What could be a BMPT "Terminator-3"?


"Fantasy on a theme": TBMP T-15 with two 57-mm cannons. Collage from Gurkhan.blogspot.com


For many years, Russian industry has demonstrated a support combat vehicle at exhibitions tanks (or combat vehicle fire support) "Terminator". The first contract for the supply of such machines appeared only in 2017 and was soon completed. At the same time, the industry has already begun developing a new version of BMPT / BMOP - "Terminator-3". This project can be completed in the very near future.

Announcement after announcement


Since the beginning of the tenth years, the possibility of creating new versions of the "Terminator" with certain features has been regularly mentioned. In particular, at the level of general thoughts and rumors, the construction of an BMPT on the promising Armata platform appeared. However, until a certain time, no official information on this matter was received.

In the spring of 2016, the management of the NPK Uralvagonzavod spoke about their plans to develop a new BMPT based on the Armata with the working title Terminator-3. At that time, almost 30 samples of equipment for various purposes were created on the basis of this platform, and one of them was to be a fire support vehicle. The new project also planned to use new developments in the field of weapons. It was proposed to replace the 30-mm cannon with the 57-mm system.

Soon, UVZ clarified that several options for the appearance of the new BMPT based on different chassis and with different weapons were being worked out. The final appearance of the car was to be determined by the customer. At the same time, a full-fledged development of the project was not carried out at that time. It was planned to start after receiving the order for "Terminator 2".


A late version of The Terminator is on display. Photo by NPK "UVZ"

In November of the same year, UVZ published a book dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the enterprise. In this edition, a new modification of the Terminator was again mentioned - based on the Armata, with two 57-mm cannons and guided missiles.

In 2017, several BMPTs were tested in Syria. In the same year, the Ministry of Defense ordered the delivery of 12 BMPTs of the current modification, and the next year the finished vehicles were shown at the Victory Parade. Probably, in the wake of these events, UVZ began work on the formation of the appearance of "Terminator-3".

At the beginning of 2019, a surge of interest in Terminator-3 was again observed in the domestic and foreign media, but this time no new data was published. NPK Uralvagonzavod was also silent. Hopes for a demonstration of the new BMPT at the Army-2019 forum did not come true. This year, a similar sample was also not announced.

Possible appearance


The current status of the Terminator 3 project remains unknown, and there is not much information about it. However, already now you can imagine what such an BMPT could be and how it will differ from its predecessors. The innovations announced earlier point to the most serious benefits of various kinds.

"Terminator-3" can receive the chassis of serial T-72 or T-90 tanks, but such a machine on the Armata platform is of the greatest interest. It is a versatile tracked chassis with combined armor and an engine with an output of 1200 to 1800 hp. The chassis architecture allows mounting various target equipment, incl. combat module "tank support".


The same car from a different angle. Photo by NPK "UVZ"

It can be assumed that "Terminator-3" will retain all the means of protection inherent in "Armata". Its own armoring of the hull will be supplemented with reactive armor "Malachite" and active "Afganit". The crew will remain inside the hull, so the combat stability and survivability will remain at a high level.

The first "Terminators" have a turret of a characteristic design with a remote mounting of weapons. The new BMPT could retain this architecture - adjusted for the change weapons... It is possible to use one or two 2A91 57 mm cannons developed by the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik", which has already found application in a number of projects. Combat characteristics can be increased by using new types of shells.

For "soft" targets, the machine gun must be preserved; it is possible to use automatic grenade launchers. The installation of guided anti-tank missiles is mandatory. It can be the "Attack" complex, as on the current BMPT, or the "Cornet", which is now entering the troops.

The armament will have to be installed on a completely uninhabited tower, which imposes some restrictions on the formation of a complex of optical means and a fire control system. However, similar developments are already available and used in the T-14 MBT project.


First Army Terminators in training before the Parade. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Expected Benefits


The use of the Armata platform promises significant advantages. It can help increase the mobility of the BMPT, as well as reduce risks when working on the front lines. The distinctive layout improves crew protection. An important feature of such a platform is the open architecture of the onboard equipment. This simplifies the creation or modernization of samples for various purposes, incl. BMPT.

The use of 57-mm guns instead of the existing 30-mm 2A42 will lead to obvious advantages. By increasing the caliber, it will be possible to increase the firing range and the power of the shells. In addition, according to the experience of the Baikal project, it is possible to introduce new functions such as programmable detonation. With such a weapon, Terminator 3 will become even more dangerous for any objects on the battlefield.

According to various sources, the new BMPT / BMOP can receive one or two larger caliber guns. Which option is more interesting to the army is unclear. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. Two cannons will provide an increase in the rate of fire and firepower, but will increase the mass of the gun mount and require more ammunition. The question of the number of weapons should be decided at the stage of developing the technical specifications.

Machine-gun and guided missile weapons on the BMPT have confirmed their capabilities both during long-term tests and during deployment in a real conflict zone. With their help, "Terminator-3" will be able to fight manpower at short distances and with heavy equipment at maximum.


BMPT on Red Square. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

BMPTs of the first modifications with 2A42 cannons and "Attack" missiles are capable of hitting targets at ranges of up to 4 and up to 8 km, respectively. Terminator 3 with 2A91 and Kornet will increase these characteristics to 16 and 10 km. At the same time, the number of target channels does not change.

Missing sample


In general, BMPT / BMOP "Terminator-3" on a new base and with new weapons has great prospects and may be of interest to both Russian and foreign armies. However, the realization of the potential of such a machine is hampered by one "trifle" - the project is not yet ready. Moreover, not only the timing of its appearance, but also the very likelihood of successful completion of the work remains unclear.

In the recent past, NPK Uralvagonzavod has repeatedly raised the topic of creating an updated BMPT, but recently there have been no new messages in this regard. The Ministry of Defense also does not address this topic and does not show an obvious interest in the new Terminator. It should be remembered that this machine for a very long time could not get into the army, and after the order of the first batch of new purchases did not follow. It is not known whether the new BMPT will succeed in becoming more widespread.

It is very likely that UVZ will soon present the first real materials on the next version of BMPT, and they will contain all the most interesting details. However, the timing of such a presentation is unknown. "Terminator-3" can be presented at the next exhibitions this year or later - if the project is completed and they decide to show it publicly.

Thus, around the developed BMPT / BMOS "Terminator-3" there is an ambiguous situation. This project, judging by the declared characteristics and features, is of great interest, at least in terms of technology and capabilities. It is quite capable of arousing the interest of potential customers in the face of our army or other states. However, the development of this BMPT is delayed, and the hypothetical adoption into service is postponed indefinitely. Time will tell whether it will be possible to change this situation and give the army all the new opportunities and advantages.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

125 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  2. Bodipancher 31 July 2020 06: 14 New
    • 10
    • 5
    +5
    I think the division into APC transport vehicles and fire support vehicles still suggests itself. Any attempt to reconcile is always a compromise. We need an armored personnel carrier with good capacity and pure machine-gun armament and a Terminator with a small-caliber cannon, machine guns and an automatic grenade launcher, the presence of ATGMs is not critical. The presence of large ammunition and the ability to create a high density of fire are critical. For work in the city dump. Then the assault force will have a convenient landing, movement and the ability to take good ammunition with them. At the same time, there will be sufficient fire support on the battlefield with a well-protected vehicle. When all this is shoved into one car, it turns out that the landing party is cramped and inconvenient, while the ammunition is frankly small. The widespread use of Shilok, ZSU and other gantrucks in modern wars shows the correctness of this concept.
    1. garri-lin 31 July 2020 10: 33 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      That's just the same ATGMs are needed. And very. And even on armored personnel carriers.
    2. Per se. 31 July 2020 16: 27 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Bodypuncher
      I think the division into APC transport vehicles and fire support vehicles still suggests itself.
      I fully agree with you in this opinion. A heavy infantry fighting vehicle, here "neither fish nor meat", it will be flawed in transport function due to the presence of powerful weapons, and, conversely, the presence of a transport component will limit it as a full-fledged specialized fire support vehicle. In this, the "tandem" solution is much preferable, where well-protected armored personnel carriers go with the infantry in the second line, and next to the tanks (or even ahead of them), BMPTs work, which do not need to wait for the infantry to dismount, and which will be better armed in their specialization and protected, without sacrificing size, maneuverability and production cost.
    3. Aqr009 2 August 2020 09: 35 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      ... transport vehicles armored personnel carriers and fire support vehicles. Any attempt to reconcile is always a compromise.

      Practice has shown that from a tank knocked out in urban conditions, the crew does not always have time to reach the shelter, therefore the presence of a landing module in the BMPT is also justified for the possibility of evacuating the crews.
  3. Free wind 31 July 2020 06: 33 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    In the Soviet Union, tanks were developed and even produced, with missile and machine gun armament, about 50 pieces. But they did not show themselves anything good. And rockets are quite expensive. The rocket costs like a dozen of Barmaley tarantas.
    1. Per se. 31 July 2020 16: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Free Wind
      But they did not show themselves in anything good
      Yes, it was, "Object 150" was adopted by our army in November 1968 under the designation IT-1 (tank destroyer), and was mass-produced.
      The tank's armament then consisted of a guided missile system 2K4 "Dragon" and 15 missiles (main weapon), as an auxiliary weapon was installed 7,62-mm PKT machine gun with ammunition load of 2000 rounds. Now, only, now the missiles have become much more perfect, and in a new capacity such a "rocket tank" could be very effective and relatively inexpensive when using stocks of T-72 tanks or on the new T-90 base, which is much cheaper than the Armata. As artillery weapons could be 57 mm automatic cannon, and missiles would be intended as anti-tank weapons.
  4. Antifreeze 31 July 2020 07: 20 New
    • 20
    • 5
    +15
    In my opinion, with a 57mm caliber, it is more expedient to use one gun - lighter, more precisely, more ammunition. Well, there are still questions about the means of detection.
    1. Cruorvult 31 July 2020 07: 24 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      yes, there are people with a developed imagination, give them the most, so that a turbo-air canopy :-D
    2. Ingvar 72 31 July 2020 09: 21 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Quote: Antifreeze
      it is more expedient to use one gun

      But what about suppression fire, when it is the rate of fire that is more important than the caliber?
      It is not for nothing that in Afghanistan it has turned from an antiaircraft gun into a means of support. Like Zushka 23.
      1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 18: 29 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        But what about suppression fire, when it is the rate of fire that is more important than the caliber?

        Not the pace. Density.
        And it can be provided in different ways.
        1. Ingvar 72 31 July 2020 20: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Spade

          Not the pace. Density.

          Whatever you name it, you understand the meaning. Do you agree with the main message or not? And then under "Different ways" you can mean a battalion of motorized riflemen. wink
          1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 21: 28 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            And then under "Different ways" you can mean a battalion of motorized riflemen.

            By "different ways" can be understood. for example, the air burst of a 30 mm projectile.
            Or the burst of a 57-mm grenade with half-finished fragments and explosives is larger. than in 82mm mine
            Or an artillery shell burst, possibly on a ricochet. Or with a remote fuse. Or with a radio fuse. Or shells with GGE ...

            The bottom line is that suppression does not require a high rate
            1. Ingvar 72 31 July 2020 21: 49 New
              • 2
              • 3
              -1
              Quote: Spade
              The bottom line is that suppression does not require a high rate

              The bottom line is that if you know for sure what cover the enemy machine gunner / sniper is sitting behind, then the rate / density of fire is important to cover the attack.
              Let's not argue for the sake of an argument, okay?
              1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 21: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Ingvar 72
                The bottom line is that if you know for sure what cover the machine gunner is

                You can destroy it
                Suppression is somewhat different.



                Quote: Ingvar 72
                Let's not argue for the sake of an argument, okay?

                Not. This is just the whole point.
                Small-bore rapid-fire cannons with high muzzle velocities are actually of little use for suppression.
                Unlike, for example, not so brutal automatic grenade launchers. Or not at all rapid-fire mortars.

                That, in fact, is the problem of BMPT.
                From which the military is fighting back with all its might.
                1. Ingvar 72 31 July 2020 21: 58 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Ie, as I understand you, Shilka is used purely as a tribute to fashion? belay
                  1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 22: 18 New
                    • 5
                    • 0
                    +5
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    Shilka in use purely as a tribute to fashion?

                    Like a kargokult.
                    If at one time in Afghanistan she famously broke down adobe walls, this does not mean that she became a miracle weapon for all occasions.

                    Let's just do a thought experiment.
                    There is a trench in which the black American Smith is supposedly sitting with the Javelin. And our task is not to let him stick out over the parapet

                    If you try to do this with an automatic cannon, he simply will not notice most of the projectiles. Due to dispersion, they will be either non-flightable or migratory
                    But the 30-mm AG-17 grenades will fall neatly. And you will need to spend less to complete this task.
                    In addition, there will be a possibility of damaging either an ATGM or a black American. For the probability that the grenade will fall into the trench is nonzero. Unlike the automatic cannon projectile.
                2. Ingvar 72 31 July 2020 22: 15 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  You know Lopatov, in case of a surprise attack in close conditions, I would rather have an ultrasound than a Colt .45 caliber. The shotgun should not be offered as an alternative, as the size interferes with the speed of reaction during use. wink
                  1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 22: 44 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    You know Lopatov, in case of a surprise attack in close conditions, I would rather have an ultrasound than a Colt .45 caliber. The shotgun should not be offered as an alternative, as the size interferes with the speed of reaction during use.

                    Not a Colt, but grenades. And the enemy is wearing an armored suit. which the bullet of the 9x19 cartridge does not penetrate
                    1. Ingvar 72 1 August 2020 17: 12 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      What prevents an armed Uzi man from having grenades in his pouch?
                      1. Lopatov 1 August 2020 18: 11 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Ingvar 72
                        What prevents an armed Uzi man from having grenades in his pouch?

                        That he is not a Terminator. And its carrying capacity is limited
                      2. Ingvar 72 1 August 2020 19: 11 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Now we come to the main thing, to the chassis-carrier. The T-72 / T-90 platform pulls both without problems. The current prototype of the Terminator proved it. In the arsenal there are both AGS and ATGM.
                        But that's not where we started, remember? wink
                        Fire rate / density, remember?
                      3. Lopatov 1 August 2020 19: 51 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Ingvar 72
                        The T-72 / T-90 platform pulls both without problems.

                        I'm not sure at all.

                        Quote: Ingvar 72
                        In the arsenal there are both AGS and ATGM.

                        Actually, it was the AG that was removed. Already on the second version of the BMPT.


                        Quote: Ingvar 72
                        But that's not where we started, remember? wink
                        Fire rate / density, remember?

                        Exactly.
                        Neither one, nor two, nor four small-caliber automatic cannons will provide the required density.
                      4. Ingvar 72 2 August 2020 07: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        All Lopatov, that's enough, I'm tired with you. Place a 125mm tank gun there, and consider that the rate / density of fire is ensured. wassat
                        But Gatling will not agree with you.
                      5. max702 3 August 2020 18: 36 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Don't argue everything was invented a long time ago ..
                        at a modern level this is the ideal solution
  • abrakadabre 31 July 2020 09: 37 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In my opinion, with a 57mm caliber, it is more expedient to use one gun - lighter, more precisely, more ammunition.
    In addition, a fairly powerful gun is located strictly along the axis. Therefore, the recoil is more efficiently extinguished. And there is no unfolding moment, as with a paired horizontal installation.
  • SVD68 31 July 2020 07: 39 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    For some reason, BMPT is not in demand among the military departments. Why? Maybe their place in the battle was incorrectly determined? And accordingly, their armament / security.
    In terms of security, these are first line cars. And in terms of armament? Why in the first line 30-mm or even 57-mm guns? After all, there are tanks with 125-mm guns nearby. It's the same with rockets.
    Place BMPT behind tanks? Why, then, such high security?
    To put instead of tanks? The tank, as far as possible, defeat any ground targets, except for infantry in loose order, surpasses the BMPT.
    1. D16
      D16 31 July 2020 10: 09 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Why in the first line 30-mm or even 57-mm guns?

      30mm is really nothing, and 57 in the "derivation" variant IMHO would be useful. As a remedy for ATGMs, helicopters, UAVs and ATGMs themselves launched at tanks. In addition, the cannon should be effective against any armor targets, including the enemy MBT. If it doesn't kill, it will fail. And don't forget about the available elevation angles. You have to fight not only in an open field.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 31 July 2020 18: 14 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The last "armored targets" in the face of monstrous, huge, heavy and expensive and therefore small BMP such as Puma are simply begging for ATGM ... for MRAPS and other armored personnel carriers junk and 30mm, or even 14,5 from the same junk is enough
        1. D16
          D16 31 July 2020 18: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The BMPT must cover all threats, including flying or flying into tanks. ATGM in the near future will cease to be a panacea. The process of installing the KAZ on the equipment went and on the BMP it will be put in the second stage after the MBT.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 31 July 2020 18: 36 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Then it is doubly not clear why this mandula is needed ...
            Moreover, as SPBE worked on Ukrop tanks
            1. D16
              D16 31 July 2020 18: 41 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              So that SPBE would not work, BMPT with Derivation is needed. laughing
              1. 5-9
                5-9 31 July 2020 18: 50 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                I am even embarrassed to ask how Derivation will prohibit Tornado-S or GMLARS from which one to fire a rocket with these SPBEs from afar ...
                And the derivation on the BMP3 looks good, but not on the T-72
                1. D16
                  D16 31 July 2020 18: 54 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It will definitely not forbid to shoot, but it can meet at the end before the division of warheads. And after the separation too.
                  1. psiho117 2 August 2020 20: 20 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: D16
                    It will definitely not forbid to shoot, but it can meet at the end before the division of warheads. And after the separation too.

                    how will she detect them? who will issue target designation?
                    And will the artillery unit pull? "Shells", for example, do not pull. Only rockets, only hardcore.
                    To think that if Ryabov wrote in the article the figure of 16 km the range of destruction, then the BMP suddenly became an anti-aircraft gun is at least naive.
        2. Lopatov 31 July 2020 18: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: 5-9
          The last "armored targets" in the face of monstrous, huge, heavy and expensive and therefore small BMP such as Puma are simply begging for an ATGM ...

          But they still need to be hit at once ...
          It hurts MUSS advanced system ....
          There, UV sensors detect the "torch". Plus advanced sensors for detecting laser radiation. Including laser beam, incl. when flying "above the line of sight"
          1. 5-9
            5-9 31 July 2020 18: 41 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And KAZ .. so again we go back to the crowbar at 1,7 k / sec .... The violinist, bmpt, is not needed. Air programmable detonation for OFS and generally nothing else for happiness was not needed
            1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 18: 59 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 5-9
              AND KAZ ..

              But KAZ was originally planned, together with a laser optics detection system, but then they decided to save money.

              Quote: 5-9
              Violinist, bmpt, not needed.

              It is necessary.
              But in the current version, it is not particularly optimized for the tasks that are assigned to them.
              Let's just say, "not at all ideal"

              Quote: 5-9
              Air programmable detonation for OFS and generally nothing else for happiness was not needed

              Tank?
              No, there is a sea of ​​crap, the Israelis are not in vain with the cassette version suffered.
              It is better to put a remotely controlled weapon station with an automatic grenade launcher on the tank. Completely remotely, from the outside. And he will press tank-hazardous targets to the ground together with artillery.
              Well, add combat vehicles for fire support, so that from behind the line of BMPs they work out at targets with a low-impulse weapon. The same "weaving", or LSHO, or 120 rifled
      2. SVD68 1 August 2020 07: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: D16
        and 57 in the "derivation" variant IMHO would be useful. As a remedy for ATGMs, helicopters, UAVs and ATGMs themselves launched at tanks

        A tank cannon is perfect against pturists, which is not inferior in efficiency to a 120-mm mortar or 122-mm howitzer.
        But against helicopters and UAV BMPT will be less effective Tunguska, tk. Tunguska has a fourth radar crew member. And the likelihood of damage to the radar is less for the Tunguska going in the second line.
        1. D16
          D16 1 August 2020 12: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          A tank gun is perfect against pturists

          Maybe it will do, but only these pturists need to be detected in a timely manner, but as the war in Syria showed, tanks with this task in their current form cope badly. In addition, a tank gun with its flat trajectory is not a mortar at all, and even less a howitzer.
          against helicopters and UAVs BMPT will be less effective Tunguska, because Tunguska has a fourth radar crew member.

          Tunguska is not a dweller on the battlefield. And with the radar on, it's a priority target. Derivation from OLS is less noticeable.
    2. Genry 31 July 2020 11: 21 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: SVD68
      What about the first line of a 30-mm or even a 57-mm cannon? After all, there are tanks with 125-mm guns nearby.

      The 125mm cannon is sharpened for penetrating projectiles (speed about 2 thousand m / s) and for missiles. For high-explosive and fragmentation, it is redundant and very expensive. And modern combat is more about suppressing small-sized firing points (infantry, turrets), you just can't get enough shells on them. And the rate of fire is very low - while charging ...
      The 30 mm cannon is only good for its rate of fire and very poor in efficiency.
      The 40mm grenade launcher is optimal for destroying infantry outside of cover, behind gentle obstacles (hills, small buildings) and in window openings - the most needed weapon.
      The 57 mm shortened cannon (as part of the Epoch BM) is already versatile enough to suppress most various targets: open and behind simple shelters (walls, fences, ditches). It has small projectiles (less than that of Baikal or Derivation) - the ammunition can be large enough and the rate of fire will be enough with a margin.


      IMHO: the BMPT module must be equipped with a 57mm cannon (shortened) and a pair of 40mm grenade launchers paired with machine guns in turrets on the side walls of the combat module. The rest of the makeweights - to taste or tasks.

      And my belief is that armored vehicles should be different for field (high-speed breakthroughs) and city battles (infantry support, defense). Accordingly, the following should be used: the high-speed chassis of the Armata with a powerful engine; and a more maneuverable chassis with a T-72 type layout (units are unified with the new generation of technology) with a small-displacement engine.
      1. For high-explosive and fragmentation, it is redundant and very expensive.
        OFS have a significantly lower flight speed, therefore, they spare the resource of the barrel. What's "very expensive" ...
        Nobody has been advancing in ranks for a long time, uncovered infantry is a rarity, and here a 125 mm projectile with programmable detonation will be much more useful than a 57 mm misunderstanding.
        Due to the high density of fire, 30 mm guns also have a place to be (for example, no 125 and 57 mm guns will be able to comb brilliant green, and 30 mm can easily handle it), but they do not require a massive tank base and garlands of obviously useless weapons.
        Machine-gun tanks are a relic of the past, so BMPTs are not needed by the military. Moreover, for such a price.
        1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 12: 43 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          OFS have a significantly lower flight speed

          Mainly due to the greater mass, since, for example, the charges in the AZ of domestic tanks are the same.
          therefore, they spare the resource of the barrel.

          Due to the much larger area of ​​contact with the barrel, both rifled and smooth barrels wear out faster.
          1. Mainly due to the greater mass, since, for example, the charges in the AZ of domestic tanks are the same.
            true, but the resource of the barrel is mainly influenced by the speed of the projectile.
            Due to the much larger area of ​​contact with the barrel, both rifled and smooth barrels wear out faster.
            barrels wear out due to many factors (obturation materials, barrel bore materials, frictional forces, vibrations of this barrel, pressure of powder gases and a bunch of thermochemical processes, which there is no point in mentioning in this context. We are only interested in the fact that due to 2 times lower speed of leaving the barrel, the detrimental effect on the barrel of the shot of the OFS is many times lower.
          2. D16
            D16 31 July 2020 18: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Due to the much larger area of ​​contact with the barrel, both rifled and smooth barrels wear out faster.

            The high-explosive projectile, like the BOPS master device, comes into contact with the barrel with the leading belt. But the BOPS speed is almost twice as high. Therefore, it is more harmful for the trunk. Older BOPSs had rollers on the shank in contact with the barrel, which also does not add life to the barrel. laughing I don’t know how it is with the new BOPSs with non-metallic VU.
        2. Genry 31 July 2020 12: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Where we are, there is victory
          OFS have a significantly lower flight speed, therefore, they spare the resource of the barrel. What's "very expensive" ...

          The caliber is redundant. The extra barrel length (which translates into the design ...) the projectile itself is more complicated (more precisely, the production and the need to spin the plumage), low rate of fire, ...
          Quote: Where we are, there is victory
          Nobody has been advancing in ranks for a long time, uncovered infantry is a rarity, and here a 125 mm projectile with programmable detonation will be much more useful than a 57 mm misunderstanding.

          57mm also has options with controlled blasting. And you can better handle specific goals around the corner ...
          The infantry changes positions and therefore is well covered at random with 40mm grenades.
          Quote: Where we are, there is victory
          Due to the high density of fire, 30 mm cannons also have a place to be (for example, no 125 and 57 mm guns will be able to comb brilliant green, and 30mm can easily cope)

          High density with low fragmentation volume is completely useless. Don't even shoot a sparrow. With such success, you can shoot at random from a light machine gun - more tracks - more chance of hitting.
          And 57mm gives a good fragmentation volume and does not go broke on fuses.
          Quote: Where we are, there is victory
          Machine-gun tanks are a relic of the past, so BMPTs are not needed by the military. Moreover, for such a price.

          Why, then, the machine guns are not removed from the tanks? There is also a 125mm cannon ...
          1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 12: 58 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And for critical damage to the Samsung industry, a few hours of shelling will be enough.

            Something is wrong with your logic. They tell you that a tank is useless without a cannon, but you got it from something that then he doesn't need a machine gun)
          2. The caliber is redundant.
            I don't think so, a 20-kilogram high-explosive fragmentation warhead is the optimum for the current time. It is such a warhead that most modern and future guided munitions carry.
            57mm also has options with controlled blasting. And you can better handle specific goals around the corner ...
            How many projectiles must be fired from a 57mm cannon to obtain the same effectiveness as a single 125 high-explosive fragmentation projectile, which, when detonated in air, forms a 50-meter radius of guaranteed destruction? - 10, 20, 100 shells?
            High density with low fragmentation volume is completely useless
            practice says that it is not at all useless. 30mm is just enough to replace a small high-explosive impact with quantity.
            That is to say, the caliber gained through the experience of many wars, and is the standard throughout the world.
            Why, then, the machine guns are not removed from the tanks?
            Are you talking about a twin or anti-aircraft?
        3. CSKA 31 July 2020 13: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Where we are, there is victory
          Machine-gun tanks are a relic of the past, so BMPTs are not needed by the military. Moreover, for such a price.

          More than once I saw the work of the Tank with the BMP-2. BMPTs have significantly higher firepower. Why are they not needed?
          1. More than once I saw the work of the Tank with the BMP-2.
            as it were, for that BMP and was created.
            BMPTs have significantly higher firepower.
            how is it "higher"? The cannon is the same, the shells are the same. Instead of selective ammunition supply for one gun, a twin was installed, which is a clear regression.
            A bunch of hanging weapons from naked ATGMs, unstabilized machine guns, AGSs and nurses - it's just some kind of schizophrenia. Something beyond the understanding of any person who has dealt with military equipment.
          2. abc_alex 31 July 2020 22: 28 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: CSKA
            More than once I saw the work of the Tank with the BMP-2. BMPTs have significantly higher firepower. Why are they not needed?

            They are needed. Only the Terminators are not BMPTs. They cannot really support tanks in battle. Initially, the task was to create an analogue of a motorized rifle squad. But in the form of a vehicle with equal armor to the tank. To advance at the same speed with tanks and perform the functions of infantry escort with infantry fighting vehicles. This does not mean different weapons. This means SEVERAL INDEPENDENT firing points. Not a gun store in the same tower. BMPT nafig don't need hurricane firepower. To do this, a tank is driving alongside. BMPT works on infantry and light vehicles. But! It should work on several targets from different azimuths AT THE SAME TIME, as if it were 3 soldiers (grenade launcher, senior gunner, machine gunner) and an infantry fighting vehicle. Therefore, the first versions of the BMPT were made with two turrets. And "Terminators", especially the second, are completely devoid of this property. They are probably good as a support for a checkpoint somewhere in Syria. But in a combined arms battle, they will not be able to fulfill the assigned task.

            If you make an BMPT, then, in my opinion, it should be a machine with two independent machine-gun and grenade launcher modules (Kord and AGS-40), controlled by separate operators, a cannon, perhaps even 57 mm, but one, controlled by a separate operator, and an ATGM system vertical launch with different warheads, in the internal compartment, controlled by a separate operator. Such a vehicle can press the infantry on both sides at the same time, both open and in trenches, destroy light equipment up to infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armored personnel carriers with a cannon, but it will be necessary to disassemble some structure with a heavy ATGM or knock out a tank. And not in turn, but simultaneously. Such a BMPT will really be needed in a pair with a tank.
            1. SVD68 1 August 2020 07: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: abc_alex
              If you make an BMPT, then, in my opinion, it should be a machine with two independent machine-gun and grenade launcher modules (Kord and AGS-40), controlled by separate operators, a cannon, perhaps even 57 mm, but one, controlled by a separate operator, and an ATGM system vertical launch with different warheads, in the internal compartment, controlled by a separate operator.

              Here the point is - the operator of the weapon "does not see" the battlefield as a whole. He needs an observer giving target designation. Moreover, each operator has its own observer.
              1. abc_alex 2 August 2020 00: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: SVD68
                Quote: abc_alex
                If you make an BMPT, then, in my opinion, it should be a machine with two independent machine-gun and grenade launcher modules (Kord and AGS-40), controlled by separate operators, a cannon, perhaps even 57 mm, but one, controlled by a separate operator, and an ATGM system vertical launch with different warheads, in the internal compartment, controlled by a separate operator.

                Here the point is - the operator of the weapon "does not see" the battlefield as a whole. He needs an observer giving target designation. Moreover, each operator has its own observer.


                And nobody canceled the commander of the car. This is what is needed for this. :) Yes, the crew is not small. At least 5 people, or even 6. But she should replace 9 people at once (6 in the field and 3 crew of the BMP).
      2. SVD68 1 August 2020 07: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Genry
        The 125mm cannon is sharpened for penetrating projectiles (speed about 2 thousand m / s) and for missiles. For high-explosive and fragmentation, it is redundant and very expensive.

        Treating enemy infantry with howitzer fire is also not cheap. And the mortar too. And even the waste of tens of thousands of rounds on one defeat is also not a penny. So the "waste" of the tank OFS, even taking into account the wear of the barrel, is not excessive compared to other means.
    3. Beregovic_1 1 August 2020 13: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For some reason, BMPT is not in demand among the military departments. Why? Maybe their place in the battle was incorrectly determined? And accordingly, their armament / security.
      because it is difficult to operate and expensive. The commander of a tank platoon, on which funds for several million are hanging, is not eager to answer with a ruble for complex remote optical-electronic systems. This is the opinion of a sidekick - a tanker. When I told him the approximate cost of "Armata", he answered me approximately what I wrote above. And there are constant problems with repairs and spare parts.
    4. Bad_gr 1 August 2020 17: 12 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: SVD68
      For some reason, BMPT is not in demand among the military departments. Why?

      Probably because they ordered one car and received a slightly different one.
      From the name of the BMPT it follows that the vehicle should cover tanks. For example, in the city. For which we need very good visibility in all directions, a bunch of trunks, again in different directions (both arrows from the basement and from the windows of high-rise buildings can pose a danger). Of those submitted to the competition, the military liked this one:

      Five crew members, each with their own viewing device and weapons.
      And they received, as the BMPT designer (Yakovlev) said, a "sniper rifle". The car may be good, but for other tasks.
    5. dzvero 2 August 2020 17: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In the beginning, BMPTs were "presented" as a replacement for infantry in joint actions with tanks. But it is impossible to replace it with 100%. Now comes the T-15 (TBMP), where the security is at the MBT level, the weapons are like the BMPT, plus the landing. So MO doesn't want a second Terminator. Too narrow a niche of application turned out. Although there is potential in the future, the idea may be in demand.
    6. Doliva63 3 August 2020 16: 19 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: SVD68
      For some reason, BMPT is not in demand among the military departments. Why? Maybe their place in the battle was incorrectly determined? And accordingly, their armament / security.
      In terms of security, these are first line cars. And in terms of armament? Why in the first line 30-mm or even 57-mm guns? After all, there are tanks with 125-mm guns nearby. It's the same with rockets.
      Place BMPT behind tanks? Why, then, such high security?
      To put instead of tanks? The tank, as far as possible, defeat any ground targets, except for infantry in loose order, surpasses the BMPT.

      So the military decided that they did not need such garbage at all. And I agree with them. drinks For a long time somehow at the exhibition I talked with the designer of this "miracle", I wanted to get everything from him, where does he see his place in battle formations? But it seems that the comrade was not aware of what it was. "What does the battle formation have to do with it ?!", "You just can't imagine its value on the battlefield!" That's all. laughing Was it worth wasting time on an article? Not sure. Well, perhaps only a fee is of course. laughing
  • D16
    D16 31 July 2020 07: 55 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Why is it needed? Previously, BMPs, due to poor security, could not accompany tanks. With the advent of the T-15 c "Epoch" this problem was solved by itself. The only thing that comes to mind is the Derivation firing module on the T-15 chassis. IMHO this is the only option that makes sense.
    1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 12: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Previously, there were no normal BMPs. Google at least BMPs created after the 90s, but not tanks, but the survivability is very high.
      1. D16
        D16 31 July 2020 12: 57 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        If you're talking about the BMP-3, then the protection there is not the same. The forehead holds 30 mm, 12,7 in a circle. Where to waterfowl laughing in line with the tanks?
        1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 13: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The BMP-3 was put into service in the USSR.
          I'm telling you about this:
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/K21#%D0%91%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0_(%D0%91%D0%9C%D0%9F)
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80_(%D0%91%D0%91%D0%9C)
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBCI
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%86-25
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patria_AMV
          1. D16
            D16 31 July 2020 18: 07 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            You can also add "Kurganets" to the list, but no one will ever make a BMPT out of it. Their booking characteristics are about the same as those of the BMP-3. You can also hang screens on it. But it is stupid to compare their protection with tanks and they will never be placed in the same line with them ..
            1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 18: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It seems like I left the Kurganets there. Secondly, the armor of these vehicles is much higher than the BMP-3. Because NATO vehicles have protection up to 6 stanag, in short, they have 30mm BOPS in the forehead and some in the side. Also, the strength of the frames of these machines allows them to be equipped with VDZ, powerful mine protection and actually strong anti-cannon armor, which is more limited on the BMP-3. Also, the design features are not in favor of the Soviet machine in case of damage, it loses its combat effectiveness faster. And today their protection can be compared with tanks, because the side and rear protection of tanks is exactly the same or even weaker, and the frontal armor is penetrated by modern anti-tank weapons, and in case of non-penetration, the AFV inflicts such damage in which its combat effectiveness tends to zero.
              1. D16
                D16 31 July 2020 19: 05 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Let's ask ourselves, who is this booking protected from? From BMP-2 or helicopter gun. What is the probability that two cars of the second line will meet? The turntables also have the means not to go hand-to-handsmile This will not protect against either the high-explosive 122, or the Rapier, or the anti-tank ATGM. Therefore, in the first line they have nothing to do. Only suicides will attack the prepared defenses in these sheds.
  • tank64rus 31 July 2020 08: 18 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    UVZ would now provide a stable release of the existing versions of the Terminator and the T-14. Projects must be done, but the army cannot live on projects. Judging by the screams in the Ministry of Finance, they will do everything to reduce the military budget and prevent the release of military equipment.
  • Hagen 31 July 2020 09: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The current status of the Terminator 3 project remains unknown, and there is not much information about it.

    And there is nothing to add. request
    1. abrakadabre 31 July 2020 09: 39 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      This could end the article laughing
  • Hermit21 31 July 2020 10: 25 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    It is believed that the T-15 and will be BMOP
  • garri-lin 31 July 2020 10: 38 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    And again, disfigure a good concept. The main purpose of the BMPT pancake is tank-hazardous infantry. And against it the most important means of observation. Find on rough terrain. Before they shoot. And to defeat LSHO / AGS 57 or a new ballistic grenade launcher weapon. And UAVs. Lots of UAVs. In the kamikaze version.
    1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 13: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      this is a tank-hazardous infantry

      And against it the most important means of observation

      Yes, that's why tanks are advancing with infantry. Therefore, there is a BMP.
      1. garri-lin 31 July 2020 14: 41 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And the BMPT, correctly implemented, fits very well into this concept. It is not necessary to force weapons, namely the means of situational awareness. Where should BMPs go in battle? A BMPT can go next to tanks. One for several tanks. See more tanks because the crew will fit more. And you can place a full-fledged UAV compact. With a full-fledged operator. And this is target designation for tanks and the same infantry fighting vehicles. On the grid of the battlefield. Several own channels. With an emphasis on the defeat of the infantry hidden behind the folds of the terrain.
        1. English tarantas 31 July 2020 15: 40 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          One for several tanks. See more tanks

          The command tank is called. And a tank-like vehicle will hardly be able to see more of a tank.
          because the crew will fit more

          Yes, as in the BMP. And why is it straight mixed with tanks? So that an ATGM also flew into it and killed a tank with a large crew, and given that the BMPT was sharpened against anti-tankers, it would be hit first.
          And you can place a full-fledged UAV compact. With a full-fledged operator

          Yes, you can't put it in any armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle somewhere behind in safety.
          1. garri-lin 31 July 2020 19: 23 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Well, the points are:
            1.The tank-like vehicle can easily see more of the tank. Depends on the equipment installed on the machine.
            2. Not like the BMP. For BMPT the optimal crew is 5 people. And the level of booking comparable to that of a tank, including KAZ, will make it a rather difficult target. Plus, the reaction time in seconds will be able to protect against ATGMs. The calculation will be destroyed BEFORE the vehicle is hit and this, in most cases, will lead to a failure of guidance.
            3. Reconnaissance from the rear will definitely be. But the compact UAV is much more effective. Russia has long needed a line of battlefield missiles. Spike analog. Massive, cheap, multifunctional.
      2. D16
        D16 31 July 2020 19: 16 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        How will the infantry help them from the ATGMs who have settled in 3+ km? The armored sheds won't even stick out. And if they stick out, they'll immediately get shocked.
        1. English tarantas 1 August 2020 09: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Mortar fire ...
          1. D16
            D16 1 August 2020 22: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Will they see it themselves or who will tell you?
            1. English tarantas 2 August 2020 13: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              The great and terrible BMPT looks at all ATGMs from heaven, otherwise there is no way ...
              1. D16
                D16 2 August 2020 14: 35 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                She has more watchers than weep laughing
                1. English tarantas 2 August 2020 20: 52 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  They look at you as ..... very attentively and keenly they look at you. Especially the first and third) And also these guys shine much less than heavy armored vehicles.




                2. English tarantas 2 August 2020 20: 58 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Well, in pursuit of triviality, the 21st century after all.



            2. Doliva63 3 August 2020 16: 25 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: D16
              Will they see it themselves or who will tell you?

              And intelligence in the army has already been "reformed", or what? belay
    2. cat Rusich 2 August 2020 01: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Shooter, you need to decide who will be ahead? - BMPT or tank? Option 1) BMPT moves in front of the tank, finds and destroys all life on the way, followed by tanks, the question is: what should the tanks do? Option 2) The tank moves in front, followed by the BMPT. An BMPT is attached to each tank (the option when there is a lot of $), the tank commander is in touch with the BMPT. When the tank encounters a "solid target" (enemy tank), the tanks cut themselves off, the BMPT is on the "catch". When the tank encounters "soft but dangerous targets" - infantry with possible ATGM and all sorts of RPGs - the tank gives target designation to BMPT - BMPT from behind the tank from LSHO-AGS 57 suppresses "soft targets" with attached fire. An ATGM is needed by an BMPT in case of a one-on-one encounter with an enemy tank. For "semi-hard targets" (enemy infantry fighting vehicles) you need a 30mm cannon. When the military determines where the BMPT will be located and what it will do, then it will be clear what kind of armor is needed, what kind of weapons is needed ... today, on the contrary, the plant makes military equipment at its discretion and invites the military to determine where to put ready-made equipment ...
      1. garri-lin 2 August 2020 10: 07 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        That is the essence of the fact that we must walk alongside. In one line. BMPT is much more big-eyed. The tank will not be able to see the target outside the line of sight. BMPT is obliged to do this. And the reaction speed. The BMPT should have it for a couple of seconds. The calculation of the ATGM should be amazed immediately. And 30 mm is not needed there. Deprecated. And missiles are needed not quite ordinary. Optimally inexpensive kamikaze drone.
        1. cat Rusich 2 August 2020 20: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The shooter, as an example of the BMPT Terminator 2 - the commander has a PANORAMIC sight, the gunner's sighting and thermal sight. Nothing supernatural. What prevents to put on the tank the best sights, so that the tank "sees"? Instead of the "anti-aircraft machine gun", put the AGS - the commander looks into the sight and the AGS guidance cross is directed to where the commander is looking, noticed (or suspected) the ATGM - immediately pulled the trigger and the AGS turn on the "suspicious bush or window" ... To the commander of a platoon of tanks give the UAV based on his tank so that the platoon of tanks can see the battlefield from above, show the picture from the UAV to all the platoon vehicles including the subordinate BMPT, and send the picture further into the company, and so on ... A kamikaze drone (shahid) is better (in my opinion ) to entrust a special crew (as an example - the ATURA calculation), which has its own guidance-observation UAV, in order not to let the suicide drones (kamikaze) go to waste. The reaction speed drops, but in places of "tension" immediately release a suicide drone (kamikaze, shahid), for quick reaction (for example, during an attack).
          1. garri-lin 3 August 2020 10: 01 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Less gauge = more reaction, longer exposure. Plus multichannel.
    3. chingachguc 5 August 2020 18: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      they were going to put a UAV with wired communication and wired electrics on Armata. It would be very good if Armata lifted a copter with optical and thermal imaging channels a hundred meters. And if all this is connected into a single network so that other crews can also see it in real time, then it is generally a fairy tale))
  • English tarantas 31 July 2020 12: 38 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    No, well, the Terminator looks, of course, interesting. But, really, what the hell is he needed. As if BMPs do not have the same weapons, there is Berezhok, cheap, angry and the weapons are at the level. There is not enough armor, but who said that this fool of weapons, its drives, and other things, standing on a "cardboard" superstructure on the same "cardboard" roof, has high stability? One arrival of a bit of a high-explosive and the Terminator backs up for remelting (even if at least one chassis for him had more than one lame reverse gear). All these attempts with an attempt from Soviet warehouses to play "Lego" and collect something like that are more reminiscent of the "Great and Terrible" Ukrainian tank industry. Why spend money developing and producing this miracle? If you need an infantry fire support vehicle, it’s an BMP (it remains to make not a BMP curve, because the BMP-2 in the 21st century is not a standard, and everything is old, and the BMP-3 is more a light tank than an BMP, if the Dragoon is given the opportunity to raise high gun, it will be great), if you need something exactly heavily armored, that is, a KAZ for an infantry fighting vehicle, there is a tank (it just has that firepower that they want to shove into the Terminator (!).
    1. Grazdanin 31 July 2020 12: 46 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quite right. An absolutely incomprehensible concept. We need modern infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, specialized anti-UAV air defense systems, mine-protected wheeled vehicles. BMPT does not perform one of the important tasks.
      1. chingachguc 3 August 2020 18: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        BMPT is designed to accompany the tank in the same row. The BMP cannot do this because of its poor protection. The infantry fighting vehicle in the attack goes at a decent distance from the tanks and can cover the tanks very weakly. In principle, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle can do this, but only if you install something like a six-barreled gantruck (or better than two) on it.
    2. D16
      D16 31 July 2020 19: 39 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      But, really, what the hell is he needed.

      So, according to the experience of Afgan, they did it. It is better than Shilka or ZU 2-23 in the back of the Urals. And in Syria, such a device would be useful to drive the barmaley. There are 30 mm + ATGMs behind the eyes. What high-explosive can fly into it there?
      there is a tank (it just has that firepower that they want to shove into the Terminator (!).

      Who is trying to do this? The meaning of the idea is to supplement the tanks with something fast-firing, long-shooting, well-seeing and able to walk with them in one line.
      if you need something exactly heavily armored, that is, KAZ for BMP

      If you need something heavily armored, then you need a T-15 with a KAZ, which will land the infantry in the enemy's trenches. And nefig bother with "Terminators". The T-15 is the perfect Terminator. laughing
  • common man 31 July 2020 13: 16 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Isn't it better for BMPT a module from a pair of guns for "Vienna" and 30 mm?
    Place on the base from T-90, because Armata is still quite expensive, but the module must be uninhabited.
    1. D16
      D16 31 July 2020 19: 48 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Isn't it better for BMPT a module from a pair of guns for "Vienna" and 30 mm?

      The 120mm Vienna is a closed-position gun. Nobody in their right mind would use this gun in see-shoot mode. Better to invent an assault tank with a short six-inch. laughing
  • Zaurbek 31 July 2020 13: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Terminators should be made of old tanks ... no need to distract new platforms.
    1. chingachguc 3 August 2020 18: 46 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Terminators should be made at the base where the tank unit drives. If the tank regiment is Armata, then the BMPT is based on Armata. If the T-90, then the BMPT based on the T-72. The same applies to other special vehicles (repair and evacuation)
  • Izotovp 31 July 2020 13: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I want everything in one). And one 57-mm against BMP, and an automatic mortar or a large-caliber automatic grenade launcher, and 2-4 machine guns of the main and large caliber for work on UAVs and infantry ... a self-propelled fortress turns out))
  • Scharnhorst 31 July 2020 16: 25 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The equipment for the army needs to be created conceptually for integral units capable of conducting combined arms combat. There are armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, ZSU and BMPT, MBT and self-propelled guns. Attempts to create a universal unit for all occasions are futile, it will not be excellent in anything. But to be able to apply excellent specialized equipment in different situations and combinations is already a task of teaching commanders to think and skill of calculations. Everything has already been proven in the initial period of the Second World War.
    1. Doliva63 3 August 2020 16: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "There are armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, ZSU and BMPT, MBT and self-propelled guns."
      There are no BMPTs. The army bought 12 of them, that's all. There are none. And it is not necessary.
    2. chingachguc 3 August 2020 18: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      BMPT can be included in the platoon. Two tanks and one BMPT. Thus, a tank platoon can conduct a combined arms battle. well, of course, if there is support for a motorized infantry platoon.
  • Mustached Kok 31 July 2020 16: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What's the point in disputes if, as a result, nothing of what is proposed in the article and comments will be built. The best that one can hope for is the creation of a small batch for "running-in" in the troops, which will be forgotten until after 10-15 years a new wunderwaffe is invented, which will be actively compared with the first technique.
  • 5-9
    5-9 31 July 2020 17: 59 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Incomprehensible crap ... Who and what is she against? A tank or a Chrysanthemum is the best anti-tank device .... Against a fir entrenched with an ATGM? CBT or again a tank (we are talking about direct fire, so it is clear that the artel is a barrel gun and no). Building? CBT and a tank and an artel, and until Stalingrad has nothing to enter there ... 2 small cars and 4 ATGMs ... Do not inspire
    If we really fantasize and experiment, then on the chassis of the existing T-72, and not on the expensive and zero Armata ... The plant promotes the campaign, but the gabta is sluggishly kicked out ...
    1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 18: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: 5-9
      Incomprehensible crap ... Who and what is she against?

      Theoretically against PTS infantry.
      Again, theoretically, the BMPT was created to participate in the breakthrough of a rich PTS in deep echeloned defense. As a means of "covering" tanks at the stage from reaching the line of opening fire of long-range ATGMs to the line of dismounting of infantry
      1. 5-9
        5-9 31 July 2020 18: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I understand the essence of the name ... I don't understand how a 30mm pukalka will cover a fir better than a 125mm tank. And why is BMP better here than 2 existing BMPs.
        Artel, TOS ... even tactical nuclear weapons are the best means of suppressing PIKHLT AT ...
        1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 19: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: 5-9
          I don’t understand how 30mm pukalka

          And they were not the main weapon. So, take the operator ...
          ATGMs were supposed to work at long distances, then automatic grenade launchers, vertical stabilized.

          That is, it turned out that during the attack the BMPT had 4 observation channels (for tank 2) and 3 channels of destruction (for tank 1.5 - 2)
          1. 5-9
            5-9 31 July 2020 20: 08 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            The problem of the troika in the BMP-3 is that in the heat of battle, the gunner simply does not switch to another type of weapon, but works only with what has already been chosen ... Psychology ...
            1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 20: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: 5-9
              The problem of the triad in the BMP-3

              Why "BMP" at once?


              There is a commander, he will force.
              By the way, a 30mm cannon is optional.

              But as for me, the best option is this:
              1. 5-9
                5-9 31 July 2020 20: 28 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                The point is that in battle it is reasonable to switch from one barrel to another, with different ballistics and, in general, when firing at another target, the soldiers did not succeed ... Figachili either from one or the other until the BC was exhausted ... This is practice.
                I generally like the lsho-57 plus the cornet ... But on the BMP ... And the BMP is superfluous ... IMHO
                1. Lopatov 31 July 2020 20: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: 5-9
                  The point is that in battle it is reasonable to switch from one barrel to another, with a different ballistics

                  What for?
                  There are tanks.
                  They are the main striking force.
                  And the fire support systems will simply "clean up" those targets for which it is inconvenient or impractical to work with tanks because of the high initial speeds of a tank gun. that is, a small angle of incidence and a large range dispersion.
        2. Bodipancher 31 July 2020 20: 36 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          ZSU 23-2 is the best means of infantry fire support. There is enough power for the eyes, the problem is poor security, the absence of normal devices and the inability to get closer to the enemy. The first Terminator was too clever in my opinion. ZSU 23 in a remotely controlled module, AGS on a separate turret, a couple of ATGMs and all this is a platform of tanks from storage. The result would be almost the same at a much lower cost. It would be necessary to invest only in normal optics for the commander and the gunner. A normal kit could be made for converting old tanks into fire support vehicles.
    2. chingachguc 3 August 2020 18: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But what if, somewhere after a TOS strike, or artillery or aviation, the enemy's defense partially survived? What if the grenade launcher suddenly gets out of the dugout? or ATGM, or a jeep with ATGM? The reaction time, the possibility of detecting and suppressing a light target in the BMPT is much higher. And if a tank company operates in the depths of the enemy's defenses, the rear has fallen behind, the weather is bad - and the order must be followed? You all offer some ideal conditions ... something is constantly lacking in war, and most of all - time. BMPT operates as part of a tank unit (from a platoon), and therefore it is always close to tanks.
  • Pavel57 31 July 2020 21: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Free Wind
    In the Soviet Union, tanks were developed and even produced, with missile and machine gun armament, about 50 pieces. But they did not show themselves anything good. And rockets are quite expensive. The rocket costs like a dozen of Barmaley tarantas.

    The military did not know where to attribute it. Either a tank, or a self-propelled gun.
  • Interdum_silentium_volo 31 July 2020 22: 35 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    First you need to decide whether it is "Tank support combat vehicle" or "Fire support combat vehicle." All the same, we are talking about very different tasks, in the first case the goal is to unload the tank by taking on the destruction of non-core and inconvenient targets for it. about the most versatile machine in terms of fire capabilities and targets.
    1) BMPT
    BMPT should work primarily on infantry, which means that everything above 30mm is redundant and will only cut ammunition. BMPT should have no less caliber than enemy infantry, respectively, the infantry has the largest caliber is 12,7mm ........ here and we get 14,7mm from the one we have ........ 23mm ..... 30mm. The question is that 30mm is already working, and has more flexible options for ammunition and, in the future, even a remote detonation OFS.
    A few words about 57mm that are inappropriate to use in BMPT, the caliber is excessive in the fight against infantry, which is always a lot, more equipment at times, and always !!! We look at the AU220m Baikal and see the ammunition capacity of 80 rounds at a rate of fire under 120. The 2mm cannon has 30 rounds of ammunition.
    Now to the question of missile weapons on the BMPT, do you need to forge it?!?! Destroy enemy tanks? BMP? for this we have a tank, and we must cover it and not do the work instead. But there are quite real tank-hazardous targets of UAVs, helicopters, and here a couple of MANPADS could be useful.
    My vision of the BMPT in today's realities is a lightweight T-72 base (which is just a bunch and it is in use). Armament is a 30mm automatic cannon, with the possibility of firing OFS with remote detonation both at infantry behind cover, and there are air targets in the near zone. At the same time, there are two large-caliber machine guns with the ability to fire both on its side and in the forehead or stern (to have freedom of about 180 degrees, on the tower itself). A pair of MANPADS inside the hull. Possibility of target designation for the tank and exchange of information. And a large stock of the system. setting up smoke, and so that would cover not only yourself and nearby equipment.
    As a result, we have one platform, the most running and therefore less hemorrhoids with spare parts, the zoo is simply smaller. The armament is sufficient but not redundant, the ability for one machine to work simultaneously on 3-4 targets and 360, which is very important in the city. It is possible to drive off the turntables, and some UAVs, and at the same time repeatedly cover with smoke. The presence of a good all-round vision system, radiation sensors and a thermal imager (which should cover the upper hemisphere, giving commands to shoot smoke in the case of missiles in the upper hemisphere) is mandatory.
    2) BMOS
    This is already a miracle beast, which should be able to hit the most diverse targets, and here, unfortunately, there is no way to go without a 57mm cannon. In general, there is a vague goal, why such a machine? I don't understand, it seems to me that it is much more important to have a well-balanced armament BMP.
    It is better to have an ATGM and an automatic cannon on each BMP than toothless BMPs and one or two separate BMOPs which will always be in short supply.
  • Antifreeze 1 August 2020 06: 37 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    With this Terminator, the military has yet to come up with a tactic of use. Therefore, they do not order.
  • riwas 1 August 2020 08: 45 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Of course, a 57 mm cannon with remotely detonated projectiles is needed, but I would add in a separate small turret a 4-barreled 50 caliber machine gun - allowing you to quickly respond to the enemy's manpower that suddenly appears.
    And most importantly, it is necessary to "expand" a narrow area where a person turned out to be a weak link, namely, to significantly increase the speed and quality of enemy detection and weapon guidance. To minimize the response time to emerging threats, it is necessary to use devices (television cameras, a thermal imaging device with a laser - rangefinder, a millimeter wave radar station) and a computer (ballistic computer, AI) for detection, identification, selection of priority targets, calculation of data for shooting, guidance weapons, but the decision to open fire must be made by a person, with the exception of the shelling sectors, where automatic opening of fire will be allowed.
  • Bad_gr 1 August 2020 12: 19 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The Ministry of Defense also does not address this topic and does not show an obvious interest in the new Terminator.
    Not like the new, they showed no interest in the old either. From what is heard, they are in the army of Kazakhstan, but I have not heard about their presence in ours. Or am I behind the times and a batch was purchased?
    For me, the tanks would be equipped with an additional small-caliber cannon, and a normal panorama to the commander, and you can do without BMPT.



    1. Sancho_SP 2 August 2020 11: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      A full-fledged 30 mm cannon module still clearly overloads a traditional tank turret. And if there is a tank gun pointing in the same direction, a 30-mm gun will be more effective only in a helicopter.
  • Sancho_SP 2 August 2020 11: 33 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The BMPT topic has completely outlived its usefulness today. BMPT has exactly two advantages over BMP.

    1. Tank carrying capacity and booking.
    2. Multi-channel weapons (and more observation channels than the tank.

    Erzats based on the T-72/90 were developed and manufactured in small series simply because these chassis were in abundance. They have no advantages over a tank.

    And on the basis of Armata there is already a heavy BMP with the ability to install any combat module. What will be the superiority of BMPT over BMP? The same 57 mm cannon, the same several observation channels.
  • senima56 2 August 2020 14: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "There is no limit to perfection!" One can endlessly "improve, improve and modernize", but in the end the Army does not get anything! It's like with the SU-57 and the Armata tank! Probably, it is very beneficial for someone: money for "improvement and renewal" is flowing, the budget is "sawed"! negative
  • chingachguc 3 August 2020 18: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    for BMPT, it is not so much the caliber that is important as the density of the fire, because it must work for the infantry. The task is to detect and suppress possible threats. For this, 4 barrels can be supplied, at least 23 mm. as on Shilka. Need a lead broom, not range or penetration
    1. Sancho_SP 3 August 2020 20: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      One shell from a tank gun will be more effective than a broom. The main thing is to get there.
      1. chingachguc 3 August 2020 20: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        the main thing is to detect)) and get ahead)) but ahead of the 9/10 ATGM. Why were Shilku's spirits afraid, and not a tank?
        1. Sancho_SP 3 August 2020 22: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And why? Shilka has fewer opportunities to detect ground targets.
          1. chingachguc 4 August 2020 18: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Shilka's reaction speed is higher, in addition, she can keep a large area under fire. In general, the tank acts on the infantry with its machine gun. For this he was given a machine gun. What is cooler - Shilka's 4-speed fire, or a coaxial tank machine gun? Tank cannon against fortifications, buildings, armored vehicles. Although, of course, they shoot at individual soldiers ... BMPTs were not invented for nothing, but based on the results of real battles. The inclusion of Stalin's threshers or shiloks in the armored group ensured faster rates with less losses.
            1. Sancho_SP 5 August 2020 08: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              So why does the shilka have a higher reaction rate? Does the tower spin faster? The goal is more important to discover than to turn the tower to it. And the shilka here only worked according to external target designation (read according to the prompts of a person with binoculars). In Afghanistan, the shilka was valued for two things: it was where it was difficult to drag a tank, and it worked well in the mountains with very large aiming angles.

              It is the cannon that the tank operates everywhere. Already on tank-hazardous targets and at a distance of more than a kilometer - exclusively with a cannon. And this gun works well. The only negative is the elevation angles, from the street to the top floor of the building will not work.

              BMPT was invented for more operational work on a tank-hazardous target. How was this efficiency achieved in the end? Only by increasing the number of observation channels (at that time - the human eye). In this terminator, your additional two channels - grenade launchers in casemates. But they only look ahead and, in fact, can only clean trenches from grenade launchers in a linear battle. In the city or against an ATGM position 3-4 kilometers away, they are useless.

              In Armata, we put the crew in a capsule (by definition), that is, instead of casemates, all the same, TVs inside the capsule. So why aren't these TVs installed in the BMP troop compartment?

              Uninhabited combat modules generally favor large elevation angles. The same 57mm cannon will reach the upper floors very well. If you have time.

              Well, what will be the difference between BMPT based on Armata and BMP?
              1. chingachguc 5 August 2020 18: 09 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                BMPT has tank armor. This is its difference from the BMP. I agree that the BMPT complex can be installed on a heavy BMP. Then the BMPT is not really needed.

                2. ATGM at a distance of 4 km will fire on rare occasions. In the desert and Kalmyk steppe. And in the Donbass, crossed by forest plantations, battles were fought at a distance of less than a kilometer. I think a broom is more effective at such distances than a cannon. BMPT with its weapons is capable of suppressing enemy defenses. This is when the soldiers lie at the bottom of the trench and are afraid to stick their nose out. So 4 23mm Shilka cannons are much better than two 30mm BMPT cannons. And better than a 125 mm tank cannon. I think no tanker will refuse such support. IMHO.

                3. By the way, I'm not against tanks here. I am only saying that a tank platoon consisting of two tanks and one BMPT is better than a platoon of three tanks.
                1. Sancho_SP 5 August 2020 18: 46 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  1. Well, we started here for the Armata base. The BMP T15 has quite a tank armor.
                  1.1 And on the basis of the T-72 we replace one 125mm cannon with one (albeit with two barrels, but the guidance is not individual) 30mm. If they go in the first row, they will burn more often. BMPT price is close to tank price, BMPT loss = tank loss.

                  2. Shilka carries about 2000 shells. This is for 40 seconds of continuous shooting. After that, you can get out of the trench and calmly aim from the grenade launcher. And after 2-3 offsets at a distance of several meters - not only everything will crawl out of the trench) the same applies to a good bunker or a building of 4 bricks.

                  And for suppression fire per kilometer, it is easier to put a twin kpvt in each tank, for that matter. But for some reason this is not done.

                  3. The presence of a BMP with infantry and a cannon instead of a third tank or BMPT will be even better.