Military Review

The decision on the BMPT "Terminator" will be made following the results of the exercises "Kavkaz-2020"

144
The decision on the BMPT "Terminator" will be made following the results of the exercises "Kavkaz-2020"

Support combat vehicles tanks (BMPT) "Terminator" will be tested during the strategic command-staff exercises "Kavkaz-2020". Based on the results of the exercises, a decision will be made on the place of the BMPT in the Ground Forces. Reported by "News" with reference to the Ministry of Defense.


The military department said that the BMPT "Terminator" will be involved in several major episodes of maneuvers. It is supposed to check the BMPT during the offensive and defense, on the march, in the fight against heavy armored vehicles, as well as in urban combat. Based on the results of the exercises, a final decision will be made on the place of BMPT in the Ground Forces and further purchases of equipment.

BMPTs are planned to be used to support not only tank, but also motorized rifle units. The task will be to defeat targets that threaten heavy and light armored vehicles (...). In the case of motorized rifle support, the vehicle will also serve as a cover for infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, which will advance to the place where the infantry must dismount and engage the enemy

- declared in the Ministry of Defense.

Currently, a small number of BMPTs delivered to parts of the Western and Central military districts are in trial operation in the Russian army.

BMPT "Terminator" is made on the chassis of the T-72. The vehicle is armed with two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons, a 7,62mm PKT machine gun, and four launch containers for the 9M120 guided missiles (Attack complex).

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 18 September 2020 12: 09 New
    +4
    They still cannot understand whether it is necessary at all
    1. Trapp1st
      Trapp1st 18 September 2020 12: 33 New
      19
      I believe that in order to replace the BMP and Shilki for covering tanks as in the video, the BMPT is still better protected, it can move with tanks, and it has more opportunities.
    2. Maz
      Maz 18 September 2020 12: 37 New
      +3
      I wonder which is more expensive? T-72B3, T-90 or Terminator?
      1. Piramidon
        Piramidon 18 September 2020 13: 24 New
        -1
        Quote: Maz
        I wonder which is more expensive? T-72B3, T-90 or Terminator?

        Are you planning to buy, hilling potatoes? lol
      2. Volder
        Volder 18 September 2020 13: 27 New
        +4
        Quote: Maz
        I wonder which is more expensive? T-72B3, T-90 or Terminator?
        Who cares? If the Terminator is more expensive, then it should not be adopted? So Armata is even more expensive. And the Su-57 is more expensive than the Armata. And so on ... Maintaining the Army is generally expensive, let's disband it! Probably, after that they will add 1 ruble to your salary :)
        1. venik
          venik 18 September 2020 14: 39 New
          +1
          Quote: Volder
          If the Terminator is more expensive, then it should not be adopted?

          ========
          "Terminator-2" (converted from T-72B) is clearly more expensive than converting a T-72B into a T-72B3 ..... But it is hardly more expensive than converting a T-90 into a T90M! I think, somewhere about "one price" .....
          So, the cost is not so much that it really "bites"! And the rest is correct! The thing is efficiency, more precisely in the criterion: "cost / efficiency"!
          I hope the Caucasus exercises will show this and everything will be "put in its place"!
          PS To me personally, "Terminator" seems to be a necessary and useful machine! But this is again purely private opinion. The future will show everything!
        2. YOUR
          YOUR 19 September 2020 09: 06 New
          0
          Add that neither the Armata nor the Su-57 were accepted into service. Only talk for a dozen years.
      3. Kuroneko
        Kuroneko 18 September 2020 13: 36 New
        +2
        Quote: Maz
        I wonder which is more expensive? T-72B3, T-90 or Terminator?

        T-90.
        1. venik
          venik 18 September 2020 14: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: Kuroneko
          Quote: Maz
          I wonder which is more expensive? T-72B3, T-90 or Terminator?

          T-90.

          ======
          good Short, precise and absolutely true! drinks
      4. The comment was deleted.
      5. YOUR
        YOUR 19 September 2020 09: 05 New
        0
        T-90 naturally. But there are very, very few of them. You read the state order and you are simply amazed. 30 tanks a year including modernized ones.
    3. Maz
      Maz 18 September 2020 12: 46 New
      +9
      For me, it's better to have a terminator with ammunition for 1000 rounds, 2000 rounds for PKT, plus two grenade launchers for 150 grenades each and 4 ATGMs and smoke grenades. and let the tank go from behind and sour everything larger than the tank turret. as in the video below, and he can shoot the terminator at once and from all weapons at the same time ... A platoon strong point can be completely completed in one run and with half the ammunition and the khan's defense area.
      1. venik
        venik 18 September 2020 15: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: Maz
        For me, it's better for me to have a terminator with ammunition for 1000 rounds, 2000 rounds for PKT, plus two grenade launchers for 150 grenades each and 4 ATGMs and smoke grenades. and let the tank go from behind and sour everything larger than the tank turret.

        =======
        The "Terminator" has one funny quality - due to the high location of guns and ATGMs, moving along a narrow street after a tank, it can shoot that "over the head", suppressing potentially dangerous firing points. At the same time, the tank in front of him shelling sector hardly closes (!) - only a turret machine gun and a meteorological sensor can interfere!
      2. Observer2014
        Observer2014 18 September 2020 17: 51 New
        -3
        Maz I typed a comment first. I erased it in time. I misunderstood you! hi Let's go. The heavy infantry fighting vehicle was needed the day before yesterday. I yell for a year. Give this technique to the troops. What kind of theoreticians are they ruling? am How long can this topic be procrastinated.
      3. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 21: 53 New
        +2
        Quote: Maz
        For me, it's better for me to have a terminator with ammunition for 1000 rounds, 2000 rounds for PKT, plus two grenade launchers for 150 grenades each and 4 ATGMs and smoke grenades.

        More anti-aircraft missiles, a couple of torpedoes, and a saber with a hat for the commander.
      4. YOUR
        YOUR 19 September 2020 09: 10 New
        +1
        and let the tank go from behind and sour everything larger than the tank turret

        Actually, exactly the opposite. There are tanks in front, support from behind, what they saw, spied out that they got out a burst from a 30-mm cannon or a series of grenades or a burst from a machine gun, all depending on the type of target or if a tank was formed then an ATGM.
    4. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 18 September 2020 12: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: _Ugene_
      They still cannot understand whether it is necessary at all


      There is no PMSM in its current form. The "Terminator" has no advantages over the T-15, and the latter can also carry infantry. Parsed this question here:
      Fire support tanks, BMPT "Terminator" and the cycle of OODA John Boyd

      https://topwar.ru/158170-ognevaja-podderzhka-tankov-bmpt-terminator-i-cikl-ooda-dzhona-bojda.html
      1. Trapp1st
        Trapp1st 18 September 2020 13: 04 New
        +7
        The Terminator has no advantages over the T-15
        The T-15 is larger, more expensive, more complicated, and in fact it does not exist yet and is unlikely to appear soon, but there are proven T-72, 90 + a lot of outdated and stored tanks.
      2. Per se.
        Per se. 18 September 2020 13: 28 New
        +7
        Quote: AVM
        The Terminator has no advantages over the T-15
        Let's see, Andrey. Firstly, the BMP T-15, like its headset brother, the T-14 tank, is still not production models. Secondly, before dismounting the infantry, BMP primarily performs a transport function, like an armored personnel carrier. After dismounting the infantry, it becomes a specialized fire support vehicle, like the BMPT. Using the T-15 next to tanks, with a landing party on board, is fraught with the loss of both vehicles and, most importantly, unhurried infantry. The use of KAZ near the infantry is also fraught with danger. What is the advantage of the T-15?

        You cannot add anything without prejudice to one another. Powerful weapons will increase the size, weight, and reduce the internal volume. The only exceptions are children who play World of Tanks, where they "pump" everything in the most magical way. A heavy BMP will be flawed in transport function, due to additional weapons, and as an BMPT (with specialized fire support), on the contrary, already due to the transport function, which entails an increase in the size of the infantry. It is much more logical to have a BMPT in its pure form and a separately heavy armored personnel carrier, it will be cheaper, more technological, better in terms of specialization.

        So the BMPT can be better armed and protected, with smaller dimensions and less cost, in addition, using, if necessary, alterations from the T-72 stocks. Similarly, on the basis of tanks, you can have heavy armored personnel carriers, like the similar BTR-T. BMO-T or "Akhzarit", and specially created, like the same "Namer" ("Leopard"). BMPTs will immediately be able to work next to tanks (or even in front of them), and heavy armored personnel carriers are better protected during transportation of infantry, being in the second line, reducing the risk of burning the vehicle along with the landing party on board.
        1. Shopping Mall
          Shopping Mall 18 September 2020 16: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Per se.
          Quote: AVM
          The Terminator has no advantages over the T-15
          Let's see, Andrey. Firstly, the BMP T-15, like its headset brother, the T-14 tank, is still not production models. Secondly, before dismounting the infantry, BMP primarily performs a transport function, like an armored personnel carrier. After dismounting the infantry, it becomes a specialized fire support vehicle, like the BMPT. Using the T-15 next to tanks, with a landing party on board, is fraught with the loss of both vehicles and, most importantly, unhurried infantry. The use of KAZ near the infantry is also fraught with danger. What is the advantage of the T-15?

          You cannot add anything without prejudice to one another. Powerful weapons will increase the size, weight, and reduce the internal volume. The only exceptions are children who play World of Tanks, where they "pump" everything in the most magical way. A heavy BMP will be flawed in transport function, due to additional weapons, and as an BMPT (with specialized fire support), on the contrary, already due to the transport function, which entails an increase in the size of the infantry. It is much more logical to have a BMPT in its pure form and a separately heavy armored personnel carrier, it will be cheaper, more technological, better in terms of specialization.

          So the BMPT can be better armed and protected, with smaller dimensions and less cost, in addition, using, if necessary, alterations from the T-72 stocks. Similarly, on the basis of tanks, you can have heavy armored personnel carriers, like the similar BTR-T. BMO-T or "Akhzarit", and specially created, like the same "Namer" ("Leopard"). BMPTs will immediately be able to work next to tanks (or even in front of them), and heavy armored personnel carriers are better protected during transportation of infantry, being in the second line, reducing the risk of burning the vehicle along with the landing party on board.


          I'm not saying that you don't need an BMPT, but I don't think that the Terminator is a normal BMPT. I am now writing an article on this topic, I will give it a discussion)

          As for the death of an unhurried crew, then for this the T-15 is doing - to reduce the risk of their death. Otherwise, how can they cover the tanks? At first, they ride comfortably, but in the same order with the tanks, and if somewhere you need to clean out buildings, or something else, then they already dismount, but still everything is nearby.
      3. Volder
        Volder 18 September 2020 13: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: AVM
        The Terminator has no advantages over the T-15
        But there are advantages over foreign counterparts;)
      4. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 September 2020 20: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        The Terminator has no advantages over the T-15

        In the T-15, the main purpose is to deliver the infantry to the landing site and support it with their weapons.
        For the "terminator" in the first place is the detection and destruction of tank-hazardous targets, and so on. All crew members are equipped with viewing devices and, ideally, each has its own weapon that is used independently.
        In fact, the military liked a different unit (more in line with their requirements) and not the one that was put into production:

        1. Private-K
          Private-K 18 September 2020 21: 35 New
          +3
          Note that the multi-channel requirement was met on this experimental machine! Two gunners can simultaneously fire on two targets.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 18 September 2020 21: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: Private-K
            Two gunners can simultaneously fire on two targets.
            The crew is 5 people. And besides 2 30mm cannons with individual aiming, 2 machine guns (one on the left nadgusinechny shelf, the other behind the cannons), and AGS (on the right nadusinennoy shelf).

          2. IS-80_RVGK2
            IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 22: 39 New
            -1
            And yet the car is rubbish. Despite the multichannel.
        2. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 22: 13 New
          0
          Guess what flaws this car has. I can even give a hint for one drawback. See Ukrainian Azov.
      5. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 September 2020 22: 43 New
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        The Terminator has no advantages over the T-15

        Price. BMPTs based on the T-72-90, other things being equal, will be much cheaper, which means they can be made in larger quantities for the same money.
    5. Private-K
      Private-K 18 September 2020 13: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: _Ugene_
      They still cannot understand whether it is necessary at all

      Of course not needed in this form with such weapons.
      Not a single Russian Defense Ministry official has yet bothered to respond to the devastating criticism of Frame-99.
      Moreover, UVZ is silent ...
      1. Volder
        Volder 18 September 2020 13: 34 New
        -2
        Quote: Private-K
        Not a single Russian Defense Ministry official has yet bothered to respond to the devastating criticism of Frame-99.
        ... crushing incompetent criticism. The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.
        1. Private-K
          Private-K 18 September 2020 21: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: Volder
          ... crushing incompetent criticism. The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.

          Do-do-do ... "Incompetent" ... How well.
          You should hide behind a veil of secrecy so that the people do not know what the money goes to and censorship - so that no one can speak. Oh, then it would have healed ... Yes.
          Only ignorant durack or knowledgeable scoundrel can say that two 30-mm shitty guns are an effective means against ATGMs, which must be able (the military demand!) to hit at distances of 4 km or more.
          Your shitty car hasn't met any of the MO requirements for BMPT. Sniffed the Berbers - so rejoice. And there is nothing to deceive your Russian soldiers - they will burn in them when useless weapons will not fulfill your declared abilities.
        2. IS-80_RVGK2
          IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 22: 14 New
          -3
          Internet anonymous is certainly much more competent. Oha.
          1. Private-K
            Private-K 19 September 2020 08: 38 New
            +1
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            Internet anonymous is certainly much more competent. Oha.

            Internet Anonymous is free in its assessments because it is not bound by corporate bonds of mutual responsibility. Therefore, it is always more objective than "personnel".
            And one more thing: the level of competence is determined not by the position held, but by what the person says.
            1. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 19 September 2020 09: 41 New
              -1
              Quote: Private-K
              Internet Anonymous is free in its assessments because it is not bound by corporate bonds of mutual responsibility.

              And at the same time, in the overwhelming majority of cases, he is free of competence.
              Quote: Private-K
              And one more thing: the level of competence is determined not by the position held, but by the fact that a person

              The level of competence was never defined by chatter. Only by deeds.
    6. orionvitt
      orionvitt 18 September 2020 14: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: _Ugene_
      They still cannot understand whether it is necessary at all

      Yes, they can understand, a useful thing. You just need to work out methods of combat interaction and use, so to speak, in real conditions. Run in, albeit on exercises. Modern combat is a pretty complicated thing. Moreover, the enemy is different.
    7. maiman61
      maiman61 20 September 2020 11: 24 New
      -2
      Countries are preparing for a big war that may not happen. And the barmaley appear here and there, and they must be driven. But against them, the terminator will be a good utilizer. Yes, and from tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in battle to drive away any rag-tag, sea of ​​fire, it would not be bad. In such wars, the use of shiloks proved to be excellent, but it has bulletproof armor. Shihad mobiles, carts with large-caliber machine guns, ATGM firing points would be excellent targets for the terminator, but they drank a lot of blood in Syria, and in the Caucasus as well. Escorting the columns would also be more fun with a terminator.
      1. Thomas N.
        Thomas N. 20 September 2020 16: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: maiman61
        Yes, and from tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in battle to drive away any rag-tag, sea of ​​fire, it would not be bad.

        And why the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles themselves are not able to drive away the "riffraff" with fire? Especially BMP with an automatic cannon? Further see https://topwar.ru/175228-reshenie-po-bmpt-terminator-primut-po-itogam-uchenij-kavkaz-2020.html#comment-id-10797847
        1. maiman61
          maiman61 20 September 2020 20: 41 New
          -1
          What is the rate of fire of a tank gun? What is better, anti-bullet armor or anti-cannon armor? And who has a higher rate of fire, one automatic cannon or a dual automatic cannon? But this is elementary! Read the pre-war reviews of tankers about the T-34 tank. Negative! The tankers did not like them.
          1. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 21 September 2020 05: 44 New
            +1
            Quote: maiman61
            What is the rate of fire of a tank gun?

            For a tank gun, one shot of the OFS is enough, and if the target is too close and you want a rate of fire, there is a 12,7 mm machine gun in a remote-controlled installation on the tower. And another BMP next to an automatic cannon!
            Quote: maiman61
            What is better, anti-bullet armor or anti-cannon armor?

            Modern infantry fighting vehicles have frontal armor for a long time anti-cannon, only the caliber of these shells is smaller smile ... BPS protects from 25-30 mm.
            Quote: maiman61
            And who has a higher rate of fire, one automatic cannon or a dual automatic cannon? But this is elementary!

            The 2A42 cannon has two rates of fire (https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30-mm_2A42_cannon), a small 200-300 (for firing at ground targets) and a large 550 rds / min (for air targets). So, two guns are not necessary to increase the rate of fire, it is enough to switch the firing mode. But in order to maintain the accuracy of shooting at ground targets, they do not shoot at a high rate.
            Quote: maiman61
            Read the pre-war reviews of tankers about the T-34 tank. Negative! The tankers did not like them.

            I did not understand the last thought. What are you talking about? What does the T-34 have to do with the topic under discussion?
  2. Alvis07
    Alvis07 18 September 2020 12: 10 New
    -8
    A good machine, but it's not clear where it will be in conditions, for example, in a city battle? Behind the tanks or in front of the tanks?
    1. Livonetc
      Livonetc 18 September 2020 12: 14 New
      +6
      Perhaps no tanks at all.
      And only in some special cases pull tanks into the zone of urban battles.
    2. Private-K
      Private-K 18 September 2020 13: 15 New
      -3
      Quote: Alvis07
      A good machine, but it's not clear where it will be in conditions, for example, in a city battle? Behind the tanks or in front of the tanks?

      What is it good?
      Study the criticism http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post_6051.html
      1. Volder
        Volder 18 September 2020 13: 38 New
        -2
        Quote: Private-K
        Examine criticism
        This criticism is from 2012. Do you really think that over the past 8 years the car has not been modified in any way and nothing has been done with it? Oh well... :)
        1. Private-K
          Private-K 18 September 2020 21: 06 New
          +2
          Quote: Volder
          This criticism is from 2012. Do you really think that over the past 8 years the car has not been modified in any way and nothing has been done with it? Oh well... :)

          They didn't do nikhren! At all. Spit and shove. Everything can be seen in the photo of the recently purchased machines by MO. Everything is the same as it was 8 years ago.

          PS As I understand it, "UVZ patriots" came running to minus ... Gee-gee ... Do not drive Fufel, they will not smear. Nobody smears T-90M - the car is good. And Frame-99 is about nothing. All previous, still Soviet, experimental versions of the study of the BMPT theme were head and shoulders above.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 19 September 2020 11: 25 New
            0
            Apologists Cheburashki from Uralvagonzavod immune to the arguments of logic ...
            They are unaware that the only place where they could put this device in was an expensive SPTRK for use in the steppes of Kazakhstan.
            As a BMPT, it is a full bottom.
  3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 September 2020 12: 17 New
    +1
    So, in principle, it is logical - you can theorize for a long time, but any theory needs to be verified by practice. And teachings are a good approximation to practice, if only not for show, all this was done, but seriously
  4. Interlocutor
    Interlocutor 18 September 2020 12: 22 New
    +5
    The machine is specific. Not always and not always needed. But there are tasks that she can do well. (To overwhelm a suicide bomber in a car, it is possible to drive a sniper in buildings) Such a bunker on tracks.
    I think its function is protection.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 18 September 2020 12: 33 New
      0
      In principle, yes, in the protection of important objects such a machine at the gate will scare away with its one appearance. But the support of tanks is also her task. Not in front, not behind the tanks, but in one formation. 4 ATGMs, ready for battle at any moment and reaction time faster than a tank is a sufficient argument.
    2. Private-K
      Private-K 18 September 2020 21: 11 New
      +2
      Quote: Interlocutor
      Fill a suicide bomber in a car

      Any BMP, any tank, ATGM can do this ...
      Quote: Interlocutor
      it is possible to drive a sniper in buildings

      Similarly.

      Let it be known to you that main determinant meaning for BMPT is a sharp, spasmodic, multiple increase in properties to combat tank-hazardous manpower pr-ka - in other words, with ATGM calculations and grenade launchers. This is the first point - everything else is a bonus and a trailer.
      In other words, BMPT should extinguish ATGMs better than several BMPs at the same time. Otherwise, it is meaningless.
      But it is this very first point not performed at all.
      1. Interlocutor
        Interlocutor 18 September 2020 21: 48 New
        0
        Let it be known to you that the main defining meaning for the BMPT is a sharp, abrupt, multiple increase in the properties to combat tank-hazardous manpower pr-ka - in other words, with the calculations of ATGM and grenade launchers. This is the first point - everything else is a bonus and a trailer.


        Respected. I agree with you completely. Just replace the word "sniper" with the word "ATGM or grenade launcher". He will drive them anyway.
        Yes and there are no "abrupt, abrupt, multiple increases in properties"
  5. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 18 September 2020 12: 23 New
    0
    The Israelis ride on the basis of our "captured" tanks and nothing. It seems that they have it, like an armored personnel carrier, only well, very heavy. And here just a very protected, highly mobile firing point, this Terminator. For me, the necessary piece of iron. Like in Syria, have you already tested it? good drinks
    1. Romka47
      Romka47 18 September 2020 12: 33 New
      0
      As I understand it, you're talking about AZARKHIT (or something like that) infantry fighting vehicles based on trophic T-55, then they ride, yes, but this is a completely different steppe, there are troops and modest weapons, there are no troops here, but there are no trunks like on old battleships)
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 18 September 2020 12: 38 New
        +1
        Here I am about the same, the weapons are full and there is no landing. When the Kurgan will become armed, is that a question? hi
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 19 September 2020 11: 30 New
      0
      Quote: tralflot1832
      there is just a very protected, highly mobile firing point

      Who told you that she was "very secure"? There, the outboard weapons have bulletproof armor in a circle, in front a little from 30 mm.
      1. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 19 September 2020 11: 44 New
        -1
        The crew seems to be sitting in a tank, but they still need to get into the removed weapons, and if you book it, the mini Armata will work. repeat
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 19 September 2020 12: 15 New
          0
          Quote: tralflot1832
          The crew seems to be sitting in a tank.

          no, there is a mechanic in the tank.
          The commander and gunner sit under the tower, their heads at the level of the tower. And there - bulletproof booking.
          And you still need to get into the removed weapons

          They will, do not hesitate. The tanks, after the Chechen campaigns - with 18 hits from RPGs, managed to get out of the battle on their own.
          And on this tin turret, neither the DZ nor the attachment can be placed.
          1. tralflot1832
            tralflot1832 19 September 2020 12: 25 New
            -1
            I did not know that the commander and gunner had a head higher than the armor. I always believed that the crew was lower than the turret and was completely covered with armor. Then the only plus is that the projection is low and even cross-country ability. Let the military think about his fate. But the crew must be protected. hi
  6. cosmos-PS
    cosmos-PS 18 September 2020 12: 25 New
    +1
    Undoubtedly, the car is necessary in the troops. True, the side ATGMs are still vulnerable, even though they were covered a little.
  7. jeka424
    jeka424 18 September 2020 12: 32 New
    +1
    Everywhere they experienced how many teachings there were and cannot decide, apparently they do not want to simply
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 18 September 2020 13: 31 New
      0
      Quote: jeka424
      Everywhere they experienced how many teachings there were and cannot decide, apparently they do not want to simply

      In general, it amazes me how it is possible to create new equipment, and at the same time not conduct research on the prospects of such a machine and its purpose for tactical use in the troops. After all, this is a complete profanation of military science, because it turned out that they allocated huge funds for development work (R&D), created prototypes, not even single ones, but in a small series, and now they suddenly realized why we need such a machine. This is a blatant squandering of state funds, and it is very interesting to know who will be responsible for this if the car is accepted into series following the results of the exercises, and then pitfalls emerge in the form of the expensive cost of the car, its vulnerability or weakness of weapons to defeat enemy armored vehicles.
      It is in such situations that what our "reformers" have done with the army comes to light, because it turns out that they were saving on posts, dispersing military professionals, and now we are ruining huge amounts of money for the creation of some unknown technology. Naturally, this is a more complicated question than it might seem to someone, but I am interested in which of the scientific and technical structures of the Ground Forces assessed the prospects of this product and who came out with the initiative of this development. I'm afraid that we will never know, because judging by the information from the Ministry of Defense, they themselves find it difficult to understand what this machine is for, since they decided that one teaching will open their eyes to the truth. In general, I am ashamed of this approach to military affairs, however, our defense minister is clearly a civilian, and he vaguely understands what kind of weapon our army needs.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 18 September 2020 13: 52 New
        +4
        The history of this product is very interesting in fact. The roots grow already from Afghanistan and a little more before it. In short: they wanted a promising tank support vehicle with large elevation angles of the weapon, a high rate of fire and a quick response to changing situations. She was supposed to protect tanks from infantry, destroy ATGM crews, etc.
        The birth was very difficult (and the campaign had not yet been born), there are many disputes, both on the concept and on the implementation in hardware. The first options were made from what was available for combat means. It turned out what happened. Now everything is heavily revised and, in principle, this is a normal working machine.
        And the Ministry of Defense is wandering only because it is necessary (in addition to purchasing) to change the composition of the squads / companies of armored vehicles, recruit and train crews, prepare supply logistics, etc. It seems as it should, the car is necessary and useful, but at the moment it seems to be not urgently needed .... That's the whole story.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 September 2020 15: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: Wedmak
          The roots grow already from Afghanistan and a little bit before it. In short: they wanted a promising tank support vehicle with large elevation angles of the weapon, a high rate of fire and a quick response to changing situations. She was supposed to protect tanks from infantry, destroy ATGM crews, etc.

          The project got a second wind during the First Chechen War - when it suddenly became clear that we had no infantry. There are personnel, but no active bayonets. And without the infantry, the tank does not live long and badly.
          As a result, instead of completing the ISO, ISV and ISR to the state with the subsequent organization of statutory interaction, the army team rushed to look for asymmetric solutions to the problem. And they remembered about this miracle Yudo. Well, what a saving - 3-4 people in BMPT can theoretically replace the division of motorized riflemen. But the practice, the campaign, did not work out - judging by the fact that even after a quarter of a century, already having in its hands products "in iron", the Ministry of Defense cannot determine the place of BMPT in the troops.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 18 September 2020 19: 17 New
          -2
          Quote: Wedmak
          The birth was very difficult (and the campaign had not yet been born), there are many disputes, both on the concept and on the implementation in hardware.

          But even if conceptually they did not come to a consensus, what kind of fool had the head to launch a small series? In Soviet times, the head of the ordering department would probably have one job turned inside out, if only such a scandal had reached the minister. And here they are still engaged in burdensomeness for public money - they survived ...
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 19 September 2020 11: 33 New
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            what a fool had the idea of ​​running a small series

            They sold them to the Kazakhs, they decided that if they were to be adopted, they would be right now! Contracts, premiums are "effective".
        3. keeper03
          keeper03 18 September 2020 23: 22 New
          0
          When it gets hot and hot, then they will remember, but it will be too late! am
  8. paul3390
    paul3390 18 September 2020 12: 34 New
    +3
    I, of course, do not pretend to be a specialist, but IMHO - she has a weird weapon for a support vehicle. For whatever one may say, it asks for something with a larger caliber with ammunition with programmable detonation and increased high-explosive fragmentation effect .. For example - a new 57-mm ... And also - something with a hinged trajectory, an automatic grenade launcher or a mortar that is not very large calibers. So that you can work on shelters, and on trenches, and on light armored vehicles ..
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 18 September 2020 12: 37 New
      +4
      She has 2 automatic grenade launchers available.
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 18 September 2020 12: 39 New
        -3
        Terminator 2 seems to be gone. Or I'm wrong?
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 18 September 2020 12: 43 New
          0
          So, is he going to the troops? The other day there was a story about this BMPT on a star. And there is the first version with revision, grenade launchers in place, ATGMs are covered with shields. I said straight out the first episode.
          1. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 18 September 2020 21: 06 New
            +1
            AGS must be placed on the tower so that there is a 360-degree firing sector. Course AGS (or PKT on BMP-1) are useless. PKTM is also useless - to put so Kord 12,7mm.
          2. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 18 September 2020 21: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            the first episode was directly said.

            So the first full-fledged version, but "terminator-1" is a simpler and cheaper option, and with worse protection.
    2. Romka47
      Romka47 18 September 2020 13: 15 New
      +1
      Your truth, 57 mm looks much more interesting, therefore, in the future, the terminator based on ARMATA will be from 57 (when and whether it will be another question, but information slipped through, even to my mind here on VO about it), and if the memory serves as a on the same one that even 2 pieces in the article (well, they definitely were before)
    3. garri-lin
      garri-lin 18 September 2020 15: 43 New
      0
      New 57 mm. A ballistic grenade launcher? Almost perfect.
      1. prodi
        prodi 18 September 2020 16: 19 New
        -3
        no, the Terminator, first of all, needs to be sharpened, against flying ATGMs and a 30mm spark is much better than one 57mm, maybe even a quad 23mm is better
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 18 September 2020 16: 53 New
          +3
          The terminator does not have an MSA capable of working on small-sized flying targets. No, it is not foreseen and unnecessary.
          1. prodi
            prodi 18 September 2020 17: 21 New
            -1
            then we must do it, because it is ATGMs (RPGs) that are the immediate threat that can fly up from above, and small flying targets, helicopters, and even tanks are generally secondary in the list of threats
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 18 September 2020 17: 54 New
              0
              We have already argued on this topic. This is the case of Derivation. And the BMPT should find ATGMs before firing. And drive RPGshnikov.
              1. prodi
                prodi 18 September 2020 18: 14 New
                -3
                I don’t know how to "hammer in" yet - all this MBT are good at themselves, and even work out with KAZ, DZ, and main armor if absolutely necessary. But to reduce the whole point of an additional promising machine only to large elevation angles of small-caliber weapons is stupidity
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 18 September 2020 18: 48 New
                  +2
                  On the battlefield, a tank spends a lot of time and energy on self-defense. The priority target is always those who can hit the tank. BMPT due to the multichannel is deprived of this drawback. Plus, due to the smaller caliber, the reaction rate is higher. Tanks + BMPT on the field. Tanks support the infantry. BMPTs protect tanks from tank-hazardous targets. Simple and clear. Multichannel allows BMPT to sew itself up with one weapon channel. The second to hit the threat to the tanks. The third channel in the form of kamikaze drones will just make a unique vehicle out of BMPT. The terminator is not suitable for these purposes. BMPT idea is good. Incarnation in the form of a terminator is bad.
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 18 September 2020 19: 10 New
                    -1
                    multichannel - how is it? Cannons, machine gun and ATGM can simultaneously fire at three (spaced) targets? If the Terminator can work on the ATGM and RPG missiles themselves, then the need for infantry will greatly decrease and its role will be revised
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 18 September 2020 19: 16 New
                      -2
                      Ideally yes. Three goals. More precisely, two targets and a UAV in the sky that can attack a suddenly appeared target if there is a great need. The tower with 57 mm and the top of the DUM with the Balkan is already realizable.
                      1. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 18 September 2020 21: 37 New
                        0
                        Shooter, want to "soak" "three birds with one stone" at the same time? - redo the "tower" ... Draw a drawing - it would be clearer, but I'll try "in words". We make the tower from 2 levels: 1st level 30mm cannon and Cord 12,7mm paired with it (remove the 2nd 30mm barrel). The 2nd level, which rotates independently and independently of the 1st level, but does not interfere with it, we put the ACS and its BC on it. We put the ATGM vertically on the sides, but in order not to block the view and the firing sector for the AGS. According to the idea, it will turn out something like this: The commander uses a panoramic sight (360 degrees) at the very top and the AGS tied to the commander's sight (like on a helicopter - where the commander looks (a cross in the eyepiece of the sight) is pointed there and the AGS, saw a suitable target (RPG) immediately shoots; the gunner has his own sight and communication with the commander (suddenly the commander will notice the target from behind), the gunner's sight is better done as a "fisheye" with a 180-degree view (as the "academics" will come up with), his targets are BMP and RPG, if possible shells); But with ATGMs you will have to "work" - to make the possibility of "mortar start" and "fired and forgot" (homing like Javelin, approximately), the possibility of launching will have to be done by both the commander and the gunner (targets (MBT) may notice both, but the goals (MBT) will be in opposite directions.) Let the "academics" think how to implement all this in metal, they get a salary for "thinking" ...
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 21: 49 New
                        -1
                        I described something similar a year or two ago. I do not remember. It is quite possible to kill three birds with one stone with the modern level of automation. And with a crew of 5 people, you can still not lose sight of the battlefield, half continuing to identify dangerous targets.
                      3. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 18 September 2020 22: 11 New
                        0
                        Shooter, On BMPT Terminator-1 crew of 5 people - commander, gunner, driver and 2 gunners of course AGS. BMPT Terminator-2 has a crew of 3 people - commander, gunner and driver. Which version of the Terminator BMPT goes to the troops? - if the pictures and video broadcasts contain "course AGS" who manages them? (driver-mechanic?) - the conversation is about 3 crew members. In principle, you can make a good view of the mechanic drive and the "SOS button" to call the commander or gunner in case of independent target detection (the commander can look to the left and back, and the gunner to the right and back - the front remains behind the mechanic drive). Everyone is silent about the "night light" for the mechanic driver, but how to ride at night? (or I don't know something?)
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 22: 13 New
                        +1
                        Terminator ersatz. And I'm talking about a normal BMPT. And in terms of instruments, it should be more sophisticated than a tank. And definitely more expensive.
                      5. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 18 September 2020 22: 38 New
                        0
                        Shooter, we all got lost in three pines together with MO. What is BMPT for? - to guard the MBT? - how much BMPT is needed for one MBT? - what order of battle? (who will be in front, behind, on the sides?). What would a "normal BMPT" be? - in your opinion? In the event that the BMPT will be "heaped better than the tank" - why the tank itself? Then the "old MBT T-72" can be converted into "ersatz BMPT" like the Terminator. And it sets him tasks "simpler and clearer" ... the protection of armored personnel carriers with a landing from MBT and BMP of the enemy (as an example Abrams M1A2 and BMP Bradley M2A3), but the armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles to do for the transport of troops, without emphasis on weapons and armor. For example BTR "Shell", MTLB, BTR-152.
                      6. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 22: 54 New
                        0
                        BMPT needs one for several tanks. Next to the tanks. Minus its lesser power and range. Its plus multichannel and reaction speed is much higher than that of tanks. Well, awareness through the UAV.
                      7. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 18 September 2020 23: 21 New
                        0
                        Shooter
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        BMPT needs one for several tanks. Next to the tanks.
                        MBT will not block the view and the firing sector? - will have to use the UAV with might and main, but what about the firing sector?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        BMPT Its minus less power and range.
                        ATGM can "neutralize MBT" the first time, it is quite possible how many ATGMs - so many "dead MBTs" - the range of ATGMs can reach up to 10 km ... (we take the well-known and "guaranteed" 5500m for "Kornet-D") - how far is it, and how accurately does the 2A82 hit?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        BMPT Its plus multichannel and reaction speed is much higher than that of tanks.
                        Multichannel? - requires clarification - what channels and how many of them?, The reaction speed depends on the "reaction of the BMPT crew" - the BMPT crew will have to be well trained, otherwise the equipment itself does not fight.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        BMPT Well, awareness through the UAV.
                        BMPT Terminator will also be "vigilant" with the UAV, can we give the Terminator a UAV - maybe Terminator will do better? It's just that the BMPT Terminator is "in metal" and it can and should be refined and see what happens so that the BMPT T-15 does not get "stupid jambs" hi
                      8. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 18 September 2020 23: 40 New
                        0
                        The Terminator cannot work on infantry covered in folds of terrain. Line of sight only. Like the tank. Tanks do not block each other's view.
                        The range of the Reflex / Invar TUR and the Kornet ATGM is comparable.
                      9. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 19 September 2020 00: 01 New
                        0
                        Shooter, you need to remove the 2nd barrel of the 30mm cannon - not needed. Put AGS-40 (on the tower) and "crush the infantry" out of it, remove the PKMT the same - why is it? The UAV "tied" to the BMPT looks from above and looks for infantry in the folds of the terrain. Armor penetration for TUR Reflex / Invar for DZ 800-850mm - for ATGM Kornet-D penetration for DZ 1300mm. ATGM Kornet has 152mm caliber - versus 125mm from TUR Reflex / Invar, the larger the funnel caliber, the greater the armor penetration. The tanks do not block each other's view, but they only look forward and advance along the front and where should the BMPT be placed? Maybe behind the MBT? - and the entire emphasis of armament should be placed on the AGS (even with a caliber of 57mm), and the review is mainly from the top from the UAV?
                      10. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 19 September 2020 00: 25 New
                        0
                        30 mm is not needed for nothing. Anti-infantry is obsolete. 57 mm is a little redundant, but it is there. And high-explosive action and many fragments. And if GPO is just do it lovely. The PKM thing is great, small and inexpensive. Why remove it? Reflex 10 years ago had to be converted into a roof. And in its present form, it is definitely inferior to the Cornet. BMPT will also be in line. Armor like a tank. And he needs a view forward with large angles but forward. 180 degrees. Terminator, by the way, is higher than the tank. And it may well look through the tank. Maintain this state of affairs. Canopy fire through the tank is also possible.
                      11. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 19 September 2020 00: 50 New
                        0
                        Shooter, if you focus on the 57mm caliber - you need to make a "godfather" in this caliber - against an enemy with "thick skin", but without a "shell", or is there a BOPS in this caliber - what are its performance characteristics? AGS -17 is better against "manpower without armor" - you do not need an accurate hit, they can point-blank, and at the window, and behind the fence, along the folds of the terrain. To look in front of the tank - how to present it? - the tank is moving in front - the view is still blocked in front. By the way, the distance from MBT to BMPT needs to be clarified, otherwise we make assumptions "into the void" ... Make TUR Reflex a "cover-up" - how? - 1) Do like Javelin - first climb, then "dive" at the target? 2) Do the "shock core" - flying over the target to hit it from above? Here is LSHO AGS-57mm
                        lsho ags-57mm
                        Here "it seems" BOPS to him
                        bops to ags-57mm
                        But what are his performance characteristics? Can the BOPS to the AGS-57mm penetrate the NATO BMP? - at what distance?
                      12. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 19 September 2020 01: 14 New
                        0
                        See the ballistic grenade launcher. Everything's there. Both BOPS and controlled detonation. I meant it by 57 mm. Sweep the pollente 30 mm AGS if several 57 with GPO and air blasting will do the same. High ballistics are not needed. Excessive. And it will be on the BMP in the second row.
                        Krysheboy definitely with a slide. Even the rocket does not need to be specially changed, only the algorithms for the operation of the guidance devices.
                        Tanks move in a line. BMPT among them. The observation device is slightly higher than the height of the tank. You can look over your head. The dead zone will be small.
                      13. cat Rusich
                        cat Rusich 20 September 2020 00: 13 New
                        0
                        Shooter, you are offering high-explosive armor-piercing shells for the "low ballistics weapon" ...
                        hash shell
                        HESH projectile (hash projectile). About the "air blast" - you can argue for a long time, but the "old people" will stand on that: "Better a long line from an AGS (machine gun) than one" shell with brains "for big $".
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You can look over your head. The dead zone will be small.
                        The size of the "dead zone" will be strictly proportional to the distance between the MBT and BMPT - the further behind the MBT, the less forward view of the BMPT (to the left and right of the MBT, the view will remain).
                      14. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 20 September 2020 09: 09 New
                        0
                        Why hash? There is a full-fledged BOPS.
                        You can't argue with progress. The long line fades into the background. Accurate ammunition is more practical.
                        BMPT will be in line. The forward view is not limited. The view on the sides is limited.
                      15. Thomas N.
                        Thomas N. 20 September 2020 15: 50 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        You can't argue with progress. The long line fades into the background. Accurate ammunition is more practical.

                        Accurate ammunition is more practical at the range when the target is clearly visible.
                        Here's a small part of the discussion on this topic:
                        https://topwar.ru/174606-ilja-muromec-uvz-nachal-razrabotku-novoj-bmpt-na-baze-armaty.html#comment-id-10740252
                      16. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 20 September 2020 17: 29 New
                        0
                        Accurate ammunition is practical everywhere. Both at the range and in battle. What you are talking about is the difference between kill and suppression.
                      17. Thomas N.
                        Thomas N. 20 September 2020 20: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Accurate ammunition is practical everywhere. Both at the range and in battle. What you are talking about is the difference between kill and suppression.

                        I am not against accurate (in the sense of remote aerial detonation) OFS, I am against increasing their caliber, because this reduces the ammunition load and it may be enough for fire to kill, but not enough for suppressing fire. And without fire to suppress before fire to defeat BMPT (and BMP) simply will not survive.
                      18. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 20 September 2020 21: 36 New
                        0
                        Suppression fire can be fired from a smaller caliber. Terminator has 30mm grenade launchers. Something similar will happen on the promising one. Sow every bush you don't like. But for the explored targets. By goals that have identified themselves. When shooting to kill. Smart ammo is better. At the same time, 57 mm air blast with GPO is a terrible thing in itself. One shell for a place you don't like is quite enough. Of the minuses, rare, albeit strong, explosions scare less than the roar of continuous explosions.
                      19. Thomas N.
                        Thomas N. 21 September 2020 04: 33 New
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Suppression fire can be fired from a smaller caliber. Terminator has 30mm grenade launchers. Something similar will happen on the promising one. Sow every bush you don't like. But for the explored targets. By goals that have identified themselves. When shooting to kill. Smart ammo is better. At the same time, 57 mm air blast with GPO is a terrible thing in itself. One shell for a place you don't like is quite enough. Of the minuses, rare, albeit strong, explosions scare less than the roar of continuous explosions.

                        On "Terminator-2" 30-mm grenade launchers have already been abandoned, but even if they will, it will not allow opening targets for the cannon "sowing bushes" because of the shorter firing range of grenade launchers compared to the cannon and the long flight time of grenades. And at the range at which grenade launchers can reach (1000-1500 m), enemy ATGMs will already be fired. So, 30-mm grenade launchers will not help to suppress fire. Increase the caliber of grenade launchers? This means walking the same vicious path as for the cannon.
                        Didn't understand the abbreviation GPO - ready-made destructive fragments? Usually the term "elements" is used. GGE.
                        Yes, I agree 57-mm OFS with GGE and air blasting is a good thing, it is well shown in these videos:
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rldn9Hvzih4&app=desktop
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxVOclDHI9Y
                        But still, pay attention to not shooting one shell, but bursting even at an open target in order to compensate for the error in shooting at range. For a "disliked place", one shell will not be enough, because to the place, i.e. overgrown with bushes, it is difficult to correctly determine the range.
                      20. Thomas N.
                        Thomas N. 23 September 2020 05: 09 New
                        0
                        Here's another flyer about this 57mm GGE-based CFC with 4-mode air blast developed by Bofors (Sweden): 57mm Mk 295 Mod 0 3P-HE - BAE Systems (https://www.baesystems.com/en /download-en/20181204171516/1434555371427.pdf)
          2. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 20 September 2020 16: 10 New
            0
            Quote: cat Rusich
            About the "air blast" - you can argue for a long time, but the "old people" will stand on that: "Better a long line from an AGS (machine gun) than one" shell with brains "for big $"

            It's not just about money. One "projectile with brains" can be used only on a clearly visible open target in order to accurately measure the range to it, without this "brains" of the fuse are useless. So, you can't do without a queue for any detonation of a projectile.
          3. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 20 September 2020 18: 04 New
            0
            Let's remember the XM-25 CDTE from the USA - the customer was counting on the serial cost of the shot $ 35. You can estimate how many "smart shots" will be required to fill the ammo and what will be the consumption in battle ... "Smart ammunition" is beneficial in the appropriate caliber - as an example of an ATGM, it is consumed only for important targets, which are accordingly defined and visible.
          4. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 21 September 2020 00: 53 New
            0
            Quote: cat Rusich
            Let's remember the XM-25 CDTE from the USA - the customer was counting on the serial cost of the shot $ 35. You can estimate how many "smart shots" will be required to fill the ammo and what will be the consumption in battle ... "Smart ammunition" is beneficial in the appropriate caliber - as an example of an ATGM, it is consumed only for important targets, which are accordingly defined and visible.

            In the last sentence, you actually identified 2 problems with "smart ammunition".
            1. Important targets for automatic cannon OFS (what does the XM-25 CDTE have to do with it?) Are ATGM launchers, which are almost always poorly visible, because they "sit in the bushes" and change their position after firing.
            2. The ammunition supply system feeds only two types of ammunition to automatic cannons - armor-piercing and fragmentation, if "smart" OFS shoot only at important targets, then what kind of ammunition to shoot at "not important" - machine guns, grenade launchers, unarmored equipment, etc. ? A machine gun paired with a cannon is poorly suited for this, because its effective firing range is the same as the firing range of those whom it should hit, which means that it will not work to support dismounted infantry with fire, suppressing enemy firing points in time.
          5. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 21 September 2020 19: 21 New
            0
            Quote: Thomas N.
            what does the XM-25 CDTE have to do with it?
            He recalled it as an example of expensive "smart shells" which were "quietly abandoned."
            1) My opinion: "important targets" with "thick skin" (for example, BMP Bradley M2A3) remained for automatic guns. "Work" for such targets only armor-piercing (as an example, M919
            м919 25mm
            for Bradley 25mm - they promise not worse than 37mm for 2 km). 2) For "soft targets" only AGS (even AGS-40) - pair with a 30mm car. cannon AGS - AGS can "work" both on closed targets and from closed positions. They have the same elevation angle, but 30mm cars. The cannon may be needed to "overcome" fences (duval) and for "carts" - direct fire at a visible target of 1-2 km. 3) There is no room for "smart projectiles" ... or spend them "both in place and as a consumable."
          6. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 23 September 2020 05: 53 New
            +1
            Quote: cat Rusich
            2) For "soft targets" only AGS (even AGS-40) - pair with a 30mm car. cannon AGS - AGS can "work" both on closed targets and from closed positions.

            AGS can be installed on the roof of the main combat module in a separate remote-controlled installation along with the commander's panoramic sight, as here:
            So another two-channel weapon is obtained.
          7. cat Rusich
            cat Rusich 23 September 2020 19: 46 New
            0
            Quote: cat Rusich
            The commander uses a panoramic sight (360 degrees) at the very top and the AGS tied to the commander's sight (like on a helicopter - where the commander looks (a cross in the eyepiece of the sight) is pointed there and the AGS, saw a suitable target (RPG) immediately shoots
            September 18, 2020 I already gave such a comment. Gunner AGS-17 instead of PKMT 7,62mm - a coaxial machine gun with a 30mm car. a gun is not needed (to put it mildly), for "soft targets" that the gunner will see, the AGS will go - an accurate hit is not needed.
  9. IS-80_RVGK2
    IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 22: 53 New
    0
    Five people nafig need her. 4 just right. Two shooters, mechanic, chief of the mechanism.
  10. garri-lin
    garri-lin 18 September 2020 23: 00 New
    0
    Mekhvod. Commander. Main weapon operator. Defensive weapons operator. Operator of guided weapons (UR) and UAVs. In the case of type T 15, you can place it without problems. T 90 will not work.
  11. IS-80_RVGK2
    IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 23: 42 New
    +1
    It's too complicated. Two shooters, mechanic, chief. And there is no need to produce essences.
  12. garri-lin
    garri-lin 19 September 2020 00: 08 New
    0
    Maybe you are right. But I really want to have intelligence "top view" although we are talking about prospects. A drone with automatic transmission of data directly to the commander.
  13. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 20 September 2020 00: 33 New
    0
    Shooter, if you want to add a "guided weapons operator" to the BMPT crew - then you need to determine what observation and guidance devices he will have ... Then - 1) To the commander - the UAV and a top view, 2) The gunner-gunner - "fisheye" - look where the barrel is directed, 3) For the UR gunner - a panoramic sight and a view with the ability to aim at 360 degrees (and a vertical start for the UR is mandatory so as not to knock down the aiming of the gun). If the UAV is lost, the commander switches to a panoramic sight - the UR gunner where?
  14. garri-lin
    garri-lin 20 September 2020 09: 15 New
    0
    The commander has a pan-panoramic sight with a DUM synchronized with it with a machine gun. Let him look, command, and shoot through the bushes. UAV guided weapon operator. UAV kamikaze. Report to the commander on simple goals. Dangerous attacks itself. In addition to several of these UAVs, there are several ATGMs with vertical launch.
  15. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 20 September 2020 17: 46 New
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    UAV guided weapon operator. UAV kamikaze. Report to the commander on simple goals. Dangerous attacks itself. In addition to several of these UAVs, there are several ATGMs with vertical launch.
    Where will the "interchangeable suicide drones" be deployed? - BMPT dimensions are limited ... Then give the "UR gunner" a UAV with the ability to target an ATGM and with the commander connected to the view.
  16. garri-lin
    garri-lin 20 September 2020 18: 57 New
    0
    A suicide bomber in size with the same ATGM. UVP in the stern. Several UAVs, several PURE ATGMs. In fact, these can be different submodifications of one ammunition.
  • psiho117
    psiho117 19 September 2020 11: 38 New
    0
    Quote: paul3390
    asks for something with a larger caliber with ammunition with programmable detonation and increased high-explosive fragmentation effect

    Our industry is "unable" to programmed disruption. at least in a cheap, miniature, and on its microelectronic base. Which is not surprising, you can't endlessly travel on Singapore chips, French matrices and Chinese electronics.
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 20 September 2020 16: 36 New
      0
      Quote: psiho117
      Our industry is "unable" to programmed disruption. at least in a cheap, miniature, and on its microelectronic base. Which is not surprising, you can't endlessly travel on Singapore chips, French matrices and Chinese electronics.

      "Mogot"? - 30-mm OFS NPO "Pribor", see here - "Steel Rain": an intelligent sight will tell the projectile when to explode - https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201503291027-casm.htm?utm_source=tvzvezda&utm_medium = longpage & utm_campaign = longpage & utm_term = v1
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 21 September 2020 17: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Thomas N.
        30-mm OFS NPO "Pribor", see here - "Steel rain"

        It would also be nice to indicate the price, yeah. So far, 30mm guided projectiles are extremely expensive even for America. They stopped at 57mm.
        The rate of fire of modern Russian cannons makes it possible to create a long or short explosive path from 20-30 shells using our sight

        Just fine, in one burst - we shoot an apartment in Moscow.
        Plus, the technology used by them to detonate a laser beam is very doubtful, in difficult combat and weather conditions.
        However, I understand that for lack of a better thing, this will do. The projectile revolution counter, apparently, was not sold to us by the Chinese.
        1. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 23 September 2020 06: 55 New
          0
          Quote: psiho117
          Quote: Thomas N.
          30-mm OFS NPO "Pribor", see here - "Steel rain"

          It would also be nice to indicate the price, yeah. So far, 30mm guided projectiles are extremely expensive even for America. They stopped at 57mm.

          57-mm OFS with programmable detonation (not controlled!) In the USA? What about? About the fleet?
          For the ground forces, this ammunition: 30-mm OFS Mk310 PABM-T Orbital ATK, USA (https://topwar.ru/152281-snarjad-s-programmiruemym-vzryvatelem-orbital-atk-northrop-grumman-mk-310- pabm-t-ssha.html)
          Quote: psiho117
          Just fine, in one burst - we shoot an apartment in Moscow.

          The price of an apartment in Moscow is not an indicator because it is determined not by the cost of construction, but by the developer's greed. laughing
          Quote: psiho117
          Plus, the technology used by them to detonate a laser beam is very doubtful, in difficult combat and weather conditions.

          In "Steel Rain" ... it says "When the projectile flies 50 meters, the first code message is sent, after another 20 meters - the second" ie the detonation time for the projectile is transmitted by a laser beam next to the cannon, immediately after it leaves the barrel. With such a short distance, what kind of weather conditions might interfere? A tropical downpour or a tornado right in front of the BMP? laughing So in this case, and the target is not visible.
          Quote: psiho117
          However, I understand that for lack of a better thing, this will do. The projectile revolution counter, apparently, was not sold to us by the Chinese.

          Yes, I also don’t understand why we didn’t use a simple and probably cheap projectile revolution counter as in the 30-mm Mk310 PABM-T OFS. However, in Germany for 30-mm OFS PMC308 with GGE, a complex scheme was used with measuring the initial velocity of each projectile with the subsequent transfer of the detonation time to the fuse using an inductive coil-programmer at the muzzle (https://ru.m.wikipedia.org / wiki / AHEAD). Probably this is a more accurate undermining over the target.
          1. psiho117
            psiho117 24 September 2020 20: 16 New
            0
            Quote: Thomas N.
            57-mm OFS with programmable detonation (not controlled!) In the USA? What about? About the fleet?
            Yes, Fleet - 57mm 3P Mk295 Mod 0 round.
            The ORKA projectile (both guided and air detonated) is also naval, and will soon enter service.
            Quote: Thomas N.
            For the ground forces, this ammunition: 30-mm OFS Mk310 PABM

            They took it into service quite quickly (when it became clear that the very, most such a projectile did not), but not a single department buys it. It is still adopted in Belgium, and delivered in a scanty amount (which, I must say, is strange - the Belgians Mecar offer their shells).
            EMNIP - only the Germans have a 30mm air blast projectile adopted for service, and is routinely present in the Puma BMP ammunition rack. And then, the price there is about $ 5000 per shot. Germans and Belgians don't fight anywhere - they can do it wassat
            The American army is the most belligerent on the planet. It's expensive for them.
            There are plenty of developments, but these shells are "gold" for the price.
            It was true infa that the Chinese, their 30mm projectile completely from civilian components gash, and the price allegedly from 300 to 500 bucks.
            But I got lost, and believe the Chinese ... hi
            In "Steel Rain" ... it says "When the projectile flies 50 meters, the first code is sent, after another 20 meters - the second

            You are dissembling. It says: after another 20 meters - the second, etc.... That is, signals continue to be transmitted throughout the flight.
            However, in Germany ... a complex scheme is used

            German KETF shells are the same Oerlikon AHEAD, only in 30mm caliber.
            Which is not surprising - Oerlikon developed his AHEAD back in the late 80s as an anti-aircraft one for 35mm complexes. Since then, it has been used in a bunch of anti-aircraft systems (MANTIS, Skyshield, Millennium) and 35mm guns, on military vehicles, all over the world, and 100% licked.
            The remote detonation unit on AHEAD / KETF projectiles is universal for 30mm and 35mm ammunition, and 40mm grenades.
            As the main rule of the programmer says: "it works - don't touch it", just put on the 30mm shell what has already been worked out and is being produced.
  • rocket757
    rocket757 18 September 2020 12: 46 New
    -2
    The Ministry of Finance is CUTTING EVERYTHING the hands reach! Shoigu's salesman cannot cope with such monsters ... unless such a "Terminator" will take him to a meeting with them once !!! And calmly so under the roar of the engine and short bursts of automatic cannon on the heads of those cutters, he won’t ask HOW HOPE YOU WANTED TO REDUCE THERE ??? DO YOU THINK WELL? then yes, and we will accept the "Terminator" and build a lot of other necessary things !!! soldier
  • KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 18 September 2020 12: 53 New
    0
    Even if they are adopted, then one should not expect large purchases in the foreseeable future.
    1. Volder
      Volder 18 September 2020 13: 42 New
      0
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      Even if they are adopted, then one should not expect large purchases in the foreseeable future.

      Well, okay. This is not critical. The army still somehow managed without Terminators, and many other countries do not have such a machine at all.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 18 September 2020 13: 22 New
    0
    It is necessary to adopt it in order to sell it abroad.
  • Coconut
    Coconut 18 September 2020 13: 22 New
    +2
    30 mm should be replaced with 57 ... then it will be good ..
    1. Piramidon
      Piramidon 18 September 2020 13: 31 New
      -1
      Quote: Coco
      30 mm should be replaced with 57 ... then it will be good ..

      And add a flamethrower.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 22: 33 New
        +1
        With promethium.
  • Clone
    Clone 18 September 2020 14: 07 New
    0
    Yeah ... and from what mossy year has this bogeyman been dragging on? Accept or not accept ...
  • Lesorub
    Lesorub 18 September 2020 15: 24 New
    +2
    The decision on the BMPT "Terminator" will be made following the results of the exercises "Kavkaz-2020"

    The need for BMPT has ripened for a long time - the use of armored vehicles in Chechnya, Syria where tanks lacked just such a vehicle - armored, with a rapid-fire cannon with a large barrel rise - to process the upper floors of buildings, etc. PS "Terminator" was adopted in service in Kazakhstan.
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 18 September 2020 16: 37 New
    0
    Uh ... Already the 3rd generation of super-under-hyped terminators go to parades.
    And there is still no "decision on the place of BMPT in the Ground Forces" ...
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 18 September 2020 19: 37 New
      -1
      Quote: Max1995
      And there is still no "decision on the place of BMPT in the Ground Forces" ...

      This is where you should always start - first, conceptually determine how useful and promising such a machine is in the army, and only then place an order for its development. And here the industry gave birth to something incomprehensible, and believes that the military are obliged to take this product into service. And the military are still scratching their turnips and do not know where to attach it, judging by the fact that it was a question of reorganizing even the lower units of the ground forces. In general, as one tsarist general wrote in a resolution on an unpromising project - "The benefit is doubtful, the harm is obvious."
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 18 September 2020 22: 59 New
        +1
        Quote: ccsr
        first, conceptually determine how useful and promising such a machine is in the army, and only then place an order for its development.

        It has already been written more than once:
        the military decided which one is needed, ordered it. And they put on the conveyor not exactly what the military ordered. This vehicle may not be bad for supporting the infantry, but for covering tanks, it seems, is not very suitable. So the production workers are running around with it, trying to attach what they did.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 19 September 2020 09: 36 New
          -1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          the military decided which one is needed, ordered it.

          This should be reflected in the TTZ, and one cannot deviate from it. If the requirements are not met, then the customer does not pay for the work - this has always been the order.
          Quote: Bad_gr
          And they put on the conveyor not exactly what the military ordered.

          And how did they transfer the design documentation to the technologists for organizing production, if from your own words it follows that the customer's requirements were not met? And at the same time, a small series was riveted. No, something is not here as you imagine it.
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Maybe this car is not bad for supporting the infantry,

          Why, then, does the Ministry of Defense refuse it?
          Quote: Bad_gr
          So the production workers are running around with it, trying to attach what they did.

          That's the answer to all the questions - they proactively created what they could do, and now they are trying to sell their development to the military. This trick has been known for a long time, and then it becomes clear why the Ministry of Defense kicks. And you tell me that the military allegedly ordered this development - then they would have paid for it from the beginning of the research and development, and then the industry would not have been very concerned if it had fulfilled the requirements of the Ministry of Defense in full. This has always been the case, although as I understand it, that production discipline in the military-industrial complex has long been gone.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 19 September 2020 09: 45 New
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            they proactively created what they could do,

          2. psiho117
            psiho117 19 September 2020 12: 10 New
            0
            Quote: ccsr
            you say that the military allegedly ordered this development

            The BMPT idea has been around since the 60s.
            The military in the 80s carried out a number of studies, then, by the decision of the commander-in-chief of the USSR ground forces, the development of BMPT was included in the R&D plan for 1986-1990.
            Several prototypes were created and tested.
            According to the test results, for further work, the option "Object 781" was chosen, which is a joint development of ChTZ and KBP, and conceptually liked by the military.
            However, 1991 came and everything went on ...

            Specifically, this BMPT, Frame-99 is entirely the initiative of UVZ, with their own "I'm an artist, as I see it." Now they are trying to cut the dough.
            The warriors do not need their craft, and they did not order it.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 19 September 2020 16: 59 New
              -1
              Quote: psiho117
              Specifically, this BMPT, Frame-99 is entirely the initiative of UVZ, with their own "I'm an artist, as I see it." Now they are trying to cut the dough.
              The warriors do not need their craft, and they did not order it.

              So I got the impression that, in fact, this machine is not needed by the military, and I will not describe why. As for the creation of such an BMPT, in my opinion, the use of the tank's undercarriage is too wasteful for such a weak firepower. But, to be honest, I was far from such a technique and perhaps I am mistaken, but something tells me that the current military also think so - it is too expensive, and it will be expensive to maintain it.
  • Guru
    Guru 18 September 2020 20: 12 New
    +1
    I already said BMPT is full of crap! And that's why - The guns are weak - 57 mm is needed, ATGM 4 pieces are not enough. We need NURS together with ATGM. A crew of 5 is too much.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 22: 58 New
      +1
      57 mm is dofig. 45 mm just right. Plus a 200 mm cannon of medium ballistics for firing at strengthening and launching an ATGM and a pair of 8,6 mm machine guns.
  • grumbler
    grumbler 18 September 2020 21: 44 New
    0
    Reasoning purely hypothetically, in terms of the sum of its functions (developed surveillance systems and weapons: rapid-fire guns, c / c machine guns, missiles), it seems that BMPT could play an important role Air defense on the battlefield - to provide cover for tanks and from the main enemies - helicopters, attack aircraft, attack UAVs, "smart" and loitering ammunition. In view of such "versatility", perhaps it would be appropriate, at a new level, to return to multi-tower configurations? - while one is firing at air targets, the other is looking for and destroying ATGMs, grenade launchers (and today automatic image recognition systems would be quite capable of doing this), covers the rear.

    But, of course, the enemy will strive to get rid of the BMPT and the "intensity of impact" on it will be high, so it is inexpedient to place large-sized radar antennas on it - they will be quickly put out of action. So it is necessary to create a network of unified small-sized radars located on all vehicles of the group (and to work "under the hood" of surveillance equipment located outside the battlefield - on UAVs, reconnaissance vehicles, etc.).
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 18 September 2020 23: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: grumbler
      BMPT could fulfill an important role of air defense on the battlefield - to provide cover for tanks and from the main enemies - helicopters, attack aircraft, attack UAVs, "smart" and loitering ammunition.

      You want too dofig.
      1. grumbler
        grumbler 19 September 2020 09: 53 New
        0
        I want as much as you need. If the BMPT cannot perform these functions, then its effectiveness will be recognized by the military as low (unless the conditions of the exercises meet modern requirements and new threats are not imitated) And a good idea, but not brought to mind, will be rightly rejected. And again we will worry that the tanks were left without cover.

        Non-nuclear conflicts of medium and low intensity, where tanks will play an important role, are again "in vogue".
        The current Armats, Abrams and other Merkavas are not T-34s - they are not cheap to worry that $ 4,5..10 million + crew loss (also measured in millions) burned down from "penny" ATGMs. Then, either give up heavy tanks and churn out cheap (deserted?) "T-34" XXI century and / or cover these "dreadnoughts" appropriately.

        Large "crew" tanks, until they finally die out in the process of evolutionary shredding, will have to coexist for some time on the battlefield with UAVs, self-propelled robotic ATGM-"tankettes", etc. They themselves will not be able to defend themselves, which means they need air cover ( UAV security) and on the ground - and this is "BMPT with air defense functions of the battlefield."
        If the Terminator is equipped in this way and integrated into the network of a group of tanks, it will be useful. No - empty chores.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 19 September 2020 02: 10 New
    0
    Now there are a lot of new interesting modules for old infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. So maybe they will wait with the Terminator.
  • Private-K
    Private-K 19 September 2020 08: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
    Internet anonymous is certainly much more competent. Oha.

    Internet anonymus are not bound by corporate bonds of mutual responsibility and are free in their assessments. Unlike any "personnel".
  • Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 20 September 2020 14: 54 New
    0
    What should BMPT do in battle? This?
    Quote: maiman61
    Yes, and from tanks and infantry fighting vehicles in battle to drive away any rag-tag, sea of ​​fire, it would not be bad.

    And why the tanks and infantry fighting vehicles themselves are not able to drive away the "riffraff" with fire? Especially BMP with an automatic cannon? Some kind of nonsense turns out: the tank was created as a means of fire support for the infantry, then it actually turned into an anti-tank weapon (smoothbore gun for BOPS) and the task of arming the BMP, along with fire support for dismounted infantry, was to protect tanks from ATGM and grenade launchers. And now BMPs need to be defended in battle with BMPT weapons? And then who will defend the BMPT, for example, from tanks? Combat helicopter or drone? This is an endless and meaningless chain. If the BMPT does not need protection, then the BMPT should become the only vehicle on the battlefield. Infantry on the armored personnel carrier and after dismounting the armored personnel carrier to the shelter, and in battle the infantry only with the support of BMPT. But there will be no such thing, the BMPT will remain a rare exhibit, enough only for occasional use against illegal armed groups and for exhibitions and parades. In general, there has never been such a thing in modern history (bows, spears and swords do not count :-)) that a new type of weapon completely replaces the previous one, even a magazine rifle is still in service as a sniper rifle.
    So that tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will have to cope with their own tasks and with self-defense too. We need to improve their weapons and ammunition to increase their effectiveness against sheltered manpower, and not rely on a separate new machine that will solve all the problems.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 24 September 2020 01: 16 New
      0
      Quote: Thomas N.
      Some kind of nonsense turns out: the tank was created as a means of fire support for the infantry, then it actually turned into an anti-tank weapon (smooth-bore cannon for BOPS) and the task of arming the BMP, along with fire support for dismounted infantry, was to protect tanks from ATGM and grenade launchers. And now BMPs need to be defended in battle with BMPT weapons? And then who will defend the BMPT, for example, from tanks?


      No one. In the presence of BMPT, BMP is not needed. In fact, the BMPT was ordered in order to remove the infantry and BMP from the battlefield. There shouldn't be any infantry in the same formation as tanks. And if so, then the BMP is not needed.

      Quote: Thomas N.
      And then who will defend the BMPT, for example, from tanks? Combat helicopter or drone?


      Tank. Actually, the division was imagined like this: fortifications and heavy armored vehicles are fired by a tank, and infantry and light armored vehicles - by BMPT. And the BMPT itself seems to carry 4 ATGMs.

      Quote: Thomas N.
      If the BMPT does not need protection, then the BMPT should become the only vehicle on the battlefield. Infantry on the armored personnel carrier, and after dismounting the armored personnel carrier to the shelter, and in battle the infantry only with the support of BMPT.

      The opposite is true. The BMPT is exactly what is needed to remove the infantry from the battlefield. Neither armored personnel carriers nor infantry fighting vehicles. Only tanks and a tank support vehicle. The infantry on the modern battlefield simply will not survive on its own and will destroy the tank.

      Quote: Thomas N.
      BMPT will remain a rare exhibit, enough only for occasional use against illegal armed groups and for exhibitions and parades.

      This one, yes. It is therefore not accepted for service because it was originally created in spite of the TTZ from the military. But a normal BMPT will be in demand.
      And "Terminator" will do a good job of protecting objects. Place it on a dais, overlay it with a foundation block on three sides, power it from a generator - and here's a multifunctional block post for you. Add trenches for infantry to the left and to the right, and such a structure will not be knocked out without aviation.

      Quote: Thomas N.
      so that the new type of weapon completely replaces the previous one

      Breech-loading guns replaced muzzle-loading guns. Muskets replaced arquebus. :)
      Quote: Thomas N.
      It is necessary to improve their weapons and ammunition to increase their effectiveness against sheltered manpower

      A tank has only one defense today - speed. Faster to pass the area under fire, faster to detect and faster to shoot. The infantry embarrasses him. The tank flies over the crossroads at 70 km, and the infantry cannot run faster than 10 km. And inside the BMP, it is completely useless.
      1. Thomas N.
        Thomas N. 24 September 2020 06: 22 New
        +1
        Quote: abc_alex
        In fact, the BMPT was ordered in order to remove the infantry and BMP from the battlefield. There should be no infantry in the same formation with tanks at all.

        It is impossible to remove infantry from the battlefield, especially when attacking a prepared defense. Infantry in the same formation with tanks (and of course with fire support from BMPs or BMPTs) is first of all "eyes" for the timely detection of grenade launchers and their suppression by fire (the infantry itself and the BMP supporting it) at a distance of 100-200 m, when the attackers approach the platoon a strong point in the field and even more so in a village. The widespread use of disposable grenade launchers made every infantryman a grenade launcher (and not just the calculation of the RPG-7 as before), disposable RPGs now, like anti-tank grenades or Molotov cocktails during the Second World War, lie in boxes in the trenches with proper preparation for defense. It is impossible to cope (i.e. detect and suppress in time) with a dozen grenade launchers, simultaneously firing at 1 tank and one of its supporting BMPTs, only with the help of the commander's panoramic sight and BMPT weapons (the tank at this time should shoot at other targets located further away, and do not engage in self-defense). The infantry next to the tank is engaged in the offensive when approaching enemy positions: 10 pairs of "eyes" with machine guns are needed, without them one pair of "eyes" with a panoramic sight (BMP / BMPT commander) and one pair of "eyes" with an automatic cannon / machine gun (gunner) will not cope.
        Quote: abc_alex
        The infantry on the modern battlefield simply will not survive on its own and will destroy the tank.

        Yes, without the support of the tank's armament and the BMP (or BMPT), the infantry will not survive. But they will not survive without infantry either.
        Quote: abc_alex
        Breech-loading guns replaced muzzle-loading guns. Muskets replaced arquebus. :)

        This is not a type of weapon, but its design. Breech-loading rifled guns perform the same tasks as muzzle-loading smooth-bore guns only further, more precisely, faster. The same with muskets / arquebus / rifles / machine guns, they did not disappear with the advent of guns and machine guns.
        Quote: abc_alex
        The tank flies across the crossroads under 70 km

        Only at demonstrations, exhibitions and training grounds. On show, the tank also jumps with a shot, so what? Is it useful in battle? At this speed, on rough terrain, the stabilizer will not allow aimed shooting.
        Quote: abc_alex
        And inside the BMP, it (the infantry) is completely useless.

        I completely agree - we need "eyes" and a machine gun next to a tank with an infantry fighting vehicle behind, see above.