What do the IFRS BMP do? What does a 120mm mortar battery do? Established funds, by the way.
Or are we again, in the best traditions of 1941, decided to fight with bare tanks? So even AT-AT will not save from tactical gagging.
And another question - how will BMPT detect these targets? It seems to me that BMPT will also have to give an MCO, which will be its remote eyes to ears.

[spektr9]

Because in Syria the situation is now - as in both Chechen

Afghan and both Chechen perfectly showed that the doctrine of the development of armored forces in the USSR / RF is absolutely not suitable for local conflicts ....

There are tanks, but there is not enough trained and motivated infantry that needs to interact with these tanks

And here’s also a suggestion - the technique doesn’t cope against guerrilla warfare burns in cities, dies in mines, so let’s drop the soldiers, let’s say “women still give birth”, and we don’t need specialized equipment for stripping

[Alexey RA]

Quote: spektr9

Afghan and both Chechen perfectly showed that the doctrine of the development of armored forces in the USSR / RF is absolutely not suitable for local conflicts ....

The first Chechen showed that in our gallant army they begin to recall the charter and military experience of the past only when the roasted rooster has been barking the whole fifth point. SW M. Svirin wrote that materials on the Berlin operation from the archives began to be taken only in 1994. Although it was the assault on Berlin that showed how and how to use tank formations with minimal infantry support against defense saturated with RPGs.

Quote: spektr9

And here’s also a suggestion - the technique doesn’t cope against guerrilla warfare burns in cities, dies in mines, so let’s drop the soldiers, let’s say “women still give birth”, and we don’t need specialized equipment for stripping

But the soldiers still have to act in conjunction with the BMPT. At least to clear the route. KMT is not saved from the same anti-aircraft mines or guided landmines.

[Sergey824]

"What feelings does the operator of the PRTC feel when he sees tracers rushing towards him?"

Tracers are not visible when they are rushing at you, but from behind, shooting.

[faiver]

sorry, but the article resembles a tantrum of a schoolgirl

[Massik]

It seems like the tanks were going to support this thing. That is, they are always next to the beloved authors of 2A46. The infantry will crush completely, got up and water from the guns with grenade launchers. I don’t understand the fetish of the ancient S-60, well, more caliber, more energy, but much less shells.

[LastPS]

Shells are more effective. The modernization potential of our 30mm projectile has been exhausted, and the life of 57mm is just beginning, and now there are, for example, remote detonation shells.

[Massik]

As with 76, 100 and 125 mm shells, but for some reason everyone prays at 57.

[LastPS]

Because it is an automatic weapon, unlike the others. In terms of cost and effectiveness, this is a masthead. It is in trend. Bofors L70 of the 47th year of release on the Swedish cv90 is an example of this.

[zxc15682]

Put a rapier on the tank and automate the ammunition pack .. This will be the support. !!!

[Lopatov]

The same tank will work.

[zxc15682]

For that, nothing more.

[Lopatov]

Quote: zxc15682

For that, nothing more.

Healthy breech MT-12 extra. It will not allow the gun to be mounted so that it fires at large elevation angles.
And the initial velocity is too big.

[DesToeR]

Poking walls, speak? It’s hard to say, but it seems to us that the 57-mm shell would have done better than the 30-mm shell

If you remove the ATGM and AGS, and replace the 30mm gun with 57mm, then nothing needs to be invented. The Hell's Thresher is back in service?

[Curious]

"Despite education and academy "
A mysterious phrase. What can she mean?

[Lopatov]

In general, by and large, the authors are right.
It turned out "neither fish nor meat"

- To protect tanks from PTS infantry in close combat, you do not need such a machine.
- For fire support of tanks and motorized rifles on infantry fighting vehicles with direct fire from the depths of battle formations, such a machine is needed
- To strengthen the anti-tank capabilities of tank units (you will laugh, but there is an urgent need for this), we need not such a machine
- To replace a tank on city streets, in the mountains, and on other “difficult” enclosed areas, you do not need such a machine.
- About the direct cover of tanks from an air enemy, such as airplanes-helicopters-UAVs-barrage ammunition-VT ammunition I will simply keep silent.

They tried to combine everything in one device, create a station wagon, and as a result, Tyrminator came out, equally unable to carry out any of the tasks assigned to it with sufficient efficiency.

[Alexey RA]

PMSM, instead of BMPT, tankers need TBMP, capable of operating with tanks in the same formation and covering the transported infantry.
And most importantly, we need communication and interaction between the military branches. So that tankers do not fight - on their own, infantry - on its own, and artillery - on their own. Then instead of 30-mm BMPT shells, either a 120-mm mine, or 100-mm BMF OFS, or ATGM from the calculation of ATGM of motorized gunners will arrive at the detected ATGM position (it is cheaper to use ATGMs for ATGM of the enemy than to save it and then fight without the support of the ATGM damaged by it tank).

[Alex_59]

Better yet, the whistles come and crumble everything around into a fine vinaigrette. This formula worked in the Wehrmacht, at the time of the blitzkrieg, though there were no whistles flying in, "pieces".

[Massik]

Quote: Spade

need not such a car.

And what is needed? Great and powerful, with all his abilities, he could not determine whether it is unlikely to succeed now ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: Marssik

And what is needed?

It is impossible to combine all this in one machine. The Swiss army knife is cutting frankly shitty.

[Massik]

Quote: Spade

The Swiss army knife is cutting frankly shitty.

A bad example, he is sawing just fine for his size. The infantry can handle the infantry

[Lopatov]

Quote: Marssik

Bad example, it’s sawing just fine

Worse than any hacksaw. I will not say anything about the circular.

We already had an attempt to combine a divisional gun and an anti-aircraft gun in one person, why jump on a rake again?

[Lebedev Sergey]

In general, by and large, the authors are right.
It turned out "neither fish nor meat"

We tried to combine everything in one device, create a universal, and as a result, the Tyrminator came out, it was equally not capable of performing with sufficient efficiency any of the tasks assigned to it

Terminator (from the Latin. Terminare - stop) in astronomy is called the line of the light line separating the illuminated (light) part of the body (for example, the cosmic body) from the unlit - dark - part.


Terminator is neither light nor darkness. And not even the border between light and darkness. Just like a robot, it is neither evil nor good. He really is a Terminator.
In particular, "in the legendary sequel of his main work, probably, James Cameron changes the rules of the game: Schwarzenegger becomes the boy's advocate, who in the first part was the personification of absolute evil, inexorable death. And this is no accident."

[zxc15682]

“... is intended for action as part of tank formations with the aim of defeating enemy anti-tank weapons: to effectively suppress enemy enemy personnel equipped with grenade launchers, anti-tank systems, and small arms; there is also the opportunity to hit tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, bunkers, bunkers and other highly protected targets on the move and from the spot. ” here is the solution to the Terminator problem

[tank-master]

Well done guys .. everything is correctly described. This is a dead end machine ... by the way, as I learned, specialists from the aviation industry developed ... that laid missiles that fly 10 km .. and KUO ... didn’t set which this can provide ...
So we need to think and propose ... unfortunately, this is not yet relevant in our country, I hope in Russia they will think ... although we could offer it ... but not Valtsman's JUNE.

[Sergey824]

Thank you for the question. I ask you to make inquiries yourself not only with the tanker, but also with the AGS grenade launcher and artilleryman. Then you will not have small fragmentation bombs. And I did not read what was further in the text about the ACS without tears. Learn the materiel.

[Grim Reaper]

From my own little experience I’ll say that I would prefer 1 t72 instead of 3 terminators. Naturally t72 with infantry support.
But this is just IMHO. In relation to those bd that I participated.
How can it develop in other situations ??

[igorspb]

Does it seem to me alone that Skomorokhov has recently fully corresponded to his last name?

[kig]

You can argue as much as you like, but only practice tests the theory. How many such theories burned up, unable to withstand clashes with reality.

[LeonidL]

Extremely dishonest to fight with the dead man and spit on him in the manner of Rezun. Tukhachevsky, as deputy people's commissar, was responsible for the military-technical side, for armaments, for the creation of new enterprises — strategic theorists were responsible for the tactics of using tank troops. By the way - BT-7 also went into the army thanks in large part to Tukhachevsky, like other weapons. Many of Tukhachevsky’s hints were ahead of time and therefore seemed unrealized or rejected after his death. But after all, the airborne troops, and tank corps, and radar, rocket and rocket technology all came from Tukhachevsky. Do not be like a reason and fight with the dead.

[SOF]

... what a vision ...
... a backfill question: how many “rods”, dressed in high alloy steel, will the king of war manage to send a tank to a highly mobile target filled with explosives .... all the more if he missed the first time ??? ... how many fairly armored Abrams, armed with "spears" of depleted uranium, have perished in Iraq .... is it not from RPGs? ... and how many infantry did the shahid mobilniki put ...?
... interesting, and why this "terminator" began to gain popularity where suicide bombers are potentially possible ........
..... very strange....
... really two (!!!) guns are needed in order to split up the improvised armor of dives from terrorism ?????

[Leomobil]

Yes, they wanted to spit on the statistics of “Mount Kalabanov,” they then know for sure that their iron is spellbound. And then they plan to fight at Prokhorovka standing on a mountain, and the Abrams will take turns to capture through a piece of iron .... :)

[cordon332]

1. A BMPT type machine is very much needed by tank forces.
2. BMPT, the main feature of which is tank armor and automatic small-caliber gun more weighty support for the tank than the BMP.
3. "Terminator" is necessary, but with modifications. I would immediately remove the AGS and a little later - ATGM. As unnecessary to complete, the first and for reasons the second. Instead of ATGMs, it is better to put thermobaric charges. You can not - remove.
4. For an automatic cannon caliber from 23 to 75-mm on a modern battlefield, just a huge number of targets.
The only sound thoughts in the whole article, the rest, especially a digression into history are a set of unreasonable phrases.
Separately, according to the "tanker":
[i] Remove the AG-17 It is impossible to clean, because depriving a car of a weapon with a hinged trajectory and there will be nothing to hit the grenade launchers sitting in the trenches. In addition, the information content decreases (the number of crew members conducting surveillance) in two, which is undesirable for this type of machine.
Remove ATGMs It is impossible to clean, because the car loses the ability to fight with tanks, and as a result act independently in isolation from the tanks, and in the case of using rockets with thermobaric charges it loses the so-called "long arm" - firing at targets at ranges of 4 - 5 km, as shooting on data ranges of 30 mm guns are not effective.
For an automatic gun with a caliber from 23 to 75 mm on a modern battlefield, there is simply a huge number of targets.
Absolutely correct opinion. If we take the motorized infantry platoon of the US Army on the defensive, then tank-dangerous personnel armed with grenade launchers, hand and machine guns, ATGMs, will be up to 70% of the total number of targets and task No. 1 for BMPTs will successfully defeat them. To accomplish this task, KV BMPT is used, consisting of 4 30-mm barrels with ammunition 1500 shells and grenades.

[Leomobil]

I really sympathize with the developers of "Terminator", the waves of shit will roll for a very long time, and nothing can be done about it, only in a real war will the role of this machine become clear. If you now voice the tactics of using "Terminator" - then the "wave of crap" will be even higher. The main task of this machine is "Intelligence and Management". Make the commander control and manage his unit, depriving him of a gun, add people to help with reconnaissance and control. Remove the commander from direct contact with the enemy but leave in close proximity to the unit. And the weapons that are located on the “Terminator” can fully provide minimal protection, and in fact the KP, and the safety of tanks from the rear and from anti-tank vehicles. About the support of infantry and other buns, this is in the sense that to quickly identify machine-gun points and eliminate them or force them to shut up, to advance the infantry forward. It is currently impossible to force commanders to transfer from a tank to the Terminator, in principle, hysteria will go to heaven. And it is clear that there were no results in Syria, because it is not the use of the machine itself that needs to be evaluated, but the increased manageability of the unit in general. And there is no new tactic here, but there is a new level of control and intelligence.

[Leomobil]

Continuing the theme of two or three crew members in a tank, it is possible to discuss only after testing a new control system from a single center, and only after that it is possible to make a crew of two people, a mechanic and a gunner.

[Whowhy]

Well, the Terminator, in my opinion, is, first of all, a car for sale - blacks are impressive. In the 60s, machine guns with tracers were shoved in all the cracks in the T-55 and showed a "tank attack" in the evening. And secondly, it’s an anti partisan, anti rebel machine. To see that all the trunks are studded and feared .....

[Catfish]

Quote: whowhy

Well, the Terminator, in my opinion, is, first of all, a car for sale - blacks are impressive. In the 60s, machine guns with tracers were shoved in all the cracks in the T-55 and showed a "tank attack" in the evening. And secondly, it’s an anti partisan, anti rebel machine. To see that all the trunks are studded and feared .....

I studied at the T-55 in training and declare absolutely responsibly: there are NO "slots" where you can "push machine guns with tracers." And this tank in the 60s was one of the best examples of world tank building (if not the best) and didn’t need any extra advertising. And besides, they were not selling their "blacks", there was free aid to the "fraternal countries." And it’s worthless to give gifts and advertise to anyone - they will tear them away with their hands for free.
And the terms "anti-insurgent and anti-partisan machine" in relation to the tank - you, of course, gave it! A truly new word in the definition of armored vehicles ...

[Qwede]

Firstly, it’s more likely not T-35, but T-28.
Secondly, the question - "why two guns?" It says that the author -> author -> the author knows much less than me on the topic, but I know little.
The question arises - what is the best thing to write for so long if you can simply write: "I don’t understand a damn thing, I don’t want to understand, I don’t need a car for that, all the fools, and I'm in tailcoat."
Hochma about Tukhachevsky expects to continue about "stupid Stalin" and "cannibal Zhukov."

[John22]

The topic was recently discussed. Repeat no sense. moreover, the authors of the article included a fool. The experience of local wars required the creation of BMPT. Shilki was used in Afghanistan until the BMP-2 appeared, AGS-17 was mounted on the armor for the same purpose - to immediately respond to the threat. Everything else takes time. Chechnya and Syria confirm this.

[Narak-zempo]

Well, she has completely different tasks, not military ones. Thousands of T-72s were riveted, they are of no interest in terms of profit, even Papuans cannot be sold without major modernization. And then the program for reworking the old chassis in the Terminators is a state order, living loot, drank-roll away.

[badens1111]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Well this is a government order, living loot, drank, roll back.

Poroshenko quote?

[Narak-zempo]

What does Poroshenko have to do with it?

[Old tanker]

I allow myself to comment on an absolutely amateurish article, despite the education and academies of authors. At the very same, but profile.
So.
About the declared support of either tanks or infantry ... The author himself quotes: "... is intended for action as part of tank formations. That is, it is primarily intended to support tanks. Which, in fact, follows from the name of the machine itself.
About two guns.
It's simple: the total mass and volley density are twice as high. Which is more effective, just for shooting at air targets. And these are not only helicopters, but also drones, observation balloons. Yes, and helicopters are not always worn at a speed of 350 km / h, especially on a combat course and during landing, mining, etc. and the launch of anti-tank missiles is carried out from a hovering position. Well, on pickups with ATGM installations, recoilless heavy machine guns, the same is very effective. Or does the author believe that these goals are too insignificant and can be ignored?
That the defeat of guns, ATGMs, pillboxes, bunkers is doubtful. Just smiles. The calculations of guns and ATGMs are located openly, and not for armor. And therefore, they are very effectively struck by 30mm rounds of OFZ guns 2A42. About bunkers, there is no talk of defeat from 30s. For them there is a 9M120F shot with a high-explosive volume-detonating head part of the Ataka complex. Well, DZOT (wood-earthen firing point) only in the way 30mm TB (armor-piercing-tracing) shells are picked.
About armored vehicles 30mm guns 2A42 picking - miss. Because it's just funny. the spectrum of this concept is very wide, but the author focused only on “Boxer”. And why not on the "Namer" for example?
And again, the passage about two guns. He took it apart above.
About the fact that BMOT (BMPT) in the city does not differ much from the tank and comparing them only by mass is absolutely incorrect. And the maneuverability of a modern tank at the BMP and armored personnel carriers. In other matters, this indicator is not the main one during the storming of the city. It all depends on the speed of advance of the infantry. Well, a 30mm gun with armor-piercing shells pierces any brickwork and concrete wall panel, and high-explosive fragmentation and fragmentation-tracer work efficiently on window and other openings. 57mm cannon has great power, but lower rate of fire and, accordingly, lower salvo density per unit time. About the fact that the 125mm tank gun is more formidable - yes. But! After a shot, the tank is unarmed for 8-10 seconds, or even more (in case of delay)! Indeed, at this time there is a loading cycle. But the automatic BMPT guns are constantly ready. Ribbon power, as in a machine gun.
About the AGS, in addition to laughter, it does not cause anything, especially about the return that is specially used to scatter ... I want to ask, but did the author ever shoot from the AGS? And yes, the BMPT AGs are not installed rigidly, but have pointing angles. So leave the topic of AG without comment.
About uranium scrap is more effective than PTUra.
A 3BM-32 shell with an all-uranium hull (the most massive in the Russian army) up to 250 at an angle of 0 is 560 mm, and the tandem warhead 9M120 of the Ataka complex is 800 mm behind dynamic protection. So here is the same without comment. In addition, due to the drop in the initial speed, the armor-piercing-projectile shells of tanks are effective only at a distance of up to 2000 m, and tank ATGMs are up to 4000-5000, and the BMPT “Attack” system is generally up to 6000! What is called compare. Well, it’s impossible to drown out the “Attacks” channel, since the guidance is carried out along the laser beam. So there remains aerosol and smoke (there is no optoelectronic suppression on western tanks). But this will be prevented by aiming for firing and by “uranium scrap”.
And yes, there are 72 shells in the T-22 carousel, the remaining 13 are in non-mechanized laying. Of these, 7 armored-sub-caliber, 5 cumulative, the remaining fragments. This is if there is no ATGM in the BC. Then the layout is a little different. And not at the expense of fragments.
The main purpose of the BMPT is to cover tanks in the field. Tanks hit the most important and severe targets, BMPTs are less protected, but no less dangerous, from ATGMs, granotomotchikov, bunkers with fire from 30mm cannons, and 7,62 PKT. Bunkers can be affected, both by tanks and BMPT guided missiles with a high-explosive volume-detonating warhead, and the same godfather. Well, other manpower will be cleaned by two AHs, regardless of guns and SD. So the tandem tank-BMPT is able to conduct an independent attack in armored order. Then the infantry can only collect trophies)))). The tank will fill up its brothers and others like them, and the BMPT will clean out the trenches. Five pairs of eyes monitoring the battlefield are much better than three. Of these, three can fire independently of each other - this is also worth considering.
In the city, the more protected BMOT is an effective tool to support the assault infantry. Unlike lightly armored infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, large-caliber machine guns and small-caliber guns hit by fire. Rapid-fire guns with a high elevation angle are constantly ready to open fire effective in almost all ranges of storeys. If necessary, pick far and for sure - ATGMs / SDs are. Automatic grenade launchers will clean up suddenly occurring targets in the dead zone of guns and ATGMs.
Well, at the expense of tanks in the city. With their competent use, their losses are minimal and mass write-offs do not threaten them. During the storming of Grozny in August 1996. tank battalion of Tverskoy 166th Guards. Omsbr did not lose a single tank!

Well, I agree with the opinion of AlexTV. With the exception of the composition of the armament complex. Why I hope from my comment is clear.

[cordon332]

Quote: Old Tankman

It's simple: the total mass and volley density are twice as high. Which is more effective, just for shooting at air targets. And these are not only helicopters, but also drones, observation balloons. Yes, and helicopters are not always worn at a speed of 350 km / h, especially on a combat course and during landing, mining, etc. and the launch of anti-tank missiles is carried out from a hovering position. Well, on pickups with ATGM installations, recoilless heavy machine guns, the same is very effective. Or does the author believe that these goals are too insignificant and can be ignored?

That's right, two 30-mm AP 2A42 guns were used to increase the mass and density of the salvo, but you need to add “with high accuracy and accuracy.” In principle, the same mass and density of the salvo can be obtained when firing from one 2A42 at a fast pace, but with this will result in less accuracy and accuracy when firing at ground targets, which is unacceptable for hitting small targets, such as a grenade launcher in a trench. For such purposes, it is necessary to fire from 2A42 at a slow pace, while obtaining acceptable characteristics for accuracy and accuracy, but at the same time we lose the mass and density of the volley. To compensate for this loss, the second 2A42 serves. As a result, when shooting from both guns at low rates on ground targets, we obtain sufficient mass and volley density with high accuracy and accuracy, and when shooting at high speeds on air targets, high mass and salvo density with sufficient accuracy and accuracy, which is required for the effective use of BMPT in various types of military operations

[Molot1979]

This always surprised me. If you are so smart and savvy that the General Staff itself against your background miserably squeezes in the corner, why are you driving a taxi, waving a milling cutter, or is it like these subjects that are shaking your minds on the topwar? You have a place at the head of no less than the entire Galaxy. Or, at worst, at least Russia. Do not take? Maybe this is because you are not at all the most intelligent and savvy, and all these years just flattered yourself?

[GDP]

Quote: Bad_Santa

To the calculation of anti-tank systems on flat terrain after it launches all its 3 rockets and destroys the 1-2 tanks, you can, with a clear conscience, lie down next to the machine, light a cigarette and blow smoke rings into the sky to dream of a hero's reward ... Posthumously. There will be no time to run

Perhaps, if there was only one tank? Or can it not be? And if the MANPADS fired together with the tanks - by whom will the opponents fire first of all according to the tank or the MANPADS calculation?

[acetophenone]

I didn’t like these rattles at once. Under-tanks, under-infantry fighting vehicles.

[Voenoboz]

One gets the impression why helmets are needed; they still make their way, but they are a necessary attribute of infantry. The infantry must cover the tanks, but it is without armor, and it’s not easy to carry machine guns just like that, and there’s not much to take ammunition. And if the area is infected, where it is easier to survive and complete the task.

[abc_alex]

Probably worth paying attention to the history of creation. How did the Thermic come about? As we understand it, they took a tank, good in the storerooms of this good - like dirt, removed a cannon from the tank and began to think about why sticking it instead. No less effective and deadly, but different.

Misunderstood you. There were options BMPT collected not on a tank chassis. "Terminator" is essentially the last surviving from a series of diverse machines.

Yeah, here on the shelves are pretty good 30-mm automatic guns. Give me two! Not “Shilka”, but “Carapace” or “Tunguska”.

This is the "Terminator" a pair of 30-mm guns. Other options weapons scheme was different. For example, in a tower:

100 mm gun launcher (OPU 2A70) with an ammunition load of 50 rounds. In a single unit with an OPU, there was a 30 mm 2A72 automatic gun with two ammunition supplies and a 40 mm automatic anti-personnel grenade launcher. In addition to the main armament, an autonomous stabilized machine-gun installation was installed in the turret with a 7, 62 mm PKT machine gun.

(That is, in essence, this is “Bahcea.”)
And in the case

two course vertical stabilized autonomous installations with a 30 (40)-mm automatic anti-personnel grenade launcher and a PKT machine gun. Two autonomous PKT machine guns mounted on the right and left side of the BMPT

Pick armored vehicles? ...
Guns, ATGMs, bunkers, bunkers ...
There remains a niche of military junk ...

Why guess? In all articles about the history of BMPT, everything is written quite clearly.

BMPT is intended for operations in all types of combat as part of tank and motorized rifle units and subunits. The main objective of the BMPT was to suppress and destroy the tank hazard manpower (TOC).

The tasks of shooting tanks, opening bunkers and bunkers, even a battle with lightly armored vehicles were not set. It was only necessary to effectively protect the tanks from enemy manpower, equipped with manual anti-tank weapons.


Well, since you didn’t really understand why the BMPT was invented, everything seems to you utterly foolish :) By the way, I myself am an opponent of “Terminator”, I consider it a deadborn system and suitable for police missions rather than for combined arms combat. But just the AGS in the side niches, this is the last thing left of the original, sane concept of BMPT. Yes, everything is arranged quite oddly, but these are two independent firing points, allowing mounted fire on infantry in the trench. Moreover, on different sides.

But "Terminator" is good (ATGM) why? Is this a means of anti-tank defense? It seems to be a tank support combat vehicle, as many write. She goes with the tanks, shoots somewhere ... But should the BMO / BMPT also be an anti-tank weapon?

And he doesn’t have ATGM. "Attack" is only nominally considered anti-tank. In real life, this is a universal complex of guided missile weapons for ground units. Depending on the need, you can use both cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation or thermo-barric warheads.

But in the city, a monster the size of a tank, with its own speed, maneuverability, however, having the ability to spit in all directions with something, especially up, is useful. Perhaps instead of tanks.

Yes, that's just "spitting in all directions" and weaned her. In recent versions, BMPT can spit like a tank only in one direction. Where the tower is turned.

3. "Terminator" is necessary, but with modifications. I would immediately remove the AGS and a little later - ATGM. As unnecessary to complete, the first and for reasons the second. Instead of ATGMs, it is better to put thermobaric charges. You can not - remove.

It's not about the assortment of weapons. The point is its location. The BMPT should have several firing points capable of at least simultaneously controlling the space on different sides of the vehicle, that is, shooting simultaneously to the left and to the right. Therefore, two firing modules of the Bahchi type, where several systems are assembled into one aiming and firing complex. For example, KK machine gun and grenade launcher. Or a 30-mm cannon, a rifle-caliber machine gun and a grenade launcher. Each module should be equipped with an independent multi-channel aiming system and wound onto a single operator arrow.
It’s better not to remove the missile weapons, but to transfer them under the armor, as on the Chrysanthemum, here you will have thermo-baric ammunition. A separate operator on ATGM. Well, it’s absolutely prodigy - an automatic 57-mm gun.

The dull brain of Tukhachevsky was able to master one single thought in his career. Ram kick First infantry masses, then tank. Everything, on this point. That is why it took tens of thousands of tanks, doomed to simply burn in frontal attacks.

You are, to put it mildly, very wrong. :)

Someone clever conveyed to the Ministry of Defense the idea of ​​BMPT. Good. Now, if this colonel for the generals also wrote the concept of their use, it would be a masterpiece.

It's just the opposite. It was the military that conveyed to industry the need for BMPT and its concept. But unfortunately, this concept did not survive the disaster of the 90s. They dragged one single project that does not meet the military’s concept, so the “Terminator” is not really being produced.

And what the hell, gentlemen generals, you did not test it in those conditions? And how did BMPT appear to be in them at all?

In my opinion, those conditions are in Syria.

The same ISs. Not just a heavy tank, beauty and pride, like the T-35. A heavy killer breaking through any defense.

It is funny that just the T-35 (well, either the T-28 or T-26 two-tower) of the BMPT concept meets more than the "Terminator". :)

[Alex_59]

I agree with the authors. Already now, in a motorized rifle regiment, there are three infantry fighting vehicles per tank. What are they doing in battle? Usually they answer - they support the infantry. Somewhere separately they do it, away from tanks or what? If you take any textbook on tactics, it just says that both infantry and tanks and infantry fighting vehicles operate in the same order. Three infantry fighting vehicles per tank - already in the state, why some other car? Creating BMPT, we actually recognize that a motorized rifle platoon of three BMPs and 30 people is not able to cover their tank. Maybe just the BMPs are not the ones that are required? And indeed, it has long been known that the BMP-2 is outdated. That is, the problem is that it is necessary to give the infantry adequate BMP time requirements and that’s all. Three BMPs are three independent firing points that can suppress three different targets. That is, they can already be more than one BMPT. To make support for tanks more efficient, several BMPTs per tank must be given, that is, on 1000 tanks, release 3000 BMPTs, beyond the already mandatory BMPs for infantrymen. For some reason, I don’t see so much money in the bins of our country, we can’t buy Armata and Su-57 in air-conditioned quantities, and then let's create BMPT battalions.
The question, in my opinion, is solved as simple as possible. The infantry must be given a modern infantry fighting vehicle with the same level of protection, as it looks in the T-15 Armata project. If the tanks and infantry operate together, then already in the existing OSh, each tank receives three infantry fighting vehicles with weapons capable of providing this support. Here you and ATGM and automatic gun. There is a tank down the street, hammering the most dangerous targets, infantry combing the houses along the street, and infantry fighting vehicles go behind the tank and extinguish everything that moves to the right and left of the tank. In Syria, this is exactly what it looks like, only BMPs there are too weak, that's the problem.