Military Review

BMPT "Terminator": equipment for covering tanks

41

With the modern development of anti-tank weapons, even the most modern Tanks may be vulnerable. And this vulnerability can be characteristic both in open areas and in urban areas. That is why many armies of the world are solving the problem of creating military equipment to cover tanks. In Russia, this task has already been solved. Her decision was embodied in the creation of a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT) "Terminator".


The Terminators are used not only in the Russian Armed Forces. For example, Kazakhstan acquired a batch of such BMPTs for its army, and several other countries are considering the possibility of buying them.

BMPT, based on its name, is part of tank units and is designed to defeat enemy anti-tank weapons.

In the next issue of the "Military Acceptance" program on the "Zvezda" TV channel, a detailed story is presented about the BMPT "Terminator" - vehicles that are called "tank bodyguards". At the same time, "Terminator" is capable of hitting any of the modern tanks. Moreover, it often happens that the "Terminator" bypasses modern tanks in terms of target destruction rate.

During one of the trainings, the T-90M tank used the Attack missile, and the BMPT hit the target with the Invar 9M119M missile. Both missiles hit the target, but the missile fired by the BMPT did it faster.

"Military Acceptance" tells about the protection of the "Terminator", about the range of destructive weapons, about the peculiarities of their use.

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 15 September 2020 17: 12
    +2
    I think the tankers will laugh at me, but I would not want to stand like this when many-ton handsome men drive up from all sides laughing Fearfully.
  2. Esaul
    Esaul 15 September 2020 17: 16
    +1
    About the terminator in its current form, I have doubts about its future feasibility if the T-15 is adopted, especially with a 57 mm cannon and 4 missile launchers. Or it is possible to make a separate BMPT on the basis of the T-15 (Terminator-3, with increased combat power, ammunition, but without the possibility of transporting troops). And a small UAV could be shoved inside for reconnaissance.
    1. venik
      venik 15 September 2020 18: 58
      +2
      Quote: Esaul
      if the T-15 is adopted, especially with a 57 mm cannon and 4 missile launchers.

      =======
      Well, if it is .... Then the "Terminator" in its present form will lose its meaning! Another thing is that before the T-15, as well as the T-14, it is still ....... Well, or at least - this is a matter of the day, at least, "tomorrow", if not "the day after tomorrow" .... And there are enough T-72 and T-90 in the troops and in warehouses! Re-equip - how much you need! So that for now- this is "what the doctor ordered" .....
      ------------
      Quote: Esaul
      Or it is possible to make a separate BMPT on the basis of the T-15 (Terminator-3, with increased combat power, ammunition, but without the possibility of transporting troops).

      =========
      Well, it seemed like there was such a project! drinks Somewhere I even copied the image, but too lazy to look!
    2. Grits
      Grits 20 September 2020 09: 31
      0
      Quote: Esaul
      About the terminator in its current form, I have doubts about its future feasibility if the T-15 is adopted, especially with a 57 mm cannon and 4 missile launchers. Or it is possible to make a separate BMPT on the basis of the T-15 (Terminator-3, with increased combat power, ammunition, but without the possibility of transporting troops). And a small UAV could be shoved inside for reconnaissance.

      What is the point of using the new expensive Armata platform with a troop compartment for BMPT targets, if there is a worked out and much cheaper platform T-72 and T-90? Besides, there are a dime a dozen on the bases - take it and redo it. Cannon 72 mm. this is certainly good. But two of 57 mm. it is also power. And if you really need to undermine armored vehicles, that's 30 mm. the gun is not picked, then "Attack" to help. In addition, for some reason, everyone forgets about 30 grenade launchers. Namely, they set the tone in the fight against infantry and grenade launchers, not a cannon or a machine gun. so, cumulatively. The Terminator's firepower is higher than that of the T-2 with 15 mm. security, I think, is comparable. But the price is absolutely not comparable.
      1. storm
        storm 6 October 2020 02: 25
        0
        Let us turn to the real combat experience of Syria when the militants hit the tanks of the Syrian army from the ATGM from a distance of 5 km and against them the 30 mm 2A42 BMP-2 cannon with an aiming range of 4 km turned out to be powerless.
        The Kornet ATGM turned out to be the only effective means of fighting the militants' ATGMs at a distance of 5-6 km, but its main problem was the limited ammunition of 4 missiles, and comparing the cost of the target to the cost of a guided missile gave the result "how to shoot sparrows from a cannon."
        In a situation where clashes are conducted "head to head" at close range, where the density of fire becomes decisive, a spark of two 2A-42s is undoubtedly good, but such battles are now possible only in tight urban areas and with a huge stock of 30mm rounds on the BMPT.
        That is, an BMPT with two 30 mm assault rifles is excellent for supporting engineering and assault units when conducting battles in urban areas, where simple tanks that do not have additional protection simply do not belong.
        To destroy tank-hazardous infantry entrenched with ATGMs at a distance of 5-6 km, a more powerful and long-range 57 mm cannon is needed, which will work as a long-range large-caliber rifle at a distance of up to 8 km without the risk of receiving an anti-tank missile in response, but then it is better not to put a 57 mm gun on BMPT, and on more versatile in combat use heavy BMP T-15 or BMP-3M.
      2. storm
        storm 6 October 2020 03: 11
        0
        The inexpensive Terminator-2 based on the T-72 with a simplified weapon module (possibly without the modern ATGM Attack or Kornet) has a place to be as a "replacement for infantry"
        In a bundle of T-72B3M + BMPT-2, a tank of 125 mm guns destroys enemy armored vehicles, protected firing points and ATGM crews at a distance of more than 4 km., And BMPT having significant ammunition, with dense fire of 30 mm. automatic weapons and AGS "cleans" the near zone from 0 to 4 km from the enemy's tank-hazardous infantry.
        I think that the Ministry of Defense should abandon the excessively expensive 5-seater version of BMPT imposed by the industry on the T-90 chassis with a fashionable expensive ATGM and practically useless two AGS in fenders, such a golden "Bratskaya Grave of Five Tankers".
        and return to the much more budgetary 3-seat modification of the BMPT on the T-72 platform with minor modifications:
        - strengthening the armor protection of the combat module by installing an armored shield-mask
        - an increase of 2-3 times the ammunition load of 30 mm shells
        - installation in the rear of the combat module of one AGS-17, which operates in the mode of a light mortar.
        - replacement of the expensive ATGM Attack / Kornet 2x2 PU for two blocks with 4 rocket-propelled flamethrowers Shmel-M in each.
  3. Free wind
    Free wind 15 September 2020 17: 36
    -6
    They have been trying to put this unit in for 8 years, but nobody needs it. And to the supervisors of the hotts.
    1. venik
      venik 15 September 2020 19: 14
      +4
      Quote: Free Wind
      They have been trying to put this unit in for 8 years, but nobody needs it.

      =========
      A classic example of the inertia of army thinking! Like something fundamentally new appears - and immediately: "And what to do with it? And how to use it? Yes, we somehow" in the old fashioned way "- so familiar!" (As a Red Army soldier Sukhov: "A horse? Oh, him! Trouble with him .... You need to feed .... I really do - on foot, straight ahead!").
      How many such examples have already been! Su-25 is enough to remember! Also, after all, "they didn’t bellow, nor did they calve," until Afghan secured it!
      1. Free wind
        Free wind 15 September 2020 20: 27
        -1
        There were already missile tanks, about 60 were made. Nobody knew what to do with him. For the first time I hear that all over the world they are trying to make such machines, nobody needs them, but we already have something that nobody needs.
      2. Grits
        Grits 20 September 2020 09: 34
        +1
        Quote: venik
        A classic example of the inertia of army thinking!

        Indeed, after the adoption of the terminator in the battle formations of tank units, it will be necessary to completely redo and rewrite all combat techniques, all methods, change manuals and manuals, textbooks in universities. And I don't want to do this MO ...
        1. venik
          venik 20 September 2020 11: 49
          0
          Quote: Gritsa
          you will have to completely redo and rewrite all combat techniques, all methods, change manuals and manuals, textbooks in universities. And I don't want to do this MO ...

          =======
          Here it is! Here without a "strong-willed decision from above" - ​​it seems to be indispensable!
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 15 September 2020 20: 27
      0
      "Introduce etlt anregat"
      Despite the angry cons, the EP's point of view makes sense.
      After all, there are automatic cannons and ATGMs on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, and the 125-mm D-81 itself can also perfectly hit PTS with direct fire.
      So, it probably makes sense to support tanks with weapons they don't have. Automatic mine-throwers and grenade launchers, a Nonv-class weapon, only more hummingbirds,
      A powerful long-range ATGM that can also target air targets, albeit not very high-speed ones. By the way, Invar is just an ATGM from a tank. The author confused a little.
    3. Simargl
      Simargl 17 September 2020 09: 55
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      They have been trying to put this unit in for 8 years, but nobody needs it.
      Edrica BoNbu was also not immediately tasted.
  4. Klingon
    Klingon 15 September 2020 17: 47
    -1
    Quote: Free Wind
    They have been trying to put this unit in for 8 years, but nobody needs it. And to the supervisors of the hotts.

    but in the "Stars" as always "unparalleled in the world"
    1. Speedy
      Speedy 15 September 2020 18: 56
      +4
      And what are its analogues?
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 15 September 2020 17: 47
    +2
    It is difficult to judge the appropriateness of such a combat unit .... Schaub it became an effective defender of tanks, it must be very big-eyed, nimble, lethal. Is that what it is or is it just a dream?
    1. Ded_Mazay
      Ded_Mazay 15 September 2020 18: 37
      +2
      Quote: rocket757
      it must be very big-eyed, nimble, lethal.

      I don’t know how about “smart” and “killer”, but “big-eyed”, and always with the adjective “very” - this is absolutely certain. After all, the main problem of MBT, in conflicts like the Syrian one, is the stealth of modern anti-tank weapons. So you have to follow the surrounding space at all 360 degrees, and to a very significant depth, since you can fly from 500 meters and from 2.5 - 3 kilometers.
      Only, in my opinion, the BMPT should be developed not so much as a support vehicle for the MBT, but as an independent type of tanks designed just for conducting combat operations in the specific conditions of modern conflicts like the aforementioned Syrian one.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 15 September 2020 19: 08
        +2
        Quote: Ded_Mazay
        After all, the main problem of MBT, in conflicts like the Syrian one, is the stealth of modern anti-tank weapons

        This is what he meant. Quickly detect and neutralize, weakly protected, but well-disguised anti-tank positions, crews!
        It should be a highly automated system, with AI elements, as they like to say / write now!
        He has enough weapons, it is up to the systems of reconnaissance, control and rapid response to threats.
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 17 September 2020 09: 58
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      Schaub, it has become an effective defender of tanks, it must be very big-eyed, nimble, and lethal.
      It can become big-eyed only with a UAV. What does it have to do with both onboard and with the exchange of data with some big ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 17 September 2020 11: 00
        +1
        And what prevents to do everything according to the mind ??
        Now only an integrated approach, networking.
        The time of singles, any, on the field for and in tactics, is ENDED!
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 17 September 2020 11: 07
          +1
          Quote: rocket757
          And what prevents to do everything according to the mind ??
          Like what? Huawei! All good programmers were lured away.

          Quote: rocket757
          Now only an integrated approach, networking.
          You are a little behind the times, perhaps ... interaction was important 3000 years ago.

          Quote: rocket757
          The time of singles, any, on the field for and in tactics, is ENDED!
          So more legions have proved it!
  6. Ded_Mazay
    Ded_Mazay 15 September 2020 18: 17
    0
    Didn't the materials on this car appear too often on the topvar?
  7. RealPilot
    RealPilot 15 September 2020 18: 28
    +5
    A tank is a machine with its own specific application. Tanks are not always and everywhere needed in battle.

    Against jeeps with barmaley, vehicles with explosives and suicide bombers, BMPs, armored personnel carriers and other lightly armored targets, BMPT is also quite suitable. Grabs ATGM and 30mm cannon. It will provide greater density and speed of fire. Aims faster. Plus, tanks have a low barrel resource of hundreds of shots, but here you can shoot much longer.

    It is lighter due to the absence of a heavy tower, that is, it has more horsepower per ton, it is faster. Protection at the level of the tank. Due to the lack of a turret, the profile of the armored hull is lower.

    That is, just for Syria and similar places, a wonderful car.
    Where the enemy has few tanks, but a lot of light, relatively high-speed targets, unable to knock out the BMPT, and at the same time vulnerable to its fire.
    1. lucul
      lucul 15 September 2020 22: 33
      -1
      A tank is a machine with its own specific application. Tanks are not always and everywhere needed in battle.

      You have a false understanding of the essence of the tank - imagine that a tank is just a cannon covered with armor, and everything will immediately fall into place ...
  8. Sergey Averchenkov
    Sergey Averchenkov 15 September 2020 19: 32
    -1
    I don't understand anything about tanks - a complete layman. But I have only one question - and then you won't have to create something else to cover the terminator?
  9. Klingon
    Klingon 15 September 2020 22: 16
    0
    Quote: Sorrow
    And what are its analogues?

    as far as I know Raphael and Elbit System are developing prototypes with Iron vision technology
  10. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 16 September 2020 00: 06
    +1
    AGS must be placed on the tower, against "manpower" without armor. In principle, you can leave ONE barrel of a 30mm automatic cannon. And put the "Kord" 12,7mm instead of the second 30mm barrel.
  11. Ervin
    Ervin 16 September 2020 00: 27
    -2
    Are there any plans to create military equipment to cover the tank support combat vehicles? After all, there are much more threats and the same (BMPT) "Terminator" - will be completely defenseless in front of a swarm of attacking drones, for example? Maybe it already makes sense to create a new class of combat vehicles covering tank support vehicles? I think that no one has yet such a technique, and it will have no analogues in the world, which will become another plot for the next issue of the Military Acceptance program on the Zvezda TV channel.
  12. sen
    sen 16 September 2020 05: 39
    +2
    We need a machine that can successfully operate both in the infantry and in the aviation, which has become the curse of armored vehicles. Like "Shilka", only at a higher level. With the use of a high level of robotization, sensors, AI, contributing to the fastest possible target detection, identification, aiming weapons and opening fire. Expensive - yes, but this is the path along which modern weapons are developing. We need a 57 mm cannon, a 12,7 mm machine gun - a mechanical twin and missiles of different classes. Moreover, the composition of the missiles should be specific, depending on the situation and the task at hand. ...
  13. gregor6549
    gregor6549 17 September 2020 06: 38
    0
    World experience 2 showed that the best cover for tanks from ground weapon systems is infantry, and from enemy aircraft - air defense systems following in the battle formations of tank units and their own fighter aircraft. Moreover, aviation can cover tanks from ground systems very well, take advantage of the fact that "everything is visible from above", and hitting from above on what crawls and runs on the ground is often more convenient and effective. The same SU25 coped with this task quite well even in Afghanistan.
    In the late 60s and early 79s, our company developed the Udar automated control system for the automated control of fighter-bomber aviation units and tests of this system showed that the IBA, with the correct coordination of its efforts, provides very good cover for ground forces, including tank ones from the effects of anti-tank artillery, single riflemen weapons as well as from enemy ground attack aircraft. The BMPT is essentially the same tank with a very limited view, despite the fact that a bunch of sensors were attached to it. He himself would have to detect the threat in time and adequately cover himself.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 17 September 2020 10: 02
      0
      Quote: gregor6549
      BMPT is essentially the same tank with a very limited view,
      Given that ...
      Quote: gregor6549
      "everything is visible from above"
      ... both the tank and the Terminator need onboard drones !!!
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 17 September 2020 17: 07
        0
        The tank does not need onboard drones. this unnecessary equipment and the crew in battle will not be up to control of the drones. But the aviation unit, which should cover the dry forces, including tanks, drones will not interfere, provided that their remote control is sufficiently noise-immune, and their sensors will allow you to get a fairly clear picture of the battlefield even in conditions of high dustiness and smoke of this field. Those. no need to try again to get everything in one bottle. Otherwise, you can reach the flying Terminator. And this is already a violation of the copyright of the creators of the film of the same name. wink
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 17 September 2020 21: 09
          0
          Quote: gregor6549
          The tank does not need onboard drones. this and unnecessary equipment and the crew in battle will not be up to control the drones.
          How do you imagine it - drone control?
          The drone is the eyes of the commander! He must manage it. How it manages stationary surveillance devices now (and before).
          You, apparently, have a poor idea of ​​how you can organize control of a drone today.
          Example: open a map, poke a square, press the "scout" button. After a while, the drone will give a picture.
  14. shinobi
    shinobi 17 September 2020 07: 56
    0
    What was the original purpose of creating the tank? Destruction of the machine-gun nests that survived after artillery preparation during the advance of the infantry. With the advent of light means of destruction of armored vehicles, the infantry began to build up armor. The tank acquired an armor-piercing weapon. But its essence has not changed from this. The tank operates extremely limited. At the beginning of the Second World War, the tank turns into the main type of weapon, since the infantry became unable to independently fight the armor. With the advent of the Faust cartridge and the first ATGM at the end of the Second World War, the value of the tank again leveled. The era of tank battles ended a little later. Now the tank is again fulfills its original function, but as practice shows, its own integrated firepower is no longer enough. Fanfare! The Terminator appears on the scene. The circle is closed. Over time, the tank will retire, and cars such as the Terminator will improve, going the same way as their predecessors. They will discard the excess and turn into handsome men like their progenitors tanks. IMHO: On my first look tanks now, it is more a variant of the front-end self-propelled guns.
    1. Simargl
      Simargl 17 September 2020 10: 11
      0
      Quote: shinobi
      What was the original purpose of creating the tank? Destruction of the surviving machine-gun nests after artillery barrage when the infantry attacked.
      It is debatable here: it can also be argued that the tank appeared as a means of overcoming (fast) obstacles (such as a thorn).
      Well, as a mobile machine gun nest.

      Quote: shinobi
      Over time, the tank will retire, and cars such as the Terminator will improve, following the same path as their predecessors, discard the excess and turn into handsome men like their progenitors, tanks.
      Rather, 152 mm (or 130-140, and at first 125 mm), and 57 mm (or 45), and 30 mm (or 23) ... and 7,62 mm are stuck on the tower, which has lightened due to uninhabitedness ... and rockets ...
  15. Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 19 September 2020 19: 56
    0
    The vehicle was initially incorrectly positioned as a tank support vehicle. There must be an infantry fire support vehicle. This is its main function. This is what Shilki, ZSU-23-2, etc. are used for. only well protected. The normally armored APC and Terminator are the ideal combination for urban combat. And wars are mainly waged in such territories.
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 20 September 2020 15: 25
      0
      Quote: Bodypuncher
      The vehicle was initially incorrectly positioned as a tank support vehicle. There must be an infantry fire support vehicle.

      The "infantry fire support vehicle" is already there. This is the BMP.
      1. Bodipancher
        Bodipancher 22 September 2020 20: 05
        0
        Whatever one may say, but BMP is a compromise. Reservations are weak, ammunition is limited due to the need to perform a transport function. Universal machines will always give way to specialized ones.
        1. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 23 September 2020 04: 52
          0
          Quote: Bodypuncher
          Whatever one may say, but BMP is a compromise. Reservations are weak, ammunition is limited due to the need to perform a transport function. Universal machines will always give way to specialized ones.

          The armor of modern infantry fighting vehicles is weak only in comparison with the tank. Armor BMP should protect in frontal projection from the main weapon of their own kind, i.e. from 25-30 mm BOPS automatic cannons BMP. Protection of infantry fighting vehicles from tank guns and ATGM is possible only due to KAZ, KOEP, smoke grenade launchers, etc. Otherwise, all the infantry must be transferred to heavy BMP T-15, which is simply impossible for any economy.
          For the rest, in order not to repeat about BMP and BMPT, see here at the end: https://topwar.ru/175228-reshenie-po-bmpt-terminator-primut-po-itogam-uchenij-kavkaz-2020.html#comment- id-10797847
  16. storm
    storm 6 October 2020 03: 24
    0
    The "budgetary" Terminator-2M based on the T-72 with a simplified weapon module (possibly without a modern ATGM Attack or Kornet) has a place to be a "substitute for infantry", especially given the existing constant 20-30% understaffing in almost all tank and motorized rifle parts and divisions.
    In a bundle of T-72B3M + BMPT-2M, a tank of 125 mm guns destroys enemy armored vehicles, protected firing points and ATGM crews at a distance of more than 4 km., And BMPT having significant ammunition, with dense fire of 30 mm. automatic weapons and AGS "cleans" the near zone from 0 to 4 km from the enemy's tank-hazardous infantry.
    I think that the Ministry of Defense should abandon the excessively expensive 5-seater version of BMPT imposed by the industry on the T-90 chassis with a fashionable expensive ATGM and practically useless two AGS in fenders, such a golden "Bratskaya Grave of Five Tankers".
    and return to the much more budgetary 3-seat modification of the BMPT on the T-72 platform with minor modifications:
    - strengthening the armor protection of the combat module by installing an armored shield-mask
    - an increase of 2-3 times the ammunition load of 30 mm shells
    - installation in the rear of the combat module of one AGS-17, which operates in the mode of a light mortar.
    - replacement of the expensive ATGM Attack / Kornet 2x2 PU for two blocks with 4 rocket-propelled flamethrowers Shmel-M in each.
  17. Nubia2
    Nubia2 31 October 2020 19: 59
    0
    M-48 copied from Is-3 ..?))
    The authors of the film flatter themselves very much. Let it be a lie, but it sounds beautiful.